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 2004 Election 2008 Election 2016 Election Academia Affirmative Action Africa Alt Right American Media American Military Black Crime Blacks Britain Charlottesville China Christianity Conservative Movement Creationism Diversity Donald Trump Economics England EU European Right Foreign Policy France George W. Bush Government Spending Hillary Clinton History Homosexuality Human Biodiversity Humor Ideology Illegal Immigration Immigration IQ Iraq War Ireland Islam Jared Taylor Mathematics Middle East Miscellaneous North Korea Political Correctness Race/Crime Race/IQ Race/Ethnicity Racism Religion Republicans Review Russia Science Taiwan Terrorism The Straggler American Left American Renaissance Ann Coulter Anti-Semitism Asian Americans Asians Australia Barack Obama Bill Clinton Black Lives Matter Brexit Cambodia Chelsea Clinton Chinese Civil War Communism Consciousness Conservatism Corruption Crime Discrimination Education Elian Gonzalez Eugenics Europe Eurozone Evolution Feminism George Zimmerman Germany Global Warming Hbd Hollywood Human Evolution Human Genome Iran Iraq Israel Israel Lobby Israel/Palestine Italy Japan Jews Judicial System Libya Margaret Thatcher Mencken Michael Bloomberg Multiculturalism Muslims Nationalism Neocons New York City Nicholas Wade Northern Ireland Pat Buchanan Philosophy Public Schools Quantum Mechanics Race Ron Paul Rudyard Kipling Slavery Space Program Supreme Court Ta-Nehisi Coates The Economist Tibet Turkey White Nationalists World War I
Nothing found
Publications Filter?
 TeasersJohn Derbyshire Blogview

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

See previous incidents under the tag “White Guy Loses His Job”

Culture hero of the week was surely investment guru and gold bug Marc Faber, proprietor of the Gloom, Boom & Doom market newsletter.

I can’t afford a subscription to that periodical— it’s $300 a year— but of course, as a fellow pessimist, I follow Mr. Faber’s pronouncements with keen attention when I can get them for free.

In the latest issue of that newsletter, Mr. Faber committed the following thing:

Thank God white people populated America, and not the blacks. Otherwise, the US would look like Zimbabwe, which it might look like one day anyway, but at least America enjoyed 200 years in the economic and political sun under a white majority.

‘Dr. Doom’ Faber: ‘Thank God white people populated America’, by Jeff Cox,, October 17, 2017

Faber also passed comment on the matter of Confederate statues, which was September’s nationwide moral panic, October’s being of course the Harvey Weinstein business. Those statues are, he said, “of honourable people whose only crime was to defend what all societies had done for more than 5,000 years: keep a part of the population enslaved.”

Much shrieking and swooning ensued. CNBC, Fox News, and Bloomberg, all of whom had been using Faber as a talking head for years, said he would no longer be an invited guest on their business programs. As of Thursday at least five companies have dropped him from their boards, a loss of annual income to Faber of around half a million dollars.

Faber is unrepentant. In email exchanges with the Toronto Globe and Mail, he defended himself very robustly: “Why should I regret stating historic facts?” Asked about those corporate boards dropping him, he sniffed that

If saying what I said leads to these consequences I prefer not to be on these boards … I think the corporate world is now run by compliance people. In this context I understand their firing me.

Investor Marc Faber stands by racist remarks as corporate boards cut ties, by Niall McGee Globe and Mail, October 18, 2017

Faber even had the effrontery to own the “r” word, replying to an email query from a CNBC reporter airily that, quote: “If stating some historical facts makes me a racist, then I suppose that I am a racist,” end quote.

That kind of obstinacy in defiance of Western society’s most holy dogmas of course just baffled the guardians of orthodoxy. Doesn’t Faber know he’s supposed to weep, grovel, and flagellate himself?

Here is someone named Richard Leblanc, associate professor of law, governance and ethics at York University in Toronto. Asked by the Globe and Mail for a comment on Faber’s refusing to apologize and even doubling-down on his remarks, Professor Leblanc [Email him] honked that “His reaction is odd. It actually makes it worse.”

In best Soviet style, some Goodthinkers wondered whether Faber was suffering some kind of mental impairment, perhaps under the influence of narcotics. To that our hero replied: “Since I have only taken cocaine three times and marijuana about ten times in seventy years, I did not think these were appropriate comments.”

It goes without saying that we at heartily approves of Marc Faber, of both his original comments and his refusal to back down from them. In hopes of encouraging more such acts of ideological defiance, let’s see if we can uncover some causes for Faber’s.

I can finger three possible causes without thinking very hard.

  • Number one, he’s Swiss.

(Republished from by permission of author or representative)
🔊 Listen RSS

As reported here by James Fulford on Monday, Austria’s general election last weekend was won by the center-right People’s Party with 32 percent of the vote. The center-left Social Democrats got 27 percent. Just a whisker behind them was the nationalist Freedom Party at 26 percent.

The leader of the winning People’s Party is Sebastian Kurz, who is 31 years old. That’s extraordinarily young for a national leader: even Kim Jong Un is older than that—at least we think he is. Kurz is a real wunderkind: he was Secretary of State at 27.

And “center-right” doesn’t quite capture his politics. When you hear “center-right” in an American context, you think of someone like Paul Ryan or Chris Christie: business-friendly but an open-borders squish on immigration and borders.

Not this guy. Quote from Kurz:

Our goal is that we decide who can come to Europe, and we decide who we help, and that we don’t let the [people] smugglers decide … The concept of no borders is not going to work.[ Austrian officials say Europe, not smugglers, must decide which migrants make it, By Carol Morello, Washington Post, April 4, 2016]

Hallelujah! The question now is: which of the other two big parties, the center-left Social Democrats or the nationalist Freedom Party, will Kurz invite into a coalition?

The current ruling coalition is People’s Party plus Social Democrats, center-right plus center-left giving, I suppose, center-center. This has been the usual arrangement pretty much for ever, at least since WW2. The Social Democrats have been the senior party in the coalition since 2007, and they hold the Chancellorship—the chief executive position.

It’s not likely the Social Democrats will want to be in coalition with Kurz, though, after his defense of borders and immigration control. A People’s Party / Freedom Party coalition is more probable, and not unprecedented: the two were in a brief coalition early in the last decade, although the Freedom Party’s been through some changes since then.

Assuming this is what happens—it’s undecided as we go to tape—it will be another step forward for nationalism in Europe.

Probably this story is not unrelated. It’s from Breitbart, October 20th, headline: Austria: 25 Per Cent Rise in Sex Attacks, Almost Half Committed by Migrants.

Apparently the Austrian government has just released new statistics on sexual assault in that country. The statistics say the thing the headline says they say. Among rape suspects, 44 percent are of a foreign background. Afghans lead the pack, followed by Romanians, Germans, Serbs, and Turks. The original was in German : Afghanen auffällig | 25% mehr Sexualstraftaten in nur einem Jahr, Kronen Zeitung, October 19, 2017. [Google Translate]

Foreigners are overrepresented--In terms of overall crime, Austrians still rank first, followed by Serbs, Romanians and Germans. In the case of assets (thefts, burglaries, etc.), foreign perpetrators are clearly overrepresented: the proportion is more than 51 per cent.

The differences in attitude between Israeli and diaspora Jews towards the National Question (discussed elsewhere in the podcast) are in evidence here. The first leader of the Freedom Party, sixty years ago, was a former SS officer; and antisemitism is an even touchier subject in Austria than in Germany. Hitler himself was Austrian, remember.

(I can’t resist here recycling the old joke about Austrians being the smartest people in the world, because they’ve convinced the rest of us that Hitler was German and Beethoven was Austrian.)

So on the one hand we have Oskar Deutsch, the president of the Jewish Communities of Austria, publishing an open letter to Sebastian Kurz urging him not to form a coalition with the Freedom Party because that party’s leader and some of its officers had, quote, “used antisemitic codes, made extreme right-wing statements and … promoted hatred and racism,”[ Austrian Jews to Israel: Respect our stand on far-right Freedom Party, By Herb Keinon, Jerusalem Post, October 20, 2017]

(Republished from by permission of author or representative)
🔊 Listen RSS

The weirdest aspect of the Open-Borders ideology is the sanctification of illegal aliens. They are holy objects, radiating a sublime, ethereal glow to those sufficiently spiritually refined to see it.

We’re all more or less used to this where blacks are concerned. They dwell on a moral plane far above ours, and any negativity about them i s a form of blasphemy. Tell me about it.

That’s longstanding, though; and as I said, we’re used to it. How did illegal aliens acquire their halos? When did they get put up there with blacks in the GoodWhite pantheon?

Cristina Jiménez Moreta,

Whatever, that’s where they are. Not very surprising, therefore, to see that the latest recipient of a MacArthur Foundation “Genius Grant” is Cristina Jiménez Moreta, 33 years old, an illegal alien from Ecuador.

What did Ms. Moreta do for her $625,000 grant? Yes, you heard that right: $625,000, no strings attached. That’s a lot of chalupas.

So what did the lady do? Quote from the award:

Jiménez … is a co-founder (in 2008) and executive director of United We Dream (UWD), a nationwide network of affiliated groups, organizations, and individuals focused on addressing the needs of immigrant youth and families. Through her leadership acumen and strategic vision, UWD united disparate groups around a common identity that has shifted public perceptions of undocumented youth and focused attention on policy issues that affect them.

[Cristina Jiménez Moreta–Social Justice Organizer | Class of 2017]

In short, another worthless parasite on the American body politic. And a prime candidate for Strategic Deportation. Over to you, Attorney General Jeff Sessions!

Ms. Moreta–I know: the MacArthur site calls her “Jiménez”: I don’t know why and can’t be bothered to find out–Ms. Moreta holds an M.P.A. degree from Baruch College, where I used to teach Visual Basic programming. Perhaps, all unknowing, I passed her in the hallway. Brushed with greatness! Why didn’t I spot that sublime glow? My spirit’s too murky, I guess. What’s an M.P.A., though? It was new to me, I had to look it up. “Master of Public Administration,” says the Baruch website.

There you go; although in these hypersensitive times, shouldn’t it be “Mistress” Or “Mixture”? Or something?

[ note: If you don’t know why Ms. Jimenez Moreta uses two last names, see here, but don’t bother emailing Derb to explain—he doesn’t want to know on principle].

News of Ms. Moreta’s “genius grant” stirred my curiosity about these MacArthur awards. The previous one that came to my attention was Ta-Nehisi Coates, two years ago. Coates is the guy who writes about how black he is, and how mean white people are, and blackety-blackety-blackety black. He is at least an American, though, not a foreign scofflaw. How’s it goin’, Ta?

So what are these awards? Well, John D. MacArthur was a business mogul–insurance, real estate–in the middle decades of the last century. He died in 1978, his wife Catherine died in 1981, and there’s a philanthropic foundation named after them and funded from their estates.

MacArthur doesn’t seem to have been much of a Lefty. From what one can glean of his character from bits and pieces on the internet, I’d guess he would have regarded the diversity-obsessed Cultural Marxists of today with baffled scorn.

Concerning his Foundation, he famously told one of the trustees shortly before he died that “I figured out how to make the money. You fellows will have to figure out how to spend it” [`Charitable Patronage` Still Gets Foundation`s Work Done, by Douglas Frantz, Chicago Tribune, July 7, 1985]

Robert Conquest’s Second Law kicked in soon afterwards. That’s the one that says any organization not explicitly and constitutionally right-wing will sooner or later become left-wing.

So here are the MacArthur genius grants for this year. There are twenty-four of them altogether, including Ms. Moreta, whom I’ve already told you about.

Some of them actually sound quite worthy. Immunologist Gabriel Victora, for example, who got his award for, quote: “Investigating acquired, or adaptive, immunity and clarifying the mechanisms by which organisms’ responses to infection are improved.” Good luck to Dr Victora; that sounds like $625,000 well disbursed.

Likewise to mathematician Emmanuel Candès at Stanford, doing useful work, so far as I can judge, in Information Theory. Likewise again to computer scientist Stefan Savage of U. Cal. San Diego, working on internet security and cyber-crime. Good luck to them all. The MacArthur awards are not all gibberish.

(Republished from by permission of author or representative)
🔊 Listen RSS

Headliner of the week for immigration patriots was President Trump’s immigration reform proposal, which he sent to Congress for their perusal last Sunday. The proposal is a very detailed 70-point list under three main headings:

  1. Border Security (27 items)
  2. Interior Enforcement (39 items)
  3. Merit-Based Immigration System (four items)

Item-wise, the biggest heading there is the second one, “Interior Enforcement.” That’s very welcome.

Of course we need improved border security so that people don’t enter our country without permission. That comes under the first heading. An equally pressing problem, though, is the millions of foreigners who are living and working here, and using our schools and hospitals and public services, who should not be here.

The President’s proposals on interior enforcement cover all bases: Sanctuary cities, visa overstays, law-enforcement resources, compulsory E-Verify, more deportations, improved visa security.

This is a major, wonderful improvement in national policy, when you consider that less than a year ago the White House and Justice Department were run by committed open-borders fanatics. I thank the President and his staff for having put so much work into such a detailed proposal for restoring American sovereignty and the rights of American workers and taxpayers.

That said, here come the quibbles.

That third heading, “Merit-Based Immigration System,” with just four items, needs work. Setting aside improvements on visa controls under the other headings, this is really the only part of the proposal that covers legal immigration. In my opinion, it does so imperfectly.

There’s some good meat in there, mind. Three of the four items — numbers one, three, and four — got a fist-pump from me:

  • cutting down chain migration by limiting it to spouse and dependent children;
  • eliminating the Diversity Visa Lottery; and
  • limiting the number of refugees admitted, assuming this means severely cutting back on the numbers, preferably all the way to zero.

Good stuff. Item two, however, is a problem. Quote:

Establish a new, points-based system for the awarding of Green Cards (lawful permanent residents) based on factors that allow individuals to successfully assimilate and support themselves financially.

I know: It sounds OK, bringing in talented, well-educated, well-socialized people, rather than what the late Lee Kuan Yew referred to as “fruit-pickers.” Forgive me if I have a rather jaundiced view of this merit-based approach.

For most of my adult life I made a living as a computer programmer. I spent four years doing this in the U.S.A. through the mid-1970s. Then I came back in the late 1980s and worked at the same trade here through the 1990s. (Pictured right–my actual H-1B visa) That gave me two clear snapshots twenty years apart, of this particular corner of skilled middle-class employment in America.

In the 1970s a programming shop was legacy American, with only a thin scattering of foreigners like myself. Twenty years later programming had been considerably foreignized, thanks to the H-1B visa program. Now, twenty years further on, I believe legacy-American programmers are an endangered species.

So a well-paid and mentally rewarding corner of the middle-class job market has been handed over to foreigners — for the sole reason, of course, that they are cheaper than Americans. The desire for cheap labor explains 95 percent of U.S. immigration policy. The other five percent is sentimentality.

On so-called “merit-based immigration,” therefore, you can count me a cynic. I have no doubt that American firms could recruit all the computer programmers they need from among our legacy population. They used to do so, forty years ago. Then they discovered how to game the immigration system for cheaper labor.

Now they are brazen in their crime: you have heard, I’m sure, those stories about American workers being laid off, with severance packages conditional on their helping train their cheaper foreign replacements. That’s our legal immigration system in a nutshell. It’s a cheap-labor racket.

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

Several listeners to last week’s podcast took exception to my casual dismissing of the idea of racial separation—see “Taking A Knee”—Is Racial Separation The Answer?

I had said that separation is no more feasible now than it was in 1862, when Abraham Lincoln urged it on the freedmen leaders he’d invited to the White House. [Address on Colonization to a Deputation of Negroes, Abraham Lincoln, August 14, 1862]. “We must struggle on forward as best we can, white and black alike,” I concluded.

I think those listeners had been watching American Renaissance Editor Jared Taylor’s recent video titled How to Achieve Racial Separation. Jared makes the case that we can peacefully separate into monoracial regions.

Some samples from Jared’s video, which you can find at AmRen or on their YouTube channel. First sample:

“For blacks, the only way they can be free of the menace of what they believe to be racism and white supremacy is for them to live independently of us, and to take responsibility for their own successes and failures.”

Second sample:

Don’t forget: Hardly anyone predicted the breakup of the Soviet Union, or of Yugoslavia, or Czechoslovakia. And all three countries separated along national and ethnic lines. And people who once had to live together are happier living apart.

How to Achieve Racial Separation Jared Taylor, American Renaissance, October 3, 2017

Now, Jared has no greater admirer than me. As I have told him myself: If our republic survives, there will be statues to Jared in public squares one day.

I’m sorry, though, guy: This just won’t fly.

Take that first clip I just played: “For blacks to live independently of us …” But blacks can’t live independently of us. They don’t have the human capital to live independently of us.

There is some black human capital: brilliant, high-minded, public-spirited blacks. They are just too few among their own people. Google “Smart Fraction Theory,” or see What Brought Down Detroit from the transcript of my July 27th, 2013 podcast. For a society to function well, to be stable and prosperous, you need a certain threshold proportion of smart people. If your population’s smart fraction is below that threshold, the society won’t work.

I’ll quote myself here, if you don’t mind; from a column three years ago:

Think of it like this: A man is walking along dragging a sack behind him. If the man is large and the sack small, it’s a nuisance but he can make progress. A small man dragging a large sack is, however, severely encumbered.

White populations of course have members with low scores on behavior, intelligence, and personality, but not so many that the more capable whites can’t “carry” them. Smart and well-socialized blacks, by contrast, are numerically far fewer in proportion to the great sullen lumpen-negretariat they drag behind them.

Kicking The Stone: The Hard Reality of Race Relations, November 6, 2014

Of that fraction of blacks with something on the ball, all but the most saintly and self-sacrificing will decamp to the nearest nonblack area, as you see happening today across the Mediterranean. Jared’s white enclaves are going to need some very serious border control. His proposed multicultural enclave, where people who want diversity can enjoy it, will get way less diverse really fast. It’ll just turn black.

There is simply no stable solution here. Whites don’t need blacks, but blacks need whites, if they are to have any kind of civilized life.

Jared’s second clip is similarly flawed, even setting aside the mayhem that attended the breakup of Yugoslavia. The racial gap in what was formerly Soviet Central Asia is nowhere near the size it is between American blacks and nonblacks.

So, sorry to Jared and those of his followers who emailed in, but on the matter of separation: no sale.

I do, though, fully agree with Jared on the desirability of striking down all legal constraints on private freedom of association. Forced racial integration is an outrageous assault on our liberties.

(Republished from by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Race/Ethnicity • Tags: Blacks, VDare Archives 
🔊 Listen RSS

Catalonia, in the southeastern corner of Spain, is in the news.[Catalonia Government Declares Overwhelming Vote for Independence, by Raphael Minder, NYT, Oct 6, 2017] I was there once, back in my salad days, on my way to a camping vacation down the coast at a sleepy little whitewashed village named Oropesa del Mar, now all built up with tower blocks and tourist hotels.

“Sleepy” was a pretty good descriptor for Spain itself in the mid-1960s, after 25 years of deep clerico-conservatism under the rule of Generalissimo Francisco Franco. We flew into Barcelona and stayed one day there. It was terrifically hot. There was not much traffic and the buildings all seemed about two hundred years old. People moved at a slow walking pace, except for the couple of hours around midday when they didn’t move at all.

Perhaps, I remarked to my companion, it might not be entirely coincidence that “Catalonia” differs by only one letter from “catatonia.”

Changing trains some way down the line we got stuck in a railroad waiting room on the wall of which was pasted an ancient fading poster headed Proclamación Real—”Royal Proclamation.” Spain was an on-again, off-again monarchy through the 19th and 20th centuries. Right now it’s “on”—present-day Spain is a monarchy. That’s only been the case since 1975, though. When I was there in 19 65, Spain was not a monarchy. It hadn’t been one since 1931.

So I, standing there in that lonesome railroad halt in 1965, was looking at a pasted-up Royal Proclamation at least 34 years old.

Rather than engage with the particular issue at hand, I shall make some general observations about nationalism, as in Spain, and sub-nationalism, as in Catatonia … sorry, Catalonia, and trans-nationalism.

The great classic Chinese novel Romance of the Three Kingdoms opens with a sentence that any literate Chinese person can quote to you: 話說天下大勢, 分久必合, 合久必分 — “It has been said of all under Heaven that what was long divided must unite, what was long united must divide.”

As well as being a fair summary of four thousand years of Chinese history, that’s not a bad guide to history at large. Nations come together and merge; empires form then disintegrate.

Yes, there are those big historical tides ebbing and flowing. But we can form preferences related to our own time and place. Mine are nationalist, with a seasoning of skepticism.

Nationalism isn’t hard to understand. People want to live among and be governed by other people mostly like themselves, with the same language and shared history, not by foreigners in some distant city who don’t understand them.

It is of course the case that our co-ethnics may be crazy beasts — North Korea‘s a nation; Khmer Rouge Cambodia was a nation — while the foreigners in that distant city might be benign and wise, or at any rate not life-threatening. The Middle East under the Ottoman Empire was not an exemplar of peace and justice, but it doesn’t compare badly with today’s Middle East.

The great British national conservative Enoch Powell, who fifty years ago gave those eloquent warnings about the evils of mass immigration, once said that if Britain were at war he would fight for Britain, even if it was a communist dictatorship.

The Greek poet in Byron’s Don Juan, living under the Ottoman Turks, likewise looked back to the Greek tyrants of antiquity and sighed:

Our masters then

Were still, at least, our countrymen.

I’m basically on the same page with these nationalists, but with reservations. When the Vietnamese army put an end to the Khmer Rouge government by invading Cambodia, most Cambodians hailed them as liberators. Perhaps I would have, too; perhaps even Enoch Powell would have.

So there are qualifications to be made about nationalism, especially small-country nationalism or sub-nationalism. You’re not drawing from a big pool of political talent there. I have mixed occasionally with Scottish and Welsh nationalists; let’s just say I wasn’t impressed.

Sub-nationalism like Catalonia’s is also in contradiction to nationalism proper. Who’s the truer nationalist: the Spanish citizen who would fight and die for Spain, or the Catalan separatist who feels the same way about his province?

Here you’re in the zone of differences that can only finally be decided by force of arms.

You don’t have to recall horrors like Cambodia or North Korea to develop some caution about nationalism. Growing up in mid-20th-century England, we had an instance of passionate nationalism — or sub-nationalism, depending on your point of view — right on our doorstep. That was of course Ireland.

The Irish had been struggling for centuries to attain self-government. In 1921, after some revolutionary violence, they got autonomy; then in 1937, full independence.

(Republished from by permission of author or representative)
🔊 Listen RSS

Genuflecting is in the news—football players, mainly black ones, “taking a knee” during pre-game playing of the National Anthem. The most recent example, from this Sunday: teams kneeling before the anthem, and being booed anyway–NFL fans booed players for kneeling before national anthem and standing for it | NFL players tried to show support for the cause while not disrespecting the flag, but fans booed anyway, by Taylor Link,, October 1, 2017. ] What’s up with that?

I can only give a personal take on this—not, I’m aware, a thoroughly American take.

I am an American, a citizen for fifteen years now, and very glad to be one; but I grew up elsewhere, in a monoracial country—England had few blacks, in just a few areas, until I was well into my teens. I came here as an adult, 28 years old. So I don’t see the American racial scene the way born Americans see it and grow up with it.

To an outsider like me, one very striking thing about that scene was the deep, hungry yearning among most white Americans to think well of blacks.

After the Civil Rights reforms of the sixties, there was a widespread sentiment that with the injustices of the past set aside, we ought to be able to get to a place where we would be all citizens together, equal under the law and regarding each other in a spirit of equality. It might take a few years (people felt) and need some temporary remedies—Affirmative Action, contract set-asides, and so on—but we should get there, and be a united, reasonably harmonious nation by, oh, the year 2000, for sure.

That was the mood in the early 1970s, as I perceived it.

And as I said, one part of it was a strong wish among whites to think well of blacks. Statistics bore this out. A survey in 1978 asked white Americans to estimate what proportion of black families were headed by a female. The estimates were from eight to twelve percent. The actual figure at the time was 21 percent. White people under-estimated black-white differences. They wanted to. They wanted to think well of blacks.

A lot of that yearning still persists. If you engage with the statistics much, you’re struck by how staggeringly big the black-white differences are—bigger than most people are aware, way bigger than estimates you’d get from average white Americans.

Try asking some white acquaintance how much more likely a random black American is to commit homicide, than a random white person. “Heck, I don’t know,” he’ll say, displaying considerable embarrassment at having been forced to think about the matter. “Is there really a difference? What is it, twice as likely?” The actual answer: six times as likely. [The Color Of Crime, New Century Foundation, 2016 (PDF) ]

If you replace “homicide” by “street robbery,” the multiplier is thirty times. You wouldn’t hear that as an estimate from any white person, though. White Americans just don’t want to think that badly of their fellow citizens.

Professional sports play into that yearning. I recall sitting in bars or private homes back in the seventies, when I was new to the States, watching football or basketball on TV. What jumped out at me was the peculiarity, the strangeness, of stadiums filled with mostly white people cheering on teams that were mostly black.

Occasionally I got the chance to talk to other expats like myself. Was it just me, or did they notice that strangeness, too?

Yes, they did. It wasn’t just me. That strangeness was a very American thing, a thing foreigners noticed.

The core issue there was patriotism—the American style of patriotism. White Americans love our country. We want to think well of it; we want foreigners to admire it. By the late 1960s, when there was a consensus among white Americans that blacks should have full equality under the law, there was an eagerness to welcome any kind of sign that blacks were doing well.

In professional sports, blacks do do well. So sports fed that yearning to think well of blacks.

(Republished from by permission of author or representative)
🔊 Listen RSS

The power of the keys

As deplorable as we Badwhites are, our medieval forebears were deplorabler.

Here’s one: Geoffrey le Barbu (“the Bearded”), Count of Anjou, around a.d. 1065:

The bishopric of Séez was vacant; by feudal custom the lord, Count Geoffrey, might appoint the next bishop; but by strict canon law, which was increasing in influence, the chapter of Séez, without lay interference, should fill the vacancy by election. This they did, in defiance of the count; whereupon he ordered all the canons to be castrated, and with them the bishop-elect. [Devil’s Brood by Alfred Duggan, Chapter 1.]

Now that’s Badwhite! (Geoffrey, by the way, was a great-granduncle of the English King Henry II, first of the Plantagenet Dynasty. His younger brother, who rejoiced in the epithet Fulk the Surly, was Henry’s great-grandfather.)

What got me thinking of Geoffrey was a conversation with a friend who’d been listening to an audio version of Bertrand Russell’s History of Western Philosophy.

In his introductory overview Russell points up the contrast between the rough, illiterate “kings and barons of Teutonic descent” who held secular power in medieval Europe and the churchmen who carried literate civilization forward, often — as the case of Geoffrey shows — in the teeth of fierce hostility from the fighting, drinking, hunting, bishop-castrating secular lords.

Of those lords Russell writes:

The Church could never produce in them the quiet regularity of good behaviour which a modern employer demands, and usually obtains, of his employees. What was the use of conquering the world if they could not drink and murder and love as the spirit moved them? And why should they, with their armies of proud knights, submit to the orders of bookish men, vowed to celibacy and destitute of armed force?


All the armed force was on the side of the kings, and yet the Church was victorious. The Church won, partly because it had almost a monopoly of education, partly because the kings were perpetually at war with each other …

Is not this (my friend asked) somewhat parallel to our own Cold Civil War? Are not our own gentry liberal Goodwhites “bookish men … destitute of armed force?” (“Vowed to celibacy” doesn’t fit; although given the goodwhite-badwhite birthrate differential, from a strictly Darwinian viewpoint, it might as well.)

Well … there’s somewhat of a parallel there. “Almost a monopoly of education”? Check.

At any larger scale, though, the parallel breaks down, mainly because, as Russell says, “Monarchs … were sincerely pious,” whereas our own Badwhite leaders don’t believe the Goodwhite ideology — the dogmas about there being no such thing as race, sex, etc.

Here’s another medieval badass, Fulk the Black, Count of Anjou around a.d. 1000 and maternal grandfather of the aforementioned Geoffrey.

Fulk was one of the baddest Badwhites that ever lived, badder even than his grandson. (There was a slow decline of badassery as the generations rolled on; although Henry II reverted to type, offing an archbishop and locking up his Queen for 16 years.) Suspecting his wife of having committed adultery with a goatherd, Fulk had her burned alive in public, wearing her wedding dress.

(That boy in the back of the class who called out, “Serve her right!” … Yes, you … Go directly to the Principal’s office, please …)

After twenty years of such delinquencies, Fulk one day realized that his immortal soul was in peril. He begged for forgiveness. It was granted, provided he did penance. William Manchester describes the penance in his book A World Lit Only by Fire:

Shackled, he was condemned to a triple Jerusalem pilgrimage: across most of France and Savoy, over the Alps, through the Papal States, Carinthia, Hungary, Bosnia, mountainous Serbia, Bulgaria, Constantinople, and the length of mountainous Anatolia, then down through modern Syria and Jordan to the holy city. In irons, his feet bleeding, he made this round trip three times — 15,300 miles — and the last time he was dragged through the streets on a hurdle while two well-muscled men lashed his naked back with bullwhips.

I dunno, I can’t see Richard Spencer putting himself through that.

Russell again, continuing my last quote from him:

… but mainly because, with very few exceptions, rulers and people alike profoundly believed that the Church possessed the power of the keys. The Church could decide whether a king should spend eternity in heaven or in hell; the Church could absolve subjects from the duty of allegiance, and so stimulate rebellion.

That phrase “the power of the keys” is certainly suggestive. I’m sure that’s how today’s Goodwhites see themselves, as holding the power of the keys, at least in the earthly realm.

They can’t condemn a recalcitrant Badwhite to eternal damnation, but they can wreck his business, terminate his employment, or cancel his PayPal account. Power of the keys!

Mocking goodwhites in other languages

I’ve been using the Chinese internet slang term baizuo (pronunciation here) which translates as “white left,” used by Chinese bloggers to mock ethnomasochist whites.

A Russian-speaking friend advises me that the Russian equivalent is либерасты, pronounced liberAHsty, a portmanteau word combining либералы (liberAHly) and педерасты (pederAHsty). All three of those Russian words are plural nouns. Both the latter words mean just what they sound like they mean.

(Republished from by permission of author or representative)
🔊 Listen RSS

The Germans have a word for it: homonationalism“—polls suggest support among homosexuals for the immigration-patriot AfD party is higher than among Germans at large, basically because of gay-bashing by Merkel-imported Muslim “refugees.” [The gay men turning to the far right in Germany, By Atika Shubert, Nadine Schmidt and Judith Vonberg, CNN, September 14, 2017] We’ll see: There’s a federal election coming up in Germany tomorrow, Sunday September 24th. Meanwhile, here’s a guy who won’t be signing on to homonationalism any time soon: Roy Moore, former Chief Justice of Alabama, and a candidate for election Tuesday September 26 in that state. Whatever else you can say about Moore, he is an American original. I hope he does well.

Tuesday’s election is a Republican Party primary. You’ll recall that U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions was junior senator from Alabama until being plucked from that position to be Trump’s A-G in February this year. That left an empty seat in the Senate, so Alabama’s then-Governor appointed his state A-G, Luther Strange, to fill the seat.

Jeff Sessions’ Senate term ran to January 2021, though. Four years is a long time for Mr. Strange to sit in the Senate without having been elected, so there’ll be an election for this Senate seat December 12th.

So far, so good: a special election for this Senate seat in December, so the parties need candidates to run in that election, one Democrat and one Republican.

There were primaries last month to decide the candidates. A chap named Doug Jones, a bland center-Left type, won the Democrat primary. For the Republicans, there’s to be a runoff between two guys: that’s the election next Tuesday, a runoff primary to decide the GOP candidate.

Luther Strange, the current Senator, is of course one of the candidates. The other is the aforementioned Roy Moore, the one I started off by saying will never be described as a homonationalist.

Moore is a piece of work, a little bit of Americana. His moment of fame–his aristeia, the Greeks would have said–came in November 2003, when he was Chief Justice of the Alabama state Supreme Court. He had installed a massive granite monument inscribed with the Ten Commandments in the state judicial building in Montgomery. A federal judge ordered him to remove it. Moore refused, and was himself removed from office.

Moore got himself elected back to the Supreme Court, then got himself suspended last year for obstructing issuance of licenses for homosexual marriages, which he hotly opposes. April this year he resigned from the court to run in this primary.

In the first round of primary voting, last month, Moore beat Strange by 39 percent to 33. If he beats him in the runoff this week he’ll be the Republican candidate against Democrat Doug Jones, and likely the next Senator–Alabama is strong for the GOP.

Roy Moore concedes nothing to Political Correctness. He is, as I said, a gem of pure Americana. They don’t make his type anywhere else. Intensely Christian and a Bible literalist, he thinks that evolution is nonsense, homosexual behavior should be illegal, and Islam is a false religion not protected by the First Amendment.

I don’t myself agree with him on any of those points. But—speaking personally, does not endorse candidates–I hope he wins Tuesday’s primary none the less. He may not be a homo-nationalist, but he’s definitely a nationalist—a heteronationalist? –American all the way through. If there isn’t room in the U.S. Senate for a few eccentrics like Moore, I don’t see the point of the place.

Moore has some big names on his side, who I presume feel the same way I do: Steve Bannon, former chief Strategist to Donald Trump, and Sarah Palin, John McCain’s VP candidate in 2008.

Luther Strange, his opponent on Tuesday, is very much the GOP Establishment candidate. He has the backing of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell; you can’t get more Establishment than that. As a person who would like to see the entire GOP Establishment roasting slowly in Hell, this only fortifies my support for Roy Moore.

My support was further fortified by a hit piece on Moore in Yahoo News today, written by homosexual supremacist Michelangelo Signorile [Tweet him] who is to homosexuals what Ta-nehisi Coates is to blacks.

If elected, this guy [i.e. Roy Moore] will be the kookiest, most dangerous man to serve in the U.S. Senate in many years, not to mention that he’d consistently cause embarrassing media spectacles, as if we don’t have enough of that.[What Alabama’s GOP Senate Frontrunner Told Me Should Scare The Daylights Out Of You, Michelangelo Signorile, HuffPost, September 22, 20]

Hey: embarrassing media spectacles are my bread and butter–what, you think I want to write about bland elections like Germany’s all day long? –and I can’t see that wanting the U.S.A. to be a Christian nation is any kookier than buggering other men and writing about it at endless length.

To be perfectly frank, it strikes me as less kooky.

(Republished from by permission of author or representative)
🔊 Listen RSS

President Trump opened his address to the United Nations General Assembly this week with a gracious tribute to those foreign leaders who had offered help with America’s recent hurricane and flood disasters. (No doubt these were connected somehow with the activities of the Trump administration. Don’t laugh: It was an article of faith in imperial China that natural disasters were a reflection of disorder in the human world. Those of you who have read the greatest novel ever written about China, Tibet, Wall Street, Buddhism, and Italian Opera will know that this belief can by no means be dismissed as a mere archaic superstition).

Then Trump gave a comprehensive survey of the foreign scene. I was pleasantly surprised to find that my own response was less negative than most. And his hints on immigration and refugees were positively welcome.

I was inclined to negativity, being a U.N.-hater. My ideal of a speech by a U.S. President to the U.N. would be one announcing, in as few words as possible, our withdrawal from the whole U.N. circus and the revocation of all diplomatic privileges for U.N. employees, with those who are not U.S. citizens being placed under 24-hour deportation orders.

The U.N. is an archaism. It accomplishes nothing that could not be done just as well with traditional diplomacy, brought up-to-date by online conferencing services. The typical U.N. functionary is the nephew or mistress of some banana republic dictator-of-the-week, with a high school education and a lavish expense account. These people do nothing useful. To the contrary, they are a nuisance to the inhabitants of Manhattan.

The whole thing needs to be scrapped, or at least moved to some location where its pointlessness is more in concord with its immediate surroundings: Haiti, perhaps, or Brussels, alongside the European Union headquarters.

I’m a radical, though; and I’ve come to terms with the fact that Trump isn’t. He’s not going to kick out the U.N., any more than he’s going to deport all the illegal aliens, or have a moratorium on legal immigration, or challenge Birthright Citizenship, or pull us out of NATO, or end Affirmative Action, or close down the Department of Education, or ban public-sector unions.

I’ll take what I can get.

Best of all, for a National Conservative, were Trump’s repeated references to what he called “those three beautiful pillars … of peace” which are: sovereignty, security, and prosperity. The word “sovereignty” showed up ten times in the speech, and “sovereign” by itself another twelve times—you could almost call it the keynote of Trump’s address.

Globalists of both the cuckservative Right and the Left were horrified. Neocon Invade-The-World/ Invite-The-World fanatic Max Boot [Email him] writing in USA Today, thundered

[Harry] Truman and his aides would have been appalled if they had lived long enough to see Trump preening before the U.N. General Assembly, praising national sovereignty as the greatest good in the world.

[At U.N., Trump’s ‘me first’ doctrine abandons Truman’s postwar ‘security for all’, September 19, 2017 ]

How people do get stuck in the past! I’ve sometimes mocked the pampered, petted, affirmative-actioned, endlessly-deferred-to black activists of today by saying that for them, it’s always 1965. For Max Boot, it’s always 1947. There have been no new developments in international affairs, nothing that needs changing, no balances out of kilter that need correcting—the one between nationalism and globalism, for example.

The globalist Left was just as horrified by Trump’s speech as the globalist Right. Not for the first time, I found myself wondering if they are really two different things.

MSNBC airhead Brian Williams wondered aloud whether the President’s repeated use of the word “sovereignty” was a “dog whistle” to his base—you know, those knuckle-dragging racist Nazi KKK white-supremacist bigots over in the West Virginia hollows [Brian Williams: Was Trump’s repeated use of ‘sovereignty’ during U.N. speech a dog whistle?, By Jessica Chasmar, The Washington Times, September 20, 2017]

Brian Williams’ guest, some Lefty bimbo, went right along with this dog-whistle theory. Using the words “sovereign” and “sovereignty” that many times, she said, undermined international bodies like the U.N. []

Well, I certainly hope so.

Here was the Lefty bimbo on why Trump used the words “sovereign” and “sovereignty” so much:

It just means what he was talking about from the beginning, which is “America First, we’re going to go it alone.”

Does it? Here’s the relevant passage from Trump’s U.N. speech, quote:

All responsible leaders have an obligation to serve their own citizens, and the nation-state remains the best vehicle for elevating the human condition.

But making a better life for our people also requires us to work together in close harmony and unity to create a more safe and peaceful future for all people.

Is what he said the same as what she said he said? Judge for yourself.

(Republished from by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Donald Trump, Immigration, VDare Archives 
No Items Found
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