On the latest 'Derb' kerfluffle

On National Rreview's semi-official reaction, and the reaction of "official conservatism", to the latest 'Derb' kerfluffle, vis-a-v1s "race realism" --

As with Rush Limbaugh's "tactical mistake" of using the word 'slut' to denote someone whose very own word makes clear is a slut, if you call yourself a 'conservative' and yet you allow the leftists to set the bounds of what may and may not be said in polite company, then you are no conservative. You will, in fact, constantly be training your guns on your supposed allies, rather than on the leftists.

Now, I haven't read Derbyshire's piece, and I have no intention of doing so. I gave up on that man many years ago: in part because his vapid-yet-condescending atheism made it impossible to respect his intellect (and I mean this was a good year or more before he openly came out as an atheist), and in part because, as I said to myself, "this man isn't a conservative, he's just a cranky 'liberal' who doesn't like some of the destinations of present-day liberalism."

edit:
Apparently, NR has now made it official and dumped Derbyshire -- now that he's "offended" the leftists, rather than at any point over the past few years when he has offended reason itself, to say nothing constantly insinuating that Christians are, ipso facto, morons.

AS I KEEP POINTING OUT, unless truth is your priority, you will *always* be a pushover for the enemies of truth.

Kathy Shaidle's translation: "John Derbyshire wrote stuff like this for years, and we got to brag about having a genius on staff. But then one day Other People noticed and gave us 24 hours of virtual grief, so we dumped him."

edit:
In case it's not clear, it irks me almost as much to find myslef defending Derbyshire as it did defending Dawkins over the "elevator incident", when all his "liberal" God-hating friends jumped down his throat over the mere expression of a touch of common sense vis-a-vis "sexual liberation" and the I-get-to-have-it-both-ways-at-whim mind-set of the modern "sexually liberated woman".

edit:
I hadn't intended to read Derbyshire's piece, but I now have. Except for #13, which is cynically mercenary, expressive of moral bankruptcy, and factually false in its prognostication (as see George Zimmerman), I cannot see anything that an honest man can condenm. Sure, these things he said are unwelcome, but most of them are true: call it a set of "inconvenient truths".