The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewJohn Derbyshire Archive
MARCH DIARY: Eloquence On Christchurch, Return of the Ice Sheets, Royal NPCS, and the Conquest of Mexico, Etc.[8 ITEMS]
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

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
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
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
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

Eloquence of the month

Mid-March saw the atrocity in New Zealand, where Brenton Tarrant shot up two mosques in the city of Christchurch, killing fifty people.

As is now routine, this act by a lone lunatic of dissident sympathies was taken by governments of formerly-liberal democracies and their corporate stooges as an excuse to further shut down all expression of dissident ideas, however moderate, thoughtful, and nonviolent.

Which is just what Tarrant hoped for in his manifesto. He was motivated by the old Leninist principle: “The worse, the better.” The worse things become for moderate, non-crazy dissidents, the better the prospects for violent revolution.

At month’s end came news that white advocate Jared Taylor has been banned from most of Europe. My colleague James Kirkpatrick covered that very thoroughly in his March 31st column.

Whether the banning of Jared was a consequence of the New Zealand massacre—whether, that is, it was another opportunistic blow against moderate dissidence in the spirit of “never let an atrocity go to waste“—I don’t know. It may have been done independently by the Polish government, or much more likely by some low-level bureaucrat in that government’s employ.

Whatever the truth of that matter, this latest insult to a law-abiding patriot makes it all the more important to give the widest possible publicity to the words Jared published on March 18th—after the Christchurch massacre but before his banning from Europe. The following extract is particularly eloquent.

What would have prevented Mr. Tarrant’s murderous rampage? Not more repression, censorship, and demonization.

Let us instead imagine a different political environment. Let us imagine one in which there is open discussion about the demographic future. One in which it is not considered “hate” to ask: How many people should our country have? Do we need any immigrants? Do people of certain religions or races assimilate better than others? Why do people of different races consistently build different societies? Is diversity a strength or a weakness? Is it wrong for whites to prefer to live, marry, and work with other whites? Must whites become a minority?

I have been asking these questions, politely but pointedly, for nearly 30 years. I believe that the long-term solution to racial and ethnic conflict is not to force more “diversity” on people who never asked for it but to let them, if they wish, build separate communities. This can be achieved through the democratic process.

For this, I am called a “hater.” Twitter closed my account, Amazon banned my books, my organization lost its Facebook account, hotels will not rent meeting rooms to me, printers refuse my business, and payment processors have cut me off. Many other groups are harassed and silenced in exactly the same way. Any society that crushes opposing viewpoints is treating dissent as a crime. The entire West is rushing towards tyranny, and as we saw in Christchurch, tyranny has consequences. When even the most moderate views are outlawed, extremism—and worse—will flourish.

A Kultprop explains the manifesto

The first link in Jared’s March 18th piece will get you to T arrant’s manifesto in zip-file format. At least, it will at the time of posting this; I make no guarantees for the future. Efforts to memory-hole the manifesto have been very determined; I doubt they have yet ceased.(An archived PDF is here…for now.)

I actually read the manifesto—well, the first twenty-odd pages of it—via a more direct link Jim Goad had included in the seventh paragraph of his column at Taki’s Magazine, also posted on March 18th. That was a day or two after Jim’s piece went up at TakiMag.

Then, preparing this diary a few days later, I thought it would be helpful to add the same link here. However, when I brought up Jim’s March 18th piece again and re-clicked on the link, it no longer went to the manifesto. Instead it went to some brief, bland introductory text for a 4m32s video clip.

The clip shows a fashionably-bearded metrosexual Kultprop of indeterminate race “explaining” the manifesto from an ideologically-correct viewpoint.

The closing words of the clip are: “Diversity isn’t a weakness. Diversity is a strength.”

Don’t be looking to a Kultprop for originality.

Return of the ice-sheets

Jared’s American Renaissance, like VDARE.com, is a child of the easy-going 1990s, when dissident ideas could be discussed with what now seems like astonishing freedom.

Jared could hold conferences at commercial hotels, address student groups on college campuses, raise funds through normal channels, publish books with mainstream publishers and sell those books on Amazon. Jared and VDARE.com’s Peter Brimelow even appeared on TV! It all seems incredible now.

I write these words with sadness, but also with some smug proprietorial satisfaction. I was one of the first, perhaps the first person to record how free we were a quarter-century ago in what Peter calls that “interglacial” spell during the 1990s. I even made a rough attempt to quantify the freedom.

Then our dimwitted power elites slowly grasped what a threat the internet is to their interests. They cracked the whip on their media shills, let loose their Antifa street thugs, and easily co-opted the big software and social-media corporations to turn the internet against dissent from their cherished ideology.

Now the ice-sheets have returned. Free speech and free thought are being crushed by state and corporate power.

Stanford political scientist Larry Diamond calls this new order “postmodern totalitarianism“: a data-driven blend of Brave New World and Nineteen Eighty-Four in which citizens enjoy the apparent freedom to live their daily lives in happy hedonism while the state carefully monitors and censors everything they see, say, and do.

China of course leads the way here, but what we were once pleased to call “the free world” is catching up fast. As Jared wrote: “The entire West is rushing towards tyranny.”

Royal NPCs

I like the NPC meme. In case you don’t know it, “NPC” stands for “Non-Playing Character” in a video game. An NPC has some of the characteristics of a genuine human player, but is in fact an entirely computer-generated object that “advances the game’s plot by saying scripted lines, or assisting the playable characters in some way.”

That quote is from a New York Times article on the NPC meme last Fall. That article further explains that:

Several months ago, users on 4chan and Reddit, the online message forums, started using the term NPC to refer to liberals. These people, they said, join the anti-Trump crowd not because they are led by independent thought or conscience to oppose President Trump’s policies, but because they’re brainwashed sheep who have been conditioned to parrot left-wing orthodoxy, in the manner of a scripted character.

As a Reddit user, BasedMedicalDoctor, explains in a thread about the appeal of the meme, NPCs are “completely dependent on their programming, and can’t do or think on their own.” [What Is NPC, the Pro-Trump Internet’s New Favorite Insult? by Kevin Roose; New York Times, October 16th 2018.]

My NPC-recognition neurons lit up when I read news stories at the very beginning of March about England’s Prince Harry and his pregnant wife Meghan Markle telling the world they intend to raise their child “gender-fluid.”

ORDER IT NOW

The royal family’s PR people have been denying the story, but it sounds all too believable to me. Harry’s a climate-change warrior (when not zipping around his country in private helicopters); Meghan’s a self-declared feminist; their wedding last May was self-consciously “diverse.” Everything about this couple shouts “NPC!”

You could I suppose make the case that constitutional monarchy requires NPCs at the top. The entire point of constitutional monarchy is that the monarch is a figurehead, a mere token, not a political player. Constitutional monarchy is, in its very nature, NPC-dom enthroned.

Fair enough, I guess. Still I think it’s sad to see people in positions of such prominence showing no sign of an ability for independent thought, no trace of skepticism or irreverence towards ideological pieties.

I shall miss the Duke of Edinburgh when he’s gone.

Hernán Cortés, twelve-pointer

My book of the month has been Hugh Thomas’s 800-page 1993 doorstopper about the Spanish conquest of Mexico, which commenced just 500 years ago.

This is the revival of an old interest. Back in my thirties, during a spell living at my parents’ home in Northampton, I found a copy of William H. Prescott’s 1843 book on the same subject in Mrs. Billingham’s second-hand bookstore in St Giles Street and read it with keen attention. I was so taken by the story I then bought a copy of Bernal Díaz’ memoirs, which had just come out as a Penguin book. Díaz actually served with Cortés right through the Mexico campaign.

What a tremendous story it is!—one of the great true epics of history. And what a hell of an alpha male Cortés was! His will never wavered, in spite of terrible reverses. He pressed ahead resolutely with his own plans, ignoring the orders of his superior, the Governor of Cuba. When the Governor sent troops to arrest him, Cortés won them over to his cause. This guy was a real twelve-pointer.

Hugh Thomas goes much deeper into detail than Prescott, and has 150 years’ further scholarship to draw on, but he is nothing like so gifted a writer: his prose often clangs. And what does he have against maps?—the book doesn’t include anything like enough.

I could have used more help with pronunciation of the names, too. Tetlahuehuequititzin; Iztaquimaxtitlan; Chichimecatecle; Axayactaztin; Chalchiuhnenetzin; Ixtlilxochitl (there are two of those); Teoctlamacazqui; Xuchimatzatzin; … oy oy oy. Couldn’t the author just tell me which syllable gets the stress? I don’t recall so many damn names in Prescott; but Prescott’s book is shorter. Perhaps that’s why.

Hugh Thomas published his book before full-bore Cultural Marxism took over the academy, so he does not insult our intelligence by framing his story in anti-white terms as an assault on peaceful, harmless indigenes by cruel, avaricious Europeans. His narrative makes plain, in fact, that the worst, most appalling atrocities against the Mexica were committed by Cortés’ Indian allies:

Cortés later commented: “There was not one man among us [Castilians] whose heart did not bleed at the sound of these killings.” … The Tlaxcalans, the Texcocans, and other allies killed indiscriminately. The city [i.e. Tenochtitlan, Mexico’s capital] was full of unburied bodies.

He signs off his chapter on the final conquest and destruction of Tenochtitlan in August 1521 with five short sentences summarizing Cortés’ astounding achievement. But then:

For a time he and his friends seemed to have been looked upon by some Mexica at least as being reincarnations of deities. But in the end, to be honest, it had been the Mexica who had fought like gods.

That’s not any sop to political correctness, it is just plain truth, as Thomas’s narrative has made clear. The Mexica fought desperately, heroically, for their city and their civilization long after all hope was gone. They had no metal weapons, no horses, no cannon or firearms, only cotton armor, and their numbers had been decimated by smallpox, to which they had no resistance. (Cuitláhuac, who succeeded Montezuma as Emperor, had died of smallpox.) Still they fought, to the point of utter exhaustion.

What a story! What a story!

A problem of communication

Hugh Thomas is rightly skeptical about the degree to which Cortés could make himself understood to the Mexica. When he first showed up in their capital city in November 1519 he had no-one with him who could speak both Spanish and Nahuatl, the language of the Mexica.

He had his Indian mistress Marina, who had been raised speaking a dialect of Nahuatl, although not the dialect spoken in the capital, and who had then been sold to Mayans and learned their quite different language. He also had Gerónimo de Aguilar, an Andalusian Spaniard who had been shipwrecked in Yucatan and spent eight years among the Maya, learning their language.

So to talk to Montezuma Cortés depended on Aguilar to put his words from Spanish into Mayan, then on Marina to turn them from Mayan into her dialect of Nahuatl. How much sense got accurately transmitted this way, it’s hard to judge.

(Marina later learned enough Spanish from Cortés that he could dispense with Aguilar’s services. Cortés seems never to have learned much Nahuatl, though. This is the reverse of the practice favored by British colonial administrators posted to remote areas of India and Africa, who would acquire working knowledge of the local language via a “sleeping dictionary.”)

Nicholas Ostler in Empires of the Word gives Nahuatl a good press, and includes some hauntingly beautiful verses.

Zan yuhki nonyaz in oompoliwi šocitl ah?
Antle notleyo yez in kenmanian?
Antle nitauhka yez in tlaltikpak?
Ma nel šocitl, ma nel kuikatl!
Ken konciwaz noyollo, yewaya?
On nen tonkizako in tlaltikpak!

Shall I just go like the flowers which were fading?
Will my glory be nothing one day?
Will my fame be nothing in the earth?
At least flowers, at least songs!
Alas, what will my heart do?
In vain do we pass this way across the earth!

That would not disgrace one of the Greek lyric poetsCallimachus or Pindar. I’d like to hear the original Nahuatl from a native speaker.

I’m the last person you should go to for expressions of white guilt about European colonialism. I understand, however, that there is certainly a great, a terrible melancholy in losing your language, your literature, your nation, your culture, your civilization.

All the more amazing that we seem willing to surrender ours so carelessly. At least the Mexica put up a fight.

Perils of a Harvard education

William H. Prescott, who wrote that earlier Conquest of Mexico, followed up with an equally engrossing Conquest of Peru. These two books are scholarly achievements of the first rank; and this is doubly remarkable as Prescott was nearly blind.

Prescott’s eyesight degenerated after being hit in the eye with a crust of bread during a food fight as a student, and it remained weak and unstable throughout the rest of his life. — Wikipedia.

That would have been in the Harvard refectory, I guess. Harvard in the 1810s was a rough place.

Math Corner

ORDER IT NOW

This month’s math corner is about vaccination—reluctantly, as this is one of those zones, like Global Warming, in which the mildest, most diffident expression of opinion causes one’s mailbox to fill up with 800-word argumentative epistles from people some nontrivial proportion of whom are screeching monomaniacs.

Michelle Malkin is not a screeching monomaniac, and her views on the vaccination of children are close to my own, as aired for example here. This is Math Corner, though, and Michelle’s March 5th column on vaccination, while it contained many good and sensible things, also included a small lesson in the pitfalls of handling data when you don’t know any math or statistics.

Here is the offending paragraph:

As for efficacy, consider this new data: A recent whooping cough outbreak at the private Harvard-Westlake School in Los Angeles last week resulted in 30 students contracting the illness, all of whom were vaccinated. Of 18 unvaccinated students, none caught the disease. Will pointing this out on my Facebook and Twitter accounts bring down the Silicon Valley ban hammer?

I sure hope not. The public square would be poorer without Michelle’s voice. There are math issues in there, though, that need scrutinizing.

First ask the question: How many of Harvard-Westlake’s 1,600 total students were exposed to the whooping cough pathogen?

I’m going to assume that any unvaccinated student who is exposed, will be infected. Since none of the 18 unvaccinated students were infected, none were exposed. The thirty who were infected therefore all belonged to the 1,582-strong vaccinated component of the student body.

I am indebted to a reader for the following analysis, which I take on trust.

Standard sources suggest that the vaccine is 80-90 percent effective in the first year after vaccination, but effectiveness declines over time. The Tdap vaccine is usually given at ages 10-11, so the average high school student has not been vaccinated for five years, reducing effectiveness to around 50 percent. This suggests that perhaps sixty students were exposed to whooping cough in order for thirty to become infected.

So now we have a math question: Pick sixty students at random from a student body consisting of 1,582 vaccinated and 18 unvaccinated. What is the probability that none of the sixty is unvaccinated? Or equivalently: What is the probability that all of the sixty are vaccinated?

Easy-peasy. The probability that the first student picked is vaccinated is 1582/1600. The probability that the second student picked is vaccinated is 1581/1599. The probability that the third student picked is vaccinated is 1580/1598. The probability that the fourth student picked is vaccinated is 1579/1597. The probability that the fifth student picked is vaccinated is 1578/1596 …… The probability that the fifty-ninth student picked is vaccinated is 1524/1542. The probability that the sixtieth student picked is vaccinated is 1523/1541.

So the probability that all sixty exposed students are vaccinated is a fraction with numerator 1582×1581×1580× … ×1523 and denominator 1600×1599×1598× … ×1541. This is also, of course, the probability that none of the unvaccinated 18 students was exposed to the pathogen.

That’s a lot of multiplying, but math has shortcuts for this kind of thing. The natural log of that numerator is 440.85358; the natural log of the denominator is 441.54531. Subtract latter from former, you get −0.79174. Raise e to that power, you get 0.453058.

Bottom line: On the numbers given, there’s a 45.3 percent chance that none of the unvaccinated 18 students was exposed to the pathogen. Given the margins of uncertainty here, “close to fifty-fifty” is a fair statement of the probability.

So it wouldn’t be at all remarkable if none of the 18 unvaccinated students was exposed to the pathogen.

And as my helpful reader explained:

Since the parents of unvaccinated students might have taken extra precautions upon learning of the outbreak, such as keeping their children home, this result [i.e. that none of the unvaccinated students was actually exposed to the pathogen] is even less surprising.

And in the context of Michelle worrying about the Silicon Valley Thought Police bringing down the ban hammer, I note that my reader added, as my readers mostly do nowadays: “Given the current environment, I would appreciate anonymity.”

You of course have it, Sir; and thank you!

[Math-geek readers may recognize a similarity with the ancient Birthday Paradox.]

2010-12-24dl[1]John Derbyshire [email him] writes an incredible amount on all sorts of subjectsfor 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. He has had two books published by VDARE.com com: FROM THE DISSIDENT RIGHT(also available in Kindle) and FROM THE DISSIDENT RIGHT II: ESSAYS 2013.

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: History, Ideology • Tags: Political Correctness 
Hide 41 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Daniel H says:

    >>…….and their numbers had been decimated by smallpox, to which they had no resistance

    Never quite grasped the point of this assertion, that new-worlders, not having encountered Europeans before, had no immunity and therefore fell victim to European borne diseases. Europeans who had never been infected by the virus or bacteria before, of such diseases, (smallpox, flu, common cold, etc) also had no immunity to the diseases and should have been no more able to withstand them than the new-worlders. Am I missing something?

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
    , @G. Poulin
    , @KenH
  2. ‘China of course leads the way here.’

    The “China” of our media’s invention leads the way in censorship. In the real China, they order these things differently. Some background may help.

    Censorship in China has been run by distinguished civil servants since 200 BC. The incumbent, Wang Huning, is the most famous intellectual in a nation of intellectual-worshippers. His master’s thesis, From Bodin to Maritain: On Sovereignty Theories Developed by the Western Bourgeoisie, won wide acclaim. Millions watched him twice lead Fudan University to victory in international Intercollegiate Debating Championships and, as the youngest professor in the university’s history, he headed its Law School. His PhD thesis became a famous book, Comparative Political Analysis, one of twelve he has authored, and China’s President, Jiang Zemin persuaded him as to become his speechwriter by quoting extensively from it. Jiang’s successor promoted him to the 25-man Politburo and his successor, President Xi, invited him to join his cabinet as chief theorist and constant traveling companion. Until then, his career had nothing to do with censorship.

    Everyone knows his face, bio and job description and the constitutional source of his authority: “Once a policy has been widely discussed, voted on and legislated, discussion is suspended and everyone unites to implement it.”

    His online rules are commonsensical: no infringing, fake accounts, libel, disclosing trade secrets or invading privacy; no sending porn to attract users; no torture, violence, killing people or animals; no selling lethal weapons; no gambling, phishing, scamming or spreading viruses; no organizing crime, counterfeiting, false advertising, empty promises or bullying; no lotteries, rumor-mongering, promoting superstitions. No opposing the basic principles of the Constitution or national unity, sovereignty and territorial integrity and, of course, no divulging State secrets or endangering national security. Here are some ways in which Chinese censorship differs from our own:

    Censorship an ancient, honored public service.
    Censorship is constitutionally legislated and delimited.
    The Censor is China’s leading public intellectual.
    The Censor operates in the glare of public scrutiny[1].
    The Censor is regularly called upon to explain his decisions.
    The Censor does not block accurate, useful or professional information.

    And here’s one way the results of public censorship differ from ours: eighty percent of Chinese trust their media while six percent of us trust ours.

    [1] After complaints that he censored a viral essayabout the city being overrun by outsiders, Beijing Has 20 Million People Pretending to Live Here, he explained, “It polarizes relations between prosperous Beijingers and inflames ill feeling towards the vulnerable immigrants who sweep their streets.”

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  3. Ron Unz says:
    @Daniel H

    Well, I’m no expert in the issue, but I think the key factor is natural, genetic resistance to the deadly diseases in question.

    European populations had been exposed to those diseases for many, many generations, and the more naturally susceptible had long since died out. By contrast, I think something like 95-98% of all the Amerinds may have died over the first couple of generations of exposure.

    The small fraction of surviving Amerinds were the ones with the greatest natural immunity and also (eventually) those whose partial European ancestry had passed along some of the key genes for resistance.

    • Replies: @Daniel H
    , @PiltdownMan
  4. songbird says:

    A handful of Melanesians are said to worship Prince Philip as a god.

  5. Daniel H says:
    @Ron Unz

    Doh! Of course!

    I’m too dull to participate on the Unz blogs. Take away my license.

  6. @Godfree Roberts

    There ya’ go. The Chief of the Unz Soviet chimes in with his LUV for Communism again. We get that you love it so much, Mr. Roberts. Freedom is a concept that it’d take you 10 hits of acid in a single afternoon to even start to imagine. I hope this doesn’t bother you, but I was able to read the Gun Owners of America (GOA, a step way above the NRA, but join both) from China with no problem.

    It’s the criticism from the Chinese that the government there doesn’t want. One must give an ID now to surf the web at an internet cafe in China, as opposed to 10 years back. I’d thought back then the the wild, wild East was going to be a good thing. Now, the number of cell phones one signs up for is limited and kept track of. Hey, don’t get me wrong, Big Brother NSA/Feral-Gov here is almost right up there with them.

    … eighty percent of Chinese trust their media while six percent of us trust ours.

    I guess that settles the IQ question once and for all – they can’t be too awful bright. We have our retarded 6%, which is really not exceedingly high in an era of Peak Stupidity. In an ideal world, the number would be < 5% everywhere.

    If you reply, Godfree, let me know what you think of that Cultural Revolution they had there. Just give me 1 star to 5 stars.

    • Replies: @britquibbble
  7. That Nahuatl poetry was a bit too fruity for my tastes: it’s got that self-absorbed turgidity that is associated with Twilight fanfic and teenage girls’ diaries.

    I’m a Catullus man, myself – I reckon that poetry reached its apogee with Carmen 97 (“On Foul Amelius”) – although the Aussie classic “The Bastard From The Bush” comes close.

    Chestedrton’s “The Secret People” is suitably anarchist/revolutionary, and Byron’s “Epitaph to a Dog” is all you need to make a hard man weep like a girl. When rank-ordering the two I am split as to which is the purest lyric –

    Chesterton’s


    They have given us into the hand of new unhappy lords,
    Lords without anger or honour, who dare not carry their swords.
    They fight by shuffling papers; they have bright, dead, alien eyes;
    they look on our labour and laughter as a tired man looks at flies”

    or Byron’s

    Oh man! thou feeble tenant of an hour,
    Debas’d by slavery, or corrupt by power,
    Who knows thee well, must quit thee with disgust,
    Degraded mass of animated dust!

    Out of context Byron loses, but as part of the poem they are almost perfect English.

    But if we’re going to give primitive darkies’ effort a run, I recommend this, which captures both the Laconian style and the trenchant bloody-mindedness that characterise Maori… it’s more a motto than a poem though.

    Ka whawhai tonu matou ake ake ake

    (pronounced “Ka fa-fie to-noo ma-t-o-oo a-keh a-keh a-keh“)

    We will fight for ever and ever and ever

    Lastly: more doggerel genius (you’ll laugh)…

    There once was a Vampire named Mable
    Whose periods were veryunstable
    By the light of the moon & the aid of a spoon
    She drank herself under the table

  8. Priss Factor [AKA "Asagirian"] says: • Website

    It never ends.

  9. On Segment 3, the “ice sheets”. I’ve heard Peter Brimelow mention this same period a few times, and his advocating for policy that is now highly-PIC, just as with you, Mr. Derbyshire, since that time and before, means he must know of what he speaks. If you’re going to call this early/mid 1990’s an interglacial, then the era before should be thought to be rough too.

    However, I don’t think one could compare the amount of Cultural Marxist and the mindset of the left at that time to what we have today. It’s true that the immigration invasion was ramped up due to the Reagan-signed amnesty bill in ’86, affirmative action had been long-ago entrenched, and the D-squad had controlled Congress for, like forever, at that time. There was nothing of the bat-shit-crazy feminist, gender-bending, anti-white, open-borders stupidity in the 1980’s though – I was there. I never even heard “diversity is our strength” (the new national motto?) until 1993. (I can very specifically date that, as the location in which I remember hearing it – from a professor, no less – was brand new to me that year.)

    One could talk calmly about immigration and race relations throughout the 80’s and and maybe that’s why it was a time in which the relations between white and black people were the best since, I dunno, segregation.* To me, it’d be after the 60’s turmoil, but before the country caved to the anti-white race hustlers, by about the time you mention. My time-line for the interglacial period would be more like 1975 – 2000.

    Perhaps, for both you, Mr. Brimelow, and a lot of other people interested in politics, both immigration and race relations were just not such important issues in those years before 1990. Any climate modelers on here want to chime in? You’ve not done very well with the Earth’s climate, but how about a projection for the time of receeding PC-glaciarization, to make up for that?

    .

    * I used to see Rebel flags on black guy’s muscle cars – no lie.

  10. keypusher says:

    A really dominant majority that wishes to impose its will should prefer to suppress peaceful dissent. Any violent dissent thus provoked will simply justify further censorship. Anti-majority terrorism will be a feature, not a bug. (Obvious, I know.) Brenton Tarrant and such a majority have identical short-term goals; they disagree only on the long-term consequences of the achievement of those goals. Tarrant thinks there will be a violent crack-up; the majority thinks its orthodoxy will be established universally and permanently.

    The modern era of free speech in the USA is often traced to Oliver Wendell Holmes’ famous dissent in Abrams v. New York. What is most remembered from the dissent is his praise for the marketplace of ideas. But just before that he wrote, “Persecution for the expression of opinions seems to me perfectly logical. If you have no doubt of your premises or your power and want a certain result with all your heart you naturally express your wishes in law and sweep away all opposition.” But if you’re uncertain of your power or your premises, he continued, you should let people speak freely, and let the truth emerge that way.

    The Abrams dissent was written exactly 100 years ago. The majority then, and for a long time after, generally doubted its power, its premises, or both, and permitted a fair amount of free speech. But the majority now does not doubt either, and is acting accordingly.

  11. captflee says:

    Mr. D,

    Your observation of the relative intellectual freedom of a generation back matches my recollection pretty well. Around the end of that decade I was able to attend without let or hindrance a gathering which, if held today would doubtless result in mob violence, and at which I was able to dine with such dissidents as Prof. Clyde Wilson and Jared Taylor without being screamed at by a single SJW harpy.

    Alas, the falling towers put paid to any thoughts of open dissent on my part, what with my income more than a little dependent upon maintenance of a security clearance. The world is a very different place for a man with a spouse and offspring than it is for a single man.

    • Agree: Old Prude
  12. G. Poulin says:
    @Daniel H

    Yes, I’ve wondered about that too. Also, weren’t there any New World diseases that Europeans hadn’t encountered before? I know that in Africa, Europeans had a hard time with malaria and other diseases that were rare or unknown in their homelands.

    • Replies: @Rohirrimborn
    , @songbird
  13. @G. Poulin

    One theory is that syphilis was introduced to Europe by the returning crew of Christopher Columbus from their first contact with the Americas.

  14. Polynices says:

    Syphilis almost certainly came from the New World to the old and it was a terrible scourge when it was new, far more virulent than it is now. Today we tend to think of it as a chronic disease that does most of the damage after you’ve had it a long time but my understanding is that it was much worse, much faster back in the 1500s.

    Interesting fact: it is still treatable with basic penicillin, the organism never having developed resistance to the first drug used against it.

  15. songbird says:
    @G. Poulin

    Syphilis – it was very virulent at first in Europe. Probably the organism adjusting to its European host rather than vice-versa.

    Polio.

    Hantavirus is another that can kill (also can kill Indians). There are other things mainly in the jungle, like Chagas’ Disease. Bad enough to get it, but it is easier to avoid the bug that transmits it than mosquitoes.

    Native Americans didn’t have many domesticated animals, or as big a population as Eurasia, so that limited their diseases somewhat. They definitely got the worse of the exchange in terms of disease though, many diseases from Africa moved into warmer areas of the New World. Yellow Fever was a big killer.

  16. Derbyshire: “… this act by a lone lunatic of dissident sympathies was taken by governments of formerly-liberal democracies and their corporate stooges as an excuse to further shut down all expression of dissident ideas, however moderate, thoughtful, and nonviolent.”

    In the context of our times, “law-abiding patriots” are only willing participants in their own genocide. Tarrant acted alone not because he was a lunatic, but because today’s unprecedented totalitarian reach of the state and the culture at large made acting in concert with others virtually impossible. This wasn’t always the case. For example, the American Founding Fathers were able to organize an effective resistance to the state, though just barely and not without risk and considerable hardship to themselves. If they’d remained “law-abiding patriots” proposing “moderate, thoughtful, and nonviolent” solutions the USA would still be a British colony.

  17. Big Tim says:

    First 2-3 paragraphs immediately show this writer is a fool. Therefore I have no further comment since my reading stopped at that point.

  18. The closing words of the clip are: “Diversity isn’t a weakness. Diversity is a strength.”

    Big Brother would give this more punch (upwards, of course):

    War Is Peace
    Freedom Is Slavery
    Diversity Is Strength

  19. “I’m the last person you should go to for expressions of white guilt about European colonialism. I understand, however, that there is certainly a great, a terrible melancholy in losing your language, your literature, your nation, your culture, your civilization.”

    Derbyshire, I believe you lost your Western civilization when you imported and married a Chinese communist. Also, producing Chinese offspring compounded the problem you created.

  20. SafeNow says:

    I differ with equating Chinese immigration with a loss of Western civilization. My California experience is that our Chinese-Americans embody decency, industriousness, conscientiousness, proficiency, intelligence, and a host of other decidedly Western values. This includes appreciating the traditional literary canon, which is more than I can say for an Ivy League English Dept. I will add that these are qualities we can use more of in California, where such values and qualities have been in decline for decades. (I wonder why.) I hope these Chinese values will be as contagious as the relaxed replacement values have been, but I am not optimistic about that.

    • Replies: @attilathehen
  21. @Ron Unz

    I would have thought that the lack of immunity would have symmetrical. European settlers would have been susceptible to deadly communicable diseases prevalent in the Amerind population. In fact, the settler colonies, with very small populations, were probably at greater risk at being wiped out completely than the relatively large Amerind populations.

    One of the speculative theories about the vanished Roanoke Colony of 1585-87 supposes that they were wiped out by disease, though it does not explain why no bodies were found.

  22. @SafeNow

    Are you involved with Asians? “Chinese-Americans” is an oxymoron. They are not and never will be Western. China is a shithole. Compare China to Japan. Which country is better? The Chinese will never have a first world nation. The Chinese in the USA are a fifth-column. Derbyshire’s Chinese family is a perfect example of this type.

    • Replies: @Old Prude
  23. @Achmed E. Newman

    Funny how the ‘communists’ never made patriotism or even racial pride illegal in their own countries, in fact the opposite. Nor do they tolerate fifh columnists, LGTBQerty bullies or anything which undermines a stable society. Nor would they object if we did the same. ‘We’ did this to ourselves, the enemy is us. And how exactly did the Chinese Cultural Revolution differ from the US Civil War? Just labelling something ‘communist’ isn’t an argument. The anglo world has gone mad, others seem relatively sane.

    • Agree: dfordoom
    • Replies: @Rich
  24. KenH says:
    @PiltdownMan

    European settlers would have been susceptible to deadly communicable diseases prevalent in the Amerind population.

    Exactly. It wasn’t a one way street and the European settlers could and did contract diseases unique to N. America and carried by the Indians that they had immunity to. The cause of resulting deaths of European settlers would have been unknown and chalked up to illness or sickness.

  25. KenH says:
    @Daniel H

    Europeans who had never been infected by the virus or bacteria before, of such diseases, (smallpox, flu, common cold, etc) also had no immunity to the diseases …..

    That’s true and myths about Europeans infecting the Amerindians with smallpox deliberately and with malice aforethought is mostly Hollywood fantasy and left wing propaganda. If one reads enough American history especially dealing with the 18th century they’ll learn that the Indians were sometimes so desperate for white scalps that they would dig up graves of recently diseased European settlers, some or many of whom had died of smallpox, to scalp the cadavers.

    The scalping party would wind up contracting smallpox then infecting their villages which took a toll on the various tribes like the Iroquois and Abenakis. So the scalp greedy Indians were often their own worst enemy, but left wing historiographers have falsely framed the periodic smallpox outbreaks among them as some kind of diabolical plot by the dastardly white man.

  26. Nicholas Ostler in Empires of the Word

    I bought this on Derb’s recommendation, and am glad I did.

    I wonder if he’s familiar with Gaston Dorren. Note the Chinese for “Babel” on the cover of Dorren’s latest.

    Ostler seemed to cover everything about every language. In Lingo, Dorren focused on one thing, a different thing, for every language in Europe.

    https://languagewriter.com/about/

  27. @PiltdownMan

    European settlers would have been susceptible to deadly communicable diseases prevalent in the Amerind population.

    STDs are spread a little more intimately and, thus, slowly.

    One of the speculative theories about the vanished Roanoke Colony of 1585-87 supposes that they were wiped out by disease, though it does not explain why no bodies were found.

    Perhaps they were dumped in the sea.

  28. KenH says:

    They cracked the whip on their media shills, let loose their Antifa street thugs, and easily co-opted the big software and social-media corporations to turn the internet against dissent from their cherished ideology.

    This reminds of what a local police officer told us at a neighborhood watch meeting years ago. He said they (the police) were prohibited from profiling people but that we (the residents) were not and should profile people and call the fuzz if people appear suspicious. I almost fell out of my chair when he gave an example of a group of black or latino males slowly driving through our lily white neighborhood. He said that that would be suspicious and a sign they were casing the area, but that they (the police) could not stop them willy nilly since that would constitute profiling. However, if one or more residents called and reported them that gives the police the probable cause they need to make the stop.

    So by the same token, I think politicians have told a lot of these private entities like social media platforms, hotels, payment processors and left wing ruffians like antifa that they can do things to right of center political dissidents that government is prohibited from doing to private citizens while secretly giving them the the winks and nods to do so. They’re obviously outsourcing tyranny to the private sector which libertarians are still at a loss to explain since in their world private entities care only about profit.

    Antifa neither gets investigated by federal, state or local authorities nor arrested for some of their serious crimes. Or if they do the charges get thrown out or plead down to jaywalking while right of center dissidents who are merely defending themselves in the heat of the moment are having their lives destroyed. This is a sure sign that antifa and other left wing terrorists are being shielded from prosecution by the powerful interest groups and the government and that they are even a possible government proxy.

  29. Rich says:
    @britquibbble

    There are major differences between the Cultural Revolution and the War Between the States (Civil War). The War Between the States was a war between two geographic areas with recognizable armies.The Cultural Revolution was mostly an internal struggle within the Chinese Communist Party and the attempt to gain even more control over the Chinese people. The Cultural Revolution is a very complicated subject and any attempt to simplify it will fail, but I’d say it more closely resembled the French Revolution than anything that went on in the US.

  30. @Dr. Robert Morgan

    the American Founding Fathers were able to organize an effective resistance to the state

    They created the State.

    “neither pagan nor Mahamedan nor Jew ought to be excluded from the civil rights of the Commonwealth because of his religion.”

    And, well, here we are.

  31. @PiltdownMan

    I have heard syphilis called “Montezuma’s Revenge”.

  32. @Dr. Robert Morgan

    This is supposing that this “terrorist act” was, unlike most, not arranged by some “security” service. IMHO highly unlikely. I say it is highly unlikely because the most obvious beneficiaries of all “terrorist acts” are the “Security Industry” and we know that at least some of them were arranged by “security” services. (E.g. 9/11, 7/7.)

  33. Hippopotamusdrome: “They created the State.”

    The British Crown didn’t constitute a state? Might be an interesting argument, but you didn’t make it.

    foolisholdman: “This is supposing that this “terrorist act” was, unlike most, not arranged by some “security” service. IMHO highly unlikely. I say it is highly unlikely because the most obvious beneficiaries of all “terrorist acts” are the “Security Industry” and we know that at least some of them were arranged by “security” services. (E.g. 9/11, 7/7.)”

    I think it is possible to follow the rule of cui bono too closely. Just because some entity benefits from a development doesn’t necessarily mean they caused it. However, I have run into one fellow who maintained that “certain people” bankrolled Gutenberg’s invention because they wanted to control print media. He also thought that the Green Revolution of the last century was done by them in order to cause the population of the non-white world to explode, the better to use non-whites as a weapon against white people and their lands. Similarly, and almost simultaneously, these conspirators “arranged” to make scientific birth control (i.e., the pill, abortion, etc.) widely available in white lands in order to cause their fertility and populations to be reduced. In all cases, who benefited? The Jews, of course.

    Kinda makes you think, dunnit?

  34. Svigor says:

    I like the NPC meme. In case you don’t know it, “NPC” stands for “Non-Playing Character” in a video game.

    It’s “Non-Player Character,” and the origins are tabletop, AKA “pen and paper,” roleplaying games not video games. Video games merely borrowed the language.

    PCs are Player Characters; characters controlled by a player. They’re basically the protagonists of the story, the dynamic characters, the characters with agency. Typically a player has only one PC, though there’s usually no rule against more. So a player tends to invest in his PC in somewhat the same the way an actor invests in a leading role.

    NPCs are controlled by the Gamemaster, DM, Narrator, whatever you want to call him. They’re bit parts and just there to serve some narrative purpose. They have no agency outside the GM/DM/Narrator/plot.

  35. Svigor says:

    Several months ago, users on 4chan and Reddit, the online message forums, started using the term NPC to refer to liberals.

    This isn’t really accurate, either. It isn’t just used to refer to “liberals.” NPCs are typical dumb fuck normie types who lack political agency. Most are leftists or Democrats, but many are conservatives or Republicans, too. NPCs lack agency – that’s the salient bit.

    An NPC is the kind of person who is essentially incapable of breaking out of mainstream thought, and into countersemitism, race-realism, BDS, etc. As in, the odds of him finding the balls are so small as to be negligible.

  36. Svigor says:

    foolisholdman: “This is supposing that this “terrorist act” was, unlike most, not arranged by some “security” service. IMHO highly unlikely. I say it is highly unlikely because the most obvious beneficiaries of all “terrorist acts” are the “Security Industry” and we know that at least some of them were arranged by “security” services. (E.g. 9/11, 7/7.)”

    By this logic most crime is cops, most disease is doctors, most accidents are EMS, etc.

  37. Svigor says:

    An NPC is the kind of person who is essentially incapable of breaking out of mainstream thought, and into countersemitism, race-realism, BDS, etc. As in, the odds of him finding the balls are so small as to be negligible.

    On second thought, that’s not really how the alt-right uses it. It’s really just about how normie someone is, politically speaking. They’re not incapable of breaking out, in fact most alt-righters would probably admit they were NPCs before they got woke.

    I’m reminded of the alt-right saying: “there are two groups of people who know what’s going on; Jews, and anti-semites.”

    • Replies: @Mr McKenna
  38. @Svigor

    I’m reminded of the alt-right saying: “there are two groups of people who know what’s going on; Jews, and anti-semites.”

    Interesting. Never heard that one before. If I had to wager, though, I’d bet that a much larger proportion of ‘anti-semites’ are aware than are jews. After all, the UnChosen had to pass through the crucible to arrive at Understanding.

  39. Old Prude says:

    Re the Mexica going down fighting: Until you’ve been involved at the losing end of a long bitter struggle, it difficult to grasp how astounding it is that people continue to fight and die for an obviously lost cause. Most of us would just surrender.

    There’s a point at which even Robert E. Lee couldn’t save the South, and still they fought on, struggling and dying in remorseless defeat. The Germans, too, with their entire nation bombed to rubble kept up the fight way past the point of sanity.

    I’m all for fighting if there is a slim chance of winning, but can’t ken the sacrifice for a blatantly lost cause. I guess I’m supposed to admire that, but really, I just can’t understand it. Especially when, in the long run, The South and Germany made it out of defeat OK.

  40. Old Prude says:
    @attilathehen

    Hen, I have little concern with Chinese-Americans. Rather a lot of concern with Somali-Americans. They should work out as well in the long run as African-Americans.
    But, I understand: Hen’s gotta hen…

  41. MEH 0910 says:

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All John Derbyshire Comments via RSS