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 American Military 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 Presidents American Renaissance Amnesty Amy Chua Ancient DNA Ann Coulter Anti-Semitism Antifa Antiracism Antonin Scalia Asia 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 Demographics Demography Discrimination Dreamers Ebola Education Eisenhower El Salvador Elections Elian Gonzalez Emmanuel Macron Energy Enoch Powell Environmentalism Espionage EU Eugenics Europe European Union Eurozone Evolution Evolution Of Language Evolutionary Biology Fake News Ferguson Shooting Fertility Rates 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 Hispanics Hitler Hollywood Hong Kong Housing Human Evolution Human Genetics Human Genome Hungary Hunting Imperialism Infection Intellectuals Intelligence Intelligent Design Iran Iraq Islamophobia Israel Israel Lobby Israel/Palestine Italy James Comey 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 Mulatto Elite 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 Open Borders 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 Sailer Strategy San Bernadino Massacre Scandinavia Science Fiction Scotland Senate Siberia Singularity Slavery Soccer 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 Technology 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 Cup 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

Andrew Cuomo, Governor of my home state of New York, was speaking in Manhattan on Wednesday, signing a bill to make sex trafficking a felony in the state. He made a now-famous gaffe, which says a great deal about the state of the modern Democratic Party

But first, just a word about sex trafficking.

Kidnapping vulnerable young girls and renting them out for sex is a flourishing business down among the urban underclass. The Pakistani pimps of Rotherham and other English cities are the best-known cases, but plenty of it goes on here in the U.S.A., too. As in England, it’s very much an ethnic affair here, although news reports tie themselves in pretzels trying to obscure the fact. [Inside New York’s silent sex trafficking epidemic, NYPost, April 17, 2018]There’s an immigration angle, too; a lot of the women being trafficked here are illegal aliens from Mexico, Central America, and Asia.

It’s a problem in New York, and our legislators figured we need a new law to deal with it. I find it hard to believe that the laws we already have on kidnapping, prostitution, and abuse of minors are not adequate to deal with the issue; but hey, it’s an election year, Cuomo’s up for re-election as governor, and signing a new law is good show business.

So there was Cuomo doing the soft-shoe shuffle. Our Governor is a sort of grandee of the Democratic Party: son of a former three-term Governor, ex-husband of a Kennedy gal.

But I should say that the phrase “Democratic Party” in my last sentence refers to the oldDemocratic Party, the party of FDR, JFK, Bill Clinton and John Kerry. Andrew Cuomo, like those other names, is a white guy of European ancestry. Like other white guys in his party, Cuomo has the uncomfortable feeling that the ground is moving under his feet—that the Democratic Party is turning into something different from what it has been though his, and my, lifetime.

As a result, the Governor is nursing some serious political insecurities. Is the Democratic Party still a party for him, for white guys? Or is it on its way to being a party for women, blacks, mestizos, and sexual eccentrics?

Naturally the guy is nervous. He is, as I said, up for re-election in the fall; and before that, next month, he faces off in a Democratic primary against TV actress Cynthia Nixon.

Nobody thinks Ms. Nixon has much of a chance of becoming the Democrat nominee for Governor in the fall, but that’s not really the point. The point is that in Andrew Cuomo’s eyes, and the eyes of old white male heterosexual Democrats like him, Cynthia Nixon looks like the future while he looks like the past. Ms. Nixon is female, homosexual, and wa-a-a-ay out on the political Left. She makes our poor governor feel like a relic.

Don’t place any bets against Cuomo. He’s a skillful politician with the state party in his pocket. He’ll get the nomination, then he’ll win re-election in November. Our state is mostly Republican; but the wee bit that isn’t includes New York City, which has close to half the state’s population … enough said.

Still the guy’s nervous. He was also a little rattled, earlier this week—before the Wednesday bill-signing event—he was a little rattled by President Trump having been in the state on Monday, at a fundraiser for the state Republican Party. At that event our President speculated that maybe Cuomo wants to run for President in 2020. “Please do it, please,” said the President mockingly. [Trump dares NY Gov. Cuomo to run against him in 2020, says 'anybody that runs against Trump suffers', By Alex Pappas, Fox News, August 13, 2018] The Governor doesn’t like to be mocked, any more than you or I do.

So when Cuomo stepped up on Wednesday to sign this bill against sex trafficking, he was both suffering from chronic existential anxiety about the direction of his party and rattled by Trump’s Monday remark. Under those stresses, his self-control slipped, and he spoke unwisely.

What he actually said was:

We’re not going to make America great again. It was never that great. We have not reached greatness, we will reach greatness when every American is fully engaged, we will reach greatness when discrimination and stereotyping against women, 51 percent of our population, is gone and every woman’s full potential is realized and unleashed and every woman is making her full contribution.

[Andrew Cuomo shocks crowd, says America 'was never that great', by Adam Shaw, August 1, 2018]

Now, taken on face value, that’s gibberish. Men and women are biologically different; they are never going to exhibit identical profiles on every kind of behavior, achievement, or social outcome. As for “discrimination”: Well, someone should ask the governor why, if women are “51 percent of our population,” they are 56 percent of college students but less than seven percent of federal prison inmates.

But that’s giving the Governor’s words more respect than they deserve. He’s not making observations about real things in the real world; he’s a politician sending out signals to likely voters. The signal there was: “I’m not a part of that rotten old patriarchy trying to keep women down. I am cool and up-to-date with the new Democratic Party, which is absolutely not a party of straight old white guys.”

But Cuomo just went a bit too far, saying that America “was never that great.” It’s a logical thing for a Progressive to think. American society in the past had imperfections and injustices; therefore we shouldn’t talk about it having been great; that’s the Progressive mentality.

• Category: Ideology • Tags: Democratic Party, Political Correctness 
🔊 Listen RSS

I recently predicted the emergence of Polar Alliance as Ice People recognize their common interest in stopping the Sun People Tsunami. Further evidence of that common interest:

  • Italy

Italy’s Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte just visited the U.S.A. and had a meeting with President Trump in the Oval Office. The two leaders got along famously, both agreeing that Western countries need to take a strong line against mass illegal immigration. Even the New York Times editorial board had to acknowledge the harmony, calling the Trump-Conte meeting “a smashing success.”

Not that the NYT approved of that. They were in schoolmarm mode, rapping the two national leaders over their knuckles for their hateful hatefulness towards the wretched of the earth:

The love-fest between Mr. Trump and the new Italian government marks another step in the evolving network of right-wing, populist governments in Europe and the United States …[Trump and Italy’s Conte: Brothers in Nativism, August 2, 2018]

That editorial had drawn only three published comments when I last looked. The one with most upticks was from a reader in Texas: “Italy or any country should not have to deal with an influx they can’t control or adequately support.” Plain common sense in the New York Times! (If only from a reader). Wonders will never cease.

Giuseppe Conte is actually something of a nonentity, appointed Prime Minister as the person least objectionable to both the two big parties in Italy’s governing coalition. The real force behind Italy’s nationalism, the guy making all the news: Deputy Prime Minister Matteo Salvini.

In a speech last week, Salvini promised his fellow countrymen he would defend Italy’s borders, quote, “with all my energy and all the means at my disposal.”

It’s a work in progress: almost 2,000 illegals from Africa came ashore in Italy in June. That compares with 24,000 in July two years ago, though, so there is real progress.

Salvini really gets the demographic issue. In an interview with the London Sunday Times, he said he’s pushing for social and fiscal policies to raise Italy’s birthrate—like the policies Viktor Orbán’s put in place in Hungary. [Matteo Salvini looks to babies to save Italy’s identity |The right-wing interior minister says the low birthrate is being used as an excuse to ‘import immigrants’, July 28, 2018]

Salvini himself has two children: not sensational, but still two more than the total for Germany’s Angela Merkel, Britain’s Theresa May, France’s Emmanuel Macron, Sweden’s Stefan Löfven, Ireland’s Leo Varadkar, and Holland’s Mark Rutte combined.

Lots of luck with that, pal. As explained in my July Diary here at, it seems to be a very difficult thing to raise a country’s birthrate by government action.

Bless Signor Salvini for trying anyway. His heart’s in the right place—for his own countrymen, against foreign scofflaws. A country can never have too many politicians like that, although a country can, alas, have too few.

  • Spain:

But while Italy’s giving a good example, Spain’s giving a bad one.

Spain had a wee political upset a few weeks ago when the center-right ruling party lost a vote of confidence following a corruption scandal and had to resign. Since then Spain’s Prime Minister has been Pedro Sánchez, who is a socialist, leading a coalition of left-wing parties.

Socialism is in the air here in the U.S.A., with Bernie Sanders out campaigning again, young people flocking to join the DSA, Democratic Socialists of America, and that Puerto Rican bimbo winning a Democratic House primary in New York City. So for a glimpse at what socialism might have in store for us should it come to power, Spain offers some clues.

The main thing it has in store, if the Spanish example is anything to go by: Open Borders and great swelling numbers of illegal aliens. With Italy turning back the boats, Spain is now the destination of choice for people-smugglers. In late June Spain actually volunteered to take a boat full of African illegals that Italy had turned away.

The smugglers got the message and now the illegals are pouring in. ['Aquarius Case' Turned Spain Into Magnet For Irregular Migrants – Italian MP, Sputnik, August 1, 2018]One boatload came ashore on a nude beach in late June, generating some fascinating video clips.

The same thing happened again in July.

Meanwhile a little patch of sovereign territory that Spain owns on the shore of North Africa is under constant siege from illegals trying to get in: In one concentrated assault July 26th, six hundred got over the fence and are now being looked after on Spanish territory. [Hundreds storm border fence into Spain's north Africa enclave of Ceuta, Sam Jones, Guardian, July 26, 2018]

But Spain’s socialist government is blithe about all this. Monday this week Spain’s Foreign Minister Josep Borrell denied that the country was experiencing mass immigration. Europe needs ” new blood,” he said, to compensate for a low birth rate. [Spain denies 'mass' migration, says Europe needs 'new blood', France24, August 1, 2018 ]

• Category: Foreign Policy, Ideology • Tags: European Right, Immigration 
🔊 Listen RSS

Numbers, numbers, numbers

There was an interesting piece in The Spectator, July 5th: Imperialism is back — and this time it’s politically correct. The author, James Delingpole, argues that the aid industry, in spite of enormous investments of money and manpower, hasn’t actually done much for Africans — though it has, of course, made lots of people in the West feel really, really good.

I take Delingpole’s point. Heck, I’ve made it myself. He misses one key factor, though: here, for example:

There are now 100,000 aid workers in sub-Saharan Africa. As Jonathan Foreman notes in his superb Civitas pamphlet Aiding and Abetting, [PDF] this “greatly exceeds the number of foreign administrators engaged by the former colonial powers at the height of the imperial era.”

I’m sure it does, but the correlation of forces was wildly different back in the day. My favorite illustration of that:

At this point I reach for my grandfather’s 1922 atlas, which includes population numbers. Back then the British Isles had a population of 47.31 million. British West Africa, for contrast, had a population of 22.48 million. So the British Isles had over twice the population of British West Africa 93 years ago.

Forward to today. The British Isles are still here, now the U.K plus Ireland: total population 68.97 million. British West Africa is nowadays the independent nations of Nigeria, Ghana, Sierra Leone, and Gambia: total population 215.74 million. That’s over three times Britain’s number.

Once again: 1922, British Isles had over twice the population of British West Africa. 2015, British West Africa has over three times the population of the British Isles.

Birthrate differentials will do that.

Yes they will. European imperialism was not just a matter of “We have got / The Maxim gun, and they have not.” It was also a case of their numbers being small enough, and ours by comparison big enough, that it was no great stretch for us to send a few thousand administrators to rule over them.

Which is no longer the case. Not at all.

The ultimate race war weapon?

Towards the end of the month, in aid of something I was writing for a different outlet, I needed to refute the notion that a person’s self-identified race cannot be predicted from his genome.

Without trying hard at all I turned up a 2005 study out of Stanford University Medical Center finding that in a sample “consisting of 3,636 people who all identified themselves as either white, African-American, East Asian or Hispanic … only five individuals had DNA that matched an ethnic group different than the box they checked at the beginning of the study. That’s an error rate of 0.14 percent.”

Accuracy at the 99.86 percent level is pretty darn good in thehuman sciences; and I assume that now, thirteen years later, the geneticists have it up way over 99.9 percent.

Which raises the question: Could some malign nation, or person, with a really good genetics lab develop an artificial, lethal pathogen that targeted just one race? The ultimate race war weapon?

I don’t know enough about genetics to tender an informed opinion. In lieu of science, I offer literature.

The December 1967 issue of Playboy magazine (available at ran a long short story — 12,000 words — by Irwin Shaw titled “The Mannichon Solution.”

(Along with what a reviewer called “one of the most virginal centerfolds I can recall.” This was peak Playboy: lotsa skin of course, but also first-rate storytelling and social/political commentary. Today’s social-media-addled, tiny-attention-span, PC-whipped, soy-neutered millennials would find it simultaneously boring and outrageous. All right, yes: I miss Boomer culture.)

“The Mannichon Solution” is included in Shaw’s anthology God Was Here But He Left Early. The story concerns Collier Mannichon, a low-ranking research chemist doing drudge work for a big corporation.

Mannichon’s department, Detergents and Solvents, is a research Siberia: “Nobody had ever won the Nobel Prize for inventing a new detergent.” Mannichon quietly resents colleagues doing more glamorous work on pharmaceuticals and such. They drive around in sports cars with pretty girls and get rich from patents; loser Mannichon drives a 1959 Plymouth, lives on his meager salary, and is “married to a woman who looked like a casaba melon.”

Then by chance Mannichon discovers a solution that kills lab mice, but only yellow ones. He shares his discovery with two of those hotshot colleagues, a Yankee named Crockett and a Japanese immigrant (“top man in his year at Kyoto and then top man at Berkeley”) named Tageka. They make him conduct further tests.

A yellow Afghan with an illustrious pedigree, bought at great expense, lasted less than an hour after lapping up several drops of Mannichon’s solution in a bowl of milk, while a black-and-white mongrel liberated from the pound for three dollars barked happily for two days after sharing the same meal. Dead goldfish lay by the hundreds in Tageka’s refrigerators and the yellow-bottomed baboon … was laid to rest only ten minutes after its relevant parts had been laved in a purposely weakened variant of the solution.

They try the solution on a yellow-colored horse; it keels over dead. Tageka has an oncologist friend treating terminal-cancer patients at a San Francisco hospital. They bring him in on the deal. He administers the solution epidermally to eight subjects, five white, two black, and one yellow.

“Seven of the subjects have registered no reaction. The autopsy on the eighth …”

They cut a deal with the CIA, who pay them two million dollars for the formula, cold cash.

“The CIA, man,” said Crockett, “knows exactly what is yellow and what we are overrun with.” He paused, dropped a piece of ice into his drink and stirred with his finger. “Chinamen, man.”

• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: Immigration, Russia 
🔊 Listen RSS

Bad news and good news: This week demonstrated once again, as if it needed demonstrating, that there are two major political parties in the U.S.A.:

What, you don’t think Open Borders is a good idea? Well, shame on you, you racist; but hey, by all means enjoy having your weird cranky opinion in the privacy of your chambers. Just don’t expect to have any political representation in the nation’s legislature.

Those thoughts were of course inspired by this Wednesday’s vote by the House of Representatives Appropriations Committee. The purpose of the vote: to approve a budget for the Department of Homeland Security to cover DHS operations through the coming fiscal year, which starts October 1st.

Fair enough. DHS operations have to be funded, and the House is the place to authorize the funding. Which they did: $51.4 billion for the coming fiscal year. The problem is with some of the amendments that got tacked on to the budget bill.

You’ll recall that a few weeks ago Attorney General Jeff Sessions tightened the rules on granting asylum. Obama had loosened them so that any foreigner showing up with a sob story about an abusive husband or gang violence in the neighborhood back home could go into asylum proceedings … with permission to stay and work in the U.S.A. until the proceedings, which are backed up for years, take place.

No, said Jeff: asylum can be claimed only if you have a well-founded fear of persecution at home because of your race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group.

That’s still too broad in my opinion—what counts as “a particular social group”? Bird-watchers? Skate-boarders? Mixed Martial Artists? Alcoholics? It’s way better than what went before, though.

But not to the congressweasels on the Appropriations Committee. One of them, Rep. David Price of North Carolina, may his name live in infamy, proposed an amendment to reset grounds for asylum back to the Obama standard.

Congressrat Price is a Democrat, so while this is deplorable, it’s what you’d expect.

What’s far worse is that the Price amendment passed the committee on a voice vote, with the approval of the committee chairman, Rodney Frelinghuysen of New Jersey, and the chairman of the homeland security subcommittee, Kevin Yoder of Kansas…who are both Republicans!

Yoder actually spoke in favor of the Price amendment.

Since it was a voice vote, we don’t (not accidentally) have a precise tally of what committee members thought about the Price amendment—which, or course, basically throws open our borders to anyone who’s been coached with a sob story.

We do know, however, that only one of the committee’s thirty Republican members spoke out against it: Rep. John Carter of Texas. Blessings on you, Congressman; shame on your GOP colleagues.

Not content with sabotaging the Trump Administration’s efforts to tighten up border control, congressreptiles Frelinghuysen and Yoder allowed three other amendments, each one opening our borders wider. All three passed on voice votes. One of them—proposed by Yoder himself!—expanded chain migration and employment-based settlement. The other two, both proposed by Republicans, expanded the H-2 programs for low-skilled workers.

Way to go, Republicans! That’s what the country voted for in 2016: more low-skilled workers, more chain migration, and asylum for anyone that got yelled at in the street in Tegucigalpa.

This is not the end of the story, of course. In our hydra-headed system, the Senate has to pass its own bill, and then there’s the reconciliation process. So this betrayal is far from becoming law.

But why?

Speaking of gutless, spineless congressional RINO cuckweasels sabotaging our President, Paul Ryan crawled out of his burrow the other day to denounce what he called “identity politics”:

That is not conservatism. That is racism, that is nationalism, that is not what we believe in, that is not the founding vision, that is not the Founders’ creed, that is not natural rights, that is not natural law.

[Paul Ryan: 'White Identity Politics' of Alt-Right Isn't Conservatism, but Racism, by Rachel del Guidice, Daily Signal, July 19th 2018.]

Just one more time, listeners, if you’ll please excuse me. I know you’ve heard this before, but it can never be quoted too often:

In multiracial societies, you don’t vote in accordance with your economic interests and social interests, you vote in accordance with race and religion.

That was of course the late Lee Kuan Yew, speaking in 2005. [SPIEGEL Interview with Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew: "It's Stupid To Be Afraid", August 8, 2005]

As’s own Twittermeister has noted, congressional Republicans aren’t much interested in doing politics. They shuffle around for a few years doing the bidding of donors, then quit and go to work as consultants to those donors on fat contracts.

Paul Ryan might of course prove me wrong when he leaves Congress in January, but … that’s not the way to bet.

• Category: Ideology • Tags: Immigration, Political Correctness 
🔊 Listen RSS

Another week in the U.S.H., the United States of Hysteria. The occasion of this week’s shriek-fest was of course President Trump’s engagement with Vladimir Putin in Helsinki.

Sample reaction, this one by Lt. General Mark Hertling in Politico:

In 2016, our country was targeted by an attack [whose] aim was every bit as much to devastate the American homeland as Pearl Harbor or 9/11 … But two years on, we still haven’t put any boats or men in the proverbial water. We still have not yet acted—just today, President Donald Trump, a beneficiary of this attack, exonerated the man who ordered it: Russian strongman Vladimir Putin.

Putin’s Attack on the U.S. Is Our Pearl Harbor, By Mark Hertling And Molly K. McKew, July 16, 2018

So those Facebook ads posted by Russians in 2016 were just like Pearl Harbor, just like 9/11. It’s war, says General Hertling! Get those boats in the water! And Trump is Putin’s tool!

Yes, I agree, it’s deranged. And yes, I agree: President Trump’s notion of what our relations with Russia should be like is more correct, more reasonable, and just more damn sane than General Hertling’s is, or anyone else’s in the mob howling for war with Russia.

That said, our President made a poor showing at Helsinki. For a guy with as much TV experience as he has, we should expect a better performance.

Putin is the illegitimate leader of a corrupt and dysfunctional country, an economic nonentity among nations, geographically overstretched, with a rusting military and a population increasingly composed of aging drunks. Trump is the constitutionally elected leader of a country so prosperous, buoyant, and secure, our main national problem is holding back the tide of people trying to break in across our bordersto share in our blessed bounty.

Yet presentation-wise, Putin looked like the alpha male at Helsinki, with Trump nodding along deferentially. It wasn’t quite as bad as those televised White House meetings on immigration and gun control that I was grumbling about earlier this year. They were presentational disasters; Helsinki was just a presentational failure.

Which pains me. I like this President. I voted for him, and look forward to voting for him again. His instincts on the big issues of our time are, I believe, correct. I hate all the people who hate him. I think a high proportion of those people have taken leave of their senses.

That makes a presentational failure like the one at Helsinki really painful to me. If you can’t do this kind of thing well, Mr President, just don’t do it. There’s no constitutional requirement here.

I’ll even have to admit I agree with the people who piled on Trump for dissing our intelligence agencies at the news conference. I’m not a fan of those agencies, or indeed of intelligence agencies in general, ours or anyone else’s. I think Trump’s right to distrust them.

I just don’t think a news conference in a foreign country is the right place to air that distrust. Whatever their faults and failings, our intelligence professionals are Americans, on the payroll of our government, and those faults and failings are for us to discuss in our forums and fix under ourlaws, not for foreigners to whoop and crow about.

Sorry if I’ve broken anybody’s heart here. I know from my email bag that a lot of Radio Derb listeners are Always Trumpers, for whom our President can do no wrong.

That’s not me. I like the Confucian principle of remonstrance. In Imperial China a loyal minister who believed the Emperor was mistaken about something would show up at court to present his criticism dragging his coffin behind him. Message: “I expect you’ll have me executed for saying so, but you’re wrong, boss.”

Having said that…

This he obsession with Russia among our liberal elites is getting beyond puzzling and into weird. I lived through the Cold War, when the Russians controlled half of Europe and advertised themselves as the advance guard of an inevitable worldwide revolution. I don’t recall this level of anti-Russian passion—certainly not on the political Left, a great many of whom liked the U.S.S.R.

Sure, post-Soviet Russia has done naughty things. They occupied the Crimea and they’ve intervened energetically in Syria’s civil war. Naughty for sure, but under strong geostrategic compulsion: Russia needs those naval bases.

They’ve murdered people in foreign countries, too. The poisoning in England of Sergei Skripal and his daughter is beyond naughty; it’s disgraceful, and deserving of diplomatic retaliation—which indeed it’s got: 23 Russian diplomats were expelled from Britain.

It wasn’t Pearl Harbor, though; it wasn’t 9/11; any more than Russia’s minuscule diddling in our 2016 election was. What isthis anti-Russian hysteria all about?

One theory I hear a lot is that it is Cold War backlash from the Left. Our Leftists can’t forgive the Russians for having ceased being communists. There was the Soviet Union, marching forward into the radiant future under the banners of Marx and Lenin, an inspiration to Leftists everywhere … then suddenly they were pulling down the statues and selling off state enterprises.

To add insult to the Left’s injury, the Russians—well, some of them—returned openly to Christianity. And not only did they drop actual Marxism, they showed no enthusiasm for Cultural Marxism, marginalizing homosexuals and feminists and keeping themselves overwhelmingly, shamefully, white.

🔊 Listen RSS

Fighting for your country. In the July 13th Radio Derb I mentioned a recent David Goldman column.

As David Goldman points out over at Asia Times, there’s not much point spending a ton of money on defense if your people aren’t willing to fight, and NATO’s people mostly aren’t.

David shows results of a recent poll on the question: “Are you willing to fight for your country?” Just eighteen percent of Germans said “Yes.” In the Netherlands the figure was fourteen percent, which is practically a lunatic fringe. For Britain, 27 percent; France, 29 percent.

For Finland, bless ‘em, it was 74 percent. Quote from David: “One wonders what would happen if Finland were to invade the Netherlands.” Perhaps they should give it a try. The figure for the U.S.A., in case you’re wondering, was 44 percent.

Several listeners were curious about that poll. Well, the original is here. It’s not actually that recent, from 2014. It should also, as several bloggers have pointed out, be taken with a degree of skepticism. “Fight for your country” can be understood a number of ways. If the question was more specific, I’m sure you’d get quite different percentages, for, e.g.

  • Take up arms to fight an invading foreign army,

as against

  • Take up arms and go off to fight in some distant foreign place because your country’s leaders assured you it was in the national interest to do so.

Even after making all allowances, though, David’s point still stands. We, the U.S. taxpayer, are shelling out billions every year to defend foreigners who are not much interested in defending themselves.

Fancy Asians v. Jungle Asians. I passed comment on the cautious loosening-up of Japan’s very strict immigration policies.

Japan, meanwhile, as reported here last month, is opening the door a crack to more foreign workers. The Economist ran a story about this last week, noting that, quote: “Pressure from business lies behind the change in attitudes.” No kidding.

The Japanese businessfolk are particularly interested in taking more low-skilled workers, The Economist tells us. Quote: “The number of these has been rising fast. Almost a third of foreign workers are Chinese; Vietnamese and Nepalese are quickly growing in number.”

Chinese, Vietnamese, and Nepalese, huh? Why no Sun People? No Somalis, Guatemalans, or Haitians? Get with the program, Japan; bring in some real diversity.

A listener reminds me of the Old Asia Hands’ distinction between fancy Asians and jungle Asians.

Fancy Asians are the pale-skinned, small-featured, gracile, high-mean-IQ peoples of Northeast Asia: Japan, Korea, North China. Jungle Asians are the darker, stockier, less cognitively-outstanding peoples of places like Cambodia and the Philippines.

So the Japanese, by The Economist’s report, are only opening their door to other Asians, fancy and jungle varieties both.

Eh, maybe. Having knocked around Asia considerably myself, I’ve not often found the fancy/jungle distinction very relevant. There have been times, to be sure: among the hill people of Laos, for example (definitely jungly), or as a guest in the student dormitories at Beijing University (fancy — BU is China’s Ivy League).

There’s been a lot of mixing-up, though. The Southeast Asian “jungle” countries all have big overseas-Chinese minorities, including fancy North Chinese. (Living in Thailand 46 years ago and trying to learn some of the language, I was amused to hear native Thais refer to their overseas-Chinese neighbors as “white.”)

Conversely, the Chinese population itself has a jungly component, especially in the south. Cantonese people, for example, when in a literary mood, call themselves “Yut” (粵), after the peoples — likely of a jungle-Asian type — who inhabited their region before it was incorporated into the Chinese Empire 2,000-plus years ago. Of course, after all these centuries of national unification, plenty of southern jungliness has percolated up to the north, and vice versa.

Author (World on Fire, Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother) and Yale Law School professor Amy Chua personifies the contradictions. By looks and résumé you’d have to say fancy Asian, without a doubt. Prof. Chua’s parents come from the Philippines, though; and their ancestors were Hokkien from South China. The Hokkien speak a language as distinct as Cantonese, and their remote ancestry probably has just as large a jungly component.

The Judeo-Papist Supreme Court. Brett Kavanaugh, our President’s nominee for the vacant seat on the U.S. Supreme Court, is a Roman Catholic, like retiring justice Anthony Kennedy. So if he is approved, the Court will continue to be composed of three Jews, five Roman Catholics, and one Episcopalian.

I wondered aloud about this.

Surely I can say though, with no malice at all, that the preponderance of RCs on the Supreme Court is a bit odd, in a nation founded mainly by Protestant gents, where until very recently — well within my memory — the ruling class was designated WASP, the “P” standing for “Protestant,” and the election of a Roman Catholic President was considered a noteworthy social advance.

I’ve never seen a satisfactory explanation of it. The Jews one can understand: They’re smarter than the rest of us. I don’t know of any evidence that RCs have higher mean IQ than Protestants, though, and it doesn’t seem very likely.

Several listeners offered explanations. I thought this one the most plausible (slightly edited):

• Category: Ideology • Tags: American Military, Asians, Immigration 
🔊 Listen RSS

If you pay any attention at all to non-political news, you know that the Soccer World Cup is being played in Russia. We just got through with the semifinals, and now know that the final, for the championship, will be played between France and Croatia this Sunday, July 15th, in Moscow.

The last semifinal game was played this Wednesday between England and Croatia. Croatia won the game, two goals to one. A couple of my acquaintances thought I must be in distress about this, being English by birth, and sought to console me.

I appreciate their kindness, but it’s misplaced. For one thing, I’m not English. I have the immigrant’s sentimental attachment to the Old Country, but in a very mild form. Since getting naturalized sixteen years ago I’m a happy and patriotic American, with no other national loyalties. I’m one of the 44 percent of Americans who’d be willing to fight for America, supposing my sorry old hide would be any use in a real fight.

If England got into a war I’d cheer them on, but wouldn’t do what David Niven did. Niven was a Hollywood star already in 1939; but the day after Britain declared war on Germany in September that year, he sailed for home and rejoined the British Army. He was still a British citizen, though. I’m an American.

For another thing, I have no interest in soccer. I actually dislike the game. I once wrote a column arguing for soccer to be banned from the U.S.A. by constitutional amendment.

My secondary school played rugby, not soccer. In England there is — or was, when I lived there — a clear class line between the two sports. Working-class boys played soccer; the middle classes preferred rugby. As the saying went: Soccer is a game for gentlemen played by hooligans, rugger is a game for hooligans played by gentlemen.

The class angle is different here in the States. When I wrote that anti-soccer column back in 2000, political pundits were all talking about soccer moms and the soccer mom vote. Middle- and upper-class American parents were encouraging their kids to play soccer, apparently because they thought it European, and therefore classy, like French wine, German cars, or British tailoring. Plainly these soccer moms had never met a European soccer fan.

Now, a couple of decades on from that, we don’t hear much about soccer moms. I have the vague impression soccer’s gone downmarket in American public consciousness, associated now more with Mexican busboys than with Beaujolais, BMWs, or Burberry raincoats.

Possibly mass immigration has cured the American middle classes of their infatuation with soccer. For me, as a patriot and soccer-hater, that’s nothing but good news. Even mass Third World immigration has an upside, I guess.

Now you may say: OK, Derb, but you must at least allow that soccer enthusiasm is a last refuge of masculinity. No doubt there are female soccer fans, but they’re a rare species, and probably lesbians.

Well, yes, but what kind of men are we talking about? My own prejudices aside, the real case against soccer, and against mass sporting enthusiasm in general, is the bread-and-circuses case. Events like the World Cup are spectacles designed to distract our attention while ruling elites pick our pockets.

The vlogger who calls himself Black Pigeon had a good piece on this theme the other day. He raises the case of the disturbances in London last fall, when thousands of supporters of the German soccer team from Cologne demonstrated angrily in the streets of London. Cologne was playing Arsenal, a London team, and the Cologne supporters didn’t think they’d been allocated enough tickets. They shut down traffic in central London.

Where, Black Pigeon asks pointedly, were these bold lads from Cologne when the women of that city were being molested by gangs of Muslim invaders at New Year’s 2016? There was some grumbling about those attacks when news of them finally leaked out, and a few half-hearted demonstrations by twenty or thirty people — who were promptly arrested by the German authorities, of course — but nothing like the fired-up mob of thousands of soccer fans who shut down London last September over an issue of seating arrangements.

The ruling elites of Europe are wonderfully skilled at directing the natural tribal emotions of young European men awayfrom their proper outlet — the defense of their homelands against invading foreigners — and towards the bread and circuses of pseudo-nationalist extravaganzas like the World Cup.

As if to rub in how phony it all is, the big European countries field teams hired in from the Third World.

The team that won the 1966 World Cup for England was entirely English. Not even British, but actually English; if memory serves, every one of them was born in England, although the right back had a Jewish great-grandfather.

Compare this year’s French team: Steven Nzonzi, Samuel Umtiti, Ousmane Dembele, Kylian Mbappe, … I turned a couple of shades darker just reading the names.

So that’s today’s young European guy: Cowering fearfully at home while mobs of foreigners rule the streets, torching cars and molesting women; then turning out fired up with pseudo-tribal passion to watch hired-in teams of those same foreigners kick a ball around for ninety minutes.

Having gotten all that sourness off my chest, I’d like to add a friendly word for the Croatian team that beat England on Wednesday. Well done, guys!

Thirty years ago there wasn’t any such country as Croatia; it was part of the old Yugoslavia. Now here they are, a nation of four million people, humbling England, population 56 million — not to mention Nigeria with 186 million, Brazil with 209 million, India with 1.3 billion, and China with 1.4 billion.

And so far as I can judge from the faces, and the sheer number of diacritical marks used to spell their names, they are all Croatian!

Tell you what: This weekend I’m going to suspend my disdain for soccer as best I can and root for Croatia in Sunday’s final. I may even stay awake through the whole game if it means watching Mandžukić, Perišić, Kalinić, and Kramarić beat Nzonzi, Umtiti, Dembele, and Mbappe.

• Category: Ideology • Tags: Immigration, Soccer, World Cup 
🔊 Listen RSS

Last week I commented on the huge numbers of Sun People moving, or trying to move, into Ice People territories:

All these population flows—blacks and Muslims into Europe, Central and South Americans into the U.S.A.—are from south to north. The barriers going up—or at least, that we are just now seriously thinking and talking about putting up—in Europe and the U.S.A. are barriers against south-north flows.

I went on to point out that it may not much longer be just the white people of Europe and North America—the West Arctics, if you like—that are being invaded. Our East Arctic relations in South Korea are dealing with a batch of illegal aliens from Yemen.

I got a fair-sized email bag on that. Two listeners pointed out a rather glaring omission that I have to confess to: The Southern Hemisphere.

The main Ice People territories down there are Australia, New Zealand, and the white countries of the southern South American “cone”: —Argentina, Chile, and Uruguay.

These countries, my emailers pointed out, are also getting inflows of Sun People—and the direction of flow down there, of course, is from north to south.

That’s right. My apologies to all of you down below the Equator. We Northern Hemisphere types tend to forget you, slumbering away there under the Southern Cross.

In fairness to myself, I have a better record than most here. I once wrote an entire column about New Zealand, which is one more column than the average American pundit. One of my very first pieces for, back in 2001, concerned Australia. I’ve been promoting Uruguay for years as a promising bolt-hole should things get really nasty up north here.

I can’t say I’ve ever paid much attention to Chile, but apparently they’re having some very familiar-sounding problems to do with immigration and diversity. A correspondent sent me a link to this piece from the Migration Policy Institute

International migration to the predominantly European-descent Chile has also grown racially diverse, as the origins have shifted. Chile received growing numbers of Peruvians and Bolivians starting in the 1990s, and Haitians, Colombians, and Venezuelans in the 2000s and 2010s, while the share of Argentines and Europeans has fallen. This diversification in general, and the influx of tens of thousands of African-descent Haitians in particular, has made immigration more visible as an issue and has provoked public backlash

Amid Record Numbers of Arrivals, Chile Turns Rightward on Immigration, By Cristián Doña Reveco, January 17, 2018

You don’t say.

Argentina likewise, although the issue there is more longstanding. Argentina’s story this past few decades is in fact something of a tragedy.

A hundred years ago Argentina was one of the world’s most attractive, best-developed countries:

In 1913, the Argentine GDP was almost as great as that of the rest of South America combined. Per capita income was 50 percent higher than in Italy, 85 percent higher than in Spain and Norway, 170 percent higher than in Japan, and more than 4 times greater than that of Brazil.

I borrowed that from Gustavo Semeria’s fine long article published at American Renaissance last year. [Argentina: A Mirror of Your Future, April 14, 2017]

Semeria tells how, during the Depression of the 1930s, European immigration into Argentina tailed off, replaced by immigration of Amerindians and Mestizos from further north. A series of really bad governments completed the work of destruction.

By the 1980s the quip among economists was that Argentina was a formerly-developed nation. Today it’s another Brazil, a small white elite living behind high walls while brown and black narco gangs rule the slums.

Let me repeat the title of Gustavo Semeria’s fine piece:

Argentina: A Mirror of Your Future.

So yes, apologies to my fellow Ice People down in the Southern Hemisphere. Obviously we need to join forces against the equatorial hordes. I shall revise my plans for an Arctic Alliance. The name, too: Henceforth it will be a PolarAlliance. No more Northern-Hemisphere Supremacy!

More disconnected notes just by way of completing coverage of that theme:

  • As noted last week, the East Arctics—the peoples of China, Japan, and Korea—may be facing some of the same issues as us West Arctics.

I went looking for an update on those Yemeni illegals in South Korea, but could only find this story from the Korea Herald: Romanian nun helps Jeju’s Yemeni asylum seekers, migrant families. [By Jo He-Rim, Korea Herald, July 12, 2018] Jeju is the South Korean island the Yemenis arrived on. And yes, the person in the story supplying charitable assistance to the illegals is indeed a nun from Romania.

The Economist just ran a gloating story about this, noting that “Pressure from business lies behind the change in attitudes.” [Japan is finally starting to admit more foreign workers, July 5, 2018]

No kidding.

The Japanese businessfolk are particularly interested in taking more low-skilled workers, The Economist tells us:

The number of these has been rising fast. Almost a third of foreign workers are Chinese; Vietnamese and Nepalese are quickly growing in number.

Chinese, Vietnamese, and Nepalese, huh? Why no Sun People? No Somalis, Guatemalans, or Haitians?

Get with the program, Japan; bring in some real diversity.

  • Going back to the Southern Hemisphere: Tallying the Ice People in that hemisphere, I left out white South Africans.

• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: Asia, Immigration 
🔊 Listen RSS

The inspiration for this article is a piece on the website, which I assume is the European version of our own center-left

The dehumanization of Europe is on the march.

Capitulating to populist anti-immigration politicians, European Union leaders are pulling up the drawbridge to migrants fleeing war, famine and poverty in Africa and the Middle East.

The cries of those drowning in the Mediterranean trying to reach Europe were drowned out at the EU summit last week by the sound of the Continent’s leaders washing their hands of the misfortune of asylum seekers to save their political skins.

[EU to migrants: Go home and stay home by Paul Taylor, July 3rd 2018.]

The subhead to the article is: “Fortress Europe hardens its heart.”

The body of the article is a breathless argument from the bleeding-heart Left that Europe’s leaders are abandoning their Open-Borders policy towards so-called “asylum seekers”and being led astray from the paths of righteousness by siren songs from populists of the “extreme right.”

But the comment thread to the article is almost uniformly hostile to author Taylor’s sentiments. [Email Paul Taylor.] The Europeans are waking up, and Open-Borders globalism has less and less of a market share. Globalist One-Worlders like this Politico writer are in retreat.

The parallel with the U.S.A. is obvious. It’s dawning on great numbers of people, here and in Europe, that unrestrained mass immigration into stable, developed societies like those of the U.S.A. and Europe, is a potential disaster for our civilizations.

Those of who have been saying this for twenty years and more are entitled to feel a sort of weary satisfaction, like the “premature antifascists” of eighty years ago. We were immigration patriots before immigration patriotism was cool.

A Reuters poll out this week shows immigration as the top issue now for fifteen percent of registered American voters, beating the economy at fourteen percent. Among registered Republicans, immigration is the top issue for 26 percent.

Some of those high percentages are of course people swept up in the anti-Trump hysteria over little toddlers supposedly ripped from their mothers’ arms and hurled into metal cages by heartless border guards. Most, though, I’m sure, are citizens waking up, as Europeans are waking up, to what suckers we have been for too long—the fools of the world—for giving free settlement in our countries to anyone from further south with a sob story.

This is a real big, accelerating swing in public attitudes—attitudes among ordinary, not very political, not very reflective people—in the West. The consequences of it will be historic in a major way.

I just said “the West,” but that isn’t really right. “The North” would actually be more accurate. All these population flows—blacks and Muslims into Europe, Central andSouth Americans into the U.S.A.—are from south to north. The barriers going up—or at least, that we are just now seriously thinking and talking about putting up—in Europe and the U.S.A. are barriers against south-north flows.

In my book We Are Doomed I used the phrase “Ice People” to refer to those populations whose deep history took place in northern Eurasia, as contrasted with Sun People, whose remote ancestors evolved closer to the equator. In terms of race, Ice People are the whites of Europe and European settler nations, together with the East Asians of China, Japan, Mongolia, Siberia, and Korea. Sun People are the rest.

The great population movements of our age, against which the barriers are beginning to go up, are of Sun People into Ice People territories.

Back in 2007 I wrote a column titled “The Arctic Alliance,” in which I argued that we Ice People, the whites and the yellows, with mean IQs higher than the world average but fertility rates lower, needed to join forces in the common interest of preserving our homelands against Camp of the Saints-style mass invasions by low-IQ, high-fertility Sun People.

(I’d better add here, for clarification, that I never intended my Arctic Alliance to be an Arctic Union. In my vision, the Ice People nations remain distinct nations, each with its own culture, proud of its own history, enforcing its own rules for crossing its own borders. I do not want the Ice People to merge into an EU-style bureaucratic superstate, with free movement across internal borders. I never liked that idea for Europe, and I don’t like it for Ice People at large. An alliance of independent sovereign nation-states, co-operating for common interests, not a union.)

Readers who emailed in with comments on that 2007 piece mostly scoffed at my idea for an Arctic Alliance. East Asians, they said, are robustly race realist, and have no intention of permitting settlement by floods of Sun People.

There is certainly something in that; but East Asians haven’t really been put to the test.

Perhaps they will be. In the strait that separates Japan from Korea is the island of Jeju, about the size of Maui. It belongs to South Korea, and its economy depends heavily on tourism. For reasons to do with that, it has a different visa policy from the rest of South Korea. Visitors from most countries—there is a short list of exceptions—can come to Jeju Island visa-free for thirty days.

• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: EU, Immigration 
🔊 Listen RSS

It’s a white thing, you wouldn’t understand

The month of June saw an unusually intense phase in the Cold Civil Warbetween Goodwhites and Badwhites here in the U.S.A. We Badwhites watched with interest, though not much surprise, as Goodwhites at last came out openly for the abolition of our nation’s borders—which is to say, the abolition of our nation.

In late June (24th-25th) Americans were polled on the question: “Do you think we should have basically open borders or do you think we need secure borders?” Twenty-one of white respondents went for Open Borders. (Thirty-eight percent of Hispanics, 28 percent of blacks: page 68 here. [Monthly Harvard-Harris Poll, June 2018] )

So one in five white Americans favors open borders. Let that sink in. Bigger numbers of Hispanics and blacks do: but since incomers are mostly non-white, minority groups see Open Borders as a way to increase their numbers and group power, this isn’t surprising. On the other hand, that 21 percent of whites yearning to become a minority themselves is strange—pathological, actually.

It’s useful to remember—I do my best to keep reminding you—that this fanatically anti-nationalist position is a very white thing. I can’t find any polling data on what proportion of founding-stock citizens in Bangladesh, or China, or Japan, or Nigeria believe in Open Borders, but I’d be astounded to learn it’s a fifth in any of those places.

In strict logic, it is possible that the Bangladeshis, Chinese, etc. are all wrong and our Goodwhites are right that Open Borders are a jolly good thing.

It would be interesting to see a well-staged public debate featuring some leading American Goodwhite up against non-white intellectuals from elsewhere.

Open-Borders fanaticism: political pros and cons

I can think of one possible political upside to this month’s Open-Borders hysteria, and one possible downside.

Possible upside: The hysteria unleashed by the Left this month—and especially some of the staged confrontations we’ve seen—might have a spine-stiffening effect on some of the less stalwart members of the Trump administration. [Protesters shout 'shame' at Kirstjen Nielsen as she dines at Mexican restaurant, By Madison Park, CNN, June 20, 2018]

You take a cabinet post prepared to face rational disagreement on policy matters with people you might be willing to meet half-way; you instead find yourself facing screeching mobs who believe anyone who disagrees with them is a Nazi; it’s got to be educational.

Possible downside: The Democratic Party may now have lurched into such extreme positions they will suffer a huge, unmistakable repudiation at the polls in November.

I would enjoy that spectacle as much as the next Nazi. However, a party that enjoys a major setback like that because of unpopular policies does not usually react by doubling down on those policies. Much more often it goes through some introspection, coming out at the other side with policies that poll better.

That would mean that by the 2020 Presidential election grownups would have re-asserted control in the Democratic Party (there are still some grownups left over there, right?) with policies and a Presidential ticket that will be electorally competitive.

So taking the long view, while I don’t want to see the Democrats come out ahead this November, I don’t want them to lose too badly. I’d prefer to see them keep the crazy going for another two years, guaranteeing a Trump re-election in 2020. Then, four more years!


Setting aside completely the particular casus hysteriae of this month’s moral panic, concerning which I have made my opinions as plain as I know how, let me ask you this: When, for whatever reason, the subject of little children crying for a parent is in the air, what literary or cinematic reference first comes to your mind?

For me the answer is: the first orphanage scene in The Inner Circle. That was the 1991 movie by Russian director Andrei (or Andrey) Konchalovsky (or Konchalovskiy; IMDb offers both transcriptions) set in Stalin’s USSR from 1939 to 1953.

Stalin liked to watch movies. That’s putting it mildly: “He was an obsessional movie buff,” says his biographer Simon Sebag Montefiore. His taste was by no means restricted to Soviet productions: He enjoyed America detective and gangster movies, Westerns, rom-coms, and Charlie Chaplin comedies. As a result of the Allied victory in WW2 he acquired Joseph Goebbels’ extensive library of American, English, and German movies, and spent many happy hours watching them in his Kremlin screening room.

Konchalovsky actually met Stalin’s projectionist Alex Ganchin. He made him the central character in The Inner Circle, under a slightly different name.

The projectionist lives in a typically overcrowded Moscow apartment block. His neighbor Aaron Gubelman is arrested as an Enemy of the People in a 1939 purge and presumably shot, leaving behind his wife and their three-year-old daughter Katya. Soon the wife is also arrested: It was a crime under the infamous Article 7-35 of Stalin’s Criminal Code to be spouse or child of an Enemy of the People. Little Katya is put in a special orphanage for such children. Those orphanage scenes are hard to watch.

The Inner Circle was not much liked by critics and soon sank without trace. There is a complete version on YouTube, but the quality is poor. The first orphanage scene is at around 36m50s.

• Category: Ideology • Tags: Immigration, Political Correctness 
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