Derbyshire has openly admitted that he's a racist. “I am not very careful about what I say, having grown up in the era before Political Correctness, and never having internalized the necessary restraints,” he said in one interview. “I am a homophobe, though a mild and tolerant one, and a racist, though an even more mild and tolerant one, and those things are going to be illegal pretty soon, the way we are going. Of course, people will still be that way in their hearts, but they will be afraid to admit it, and will be punished if they do admit it. It is already illegal in Britain to express public disapproval of homosexuality–there have been several prosecutions. It will be the same here in 5-10 years, and I shall be out of a job.” (See http://collectedmiscellany.com/2003/11/an-interview-with-john-derbyshire/).
Lowry's sudden outrage over Derbyshire's never-concealed racism can be dismissed as rank hypocrisy. Racism has rested at the core of The National Review since its founding by William F. Buckley in 1955. In his 1992 book, In Search Of Anti-Semitism, Buckley admitted he cried as an 11-year-old when he wasn't allowed to join four brothers and sisters in a cross-burning staged outside a Jewish resort in Sharon, Connecticut. Buckley brought his quaint, intolerant and verbose views with him when he established his right-wing magazine. The National Review played a pivotal role in establishing the modern conservative movement, creating an iron alliance between libertarians who wanted little or no government regulation of business and traditionalists who wanted to defend and preserve respect for traditional moral authority, as represented by conservative churches.
“Prior to [the founding of the National Review], conservative intellectuals had no central outlet for rigorous debate among themselves, let alone a means of communication to preach to the unconverted,” wrote sociologist Sara Diamond in her book Roads to Dominion: Right-Wing Movements And Political Power In The United States.
In his book, In Search of Anti-Semitism, Buckley obsessively repeated the contention that blacks are less intelligent than whites and at one point implies that African Americans were better off as slaves in this country than living free in their native continent. (See page 5). In the same book, he laughs at how negligible a black boycott against an author would be, supposedly because so few African Americans read (page 10). "It ought not to be considered racist to remark [on] differences in IQ scoring by blacks," Buckley writes on page 87 of that book, as if the evidence for such alleged differences was beyond dispute.
Buckley's National Review regularly tapped white supremacists advocating eugenics, such as J. Phillipe Rushton and Steven Sailer, the far right-wing journalist, to contribute articles on race. The National Review also leant its prestige to the cause of neo-eugenics, running a rave review on September 12, 1994 issue of Rushton’s book Race, Evolution, and Behavior in which writer Mark Snyderman praised Rushton’s “fearless” thesis that “Orientals are more intelligent, have larger brains for their body size, have smaller genitalia, have less sex drive, are less fecund, work harder and are more readily socialized than Caucasians . . . Caucasians on average bear the same relationship to blacks.”
The National Review's resident race expert Rushton, a British-born Canadian psychology professor, holds a tenure-track professorship at the University of Western Ontario . The Southern Poverty Law Center, which investigates the racist right, has documented the man's history of anti-black thought :