Besides killing cats, curiosity can also cancel commentators. In an age where language is aggressively policed and taboos continually proliferate, writers who stray just a bit too far from accepted opinion or ask one too many questions can find themselves shut out from polite society. Although the names of most cancelation victims vanish without a trace, there are a few with enough talent and stubbornness to continue writing in spite of it all.
One such writer is the British-American writer John Derbyshire, once a frequent contributor for publications like National Review and the Wall Street Journal, but then dropped because of his arguments on race. Specifically, Derbyshire noted the alarming rates of violence and dysfunction among black Americans and felt compelled to push back against falsehoods obscuring this fact. Like any good writer, he backed up his claims with solid evidence and avoided unfair generalizations, but America, particularly during the Obama administration, was not ready to have this discussion.
Even for the commentariat today, most will express discomfort with Derbyshire’s candor. Some of this is due to the ongoing (though diminishing) influence of woke culture, which still censors honest discussions about race, while some of this has to do with Derbyshire’s views on immigration and establishment conservatism (what he would call “Conservatism Inc.”).
And yet, as The Essential John Derbyshire — a collection of his essays from 2000-2025 — demonstrates, the so-called “mainstream” conservative movement as a whole suffered a far greater loss than Derbyshire himself did. While the latter went on to continue writing, the former has become increasingly irrelevant or outright leftist. In this way, much like his fellow right-wing dissident Steve Sailer, Derbyshire has been profoundly vindicated in a way that few other canceled intellectuals have.
Besides this, he also happens to be an excellent writer. There is never a dull moment when reading Derbyshire who, despite living most of his adult life in America, retains a quintessentially British mind. He is a strict empiricist with a fine-tuned sense of irony and never takes himself too seriously. Consequently, he deplores euphemisms, fuzzy logic, and sentimentalism. So yes, he’s very much a conservative Brit.
Along with making his essays appealing, Derbyshire’s style and sensibilities do the important work of pushing the conversation forward. In his essay “Race on Wall Street,” he decries the systemic shakedown of race hustlers who sue Wall Street firms for supposed racism. Despite these accusers lacking any real evidence of discrimination, employers inevitably settle to avoid the bad press. In other essays on this topic, he calls out the absurdity of equating racial profiling with racism. He shows that certain racial groups commit crimes at greater rates, and law enforcement would be wise to continue using this knowledge for their investigations.
In his infamous essay “The Talk: Nonblack Version,” which ended his time with National Review, Derbyshire takes the necessary step of challenging superimposed narratives about race with common sense. He challenges “the talk” that black parents apparently have to give their children about encountering anti-black racism by proposing a different talk for white and Asian kids about when to approach blacks with due caution and accept a double standard in how they are treated. While harsh — similar to the late Scott Adams who made a similar argument — his points are carefully backed up with evidence.
In the interest of balance, The Essential Derbyshire also features the writer’s politically incorrect views of whites, Chinese, and Jews. He mocks the self-hating white leftists as weaklings who let their guilt lead them to passively accept destructive policies and deny their own cultural heritage. He questions the outsized influence of Jews in American life and the conservative movement, though he largely welcomes this reality and considers himself “a philosemite and well-wisher of Israel.” He acknowledges some of the failings that one typically finds among Chinese, but, having lived in China and being married to a Chinese woman, his remarks obviously come from a place of respect and love.
Understandably, Derbyshire also has much to say about his fellow conservatives, both good and bad. While he acknowledges that the old conservatism was a necessary countervailing political force during the Cold War, he also frequently comments on the need for conservatives to recognize the corrosive effects of mass immigration and political correctness.
In the adapted speech “One Cheer for Conservatism Inc.,” he likens this ideological pivot to computer specialists fixing a faulty system: “Everyone’s used to this creaking, leaking old system … and comfortable with it,” so “they resent [the computer specialists] coming in and imposing new methods on them.” Even today, older conservatives resent moving on from Reaganism and Bushism, mostly because it’s all they know. Additionally, Derbyshire calls out the usual “subservience to business interests unrestrained by thoughts of demographic harm.” For example, even if mass migration from the third world places a huge burden on Western nations, the profits made from the influx of cheap labor and increased consumption of goods and services make it too good to let go.
Surprisingly, Derbyshire’s best essays don’t even concern politics, policy, or demographics, but culture. A generalist to the core, Derbyshire is just as comfortable discussing mathematics and the many translations of Lao Tzu as he is extolling sitcoms like Married with Children and the film Saturday Night Fever. He also recalls his experience of playing a thug in a Bruce Lee movie — apparently, the martial arts icon had to taunt Derbyshire into getting properly angry for the part: “You hate me, remember? I’m a runty obnoxious little Ch***, just stole your woman, trashed your car, and pissed in your beer. Whaddya gonna do to me? Huh? Whaddya gonna do? Come on …”
Overall, the essays in The Essential Derbyshire are superb, charged with momentum, insight, and heavy doses of humor. The only real weakness in Derbyshire’s corpus — and this is a weakness in most writers who fixate on racial differences — is a certain superficiality to the analysis. Yes, there are patterns in various data that indicate a clear difference in outcomes between races, but this isn’t conclusive in itself. One has to consider the causes, and this means coming to terms with certain abstractions that defy quantification. Even so, Derbyshire fastidiously avoids such abstractions and prefers citing the material sciences, mathematical models, and personal experience to explain fundamentally spiritual problems. This in turn makes his comments come off as insensitive and dismissive, which is then misinterpreted as racism. But Derbyshire is not a racist; he’s a realist.
For readers conditioned to avoid any and all touchy subjects, Derbyshire’s opinions on these controversies may prove too hot to handle. Nevertheless, such readers should overcome their misgivings because there is so much to gain from reading Derbyshire. Moreover, younger writers could stand to benefit from imitating his crisp, lean, and witty prose.
More importantly, all readers should take heart in Derbyshire’s example of intellectual courage and integrity. Rather than fold under pressure, renounce his statements, and plead for forgiveness, he stuck to the truth as he saw it and continued writing about ideas and issues that attracted his attention. The same curiosity that once canceled him has made him far more significant than many of his colleagues who played it safe and conformed to the now obsolete Conservatism, Inc.
