White nationalist and former National Review columnist John Derbyshire has a new column on VDARE about this:
In the column, “On Immigration, Liberty, and Mating Choices,” Derbyshire tries to explain his Asian wife to his racist buddies:
VDARE.com contributors and readers all want the same thing: a rational immigration policy that preserves the historic white-European ethnic core of the American nation[.]I have signed on to it; I have for 12 years been writing in support of it; and yet … here am I with an Asian wife!What’s up with that?
Derbyshire, after explaining that he’s not a “racial purist” and is “fine with miscegenation,” argues that the VDARE position on immigration (which he calls V1) is not compatible with untrammeled liberty – one that would enable the individual to move freely from country to country. However, he thinks it is likely compatible with the freedom to marry people of other races, so long as only a small percentage of whites actually do so:
Much as we love liberty, a liberty that would swamp our ethnic core, from which all our liberties derive—a liberty incompatible with V1—is not to be tolerated. So forget about that liberty.All right, let’s try a different liberty: the liberty to marry whomsoever you want to marry. Might that be incompatible with V1?Yes, it theoretically might; though I don’t, in present circumstances, think it is. It depends on your estimate of how wide, and how unsatisfied, is the desire of white Americans to marry people of other races. […]With all due allowances, though, marrying out doesn’t seem to be a huge enthusiasm among white Americans.
Derbyshire immigrants are like seasoning. A little bit makes your soup taste great, but put it too much, and it’ll be ruined:
In the end, it’s a question of numbers. If, in some given decade, a thousand, or ten thousand, Chinese or Mexicans settle in the U.S.A., no-one should mind or care. If they were all to marry U.S. citizens, it’s still no-one’s business. It’s not the thousand or the ten thousand that effects demographic revolution: it’s the million and ten million. As the late great Enoch Powell used to say: “Numbers are of the essence.”To put it slightly differently, it’s how you salt your stew. A little salt actually improves the taste; but if the chef were to dump a whole box of salt in there, you’d have a reasonable complaint against the chef.
Quoting the “race-realist blogger” OneSTDV, Derbyshire argues that there’s little desire for overly seasoned soup:
‘Less than 1.5 percent of middle-class white women and about 3.0 percent of lower-class white women are sexually attracted to black men.’He added: ‘Whopping numbers, huh? Hide your daughters and girlfriends!’
Derbyshire’s argument, then, is that we must be racist at the macro level but provide at least some liberty at the micro level for “marrying out,” so long as it doesn’t affect the overall macro trend:
A crowd, a neighborhood, a race, a nation, is unfortunately not an individual, and in many life situations statistics—what baseball managers call “going with the percentages” —must be our guide.Mate selection is not one of those situations.
That, I suppose, is about the best argument a white nationalist can make to his buddies about his Asian wife. But it’s worth pointing out that Derbyshire’s own “mating choices” are in line with the thoroughly debunked racial theory of IQ famously set forth in the Bell Curve and promoted by VDARE and the affiliated – and more aggressively racist – Alternative Right:
The differences in average IQ among races has been fairly well-established, with Asians having the highest IQ scores, whites next, and blacks third. This order – Asians, whites, blacks – or the reverse order, can be seen in many aspects of life and society.
