I don't expect much from self-styled "conservatives" when it comes to the most important issues affecting our race and civilization . . . which sometimes means that I'm pleasantly surprised. Such was the case reading Robert VerBruggen's defense of Jason Richwine in National Review, "Heritage Was Wrong."
Of course, VerBruggen includes enough escape clauses and expressions of agnosticism to ensure that he doesn't get "Richwine-ed" by NR (which is no stranger to purging "racists"). That said, it's clear from a reading of the piece that VerBruggen actually understands the basics of Human Bio-diversity, or "race realism," and that he grasps the extent to which heritability and race differences in intelligence have social consequences. (VerBruggen's piece might serve as a useful introduction to this body of work for many NR readers who are being mugged by race-reality.)
Here's the crux of the piece:
The Left’s labeling of Richwine’s argument as “racist” is especially dangerous. In modern America it is axiomatic that “racism,” whatever it is, is wrong — and this is a good thing. It therefore is a mistake to define racism to include falsifiable hypotheses in addition to racial hatred. If Richwine’s view is racist, what are we to do if it turns out to be correct?
It's an important question. But I'm afraid that VerBruggen's definition of "racism" is willfully naïve. Sure, in the popular imagination, "racism" summons images of organized violence and political oppression: the Nazis, lynchings, cross-burnings, the KKK, etc. In this context, Jason Richwine is non-violent; ergo, he's not "racist."
But for most academics and policy-makers—who could be referred to as "Cultural Marxists"—the definition of "racism" is much, much more expansive; it encompasses culture, "privilege," societal assumptions and values, and all sorts of things they deem to be expressions of power. The hetero-normative marriage, Christmas, nationalist soccer fandom can each be considered "racist," in that each is an avatar of European civilization and consciousness—and thus an obstacle for "multicultural" globalism.
For "conservatives," too, not-being-racist means more than merely not engaging in organized violence.
Without question, many Americans traditionalists of the past accepted that the races are different and felt it to be entirely moral (indeed, dutiful) to defend one's people and family. But the "conservatism" VerBruggen and Richwine belong to—the Right that has achieved "respectability," that has embraced the Civil Rights Act and mass legal immigration, whose highest expressed value is "all men are created equal"—is something altogether different.
Put simply, Richwine's Harvard thesis is racist in that it is incompatible with the quasi-religious doctrine of human equality and malleability. Even Robert Rector's report (which estimates the cost of amnesty for illegal immigrants to be upwards of $6 trillion) could be "racist" in that its forecast assumes heritability, i.e., it assumes that illegal immigrants, who are now part of the underclass, are most likely to remain so indefinitely. This clashes with the gooey Americanist doctrine (of both Left and Right) that once immigrants enter the United States, they will be imbued with the entrepreneurial spirit and magically become middle-class, tax-paying patriots.
Rush Limbaugh defended Richwine and his dissertation last week, when he was, in effect, defending The Heritage Foundation (which is an advertiser on his program, it should be noted). After Heritage fired Richwine, Rush has gone silent. In turn, Verbruggen is allowed to express an agnostic interest in Richwine's dissertation, and HBD in general, in that his piece could act to minimize the "racism" allegations leveled at a Beltway institution.
Would NR express the same interest—or the same respectful agnosticism—towards, say, Richard Lynn, J.P. Rushton, or Jared Taylor?
To ask the question is to answer it. "Conservatives" have had decades to assimilate the writings of these eminently reasonable and truthful men; yet they've consistently been headed in the opposite direction.
The Beltway "conservatism" has never been and will never be a home for our ideals and our people. The sooner we build parallel institutions—and cease supporting this movement run by cowards and sociopaths—the better.