The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information

Topics/Categories Filter?
2000 Election 2016 Election Academia Affirmative Action Africa Alt Right American Media Blacks Britain China Conservative Movement Creationism Diversity Donald Trump Economics England European Right Feminism Foreign Policy Government Spending Guns History Homosexuality Human Biodiversity Humor Ideology Illegal Immigration Immigration IQ Iraq War Ireland Islam Mathematics Miscellaneous Political Correctness Race/Crime Race/Ethnicity Racism Religion Republicans Review Russia Science Terrorism The Straggler 2004 Election 2006 Election 2008 Election 2012 Election 9/11 Abortion Abraham Lincoln Afghanistan Africans Al Gore Al Sharpton American Left American Military American Presidents American Renaissance Amnesty Amy Chua Ancient DNA Ann Coulter Anti-Semitism Antifa Antiracism Antonin Scalia Asian Americans Asian Quotas Asians Australia Australian Aboriginals Austria Barack Obama Bill Clinton Black Crime Black Lives Matter Brain Brexit British Politics Cambodia Cancer Capitalism Catalonia Catholic Church Censorship Central Asia Charles Murray Charlottesville Chelsea Clinton Chinese Chinese Evolution Christianity CIA Civil Rights Civil War Communism Confederacy Congress Consciousness Conservatism Constantinople Constitutional Theory Corruption Crime Crusades Cultural Marxism DACA Dalai Lama Dallas Shooting Deep State Democracy Democratic Party Demography Discrimination Dreamers Ebola Education Eisenhower El Salvador Elections Elian Gonzalez Emmanuel Macron Energy Environmentalism Espionage EU Eugenics Europe European Union Eurozone Evolution Evolution Of Language Evolutionary Biology Fake News Ferguson Shooting Finland France Gay Marriage Gaza Flotilla Gender Equality George W. Bush George Zimmerman Germany Global Warming Globalism Google Government Debt Greece Gun Control H-1B H1-B Visas Haiti Hamilton: An American Musical Harvard Hbd Hillary Clinton Hispanic Crime Hitler Hollywood Hong Kong Housing Human Evolution Human Genome Hungary Hunting Imperialism Infection Intellectuals Intelligence Intelligent Design Iran Iraq Islamophobia Israel Israel Lobby Israel/Palestine Italy Japan Jared Taylor Jeremy Corbyn Jews Jimmy Carter John McCain Judicial System Kaiser Wilhelm Koreans Kurds Libertarianism Libya Love MacArthur Awards Maoism Marc Faber Margaret Thatcher Mark Steyn Martin Luther King Mass Shootings Massacre In Nice Memory Mencken Meritocracy Merkel Mexico Michael Bloomberg Middle East Mind Minorities Multiculturalism Muslims National Debt Nationalism NATO Nature Vs. Nurture Neandertal Admixture Nelson Mandela Neocons Neoconservatism New York City Nicholas Wade Nordics Norman Podhoretz North Korea Northern Ireland Nuclear Weapons Orban Orlando Shooting Ottoman Empire Outsourcing Paris Attacks Pat Buchanan Paul Ryan Peter Thiel Philosophy Poetry Population Population Growth Probability Public Schools Puerto Rico Quantum Mechanics Race Race Denialism Race/IQ Racial Profiling Racial Reality Razib Khan Republican Party Richard Lynn Robots Ron Paul Ron Unz Ronald Reagan Roy Moore Rudyard Kipling Saddam Hussein San Bernadino Massacre Scandinavia Science Fiction Scotland Senate Siberia Singularity Slavery Social Welfare Programs Somalia South Africa Space Program Spain Stabby Somali Statistics Stephen Wolfram Stereotypes Steve Sailer Supreme Court Syria Ta-Nehisi Coates Taiwan Taxes Tea Party Television The Economist Thomas Perez Tibet Tom Wolfe Tony Blair Torture Treason Turkey UKIP Unemployment Uruguay Vietnam Violence Vote Fraud WASPs White Nationalists White Privilege White Supremacy Wikipedia William Buckley Winston Churchill World Population World War I World War II Xhosa Yemen Zimbabwe
Nothing found
 TeasersJohn Derbyshire Blogview

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
🔊 Listen RSS

Today, April 20th, is the fiftieth anniversary of British politician Enoch Powell’ s Birmingham speech against mass Third World immigration into his country. Editor Peter Brimelow has an eloquent post about this and has reposted the speech itself, with supporting hyperlinks brought up to date.

There are YouTube clips of Powell actually delivering bits of it, although apparently the entire thing was not recorded.

Here are the opening two sentences:

The supreme function of statesmanship is to provide against preventable evils. In seeking to do so, it encounters obstacles which are deeply rooted in human nature.

Powell’s speech is commonly called “the Rivers of Blood speech,” but that’s a misnomer. There is only one river in it, the River Tiber on which Rome was built.

Near the end of the speech Powell said:

As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding; like the Roman, I seem to see “the River Tiber foaming with much blood.”

That inner quote is from Book VI of the Aeneid. Aeneas, the hero of the epic, consults with the Cumaean Sybil, asking her what the future holds. The Sybil looks into her crystal ball and says the thing Powell famously quoted.

According to Powell’s biographer, he first gave the quote in Latin, et Thybrim multo spumantem sanguine cerno, then translated it into English for the benefit of audience members who’d forgotten their Virgil.

Embarrassingly for Powell, who had been a Professor of Classics before he went into politics, the Cumaean Sybil was Greek, not Roman, so strictly speaking he should have said, “Like the Greek …” We Powell fans generally give him a pass on that. Virgil, who wrote the epic, was definitely a Roman, so the words Virgil put into the Sybil’s mouth were his words by copyright.

That snippet of Latin aside, Powell’s classicism shows through at several points in the speech. Here, for example, where he’s enlarging on those obstacles that hinder human nature from dealing with preventable evils, quote:

Above all, people are disposed to mistake predicting troubles for causing troubles and even for desiring troubles: “If only,” they love to think, “if only people wouldn’t talk about it, it probably wouldn’t happen.”

Perhaps this habit goes back to the primitive belief that the word and the thing, the name and the object, are identical.

That last sentence there is straight out of Sir James Frazer’s strange and fascinating book The Golden Bough, which a classicist of Powell’s generation would certainly have read, and whose title is itself taken from an episode in the Aeneid.

For me, a math geek, the bit of Powell’s speech I most often quote is:

Numbers are of the essence: The significance and consequences of an alien element introduced into a country or population are profoundly different according to whether that element is one per cent or 10 per cent.

Powell’s biographer tells us he doubled down on that in an interview he gave to the Daily Mail after the speech:

Asked whether he was a racialist, he answered, “We are all racialists. Do I object to one colored person in this country? No. To a hundred? No. To a thousand? No. To a million? A query. To five million? Definitely.”

There were two things at the front of Powell’s mind when he prepared the “Rivers of Blood” speech. One of them was us—the Americans.

Powell and his wife had spent three weeks in the U.S.A. the previous Fall. We were at that point still in the throes of the Civil Rights movement, and events over here—America was convulsed with rioting in April, 1968—had given Powell much food for thought. There is a reference at the end of the speech:

That tragic and intractable phenomenon which we watch with horror on the other side of the Atlantic but which there is interwoven with the history and existence of the States itself, is coming upon us here by our own volition and our own neglect.

The other thing at the front of Powell’s mind in April 1968: Th e Race Relations Bill of that year, which was at that time making its way through Parliament, and which would ban racial discrimination in private exchanges like property rentals.

Of this Powell said:

There could be no grosser misconception of the realities than is entertained by those who vociferously demand legislation as they call it “against discrimination” … They have got it exactly and diametrically wrong.

The discrimination and the deprivation, the sense of alarm and of resentment, lies not with the immigrant population but with those among whom they have come and are still coming.

Enoch Powell was a great man; a brilliant man, both literate and numerate, and a fine patriot. His speech isn’t just for the Brits: Anyone of any nation can read it with profit. Nor was it just of its time: It is still pertinent today.

• Category: History • Tags: Britain, Enoch Powell, Immigration 
🔊 Listen RSS

Reich’s WHO WE ARE AND WHO WE GOT HEREDavid Reich [Email him] Professor of Genetics at Harvard, has published a book about ancient human DNA : Who We Are and How We Got Here. He heralded publication with a March 23rd New York Times op-ed [How Genetics Is Changing Our Understanding of ‘Race’ ] that got the chattering classes a-chattering and the sputtering classes a-sputtering. What’s the fuss about?

DNA is, of course, the stuff that makes up your genome, the material in your cells that you inherited from your parents, and some of which, spliced with some of your mate’s, you will pass on to your children.

The genome is upstream from the phenome, the collection of all your observable traits that are under some degree of genetic control (from the Greek verb for “to appear”). Your size, shape, color, agility, disease susceptibilities, personality, intelligence, and characteristic behaviors: these form your phenome.

Not all your observable traits are determined by your genome. If you lose a leg in an automobile crash you will thereafter possess the trait “one-legged.” But nobody could learn that by scrutinizing your genome.

(Although there may none the less be a low-order cause-to-effect path from genome to trait. If the crash was caused by your being drunk, and if you are usually drunk because you are a chronic alcoholic, then your genome may be a causal factor in your one-leggedness.)

Some of your observable traits are accidentally determined like that. Some others, while under genetic control, are environmentally tweaked. North Koreans are on average shorter by two or three inches than South Koreans, in spite of having (presumably) statistically indistinguishable genomes. Nutrition is better in the South.

It is none the less the case that well-nourished South Koreans with many centuries of Korean ancestry are shorter on average by five or six inches than well-nourished Dutch people w ith many centuries of Dutch ancestry.

That’s because of regional differences in the human genome. Like any widely-distributed species, ours has developed regional varieties due to local inbreeding under well-understood genetic rules: founder effect, genetic drift, natural selection. The simplest name for these varieties—the one favored by Charles Darwin, the father of modern biology—is “races.”

That, of course, is what the fuss is about.

A very remarkable and fascinating scientific development of the past few years has been our ability to recover the genomes of human beings, and of extinct related species like the Neanderthals, who lived in the remote past—thousands or tens of thousands of years ago.

By comparing these ancient genomes to each other, and to modern genomes from various parts of the world, we can reconstruct humanity’s deep history, the great migrations and encounters of peoples that formed today’s human world.

This is scientific work of the highest degree of difficulty and deep intellectual complexity. If you get nothing else from Prof. Reich’s book, you will come away in awe at the diligence and ingenuity he and his colleagues (pictured right) have brought to their research.

For a glimpse of the procedural difficulties involved, read Prof. Reich’s account in Chapter Two of the pains taken to ensure that the samples of ancient DNA he has worked with are free from contamination by bacteria, human handlers, and fragments of modern DNA on microscopic dust particles.

On the theoretical side, I wasn’t surprised to see that the person Prof. Reich describes as “my chief scientific partner” is a mathematician, Nick Patterson. There is a ferocious amount of mathematical and statistical analysis indvolved in getting information out of genetic material.

This is, in short, heavy-duty science, on whose overall value very few of us—certainly not this reviewer—are qualified to pass judgment.

But then, Prof. Reich has chosen to write a book describing his work to the general public. Non-specialists can pass judgment on how well he has done that: how much we learn from reading the book, how difficult the reading is, and whether, when the author steps outside his specialist sphere, he says sensible things about other subjects.

Though I am no geneticist, I count myself a connoisseur of popular science books since having been given those by Andrade and Huxley to read back in the first Eisenhower administration. I’ve tried my own hand at the genre, too, so I appreciate the problems faced by an author.

So how does Who We Are measure up as a work of popular science exposition?

Before proceeding I should record again my profound respect for Prof. Reich’s energy and prowess as a scientist, uncovering facts about the world not previously known.

That said, I can’t say I enjoyed reading Who We Are. The style is dry and lifeless. There is very little of what makes reading pleasurable: colorful metaphors, amusing asides, rhetorical acrobatics, sly allusions, interesting historical or biographical titbits, snippets of verse. I’m certainly willing to believe that Prof. Reich is a very good scientist. He’s just not a very good writer.

🔊 Listen RSS

In my infamous column “The Talk, Nonblack Version” at TakiMag, six years ago this month, I introduced the ad hoc abbreviation IWSB for “Intelligent and Well-Socialized Blacks.” I then advised the nonblack youth of America as follows:

You should consciously seek opportunities to make friends with IWSBs. In addition to the ordinary pleasures of friendship, you will gain an amulet against potentially career-destroying accusations of prejudice.

I can’t really claim to have been very energetic about taking my own advice here, but there is a tiny handful of IWSBs whose acquaintance I appreciate and whose company I enjoy. There are others I’ve never met who I feel sure I’d get on well with, based on their writings and things I’ve heard about them.

Here are three IWSBs: Jason L. Riley, John McWhorter, and Glenn Loury.

Jason Riley writes for the Wall Street Journal, often very sensibly but sometimes not: ten years ago he published a book titled Let Them In: The Case for Open Borders.

Hey, it’s the Wall Street Journal Riley works for. Like I said, everyone’s entitled to an opinion; and Riley’s book is not explicitly anti-white like some others in the genre e.g. His Panic: Why Americans Fear Hispanics in the U.S. by Geraldo Rivera.

So far as I can gather from the reviews, Riley’s book just the old economists’ flapdoodle about human beings being featureless units of production and consumption; and the more people you have, the bigger your GDP …

Which of course is true: As I always mention at this point, Bangladesh has a way bigger GDP than Luxembourg.

John McWhorter teaches linguistics at Columbia University. He also does lecture series for the Great Courses company, one of which I’ve mentioned with approval. This guy I do have some slight personal acquaintance with: I joined him and a mutual friend for lunch once, and found him very agreeable company.

Glenn Loury I don’t know much about, but he’s riding high in my esteem right now. He’s a Professor of Economics at Brown University. It was he with whom Professor Amy Wax from the University of Pennsylvania was doing a Bloggingheads interview last year, when Prof. Wax passed the remark about how she couldn’t recall there having been a black in the top quarter of the class she’d taught for years at U. Penn., and had only “rarely, rarely,” seen one in the top half.[Glenn Loury (Brown University) and Amy Wax (Race, Wrongs, and Remedies, University of Pennsylvania) , BloggingHeads, August 29, 2017]

That got Prof. Wax a Two Minutes Hate, as reported here on Radio Derb two weeks ago. It also got her slandered and insulted by her Dean, a creature named Ted Ruger, [Email him] who took away some of Prof. Wax’s classes.

To Glenn Loury’s great credit, he stood up for Prof. Wax against the bullies; and that’s why he’s high in my esteem.

Sample quote from Prof. Glenn Loury:

So, here’s my bottom line: I believe that Dean Ruger’s actions against Amy Wax at Penn Law—responding to public pressure no less—were reprehensible, and deserve to be condemned.

Guest Column by Brown U. prof Glenn Loury | Reflections on my interview with Amy Wax, The Daily Pennsylvanian, March 27, 2018

So there’s my trinity of IWSBs: Riley, McWhorter, and Loury. Why am I telling you about them, other than (you may reasonably suspect) to do a spot of sly virtue signaling? Because I just noticed a book they published last year, that’s why.

Actually, Jason Riley authored the book. He’s listed on the book’s Amazon page as “Author.” McWhorter and Loury are listed alongside him, though, as “Contributors.” Apparently they offer critiques of Riley’s arguments, one critique each at the end of the book.

Title of the book: False Black Power? Quote from the Amazon blurb:

Recent decades have witnessed a proliferation of black elected officials, culminating in the historic presidency of Barack Obama. However, racial gaps in employment, income, homeownership, academic achievement, and other measures not only continue but in some cases have even widened. While other racial and ethnic groups in America have made economic advancement a priority, the focus on political capital for blacks has been a disadvantage, blocking them from the fiscal capital that helped power upward mobility among other groups.

Of course, it’s unfair to pass comment on a book I haven’t read, but judging from the rest of that blurb and the posted reviews, Riley’s book is pure Blank Slate Culturism. There are no innate biological differences between human races causing those gaps—none, I tell you, none!

I wonder if Jason Riley has read the new book on ancient DNA by geneticist David Reich, which our own Steve Sailer has been posting comments on here at

• Category: Race/Ethnicity • Tags: Blacks, Political Correctness 
🔊 Listen RSS

From his speaking and tweeting earlier this week, after a briefing from Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen, it is plain that President Donald J. Trump did not know, until Secretary Nielsen enlightened him, that there is no legal way for the U.S.A. to prevent most foreigners from just walking into our country, then settling here permanently. Why should he have? I doubt one citizen in a hundred knew it.

The drill is, you get yourself to Mexico or Canada, go to the US border, present yourself to a border agent, and ask for asylum. The law says that your asylum application must then be formally recorded and considered. The considering of course takes for ever.

Ideally, you’d be detained in custody while it goes on. In practice, there are nothing like enough detention facilities because Congress won’t appropriate the funds. So most applicants are just given an appearance date, then released. They disappear into the U.S. interior and hook up with relatives, friends, or their gang boss from back home.

That’s a rough sketch of what happens, although a fair one, as can be seen from the number of asylum applications outstanding—300,000 currently, up from 16,000 five and a half years ago.

It doesn’t apply to persons from contiguous nations—Mexico and Canada—who can be refused entry. Hence the term you often see in coverage of the situation at our southern border: “OTMs,” which stands for “Other Than Mexicans.”

The Trump administration has recently fiddled with the process to try to reduce the backlog, with what success we don’t yet know. [ US will target asylum backlog by reviewing newer cases first, by Amy Taxin, AP, January 31, 2018]

We’d better hope for some success: If the rate of increase is constant for another five and a half years, the number of asylees will be kissing six million. Then another five and a half years at the same rate gets you over a hundred million. It’s a geometric progression, see?

So here’s this caravan of OTMs coming up through Mexico to our southern border. Thursday’s Daily Mail had a very good photo-montage of the caravanners, putting faces and bodies to the news coverage.

A striking number of the bodies belonged to pregnant women. Why would that be, I wonder? A lot of others belonged to winsome-looking children. Surely we wouldn’t be so heartless as to turn away little kiddies, would we?

However, if you discount some for the tabloid Daily Mail’s natural preference for the picturesque, it’s plain that the biggest cohort of caravanners are unattached young men, a lot of them sporting tattoos.

I have nothing against young men, and not very much against tattoos. Looking at these faces and bodies, though, I do seriously doubt that any of this cohort, if permitted to settle among us, will take up brain surgery, theoretical physics, or the composing of symphonies.

That’s by the by. If this caravan were composed entirely of credentialed professional doctors, engineers, architects, and lawyers, I still wouldn’t approve of their being allowed to settle in my country by virtue of merely showing up at the border.

I don’t mind these people, or dislike them. I certainly don’t hate them, as the infantile language of the Cultural Marxists would say. Some of them look like nice ordinary people. Check out, for example, William Castillo and his family from El Salvador in the Daily Mail montage. I’d guess Mr. Castillo is a hardworking guy who wants his best for the little boy. Heck, if I were an ordinary working Joe in El Salvador, I’d want to get out of there, too.

The world’s full of people like that, though: hundreds of millions, billions of them. If even a minor fraction of them—half a billion, say—settled in the U.S.A., we would have a radically different country. I rather like our country the way it is.

So, “hate”? Not really. I wouldn’t even scold these caravanners as people intending to break our laws. In fact, they don’t actually aim to break any laws. What they aim to do is take advantage of our terminally stupid laws on asylum—laws that the U.S. Congress could fix in a one-hour session, were it not for the fact that our legislators are too useless and corrupt to do what is necessary.

“Hate”? I am, as regular listeners surely know, a genial fellow. One or two personal and particular grudges aside, I don’t hate anybody.

There are, though, persons of whom I can say that if, while watching a Netflix movie in my living room, I were to glance out my window and see that person covered in tar and feathers and being chased down the street by a jeering mob of my fellow-citizens, I would not rise from my Barcalounger and go to their assistance.

William Castillo is not one of those people.

Chuck Schumer‘s one, though. Paul Ryan’ s another; and Nancy Pelosi, and Mitch McConnell, and Maxine Waters, and Lindsey Graham, and John McCain, and Luis Gutierrez, and Kamala Harris, and Steny Hoyer, and Elijah Cummings, and Jerry Brown, and …

• Category: Ideology • Tags: Africans, Donald Trump, Immigration 
🔊 Listen RSS

It’s the blecks (1): Guns. My biggest email bag of the month came after I hypothesized, in the March 23rd Radio Derb, that the enthusiasm white Americans display for owning guns, unusual among Western nations, i s connected to the other distinctive thing about our country: the presence in it, from the beginning, of a large black sub-population.

When I was through hypothesizing I said:

I’m exploring the dark depths of the white American psyche here. Or possibly they’re just the dark depths of my psyche, I don’t know. By all means email in and tell me.

People did. Their responses fell into four pretty distinct categories.

1. Well, duh! “Mr Derbyshire, that is the most obvious thing you’ve ever said. Of course it’s the blacks. We know how much they hate us.”

I’ll say again what I said on the podcast: It’s not hard to understand why a lot of blacks hate us. Strangely enough, though, it is possible to appreciate that a person has good reasons for wanting to kill you, while yet being unwilling to let him do it.

2. No, it’s distrust of government power. “Mr Derbyshire, we cherish the Second Amendment because it guarantees our liberties against the rise of a despotic federal government. Plenty of black Americans feel the same way.”

That’s a noble sentiment, and one that appeals to my own love of personal liberty.

I have my doubts, though. The wording of the Second Amendment leaves it not altogether clear whether “the security of a free state” refers to security from foreign occupation, or security from domestic despotism.

The key factor in establishment of a domestic federal despotism would be the military. Would they be on-side with the despot? If they were, with modern weaponry and surveillance techniques, I wouldn’t place my bet on Red Dawn-style citizen guerillas being able to restore the Republic.

Would the military take a stand for liberty? I wish I could be sure. With women in submarines, though, and General Casey telling us that the loss of “diversity” would be a greater tragedy than the murder of a few troopers … I’m not.

3. Yes, it’s the blacks; and we don’t have to wait for catastrophe to see law and order break down. As one emailer wrote pithily: “The name Reginald Denny mean anything?”

I got many hair-raising anecdotes from people who had lived through race riots and vowed never to find themselves unarmed in such a situation. It wasn’t just the Rodney King riots, either. Many others have slipped down the memory hole. I got a long, graphic, and very eloquent email from an eyewitness to the 1980 Miami riots.

4. You’ve got it coming, cracker!

Your spoiled white ass wouldn’t last a week after collapse. Don’t kid yourself. It will mostly be your spoiled white neighbors after for [sic] your food and water. A moment of ultimate self defeat before you go down into the cosmic dustbin of pathetic existence.

Feel like kneeling yet?

No, actually: I’ll die on my feet before I’ll live on my knees.

It’s the blecks (2): Immigration. Having gone this deep into the zone of the shockingly unmentionable, I may as well add the following, as further support for the hypothesis that a great many peculiarities of life in the U.S.A. have something to do with that big black subpopulation.

Here’s a different peculiarity: the insouciance of white non-Hispanic Californians to mass illegal immigration from south of the border.

Thirty-seven percent of California’s population is non-Hispanic white. Fifteen percent is Asian; 39 percent is Hispanic. The 37 percent, together with some portion of the Asians and identify-as-white Hispanics, likely give a clear majority of Californians with no tribal enthusiasm for the kinds of open-border lunacies we’ve been getting from state officers — including the Governor — recently.

If that majority truly has no enthusiasm for the sanctuary-state and related policies, why do they put up with them?

Possible answer: It’s the blecks.

It may be that white and honorary-white Californians haven’t minded the mass influx of foreign nonblacks because that influx has driven out domestic blacks. Ron Unz, who lives in California, has made this argument.

• Category: Ideology • Tags: Blacks, Donald Trump, Guns, Immigration 
🔊 Listen RSS

The picture above is from: Analysis: The White House releases a photo of its interns, and the Internet asks: Why so few people of color?, by Eugene Scott March 31, 2018.

Recently, I chewed over the concept of meritocracy some , by way of commemorating Michael Young’s introduction of the word fifty years ago this year.

Well, meritocracy’s been in the news again last week. On Tuesday CNN reported that Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke has said that in personnel matters, he will not focus on diversity. “What’s important,” they said he said, quote, “is having the right person for the right job,” In other words, the Secretary favors meritocracy, not diversitocracy.

Zinke seems to have cucked out once this hit the news. At any rate, a spokeswoman for his department says Zinke never said the things he’s alleged to have said. [ Interior Department Denies Ryan Zinke Told Staff ‘Diversity Isn’t Important’ By Hayley Miller, HuffPost, March 26, 2018 ]

Whatever: This is another little tremor from one of the main fault lines in modern society. Of course we want key positions in government departments to be staffed by the best available people. The problem is that the best methods we have for selecting the best people don’t deliver correct proportions of women, blacks, Latinos, homosexuals, disabled people, and so on.

Is there is something wrong with those selection methods? In the case of the old Civil Service exams, Jimmy Carter concluded that there must be, so he scrapped the exams for most Civil Service positions. Today, the federal government tells us, quote from their website:

The majority — approximately 80 percent — of federal government jobs are filled through a competitive examination of your background, work experience, and education, not through a written civil service test.

What does that phrase mean, “a competitive examination of your background, work experience, and education”? If there is no written test, how is it “a competitive examination” of anything?

What it means is that judgment of applicants is now “holistic.” That’s the preferred bureaucratic term, “holistic.”

What that means is that the hiring official glances through your records to make sure you have some relevant schooling and experience and are not a career criminal, then hires you or not by quota according to your race, sex, and so on.

This is not a totally contemptible approach. The heart of the matter here is fairness. Yes, we want the best people; but we also want Civil Service job applicants to be treated fairly.

The reason this approach is not totally contemptible is that we used not to treat people fairly in society at large. I add that qualifier because I doubt this applies to Civil Service hiring. I can’t see what was wrong with a written test for that.

In society at large, though, things were indubitably unfair until fifty years or so ago. It was hard for a woman to get qualified as a doctor or lawyer, much harder than for a man. Blacks were excluded from all sorts of zones by custom and by actual legislation.

Then we had a Fairness Revolution. Prestigious colleges opened their doors to women, racially discriminatory laws were struck down. For an entire generation now, American society has been as fair as it could possibly be.

There has in fact been a sort of over-shoot: More women than men now attend college, blacks have a raft of special preferences, privileges, and set-asides.

Perplexingly, though, outcomes are still unequal. There are still few women engineers; blacks still do badly at school; a homosexual man is more likely to be an interior decorator than a lumberjack (and conversely for a homosexual woman).

Our collective response to these persistently unequal outcomes is to invoke magic. Strange invisible forces and miasmas are preventing the attainment of identical statistical profiles by all groups: Institutional racism! Homophobia! Toxic masculinity!

• Category: Ideology • Tags: Diversity, Meritocracy, Political Correctness 
Where Are Muslim Slave Traders When We Need Them?
🔊 Listen RSS

Steven Runciman’s 1951 History of the Crusades is nowadays regarded with some skepticism by serious scholars; but it’s the one I was raised on, and it’s wonderfully cynical. And for cynics, the story of the Children’s Crusade is especially satisfying. This Crusade was led by Stephen of Cloyes, “a shepherd-boy of about twelve years old,” according to Runciman. This lad had seen Christ in a vision. The Savior told him to preach the Crusade, so off he went. The King of France was not very sympathetic, but by the end of June a.d. 1212 Stephen was at the city of Vendôme in north-central France with thirty thousand followers, “not one over twelve years of age.”

Stephen led them all to Marseilles on the south coast, where he said the sea would part so they could walk to Palestine. This unaccountably failed to happen; but two merchants of Marseilles, Hugh the Iron and William the Pig, put seven ships at their disposal free of charge, for the glory of God, they said, and the Children’s Crusade set sail for the Holy Land.

It turned out those two merchants were in cahoots with the Muslim slave traders of North Africa. The pre-teen pilgrims ended up in the slave markets of Algeria, Egypt, and Baghdad. Runciman doesn’t tell us what happened to Stephen himself. Presumably he was enslaved with the rest of the kiddies.

Last weekend’s March for Our Lives in Washington, D.C. naturally brought the Children’s Crusade to mind. The numbers were bigger: 180,000 according to The New York Times. [March for Our Lives Highlights: Students Protesting Guns Say ‘Enough Is Enough’, March 24, 2018]If you scale for populations relative to the thirteenth century, though, they were likely comparable.

And to judge by Main Stream Media accounts, children were certainly to the fore. By those accounts this was in fact an uprising by the nation’s youth against an entrenched gun-loving establishment of evil old white men.

“Welcome to the revolution,” screeched 17-year-old Cameron Kasky to the assembled thousands.

From the New York Times story:

Planning for the events was spearheaded by a group of students from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., who have emerged as national anti-gun figures in the wake of the shooting that left 17 dead.

Ah, the idealism of youth! Is there anything in this Children’s Crusade to gladden the stony hearts of cynics?

You bet there is. If you’ve been wondering how a bunch of adolescents could manage the funding and organization of this march, and similar events nationwide, allow me to direct you to Daniel Greenfield‘s excellent bit of investigative reporting over at Front Page. Greenfield has done the spadework the Main Stream Media will not do, and uncovered the men behind the curtain. Sample quote:

March for Our Lives is funded by Hollywood celebs, it’s led by a Hollywood producer and its finances are routed through an obscure tax firm in [California’s San Fernando] Valley. Its treasurer and secretary are Washington D.C. pros. And a top funder of gun control agendas is also one of its directors.

[Who’s Really Behind March for Our Lives?, March 21, 2018]

As Greenfield points out, the deliberate obscurity and obfuscation behind the organization and funding of the March makes a sorry contrast with the National Rifle Association:

The NRA is maligned 24/7 and yet it’s completely obvious whom it represents … It represents its five million members. Anti-gun groups tend to represent shadowy networks.

And in fact the impression you got from MSM accounts — the impression I definitely got, that the Washington march was of youngsters, which is why I got to thinking about the Children’s Crusade — is false. An academic sociologist (University of Maryland sociologist Dana R. Fisher) analyzed the crowd and concluded that no more than ten percent were under eighteen. The average age was 49! To be fair to the media, this lady’s research was published in the Washington Post, but only as an op-ed. [Here’s who actually attended the March for Our Lives. (No, it wasn’t mostly young people.), by Dana R. Fisher, March 28, 2018] But you’d never have figured those facts from the news stories.

For a further dash of cynicism, note how, as always with these SJW glove puppets, the loud-heralded “revolution” turns out not to threaten anyone who actually holds actual power. Nitwits like that 17-year-old Cameron Kasky really seem to think they are sticking it to the man when, as Ramzpaul jeered on another occasion, “You are the man!”

• Category: Ideology • Tags: Gun Control, Guns, Political Correctness 
🔊 Listen RSS

Amy Wax, a tenured Professor of Law at the University of Pennsylvania is now being subjected to a SECOND Two Minutes Hate by our Emerging Totalitarian Left.

I should say—having some slight acquaintance with the lady—that Professor Wax is a formidable person to take on in combat, not only intellectually but also in personality. I classify her in my own mind with those feisty Jewish women in the Old Testament. I doubt Professor Wax has ever decapitated anyone, as Judith did, or hammered a tent-pin through anyone’s skull like Jael, but if you’re looking for a fight, she’ll give you one.

Amy Wax is also an extremely smart person. Her first choice of career was medicine, in pursuit of which she was awarded an M.D. cum laude by Harvard Medical School, after studies at Yale and the University of Oxford. She then switched to law, got a J.D. from Columbia, served as editor at The Columbia Law Review and ended up arguing cases before the U.S. Supreme Court.

A lot of people went looking for a fight after Wax, jointly with Professor Lawrence Alexander of the University of San Diego, published an op-ed in the Philadelphia Inquirer last August [Paying the price for breakdown of the country’s bourgeois culture, August 9, 2017]. In the op-ed Wax and Alexander spoke in favor of bourgeois values: get married, stay married, raise kids, get as much education as you can take, work hard, be patriotic, and so on.

That led to shrieking and swooning among Goodthinkers everywhere. The authors, it was said, were calling for the restoration of Jim Crow, for women to get back in the kitchen, for homosexuals to be jailed, and so on. I covered the hysteria in my August 18th and September 1st podcasts.

I concluded the latter of those podcasts with the prediction that the administrators at U. Penn. law school would cave to the witch-hunters. Professor Wax, being tenured, can’t be fired, but I thought she would lose some of her classes. It was an easy call. The administrators at our colleges and universities are bred on a ranch hidden somewhere in the mountain West to be exceptionally compliant with Cultural Marxist orthodoxy, and to have no spinal matter at all.

In this case, however, I underestimated Professor Wax. She returned all the obloquy with courage and spirit, and held on stubbornly to her classes.

Forward to the present. Now the lady is in trouble again. After last August’s kerfuffle she did one of those Bloggingheads interviews with Economics Professor Glenn Loury, a black guy, from Brown University … or possibly a brown guy from Black University: it’s hard to keep these things straight.

This was last August [Glenn Loury (Brown University) and Amy Wax (Race, Wrongs, and Remedies, University of Pennsylvania) ,

BloggingHeads, August 29, 2018]. The two professors discussed, in a not-particularly-controversial way, the under-performance of blacks at law school. Professor Wax said, amongst other things: “I don’t think I’ve ever seen a black student graduate in the top quarter of the class, and rarely, rarely in the top half”

A few days ago, some witch-hunters dug up this Bloggingheads exchange from last year. More shrieking and swooning. The dean of Penn. Law school, an invertebrate named Ted Ruger, [Email him] flatly contradicted Professor Wax: “Black students have graduated in the top of the class at Penn Law” [Amy Wax removed from teaching required first year courses at Penn Law School, By Paul Campos, Lawyers, Guns & Money, March 13, 2018]. He did not, however, provide any evidence for his assertion, nor any definition of his term “top of the class.”

Top half? Top ninety-five percent? Who knows?

The Dean was actually puffing out this squid ink from behind a high protective wall of administrative protocol. The actual performance of different races at U. Penn Law is a closely-guarded secret.

Hence, for making a factual statement based on her own experience, a statement no-one has produced facts to contradict, Professor Wax is now undergoing her second Two Minutes Hate. And this time she has actually suffered academic consequences. Dean Ruger, fortified by an ingredient originally found in jellyfish, has had her removed from her duties teaching first-year students.

Since Dean Ruger has called Professor Wax a liar in print, and dishonored her by removing her first-year class, some of Professor Wax’s friends have suggested she file a grievance with the American Association of University Professors. Whether such a filing would come to any conclusive result is uncertain. But there would likely be one of those processes lawyers call “discovery,” in which the law school would have to open its files on student achievement by race.

🔊 Listen RSS

I got a smile or two out of this March 14th piece in Scientific American, title: Why Are White Men Stockpiling Guns? Subtitle: “Research suggests it’s largely because they’re anxious about their ability to protect their families, insecure about their place in the job market and beset by racial fears.” [By Jeremy Adam Smith,March 14, 2018]

Scientific American is impeccably CultMarx-compliant, so I wasn’t very surprised to find them telling me that keen interest in guns is a white-guy thing “rooted in fear and vulnerability” and “racial anxiety.”

Uh-huh. While I was smiling, though, I couldn’t help thinking that the author, for all his PC sociobabble and the dubious “studies” he cites, is likely on to something. Two very distinctive things about the U.S.A. among other Western nations are, one, lots of us are really keen to own guns, and two, we have a big old sub-population of blacks. Might not the two things be connected?

If you are a gun-lover, you can speak for yourself. I’m one, and I’ll speak for my-self. Possibly I’m a lone eccentric, a demographic of one, but here goes anyway.

I don’t have a lot of faith in the stability and permanence of our civilization. Perhaps I have less faith than most. In my formative years I read a lot of science fiction, including post-apocalyptic stories about the world following a nuclear holocaust, a great plague, a worldwide famine, a catastrophic earthquake … You name it. For making your adolescent flesh crawl, there was nothing like mid-20th-century post-apocalyptic sci-fi.

It didn’t help that one of my schoolmasters, a teacher of English with an enthusiasm for Anglo-Saxon verse, introduced us to that poem where the poet finds himself among the ruins of a Roman town and wonders what the heck happened to it all.

So I live at a level of anxiety — a low level: I’m not neurotic about it, not enough to be a real Prepper — that I could wake up one morning to find the fragile fabric of civilization turned to dust overnight like Tutankhamun’s shroud.

I’d like to think that if that happened I could survive long enough to get myself and my family to some friendly group dedicated to collective survival. I’ll be looking for a community I can join for mutual protection. Lone Preppers, it seems to me, are going to be easy targets.

Targets for whom? Well, if we collapse into a state of nature, a lot of people will be doing what I’m doing: Looking for a community to join, for the safety of me and my family. Some other people, however, will go feral. They’ll be looking to survive too, and their preferred method will be to kill me and take whatever I’ve got.

If I spot a group of strangers on the post-apocalyptic road, how will I know which category they fall into — folk like myself looking for safety in numbers, or feral predators?

It’s a sad thing to say, and disagree if you like, but I think race will be a major clue. We know how inner-city blacks behave among themselves. We know the statistics of Detroit, Baltimore, Chicago, New Orleans, St. Louis. We know about Nat Turner’s uprising and the massacres in Haiti. When blacks confront whites in a state of nature, race vengeance is on the table.

You may say race vengeance is justified, given the cruelties and indignities of the past. Probably you are right. I’m looking to survive, though. When some feral black has a knife to my child’s throat, the fact that he may have some historical justification for his feelings will not be a factor in my decision-making. If I’m armed, I’ll shoot the guy. If I’m not armed, I’m out of luck, and so is the kid.

I’m exploring the dark depths of the white American psyche here. Or possibly they’re just the dark depths of my psyche, I don’t know. By all means email in and tell me.

I do believe, and the Scientific American article, in its guarded, condescending, and roundabout way I think confirms, that one reason we white Americans love our guns so much is fear of blacks, and of what might ensue if the restraints of law and civilization were to fall away.

• Category: Ideology, Race/Ethnicity • Tags: Blacks, Gun Control, Guns 
🔊 Listen RSS

So Congress finally passed a budget. It’s a blockbuster—$1.3 trillion, or around four thousand dollars for every man, woman, and child in the U.S.A. Basically it is a compound made up of (a) anything Leftist Democrats could wish for, and (b) anything that the Jeb Bush wing of the Republican Party, and that wing’s Big Business donors (but I repeat myself), could wish for. But how about the things that sixty-three million of us voted for in 2016, awarding the Presidency to Donald Trump?

Border control? Enforcement of immigration law? An end to missionary wars and the World Policeman role? Economic and population policies that favor Americans rather than foreigners?

There has to be some of that in such a colossal budget, doesn’t there?

After all, Donald Trump is President, isn’t he? He signed off on this thing, doesn’t he?

Well, to be perfectly fair, if you apply a microscope to the budget bill’s two thousand-odd pages, you can find a teeny-tiny sort-of concession to Trumpism hidden in there among the gov-speranto.

There is, for example, $1.6 billion—one-eighth of one percent of the total budget—for border security, probably the single issue more than any other that brought voters out for Trump in 2016.

How will that $1.6 billion be spent? Congressional Republicans have told us it will be spent on, “replacement (of existing barriers), bollards, and levee improvements.” Congressional Democrats have told us that the money will not be used for any new concrete wall.[U.S. Congress unveils $1.3 trillion spending bill as shutdown looms, Reuters, March 21, 2018]

So—no wall, then. Those “prototypes” our President was inspecting in the southwestern desert the other day were merely what the late Senator Pat Moynihan called “boob bait for the bubbas.”

Got it. Probably those prototypes will still be standing out there in the desert a thousand years from now, testifying to the suicide of our nation, while round about them, boundless and bare, the lone and level sands stretch far away.

Twiddling the knobs on my microscope a little more, I see that there’s funding for DHS to hire 351 new Customs and Border Protection agents.

Not 350, please note, nor 352: just precisely 351. Let no-one accuse the Congressional drafting committees of imprecision.

Customs and Border Protection are the guys at our airports, seaports, and border posts. CBP has 60,000 employees, according to their website, so that 351 additional is better than a half of one percent.

Don’t you feel safer already?

And what about ICE, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the guys who do the intelligence and muscle work—interior enforcement, workplace compliance, and deportation of illegals? Do they get 351 more agents? Or perhaps 263, or 155?

“Barely 100” is the best number I can find in the news reports. [Why Trump is threatening to veto the omnibus bill over immigration, By Dara Lind,, March 23, 2018]

It is now in fact fashionable on the political Left to call for the outright abolition of ICE. [ICE deserves to be abolished, by Molly Roberts, Washington Post, March 13, 2018]

This is quite a recent development, which bears watching. The old commies at The Nation magazine got the ball rolling earlier this month with an article calling ICE “incompatible with democracy and human rights.”[It’s Time to Abolish ICE | A mass-deportation strike force is incompatible with democracy and human rights, By Sean McElwee, March 9, 2018] Now the cry is being raised all over the CultMarx-o-sphere: “Abolish ICE!”

If the Democrats pull off a congressional sweep in November, abolition of ICE will likely be high on their agenda. And that will be the end for interior enforcement of our immigration laws.

In fact, the budget that Congress just passed is a big negative for patriotic reform. It includes an expansion of the H-2B guest-worker program, undoubtedly with the approval of Republican congressvermin cucking to their donors. (H-2B is the low-skill equivalent of the H-1B). That’s more cheap labor for the business donors—fewer jobs for low-skill Americans.

The budget also further extends the EB-5 investor-visa program, which lets wealthy foreigners buy themselves green cards, and which we at have been railing against for years.

It’s not just us Dissident Right crazies, either: Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa recently opined that the EB-5 has been “hijacked by big moneyed New York City real estate interests.”[Sen. Grassley Opposes Short-Term Extension of EB-5, but Big Money Prevails, By David North,, March 21, 2018]

So much for the immigration components of the budget bill—which, once again, let me repeat, was not thrown out with howls of outrage from the Republican-majority House and Senate: they passed the filthy thing.

But does the bill go any way towards winding down our World Policeman role, with our troops stationed in, or covertly active in, 177 countries?

Remember candidate Trump telling the South Koreans to nuke up and take care of their own defenses? Any help for that in the budget bill?

Not at all. The bill in fact includes a $61 billion increase in “defense” spending over last year, a bigger than eight percent increase.

So I guess we shall keep those 39,000 troops in Japan, those 35,000 troops in Germany, and those 12,000 in Italy, just in case WW2 flares up again.

You remember WW2. That was the one your grandfather fought in, the one that ended 73 years ago.

I guess we’ll keep our 23,000 troops in South Korea, too, since that country is obviously incapable of defending itself against North Korea, in spite of having twice the North’s population and fifty times its GDP.

John Derbyshire
About John Derbyshire

John Derbyshire writes an incredible amount on all sorts of subjects for all kinds of outlets. (This no longer includes National Review, whose editors had some kind of tantrum and fired him. He is the author of We Are Doomed: Reclaiming Conservative Pessimism and several other books. His most recent book, published by com is FROM THE DISSIDENT RIGHT (also available in Kindle).His writings are archived at