Robert Weissberg, professor emeritus at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign and not-so-closeted white nationalist, was fired earlier this week from his gig at the fair-and-balanced National Review Online after the publication "learned" of Weissberg's address at the recent American Renaissance Conference.
"Unbeknowst to us, occasional Phi Beta Cons contributor Robert Weissberg (whose book was published a few years ago by Transaction) participated in an American Renaissance conference where he delivered a noxious talk about the future of white nationalism," editor Rich Lowry wrote in a post on the National Review's website. "He will no longer be posting here. Thanks to those who brought it to our attention."
Weissberg spoke at the conference about "viable alternatives" to white nationalism, including the creation of "Whitopias," according to the American Renaissance website.
"Prof. Weissberg went on to argue that liberals are beyond reason when it comes to race, that explaining the facts of IQ or the necessity of racial consciousness for whites "is like trying to explain to an eight-year-old why sex is more fun than chocolate ice cream."
At the AmRen conference, Weissberg also talked about how the U.S. Census Bureau handed out paint chips to volunteers to better delineate a person's race; opined on the so-called "Paper Bag Test" ostensibly used by African-Americans to discern true blackness (he even joked "Michelle Obama failed the paper bag test while her husband passed it."); and also criticized the National Review for its attempts at political correctness.
According to Politico, Weissberg is the latest victim of the National Review's ongoing purge of racist loonies despite the fact that the National Review was founded in part to counter the civil rights movement. Cognitive dissonance is a bitch, no?
UPDATE: Turns out Weissberg has already groveled to Politico:
But Weissberg, who describes himself to me as a "1960s color-blind liberal" and said his speech at the conference was "anti-white nationalism," feels that the Review's response was "bizarre," and even compared it to a Soviet show trial.
"White nationalism is not really an ideology, its obnoxious," he said. "As I told them at the conference, you’re better off being called a child molester than a white nationalist. So, I said, if you are a white nationalist, why not move to a place that’s all white?"
"I’m not a white nationalist," Weissberg added. "I'm a 1960s color-blind liberal.... I remember being in NYC when the Civil Rights Act passed in 1964. We were dancing in the streets."
Editor Rich Lowry wrote yesterday that Weissberg would no longer write for the Review because he "participated in an American Renaissance conference where he delivered a noxious talk about the future of white nationalism."
Weissberg acknowledges that it was likely his presence at the conference, rather than what he said, that led to Lowry's decision. But in the wake of the John Derbyshire controversy, he believes that the Review is going above and beyond to rid itself of contributors who can be charged with racist viewpoints.
"This is guilt by association," Weissberg said. "I guess every once in a while you denounce white racism, white supremacy. It's like going to synagogue or church twice a year because you want to be seen as a respectable person in your community."
This is, of course, bullshit. Here's a key excerpt of Weissberg's AmRen address that undercuts everything he's said:
White nationalism is real. It’s based on genes. There’s lots of people who embrace it. Just ask people fleeing blacks about why they prefer living in a white civilization. They will tell you it’s clean, things work, orderly, nice to be [sic].
If you compare white nationalism to other viable creeds, ok, it’s one of the most reasonable fact-based phenomenon there is. People will gravitate to be with others like themselves. Moreover, ideologies come and go. Any of you familiar with the history of eugenics, for exmaple, know full well that in the early part of the 20th century, eugenics was the great orthodoxy among the Mucky Mucks.
And, like sharks to chum, Weissberg's fellow (and likely former) white nationalist colleagues are pouncing on his acquiescence to the "Inquisition."