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

 Remember My Information



=>
Topics Filter?
2000 Election 2016 Election 2020 Election Academia Affirmative Action Africa Alt Right American Media American Military Antifa Black Crime Blacks Brexit Britain China Conservative Movement Coronavirus Donald Trump Economics England European Right Foreign Policy History Homosexuality Human Biodiversity Humor Ideology Illegal Immigration Immigration IQ Iraq War Ireland Islam Mathematics Miscellaneous Political Correctness Race/Crime Race/Ethnicity Racism Religion 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 Aldous Huxley Amazon American Left American Presidents American Renaissance Amnesty Amy Chua Ancient DNA Anglo-Saxons Anglosphere Ann Coulter Anti-Semitism Anti-white Animus Antiracism Antonin Scalia Arts/Letters Asia Asian Americans Asian Quotas Asians Australia Australian Aboriginals Austria Barack Obama Bill Clinton Black Lives Matter Boris Johnson Brain British Politics Cambodia Canada Cancer Capitalism Catalonia Catholic Church Censorship Central Asia Charles Murray Charlottesville Chelsea Clinton China/America Chinese Chinese Evolution Christianity CIA Civil Liberties Civil Rights Civil War Communism Confederacy Congress Consciousness Conservatism Constantinople Constitutional Theory Corruption Creationism Crime Crusades Cultural Marxism Culture/Society DACA Dalai Lama Dallas Shooting Deep State Democracy Democratic Party Demographics Demography Discrimination Disease Diversity Dreamers East Asians 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 Facebook Fake News Feminism Ferguson Shooting Fertility Rates Finland Floyd Riots 2020 France Gay Marriage Gays/Lesbians Gaza Flotilla Gender Equality George W. Bush George Zimmerman Germany Global Warming Globalism Globalization Goldman Sachs Google Government Debt Government Spending Greece Gun Control Guns H-1B H1-B Visas Haiti Hamilton: An American Musical Harvard Hate Hoaxes Hbd Hillary Clinton Hispanic Crime Hispanics Hitler Hollywood Hong Kong Housing Huey Newton Human Evolution Human Genetics Human Genome Hungary Hunting Ice People Imperialism Indians Infection Intellectuals Intelligence Intelligent Design Internet Iran Iraq Islamophobia Israel Israel Lobby Israel/Palestine Italy James B. Watson James Comey Japan Jared Taylor Jeff Sessions Jeremy Corbyn Jews Jimmy Carter Joe Biden John Derbyshire John McCain Judicial System Jussie Smollett Justice 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 New York Times Nicholas Wade Nordics Norman Podhoretz North Korea Northern Ireland Nuclear Weapons Open Borders Orban Orlando Shooting Orwell Ottoman Empire Outsourcing Paris Attacks Pat Buchanan Paul Ryan People's Republic Of China Pete Buttgieg Peter Thiel Philosophy Poetry Police Population Population Growth Probability Public Schools Puerto Rico Quantum Mechanics Race Race And Crime Race And Iq Race Denialism Race/IQ Race Riots Racial Profiling Racial Reality Razib Khan Refugee Crisis Republican Party Richard Lynn Riots Robots Ron Paul Ron Unz Ronald Reagan Roy Moore Rudyard Kipling Saddam Hussein Sailer Strategy San Bernadino Massacre Scandinavia Science Fiction Science Fiction & Fantasy Scotland Senate Siberia Silicon Valley Singularity Slavery Slavery Reparations Soccer Social Welfare Programs Solzhenitsyn Somalia South Africa Space Program Spain SPLC Stabby Somali Statistics Stephen Wolfram Stereotypes Steve King Steve Sailer Supreme Court Switzerland Syria Ta-Nehisi Coates Taiwan Taxes Tea Party Technology Television The Economist The New York Times Thomas Perez Tibet Tom Wolfe Tony Blair Torture Treason Turkey UKIP Unemployment Uruguay Vietnam Violence Vote Fraud WASPs White Nationalism White Nationalists White Privilege White Supremacy Wikipedia William Buckley Winston Churchill Woke Capital 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
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll 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 three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
🔊 Listen RSS

Earlier (2011): John Derbyshire On Understanding China And The Chinese

[Excerpted from the latest Radio Derb, now available exclusively through VDARE.com]

Having been writing about China for forty years, I was naturally interested to see what Trump and Biden had to say about the country in last Thursday’s debate.

Answer: Nothing with any real insight or understanding. There was a lot of back and forth about whether this guy or the other guy was taking money from the ChiComs; then some bluster from both candidates about how tough they have been with China.

Watching it, I thought I could hear from the far distance the sound of the ChiCom politburo rolling around on the floor hooting with laughter.

For a clue to my frame of mind here I refer you to David Goldman‘s October 19th article at Asia Times: Covid-19 Launches The Fourth Industrial Revolution.

Goldman describes in detail how the ChiComs have used the pandemic to advance their lead in AI (Artificial Intelligence). He concludes:

Computer science could not have devised a more useful dataset for the development of AI than the propagation of the Covid-19 virus. The exercise requires sophisticated real-time management of datasets involving impossibly large numbers of individual observations, and the ability to correlate locational, medical and demographic data with population sampling through forensic tests.

AI helped control the pandemic, but the pandemic gave Chinese AI an unprecedented push forward. The West hasn’t even begun to address the problem. And that is the most troubling observation of all.

There is much more to be said about that. Goldman’s observations agree with what I hear from my wife, who keeps in touch with her family and friends in China through social media.

Yes, they tell us: Anywhere they go their movements, contacts, temperature, and other health indices are constantly monitored and scanned. They are barred from certain places if they don’t meet the right criteria.

It’s total social control, backed by colossal databases and massive AI programs. It seems to have conquered the pandemic : Life is back to normal in China [How sickening that the dragon is roaring back: China’s economy is booming during the pandemic it unleashed, By Edward Lucas, Daily Mail, October 20, 2020]. The third-quarter numbers for economic growth, just released this week, show almost five percent improvement over third quarter last year. [China’s economy grows 4.9% as industrial production surges, retail sales rise and unemployment sinks – while the rest of the world is crippled by coronavirus epidemic that started in Wuhan, AP, Daily Mail, October 19, 2020] The corresponding figure for the U.S.A. is negative ten percent.

Should we, like David Goldman, find this “troubling”? Well, yes, but with qualifications.

If, as Goldman argues, Big Data joined with AI is a “Fourth Industrial Revolution,” and if China is steaming ahead of us in those fields, then the U.S.A. will soon, for the first time in living memory—for the first time in 150 years, I think—be a second-rate technological power.

That’s going to be quite an adjustment.

However, if the price to be paid for addressing the problem is a Chinese level of social control, the price is too high. That would be the death of our traditional liberties.

One of my favorite words in the American language is “ornery.” I like orneriness. I don’t just like it, I think it’s socially valuable.

I’m not very ornery myself by nature. I wear a face mask when I go shopping, just on the chicken soup principle: It can’t hurt. Still, when I see two people in a yelling match because one of them isn’t wearing a mask, I instinctively side with the non-mask-wearer. He’s being ornery, and I like ornery.

In a country with China’s level of social control, orneriness will get you ten to fifteen breaking rocks in a labor camp on the Qinghai Plateau; or, at the very least, confined to your apartment 24/7 because the algorithms won’t let you go anywhere.

I don’t want to live in a country like that. Liberty! —especially the liberty to be ornery.

David Goldman is right none the less. China is roaring ahead of us into that Fourth Industrial Revolution, and we will become a second-rate technological power. That may not be a disaster, and I don’t myself mind it if it’s the price of keeping our liberties; but it will need some big adjustments that our leaders show no signs they are prepared for.

In military matters, for example. If I had been moderating Thursday’s debate, here’s a question I would have put to both candidates.

China’s saber-rattling towards Taiwan has been getting louder and louder in recent months. There is a probability that the next President will, at some point in his four years in office, be confronted by a Chinese military assault on Taiwan. Based on your understanding of the situation there, what is your estimate of that probability? Twenty percent? Fifty percent? Ninety percent? How should the U.S.A. respond to such an assault?

I’ll just add as a footnote that David Goldman has a new book out, title You Will Be Assimilated: China’s Plan to Sino-form the World.

I recommend it. The thirty-page appendix is worth the book’s price all by itself.

 
🔊 Listen RSS

[Excerpted from the latest Radio Derb, now available exclusively through VDARE.com]

Earlier: Biden Calls For Nation-Busting Amnesty In Final Debate

That President Trump will lose his re-election bid is a common opinion among people who wish otherwise. It’s not just me. I got an email from an old friend who is nine times smarter than I am, and a Trump voter.

On the side of the Democrats are: The FBI, the CIA, the federal bureaucracy, academia, Facebook, Twitter, Google, Hollywood, NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, NPR, the NYT, every magazine on the shelf, BLM, Antifa, 50 million illegal aliens, and now, the Chinese Communist Party.

If they can’t steal an election with that group of supporters, what does it say about their general level of competence?

So Trump has an uphill battle—but he also has poor mountaineering skills. That’s what mainly got my attention in Thursday night’s Trump-Biden debate

Some of this has already been elaborated by my VDARE.com colleague James Kirkpatrick here..

The number is likely closer to twenty million; and with chain migration following, that twenty million would bring in another forty, fifty, a hundred million. Why didn’t Trump say that?

  • And then, all the fluff about prison reform. Is this really a popular item with voters?

Biden mocked Trump for having said, twenty years ago, “There’s not enough people in jail.”

What Trump said in his book The America We Deserve, (2000) referencing James Q. Wilson’s work, was “No, the problem isn’t that we have too many people locked up. It’s that we don’t have enough criminals locked up.”

Trump was right; and I think a great many voters, most of them Trump voters, know that.

Do we really want fewer people in jail? To judge from crime rates, we need to put way more people in jail.

  • Likewise with the business of separating children from their parents at the border.

Trump did, to be sure, remind us that the Obama Administration did this too.

He could, however, kill the whole thing dead by asking the lefty moderator what she thinks should be done with children brought across the border illegally by their parents. Put them into adult jails with the parents? Just release parents and kids together into the population with a stern reminder to the parents to show up for their court hearing two years on?

What would you do, lady?

  • The biggest ball Trump dropped, though, was the moral case.

The U.S.A., as every foreigner notices, is an intensely moralistic nation. If you can make any kind of appeal from personal morality, that’s a big plus.

Trump can—but he doesn’t, I don’t know why.

This is the case: These two guys on the debate stage, Trump and Biden, are both stinking rich. How did they get that way, though?

It’s not a mystery in either case. Trump got a head start from his Dad, a successful businessman. However, he did not do the Prodigal Son thing and waste his substance with riotous living; he learned the commercial real-estate business and parlayed his Dad’s gift into a huge fortune, creating hotels, resorts, golf courses, and such, for the convenience and enjoyment of his fellow citizens. Then he ventured into show business, and was successful there. Trump’s fortune has been honestly earned.

Then, at a point in life where many of us get a good pair of carpet slippers and relax by the fire to read Trollope and bore our grandchildren, Trump transferred his energies to public service, offering himself to voters as a guy who could fix things that many of us thought were wrong with our country.

That’s Trump. Now, how did Joe Biden get rich?

From politics, that’s how. He’s been in politics for fifty years, well-nigh his entire adult life.

Politics doesn’t actually pay that well, salary-wise. A conscientious politician, in the older Anglo-Saxon tradition of public service, will live decently well, but he won’t get stinking rich. I gave a couple of examples in my book We Are Doomed:

When Harry Truman left office in 1953, he had no income but his army pension of $112.56 a month. He had to take out a bank loan while negotiating a deal to write his memoirs. That was the way of things all over the Anglosphere. It was part of the tradition of modest Anglo-Saxon government. When Bob Menzies, Australia’s longest-serving Prime Minister, left office in 1966 after 18 years in power, having given up a lucrative legal career for politics, he could not afford to buy a house in Melbourne.

Well, that was then, when notions of gentlemanly restraint and duty were still current. Ours is a cruder, coarser, more cynical age.

Gentlemanly restraint nowadays would be hooted down as “toxic masculinity.” A President who left office with nothing but an army pension to fall back on—and who, like Truman, would not accept offers of extravagant speaking fees or company directorships because it would demean the Presidency—would nowadays be regarded as a sucker.

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: 2020 Election, Donald Trump, Joe Biden 
🔊 Listen RSS

[Excerpted from the latest Radio Derb, now available exclusively through VDARE.com]

See also: You’re Next! If Biden/ Harris Win, A Crackdown On Whites Is Coming;

You probably caught Keith Olbermann’s October 9th address to the nation. In case you didn’t, or need reminding, here it is:

Trump can be, and must be, expunged. The hate he has triggered, Pandora’s boxes he has opened, they will not be so easily destroyed.

So, let us brace ourselves. The task is two-fold: the terrorist Trump must be defeated, must be destroyed, must be devoured at the ballot box, and then he, and his enablers, and his supporters, and his collaborators, and the Mike Lees and the William Barrs, and Sean Hannitys, and the Mike Pences, and the Rudy Giulianis and the Kyle Rittenhouses and the Amy Coney Barretts must be prosecuted and convicted and removed from our society while we try to rebuild it and to rebuild the world Trump has destroyed by turning it over to a virus.

Remember it, even as we dream for a return to reality and safety and the country for which our forefathers died, that the fight is not just to win the election, but to win it by enough to chase—at least for a moment—Trump and the maggots off the stage and then try to clean up what they left.

Remember it, even though to remember it, means remembering that the fight does not end on November 3rd, but in many ways, will only begin that day. [Links added]

Keith Olbermann: “Terrorist Trump” And His Enablers And Supporters Must Be “Removed From Our Society”, RCP, October 9, 2020

An hour or so after watching that, while it was still bouncing around in my head, I took my dog for a walk. Basil gets a good long daily walk: forty-five minutes around the quiet, arboreal streets of our middle-middle-class suburb.

So we’re strolling along one of those streets when I spot a big yard sign. At first glance from a distance, I thought it was something promoting a candidate for the coming election.

Then I read it:

HATE HAS NO HOME HERE.

That was it. No candidate or party mentioned, just that affirmation of faith in our new religion of Antiracism: the same affirmation Judge Barrett felt obliged to make (emphasis added)before the Judiciary Committee (“I think it is an entirely uncontroversial and obvious statement, given as we just talked about the George Floyd video, that racism persists in our country”—but it has not been proven that racism—ill will by a person of one race towards a person of another—was a factor in Floyd’s death, even supposing Officer Chauvin caused it, also not proven); the same affirmation white-collar employees have to make if they don’t want to lose their jobs; the same affirmation schoolchildren and college students have to make if they don’t want to be shunned by their classmates and marked down by their teachers.

I indulged myself in a brief fantasy about the homeowner coming out from the house just as I was walking past. What would I say to him?

In my fantasy, I’m sorry to admit I fell to sarcasm, which my schoolmasters told us is the lowest form of wit. In my imaginary encounter I said something like this:

Hey, I saw your yard sign there. What good people you must be! What good, moral people! I’m proud to share my neighborhood with such virtuous citizens. Thank you, thank you for living here! Down with hate! …

Something like that.

Back at home, I wondered where he had acquired the sign. Doing a Google search, I found pages and pages of these signs, from a dozen or more vendors, in all patterns and colors. Walmart will sell you one; so will Amazon.

There’s money to be made in virtue signaling.

Then the Keith Olbermann connection clicked on. Is there any doubt that the owner of that yard sign votes the same way Olbermann does, and quite possibly agrees word for word with the sentiments Olbermann expressed last week?

Olbermann isn’t that far out in Left field. I know a couple of sober, well-educated middle-class citizens who share those same sentiments.

Antiracism is an ersatz religion, but it’s a religion none the less and religions have zealots. A religion of peace, love, and divine justice can burn heretics alive and wage pitiless war against infidels.

People who proudly advertise their intolerance for “hate” can shriek hot hatred at those who disagree with them, as Keith Olbermann’s rant illustrates.

As I wrote in 2017: “Like Nazis After 1945”—Never Forget The Bullet We Dodged When Hillary Was Defeated.

Our society has taken a seriously wrong turn somewhere.

 
🔊 Listen RSS

See also: “They Might As Well Put Bones Through Their Noses”— John Derbyshire On The Corruption Of Scientific America

Posting on the contents of my email bag earlier in the week, I mentioned that many, many listeners and readers had directed my attention to the October 2nd statement by a committee of the Mathematical Association of America, the MAA, urging “all members of our profession”—so I guess that means mathematicians—to embrace social-justice activism. I promised to pass comment.

Let me just clarify my own approach to math. I can pretty much do this in my sleep, as I’ve been doing it for seventeen years, since I published the first of my two books about math.

If you write books about math, you get regular emails—I’m still getting them—from people who want you to read and pass opinions about their eighteen-page paper on Chebyshev polynomials or Morse Theory (which, trust me, has nothing whatever to do with dots and dashes).

My boilerplate reply is: “I am not a mathematician, only journalist a with a math degree. Please contact the math department of your nearest university.”

There’s a bit more to be said than that. I love math, but it’s an unrequited love. Math doesn’t love me. I’m not much good at it. I discovered that when I took my degree.

Still the old affection lingers. I belong to both of the professional associations in Math, the Mathematical Association of America and the American Mathematical Society. I mingle with real mathematicians any chance I get.

I still love math, although math still doesn’t love me back. I moon about in the street under her balcony, hoping for a glimpse, occasionally playing a mournful love song on my lute.

That’s how I feel about math. So now, this October 2nd statement from the MAA Committee on Minority Participation in Mathematics. Title: Anti-Science Policy and the Censure of Discourse on Race and Racism.

Members of the stone-kicker fraternity might respond positively to that heading. “The Censure of Discourse on Race and Racism” Hey, maybe the MAA is taking a stand against the suppression and outlawing of race realism! “Anti-Science Policy”? Yay, let’s have more respect for careful empirical inquiry, no matter where it leads.

You might object that math is a rational inquiry, not an empirical one; and that there is no need for the MAA to take any position at all on race realism. Sure, yeah, but the heading as it stands is open to a positive interpretation.

Vain are the hopes of man! In fact, the statement is mainly an angry denunciation of the Trump administration’s bans on the anti-white indoctrination of the federal workforce.

I’ll just quote the last paragraph to give you the flavor:

It is time for all members of our profession to acknowledge that mathematics is created by humans and therefore inherently carries human biases. Until this occurs, our community and our students cannot reach full potential. Reaching this potential in mathematics relies upon the academy and higher education engaging in critical, challenging, sometimes uncomfortable conversations about the detrimental effects of race and racism on our community. The time is now to move mathematics and education forward in pursuit of justice.

“Community” … “critical” … “conversations” … “racism” … “justice” … I don’t think they’ve omitted a single buzzword from the CultMarx lexicon.

And is it actually true that “mathematics is created by humans”? If the human race were to be wiped out by a rogue solar flare next Tuesday, would two plus two still be equal to four? If two stars in our galaxy went supernova, and then two more, would that be four supernovas altogether?

Some very smart people indeed have been ruminating on such matters for a couple of thousand years.

They still are: If you want to take up the topic, I recommend starting with Lakoff and Núñez’s 2001 book Where Mathematics Comes From.

One thing that is indisputably the case is that the math we have today was created by, or stands on foundations created by, persons of white-European or West Asian stock, well-nigh all of them male. I don’t think …

Sounds of screaming.

Sorry, sorry, sorry. Never mind.

So how do I feel about this MAA statement? For a person like me, who reveres math, it is crapping on the altar.

Or to revert to my original metaphor: Here I am in the street under the balcony of my one true love, playing a melancholy ballad on my lute in hopes of touching her heart.

 
🔊 Listen RSS
Alternate pop-culture worlds

The Derbs’ weekly Netflix rentals this month included two not-bad movies — better than our recent average.

Once Upon a Time In Hollywood, reviewed by our Steve Sailer at TakiMag was the better of the two.

I didn’t enjoy it as much as Steve did; but then, I don’t know anything like as much as Steve does about 1960s California, Hollywood, and movies. I agree with the numerous reviewers who complained about the movie being too long, and I naturally frowned at the disrespect shown to Bruce Lee.

The movie kept my attention, though. I stayed awake all through, which is by no means — by no means — always the case with me and movies. The acting is at a high professional standard, and the plot line was clever.

That plot line left me reflecting that two of the three 2019 movies I have seen had alternate-history plots; and the history being altered in both cases was pop-culture history. The other of the two was Yesterday, which I reported on in my April Diary. Is there a trend forming?

Alternate-history stories are of course nothing new. As I noted in April, I’ve been reading them for almost as long as I’ve been reading. For the most part, though, their worlds are ones in which some large historical event turned out differently. The allies losing WW2 has been the most thoroughly worked-over alternate world: The Sound of his Horn by “Sarban,” Philip K. Dick’s The Man in the High Castle, Robert Harris’ Fatherland, … How many have there been?

Other writers have been more adventurous. Robert Silverberg wrote a rather good novel in which the Ottoman Empire took over all of Europe in the 14th century — Shakespeare’s plays were written in Turkish — and held it until the 1900s. Kingsley Amis gave us Russian Hide & Seek, in which the USSR has occupied the British Isles. (Inspiring me to a similar but much shorter effort.)

A favorite of mine, although only at short-story length, was Poul Anderson’s “Eutopia,” which flips through several alternate worlds, although nothing like as many as David Gerrold’s novel The Man Who Folded Himself. And then of course there is Harry Turtledove … Yeah, I know, I’ve read way too much sci-fi.

Placing the historical switch in the realm of pop culture — of pop music in the case of Yesterday, Hollywood in Once Upon a Time — is new to me, although I may just be out of date here. I’ve been striving to think of similar plot lines.

  • The young Fred Astaire successfully resisted his mother’s efforts to train him as a dancer. His physical genius instead found an outlet in martial arts, of which he became a world-famous popularizer. At the climax of the movie an elderly but still-agile Fred (b. 1899) takes on Bruce Lee (b. 1940) … OK, maybe I’m just getting back at Tarantino for the Bruce Lee caricature.
  • Mario Puzo can’t get any movie producers interested in making The Godfather as written, so he starts over, pitching it now as a musical …

No, I’m not really getting anywhere with this, am I? If any readers have suggestions, I’ll put them in my next email round-up. If any suggestion ends up as a movie, though, I want a cut of the movie rights.

Mister Jones

I mentioned having seen two not-bad movies this month. Number Two was Mr. Jones, based on Welsh journalist Gareth Jones‘ 1933 foray into Stalin’s USSR.

Jones’ mother, around 1900, had lived in Ukraine as tutor to the grandchildren of Welsh industrial entrepreneur John Hughes, who had founded the iron-working city of Donetsk — actually named Hughesovka until the Revolution. That connection inspired Jones, against all the rules, to go take a look at how Ukraine was faring in 1933. It was, of course, in the throes of a dreadful famine.

It’s a story worth telling, and the movie’s not badly done. Main negatives: if you don’t know the outlines of the story in advance, it’s not clear who’s who (Mrs Derb didn’t, so I had to keep pausing the thing to explain); the scenes of Jones trekking through deserted snow-bound villages could have been cut by half; and the producers were a bit heavy-handed with atmosphere, which, like so many things in life, is best attained if not striven too hard for.

There were some good character sketches, though. Peter Sarsgaard was a fine repulsive Walter Duranty, the New York Times reporter who shilled for Stalin and got a Pulitzer Prize for it (never revoked). It was nice to see a screen portrayal of George Orwell, too, although the mustache doesn’t look quite right.

We also get a glimpse of Malcolm Muggeridge, the only movie portrayal of the old gadfly that I know of. It’s the merest glimpse, the bittiest of bit parts: no speaking lines, just a background figure in a crowded-party scene, the left one of the two people face-on here. (The other I think is Ralph Barnes.)

 
• Category: History, Ideology • Tags: Russia, Science Fiction, World War II 
🔊 Listen RSS

Earlier: It’s Official: Even Hard Science Entering New Dark Age

[Excerpted from the latest Radio Derb, now available exclusively through VDARE.com]

Recently I had things to say about wokeness at the fine old magazine Scientific American. Their September issue had run a long article, headlined Reckoning With Our Mistakes, in which the editors groveled, rent their garments, heaped ashes on their heads, and flagellated themselves with guilt over shamefully un-Woke things the magazine had published back in the 19th century.

All that was bad enough—distressing enough, I should say, for an old science geek like myself who, in his youth, looked to Scientific American for instruction and amusement on science and math topics, delivered in a spirit of objective enquiry.

Now here came the October issue. For the first time ever in the magazine’s 175-year history the editors [Editor in Chief Laura Helmuth Tweet her] have endorsed a Presidential candidate. [Scientific American Endorses Joe Biden | We’ve never backed a presidential candidate in our 175-year history—until now, October, 2020]

Can you guess which one? Of course you can! Quote:

The evidence and the science show that Donald Trump has badly damaged the U.S. and its people—because he rejects evidence and science.

There follow several hundred words about how ineptly the Administration has coped with the COVID-19 pandemic, with some supplementary remarks on healthcare in general and environmental issues. Then this concluding paragraph:

Although Trump and his allies have tried to create obstacles that prevent people from casting ballots safely in November, either by mail or in person, it is crucial that we surmount them and vote. It’s time to move Trump out and elect Biden, who has a record of following the data and being guided by science.

What exactly are those obstacles to voting that Trump has tried to create? The online version of this Scientific American editorial has a link to a Chicago Tribune story headlined Cook County GOP Sues to Block State’s Enhanced Vote-by-Mail Efforts ,by Rick Pearson, August 10, 2020. Back in June, you see, the Governor of Illinois signed a law to expand mail-in voting. Of course, this meant expanding opportunities to corrupt November’s election [Confessions of a voter fraud: I was a master at fixing mail-in ballots, by Jon Levine, NY Post, August 29, 2020]. A conservative legal group, the Liberty Justice Center, has tried to block the law.

The Scientific American editorial is, in short, just cut’n’pasted from Biden campaign talking points.

For more on the ongoing corruption of American science by ideology, see Heather Mac Donald’s article Conformity To A Lie in the summer issue of City Journal.

Heather quotes the revolting statements of self-abasement issuing from college presidents and faculty heads about how they must strive harder to purge their institutions of “systemic racism” and “white privilege.”

Some science-relevant extracts from Heather’s article:

  • The dean of the Jacobs School of Engineering at the University of California, San Diego, Albert (“Al”) P. Pisano [Email him] pronounced himself “absolutely dedicated” to turning the engineering school into an “anti-racist organization.” Doing so “crucially includes unconscious bias work we must do within ourselves,” he added. How that work will interact with research on nanoparticles and viral transmission, say, was unspecified.
  • The chairman of the earth and planetary sciences department at the University of California at Davis, announced an “anti-racist reading group” for faculty and students. The group’s purpose was to confront the “structural racism that pervades” the field of geology. Such structural racism in the study of igneous rocks is apparently so obvious that the chair did not bother to elaborate further.
  • The American Astronomical Society held color-coded Zoom meetings, one for white astronomers to “discuss direct actions to support Black astronomers,” one for black astronomers to “talk, vent, connect, and hold space for each other,” and one for “non-Black people of color to discuss direct actions to support Black astronomers.” See AAS Endorses #ShutDownSTEM, #ShutDownAcademia & #Strike4BlackLives, AAS website, June 9,

This kind of thing is what has led VDARE.com’s Lance Welton to say, repeatedly, that science is entering a new Dark Age:

To my mind, nothing is worse than this corruption of science.

Objective, reasoned scientific inquiry is the crowning glory of Western civilization.

These solemn declarations of guilt and repentance are a regression to what came before: superstition and witch-doctoring.

These so-called academics might as well put bones through their noses.

 
🔊 Listen RSS

[Excerpted from the latest Radio Derb, now available exclusively through VDARE.com]

Here’s a peek into Woke Capitalism. I shall tread carefully in this segment. I am working from inside information, and I don’t want anyone to lose his job for being associated with an outlet as hatefully hateful as VDARE.com.

The particular corner of capitalism featured in this story is the fine old financial-services firm of Goldman Sachs. You may recall Goldman Sachs signaling their virtue to the world back in in January when they announced that they’d only do business with firms that had at least one diverse board member, which I think means not a straight white male.

Well, a friend of mine is employed at Goldman Sachs, and he’s been passing stuff on to me: stuff like this, which I reproduce with my friend’s permission, some names redacted

It’s a memo that was prominently featured on the main page of the internal Goldman Sachs web site August 27th, for the edification of all employees. The title of the memo is: Why Language Can Be One of Our Biggest Allies at Goldman Sachs. The main text is over seven hundred words, too long for me to read out in its entirety, so I’ll just cherry-pick a few representative quotes, with links added.

I guess you could say that at least the competitive spirit of capitalism is visible there. Gotta be better than the next guy; gotta stay ahead of the market; hey, look—we did the capital-“B” thing two weeks before AP!

  • In Engineering, our colleagues…[have] collaborated with others in the financial services industry to address racially insensitive terminology in computer security terms. This work included eliminating the use of “blacklist” and “whitelist,” as well as of “master” and “slave,” when describing the relationship between hardware components.

Perhaps the use of those words “master” and “slave” in the computer department just get people thinking a bit too much about the power relation between the Indian project manager and his legacy-American subordinate who’s being kept on for three months to train his replacement, an H-1B also from India—in fact the project manager’s nephew.

  • Another example of a phrase that can have harmful impact is “All Lives Matter.”…The death of George Floyd, and, as recently as this week, the shooting of Jacob Blake multiple times in the back, demonstrate that until the deadly violent acts against unarmed Black people subside, all lives will not matter until Black Lives Matter.

You didn’t think we were going to get through this without a reference to the Holy Blessed Martyr Floyd, did you?

Although I’ll give a smidgen of credit here to Goldman Sachs: They merely wrote “the death of George Floyd.” It’s routine in Mainstream media outlets now to see “the killing of George Floyd,” or even “the murder of George Floyd.” The Economist, for example, has used both in straight reportage. It has of course not yet been established to any good evidentiary standard that Floyd was killed, let alone murdered.

  • It’s … not accurate to refer to someone’s “sexual preference,” which would imply a choice that can be changed, instead we refer to an individual’s “sexual orientation.”

That’s a bit hair-splitty, isn’t it? A bit dubious, actually. An orientation may be voluntary, mayn’t it? I can orient myself to the north, south, east, or west, according to my…preference.

Goldman Sachs doesn’t just rely on memos to keep its workforce up-to-date on the Party line. Conversations!—gotta have conversations. To give employees the right idea, the firm records the kind of conversations it wants them to have and puts them on YouTube so they can watch at home.

I’m not sure what the rule is for watching in office hours, but I’d guess it’s OK…ah, heck, probably compulsory.

Here’s a wee clip of one of those conversations from early June. The speaker here is Frederick Baba, a Managing Director in the Global Markets division of the firm. Mr. Baba is black. In fact he’s an immigrant from Nigeria, dragged here in chains across the Middle Passage as a youngster thirty years ago. Hearken to his pain:

I think for me personally and for a lot of the members of the black community here at Goldman Sachs, these things are just extremely difficult for us to process. And so you’ll be here trying to show up, trying to be your best work self, and then at times you don’t even know if it matters, right? You’re sitting in a Zoom call-in, you’re talking about the thing you’re talking about, you’re trying to service your clients, but then … There’s this backdrop and this, like, cloud hanging over you about all of the other things that are happening in the world, and you just don’t know if you really care about bonds at that moment in time.

A Goldman Executive Has Advice for His White Colleagues

Expressions of solidarity are appreciated—Here’s what I would appreciate more.

By Frederick Baba, Bloomberg News, June 4, 2020

That’s just a snippet. The thing drones on for half an hour. And yes, there’s another participant in the conversation; but he’s white, so of course he defers to Mr. Baba.

 
🔊 Listen RSS

[Excerpted from the latest Radio Derb, now available exclusively through VDARE.com]

Earlier, by Ann Coulter: Mass Incarceration Saved Black America

This headline from The Spectator, August 29th, naturally caught my eye: If anything, America has an under-incarceration problem. The byline is Pedro L. Gonzalez, a name not otherwise known to me. [VDARE.com Note : Read Pedro L. Gonzalez at American Greatness and follow him on Twitter at @emeriticus]but if Pedro is ever out Long Island way, I’ll be glad to buy him a drink.

He takes us through some recent cases: John Marvin Weed, the 59-year-old white man beaten to death at Maryland State Fair last year by two young black brothers—I mean, they are actual brothers—aged 16 and 15.

Motions to try them as adults were denied. The older brother got probation; the younger is in a juvenile detention facility until he’s completed a behavioral modification program. [ Teen charged in deadly Great Frederick Fair assault to serve probation, by Jeremy Arias, Frederick News-Post, August 12, 2020]

Then Pedro tells the horrible story of five-year-old white child Cannon Hinnant, shot dead while riding his bike in his front yard by 25-year-old Darius Sessoms, who is black.

That was just last month so there’s no result from the courts yet; but we have learned that Sessoms is a felon with a long rap sheet.

And then, Joel Francisco, below, who got early release from jail last year under Jared Kushner’s First Step Act.

Shortly after his release, he stabbed a man to death. [He was released early from prison in February. Now he’s wanted for a murder on Federal Hill. Providence Journal, Oct 4, 2019]

And so on. This kind of thing is all too common. If you pay attention to your local news, you don’t have to pay attention for long before you read about someone on early release, or probation, or with outstanding warrants—someone who should really be locked up—who’s committed some new felony.

Pedro Gonzalez crunches the numbers and makes a good case. Just one short quote:

Most of what Americans have been told about mass incarceration is untrue, or takes half-truths and tortures them into whole lies.

A lot of that lying is in support of race denialism, our great National Lie. The stupendous differences in criminality between blacks and non-blacks must at all costs be kept hidden from the peasants, or else we’d be marching on the palace with pitchforks.

I once, in a scholarly discussion group with some quantitative social scientists, posed the question: Suppose we locked up black people at higher and higher rates until the level of black crime in society outside prisons and jails was equal to the nonblack rate? What proportion of incarcerated people would be black?

I couldn’t get an answer out of them, and wasn’t invited back to the group.

Now for the situation in the U.K. It has some similarities—and some differences.

Dame Cressida Dick, Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police in London, gave testimony this July before the Parliamentary Home Affairs Committee. That’s equivalent to an American big-city police chief testifying to a congressional justice committee. Eye-stopping quote, from psychologist James Thompson‘s excellent coverage of this story:

Dame Cressida Dick fielded questions about how the police were dealing with the lockdown, and with knife crime and crime generally, with a focus on racial differences, particularly on the numbers of people stopped and searched.

British Justice, British Version, Unz.com, September 9, 2020

What—what?

Yes! Incredibly, Dame Cressida was open and forthcoming about race differences in crime!

She wasn’t as open and forthcoming as we are here at VDARE.com, needless to say; but for a person in her position, in a country as thoroughly race-cucked as Britain, she was remarkably frank:

You are four times more likely to be a victim of homicide if you are black and eight times more likely to be a perpetrator.[PDF]

If, in defiance of all the efforts of the U.S. Main Stream Media to keep the facts hidden from you, if you know American crime statistics, that eight times figure for homicide will be familiar. It’s more or less the same as the corresponding figure for us.

How odd.

James Thompson says it better than I can:

 
🔊 Listen RSS

Above, the head of the Black Psychological Association, Theopia Jackson, and the CEO of the American Psychological Association, Arthur C. Evans Jr.

[Excerpted from the latest Radio Derb, now available exclusively through VDARE.com]

As I start writing here on Friday morning, the news headliner is that Michael Reinoehl was killed Thursday evening in a shoot-out with cops who were trying to arrest him. It seems that no-one else was hurt in the shoot-out; it was, as our own inimitable Steve Sailer observes, Mostly Peaceful.

Reinoehl was, by his own confession in an interview with Vice published earlier that same day [Man Linked to Killing at a Portland Protest Says He Acted in Self-Defense, September 3, 2020], the person who shot dead an unarmed Trump supporter in Portland OR last Saturday.

The rioting anarchists of Antifa and Black Lives Matter may be in the service of a cynical elite hoping to bring down Trumpism and restore a happier state of affairs for globalist-corporatist-neoliberalism. They may, like Robespierre and Trotsky, end up under the guillotine themselves. But when I get a glimpse of their actual personalities, they are in the true revolutionary mold, like the Russian and Chinese revolutionaries in the late-19th, early-20th century.

We actually have quite a few specimens now. Reinoehl was a dedicated supporter of Black Lives Matter, with their clenched-fist symbol tattooed on his neck. He’d been arrested and cited in July for possessing a loaded gun in a public place, interfering with police, and resisting arrest [Michael Reinoehl, sought in fatal Portland shooting after Trump rally, killed by officers in Washington, OregonLive, September 4, 2020 ]Before that, in June he got a failure-to-appear warrant issued against him; charges there were driving under the influence of a controlled substance, recklessly endangering another, unlawful possession of a gun and driving while suspended and uninsured.

He claimed to be a professional snowboarder; but the firm he named says they never employed or sponsored him. He claimed to be an Army veteran, but the Army has no record of him. His sister disowned him some time ago.

Then there’s 36-year-old Joseph Rosenbaum, the first of the three people shot in self-defense by Kyle Rittenhouse in Kenosha WI. He was a convicted child rapist. Court documents from 2002 reproduced on the internet list a range of sex crimes against several boys from the ages of nine to eleven years old, including outright rape [HUGE: Court Documents Reveal Shot Kenosha Rioter Joseph Rosenbaum Was a Convicted Child Rapist, by Richard Moorhead, BigLeaguePolitics, September 3, 2020] His prison record shows 40 disciplinary infractions for arson, disobeying orders, manufacturing a weapon, refusing to work … This guy was a real no-goodnik.

Anthony Huber, the other guy killed by Kyle Rittenhouse, was only 26, but he already had quite a rap sheet going back to at least 2016: possession of drug paraphernalia, and a whole host of charges under the heading “domestic abuse”—strangulation and suffocation, false imprisonment, battery, disorderly conduct, …

The guy Kyle Rittenhouse shot but didn’t kill is Gaige Paul Grosskreutz, also 26. He’s been comparatively well-behaved: convicted of a criminal misdemeanor in 2016 for going armed with a firearm while intoxicated, and some nuisance offenses.

So of these four anarchists who chance to have come to our close attention, every one could fairly be described as a misfit. These are not normal, stable people. Revolutionaries hardly ever are.

Here’s one of them from the 19th century: Sergey Nechaev, Russian of course, supposed to have been the model for Verkhovensky in Dostoyevsky’s novel Demons:

A revolutionary is a doomed man. He has no private interests, no affairs, sentiments, ties, property nor even a name of his own. His entire being is devoured by one purpose, one thought, one passion—the revolution. Heart and soul, not merely by word but by deed, he has severed every link with the social order and with the entire civilized world; with the laws, good manners, conventions, and morality of that world. He is its merciless enemy and continues to inhabit it with only one purpose—to destroy it.

[Catechism Of A Revolutionist, 1869, as quoted in Stalin, by Edvard Radvinsky, 1997]

That’s the true revolutionary personality. But back of those revolutionaries and their various levels of nihilistic passion there is of course an ideology. It’s not just their ideology, either: It is mighty in the land.

APA is the American Psychological Association. Sample text:

Today’s inequities, psychologists say, are deeply rooted in our past, and the status quo is no longer acceptable. “Every institution in America is born from the blood of white supremacist ideology and capitalism—and that’s the disease,” says Theopia Jackson, Ph.D., [Email her] president of the Association of Black Psychologists.

[by Zara Abrams, APA Monitor, September 1, 2020 ]

Has the Association considered that perhaps “today’s inequities” are deeply rooted in biological race differences?

Good heavens, no! Get out of here, Nazi!

The APA is on the case, though. In June it launched a series of virtual town halls for its members, with the aim of “establishing a racially diverse psychology workforce and more efficiently and effectively translating research insights into action.”

You don’t get very far into an article of this sort before you come to the guilt section. From APA CEO Dr. Arthur C. Evans Jr. [Tweet him](who also happens to be black):

 
🔊 Listen RSS

In Antiracism We Trust

Walking up to my local chain drugstore, I saw a two-panel notice that I hadn’t seen before, pasted on the inside of the automatic glass door.

Left panel, blue letter on white:

To our customers, team members and loved ones whose lives have been affected by discrimination: You will always have a home at Rite Aid.

Right panel, white letters on blue:

“LET ME BE CLEAR: RACISM, INJUSTICE AND INTOLERANCE HAVE NO HOME IN THE RITE AID ORGANIZATION OR IN OUR COMMUNITIES”

The quote is attributed to Heyward Donigan, President and CEO of Rite Aid.

“A home”—what? So I can bring a sleeping bag and crash in the Rite Aid storeroom?

“Our communities”—what? You mean the neighborhoods where you are located? How, exactly, shall you police “racism, injustice and intolerance” therein? Foot patrols? Video surveillance?

How long will it be before oaths of allegiance to the Church of Antiracism will be compulsory for any kind of paid employment? (I mean, other than on the faculties of our universities, where such oaths are already compulsory.)

I pledge allegiance to Black Lives Matter, and to the world for which it stands, one community under Antiracism, indivisible, with free stuff and social justice for all, except white supremacists.

How long before witnesses in our courts of law swear their oath on some Antiracist tract?

How long before annual sessions of Congress are opened with Antiracist prayers?

How long before Antiracist slogans are printed on our paper currency and inscribed on the lintels of our public buildings?

How long, O Lord, how long?

Buying ammo

I thought a trip to the range for some rifle practice would be in order. I don’t know any better than you do what will happen this November 3rd, but I want to be armed and ready for the worst. I’m low on ammo, though, so off to the local gun store.

They wanted $43 for twenty rounds of .303—more than two dollars a round. Say what? My Lee Enfield is somewhat of an antique, I know, and I don’t mind paying premium for the ammo, but that’s ridiculous.

Me: “Two dollars a round? That’s a bit steep, isn’t it?”

He: “You’re lucky we have any in stock. We can’t get deliveries. Something with the factories.”

Me: “Is demand higher than usual?”

He: “Yep, that too.”

Me: “How about actual guns? I’ve been reading about record sales. You been seeing that?”

They, in smiling unison: “Oh yeah!”

I went on the internet, easily found some .303 at one-third the store price; but for purchasers in New York State they’ll only deliver to a federally licensed dealer.

Emailed the only friend with an FFL. He’s a Late Silent like me, though, cutting down on his commitments, and has given up the business, he told me.

Back to the store. $130 for sixty rounds. Grrr.

The guns of August

So off to the range. Business was good here, too. This was midday on a sunny August Wednesday. Brookhaven Range has thirty-six stations for rifles at 100 and 200 yards, twenty-two stations* for 25 and 50 yards. When I arrived there were four parties waiting to shoot at 100 yards. One told me he’d been waiting half an hour. I waited twenty minutes for a 50-yard station.

This seems to me a good sign. Citizens aren’t just buying guns, they’re learning to use them.

Would the range require a mask? I wondered as I drove in. Yes, they did, according to a notice at the entrance.

Compliance was patchy, though. There was a twentysomething couple at the station next to mine. He wore a mask most of the time; she didn’t wear one at all, just went bare-faced the whole time I was there. The range officers didn’t seem to care. (And I was pleasantly surprised, not for the first time, to note how many hot young women you see at the range.)

At first I tried shooting with a mask on, assuming that the range officers might be less tolerant of me than they were of Suzy Creamcheese in the adjacent bay. I couldn’t make it work, though. For one thing, the mask messed up my breathing rhythms somehow. In shooting, as in swimming, you have to breathe right.

For another, my glasses kept fogging up. The ingenuity of man seems not yet to have devised a breathing mask that doesn’t fog up eyeglasses. How on earth do surgeons manage in the OR, stitching veins and nerves together with fogged-up glasses? (I asked a medical friend. He: “The surgeon has a nurse standing by him just to wipe his glasses clear.” Really? Come on.)

So I fired my last twenty rounds with mask down under chin. No-one seemed to mind.

——————————

* Not twenty as advertised. Have they been expanding to meet increased demand? Let’s hope so, but I didn’t think to ask.

Mask rage

That insouciance at the range keys in to the way mask-wearing has been politicized, like every other damn thing nowadays. Masks are virtuously woke; going maskless is dissident, probably white supremacist.

I wear a mask when required to—at the range, the Post Office, the stores—but not otherwise. I don’t, for instance, wear a mask when walking my dog around my quiet suburban neighborhood. When I meet people walking towards me, I call out a cheery greeting. Of those who are masked, most will greet me back; but from others I get back only silence and an angry glare from over the mask. The signal I’m reading is: Wear a damn mask, you fascist!

 
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 VDARE.com com is FROM THE DISSIDENT RIGHT (also available in Kindle).His writings are archived at JohnDerbyshire.com.