John Derbyshire's first column VDARE after being fired from the National Review-- besides one dedicated to thanking generous readers -- includes a  defense of white supremacism. It doesn't seem like a coincidence that one of Derbyshire's most explicitly racist essays is packaged with a very explicit request for donations. It seems Derbyshire has discovered one of the benefits of turning off lots of mainstream readers by writing a racist essay about advising his kids to avoid black people is that it earns the loyalty of a smaller number of racist readers who will pay money for more racist stuff. Derbsyhire, the conservative writer fired from the National Review for, has a new column for VDARE.com,  

Derbyshire's case for white supremacy at VDARE.com, a site for "Immigration Patriots," noticed by Think Progress' Ian Millhiser, goes like this:

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.

He then quotes a personal essay, called "A White Teacher Speaks Out," from the "race realist" website American Renaissance. According to the author, who is white, even poor black children in Zimbabwe agree it's better for white folks to control things. Otherwise, "'We screwed,' a young, pitch-black boy screamed back.") It's blatantly racist stuff, but it's also blatantly a fundraising pitch. Ron Paul demonstrated how much money can be made by pandering to racists when, during the Iowa primary, it was revealed that Ron Paul made almost $1 million in a single year off his racist newsletters in 1993. 

The Derbyshire episode seems to have morphed into a similar exercise. In early April, Peter Brimelow, who runs VDARE, closed the site to ask for donations at the height of the controversy over Derbyshire's essay. "I always hate closing VDARE.com during appeals," Brimelow said. "And it’s particularly frustrating now, with the continuing Two-Minute hate of John Derbyshire… it’s now more obvious that ever that VDARE.com must survive if voices like Derbyshire’s are to be heard." Hint, hint. 

But Brimelow must be really frustrated now. More than a month later, the fundraising is still going on, though you can get to the site after a page asking for money. A key part of Brimelow's ask: Keeping Derbyshire from being silenced:

One bright spot: a particularly generous response to our special fund earmarked to pay for John Derbyshire’s columns. He hopes to write a second column before beginning chemotherapy this week. Help John here.

Sure, Brimelow says, fundraising is "tasteless," but "There’s nothing unusual about the 'model' that VDARE.com follows. It’s exactly the same as a church." At the top of Derbyshire's new column, Brimelow writes:

John Derbyshire has begun his second round of chemotherapy since being fired from National Review, but we are delighted to say he was able to write this column for us this after emerging from his first day of treatment, a Stakhanovite performance.

Remember, you can help finance his VDARE.com columns (tax-deductibly!) here.

Derbyshire himself lays it on pretty thick in his essay thanking donors, which notes that, "I have received 532 donations, more I fear than I can ever respond to personally, though I have been doing what I can in a vague and random way." Noting that so many readers had told him they're praying for him, Derbyshire says he's no longer a believer. He hasn't gone to church since 2004, he says, noting that he explained that in 2006 like this: "I still owe my church $500, according to their accounts—I was quite conscientious about pledges and collections. I shall pay it when I can afford to, but I can't just now..." Now, he says, "Down to today—five and a half years, I am ashamed to say—I never did get around to clearing the debt. My church, with proper Anglican diffidence, never dunned me for it. I might have gone to my grave owing St. John's that $500 I'd pledged." The unwritten but obvious implication is that there is something dear readers can do about that.