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

There’s something to report almost daily now in the war between Muslims and infidels being played out on the streets of Western cities. It’s getting to be so that any news outlet needs to just include a regular slot for these events, like the weather report. If things get any worse, some entrepreneur might start an entire cable TV channel—you know, like the Weather Channel. He could call it the Terror Channel.

Well, here’s this week’s Terror Report.

I logged four incidents this week: Two on Monday, one on Tuesday, one on Wednesday.

There was terrorism elsewhere, too, of course. Muslim fanatics attacked a tourist resort in Mali last Sunday, killing four or five people, it’s not clear [Mali: Death Toll Rises in Mali Attack,, June 19, 2017] But hey, Mali. If you care about Mali, go read about it. I care about the civilized world.

London, Monday, shortly after midnight local time. Darren Osborne, no known religious affiliation, a middle-aged Welshman, drove a van into a crowd of Muslims outside a mosque in north London. One Muslim died in the attack and nine were hospitalized. Witnesses quoted Osborne on the scene saying he wanted to “kill all Muslims.” [London terror attack near mosque: New info on suspect, CBS, June 20, 2017]

Paris, Monday afternoon. A few hours after the London attack, on Monday afternoon, Adam Djaziri, Muslim, of Tunisian origin, deliberately crashed his car into the lead car of a police convoy on the Champs Elysées boulevard. The car was full of guns and explosives. It did in fact explode after the impact, killing Mr. Djaziri but no-one else. [Prosecutor: Champs-Elysees attacker pledged allegiance to IS, By Elaine Ganley, Associated Press,June 22, 2017]

Brussels, Tuesday evening. Oussama Zariouh, Muslim, a Moroccan national resident in Belgium, tried to blow himself and many other people up at the main railroad station. The attempt failed; his bomb only caught fire. Distraught at his failure, Zariouh ran back and forth on the station platform until he encountered a soldier. He shouted “Allahu akbar!” at the soldier, who thereupon shot him dead. Zariouh’s bomb did later explode, but no-one was hurt. [Brussels explosion: Prosecutors say major terror attack at station averted after bomb packed with nails fails, by Lizzie Dearden, Independent, June 21, 2017.]

Flint, Michigan, Wednesday morning. Amor Ftouhi, Muslim, a Canadian citizen born in Tunisia, stabbed a member of the Flint airport police force while shouting “Allahu akbar!” Ftouhi gave his motive as hatred of the U.S.A. He is in custody; the cop is recovering in hospital.

That’s the butcher’s bill for this week. I don’t have anything new to say about the attacks themselves, nor about the weather. The reactions to the attacks have been interesting, though.

That first attack, the one in London where a non-Muslim drove his van into a crowd of Muslims, drew some crowing from out here on the Alt Right. “It’s started!” people were saying. Occidental Dissent ran the story under the headline When the Saxon Began to Hate. [By Marcus Cicero, June 19, 2017]

That’s a misquote from Kipling, who in reference to World War I wrote a poem with the refrain, “When the English began to hate.”

Kipling did not write, “When the Saxons began to hate.” It would have been odd if he did, since Saxons are Germans, natives of Saxony. In World War I, Saxons were the enemy, along of course with Bavarians, Swabians, Prussians, Silesians, and other Germans.

And while I’m picking nits, I note that the guy who drove the van was Welsh. A Welshman will not thank you for calling him English, and he’ll be plain baffled if you call him a Saxon.

All that aside, this talk about the Cold Civil War turning hot is unconvincing. Real civil wars turn on sectionalism—big geographical territories at loggerheads with each other. That’s not the case, either in Britain or the U.S.A. Sure, we have red states and blue states; but the red states are 52 percent red and the blue states are 53 percent blue. We don’t have sections.

If you cut down to the county level you can get sectionalism: Professor Michael Hart has written a book about that. Much as I admire Prof Hart and his work, I think this is a stretch. [ Editor Peter Brimelow does not agree].

Looking at the toll from our last Civil War, I hope to God we don’t have another one. For sure we don’t need one. What we need is sane immigration policies, that’s all.

Comment from the CultMarx multiculturalists in the Main Stream Media gravitated towards moral equivalence on the London van attack. Sample from the New York Times, June 20th:

(Republished from by permission of author or representative)

Professor Paul Gottfried is well-known to readers for his mordant commentaries on our present political culture. I seem to have known Paul for ever, although our personal acquaintance can’t actually be much older than my review of his 2009 memoir Encounters, in which I described him as a “modest and good-natured” man through whose books there none the less run “currents of disillusion and despair.”

Recently, since the Alt Right was dragged into the foreground of public attention by Mrs. Clinton last year, Professor Gottfried has become more widely known as the person who first came up with “Alternative Right” as a descriptor. (The shortened form was Richard Spencer’s idea.)

Paul’s feelings about the movement he christened—or perhaps, since he’s Jewish, one should say “brised”—can be inspected in a column he wrote for us last year. Those feelings are mixed, although, as he wrote, “I make no bones about preferring Altright [sic] (warts and all) to Conservatism, Inc.”

Neocons have a correspondingly low opinion of Paul. A National Review editor, responding I think to my review of Encounters, told me that Paul is “the house Jew of the Buchananites.” Charity is not a distinguishing characteristic of respectable conservatism.

Paul describes himself, in this new book, as “a European historian specializing in the nineteenth century.” That greatly understates the depth and breadth of his knowledge.

Here, to take a letter at random from the alphabet, are the personal names listed under “H” in the book’s index.

Jürgen Habermas, Nathan Hale, Alexander Hamilton, Victor Davis Hanson, F.J.C. Hearnshaw (author of Conservatism in England), Hegel, Heidegger, Henry IV (of France), Gertrude Himmelfarb, the Hindenburgs (father and son), Hitler, Hobbes, Hölderlin, Francois Hollande, Evander Holyfield (Paul has, he writes, “a passion for boxing matches”—at age eight he briefly sparred with middleweight champ Jake LaMotta, the “Raging Bull”), and Mike Huckabee.

That’s a pretty good range for a historian: wide enough to impress a much-less-well-read person—this reviewer, for example. And Paul has of course read the Germans in the original German, as well as Aristotle in the original Greek, and, it seems from the fact that I can’t find any translation on the internet, Fisichella’s La democrazia contro la realtà in the original Italian.

Bertrand Russell once opined that he would rather be reviewed by his worst enemy among philosophers than by a friend ignorant of philosophy. I very much hope Paul does not nurse some similar preference.

Revisions and Dissents contains fourteen essays on different subjects, though all are in the broad general area of political science.

Fourteen is the number of lines in a sonnet. I hope the author won’t mind if, with no better excuse than that, I sonnetize his Table of Contents, one line per chapter. (To get the scansion right you need to know that “Bagehot” is pronounced “Badge-ot.”)

Biography: the Prof’s a small-town lad.

Sociology: does Nisbet vanquish Kirk?

The neocons usurped true rightists—sad!

History without contingency won’t work.

Equality! they promise us, while power they seek.

What’s a state? Ask Oakeshott, Hobbes, de Tocq.

Charles Maurras was no Burke, but worth a peek.

Present-centered history’s a crock.

The Euro-right is rising—up they go!

Walter Bagehot didn’t trust the proles.

Bobos are a class, says Murray. No!

Popes were never Nazis—different goals.

Strauss, Heidegger: as thinker, who’s ahead?

Trump’s triumph means the Right is not yet dead!

It’s that last essay, on Donald Trump’s capturing of the U.S. presidency, to which most readers will turn first.

That’s a shame: not because the essay is bad in any way, only because most of it—ten of its twelve pages—was written early in the primary season last year, so that subsequent events have weakened its interest.

The essay is still worth reading, though, for its predictive insights into last year’s election.

(Republished from by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Conservative Movement, Neocons, VDare Archives 

The really striking feature of the June 8 U.K. election was the relative success of the Labour Party under its leader Jeremy Corbyn.

This crazy old Lefty, who never saw a commie dictator or an anti-British terrorist he didn’t want to kiss up to, and who won the endorsement of the British Communist Party for Thursday’s election, somehow got forty percent of Brits to vote for him, five days after anti-British terrorists ran amok in the nation’s capital. What’s up with that?

To a person of my generation, who grew up in the Cold War, visited European communist countries, and lived for a year in communist China, Corbyn’s affection for the twentieth century’s greatest political blight is incomprehensible.

Corbyn is, in fact, of my generation—he’s four years younger than me—which makes it double incomprehensible. How did he miss noticing what a despotic horror show communism was?

Well, there is such a thing as being blinded by ideological passion, we all know that. Still the question remains: Why did forty percent of Brits vote for this whiskery old fool?

The polls show two big gaps between Tories and Labour in the voting: an enthusiasm gap, and an age gap [Election turnout: Labour gains seats where voter numbers increased more than 5 per cent, By Elizabeth Stromme and Ajay Nair, Express (UK), June 9, 2017]

A lot of people who normally wouldn’t bother to vote, did so on Thursday; and they voted Labour. Where turnout increased more than five percent, Labour won.

And a lot of people who were not registered to vote, did so. Most of these were young voters registering for the first time, and again they leaned heavily towards Labour.

Enthusiasm and youth. Well, the enthusiasm goes with Mrs. May’s total lack of charisma and her bungling on the campaign trail.

Also perhaps—I hope!—to her feeble, formulaic response to Saturday’s London Bridge atrocity.

She put on her angry face and told her countrymen that she was very upset and something or other would be done. The Brits must “deny safe spaces to the extremists,” and, quote, “assert the superiority of British values.” She said there needed to be “some difficult, and often embarrassing, conversations.”

Can’t you just see the jihadis trembling with fear? “Forget about trying to fit that suicide belt, Achmed. The Brits are going to make us have embarrassing conversations. We can’t fight against that!”

Meanwhile, the defenders of law and order hastened to warn Brits that they would crack down with maximum force on anyone who blamed Islam for the attack. London’s Mayor, Muslim-supremacist Sadiq Khan, snarled that

Just as the police will do everything possible to root out extremism from our city, so we will take a zero-tolerance approach to hate crime. If you witness a hate crime, please report it to the police. If you commit a hate crime, you face arrest.

Mayor Sadiq Khan reveals rise in hate crime in London after bridge attack,

By Mark Chandler, Evening Standard, June 7, 2017

Significantly, in the subsequent public quarrel between Khan and the President of the United States, Donald J. Trump, Prime Minister May sided with Khan.[ May Condemns Trump’s Attack on Khan as She Backs London Mayor, BloombergNews, June 5, 2017]

But as for the youth: What do young Brits know about the Cold War? What do they know about the horrors of Lenin, Stalin, and Mao? The artificial famines and mass killings, the slave-labor camps and torture chambers, the crushing of dissent and the endless official lying?

They don’t know anything, of course. Their school history lessons didn’t tell them anything about communism. The great evils of history, they were told, were British imperialism and the slave trade. Of twentieth-century totalitarianism, all they know is Hitlery-Hitlery Hitler Hitler Hitlery-Hitler.

There’s more than that going on, though—something deeper. Corbyn, like Donald Trump in the U.S.A. and Emmanuel Macron in France, is seen as an outsider—someone not part of the political establishment.

That’s perfectly bogus: Corbyn has never had a job outside politics. It’s bogus in Macron’s case, too: Macron was actually a cabinet officer in French government s. He had done some private-sector work, though, so the degree of bogosity there is less than Corbyn’s. Trump is the genuine article, a true outsider.

(Republished from by permission of author or representative)

President Trump fulfilled one of his campaign promises by withdrawing our country from last year’s Paris agreement on phasing out fossil-fuel energy production.

This is pure America First policy-making. The Paris agreement was a big favorite with globalists, in spite of the fact that it wasn’t actually very global.

Sure, all the important countries signed on to it, but not on equal terms. The U.S.A., in the person of Barack Obama, promised to reduce the U.S.A.’s carbon dioxide emissions by at least 26 percent over 15 years; China only promised that their emissions would stop rising by 2030 — having of course risen mightily in the meantime. [U.S., China formally enter climate change deal, CBS, September 3, 2016 ]

The fact that well-nigh every country has signed on to the agreement tells you, all by itself, that nobody much takes it seriously. Only Syria and Nicaragua have not signed. Syria is busy with other issues, and nobody knows or cares where Nicaragua is or what happens to the place, if it even is a place.

When 195 of the world’s countries agree to something, without discord or rancor or the mobilization of troops, you can be sure it’s something of very little consequence to any of them. This is global-scale virtue signalling.

And as is the case with all virtue signalling, the Paris agreement, so far as it has any content at all, is anti-white. It places the heaviest obligations on prosperous, successful developed countries, which means mostly white countries.

(Apologies to the Japanese and Koreans, who, I would guess from some modest acquaintance with them, signed the agreement in a spirit of pure undiluted cynicism. And in case you’re wondering: Yes, North Korea is a signatory to the agreement too — a very telling index of the level of cynicism here.)

Setting aside the degree of sincerity with which the countries of the world have signed up to the Paris agreement, the agreement itself amounts to nothing much.

What, for example, would be the penalties against a country that broke its promises under the Paris Agreement? And who would enforce those penalties? Answers: Nothing and nobody. There is no enforcement mechanism.

In the particular case of the U.S.A., our signature to the agreement anyway has no force, as it’s not a treaty as defined in our Constitution. Article II, Section 2 of that blessed document specifies that the President, quote, “shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur,” end quote. Obama never went through that little formality, so the agreements have no legal force in our country.[ The U.S. can’t quit the Paris climate agreement, because it never actually joined by Eugene Kontorovich, Washington Post, June 2, 2017]

So pretty much anything to do with the Paris agreement is just gestural. Our signing up to it was a gesture; our leaving it is a gesture. Neither act makes any difference to your life or mine.

President Trump’s pulling out of the agreement was at least, though, a gesture in the right direction. As I said, it was a gesture to his America First principle. As he said, quote: “I was elected to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris,” end quote. The Mayor of Pittsburgh grumbled that his citizens actually voted eighty percent for Mrs. Clinton. [ Mayor Peduto slams Trump for name-dropping Pittsburgh, by Adam Smelts, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, June 1, 2017] But that’s splitting hairs. President Trump was elected, and the American electorate in its collective wisdom elects a President to represent them all, including those who didn’t vote for the winning candidate.

Given what a nothingburger this all is, the reactions both at home and abroad to Trump’s announcement have been bizarrely disproportionate. Ex-President Obama said Trump had “joined a small handful of nations that reject the future.”[Barack Obama’s statement on Trump’s Paris Agreement withdrawal: Read it in full, Independent, June 1, 2017]

German Chancellorette Angela Merkel paused briefly from handing over her country to Muslim invaders to tell us that Trump, “can’t and won’t stop all those of us who feel obliged to protect the planet.” [EU to bypass Trump administration after Paris climate agreement pullout, Guardian, June 2, 2017] A tabloid newspaper in her nation ran a front-page heading saying: Earth to Trump: [bleep] You!. That headline was of course in German, except for the bleep, which was Anglo-Saxon … or in this case, I guess, just Saxon.

(Republished from by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Donald Trump, Global Warming, VDare Archives 

Richard Emmanuel Goldstein Spencer. Emmanuel Goldstein is the number one Enemy of the State in George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four, and the main target of the daily Two Minutes Hate sessions.

Who plays the corresponding role in the soft — but increasingly less soft — totalitarianism of 2017 America? The obvious answer is of course: Donald Trump.

That’s not quite right, though. For a really convincing hate figure there needs to be an element of treachery. Emmanuel Goldstein, like Trotsky (on whom of course he was modeled) had once been a comrade-in-arms of the Supreme Leader; but their views had diverged, and Goldstein had gone to the dark side.

You can’t really fit Donald Trump into that mold. It’s true that in the past he schmoozed with liberal politicians and sometimes expressed liberal sentiments. He wasn’t any kind of leader of liberalism, though, and never had any connection at all with the violent antifa fanaticism that is now taking over from late 20th-century milquetoast progressivism.

I submit that a better candidate for the Emmanuel Goldstein role is Richard Spencer.

No, Richard was never a liberal leader either; nor even a liberal. He is, though, articulate, well-educated and well-read. In that sense he is a traitor to his class — the intellectual class. There’s the element of treachery.

This comes out very well in the article on Richard in the current issue of The Atlantic. (In which article, by the way, your humble diarist has a walk-on part, paragraph ten.) The article is by Graeme Wood, who was a highschool classmate of Richard’s in late-1990s Dallas.

Wood is a conventionally unimaginative liberal who seeds his piece with an appropriate number of virtue signals — gasping in horror, for instance, at the notion that “East Asians are slightly smarter than whites, who are in turn much smarter than blacks,” as if this were not a plain fact in the world known to every person not blinded by ideology. Still, he’s a pretty good reporter, and gives a fairer picture of Richard than is usual in mainstream-media outlets.

That’s a low bar, though. While an antifa thug would probably think Wood’s piece insufficiently hostile, Wood makes it clear he is writing about an Enemy of the State.

That’s Richard’s status now. The antifa bullies are out to make his life as difficult as possible, and there is no significant institution in our society with the guts to stand up to them. At age 39, Richard is utterly unemployable. Given the unavoidable incidence of lunatics in a population of one-third of a billion, he is also at risk of serious harm.

And his Emmanuel Goldstein status is entirely ideological. Richard has broken no laws or windows; nor has he incited others to do those things. He wishes for white gentiles to have a homeland of their own, that’s all. You can agree with that or disagree, but it doesn’t pick your pocket or break your leg. So far as I’m aware, he doesn’t wish harm to anyone.

Richard organizes meetings where bookish people like himself discuss the writings of Julius Evola and Carl Schmitt. What’s wrong with that?

An antifa would say: “Open discussion of those ideas might bring about a rebirth of fascism.” I suppose it might. Open discussion of Marx’s and Lenin’s ideas might bring about a rebirth of militant communism, leading to the kinds of horrors that were engulfing Cambodia forty years ago. Mighty oaks from little acorns grow; and mighty oaks can be a mighty nuisance. That is not, however, a case against tolerating acorns.


The Beggars’ Democracy. Reflecting on the thing I just wrote about Richard Spencer being unemployable, I wonder if that is the case in the public sector.

When Jared Taylor found he could not host the annual conference of his white-advocacy group American Renaissance in private hotels, he booked instead a facility owned by the State of Tennessee, which apparently is not allowed to practice ideological discrimination. This has worked very well. We’ll be meeting there again in July. Both Peter Brimelow and myself will be speakers.

So perhaps if Richard Spencer were to apply for a job with, say, the U.S. Postal Service, they would not be able to reject him on ideological grounds. I’d be interested to hear an opinion on this from someone who knows the relevant law.

For sure the private sector is closed to him employment-wise. The ranting of old-line socialists against capitalism looks very quaint in 2017. American business is now a wholly-owned subsidiary of the antifa mobs.

This month Richard had his gym membership revoked — not for any misbehavior, but because the gym owners didn’t like his opinions.

(Or possibly some antifa activists paid them a visit: “Nice little gym you’ve got here. Be a shame if anything happened to it …” Might things really have gone that far? Nothing in this zone surprises me any more.)

(Republished from by permission of author or representative)

Headliner of the week was the Muslim terrorist attack on a pop concert in Manchester, England. The bomber blew himself up and took 22 others with him. That’s the count as I go to tape here; over a hundred were injured, some critically, so the death count may be higher as you hear this.

The bomber was a 22-year-old Muslim, name of Salman Abedi, born in Britain to parents from Libya. Those parents had been settled in England as refugees from Colonel Gaddafy’s government; so that’s where the bomber was born, in England, 1994.

In 2011, you’ll recall, Barack Obama, prompted by the Three Horsegirls of the ApocalypseSamantha Power of Obama’s National Security Council, his U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, and his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton—who in turn were prompted by Britain and France, with an assist from George Soro s—overthrew Colonel Gaddafy.

Salman Abedi’s parents thereupon, in 2011, returned to Libya. Salman Abedi, then 17, stayed in the U.K.

So I’ll just pause to note here that this is yet another case of absimilation. Here yet again is the relevant passage from We Are Doomed, the one book you need to explain the modern world. Chapter 10, edited quote:

The English word “assimilation” derives from the Latin prefix ad-, which indicates a moving towards something, and the same language’s verb simulare, “to cause a person or thing to resemble another.” You can make a precisely opposite word using the prefix ab-, which marks a moving away from something. Many immigrants of course assimilate to American society … Many others, however, especially in the second and following generations, absimilate.

That’s what Salman Abedi did: He absimilated, ending up hating the country that had taken in his parents.

It wasn’t just him, either. His younger brother Hashim, 20 years old, and so presumably also born in England, seems to have been an accomplice to the bombing. He was arrested by authorities in Libya on Tuesday. There’s also a slightly older brother, 23-year-old Ismail, arrested by British police in Manchester, also on Tuesday.

The father has been arrested, too, also in Libya. The authorities there say he belongs to an extremist sect of Islam.

There’s also a sister, 18-year-old Jomana Abedi, also born in Manchester, where she is studying molecular biology with a view to advancing cancer research … No, sorry, I got my news stories mixed up there. Ms. Abedi actually works at a mosque, though I haven’t been able to discover what she does there. Perhaps she’s the hat-check girl, I don’t know.

Whatever: She told the Wall Street Journal that her brother Salman, the bomber, was a “kind” and “loving” person. [Manchester Bomber Believed Muslims Were Mistreated, Sought Revenge, WSJ, May 25, 2017] Forty-eight hours after the bombing she posted some Arabic verses on her Facebook page congratulating her brother on having entered Paradise. [Sister of Manchester suicide bomber posts prayer about ‘entering Paradise’ days after evil brother slaughters 22 innocents, By Stephen Jones, Mirror (UK)May 25, 2017]

So it looks like this whole born-in-Britain family absimilated. Instead of learning to play cricket, quote Tennyson, and enjoy a nice treacle tart, they dream of killing infidels and going to Paradise thereby.

And there’s plenty more where they came from. There’s a whole Libyan “community” in Manchester. I can’t find out how many are there, but there are close to 20,000 Libyans in the U.K. and this Manchester community is one of the biggest, so I’m guessing it’s well into four digits.

How many of those thousands have assimilated, versus how many have absimilated, is not known to me, or probably to anyone.

What does one say about a story like this? What, to be personal, do I say as a commenter who grew up in England before the place was destroyed by mass immigration?

Until astonishingly recently it was the common opinion among English people that the worst disaster that could befall a nation was invasion and occupation by foreigners. This opinion was, of course, disgracefully nativist and xenophobic, if not actually racist. But it was what all English people believed in the darkness of their ignorance and the arrogance of their selfish pride in the dark, ignorant times just forty or fifty years ago.

They fortified that belief with the smug recollection that England had not in fact been invaded and occupied for several centuries. The last time it had happened was the year 1066, the year of the Norman Conquest.

(Republished from by permission of author or representative)

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.

(Republished 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.

(Republished 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.

(Republished 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:

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