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

 Remember My Information

Topics/Categories Filter?
2000 Election 2016 Election Academia Affirmative Action Africa Alt Right American Media American Military Black Crime Blacks Britain China Conservative Movement Creationism Diversity Donald Trump Economics England European Right Feminism Foreign Policy Government Spending Guns History Homosexuality Human Biodiversity Humor Ideology Illegal Immigration Immigration IQ Iraq War Ireland Islam Mathematics Miscellaneous Political Correctness Race/Crime Race/Ethnicity Racism Religion Republican Party Republicans Review Russia Science Terrorism The Straggler 2004 Election 2006 Election 2008 Election 2012 Election 2018 Election 9/11 Abortion Abraham Lincoln Afghanistan Africans Al Gore Al Sharpton American Left American Presidents American Renaissance Amnesty Amy Chua Ancient DNA Ann Coulter Anti-Semitism Antifa Antiracism Antonin Scalia Asia Asian Americans Asian Quotas Asians Australia Australian Aboriginals Austria Barack Obama Bill Clinton Black Lives Matter Brain Brexit British Politics Cambodia Cancer Capitalism Catalonia Catholic Church Censorship Central Asia Charles Murray Charlottesville Chelsea Clinton Chinese Chinese Evolution Christianity CIA Civil Rights Civil War Communism Confederacy Congress Consciousness Conservatism Constantinople Constitutional Theory Corruption Crime Crusades Cultural Marxism DACA Dalai Lama Dallas Shooting Deep State Democracy Democratic Party Demographics Demography Discrimination Dreamers Ebola Education Eisenhower El Salvador Elections Elian Gonzalez Emmanuel Macron Energy Enoch Powell Environmentalism Espionage EU Eugenics Europe European Union Eurozone Evolution Evolution Of Language Evolutionary Biology Fake News Ferguson Shooting Fertility Rates Finland France Gay Marriage Gaza Flotilla Gender Equality George W. Bush George Zimmerman Germany Global Warming Globalism Google Government Debt Greece Gun Control H-1B H1-B Visas Haiti Hamilton: An American Musical Harvard Hbd Hillary Clinton Hispanic Crime Hispanics Hitler Hollywood Hong Kong Housing Human Evolution Human Genetics Human Genome Hungary Hunting Imperialism Infection Intellectuals Intelligence Intelligent Design Iran Iraq Islamophobia Israel Israel Lobby Israel/Palestine Italy James Comey Japan Jared Taylor Jeff Sessions Jeremy Corbyn Jews Jimmy Carter John McCain Judicial System Kaiser Wilhelm Koreans Kurds Libertarianism Libya Love MacArthur Awards Maoism Marc Faber Margaret Thatcher Mark Steyn Martin Luther King Mass Shootings Massacre In Nice Memory Mencken Meritocracy Merkel Mexico Michael Bloomberg Middle East Mind Minorities Mulatto Elite Multiculturalism Muslims National Debt Nationalism NATO Nature Vs. Nurture Neandertal Admixture Nelson Mandela Neocons Neoconservatism New York City Nicholas Wade Nordics Norman Podhoretz North Korea Northern Ireland Nuclear Weapons Open Borders Orban Orlando Shooting Ottoman Empire Outsourcing Paris Attacks Pat Buchanan Paul Ryan Peter Thiel Philosophy Poetry Population Population Growth Probability Public Schools Puerto Rico Quantum Mechanics Race Race Denialism Race/IQ Racial Profiling Racial Reality Razib Khan Richard Lynn Robots Ron Paul Ron Unz Ronald Reagan Roy Moore Rudyard Kipling Saddam Hussein Sailer Strategy San Bernadino Massacre Scandinavia Science Fiction Scotland Senate Siberia Singularity Slavery Soccer Social Welfare Programs Somalia South Africa Space Program Spain Stabby Somali Statistics Stephen Wolfram Stereotypes Steve Sailer Supreme Court Syria Ta-Nehisi Coates Taiwan Taxes Tea Party Technology Television The Economist Thomas Perez Tibet Tom Wolfe Tony Blair Torture Treason Turkey UKIP Unemployment Uruguay Vietnam Violence Vote Fraud WASPs White Nationalists White Privilege White Supremacy Wikipedia William Buckley Winston Churchill World Cup World Population World War I World War II Xhosa Yemen Zimbabwe
Nothing found
 TeasersJohn Derbyshire Blogview

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
🔊 Listen RSS

The tire place

The Derbmobile had a slow leak on its right front tire, so Saturday morning I took it to the tire place.

My little town has a tire place everyone goes to. Perhaps yours does too. Our tire place is squinched in a short street between two bigger streets about to converge—like the bar of an upper-case “A”—in the low-commercial part of town (body shops, dry cleaners, chain drug stores, bodegas). The frontage is only about a hundred feet wide, twenty deep. There are four bays and a service-desk area.

Saturday morning they are super busy. There’s a small army of guys directing you to a parking place on the street or the forecourt, or into a bay. Under their directions, I parked at one side of the forecourt. A guy came out from the building and asked me, in a heavy Spanish accent, what was up. I told him. He jacked up the car, span the wheel, and quickly located a tiny nail imbedded in it. I was not to worry, he assured me, he could feex it, no prob-lem!

He took off the wheel and disappeared with it into a bay. I waited by the car, admiring the wonderful skill with which the choreographers, by gestures and shouting, managed the inward and outward flow of cars and customers. Skill and precision—the tire place guys deserve a mention in Simon Winchester’s book (below). Tolerance: 1 inch.

It seemed to me there must be endless possibilities for fender-benders with so many vehicles in such a small space. Does it ever happen? I asked one of the guys. “Not to my knowledge,” he replied in regular Long Islandish, never taking his eyes off the corps de ballet.

My man came back with the wheel, wet from the puncture bath. He put it back on, dzz dzz dzz, let down the car, and walked me to the service desk. Twelve dollars.

I almost like coming here: everyone working hard but good-natured, everything done so efficiently in such a confined space, fair prices, no fuss. No chicanery, either: They’ve never tried to sell me a new tire when the existing one is feex-able. The tire place is a model of useful everyday commerce.

There’s a serpent lurking in my paradise, though. A couple of streets over there’s a stretch of road where illegal aliens hang out early in the morning, looking for a day’s work. The probability that by having my tire fixed here I am participating in the cheap-labor racket I seethe and fume about on, is very high.

All sorts of questions arise. As a conscientious patriot, shouldn’t I be lobbying ICE to raid the tire place?

Or: Suppose they did raid it while I was lounging there by my car watching the forecourt maneuvers. Suppose they went into the bay where cheerful, efficient José was fixing my tire and brought him out in cuffs. Would I be, like, “Hey, wait a minute, fellers …” If José looked at me, would I look right back at him? What if ICE shut down the tire place and frog-marched the proprietors off to the bridewell?

Damn these moral conundrums! Answers: I am lobbying, in my own way, trying to bring my own particular limited abilities to the issue, writing internet articles deploring our open borders.

And no, I wouldn’t interfere with an ICE operation. You do the crime, you do the time—sorry, pal. It wasn’t me left the border open. Yes, I could meet his eyes. What’s right, is right. Scoffing at our laws is wrong. If ICE shuts down the tire place, there’s one in the next town over.

I do think, though, that after watching José being driven away, I’d feel a strong urge to find the nearest politician and break his jaw on José’s behalf.

Of course ICE didn’t show up. After paying the lady at the service desk, my man was hovering outside expectantly. I gave him an extravagant tip.

Passing on stage

In my September 14th podcast I recorded the passing of Indian public intellectual Rita Jitendra, who died on September 10th while being interviewed on live TV. I commented that: “Somewhere on the internet, I’m sure, there is a list of people who have died in the middle of some public performance.”

Several listeners did the due diligence I should have done, and pointed me to Wikipedia’s “List of entertainers who died during a performance.” There have been more such cases than you’d think. A general favorite with listeners was this one from 1971:

Longevity expert Jerome Rodale had been quoted as saying, “I’m going to live to be 100, unless I’m run over by a sugar-crazed taxi driver.” Soon after, he was a guest on The Dick Cavett Show. After his interview was done, Pete Hamill was being interviewed by Cavettwhen Rodale slumped. Hamill, noticing something was wrong, said in a low voice to Cavett, “This looks bad.” Rodale had died of a heart attack at age 72. The episode was never aired.

I think the case of Jim Fixx beats that for irony, though it doesn’t really belong in the Wikipedia list. Fixx was a leading promoter of the mid-1970s jogging craze, and wrote a best-selling bookadvocating running for health. He died of a heart attack in 1984, aged 52 … while jogging.

If you consider college faculty meetings to be performances, which some of my academic acquaintances surely do, a borderline Wikipedia-worthy case is that of Franz Boas the anthropologist, godfather of the No Such Thing As Racedogma. Boas died of a stroke at a Columbia faculty dinner in the arms of Claude Levi-Strauss, another crank anthropologist (but a much better writer).

My colleague James Fulford remarked on the number of stage performers who have died attempting the Bullet Catch illusion. There is even a book about this giving the precise number: Twelve Have Died.

I’m surprised the number isn’t bigger. Given the Pagliacci-style passions that swirl in the hothouse atmosphere of a troupe of healthy, highly-sexed young adult performers living and working in close quarters, especially on the road, the Bullet Catch illusion must offer irresistible temptations to jealous lovers and cuckolded husbands.

This whole business of dying while performing is fascinating. I’d write more, but I think I should go lie down. There’s this sudden pain … I … can’t breathe … I think … oh … ah …

Little acts of kindness

• Category: Ideology • Tags: Immigration 
🔊 Listen RSS

This has, in my opinion, been an unfortunate week in the politics of our republic.

From a partisan political point of view the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on Judge Kavanaugh. have ended well, with Kavanaugh being voted through by the committee. The entire Senate will vote on his appointment to the Supreme Court next week.

Goodwhites are fighting a fierce rearguard action, though. A key figure here has been Senator Jeff Flake of Arizona, a Mitt Romney-style open-borders social conservative who is retiring from politics at the end of this year.

Flake announced this morning, Friday, that he would vote to advance Kavanaugh’s nomination to the full Senate. Then midday he was cornered in an elevator by two shrieking women and apparently lost his nerve: He told the Judiciary Committee when he got out that he’d vote aye to advance the nomination only on condition the full Senate delays their vote for a week. [Trump agrees to FBI probe of Kavanaugh, bows to Flake, Dems, by Lisa Mascaro, Alan Fram and Mary Clare Jalonick, AP, September 27, 2018] Score one for hysterical harpies, score zero for the dignity of Senatorial process.

Favorite books of mine when I was a child were Richmal Crompton’s “William” stories, about a high-spirited suburban English boy named William Brown who did naughty things and got into adventures. William’s nemesis was a little girl named Violet Elizabeth Bott, whose main technique for getting her own way with William and his friends was to announce that if she didn’t get her way, she would scream and scream until she threw up. In British English, with a lisp, her line was: “I’ll thcream and thcream and thcream ’till I’m thick.”

It worked with eleven-year-old William and his pals; clearly it still works with Senator Flake.

Still, unless the opposition can pull off a new stunt between now and next Friday—which can’t be ruled out—failing that, the omens for eventual confirmation don’t look too bad.

The thing people want to know is, what effect will these confirmation hearings have on the mid-term elections?

It’s not easy to figure out. With the Presidency not in play, mid-term races are more local. Property taxes, highway maintenance, and shenanigans in the State Assembly loom larger than relations with China or terrorism or the National Debt. If you don’t know all the local issues and controversies—and I’ll admit I don’t—it makes the mid-terms hard to call.

And then there’s the famous base, the voters who take their politics most seriously. They’re more prominent in mid-term voting than less committed types who will show up every four years to help pick a President but take a political nap in between times. Both big parties have a base, of course.

What makes the effect of the Kavanaugh hearings hard to estimate is that there was something here to please both bases. The mid-terms may hinge on whose base got pleased more.

Prior to these hearings, the phrase being bandied about was “enthusiasm gap.” The Democrats’ base voters were morefired up, pundits told us, their hatred of Trump just more intense after two years’ exposure to him, their ranks fortified by two more annual cohorts of adult voters coming out of our colleges.[ The ‘Enthusiasm Gap’ Could Turn A Democratic Wave Into A Tsunami, By Nate Silver, Five Thirty Eight, March 14, 2018]

Those cohorts of younger voters have been marinated for four years in CultMarx ideology from anti-white, anti-male professors; and they’ve been subjected to careful sculpting of news and commentary by the social-media monopolies whose products they are addicted to.

Contrariwise, the pre-hearings wisdom went, Trump’s base was disheartened and disappointed by Trump’s failure to accomplish the big-ticket items they voted for in 2016: firm enforcement of immigration laws, properly defended borders, disentangling us from military commitments abroad.

It’s nice that the economy’s doing well, we got tax cuts, and our Israeli embassy has been moved to Jerusalem, but those are not things that brought out the Trump voters two years ago. Trump talks a good game, but he’s visibly failing at the one thing above all a President needs to succeed at: getting Congress to turn his proposals into legislation.

So that was the situation pre-hearings. The Tutsis (Goodwhite Democrats) were still fired up by hatred of Trump and indignation at Mrs. Clinton’s losing in 2016—unfairly, they are sure. The Hutus (aka Deplorables) were discontented, their 2016 passion deflated by the President’s failure to move us any real distance away from invade-the-world, invite-the-world neoconnery.

The Kavanaugh hearings were not displeasing to Tutsis. Dr Ford’s testimony, and the whole story she told, reinforced their fantasies of preppy white men having their way, coasting through life on arrogance and privilege, while non-male non-white serfs groan and suffer under the iron heel of oppression. So Tutsis are still fired up. The hearings did nothing to cool their ardor.

The Hutus will, however, I think, have gained more from the proceedings, thereby closing the enthusiasm gap some. There was a lot for a Hutu to like there.

Mainly there was Judge Kavanaugh himself, of course. He was firm and clear, he showed spine, and he gave as good as he got.

He mixed some yin in with the yang, too, some feminine in with the masculine, choking up when he talked about his daughter praying for Dr Ford.

If I am at all representative, Hutu men winced at that. We’d rather a man kept his composure in public. Hutu women, however, really go for that stuff. I doubt the Republican Party lost male Hutu votes on account of Judge Kavanaugh’s tears, but it picked up a few thousand on the distaff side.

🔊 Listen

The fuss over Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh having allegedly copped a feel from a high-school girl 35 or 36 years ago blew up just after last week’s Radio Derb went to tape. My own first reaction, when I first heard the accuser’s account of what happened, was: “They’re making a fuss about that?” But over and above the particular issue of Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination, there is a meta-issue. Why are Supreme Court nominations now such central events in our country’s political life?

About my first reaction: We really have bred up a generation of snowflakes; and snowflakery is such an appealing approach to life for some elements of previous generations—in this case, the generation of Kavanaugh and his accuser, which I think classifies as late-Boomer or early-Gen-X—trembling, fearful snowflakery is so appealing to some of these folk, they’ve retconned their own lives to incorporate it.

I can certainly testify that for my generation, the earliest Boomers, the encounter as alleged would not have moved the needle on anybody’s outrage dial. For one thing, a 15-year-old girl attending a house party with no adults present and booze flowing, would have been assumed to be a bit sluttish, so that the normal reserve and respect we accorded to all females would have been diminished somewhat. No, not abandoned, but diminished.

For another thing, I definitely—actually, quite vividly—recall that in my own teen years, my female coevals had sharp little fists that could give you a nasty black eye if you got out of line. Presumably teenage girls suffered some collective atrophy of the muscles in the twenty years between my house-partying and Brett Kavanaugh’s, leaving them defenseless against giggling drunk 17-year-old males trying to grope them.

That was my first reaction. My second reaction: Democrats really know how to play politics, while Republicans really don’t.

The Democrats’ political aim here is to juice up the baizuo vote. Baizuo is a loan-word from Chinese, literally “white left.” It’s used by Chinese bloggers to make fun of our Social Justice Warriors, whom they regard with somewhat baffled amusement. Baizuo has two less syllables than “SJW,” so I use it in a spirit of syllabic conservation.

Mid-term elections are coming up November 6th, six weeks next Tuesday, and Democrats want to energize their base, the baizuo. The most numerous cohort in the baizuo is women; so what better way to energize them than with a sexual-assault scandal, however minute and implausible? That’s really the beginning and end of it; that’s what this business is all about.

As I said, though, I’m impressed with the skill of the Democrats here, especially the timing. It’s really been pretty darn clever.

The Republicans, contrariwise, reveal themselves once again to be the Hopeless Party. Far from being any good at the political game, they’re hardly even bothering to play it. “Well, of course, in all fairness, we have to listen to what she has to say,” they are murmuring.

No, actually you don’t. An out-of-the-blue accusation with no supporting evidence, timed for maximum disruption, against a man who has already been background-checked up the wazoo? The correct response by the Judiciary Committee would have been: “With all proper respect, Ma’am, if you believe you have been wronged, the law has remedies. By all means go ahead and seek those remedies. Meanwhile, we shall proceed with our hearings, as prescribed by the Constitution.”

There is no escaping politics, of course. Still, formal constitutional proceedings should be conducted with a firm dignity and dispatch. They should not allow themselves to be derailed by such transparently political stunts as this one. Does no-one in the Republican Party understand this?

So, the meta-issue: Why are Supreme Court nominations now so important?

We all know the answer to that. SCOTUS, the Supreme Court of the United States, has become SLOTUS, the Supreme Legislature of the United States. We look to the Supremes to make our laws. The great transformations in our national life these past few decades—the national legalizing of abortionand buggery, racial preferences, public services for illegal aliens, the radical re-definition of marriage—were effected by the Court, not by Congress.

The foremost characteristic of American government in our age is in fact the utter uselessness of Congress. If the U.S. Capitol fell into a vast sinkhole while Congress was in session, would the national life be changed in any way? For the worse, I mean—hey, come on.

The latest estimate I have seen for the money cost of the wars fought by Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama is 5.6 trillion dollars. That’s a mighty lot of dollars. Yet Congress never declared war on anyone, as the Constitution says it should.

Nearly two years ago we elected a president whose signature campaign promise, enjoying very wide public support, was to build a wall along our southern border. Has Congress approved federal funds for that, as the Constitution says they should? Nah. The Senate Majority Leader, stifling a yawn, has said they might do some talking about it after the coming mid-term elections…maybe…possibly…you know, if there’s room in the schedule.

I’m reminded of the late Irish comedian Dermot Kelly, when an interviewer asked him whether the Irish language had any expression equivalent to the Mexican Eh, mañana. “Why, to be sure,” replied Kelly, “we do have such a term; but it doesn’t carry quite the same sense of desperate urgency.”

Congress is a waste of space. Serious legislating is done by the Supreme Court, by SLOTUS. That’s why it’s so all-fired important.

Yet this is not what the Founders intended. The September 15th issue of The Economist laid this out in a brilliant and forceful leader.

Yes, yes, I know: The Economist, cucky globalist Trump-hating open-borders flapdoodle…I have made regular contributions to our feature called “Economist Watch” here at, jeering at The Economist. Yes, yes; but stopped clocks and so on—sometimes they get things right, and they got this right:

The judiciary, wrote Alexander Hamilton in Federalist Paper 78, “may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment … [It] is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power.” For much of American history, politicians saw the Supreme Court as a backwater. John Rutledge, one of the first justices appointed by George Washington, resigned to become chief justice of South Carolina. Not until 1935 did the court have a building of its own. Today it occupies a central and increasingly untenable position in American life …

• Category: Ideology • Tags: American Media, Republican Party, Supreme Court 
🔊 Listen RSS

Nice to see my old pal the Dalai Lama in the news. His Holiness spoke at a conference titled “The Art of Happiness and Peace” in the city of Malmö, Sweden.

The event was hosted by a Swedish outfit named—please pardon my Swedish—Individuell Människohjälp, “IM” for short. I think the full Swedish name means “Individual Assistance.” It’s some kind of international do-gooder outfit which “now works in thirteen countries worldwide focussing on people’s right to education, good health and the ability to sustain a life in dignity.” Sounds very Swedish. I wonder if they take money from George Soros.

I shouldn’t be so reflexively sour and cynical, though—Heaven forbid! Jolly good luck to IM. Most to the point, they did give the Dalai Lama a platform to say something sensible.

I’ve always had a soft spot for this Dalai Lama. I met him once, 34 years ago, when he and I were both much younger (he is currently 83). He struck me as having just the right balance of humanity and gravitas that I’d want in a religious leader. Of course, a lot of what he said was bland religious-leader stuff about world peace and such. But nothing was plainly false or idiotic, and some was refreshingly honest.

Here for example is a thing he said, recorded in Tibet, Tibet: A Personal History of a Lost Land, Patrick French’s book about Tibet, concerning Westerners who take up Buddhism:

In the West, I do not think it advisable to follow Buddhism. Changing religions is not like changing professions. Excitement lessens over the years, and soon you are not excited, and then where are you? Homeless inside yourself.

If Tibetan Buddhism has a Marketing Department, that must have got them wailing and rending their garments. It’s true, though.

The Dalai Lama’s remarks in Malmö were similarly sensible. On the topic of Third-Worlders flooding into Europe uninvited, he said: “Receive them, help them, educate them … but ultimately they should develop their own country … I think Europe belongs to the Europeans …”[Dalai Lama: 'Europe belongs to the Europeans', AFP/The Local, September 13, 2018]

So, OK, he’s accepting the flim-flam about them being refugees, which hardly any of them actually are, and he presumably thinks they are penniless and desperate, when in fact they are mostly well-dressed middle-class types with cellphones who could afford to pay the people-smugglers.

He is also looking at the issue from his own point of view, as a genuine refugee. The Dalai Lama fled his homeland sixty years ago when Communist China asserted totalitarian control over the country. Since then he’s kept alive the dream of himself and his fellow exiles one day returning to a Free Tibet.

So, OK, there are qualifications to be made. Still the Dalai Lama said a sensible thing at the end there: “Europe belongs to the Europeans.” Yes, it does.

His saying that thing of course generated much gasping and sputtering among Goodthinkful Europeans. ['Europe Belongs to Europeans': Dalai Lama Stuns Swedish Public, Sputnik, September 14, 2018] A depressingly common response was, “Why don’t the Dalai Lama and his followers set an example by returning to their own country?” Answer: because they would, beyond a doubt, be tortured and killed by the ChiCom Gestapo. You really don’t need a Ph.D. in Far Eastern Studies to know that.

The Dalai Lama’s observation turned my thoughts to the sea change in the international order that’s occurred over my lifetime: the drift from pride to parasitism.

Case in point: Another remark that caused shrieking and wailing among Goodthinkers this week was President Trumps’ skepticism about an updated count of deaths from Hurricane Maria, which hit Puerto Rico in mid-September last year. The government of the place recorded 64 deaths. A few days ago, researchers at George Washington University published a report that estimated “there were 2,975 excess deaths in Puerto Rico due to Hurricane Maria between September 2017 and February 2018.”[GW Researchers: 2,975 Excess Deaths Linked to Hurricane Maria, August 29, 2018]

President Trump took it personally, tweet: “This was done by the Democrats in order to make me look as bad as possible when I was successfully raising billions of dollars to help rebuild Puerto Rico.”

That’s what ignited the shrieking and wailing. Hispanic supremacist Representative Luis Gutierrezcalled it “delusional” and predicted that Trump will respond more energetically to this week’s Hurricane Florence than he did to last year’s Hurricane Maria because Trump “has a golf club in North Carolina.” [Gutiérrez Responds To President On Puerto Rico Hurricane Deaths, September 13, 2018]

Whatever. Clinging as I am to the hope that Trump may actually do something to restore our national sovereignty, and believing as I do that Representative Luis Gutierrez is pond scum, I’ll take the President’s side on this one.

Mention of Puerto Rico, though, brings to my mind that great slow decades-long trend from pride to parasitism among the peoples of the Third World.

The trend is vivid to me because I’ve watched it across these decades, starting in my college years in England during the early 1960s.

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

Headliner of the week was the anonymous op-ed published in the New York Anti-White Times on Wednesday by—from the byline—”a senior official in the Trump administration whose identity is known to us and whose job would be jeopardized by its disclosure.”

From the tone of the thing, the respectful references to tax cuts and “a more robust military” and total lack of reference to immigration, the author is a Never Trumper, a Jeb Bush-Paul Ryan GOP type. He tells us that

Many of the senior officials in [Trump's] own administration are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations.

There is an underlying systemic problem here.

A new President, coming into office, has to staff up the White House apparatus and the Cabinet departments. That’s a lot of personnel slots to fill. Where are you going to find all the people?

The problem is more than usually acute for a new President like Trump, who’s an outsider, not a member of the political Establishment.

That’s actually putting it mildly: Trump is the outsiderest outsider since Andrew Jackson. In fact he’s even more of an outsider than Jackson, who’d served in Congress and been defeated in a previous run for President before his 1828 victory. And the federal government and the White House Establishment were far, far smaller in Jackson’s day. Trump, coming in after November 2016, had a colossal staffing problem.

How to solve that problem? My own preferred solution would have been a mass cull of federal office positions, a drastic trimming of the organization chart; if not down to 1828 levels, as close as could be done. Who thinks we need all those Assistant Under Secretaries to the Deputy Undersecretary? Not me.

I realize, however, that that’s over-idealistic. More on that in a segment or two. Trump’s problem on coming to office was that there weren’t enough Trumpists to staff a Trump administration. He had perforce to fall back on holdovers from the next best thing: previous Republican administrations.

So the White House, and the big cabinet Departments, are addled with cucky Jeb Bush / Paul Ryan clones who likemissionary wars and who lie awake at night trembling with fear that Rachel Maddow or Al Sharpton may find a reason to call them racist.

The President himself, bless him, seems to have no great enthusiasm for trying to turn Niger into Denmark, and couldn’t care less if anyone thinks he’s racist.

That’s Trump; that’s Trumpism; trouble is, there aren’t enough Trumpists to staff up the huge, creaking edifice of federal government. So there are Bush-Ryan-Romney types all over, doing their best—as the anonymous New York George Soros Times op-ed writer frankly admitted—to thwart Trump’s program. That would be the program 63 million of us voted for in 2016.

Trump himself isn’t completely blameless. Yes, Trumpists with enough of a résumé to be useful as staffers were thin on the ground in 2016, but Trump none the less ignored some of those who were available. Could he really not have found a slot for Kris Kobach? For Tom Tancredo? For Pat Buchanan?

And the President himself could be more forceful in resisting these siren voices from the George W. Bush era whispering in his ear.

Trump’s instinct is that we need to defend our southern border but we don’t need to defend Lithuania’s border with Belarus, as we are currently committed to do by the NATO charter. Those “senior officials” that Anonymous is writing about hold the contrary opinions, and Trump has gone along with them; so the southern border is wide open and the Lithuania-Belarus border is under the stern protection of the U.S. military.

Why did he go along with this? He didn’t have to. Why didn’t he tell the “senior officials” to go boil their heads?

Part of the answer, possibly all of it, can be found in those disastrous televised White House meetings with congresscritters earlier this year, the one on immigration January 9th and the one on gun control February 28th. As I reported after the earlier of those two cuckfests, “If the President’s performance on-camera was a sample of his negotiating skills, his next book should be titled The Art of the Kneel.”

Allowances should be made, though. At some point in the last few years we—we, the Western world—crossed into new, uncharted political territory. If we haven’t found our bearings yet—if even some of those who led us into this new territory are still not totally oriented—it’s really not surprising.

So should we anticipate a soft coup? Will the Never Trump cucks wrest back control of the GOP?

🔊 Listen RSS

I get queries and sometimes complaints from listeners asking me why I don’t give more time to the Special Prosecutor investigation, the intelligence-service scandals, Mrs. Clinton’s shenanigans and possible crimes in the 2016 campaign, and so on.

I also get listeners asking me—always, I must say, politely—where I stand in the feud between our President and his Attorney General Jeff Sessions. I’m not sure that “feud” is the right word. Certainly the President has strong feelings about Sessions and has expressed those feelings with his customary pith and vigor. Jeff, however, has kept shtum, unless I missed something. It takes two to tango, and also to feud.

Whatever: There is a real, serious disagreement there. Arguments on both sides are substantive and nontrivial. You can make a case for Trump’s side; you can make a case for Sessions. So which side am I on?

Answer: I’m with Sessions. I understand the arguments on the other side; and they are, as I said, nontrivial. You can certainly make the case that in recusing himself from anything to do with the Special Counsel, and failing to let the President know his position in a timely-enough manner, Sessions was being too punctilious.

I’m with Jeff none the less because of the underlying issues: on the one side, Special Prosecutor Mueller’s efforts to reverse the result of the 2016 election; on the other side the A-G’s firming up and enforcing our country’s immigration laws.

Permit me to draw an analogy.

Eighty years ago, China was in a sorry state. The titular government of the country had lost key parts of its territoryto Japan; and in other parts, Mao Tse-tung’s Communists were challenging the central government’s authority.

Chiang Kai-shek, China’s military dictator, made it known that eradicating the Communists was his main priority. When people responded, “What about the Japanese?” he had a stock response. “The Japanese,” he would say, “are a disease of the skin; the Communists are a disease of the heart.”

I feel the same way about those two underlying issues. I can certainly see the President’s point of view. Mueller and his squads, aided of course by their Main Stream Media allies, must be as much fun for the President to live with as a cloud of mosquitoes at a summer picnic. They are, though, I believe, a disease of the skin. They can’t kill our Republic, or transform it into something its citizens don’t want it to be.

Our foolish immigration policies, and lackadaisical enforcement even of the feeble laws we have, can do those things. Our immigration folly is a disease of the heart.

Jeff Sessions knew this—and spoke fearlessly about it, and tried to legislate about it—when he was in the Senate. Now he’s at the Justice Department, he has done more to halt the creeping catastrophe of demographic replacement than any public official of the past half century. Read Neil Munro’s August 27th piece at Six Reasons Why AG Jeff Sessions Is Trump’s Hammer In The Fight Against Illegal Immigration.

The rumor going round is that Trump wants to fire Jeff Sessions after the November midterms. [Donald Trump just gave a GIANT hint about when he'll fire Jeff Sessions, by Chris Cillizza, CNN, August 30, 2018] The only way that would not be a disaster for the U.S.A. would be if Trump were then to appoint Sessions Secretary of Homeland Security and give the Justice Department to Kris Kobach.

To dismiss Sessions and put some milquetoast seat-warmer in his place, just for some leverage over Mueller, would be to turn all the government’s efforts towards fighting a disease of the skin while leaving a disease of the heart unattended to continue its silent, deadly progress.

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

“Sp—” watch

I wondered aloud in a previous diary why, when orthodox–I mean, Politically Correct–writers want to tell us that someone or other is guilty of voicing heterodox opinions, they reach for an “sp—” word.

Heterodox Harry didn’t say the offending thing, or write it, or utter or pen or express it: He spouted it, or spewed it.

To quote myself:

Why is it that only an “sp—” word will do for remarks that journalists find unacceptable? And why do they so rarely venture beyond “spew” and “spout”? There are, after all, plenty of other “sp—” words that could be deployed for these purposes. [Yankees pitcher] David Wells might have “spritzed” those words into the phone, or “sputtered” his vile anti-endomorphist insults, or spat them out in a spasm of splenetic spite.

It’s a sad comment on our times when even sports writers can’t alliterate imaginatively.

Well, I missed one.

You’ll recall that White House speechwriter Darren Beattie got fired in mid-August for having attended the 2016 H.L. Mencken Club annual conference along with notorious thought criminal Peter Brimelow,’s Editor. In the CNN report on the firing, I got a mention too:

The schedule for the 2016 conference listed panels and speeches by white nationalist Peter Brimelow and two writers, John Derbyshire and Robert Weissberg, who were both fired in 2012 from the conservative magazine National Review for espousing racist views. [Speechwriter who attended conference with white nationalists in 2016 leaves White House by Andrew Kaczynski; CNN Politics, August 22nd, 2018.]

The verb “to espouse” is old and respectable. The online Shakespeare concordance lists four occurrences each of “espouse” and “espoused” in the Bard’s works. John Milton used “espouséd” in a well-known (and very lovely) sonnet.

It is not much used nowadays, however. In my own output of several million words across thirty-plus years, I seem never to have used it. (A scan of my website turns up seven occurrences in my archives; but every one of them is from quoted material.)

It’s just not a common word nowadays … except when some Main Stream Media reporter or commentator wants to tell us that a person holds heterodox opinions. The thought criminal, in the cant of media orthodoxy, does not in fact hold those opinions, or believe them, or express them, or affirm them, or cherish them, or promote them, or confess to them, or cleave to them, or merely have them: he espouses them.

Check it out next time you see a media report on Brimelow, Taylor, Derbyshire, Weissberg, or some other heretic: nine times out of ten we are espousing our deplorable views.

I tell you: that “sp” consonant-cluster has a mighty gravitational pull on the dull, crabbed minds of media hacks. They write in formulas because they think in formulas; and their formulas are constructed from a little tin toolbox of cant words and phrases.

Why “sp—” words, though? This ought to be something an expert in neurolinguistics could explain. On the off-chance some such expert is reading this, give us a hypothesis, please, would you?

The de-hobbying of the personal computer

Sharp-eyed readers who opened some of the links in that previous segment will have noticed that my personal website has advanced from to

That “s” cost me close to $200. You have to do it, though. Keeping your website at dull old “http,” with no “s,” means that when people link to your pages, they come up with a message saying not secure at top left on every screen–a deterrent to many readers. Furthermore, the big search engines are pushing “http” websites down their rankings in favor of “https.”

That was one of my computer projects this month, upgrading the site from “http” to “https.”

(If it’s a thing you want to do, make your first call to whomever hosts your website. My people, Hostway, were helpful, efficient, and nicely in the middle of the price range.)

Another August project was to purge Adobe Flash out of my pages. Flash has been under suspicion of being insufficiently secure, how justly I do not know. In response to all the anxiety, Adobe has declared they will stop supporting Flash in 2020. Since all the audio files in my Readings pages used Flash, I’ve had to upgrade them.

To what? That’s a good question. There doesn’t seem to be any audio protocol that works for all browsers without planting a thicket of Javascript around it, which I can’t be bothered to do. Release 5 of HTML (the language in which web pages are coded) has an <audio> tag that’s supposed to solve the problem once and for all. It works fine in Google Chrome and Microsoft Edge, so I switched to it. Whether it works in Firefox, Opera, or whatever the hell those cool hip Mac users browse with, I have no idea.

HTML has been around for thirty years. You’d think that the people who write browsers (Chrome, Firefox, etc.) would all be in line with it by now. Apparently that’s too much to ask.

And then, OneDrive. Just shoot me, please.

• Category: Ideology • Tags: Donald Trump 
Ten Points About Mollie Tibbetts Murder
🔊 Listen RSS

The murder of Mollie Tibbetts in Iowa is an unusually comprehensive story, in that it puts on display a remarkably large number of the components of our immigration-policy lunacy.

Ms Tibbetts, just to remind you, was a 20-year-old white girl, a sophomore at the University of Iowa, majoring in psychology. She went jogging on July 18th and was not seen alive again. Cristhian Bahena-Rivera, an illegal alien from Mexico, has been charged with her murder. A preliminary autopsy has indicated that Ms Tibbetts was stabbed to death.

Let me tick off those components for you.

  1. Sanctuary cities and counties. Until July 1st this year — two weeks before Ms Tibbetts set off on her last jog — the town of Brooklyn, Iowa, where she was staying, was surrounded by sanctuary cities and counties. Then on July 1st the Iowa state legislature passed a bill revoking state funding from sanctuary jurisdictions.
  2. Identity theft. Bahena-Rivera “used a fake or stolen photo ID and provided a fraudulent Social Security card” to get a job at a dairy farm.
  3. Need for compulsory E-Verify. The dairy farm admits they did not use E-Verify to check Bahena-Rivera’s eligibility for legal employment.
  4. Media reluctance to say “illegal alien.” The New York Times originally described Bahena-Rivera as, quote, “a 24-year-old resident of rural Poweshiek County.” They later updated the descriptor to, quote, “a 24-year-old undocumented immigrant.”
  5. The anchor baby scam. Bahena-Rivera has had a child by one of Mollie Tibbetts’ former classmates. Since this child was born in the U.S.A. it is, by the current insane interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, a U.S. citizen.
  6. Family separation. The arrest and charging of Bahena-Rivera has of course caused him to be separated from his child. If found guilty, he will likely be separated from his child for many years. Meanwhile Mollie Tibbetts has of course, as our President and others have pointed out, been separated from her family permanently.
  7. DACA. Cristhian Bahena-Rivera is given in the news reports as being 24 years old. He has been in this country for “four to seven years,” we are told. That means he was likely a minor when he arrived. He’s a Dreamer! — and eligible for DACA relief from deportation. There does not, however, seem to be any evidence he applied for DACA relief.
  8. Complicity of the Republican Party in keeping borders open to please donors seeking cheap labor. The farm where Bahena-Rivera worked is owned by relatives of Craig Lang, former president of both the Iowa Farm Bureau Federation and the Iowa Board of Regents and a 2018 Republican candidate for Iowa state secretary of agriculture.
  9. Low-IQ media nitwits miss the point. Affirmative action hire Symone Sanders at CNN blames toxic masculinity. Actual quote: “Her murderer happens to be undocumented. This isn’t about border security. This is about toxic masculinity. Mollie Tibbetts lost her life because a man couldn’t take her saying no. Full stop.” End quote.
  10. White ethomasochism. Mollie Tibbetts, who so far as I can ascertain was entirely white, tweeted on December 12th last that, tweet: “I hate white people.” This was not meant ironically and was not anomalous: from her full Twitter feed it’s plain that Ms Tibbetts was fully invested in the CultMarx attitudes and diction that are the default for 20-year-old college students, and that help to prevent us doing anything effectual about illegal immigration.

I’ve probably missed a couple, but ten is a nice round number. Sufficient to say, from those ten points alone, that getting from where we currently are to a sane, strict immigration policy that benefits Americans, is going to be a long, hard climb.

• Category: Ideology • Tags: Immigration 
🔊 Listen RSS

Headlines from London today:

Notting Hill Carnival subjected to section 60 order to prevent violence, by Richard Hartley-Parkinson, Metro, August 27, 2018

Notting Hill Carnival: 126 arrests made as police CRACKDOWN on disorder | L ONDON police have arrested 126 people at the Notting Hill Carnival this weekend amid spiralling levels of violence in the capital, By Latifa Yedroudj, James Bickerton, August 27, 2018

From Friday’s Radio Derb–go here to listen.

Across the pond the Brits are coming up to an unhappy anniversary. Let me explain.

This Monday, August 27th, is the last Monday in August. That is what the Brits call a Bank Holiday — a three-day weekend. One feature of this particular Bank Holiday is the Notting Hill Carnival, advertised as a celebration of Caribbean culture. Notting Hill, you see, is a district in west-central London that was one of the first to be colonized by blacks from the West Indies in the earliest wave of Third World immigration after WW2.

The Carnival started in 1966, but it was prompted in part by some earlier events. One of those earlier events was a race riot, which took place at the end of August 1958, in, yes, Notting Hill. It wasn’t Britain’s first race riot; but because it happened in the capital, it got everyone’s attention in a way previous ructions hadn’t.

That’s the anniversary I mentioned. The Notting Hill race riots took place sixty years ago this weekend. The Carnival started up eight years later as part of a medley of efforts to get race relations on a happier, more constructive track.

Things haven’t exactly worked out as hoped for, though as always with race issues, you have to read carefully to learn this.

Most mainstream-media coverage of the Carnival is superficial and happy-clappy. Pictures of white politicians and policemen posing self-consciously among black carnival-goers are de rigueur.

However, as you’d expect for a black event, the Notting Hill Carnival is a disorderly affair with a lot of violence. There are hundreds of arrests every year. The actual number last year was 313: lower than usual, but there had been a big police sweep in the weeks leading up to the event, with more than six hundred arrests.

The level of apprehension this year is high because of the crime wave that London is currently experiencing. The homicide numbers for London have just passed a hundred, with shootings and stabbings leading the stats; and of course, for every homicide there are dozens of woundings, maimings, and disfigurings. Most recently a fashion for throwing acid at people has come up. Practically all of this crime is black on black, though you have to read the news reports with careful attention to notice that.

So nonblack residents of Notting Hill have triple-locked their apartments and left town for the weekend. Acres of wooden boards are going up around stores and private houses. Police and hospital emergency room staff are rubbing their hands with glee, anticipating lots of overtime. The phrase “knife arches” has suddenly appeared in news outlets: metal detectors, basically, being set up at entry points to the Carnival to deter people bringing in knives.

I was thirteen when the Notting Hill riots happened back in 1958. I can remember hearing the adults — working-class white English people — talking about it. The commonest opinion was that it was foolish of the authorities to let so many blacks settle in the country. It was just storing up trouble for the future, people said. Blacks and whites will never get along together, people said. Look at America, people said.

How ignorant and reactionary people were back then! And how wrong! Thank goodness we live now in a more enlightened time!

• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: Black Crime, Britain, Immigration 
🔊 Listen RSS

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

But first, just a word about sex trafficking.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What he actually said was:

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

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

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

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

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

• Category: Ideology • Tags: Democratic Party, Political Correctness 
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