Taki’s Magazine is a website published by Taki Theodoracopulos, a Greek playboy and magazine writer who affects a sort of world-weary, champagne paleoconservatism or paleolibertarianism. The site would be of little note in the wider world except for publishing John Derbyshire’s recent piece on “The Talk”, which needs no further introduction.
Derbyshire has been formally read out of polite society for his indiscretion. Taki’s also publishes Jim Goad, a man who enjoys stirring people up to an extent. Is Taki’s then some kind of haven for race realists and other sinister, beyond the pale sorts?
Before you think further, take a look at this article by a Pakistani Moslem of British citizenship on his experiences in England and in the British army. It bristles with multicultural pride, his own ethnic pride and contempt for the ethnic pride of Englishmen. Taki’s is apparently making him a regular contributor.
A commenter suggests maybe a Pakistani Moslem is not quite British, and the game is on. Responders claim that Britain is “multi-ethnic” and a Pakistani Moslem can be just as “British” as a Scottish Presbyterian.
Great Britain is indeed no nation in the ordinary sense- it consists and has consisted of the English elite, once a military aristocracy, now commercial, and those who serve them- and whether the people who fight for them are English, Scottish, Welsh, Irish, African, or South Asian makes not the least bit of difference to them. But that is not my point here.
Derbyshire and Goad have different personas- English math intellectual and American redneck- but they are remarkably similar. Both push their “working class” (Derbyshire) or “blue collar” (Goad) bona fides. And yet both like to analyze things intellectually from a cynical, arm’s-length perspective rather than empathize with people who share much of their experience. Their identity is in the roles they have assumed, author and intellectual, rather than in race or class.
On the subject of race they are very similar. They both profess to be quite politically incorrect, sparing no one in their unvarnished relation of the truth. And yet both take great pains to make it clear they like black people just fine, that they respect and get along with the majority of black people. Goad even brags of living in a 87% black zip code. I’m sure neither Goad nor Derbyshire would identify as pro-white; or to the extent they would admit being pro-white, they would take great pains to stress they are not anti-black.
Over at Occidental Observer they talk about the titillation value of implicit whiteness among mainsream conservatives, by which they mean criticizing black behavior without labeling it as such. Taki’s does the same thing, only a little more explicitly, and with the defense “Oh but we sock it to everybody!”
As I have said, I never cared for Derbyshire’s anti-conservative-conservative schtick. He was more of a leftward pull at NR than a rightward one- pro-abortion, pro-euthanasia, and atheist. Derbyshire won’t be rehabilitated there in any case. He can publish stuff elsewhere, and some people will think he’s telling it like it is. But he wasn’t that much before, so why would he now?