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

 John Derbyshire BlogviewTeasers

One of Steve Sailer’s many clever commenters has brilliantly named it WhateverGate—the frantic legalistic churning about who said what to whom in President Trump’s circle, and whether the thing that was or was not said warrants impeachment. Or whatever. But impeachment. Every week, I think things can’t get any crazier—the hysteria has to burn itself out, the temperature can’t get any higher, the fever has to break—and every week it’s worse. Boy, they really want to get this guy. That just gives us more reasons to defend him.

I don’t even bother much any more to focus on the actual thing that President Trump or one of his colleagues is supposed to have said or done. Every time, when you look closely, it’s basically nothing.

I’ve been reading news and memoirs about American presidents since the Kennedy administration. I swear that every single damn thing Trump is accused of, warranting special counsels, congressional enquiries, impeachment—every single thing has been done by other recent presidents, often to a much greater degree, with little or no comment.

"This is my last election ... After my election I have more flexibility," Obama said, expressing confidence that he would win a second term. "I will transmit this information to Vladimir," said Medvedev, Putin's protégé and long considered number two in Moscow's power structure.Remember Barack Obama’s hot-mike blooper in the 2012 campaign, telling the Russian President that, quote, “After my election I have more flexibility”? [Obama tells Russia’s Medvedev more flexibility after election, Reuters, March 26, 2012] Can you imagine how today’s media would react if footage showed up of Trump doing that in last year’s campaign? Can you imagine? I can’t.

We are a big, important country with big, important things that need doing—most important of all, halting the demographic transformation that’s tugging us out of the Anglosphere into the Latino-sphere and filling our country with low-skill workers just as robots are arriving to take their jobs.

Those big, important things aren’t getting done. Instead, our news outlets are shrieking about high crimes and misdemeanors in the new administration–things that, when you read about the actual details, look awful picayune.

Sample, from today’s press, concerning Michael Flynn, the national security advisor President Trump fired for supposedly lying to the Vice President about a phone conversation he’d had with the Russian Ambassador last December. To the best of my understanding, the root issue was just a difference of opinion over the parsing of what Flynn remembered having said, and the precise definition of the word “substantive,” but Trump fired him anyway.

Well, here’s Eli Lake at Bloomberg News on the latest tranche of investigations into Flynn’s activities:

Flynn’s legal troubles … come from his failure to properly report foreign income. One source close to Flynn told me that the Justice Department had opened an investigation into Flynn after the election in November for failing to register his work on behalf of a Turkish businessman, pursuant to the Foreign Agents Registration Act. Flynn had instead reported this income through the more lax Lobbying Disclosure Act. After his resignation, Flynn registered as a foreign agent for Turkey.

The Special Counsel Who Just Might Save Trump’s Presidency, by Eli Lake, May 18, 2017

Did you get that? Instead of registering under the Foreign Agents Registration Act, Flynn reported his income through the Lobbying Disclosure Act!

High crimes! Treason! Special Prosecutor! Congressional inquiry! The Republic is in danger! Suspend habeas corpus! This must not stand!

And then, the whole silly Russia business. The Bloomberg guy has words about that, too:

Flynn also failed to report with the Pentagon his payment in 2015 from Russia’s propaganda network, RT, for a speech in Moscow at the network’s annual gala. As I reported last month, Flynn did brief the Defense Intelligence Agency about that trip before and after he attended the RT gala. The Pentagon also renewed his top-secret security clearance after that trip.

So obviously the rot goes deep into the Pentagon. They’re covering for him! Let’s have a purge of the military! Special prosecutor!

Oh, we have a special prosecutor? Let’s have another one!

Russia, Russia, Russia. For crying out loud, Russia’s just a country. We have no great differences of interest with them. What, are they trying to reclaim Alaska? First I’ve heard of it.

You could make an argument, I suppose—I don’t myself think it’s much of an argument, but you could make it—that Russia’s a military threat to Europe.

Once again, with feeling: Europe has a population three and a half times greater than Russia’s and a GDP ten times greater. Europe’s two nuclear powers, Britain and France, have more than five hundred nuclear weapons between them. If the Euros can’t defend themselves against Russia, there’s something very badly wrong over there, beyond any ability of ours to fix–even if you could show me it’s in our national interest to fix it, which you can’t.

At this point, in fact, reading the news from Europe, I think a Russian invasion and occupation of the continent would be an improvement. A Russian hegemony might at least put up some resistance to the ongoing invasion of Europe from Africa and the Middle East. It doesn’t look as though the Euros themselves are up to the job.

(Reprinted from by permission of author or representative)

Several people sent me Mark Steyn’ s YouTube video—he has a video channel he calls SteynPosts—from last Wednesday.

It’s a 23-minute clip, right there on YouTube, and well worth your attention.

Mark takes recently-elected French president Emmanuel Macron and his new political party as the starting point for his commentary. He refers to Macron as “this cipher, this globalist pretty boy.” He translates the name of Macron’s party, En Marche!, as “Forward!” Mark called this “a vacuous slogan.”

This recent Presidential election in France was, said Mark, a consequential election; but the guy who won, “won by pretending it was an election about nothing.”

To support his case, and to set the hearts a-fluttering over here on the Dissident Right, Mark then pulled out Steve Sailer’s graph, the graph I was talking about two weeks ago, what Steve calls “the world’s most important graph.” This is the graph Steve made from the U.N.’s 2012 population projections, showing the population of Europe flatlining at around half a billion through the rest of this century while the population of Africa rockets up to over four billion:

To Mark’s credit, he references Steve by name, and agrees with him about the importance of those numbers.

As I told you two weeks ago: this is what we should have at the front of our minds when thinking about the future. This is what our pundits should be talking about: not just pundits on the political fringe, like Mark, or pundits way beyond the fringe, like me and Steve, but the bigfoot guys at the newspapers, magazines, and cable channels.

Ranked on a scale from one to ten, as matters that are important to our future—the future our children and grandchildren will inhabit—that graph is a ten. Global warming is a two or a three; Russian interference in last year’s election is around a zero point zero one.

So why don’t we talk about it? Why is such a huge, real issue so unmentionable?

Where Europe is concerned, Mark identifies part of the problem as relating exactly to our children and grandchildren—or rather, to the fact that Europeans aren’t having any.

Mr. Macron, for example, is childless. So is German leader Angela Merkel. So is British Prime Minister Theresa May. The President of Italy has three kids, but Italy’s Prime Minister is childless. So is Mark Rutte, Prime Minister of Holland. Mark has some fun with Belgium: the current Prime Minister has two kids, but the previous one was a childless homosexual.

Why, Mark wonders rhetorically, would we expect these barren politicians to think hard thoughts about the world of twenty, fifty, eighty years from now? They have no personal stake in that world.

The great English economist John Maynard Keynes famously said that “In the long run we are all dead.” You can get into trouble—historian Niall Ferguson did get into trouble—for observing that Keynes was a childless homosexual when he wrote that. [ Niall Ferguson apologises for remarks about ‘gay and childless’ Keynes, by Paul Harris, Guardian, May 4, 2013 ] (Keynes later married, though he never did have children.)

There is something in the observation, though. I know I’ve thought differently about the future since becoming a father. Who doesn’t?

That graph—the world’s most important graph—looms over the 21st century like a monstrous great crow. Yet we can’t talk about it. Or rather, I can, and Mark can; but no-one with much more of a profile than us, can.

Why not? Do you need to ask? That line shooting up on the graph represents Africa—black people (mostly), and a high proportion of them Muslims. The other line, the one plodding along horizontally, represents Europe—white people (mostly), and a very high proportion not Muslims.

In the state ideologies of the Western world, black people are sacred objects to whom whites must defer, Muslims only slightly less so. Nothing negative may be said about these peoples, nor even hinted.

So Mark’s gloomy prognostications about Europe being swamped, and European civilization destroyed, by incoming hordes of blacks and Muslims, are out of bounds. In several European countries, including I think France, it would actually be a criminal offense to say such things in public.

That’s the state we’re in. The real issues, the important issues—vitally important to our children and grandchildren, those of us who have any—may not be openly discussed.

Global warming? Sure. Russian hacking? Oh definitely. Homosexual marriage? Let’s have a debate!

But … world demographics? Why would you be interested in that? What are you, some kind of Nazi?

Now that we’ve got Mark Steyn talking about the world’s most important graph, next we should try to get him helping promote the Arctic Alliance.

It’s way past the time when we high-IQ, low-fertility, long-civilized Arctic peoples—the whites and the yellows—can afford to bicker among ourselves, about election hacking or anything else. We should be putting our smart, pale heads together to plan a geostrategy to preserve our nations, our civilization, from the swelling numbers down there in the tropics who seek to displace us by demographically overwhelming us.

(Reprinted from by permission of author or representative)

I don’t know whether Trump Derangement Syndrome has reached Peak Hysteria yet, but this week it definitely attained what we math geeks call a “local maximum.” That means, while it may not be the tallest peak in the mountain range, it’s taller than anything in its immediate vicinity.

This is of course all about President Trump firing FBI Director James Comey. Prior to this week, the most famous episode in U.S. history concerning a President and his FBI Director was Lyndon Johnson’s apothegm about J. Edgar Hoover, slightly bowdlerized quote: “It’s probably better to have him inside the tent peeing out, than outside the tent peeing in.”

This week our President decided that FBI Director James Comey had been doing somewhat too much inward micturition and not enough of the outward kind, so he fired him.

That is perfectly constitutional. Comey was head of a federal agency reporting to the Executive Branch; the President is chief of that branch; there is no impropriety or unconstitutionality.

You’d never know that from the Establishment’s reaction. Politicians and pundits were weeping and rending their garments everywhere you looked. One major New York tabloid, the Daily News, ran a cover saying, in the largest type they could fit on the page, Coup de Trump.

That’s a metropolitan subeditor’s notion of a clever play on words, in this case the words coup d’état, an overthrow of the state by force. Since d’état means “of the state” while de Trump means “of Trump,” the actual implication of the Daily News to an educated reader (assuming the Daily News has one) would be that Trump had been overthrown by force.

That is not what happened, except in the fever dreams of our Trump-derangement- syndrome-affected elites. They couldn’t help but verbalize their wishful thinking, though. The coup motif was a common one, by no means restricted to the Daily News. “Donald Trump Is Attempting a Coup,” gasped Bill Moyers on his website. “A coup in real time?” asked Yale Professor of History Timothy Snyder [Email him]rhetorically at the CultMarx website The firing of Comey was, said this Ivy League professor, quote: “an open admission of collusion with Russia.” [A coup in real time? by Chauncey DeVega, May 12, 2017]

Atlantic editor David Frum called it “a coup against the FBI ” on Twitter. That one left me really confused. What, the FBI should be running the country, but Trump’s overthrown them?

As I said, probably not peak hysteria yet—that will have arrived when Yale professors and Atlantic editors run screaming naked through the streets while tearing their flesh with billhooks; but definitely a local maximum.

Thoughtful commentary on the firing—I mean, the small percentage of commentary that contained something other than shrieking and sputtering—concentrated on Trump’s timing, wisdom, and motivation. Here’s my take on those three aspects, taking them in turn:

  • I can’t summon up much interest in the timing.

If it was a right thing to do, the timing of the doing is secondary. Sooner would have been better; but better late than never.

  • The wisdom can reasonably be doubted.

Back in March I noted North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un’s purge of his secret police chief Kim Won-hong. I said how remarkable it was that the top cop was still alive, when senior officials who run afoul of Kim Jong-un are usually executed by some imaginatively gruesome method. How odd, I said, that the secret-police chief had merely been placed under house arrest. (He has since been sent to a camp for “re-education”.)

But that’s the thing with relations between a national leader and his secret-police boss, as LBJ understood. The secret-police boss knows far more about what’s going on, at a much greater depth of detail, than the leader does. He doesn’t just know where the bodies are buried: he knows how deep they are buried, and what was buried with them, and what was done to them that made it necessary at last to bury them, and who did it.

From the leader’s point of view, the secret-police chief is a cargo of dynamite, to be handled with extreme care.

The money quote here is one I retailed back in January, from Senator Chuck Schumer. Schumer is, as I noted at the time, a repulsive creep, but he nailed this one in a TV interview when asked about unkind things candidate Trump had said about the spooks:

Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday to get back at you. So, even for a practical, supposedly hard-nosed businessman, he [that is, Trump] is being really dumb to do this.

(Reprinted from by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Ideology • Tags: American Media, Donald Trump, Russia, VDare Archives 

I have mixed feelings over expressing my disappointments with the Trump administration. I voted for the guy; I’d vote for him again against any Democrat I can think of, and most Republicans.

And hey: We got Jeff Sessions at Justice, and a Supreme Court Appointee who isn’t an anti-white, man-hating Social Justice radical. So I’m still hoping for the best.

And, I’ll say this for President Trump: He’s still hated by all the right people. Boy, how they hate him! Trump Derangement Syndrome shows no sign of abating. If anything, it seems to be getting more intense.

One of many recent examples: The New Yorker magazine, as I mentioned in my April Diary, just had a 4,000-word anti-Trump philippic by the editor, David Remnick—and a week later a much longer piece, nearly ten thousand words, by notorious staff writer Evan Osnos [Email him] Endgame: What would it take to cut short Trump’s Presidency? [May 8, 2017]

Osnos stops short of calling for an assassination, but probably only because New Yorker doesn’t want the FBI banging on its door. Still, as in the late Soviet Union, when physical elimination is bothersome, you can always incarcerate an Enemy of the People in a psychiatric ward. Osnos actually considers this possibility at length, as well as impeachment, a remedy that was (of course) utterly unthinkable when proposed it—quite appropriately— in the case of Obama back in 2014.

I read the whole thing with a sort of grim fascination. This is wish-fulfillment fantasy for Trump haters. They can’t accept it, they just can’t accept it, that a person with heterodox opinions got elected President, that 62 million Americans voted for him.

But now my disappointments:

Three weeks ago, I grumbled about what I called The Big Cuck. Last week, I upgraded my disgust: not merely a Big Cuck, a Cuck-o-rama. Following the congressional budget deal announced Sunday night, I’m going to have to take it to the next level: no transient, footling Cuck-o-rama—this is the Acuckalypse!

[Clip: “Ride of the Valkyries.”]

Quote from Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer: “The bill ensures taxpayer dollars aren’t used to fund an ineffective border wall.”

Quote from House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi: “The [budget deal] does not fund President Trump’s immoral and unwise border wall or create a cruel new deportation force.”

Note the word “minority” in the congressional titles of both Schumer and Pelosi. As representatives of the minority in both Senate and House, how were these reptiles able to get their way on a major issue in the Trump electoral agenda? What was the majority doing while the minority killed off the biggest vote-getter of the last election season?

Cucking, that’s what. You remember that TV show Bowling for Dollars? Well, the GOP congresscritters are cucking for donors.

Thus not only did last weekend’s spending bill trash the wall, it also allowed a big expansion of H-2B guest-worker visas. CITE

The H-2B visa is for low-skilled seasonal, non-agricultural workers. Landscaping firms use them, for example: not much landscaping work gets done in the winter. Logging companies, which don’t count as agricultural, use them. So do summer resorts and amusement parks. National parks, too: If you stopped off for a snack at Yosemite Lodge Food Court last summer, that young lady from Kazakhstan who served you was on an H-2B visa.

A good alternative name for the H-2B visa would in fact be the Keep American Kids Out of Summer Vacation Jobs visa.

Apologists for the visa tell you they can’t get American teenagers to do these jobs. I don’t know which teenagers they’re talking about. My son, who is not sensationally industrious, used to work landscaping in the summer vacation w hen he was at high school. His best friend’s father owns a landscaping firm, so the two lads would work together for him. My boy greatly appreciated the few dollars he made landscaping. Is he really such an outlier among American youngsters?

Don’t take it from me. Here’s Daniel Costa (right) of the Economics Policy Institute testifying before a Senate committee last June:

(Reprinted from by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Donald Trump, Immigration, VDare Archives 

Trumpism: righting the world’s wrongs. Like a lot of other people who supported Donald Trump’s presidential campaign, I was left disappointed and depressed by the April 7th attack on Syria. I had supposed that with Trump’s election we would at last leave the Middle East to its endless fractal squabbles and give our full attention to domestic issues, which are many and pressing.

Apparently not. We are to go on being the world’s policeman, righting the world’s wrongs. The Moralistic Imperative — Someone somewhere is doing something wicked! We must stop them! — continues to prevail in the White House.

The disappointment thickened and the depression deepened when I read about polling after the attack. Americans liked it; and Republicans — so therefore, presumably, Trump voters — liked it a lot.

Who is to blame for this mentality? It’s not innate to the U.S.A. For most of our history we have known how to mind our own business.

Woodrow Wilson is commonly named as the culprit. There was indeed somewhat of the Crusader in him. His speech, given a hundred years ago this month, asking Congress to declare war on Germany was cast in globalist-moralistic terms: “The world must be made safe for democracy” and so on.

But still, what had actually sent Wilson to Congress to ask for a declaration of war was the sinking by German submarines, in the early weeks of 1917, of seven American merchant ships: Housatonic, Lyman M. Law, Algonquin,Vigilancia, City of Memphis, Illinois, and Healdton.

That’s a fair casus belli, whatever you think of Wilson. (Although Prof. Gottfried will give you an argument on that.) And — again, whatever you think of the guy — he went to Congress and asked for a declaration of war. How quaint does that sound?

There was plenty of opposition to the war nationwide, though; and when the war was over, Americans turned away from globalist engagement for an entire generation. So, no: globalist moralism is not an innate American characteristic.

A friend with whom I discussed this put the blame on Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster, who created the Superman character in the mid-1930s. It was Superman, said my friend, who planted the idea of crusading against evil in the American mind.

I don’t buy it. I’m not an expert on comic books, but my recollection is that Superman crusaded entirely against domestic villains. His popularity arose from a widespread desire for honest law enforcement, not for putting the whole world to rights.

Surely the great turn came with WW2 and the Cold War. The defining statement of globalist moralism was John F. Kennedy’s declaration, in his Inaugural address, that: “We shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.”

Historians Robert Catley and David Mosler called that “a Wilsonian blank cheque” (using the Australian spelling). Looks like we’re still good for payouts from that check.

My low Party number. The widespread approval for Trump’s Syria attack, even among our fellow Deplorables, is a useful reminder that while the Western world is displaying a turn towards nationalism, well-thought-through opinions of the Dissident Right or Alt Right variety — the kinds of opinions you read here at — are held by only a small minority.

That’s even more the case with HBD (Human Bio-Diversity). It seems brightly obvious to me, and perhaps also to you, that geographically long-isolated human populations, breeding almost entirely among themselves, from different founder groups and under different pressures from natural selection, will develop different statistical profiles on all heritable traits.

Since everything we can quantify about human nature, including the dimensions of behavior, personality and intelligence, are to some degree heritable, those features will diversify along with height, skin color, hair texture, disease susceptibility, and the rest. Isn’t this just elementary biology?

Hardly anybody thinks so. The quantitative blogger Inductivist — I think I should say “ex-blogger”: he seems to have abandoned the keyboard, at lease for blogging purposes, last September — back in 2010 did some tracking of responses in the General Social Survey to the question: “On the average, blacks have worse jobs, income, and housing than white people. Do you think these differences are because most blacks have less in-born ability to learn?” The conclusion from his analysis was, to quote the heading of the relevant post: “There is no Silent but Sensible HBD Majority.”

There were quite a few race realists in the 70s, but the number has dropped to around 10 percent. Things have only gotten worse post-Bell Curve (1994).

A different blogger, Occidentalist, who has likewise since quiesced, did an update in 2013 and came to the same conclusion. His charts — again they come from the General Social Survey — show an actual decline in HBD awareness from 1977 to 2012, the proportion assigning black underachievement to “inborn disability” dropping from 25 percent to less than 10 percent.

(Reprinted from by permission of author or representative)

The April 23 first round of the presidential election in France came with a human-interest sidebar. Emmanuel Macron, the Establishment stalking horse who placed first under the banner of a party that he himself created out of whole cloth last year, is 39 years old. His wife just turned 64. She was his high-school teacher of French literature. They were an item back then, when he was 17 and she was 42. She has three kids by a previous marriage.

Would this even be legal in the U.S? Nevertheless, my personal position on this is: Jolly good luck to both of them. My view, heartfelt and frequently stated, is that love is a precious gift, to be cherished and celebrated wherever it may be found.

In my study, there hang portraits of my two literary heroes. One of them, Samuel Johnson, at age 25 married a woman twenty years his senior—a widow who, like Mrs. Macron, brought three children to the marriage. Johnson loved his wife dearly, to the bafflement of his friends. After she died seventeen years later, he mourned her for the rest of his own life.

My other literary hero, George Orwell, lost his wife Eileen after nine years of marriage, then remarried on his death bed to the prettiest girl in the office.

So don’t look to me to second-guess Mr. Macron’s choice of wife—nor anyone else’s. I say again: Good luck to them.

My objection is what the Macrons of the world are dong to France—and to America and to Western civilization in general.

Marine Le Pen polled second. Her National Front party has been around for 45 years, but until recently dwelt on the electoral fringes. It’s as if voters in a U.S. presidential election were to say “No” to both the Republican and the Democrat candidates. (Although, come to think of it, it’s not too much of a stretch to construe last November’s U.S. election like that.) Conventional wisdom says that people who voted for the other nine candidates will mostly swing behind Mr. Macron in the runoff election May 7th—although. after last year, conventional wisdom has lost some of its sheen.

If you’re not actually French, this election is all a bit distant and academic. But In fact there are penetrating things to say about it, of direct relevance to the United States, and to the Western World as a whole.

I know this because I read Christopher Caldwell‘s brilliant article in the Spring issue of City Journal: “The French, Coming Apart.” It’s a rumination on the ideas of French sociologist and real-estate expert Christophe Guilluy, who has written three books about French society, none of them yet translated into English.

comingapart Guilluy is a sort of French Charles Murray. He writes about the great social separation of our time, the “coming apart” in the titles both of Caldwell’s piece and Charles Murray’s last book.

The urban elites in France’s dozen or so big cities, says Guilluy, have pulled away from the native French working- and middle-classes. Gentry and native Proles are now far apart, with nothing much to say to each other.

The big urban housing projects, built by socialist governments in the mid-20th century for native French workers, are now full of Muslims. Native Proles have pretty much been purged from these successful, globalized cities, leaving them to educated Gentry symbol-manipulators, media and finance types, restaurateurs—and underclass Arabs.

Caldwell is terrifically quotable:

Guilluy describes twenty-first-century France as “an ‘American’ society like any other, unequal and multicultural.” It’s a controversial premise—that inequality and racial diversity are linked as part of the same (American-type) system and that they progress or decline together. Though this premise has been confirmed in much of the West for half a century, the assertion will shock many Americans, conditioned to place “inequality” (bad) and “diversity” (good) at opposite poles of a Manichean moral order.

Second quote:

As Paris has become not just the richest city in France but the richest city in the history of France, its residents have come to describe their politics as “on the Left”—a judgment that tomorrow’s historians might dispute. Most often, Parisians mean what Guilluy calls la gauche hashtag, or what we might call the “glass-ceiling Left,” preoccupied with redistribution among, not from, elites: we may have done nothing for the poor, but we did appoint the first disabled lesbian parking commissioner.

Third quote:

In France, Political Correctness is more than a ridiculous set of opinions; it’s also—and primarily—a tool of government coercion … It determines the current polarity in French politics. Where you stand depends largely on whether you believe that antiracism is a sincere response to a genuine upsurge of public hatred or an opportunistic posture for elites seeking to justify their rule.

Last quote:

As the prospect of rising in the world is hampered or extinguished, the inducements to ideological conformism weaken. Dissent appears. Political Correctness grows more draconian. Finally the ruling class reaches a dangerous stage, in which it begins to lose not only its legitimacy but also a sense of what its legitimacy rested on in the first place.

(Reprinted from by permission of author or representative)

While I’m trawling in my archives, I may as well give a mention to this column from February 2001: a modest, qualified appreciation of Bill O’Reilly, to whose show on Fox News I had become mildly addicted.

That was sixteen years ago. The addiction wore off; but I’ve checked in with the Big Mick from time to time, when eight o’clock comes around and I have nothing much else I feel like doing. It’s easy watching and sometimes interesting.

It was, I should say. As no doubt you all know by now, Fox News has dropped O’Reilly.

The cause of the dropping is given as sexual harassment on Bill’s part towards female staffers. I’ve totally lost touch with what the phrase “sexual harassment” means nowadays, so I browsed some of the news stories.

Here’s one of O’Reilly’s accusers, Perquita Burgess, who was a temp at Fox News some years ago. How many years ago? Nobody seems to know, but it was some time prior to 2010.

Samples from Ms Burgess, as reported in the newspapers. Quote:

Three to four weeks after she was hired, they were on the elevator alone. She says he let her off the elevator first. As he was walking in front of her, he said, “Looking good there, girl,” which was the first time he spoke to her.

End quote. Oh, the humanity!

Second quote. I should say that Ms Burgess is a mulatto, or possibly a quadroon. Quote:

Burgess claims that when she was eating lunch outside one day, O’Reilly saw her and said, “Hey, hot chocolate,” as he walked past her without looking at her. She was “mortified,” she told The View [that’s some kind of TV program] and took it as a, quote, “very plantational remark .”

End quote, end quote.

Earlier this month the New York Times reported that Fox News and O’Reilly between them had paid out $13 million to various women accusers. That report prompted advertisers to pull out from O’Reilly’s show, though his viewership actually increased.

What to make of all this? Color me skeptical. In the first place, if Perquita Burgess’ stories are representative, Bill was no more than boorish, a thing women knew how to deal with when I was doing office work. Heck, they had a whole repertoire of ways to deal with it, ranging from the icy stare to a knee in the groin. Trust me on this.

What happened to “I am woman, hear me roar?” I thought women were supposed to be powerful and defiant nowadays, modeling themselves on the fearless little girl facing down the bull on the Wall Street traffic island. With Ms Burgess it’s more a case of “I am woman, hear me whimper.”

And the guy’s 67 years old. Do younger Americans have any idea how tiresome it is, trying to keep up with social decorums that change week by week? I honestly did not know that saying “Looking good there, girl” to a female office colleague is insulting. How much time does Ms Burgess spend dressing and putting her makeup on in the morning in order to … look good? Next week I suppose a breezy “Good morning!” will count as sexual harassment.

Things seem to be headed in the same direction they’ve gone in Britain, where elderly gentlemen with distinguished careers in show business and the public service are humiliated and bankrupted because some neurotic female claims he put his hand on her knee back in 1973.

I don’t know the truth about what Bill O’Reilly did, and neither do you. It looks to me, though, like a lawyers’ ramp. Bill O’Reilly and Fox News have deep pockets. In the mental atmosphere of today, when there is no greater glory than to declare oneself a Victim-American, especially if your victimizer is a white male, and doubly especially if he is a conservative, this stuff will naturally come up, like crabgrass on a springtime lawn.

It goes without saying, of course, that the Social Justice Warriors hyperventilating about Bill O’Reilly complimenting some broad’s looks, were cheering on a different Bill, Bill Clinton, when he was banging interns two at a time across the Oval Office desk. What lying hypocritical scum these people are!

Well, Bill’s gone and I’ll miss him … a little. He had a screen presence that not many TV presenters have. Something about the guy kept you watching. I’ve tuned in to the Factor a couple of times this week, when Dana Perino’s been hosting. She’s fine: speaks clearly, asks intelligent questions, doesn’t embarrass herself. At the risk of ending up in the next prison cell to O’Reilly, I’ll add that she’s easy on the eye. And yet … no presence. After ten minutes watching I feel an irresistible urge to go hammer some nails into wood.

If some of the news reports are to be believed, what O’Reilly’s defenstration actually represents is, an instance of Robert Conquest’s Second Law of politics. Just to remind you, Conquest’s three laws are:

  1. Everyone is conservative about what he knows best.
  2. Any organization not explicitly and constitutionally right-wing will sooner or later become left-wing.
  3. The behavior of any bureaucratic organization can best be understood by assuming that it is controlled by a secret cabal of its enemies.

Fox News is falling victim to the Second Law. New York Daily News, April 19th, headline:

Rupert Murdoch’s sons’ progressive wives helped oust Bill O’Reilly from Fox News Channel.

Rupert Murdoch, the Fox News supremo, is 86 years old, and presumably just as tired as you or I will be at that age. His fortysomething sons, James and Lachlan, are both metropolitan sophisticates with trophy wives who are even more so. You can imagine how icky they find an older white guy like O’Reilly, with his neanderthal opinions and 1970-ish social habits. Eiuw!

Fox News is not, so far as I know, “explicitly and constitutionally right-wing.” Conquest’s Second Law therefore decrees that it will become left-wing, like the rest of the legacy media.

Tucker Carlson, watch your back.

(Reprinted from by permission of author or representative)

Turkish President, Recep Erdoğan won his referendum by a narrow margin last weekend, so Turkish politics will move off in the general direction of Venezuela, though with an Islamic flavor—Erdoğan is a devout Muslim.

I respect the Turks for having done a great and remarkable thing in a short time. The old Ottoman Empire was a classic instance of imperial-bureaucratic despotism: a permanent small ruling class enforcing a state religion while they tax-farmed a passive peasantry with no property rights—what Karl Marx called “The Asiatic Mode of Production.”

Then suddenly, following the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in World War I, the Turks abandoned that whole model and transformed themselves into a modern, secular, European-style republic. They established a new capital city far from the old imperial metropolis. They scrapped the Arabic alphabet for the Latin one. Men were to wear jackets and pants, women dresses. There were property rights and a free press, a parliament to legislate…and so on.

It was a tremendous revolution. And unlike most revolutions, it was revolutionary in a positive direction. It once fired me up with the hope that, if Turkey could accomplish such a transformation, then perhaps other old imperial-despotic nations could too.

China, for example. Back in 1989 I wrote:

Nothing is impossible when History means business. The Turks passed from a very “pure” form of oriental despotism to republican liberty, or a fair approximation of it, in 20 years. No one should think that the Chinese, with their great resources of national pride and historical consciousness, cannot pull off the same trick.

Now, 28 years later, that looks naïvely Whiggish. It turns out that when History means business, the business it means is sometimes a 180-degree turn back to the past.

In the commentary on Turkey’s referendum vote, Mark Steyn’s column Who Lost Turkey? (Revisited) stands out. Mark returns to the theme he worked over in his 2006 best-seller America Alone, that demography is destiny. He explains that the old despotic-Islamist order was not vanquished—only relegated to the boondocks. The Turks of the cities, especially in the Europe-facing western part of Turkey, were keen to modernize; the peasants of the hinterland, not so much.

But the peasants had an advantage over the urban Turks: their birth-rate. Turkish nationalism simply out-bred globalism. Turkish Islamism out-bred secularism. It took 94 years. But in the long run, yes, demography is destiny.

Mark supports his argument with some very cool maps:

Map 1: The 2014 election–İhsanoğlu, the Kemalist wins the blue metro regions, Erdoğan wins the yellow rural regions, and Kurdish candidate wins the purple Kurdish regions:

Map 2: The birth rate–low in the metropolitan, Europeanized regions, higher as you go east into the heartland. Demography is destiny–especially electoral destiny.

Map 3: The referendum results. Steyn writes “The Kurdish south-east, the old secular Rumelian west – and in between the vast green carpet of a new post-Kemalist caliphate:”

This is probably right. The difference of attitude between city and country, between urbs and rus, is as old as civilization itself.

I caught a flavor of it in its Turkish form twenty years ago. I was working for an investment bank. One of my colleagues was a Jew from Turkey. I thought this was interesting. What’s it like, I asked him, being Jewish in Turkey? He said it was all right, he’d never had any trouble.

But then he added: “Mind you, I lived in the city all my life. Out in the countryside, things are way different.”

Well, the Turkish countryside voted last weekend. You can wave goodbye to secular, open, tolerant, western-oriented Turkey.

(Reprinted from by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Demography, Islam, Turkey, VDare Archives 

Some of the most fun I’ve had as a writer was compiling the education chapter (Chapter Six) of We Are Doomed. For the connoisseur of human folly, education is a banquet.

I wrote:

Surveying the field of modern educational practice, “in touch with reality” is not a phrase that leaps spontaneously to mind. There is no area of social policy where we see more clearly the destructive effects of the modern epidemic of happy talk, no area where the magical thinking of our intellectual cheerleaders is so clearly, painfully at odds with cold grim fact. Our educational practice is driven by our educational theory; and to enter the world of education theory is to leave the solid surface of the earth altogether, to float up to the Academy of Lagado in Gulliver’s Travels, where learned men worked at extracting sunbeams from cucumbers …

Education is a vast sea of lies, waste, corruption, crackpot theorizing, and careerist log-rolling. If, as H.G. Wells asserted, “Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe,” we have lost the race, and had better brace ourselves for the catastrophe.

Sane books about education do occasionally get published, though. Two years ago almost to the day, I reviewed one such here at Prof. Ray Wolters’ The Long Crusade: Profiles in Education Reform, 1967-2014.

From my review:

Ray Wolters has written an excellent and fascinating book about education, casting his net wider than most theorists of the subject would dare. I … congratulate him on a fine work of modern social history.

Now I see from one of Steve’s commenters that Prof. Wolters has come to the attention of the CultMarx ideological enforcers.

What happened was that the American Historical Review, which is an academic journal, commissioned a book review from Prof. Wolters (who is Professor Emeritus of History at the University of Delaware).

The book to be reviewed was Ansley Erickson’s Making the Unequal Metropolis: School Desegregation and Its Limits, published last year. Prof. Erickson is Assistant Professor of History and Education at Columbia University Teachers College.

I haven’t read Prof. Erickson’s book; but the promotional blurb at gives off a strong odor of sunbeams from cucumbers.

Be that as it may, the fact of American Historical Review having assigned this book to Prof. Wolters caused historians nationwide to take to the fainting couch.

No less than six academics wrote to the Review in protest. Their sputtering is hilarious to behold.

• Wolters is an avowed white supremacist who claims that school desegregation cannot overcome racial achievement gaps … (Campbell F. Scribner, University of Maryland).

• His preoccupation with so-called “sociobiology” represents a poisonously ideological and misguided framing of the debates about racial equality … (N. D. B. Connolly, Johns Hopkins University).

• For white readers such as myself, your decision to give the stamp of authority to Wolters’s racist beliefs is infuriating. For many of your readers of color, it is also devastating … (Andrew W. Kahrl, Carter G. Woodson Institute for African and African-American Studies).

• I am not suggesting any kind of ideological litmus test for historians …

Of course not! Perish the thought!

… who must be free to explore the past and to frame any theories that can be supported with evidence.

Free! Completely free!

But there is no evidence — none …

None, I tell you — None! None!

… for the scientific racism that Raymond Wolters is trying to revive. The problem with his ideas is not that they are racist and offensive, although they are surely that. The problem is that they are false. (Jonathan Zimmerman, University of Pennsylvania).

• By choosing Raymond Wolters as a reviewer and allowing him to air his [sic] “theory” of sociobiology as a criticism of Erickson’s book, you both unfairly treat her work and misrepresent the state of U.S. history and the history of education … (Natalia Mehlman Petrzela, The New School).

Worst of all:

• I reviewed [Prof. Wolters’] book Race and Education in Teachers College Record in 2009. At that time I pointed out that … he had granted a personal interview to a website called, which is classified as a “white nationalist hate website” by the Southern Poverty Law Center … (Zoe Burkholder, Montclair State University).

Eeek! Pharmacies in college towns nationwide are experiencing a run on sal volatile.

American Historical Review has of course gone into full cringe mode in response to these letters. They have pulled the review; although they concede, with an air of bafflement, that:

[Prof. Wolters’] university webpage reveals him to be a legitimate scholar with a fairly long and solid publication record; our database also confirmed his status as an academic who has published in credible scholarly venues.

I congratulate Prof. Wolters on having caused so many conniptions among the log-rolling classes, and I look forward to his next book.

(Reprinted from by permission of author or representative)

Hans von SpakovskyEye-opener of the week for me: A Center For Immigration Studies talk I attended in New York City, given by political scientist Hans von Spakovsky. Title: “How noncitizen voting threatens our democracy.”

Von Spakovsky [Tweet him] toils in the vineyards of what we on the Dissident Right refer to dismissively as “Conservatism, Inc.” He held minor executive-branch positions in the George W. Bush administration. He’s currently a fellow at the Heritage Foundation, an organization that shall dwell for ever in the odium of having fired young researcher Jason Richwine at the behest of CultMarx ideological enforcers. Von Spakovsky also writes for National Review, a different organization but likewise not best known for firmness of spine in standing up to progressive witch-hunters.

I therefore took my seat at the von Spakovsky lecture bearing low expectations and a large glass of Cabernet Sauvignon to aid in falling asleep, should my senses be dulled to somnolence by bland neoconnery.

To my pleasant surprise, von Spakovsky’s talk was coherent, engaging, revealing, and thought-provoking. He spoke for about forty-five minutes, with examples, statistics, and some colorful anecdotes.

Bottom line: voter fraud is a real problem, one we don’t pay half enough attention to. Some jottings at random from my notes:

  1. California, encouraged by the Obama administration, gives drivers licenses to illegal aliens. That’s bad enough. Worse is this: When acquiring a license, the applicant is automatically registered to vote, unless he specifically asks not to be. Close to a million illegals have been given licenses since the motor-voter law came in two years ago.
  2. When you get a form from your local County Court asking you to register for jury duty, one of the questions on the form is: “Are you a U.S. citizen?”

(As it happens, my wife got this form just the other day; and, yes, the question is right there.)

In most jurisdictions, including mine, the address lists for these forms to be sent out to are compiled from the voter registration rolls for the district.

So (a) anyone ticking the “No” box to that question is admitting to being on the voter registration rolls improperly: but (b) jury duty being a duty — a chore — not a pleasure, there is strong incentive to tick the “No” box, to get out of jury duty.

Some subset of people who do this will vote, thereby breaking the law. Note that this applies to both legal and illegal aliens.

  1. Scholarly researches have come up with a figure of 6.4 percent of noncitizens— legal and illegal resident aliens — voting in the 2008 election. [Nearly 2 million non-citizen Hispanics illegally registered to vote, by Rowan Scarborough, The Washington Times, February 15, 2017]
  2. Attempts to bring these and related issues to the attention of the Obama Justice Department — issues of voter fraud whose perps could be identified by some easy low-level data mining — were greeted with total lack of interest.

Who's Counting?Von Spakovsky published a book about this in 2012, Who’s Counting? co-written with veteran conservative analyst John Fund, which other writers have noticed.

This is supposed to be the age of Big Data, when not a sparrow falls but some government or commercial outlet somewhere can tell you the age, birthplace, color, educational history, marital status, sexual orientation, and purchasing habits of the sparrow. Yet in the matter of voter registration, one of the foundations of our republican institutions, the computer may as well not have been invented.

This is true at the most basic level. A lady known to me moved from her family home in a certain state to live with her husband in a different state. The voter-registration form sent to her family home in the original state continued to show her name. She wrote to the registrar in that state, telling him she was now resident elsewhere, and should be removed from that state’s rolls.

Nothing happened. She wrote again; again, nothing. Some years later, despite her efforts to be a good citizen, she is still a registered voter in two states.

This, von Spakovsky said, is very common.

Another big take-away from his talk: the ruthless, relentless, unblinking efforts by CultMarx bastions like the ACLU to stamp hard on any suggestion for reform. Local politicians and county officials are terrified to do anything about situations like that of my friend. They know that if they do try to clean up the voter rolls, someone from one of these busybody progressive outfits will show up with a battalion of lawyers in tow and camp out in front of the county courthouse, staffed-up and financed — very well-financed — to litigate the matter to death.

(Reprinted from by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Immigration, VDare Archives, Vote Fraud 
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

Personal Classics
Limbaugh and company certainly entertain. But a steady diet of ideological comfort food is no substitute for hearty intellectual fare.
Once as a colonial project, now as a moral playground, the ancient continent remains the object of Great Power maneuvering