Derbyshire was recently fired for an article he wrote that pushed the envelope of racism a little too far even for the Review, which itself has moved far further right in recent years.
Free to spew, he's revealing his true colors. In an article on a White Nationalist website that will remain unnamed and unlinked to he wrote the following:
The enemies of conservatism are eager to supply their own nomenclature. “White Supremacist” seems to be their current favorite. It is meant maliciously, of course, to bring up images of fire-hoses, attack dogs, pick handles, and segregated lunch counters—to imply that conservatives, especially non-mainstream conservatives, are cruel people with dark thoughts.
Leaving aside the intended malice, I actually think “White Supremacist” is not bad semantically. White supremacy, in the sense of a society in which key decisions are made by white Europeans, is one of the better arrangements History has come up with. There have of course been some blots on the record, but I don’t see how it can be denied that net-net, white Europeans have made a better job of running fair and stable societies than has any other group.
Firstly, the 'enemies of conservatism' don't call the right "White Supremacist" very often unless, as in this case, they are just too blatant about it but what really cracks me up is the "some blots on the record". A 'blot'..that's like calling Katrina a minor inconvenience for the people of New Orleans.
In Derbyshire's world colonialism probably doesn't even rate a blot, even its worst aspects. The Holocaust, that may rate as a blot because for people like Derbyshire, Jews are not really truly worthy of absolute "whiteness" even if some of his friends are Jewish.