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
April Diary: Righting the World’s Wrongs, Automation, and the Hu-Wite Cliffs of Dover, Etc.
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, 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
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Trumpism: righting the world’s wrongs. Like a lot of other people who supported Donald Trump’s presidential campaign, I was left disappointed and depressed by the April 7th attack on Syria. I had supposed that with Trump’s election we would at last leave the Middle East to its endless fractal squabbles and give our full attention to domestic issues, which are many and pressing.

Apparently not. We are to go on being the world’s policeman, righting the world’s wrongs. The Moralistic Imperative — Someone somewhere is doing something wicked! We must stop them! — continues to prevail in the White House.

The disappointment thickened and the depression deepened when I read about polling after the attack. Americans liked it; and Republicans — so therefore, presumably, Trump voters — liked it a lot.

Who is to blame for this mentality? It’s not innate to the U.S.A. For most of our history we have known how to mind our own business.

Woodrow Wilson is commonly named as the culprit. There was indeed somewhat of the Crusader in him. His speech, given a hundred years ago this month, asking Congress to declare war on Germany was cast in globalist-moralistic terms: “The world must be made safe for democracy” and so on.

But still, what had actually sent Wilson to Congress to ask for a declaration of war was the sinking by German submarines, in the early weeks of 1917, of seven American merchant ships: Housatonic, Lyman M. Law, Algonquin,Vigilancia, City of Memphis, Illinois, and Healdton.

That’s a fair casus belli, whatever you think of Wilson. (Although Prof. Gottfried will give you an argument on that.) And — again, whatever you think of the guy — he went to Congress and asked for a declaration of war. How quaint does that sound?

There was plenty of opposition to the war nationwide, though; and when the war was over, Americans turned away from globalist engagement for an entire generation. So, no: globalist moralism is not an innate American characteristic.

A friend with whom I discussed this put the blame on Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster, who created the Superman character in the mid-1930s. It was Superman, said my friend, who planted the idea of crusading against evil in the American mind.

I don’t buy it. I’m not an expert on comic books, but my recollection is that Superman crusaded entirely against domestic villains. His popularity arose from a widespread desire for honest law enforcement, not for putting the whole world to rights.

Surely the great turn came with WW2 and the Cold War. The defining statement of globalist moralism was John F. Kennedy’s declaration, in his Inaugural address, that: “We shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.”

Historians Robert Catley and David Mosler called that “a Wilsonian blank cheque” (using the Australian spelling). Looks like we’re still good for payouts from that check.

My low Party number. The widespread approval for Trump’s Syria attack, even among our fellow Deplorables, is a useful reminder that while the Western world is displaying a turn towards nationalism, well-thought-through opinions of the Dissident Right or Alt Right variety — the kinds of opinions you read here at — are held by only a small minority.

That’s even more the case with HBD (Human Bio-Diversity). It seems brightly obvious to me, and perhaps also to you, that geographically long-isolated human populations, breeding almost entirely among themselves, from different founder groups and under different pressures from natural selection, will develop different statistical profiles on all heritable traits.

Since everything we can quantify about human nature, including the dimensions of behavior, personality and intelligence, are to some degree heritable, those features will diversify along with height, skin color, hair texture, disease susceptibility, and the rest. Isn’t this just elementary biology?

Hardly anybody thinks so. The quantitative blogger Inductivist — I think I should say “ex-blogger”: he seems to have abandoned the keyboard, at lease for blogging purposes, last September — back in 2010 did some tracking of responses in the General Social Survey to the question: “On the average, blacks have worse jobs, income, and housing than white people. Do you think these differences are because most blacks have less in-born ability to learn?” The conclusion from his analysis was, to quote the heading of the relevant post: “There is no Silent but Sensible HBD Majority.”

There were quite a few race realists in the 70s, but the number has dropped to around 10 percent. Things have only gotten worse post-Bell Curve (1994).

A different blogger, Occidentalist, who has likewise since quiesced, did an update in 2013 and came to the same conclusion. His charts — again they come from the General Social Survey — show an actual decline in HBD awareness from 1977 to 2012, the proportion assigning black underachievement to “inborn disability” dropping from 25 percent to less than 10 percent.

Worse yet, when he decomposed the responses by Wordsum score — a quick’n’dirty proxy for IQ — the smartest respondents were least inclined to HBD explanations for social outcomes. Plainly the decades-long push to establish the no-such-thing-as-race, Standard Social Science explanatory model throughout our educational system has been successful.

(I’m obliged to the excellent but anonymous Dissident Right tweeter tcjfs for those links.)

We HBD-ers are thus an insignificant, marginalized (may as well steal some of the SJWs’ vocabulary) minority, especially among the well-educated portion of the populace.

This can’t be good for our society at large, but I personally don’t mind it. I even find an occasion for pride in it, as follows.


Back when being a communist was subversive — and in some jurisdictions, dangerous — the big status marker among the faithful was having a low Party number. Having a low Party number meant you had joined the Party early on, from inner conviction, not because Party-member friends had persuaded you, and certainly not because it was trendy in your social clique.

Well, HBD-wise, I have a low Party number. I was a founder member, or at least a very early one, of Steve Sailer’s HBD online discussion group back in 1999. That’s about equivalent to having joined the Communist Party of the U.S.A. in 1919, the year it was founded.

Nowadays American communists hold prestigious positions at our universities and command five-digit speaking fees on the lecture circuit. Close fellow-travellers have been elected mayors of major U.S. cities, or had their books assigned as standard reading-matter for college courses.

So as marginalized and subversive as we HBD-ers currently are, perhaps we shall likewise find honor and wealth at last. I may yet, if I live long enough, get to cash in on my low Party number.

From active to passive. My colleague Brenda Walker has been doing sterling work chronicling the coming End of Work.

Rice University computer scientist Moshe Vardi believes that in 30 years humans will become largely obsolete, and world joblessness will reach 50 percent. [Retail Use of Automation Is Increasing by Brenda Walker;, April 30th.]

I have my issues with the general thesis. I’ve noted before that in my suburban neighborhood of one-family houses, around one house in eight on any given day is receiving the attentions of a contractor.

But yes, I’ll agree: A lot of jobs — a lot — are going to disappear in the next couple of decades. Probably — I’m thinking about those contractors — jobs in the middling-clerical categories will take the biggest hits. We no longer need tax preparers or travel agents, but we still need plumbers and roofers.

Yet this hardly ever comes up in mainstream political talk. I just watched 13 minutes and 49 seconds of Bill Maher interviewing 2020 Presidential hopeful (everyone seems to think) Senator Elizabeth Warren. She didn’t mention it. Maher didn’t bring it up, either.

They also didn’t mention immigration. If great numbers of jobs are going to disappear, why are we settling a million and a half foreigners every year, most of them low-skilled? Oh right: we’ll give them all free college and retrain them to be software engineers. Uh-huh.

Our public political conversations are infantile. The Maher-Warren conversation could have been taking place fifty years ago. The rich are getting richer! More kids should go to college! Affordable health care! It was a time warp. I thought any minute I’d hear about the Missile Gap.

“The supreme function of statesmanship is to provide against preventable evils,” said Enoch Powell. That would involve thinking about the future in a well-informed, imaginative way, though. As Powell quickly discovered, the number of politicians capable of doing that, and willing to do it out loud, in any given generation is some integer less than two.

There are tremendous technological advances just over the horizon, that will bring with them great social changes. Autonomous vehicles, for example: even discounting for tech-boosters’ hype, they are clearly going to be with us soon.

I’m old enough to remember when operating a car was a hobby that lots of people took pleasure in. The name of the hobby was “motoring.” Now it’s just a chore — not “motoring,” just “driving” — but it still needs some skill and attention. It’s still a thing.

When autonomous vehicles settle in we shall have gone all the way from pleasure, to chore, to … nothing: from active-and-pleasurable, via active-but-boring, to passive.

We’ll find new pleasures, I’m sure; but shall we find new chores? Active chores that engage our minds and bodies? Might it be that human beings need chores?

There are preventable evils in there somewhere; but to judge from the Warren-Maher exchanges, nobody in mainstream politics or punditry wants to talk about them.

The Word versus the World. A Radio Derb listener took issue with my saying, in the April 28th podcast, that our gentry elites are smarter than the native white proles they despise. “That makes it easier for them to maintain control,” I said. “They can bamboozle and outfox the proles. It’s an unequal contest.”

My listener thought I was oversestimating elite smarts. “I doubt many current Ivy League students would be capable of the math that was required at NASA in the 1960s,” he wrote, “or would be able to possess the historical knowledge & physical stamina of the great Victorian explorers.”

It’s a fair point. However, the people who set and enforce the ideological agenda are not mathematicians. They are not People of the World but People of the Word — liberal-arts and Law School graduates, mostly. Math and hard-science practitioners are People of the World.

The World and the Word are two different realities; or rather, one of them is a reality and the other is a tissue of feelgood sound effects.

As a lifelong math and science geek, I have long since resigned myself to the fact that in the social realm, when the World comes up against the Word, the Word wins pretty much every time.

The hu-wite cliffs of Dover. Listening to my Vera Lynn 100 CD I noticed that she pre-aspirates the [w] sound when singing “The White Cliffs of Dover.” She makes it [hw].

The most famous practitioner of this phoneme nowadays is of course Jared Taylor of American Renaissance, the hu-wite advocacy group (and also of Jared’s an outlier, though; the sound is pretty rare.

The rarefication has taken place across the last fifty years. My 1958 edition of Prof. Charles Thomas’s The Phonetics of American English has the following regarding the English-language semivowels “w” and “y” ([w] and [j] in International Phonetic Alphabet symbols):

Loss of the aspirate [h] from the sequence [hj], as in [judʒ] and [‘jumən] for huge and human, is usually considered substandard in all English regional types, though common in most large cities. Similarly, the substitution of [w] for [hw], as in [wɛn] for when and [‘sʌmwɑt] for somewhat, is often considered substandard in America, though also common in most large cities. In the south of England, on the other hand, the substitution of [w] for [hw] is normal.

I frowned at Prof. Thomas’s last sentence there. I can remember the sound of 1950s southern British English pretty well, and [hw] was common — common enough to give me a frisson of nostalgia when I hear it from Dame Vera, or Jared.

I consulted Prof. Thomas’s transatlantic counterpart, Prof. Daniel Jones, whose classic Outline of English Phonetics, in its 1962 edition, also dwells on my bookshelf. This is what he says about usage over there back then:

The breathed consonant corresponding to w (phonetic symbol ʍ) is used by many English people in words spelt with wh. Thus what, which are often pronounced ʍɔt, ʍitʃ. This pronunciation, with a variant hw which is difficult to distinguish from it, is regularly used in Scotland, Ireland, the North of England, and America. In the South [i.e. of England] the more usual pronunciation of these words is wɔt, witʃ, etc, though the use of ʍ or hw is sometimes taught as being more “correct.”

Prof. Jones’s “more usual” agrees better with my auditory memory than Prof. Thomas’s “normal.” In southern England around 1960 it was indeed “more usual” to drop the aspiration, turning [hw] into [w]. It was a 60-40 sort of “more usual,” though, not a 90-10 “normal.”


The aspiration was a class marker, and also a sex marker. You were more likely to hear it from an upper-class person, and much more likely to hear it from a female. It was very commonly heard from working-class females who wanted to rise above their origins. My own mother, a coal-miner’s daughter, used [hw] and [hj]. Vera Lynn, come to think of it, is the daughter of a plumber and a seamstress.

Sorry: I have a minor obsession with these phonetic peculiarities. Didn’t mean to make a hu-yuge thing of it …

Cancel my subscription! No, wait … I have a sort of abused-wife relationship with New Yorker magazine. I can’t stand the damn thing … except when it offers me psychic rewards, which it always does when I’m on the point of calling them up and screaming down the phone “CANCEL MY DAMN SUBSCRIPTION, DAMMIT!”

The May 1st issue, for example, led off with a piece by the editor, David Remnick, frothing and seething about President Trump at quite heroic length — over four thousand words.

An unprincipled, cocky, value-free con who will insult, stiff, or betray anyone to achieve his gaudiest purposes … This Presidency is so dispiriting … The clownish veneer of Trumpism …

For Heaven’s sake, guy. Calm down, have a drink.

Their editorial matter is all like that — from out on the far, far Left. So what am I doing subscribing to the darn thing? Just taking it for the cartoons?

No. I take it for the good pieces, of which there’s one in every two or three issues.

Case in point: the article titled “A Science of the Soul” in the March 27th issue. It’s a profile of the philosopher Daniel Dennett, who has interesting ideas about the nature of consciousness.

That’s one of my interests. I’ve been reading (and sometimes reviewing) books on the topic for years. I’ve read Dennett’s book Consciousness Explained, so I know, for example, the difference between a zombie and a zimbo. I have attended the annual “Toward a Science of Consciousness” conference when I could persuade a gullible kindly editor to pay me for doing so (2008 and 2014 — Dennett was a speaker at the latter one).

This New Yorker article — it’s by Joshua Rothman — says most of the interesting things that can be said at a magazine-article level about the problem of consciousness, and manages also to give a sympathetic and appealing picture of Dennett the man.

Dennett’s a physicalist, not very patient with metaphysics.

He regards the zombie problem [i.e. how do we tell from the outside whether a creature is conscious?] as a typically philosophical waste of time. The problem presupposes that consciousness is like a light switch: either an animal has a self or it doesn’t. But Dennett thinks these things are like evolution, essentially gradualist, without hard borders. The obvious answer to the question of whether animals have selves is that they sort of have them. He loves the phrase “sort of.” Picture the brain, he often says, as a collection of subsystems that “sort of” know, think, decide, and feel. These layers build up, incrementally, to the real thing. Animals have fewer mental layers than people — in particular, they lack language, which Dennett believes endows human mental life with its complexity and texture — but this doesn’t make them zombies. It just means that they “sort of” have consciousness, as measured by human standards.

I did not know until reading this piece what a busy and capable practical man Dennett is.

For many years he suspended his academic work during the summer in order to devote himself to farming … Dennett is an avid sailor; in 2003 he bought a boat, trained his students to sail, and raced with them in a regatta … “Until I met Dan,” [philosopher Nicholas] Humphrey told me, “I never had a philosophical hero. Then I discovered that not only was he a better philosopher than me; he was a better singer, a better dancer, a better tennis player, a better pianist. There is nothing he does not do.”

Plainly there’s nothing “sort of” about Dennett’s engagement with the material and social worlds. If we must have philosophers, that’s the kind I want to have.

Book of the Month. There’s a passing mention of octopuses in that Dennett article. For consciousness hobbyists, the octopus (along with the related squid and cuttlefish) is very interesting, because they are quite smart.

Octopuses are invertebrates: they don’t have backbones, nor indeed any skeleton at all. Vertebrates and invertebrates parted company around 600 million years ago, when life-forms were still very primitive, and certainly not intelligent. The fact that octopuses have intelligence therefore shows that intelligence developed independently from almost nothing in two quite different lines of creatures.

Octopuses in at least two aquariums have learned to turn off the lights by squirting jets of water at the bulbs when no-one is watching, and short-circuiting the power supply. At the University of Otago in New Zealand, this became so expensive that the octopus had to be released back into the wild.

That’s from Other Minds: The Octopus, the Sea, and the Deep Origins of Consciousness, which I read this month. I couldn’t swear that it’s the first book I’ve ever read about octopuses, but it’s definitely the first book about octopuses written by a philosopher. The author, Peter Godfrey-Smith, is a professor of philosophy at City University, New York.

Octopus intelligence is a bit odd in that octopuses are not very social animals. They mate of course, and fight; but they don’t go in for the kind of co-operation and social ranking that characterize primates and some other vertebrates (along with the social insects … but that’s a whole different story).

So you’d think that they wouldn’t have much need for a Theory of Mind — that is, a way of making mental models to explain what’s going on in other octopuses’ heads. They do, though, at a low level; and they even seem to practice some rudimentary kind of communication.

Well: I had just finished Other Minds when a lunch date came up with an old friend in New York City. We met at Kellari Taverna, a Greek restaurant on West 44th Street.

Big meals midday aren’t my thing, so I ordered one of Kellari’s lighter offerings: octopus salad.

I must say, while octopuses may not have a very well-developed Theory of Mind, they taste delicious.

Baboon Metaphysics. That’s the title of the book I’m now reading, Baboon Metaphysics. Peter Godfrey-Smith mentions it in his octopus book, and I just couldn’t resist the title. Baboon metaphysics!

(The title is taken from an 1838 entry in Charles Darwin’s notebook: “Origin of man now proved — Metaphysic must flourish — He who understands baboon would do more towards metaphysics than Locke.”)

I’m not very far into Baboon Metaphysics yet, but I can already tell you that you do not want to be a baboon. Their lives are very stressful — “one continual nightmare of anxiety,” according to a zoologist quoted by the authors, biologist Dorothy Cheney and psychologist Robert Seyfarth, both at U. Penn.


Cheney and Seyfarth confirm this by observing a troop of baboons in their social encounters with each other. Once they’ve seen a significant interaction — a low-rank female being shrieked at by one of higher rank, perhaps — they follow the participants around until they poop. Then they take the poop and analyze it for glucocorticoids — a type of hormones whose presence in quantity is a measure of mental stress. Yes, they conclude: lots of stress going on here.

The things people do for a living!

Notable quote.

The people in the dissident movements are not without their problems and many of them are certainly nuts, but that’s the nature of outsider movements. What’s increasingly clear is the fact that it is the outsider movements who are scoring the victories. They are the people changing minds and forcing the the fight onto the turf of Lefty. It’s not the dorks in blue blazers mooning over photos of Reagan. It’s the guys with home made armor decorated with sun wheels and cartoon frogs. — The Z-man, April 30th.

Math Corner. (1) Results of the 2016 Putnam math competition (for college undergraduates in the U.S.A. and Canada) came out April 7th … or at any rate, that’s when I got them. As the MAA website explains:

Each year on the first Saturday in December, over 2,000 students spend two 3-hour sessions solving 12 problems.

Individual students with the highest scores this time around:

  1. Joshua D. Brakensiek, Carnegie Mellon University
  2. Dong Ryul Kim, Harvard University
  3. Thomas E. Swayze, Carnegie Mellon University
  4. Samuel Zbarsky, Carnegie Mellon University
  5. Yunkun Zhou, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

To make that top five in a field of two thousand is glory indeed. Congratulations to all! Congratulations also to Carnegie Mellon over there in Steel City, who must be doing something right. Princeton, Harvard, MIT, and Stanford came in behind behind CMU in the institutional rankings.

(2) In re the April 23rd election in France, a friend notes that if you color the map of France by the winner in each of the 96 mainland departments, Marine Le Pen’s 46 are path-connected. That’s math-speak for: Given any two points in a region, you can construct a path from one point to the other that never leaves the region. Emmanuel Macron’s 41 departments are not path-connected.

The corresponding map for Donald Trump’s victory last November in the 48 contiguous states beats that: It is not merely path-connected, it is simply connected.

That is, any simple closed curve (think rubber band) in the region can be continuously shrunk down to a single point without any of it ever leaving the region. In other words, there are no “holes.”

That’s a bit unfair, as France-by-departments is more granular that America-by-states: twice as granular, on a simple count, 96 versus 48. It’s none the less pretty remarkable that if you go to a way higher level of granularity for the 3,109 contiguous counties, Trumpistan is still very nearly path-connected. Starting from any random point P in Trump country, you can walk to any other point Q also in Trump country without ever having to cross Hillaria … almost.

Other than one wee county in (I think) Mississippi, the exceptions are all up in the top-left or top-right corners of the nation: one county up there in Washington State (I think it’s Clallam) and several here in the Northeast … including my own Suffolk County. They — we — are totally boxed in by blue counties.

We exceptional counties should form some kind of alliance: the Trumpish Enclaves. We could demand corridors for free passage through blue territories to our fellow Deplorables elsewhere, like the Danzig Corridor that gave interwar Poland access to the Baltic through territory formerly German.

Although, come to think of it, Hitler used the Danzig Corridor as one of his excuses for invading Poland in 1939, so … never mind.

John Derbyshire [email him] 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. He’s had two books published by FROM THE DISSIDENT RIGHT (also available in Kindle) and From the Dissident Right II: Essays 2013. His writings are archived at

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: American Military, Donald Trump, Hbd 
Hide 31 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Randal says:

    As a lifelong math and science geek, I have long since resigned myself to the fact that in the social realm, when the World comes up against the Word, the Word wins pretty much every time.

    But perhaps in societal terms, this is more true the less external pressure the society is under (and therefore the less urgent the need for practical accomplishment.

    Might this be one (of many, no doubt) of the reasons why US sphere global military dominance does not fully reflect its colossal lead in military spending (about a third of global military spending is by the US, another third by the US’s close allies/satellite states/protectorates and a third by all remaining neutrals and rivals combined, but arguably this does not translate to quite the military free hand you would expect, as extensively discussed here on Unz: Assessing Russia’s Military Strength, Comprehensive Military Power: World’s Top 10 Militaries of 2015).

    In other words, it’s not just the colossal corruption that vitiates US relative military performance per dollar spent (and indeed massive corruption seems pretty much endemic to military spending, universally), but the fact that in countries, like Russia, which unlike the US face real external threats, there is a societal awareness that the Word cannot be allowed always to triumph over the World.

  2. iffen says:

    High number HBDer here.

    There were quite a few race realists in the 70s, but the number has dropped to around 10 percent. Things have only gotten worse post-Bell Curve (1994).

    Maybe the low number people are doing something wrong.

  3. 5371 says:

    [Plainly there’s nothing “sort of” about Dennett’s engagement with the material and social worlds. If we must have philosophers, that’s the kind I want to have.]

    Why? Such are more likely to be bad philosophers, like Dennett.

  4. Octopuses in at least two aquariums have learned to turn off the lights by squirting jets of water at the bulbs …

    Wouldn’t it be less effort to educate such magnificent molluscs by simply chucking a (plugged-in) toaster in one of the tanks every time they pulled that stunt? While the others watched (or whatever it is they do).
    I mean how expensive is the odd new octopus, anyway? Soon establish whether they had a ‘Theory of Mind’, or indeed any Common Sense.
    Maybe they should give them butterknives and wallsockets to play with. Teach them not to muck about with electricity and water. It’s for their own good.

    • LOL: German_reader, Clyde, Johann Ricke
  5. Travis says:

    I suspect the big drop proponents of HBD are due to the leftists takeover of the education of our children and the hostility at colleges across America which will destroy any diversity of opinions.

    another factor which hurt the spread of HBD may have been the success of the Bell curve, which created a concerted effort by the media to portray this line of scholarship as racist….and they continue to portray the HBD movement as focused on IQ when there are other important causes of the diversity we see among different races. The sequencing of Human DNA and the knowledge we have obtained over the last decade has confirmed that humans can be categorized by race and we can even determine if one is Northern European, Southern European or Eastern European with tremendous accuracy. Thus less people actually believe race is a social construct, few take it seriously and those who attempt to alter their identity to another race will be mocked and ostracized.. a big reason less people acknowledge HBD today than 40 years ago is because it is career suicide to suggest it. Derb is a good example of this.

    • Replies: @Barnard
    , @Realist
  6. In previous post John Derbyshire labeled the book by Charles Murray
    “Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010” as the last book
    by that author,

    Published January 31, 2012.

    Reminds me the story about German writer and statesman Goethe.
    He wrote in his diary
    “Ah, I loved nobody else as strongly, as I loved Matilda from Magdeburg !”
    The editor of publication of those diaries gives a foot-note:
    “Here great Goethe is mistaken.
    Science has established that his strongest love was to Christine from Dresden.”

    So, here great Derbyshire is mistaken.
    Latest book by Charles Murray is
    “By the People: Rebuilding Liberty Without Permission” – August 2, 2016,

    I am still in the process of reading that Last Book.

    Reminds me another joke from former USSR:
    Party (sure, communist party) organizer:
    — Why did not you attend the last party meeting ?
    — Oh, if I knew it was The Last One, I would definitely attend it.

    Best to Derbyshires.

  7. HBD-wise, I have a low Party number.

    Yeah, but I suppose Derb’s Party number in terms of seeing through false flags and other deep events is pretty high.

    I was surprised to note that Derb at least strongly suspected that the chemical attack in Syria was a false flag.

    So maybe the whole thing was a false flag by … who? The Rebels? ISIS? The Saudis? The Israelis? I wouldn’t rule it out.

    That was here on April 2:

    But a week before that, Derb bought hook, line, and sinker, this ridiculous Westminster Bridge hoax. It doesn’t occur to Derb that people don’t really get “radicalized” at the age of 52! That also didn’t seem to faze James Thompson, who is a ph.D. psychologist apparently, so….

    Well, everybody progresses at the rate they can progress at. My own Deep Politics Party number is not particularly low. It took me a long time to figure certain things out.

    • Replies: @Anonymous Nephew
  8. Barnard says:

    I suspect the big drop proponents of HBD are due to the leftists takeover of the education of our children and the hostility at colleges across America which will destroy any diversity of opinions.

    Right. There is a lack of public interest in this generally as well, so people are going to accept what they are taught in school even if it is obviously wrong based on their own observations. Plus, it makes them feel good to think everyone is the same and you can do anything if you work hard and put your mind to it.

  9. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    “I doubt many current Ivy League students would be capable of the math that was required at NASA in the 1960s,”

    No generalizations, but personally I know at least one graduate of Cornell U.
    (2006, still an Ivy League) with reasonable knowledge of Mathematics.
    Not elite, by any definition.

  10. Michelle says:

    I always loved this Welch’s White Grape Juice commercial because Travis Teford, who is from Texas, says hwhite in it. He was a cute little kid!

  11. Everything is ruled by the income required to keep defense contractors happy. That’s it. THEY get their share before anyone else. You have to live in DC (Northern Virginia, actually), to work for these people, to get to know them and their war-and-bloodthirsty ways to see the psychopathy on display. Lockheed, SAIC, Booze-Allen, ExxonMobil, the list is long and distinguished. These are not mere mortals, these are the folks that will murder Presidents to get their wars of profit. Trump has had his tour of Arlington Cemetery and the graves of Jack and Bob Kennedy, the last two that said no to a bullshit war. They threatened Trump, his wife, his children and grand children. Trump is now in their “employ”.

    That’s it, that’s that. Any other viewpoint is wishful thinking.

    • Replies: @Talha
  12. Realist says:

    “. a big reason less people acknowledge HBD today than 40 years ago is because it is career suicide to suggest it. Derb is a good example of this.”

    This is probably the biggest reason.

  13. Talha says:
    @Jim Christian

    Hey JC,

    But…but…I thought the Secret service is supposed to be around the president and his family at all times to protect them??!!

    Thanks for the descriptions from the inner sanctum.


    • Replies: @Jim Christian
    , @Clyde
  14. His charts — again they come from the General Social Survey — show an actual decline in HBD awareness from 1977 to 2012, the proportion assigning black underachievement to “inborn disability” dropping from 25 percent to less than 10 percent.

    I think part of the reason for the decline is the unrelenting propaganda against intelligence testing and the immutability of IQ, and in favor of blank-slatism. Thanks to Stephen Jay Gould and his ilk, every “well-informed” person now believes that all group differences are “cultural,” that IQ is not heritable, and that IQ doesn’t measure anything meaningful anyway.

  15. @Talha

    The Secret Service is but another tool. Gee, ain’t it sad that the agent fell down on the trunk of the car, that HE was the one that collected President Kennedy’s brain off the trunk? Ain’ that a shame?

    You don’t mess with Mother Nature and you really, REALLY don’t mess with the MilIndustialComplex. That alone will introduce you the the joys of hollow-point lead poisoning.

  16. Why all the involvement in crazy wars?

    1. Military-Industrial Complex. It’s trillions with a capital “T” at stake.

    2. The Israeli lobby. Works in coordination with 1.

    3. People, especially people of a conservative bent, really like soldiering and soldiers. Liberals like squishy stuff like feelings, tie-dye shirts, and singing folks songs; we like discipline, uniforms, and brass bands. If you can convince people it’s “for the children,” whether it’s babies impaled on pitchforks or thrown out of incubators, all the better (add in the fact that the anti-war movement got so shabby and frankly allied with the Communists).

    Think of Trump at the Army-Navy game: Thousands of young people actually cheering the guy. He couldn’t show his face at the Harvard Yale or Cal-Stanford games without violence breaking out.

    We “Support the Troops!”

    Unfortunately, when you supplement this tendency with 1. and 2. you get a lot of loony military adventurism.

    • Replies: @Joe Franklin
  17. Clyde says:

    Forget Robert Spencer. This man is lots better at deconstructing-debunking Islam. Give him a fair chance and he will make you into a non-believer and non-head banger. I put this onto my MP3 player and listened a few times.
    One example, he covers Jihad as inner struggle, as mentioned in the Koran and Hadiths. Bill Warner did a statistical analysis of the Koran & Hadiths. Inner struggle Jihad occurs only 2% of the time. 98% of the time Jihad is war against the non-Muslim though this also includes soft wars of Hijra-Hegira, of demographics, of propaganda. Not only armed warfare.

    • Replies: @Anon
  18. @Patrick in SC

    People, especially people of a conservative bent, really like soldiering and soldiers.

    I disagree with your claim.

    Conservative people are pro-militia, not pro-military.

    True conservatives are afraid of a standing army, and they are anti-foreign interventionist.

    The people that are pro-foreign interventionist are leftist neocons and democrats.

    Current US military conflicts are designed primarily to secure Israel’s hegemony in the middle east, and secondly to force US-style PC ideology onto resistant foreign nations.

    A third reason for US military intervention is to promote crony capitalism, but crony capitalism is already integral to PC ideology.

    Israel is considered by PC ideologues to be an ideal nation-state model for the world to emulate.

  19. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    Now I “get” what Tim Conway was doing with his “Mrs. H-wiggins” bit on the Carol Burnett Show.

  20. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    “Bill Warner did a statistical analysis of the Koran & Hadiths. Inner struggle Jihad occurs only 2% of the time. 98% of the time Jihad is war against the non-Muslim ”

    Interesting but irrelevant. Religion is all about interpretation. Compare the amount of attention given homosexuality in the OT (one line), the Gospels (none) and the Epistles (two lines) to the amount of time & energy devoted to the subject among Evangelicals. As Alan Watts said, “living in sin” means only one thing.

    • Replies: @Clyde
    , @MB
  21. Sean says:

    Trumpism: righting the world’s wrongs. Like a lot of other people who supported Donald Trump’s presidential campaign, I was left disappointed and depressed by the April 7th attack on Syria. I had supposed that with Trump’s election we would at last leave the Middle East to its endless fractal squabbles and give our full attention to domestic issues, which are many and pressing.

    Apparently not. We are to go on being the world’s policeman, righting the world’s wrongs. The Moralistic Imperative — Someone somewhere is doing something wicked! We must stop them! — continues to prevail in the White House.

    In February 1980, the Archbishop of EI Salvador, Oscar Romero, sent a letter to President Carter in which he begged him not to send military aid to the junta that ran the country. He said such aid would be used to “sharpen injustice and repression against the people’s organizations” which were struggling “for respect for their most basic human rights”. A few weeks later, Archbishop Romero was assassinated while saying a mass. The neo-Nazi Roberto d’Aubuisson is generally assumed to be responsible for this assassination (among countless other atrocities). D’Aubuisson was “leader for-life” of the ARENA party, .. members of the party, like current Salvadoran president Alfredo Cristiani, had to take a blood oath of loyalty to him.

    All of this passed with scarcely a mention in the country that funded and trained Romero’s assassins. The New York Times, the “newspaper of record,” published no editorial on the assassination when it occurred or in the years that followed, and no editorial or news report on the commemoration.

    On March 7, 1980, two weeks before the assassination, a state of siege had been instituted in El Salvador, and the war against the population began in force (with continued US support and involvement). Peasants were the main victims of this war, along with labor organizers, students, priests or anyone suspected of working for the interests of the people. In Carter’s last year, 1980, the death toll reached about 10,000, rising to about 13,000 for 1981 as the Reaganites took command. In October 1980, the new archbishop condemned the “war of extermination and genocide against a defenseless civilian population” waged by the security forces.
    The role of the “moderate” Duarte was to provide a fig leaf for the military rulers and ensure them a continuing flow of US funding after the armed forces had raped and murdered four churchwomen from the US. That had aroused some protest here; slaughtering Salvadorans is one thing, but raping and killing American nuns is a definite PR mistake. The media evaded and downplayed the story, following the lead of the Carter Administration and its investigative commission.

    The incoming Reaganites went much further, seeking to justify the atrocity.The independent newspapers in El Salvador, which might have reported these atrocities, had been destroyed. Although they were mainstream and pro-business, they were still too undisciplined for the military’s taste. The problem was taken care of in 1980-81, when the editor of one was murdered by the security forces; the other fled into exile. As usual, these events were considered too insignificant to merit more than a few words in US newspapers. In November 1989, six Jesuit priests, their cook and her daughter, were murdered by the army. That same week, at least 28 other Salvadoran civilians were murdered, including the head of a major union, the leader of the organization of university women, nine members of an Indian farming cooperative and ten university students. The news wires carried a story by AP correspondent Douglas Grant Mine, reporting how soldiers had entered a working-class neighborhood in the capital city of San Salvador, captured six men, added a 14-year-old boy for good measure, then lined them all up against a wall and shot them. They “were not priests or human rights campaigners,” Mine wrote, “so their deaths have gone largely unnoticed”-as did his story.

    The Jesuits were murdered by the Atlacatl Battalion, an elite unit created, trained and equipped by the United States. It was formed in March 1981, when fifteen specialists in counterinsurgency were sent to El Salvador from the US Army School of Special Forces.

    In December 1981, the Battalion took part in an operation in which over a thousand civilians were killed in an orgy of murder, rape and burning. Later it was involved in the bombing of villages and murder of hundreds of civilians by shooting, drowning and other methods. The vast majority of victims were women, children and the elderly.

    The Atlacatl Battalion was being trained by US Special Forces shortly before murdering the Jesuits. This has been a pattern throughout the Battalion’s existence-some of its worst massacres have occurred when it was fresh from US training.

    According to this deserter, draftees were made to kill dogs and vultures by biting their throats and twisting off their heads, and had to watch as soldiers tortured and killed suspected dissidents-tearing out their fingernails, cutting off their heads, chopping their bodies to pieces and playing with the dismembered arms for fun. […]

    The results of Salvadoran military training are graphically described in the Jesuit journal America by Daniel Santiago, a Catholic priest working in El Salvador. He tells of a peasant woman who returned home one day to find her three children, her mother and her sister sitting around a table, each with its own decapitated head placed carefully on the table in front of the body, the hands arranged on top “as if each body was stroking its own head.”

    The assassins, from the Salvadoran National Guard, had found it hard to keep the head of an 18-month-old baby in place, so they nailed the hands onto it. A large plastic bowl filled with blood was tastefully displayed in the center of the table.

    According to Rev. Santiago, macabre scenes of this kind aren’t uncommon. People are not just killed by death squads in El Salvador-they are decapitated and then their heads are placed on pikes and used to dot the landscape. Men are not just disemboweled by the Salvadoran Treasury Police; their severed genitalia are stuffed into their mouths. Salvadoran women are not just raped by the National Guard; their wombs are cut from their bodies and used to cover their faces. It is not enough to kill children; they are dragged over barbed wire until the flesh falls from their bones, while parents are forced to watch

    It was President Ronald Ray-Gun (as the Americans quaintly pronounce it), who originated the slogan “Make America Great Again”.

    The start of El Salvador’s civil war in 1980 was heralded by acts of incomprehensible violence: the assassination of Archbishop Oscar Romero while he celebrating Mass; the rape and murder of four American churchwomen. Yet those events paled in comparison to what happened the following year, when a U.S.-trained counterinsurgency force massacred more than 900 men, women and children in El Mozote and surrounding villages.

    In a gruesome war that claimed some 75,000 lives from 1980 until peace accords were signed in 1992, the three-day massacre at El Mozote stands out as the worst atrocity in a conflict marked by torture, executions and disappearances. Although American and Salvadoran officials at the time dismissed reports in The New York Times and The Washington Post, subsequent exhumations have provided undeniable proof of the price paid by that country’s civilians
    In 1966, the U.S. Army’s Handbook of Counterinsurgency Guidelines summarized the results of a war game waged in a fictitious country unmistakably modeled on Guatemala. The rules allowed players to use “selective terror” but prohibited “mass terror.” “Genocide,” the guidelines stipulated, was “not an alternative.”

    A decade and a half later, genocide was indeed an option in Guatemala, supported materially and morally by Ronald Reagan’s White House .. less concerned with the massacres than with their effectiveness, or with countering the bad publicity.
    [E]ven before his 1980 election, two retired generals, who played prominent roles in Reagan’s campaign, reportedly traveled to Central America and told Guatemalan officials that “Mr. Reagan recognizes that a good deal of dirty work has to be done.”

    Once in office, Reagan, continued to supply munitions and training to the Guatemalan army, despite a ban on military aid imposed by the Carter administration (existing contracts were exempt from the ban). And economic aid continued to flow, increasing to \$104 million in 1986, from \$11 million in 1980, nearly all of it going to the rural western highlands, where the Mayan victims of the genocide lived. […]

    And Reagan was consistent in his moral backing for Guatemala’s genocidaires. On Dec. 5, 1982, for instance, he met with Rios Montt in Honduras and said he was “a man of great integrity” and “totally dedicated to democracy.”

    The US uses human rights as a wedge, just as it once used anti communism as a wedge, but underneath it all is a simple calculus of relative power: no country not an ally of the US is to be allowed to get even the slightest gains in the zero sum game that is international politics. If the US had been governed by the KKK since 1900, it would still have fought in WW1 against Wilhelmine Germany and WW2 against Nazi Germany, and entered in exactly the same tardy fashion. America came into both WW1 and 2 at a point when Germany seemed close to success. No leader of the US worth his salt could allow a Germany superpower world-island Empire. Sure the US could have stayed out and saved a lot of taxpayers money , but before long the US would have found a superpower Germany poking its nose into America’s back yard.

    Trump as leader of the US is interfering in Syria because a regieme not an ally of the US is going to win and the US cannot afford to let them. Human rights (anti-slavery against every other power, especially France, and protection of Jews in the newly independent countries formerly oppressed by the Ottoman Empire) were a wedge for Britain tto interfere when it was the world champion country.

    The US is now the wold superpower, and so it uses human rights as a wedge to interfere and keep any other potentially rival country form getting funny ideas. Syrian babies getting gassed like they were bugs on a farmer’s field is a pretext, or at least cognitive dissonance, on the part of the US foreign policymakers. Fortunately the US is not in the ( domestically unavowable) death squad slaughter and napalming of children business at present. The reasons given for strikes on Syria are hardly discreditable so let people believe in it and be proud of their country. The strikes are necessary to e “Make America Great Again” or rather keep America well and truly on top.

    “Make America Great Again” was the slogan and as pres the man is doing exactly what it said on the tin. The Trumpire strikes back!

  22. @Jonathan Revusky

    “It doesn’t occur to Derb that people don’t really get “radicalized” at the age of 52!”

    Black people in the UK have very high rates of severe mental illness compared with the native population (though IIRC lower rates of depression and suicide). And jihad is the go-to justification for killing these days. The guy had been in and out of prison.

    “African-Caribbean people living in the UK have lower rates of common mental disorders than other ethnic groups but are more likely to be diagnosed with severe mental illness. African-Caribbean people are three to five times more likely than any other group to be diagnosed and admitted to hospital for schizophrenia.

    However, most of the research in this area has been based on service use statistics. Some research suggests that the actual numbers of African-Caribbean people with schizophrenia is much lower than originally thought.

    African Caribbean people are also more likely to enter the mental health services via the courts or the police, rather than from primary care, which is the main route to treatment for most people.”

    52 is certainly an advanced age for Sudden Jihad Syndrome, but it can strike even a Turk in his late 60s, as middle-aged female shoppers in leafy Hampton, Middlesex, discovered.

    “A “disturbed loner” who randomly attacked four women during a stabbing spree in a supermarket car park has been jailed for 20 years. Ethem Orhon, 67, inflicted “appalling injuries” on his victims during the rampage outside Sainsbury’s in Hampton, west London on 20 May, a court heard.”

  23. gwood says:

    There were quite a few race realists in the 70s, but the number has dropped to around 10 percent. Things have only gotten worse post-Bell Curve (1994).
    Bradley effect.

  24. Math and hard-science practitioners are People of the World.

    James Watson, Tim Hunt and Matt Taylor may disagree.

    Virtually all of the science and engineering students and practitioners I’ve known supported Bernie last year and have gone full SJW, although they do tend to be less peacockish about it than the liberal arts types.

    I’m bombarded with emails at work about the importance of women and LGBT people in physics and computer science.

    I think part of it is the Dems declaring themselves the Party of Science to advance the climate agenda, but mostly it is due to the tech bubble and previously uninterested non-geeks trying to nose in on the high salaries in STEM fields.

  25. Clyde says:

    Interesting but irrelevant. Religion is all about interpretation.
    You have something there but no way would I say all, as in all about interpretation

    “Bill Warner did a statistical analysis of the Koran & Hadiths. Inner struggle Jihad occurs only 2% of the time. 98% of the time Jihad is war against the non-Muslim ”

    Come on! You really think the above is inaccurate? …lol….. The miserable part is Islamic preachers|propagandists|dissemblers|taqiya masters like to tell complacent liberal Westerners that the real Jihad is the Jihad of inner struggle which is a lie. Truth is that both Jihads exist but the Jihad against non-Muslims, warfare, demographics and otherwise is far more prevalent at 98%. There are shorter Bill Warner youtube videos or convert the one I linked to, to an MP3 and listen away from your computer while driving or walking.

  26. Anonymous [AKA "Cindyw"] says:

    It was the CIA that killed Kennedy.

  27. hhsiii says:

    Some people might think it’s 1/2 genetics. Some might think it’s 20%. Some might think that over a thousand years it can change so maybe it really is nurture and not nature. Just takes a heck of a lot of nurture. People may be fudging their responses even in anonymous polls.

    On bombing Syria he may have been wagging the dog somewhat on the whole Putin thing. He’ll always act tough with folks. In his nature. But i don’t think he’ll bog us down in long, pointless wars. he’s quick to move on.

  28. anon • Disclaimer says:

    The United States did not engage in any more active external interventionism in the 1920s because there was no visible and compelling adversary. Germany was humiliated and ruined, begging for Western favors, and Russia was very distant and its situation was indefinite. In any case, the Bolsheviks were seen with some sympathy, certainly more than the ‘retrograde’ and ‘Asian’ tsarism. t is good to remember that socialist ideas have long been popular in the United States. Utopian socialists such as Charles Fourier and Robert Owen had many American adepts, and the socialist libel of Edward Bellamy, “Looking backward” a cult that, in size and influence, resembled that of Ayn Rand.

    But such a situation does not mean America has remained at rest. In the absence of an external enemy, the United States invented an internal enemy, instituting the Prohibition, criminalizing the use of alcohol and raising legions of criminals. The United States simply does not support the idea of ​​letting the world be as it is. Americans must always be trying to fabricate the ‘new man’, devoid of the vices of the past, the undefiled man, all work, free from laziness, vice, luxury and low IQ, and no other loyalties other than the ‘American values’, whatever that means. When the Cold War was in its final stages, the American government, in the momentary absence of russian villains, and before Saddam Hussein provided an opportunity for yankee militarism, began to inflate drug trafficking as an ‘existential threat’, and Holywood followed suit. For example, with films such as Clear and Present Danger, 007 – License to Kill and the infamous and ridiculous Aces: Iron Eagle III, in which, suggestively, the drug lord was a former Nazi officer …
    Globalist moralism IS an innate American characteristic.

  29. grapesoda says:

    Autonomous vehicles, for example: even discounting for tech-boosters’ hype, they are clearly going to be with us soon.

    I think this claim requires more support than just “clearly,” lol

  30. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    “Since everything we can quantify about human nature, including the dimensions of behavior, personality and intelligence, are to some degree heritable, those features will diversify along with height, skin color, hair texture, disease susceptibility, and the rest. Isn’t this just elementary biology?… Hardly anyone thinks so….”

    Actually it is only the appearance that hardly anyone thinks so. In reality, people just lie more about their true feelings. What has increased since the 70s has been the draconian punishment from deviating from the Narrative. Being fired for raising these kinds of questions, or even just being accused of it, etc. There may be some naive Eloi white college kids, but few others actually believe it.

    See for instance the wealth of research into the matter by Lee Jussim:

    It would also go far towards explaining why the more intelligent the individual, the less they are willing to appear to deviate from the narrative.

  31. MB says: • Website

    For starters, think real hard about Sodom and Gomorrha, pal.
    Come on, I know you can do it.

Current Commenter

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 have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All John Derbyshire Comments via RSS