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
Obama’s Agenda and the Treason of the Establishment
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
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

The Paris attacks: What’s an appropriate course of action for the French government? Well, they could send their army into Syria and Iraq and defeat ISIS in battle. But even supposing they succeeded, this infestation, the Muslim terrorists, is all over: In Yemen, in Egypt, in North Africa, in Sudan, Somalia, Mali and Nigeria …and, of course, in France and Britain and Germany, in Sweden and Denmark and Russia and America.

So perhaps the appropriate course of action is mass expulsion of Muslims from our countries and really firm control of borders and visas.

None of that is going to happen, though. You see how far away from it we are.Angela Merkel, Barack Obama, and Justin Trudeau want us to bring in moreMuslims. David Cameron and François Hollande may not want precisely that, but their weak brains are so addled with globalist propaganda they will do nothing to curtail Muslim immigration.

We must face the fact: the national institutions of the West are now fiercely protective of Muslims and hostile to the native ancestral populations.

Random news story from Britain: Two Muslim brothers from Pakistan ran a welfare scam that got them half a million dollars of taxpayers’ money. Brought to trial, they were found guilty. However, the British judge let them off with suspended sentences. Why? Out of concern for their children, who number …eleven. [Two brothers who swapped houses to con taxpayer out of £315,000 walk FREE after judge claims ‘greatest punishment was loss of their good names’, By Mark Duell, Daily Mail, February 11, 2013

Another random story from Britain: The owner of a beauty salon in the English town of Bicester announced via Twitter that following the Paris attacks she would no longer accept bookings from Muslims, whether British citizens or not. She added: “Sorry but time to put my country first.”

APRIL Police arrested the woman, whose name is April Major, under Britain’s Public Order Act. She has been released on bail until November 30th. If she is dealt with as lightly as those Pakistani welfare scammers, I shall be very surprised.[ Police arrest woman for ‘racially abusive’ Facebook post banning Muslims from beauty salon because it is ‘time to put my country first’, by Stephanie Linning, November 16, 2015]

By way of contrast, in June of 2013 Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller, outspoken critics of the Islamification of the West, were banned from entering Britain by a written order from the Home Secretary (i.e. Attorney General).

Britain’s diversity-whipped police, meanwhile, were refusing to investigate reports of Muslim men kidnapping, raping, and trafficking young British girls.

It’s like that all over the West, and seems to be getting worse.

Will events like last week’s Paris attacks at least push us a bit closer towards appropriate action—mass expulsions and strict entry controls?

Not necessarily. The 9/11 attacks here in the U.S. were far, far worse than what happened in Paris, with twenty times the mortality. But how did the United States react? We increased the mass immigration of Muslims! The rate of immigration from Muslim countries has doubled since 9/11! [1.6 Million Immigrants from Predominantly Muslim Countries Since 9/11, by Daniel Horowitz,, May 11th, 2015]

Similarly in Britain following the terrorist attacks of July 2005 in which 52 people were killed and hundreds maimed. That was ten years ago. A 2011 analysis projected Muslim immigration into the U.K. from 2010 to 2015 at 312,000—the equivalent to 1.5 million into the U.S.

When a petition with 200,000 signatures forced the British Establishment to address the issue in Parliament last month, they shunted the debate contemptuously into a committee room—and steered it into a discussion about whether there should be controls on the wording of petitions in order to eliminate “bigotry.” (You can see the whole “debate” here: Debate on an e-petition relating to immigration, October 19, 2015)

The truly appropriate course of action, the one that would preserve our civilization and as much social harmony as we can hope for with a big native population of blacks, the truly appropriate course of action for all Western countries, would be not to have permitted mass immigration of Muslims across the past fifty years.

The things we might now do—mass deportations and firm control of our borders and entry ports—the Establishment has no intention of doing.

Hence my gloom.

Despair is an unhealthy and unattractive emotion, though. It’s also contrary to the ethos here at We did win the Cold War, Editor Peter Brimelow reminds us when we feel this kind of mood coming on.

Here’s a glimmer of light: As of Wednesday night, 30 state governors have expressed opposition to the settlement in their states of Syrians claiming to be refugees. [Which states are saying no to resettlement of Syrian refugees? by Joshua Barajas and Gretchen Frazee, PBS, November 16, 2015] Or perhaps I should say, “People claiming to be Syrians claiming to be refugees,” as authentic Syrian passports can be purchased for a few hundred dollars in the bazaars of the Middle East.

Thirteen state governors have said they are willing to take the refugee claimants; seven have made no statement.

Well, that’s encouraging. Also encouraging was Thursday’s vote in the House of Representatives to impose very strict rules on admission of so-called Syrian so-called refugees.

On closer inspection, both these glimmers of light fade somewhat. The declarations by those Governors may have no legal force; and that phrase “may have” of course conceals years of litigation. Thursday’s House vote is unlikely to be copied by the Senate.

In short, we’re looking here at gestural politics. Congresscritters can go back to their districts—where millions of people are mad as hell about mass Muslim immigration—and say: “See? We passed a law! It’s really strict!”


With any luck, they hope, their constituents will go back to worrying about fantasy football and Charlie Sheen. Memories of the Paris atrocity will fade; something else will come up to distract our attention. That’s how the Congressreptiles look at things. You saw House of Cards, right?

Even so, Barack Obama, our Multiculturalist-in-Chief, has been scathing about these efforts to keep Muslim terrorists out of our country. From his news conference in the Philippines last Tuesday:

When candidates say we should not admit 3-year-old orphans, that’s political posturing.

Of course, no candidate has said that. If any candidate did, I’d vote for him.

There are 49 Muslim-majority nations in the world, including some very rich ones. Can the President explain to me why they are not able to care for Muslim orphans?

And, as the British and French experiences show, incoming migrants are only a part of the problem. Many of them, perhaps even most of them, are glad to be here, having experienced the alternative. But then come the second and third generations, who have never known anything but life in the West. The banlieus of Paris are not full of recent migrants; they are full of the children and grandchildren of African and Middle Eastern immigrants who came fifty years ago. These are the people getting radicalized; these are the people filling French prisons.

Migrants are the camel’s nose under the tent. The second and subsequent generations are the camel.

One more quote from Obama’s Tuesday presser:

When individuals say we should have religious tests, and only Christians, proven Christians, should be allowed, that’s offensive and contrary to American values.

Oh yeah? Was there no religious preference in play at all when we admitted hundreds of thousands of Jews from the U.S.S.R. in the 1970s and 1980s?

Note I’m not interested here in the rights or wrongs of those admissions. I’m just asking (a) was there preference? and (b) did anyone at the time say such preference was “contrary to our values“? Quote from a paper about those admissions at the Center for Immigration Studies website:

After 1980, Soviet émigrés had to prove to an immigration officer in Rome that they had a well founded fear of persecution. Most managed to do so. Until the late 1980s, United States policy accepted all Soviet Jews as refugees.

[Refugee Resettlement and ‘Freedom of Choice’: The Case of Soviet Jewry , By Fred A. Lazin, July 2005]

“Contrary to our values,” Mr. President?

The indispensable Ann Corcoran over at Refugee Resettlement Watch asks rhetorically why Obama is so keen on bringing in these so-called Syrian so-called refugees, and so angry at efforts to thwart him.

Most of the answer is in plain sight: Obama came into office promising to “fundamentally transform” the United States. Here’s Obama speaking in Columbia, Missouri, October 30th 2008:

We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.

Clearly Obama didn’t like America the way it was. What he most disliked about it, we can now deduce, was that it was too damn white and too Christian. What he had in mind was a demographic transformation.

What, after all, is more fundamental than demography? If you swapped out the population of Ireland for five million Arabs, or five million Nigerians, or five million Norwegians, would it still be Ireland? Of course not … although the Irish seem determined to try the experiment.

That’s most of the answer. The rest is Obama’s instinctive globalism, manifested in this case by a reverence for, and submission to, the United Nations.

The U.N. is pushing the U.S.A. hard to take 65,000 so-called Syrian so-called refugees. Obama wants to comply, to secure his position as globalist Humanitarian of the Year, a title Angela Merkel is threatening to steal from him.

As Ann Corcoran says: “Obama looks exceedingly weak for not being able to deliver America.” He hates to look weak. That’s why he’s so angry.

Let’s be thankful for small mercies, though. After the Charlie Hebdo attacks in January, Obama instructed John Kerry to go to Paris with aging folk-rock singer James Taylor, so Taylor could sing “You’ve Got a Friend” to the grieving Parisians.

There has been no comparable gesture this time around. For that, as I said, the French should be thankful.

Not for missing out on James Taylor, for whom I actually have a soft spot, but because when Obama declares himself your friend, it’s time to crank up your hypocrisy-meter.

John Derbyshire [email him] writes an incredible amount on all sorts of subjectsfor all kinds of outlets. (This no longer includes National Review, whose editors had some kind of tantrum and fired him. ) He is the author of We Are Doomed: Reclaiming Conservative Pessimism and several other books. He’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

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
Hide 61 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Tom_R says:


    Thanks for the great article, Sir. You are right on almost every point. The story of the corrupt British Judge who gave a slap on the wrist to the Muslims but the govt. that arrested a white woman for refusing to serve Muslims is truly shocking and illustrates inversity (“upside down” thinking prevalent among psychopaths) of the British govt.

    This is even though the majority of whites (and other citizens) in most white countries are in favor of banning immigration and deporting aliens, as shown by various surveys.

    Our politicians have been hijacked by the Lobby that want more 3rd world immigration. These lobbies pay these politicians millions in campaign contributions, millions more under the table disguised as “donations” to their non-profits, or other corporations, which, in turn, pay the politician advisory fees or salary upon their retirement in office and promote their election in their media, while attacking patriots.

    Also, these countries have been usurped by the Lobby, which have turned around and forced the left-wing governments to pass hate speech laws effectively banning campaigning by rightist parties. Effectively banning your opponents is proof of USURPATION by the Lobby.

    If the armies of these countries become aware of the corruption and criminality of their politicians and start revolting and start a mutiny sua sponte to protect their countries, the public would welcome them as heroes.

    The solution is for whites to rise up and amend the constitutions of all white countries to allow binding superseding national referenda so they can ban immigration and repeal hate speech laws, as a People.

    See National Citizens Initiative For Democracy:

  2. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"] says: • Website

    Look at history.

    What happens matters far less than who gets to spin what happens.

    Even when Hitler began to lose one battle after another, the Nazi monopoly of media ensured that the Nazi Narrative would prevail.

    So, even if Nazis had to report big losses, the heroism of Nazi soldiers was played up. Their sacrifices were sanctified. And when total defeat loomed, the Germans were made to celebrate tragic heroism of defeat by fighting to the end.

    Consider the number of vile Jews involved in espionage in the 40s and 50s for the Soviet Union. The prevailing narrative should be JEWS BETRAYED THE US(indeed far more than Japanese-Americans did during WWII). But since Jews and Libs ran the media, the narrative was made out to be ‘noble progressives hunted by crypto-Nazi McCarthy’.

    So, it doesn’t matter what happens. It doesn’t matter if Muslims blow up Western cities. It doesn’t matter if Jews blow up the financial system. It doesn’t matter if blacks riot and beat up whites. It doesn’t matter if homos spread HIV through massive ass-buggery.

    As long as the Libs and Jews and homos run the media, academia, and government, they will spin everything to fit their own agenda.
    And since most Americans are amnesiac and trashy/trivialized by the 2PCs–political correctness and pop culture–, they will just nod along.

    Just look at BLM.

    In truth, it be blacks who go around killing other blacks, as well as attacking whites, Arabs, Asians, Mexers, women, and etc… but the media would have us believe that blacks are the main victims of racial violence in this country.

    What happens is secondary to how it is spun. This is why some real crooks and killers walk free. Look at OJ Simpson. What happened was secondary to how the issue was spun in the court.

    Consider all the disaster that befell this country due to Jewish wall street shenanigans, foreign policy and war-mongering, and promotion of filth culture among the young(who have been turned into sluts and morons). Do Jews get any blame? None at all since they call the shots.

    Do homos get any blame for the AIDS epidemic. No, it was all due to “Reagan’s Indifference.” This is what media and academia say, and braindead millennials parrot what’s been told them, not least because their parents are a bunch of meatheads.

    At least the boomer generation(that turned meat-headish) often has Archie Bunkers for parents. Even as they turned more ‘liberal’, they grew up in an environment of bickering, controversy, and argument. Archie Bunker and Fred G. Sanford may have been bigot-ish but they relished a good argument.

    But millennials who’ve been raised by Boomer and X-er meatheads have been inculcated from a young age to be oh tho very thenthitive.

    I was with some friends recently who had children. I was talking about some old Sanford and Son episode where Fred used the enword, and the stupid dork freaked. It’s like I poured plutonium into the ears of his kibbler.
    But meatheads parents not only remind their kids over and over not to even think the dreaded N-word(!!!!) but even stuff like ‘that’s so gay’.

    I mean that is so gay.

    And indeed, it is very gay.
    It’s especially cuz our culture is more image-centric than ever. We have TV and internet all time. It’s image, image, image, image.

    And which group is obsessed with The Image? Homos. Homos are into the look, fashion, style, and etc.
    So, every wanna-be politician or public figure hire homo experts on the Look, on the Sell, on the Hype. It’s the new idolatry.

  3. tolos says:

    Good article Mr. Derbyshire. Why do you think these leaders are doing this? Personal moral conviction, or part of a wider conspiracy?

  4. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"] says: • Website

    Here’s a clear case of how the Narrative trumps Reality.

    Blacks have become the moral royalty of America cuz they can always bitch about ‘racism’ and ‘slavery’ and ‘Jim Crow’ and ‘shit’.

    So, never mind all the Black Rampage that’s been tearing this nation apart.

    Blacks get to play victim.

    But the West is the same way when it comes to Palestinians.

    Since 1948, US has aided Zionists in totally destroying Palestinians and their way of life. But since US and Jews got the power, the prevailing narrative have been ‘poor poor Jews being threatened by Arab Nazis.’

    And even though Israel has violated all nuclear weapons laws and have a massive buildup of nukes, only Iran got all the attention as the ‘rogue state’.

    It’s about the narrative.

    In America, blacks can rape, rob, and murder whites. No problem.
    But if a white cop kills a bad hideous Negro like Michael Brown, the entire police department must be inspected like Iran has been for nukes.

    Holder raked over Ferguson police department for radioactive ‘racism’.

    But there is no discussion of foul negro behavior that is the real source of most of the racial tension in this nation.

    As long as Jews see white gentiles as the main rivals, they will use the media to promote the narrative of ‘white guilt’.

    But in truth, we aint living in the era of Jim Crow but in the era of Jim Crowbar where Negroes run around acting all unruly and shit.

  5. Blobby5 says:

    Another amazing installment of RadioDerb! Keep up the great work and have a wonderful Thanksgiving.

  6. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"] says: • Website

    Jews love to increase among goyim to play ‘divide and rule’.

    But maybe white gentiles should allow in more Muslims to play ‘collide and rule’.

    Instead of being anti-Muslim, why not invite Muslims into the West(for the time being) and side with them against Jews and Zionists(and the homokins, the main allies of Jews)?

    If Jews seek to bring Muslims into the West to pit them against whites/Christians, then two can play that game. Whites should side with Muslims against Jews and Zionists. And Jews would have no right to complain since THEY compared Muslim ‘refugees’ with Jews fleeing Nazism during WWII.

    West cannot be saved unless Jewish power is broken. And whites can use Muslims as the battering ram against Jewish power. Muslims have no ‘historical guilt’ feelings about Jews. If anything, given Zionist aggression, Muslims can claim to be ‘victims’ of Jewish power.

    Long ago, Jews helped Muslims conquer parts of Europe.
    Today, US is Jew-S and EU is E-Jew.
    So, why not help Muslims to attack the Jews?

    If Jews seek to use Muslims against whites, whites should use Muslims against Jews(and the fruitkins). The European Left has already adopted this position.
    It is time for European Right to do the same.
    Fight one enemy at a time. First, topple the Jews, and then move against Muslims.

    It’s like US and UK first got rid of the horrible Nazis, and then turned on the terrible commies.

    One enemy at a time. Since Jews got the supreme power, they must be taken down first.

    Also, whites need a new narrative. When a people allow a hostile group to rewrite their narrative and then adopt this narrative as sacrosanct, they are finished. They’ve become moral and spiritual slaves of the hostile group who now control the meaning of the narrative.

    Narrative justifies one’s power or agenda. A people must control their own narrative, just like they must control their own land and womenfolk.

    Why did Jews remain so powerful and strong over the yrs?
    Because they controlled their own narrative, indeed even against powerful odds and pressures.

    Christian West once told Jews, “You Hebes killed Jesus, the Son of God. You Jews got blood on your hands. Repent, damn Jews. You Jews suck so bad, etc.”

    Had Jews accepted the Christian narrative of Jews, they would have lost all power cuz they would have lost their pride, confidence, and righteousness. They would have gotten on their knees and said, “We are so sorry, we suck so bad, we are responsible for the death of the Son of God, we stink, we need to atone forever, we need to reject our history and heritage, we need to surrender our power to you Christian folks, etc.”

    But chutzpahistic Jews refused to accept the Christian Narrative of Jewishness.
    Jews stuck to their own narrative. They said, “Jesus aint the Son of God. He was an interesting guy but very misguided. We are the children of Moses, the true prophet. God loves us more than any other people. God made the Covenant with us Jews through Abraham’s pud. We are the Chosen. You Christians stole our God. He isn’t your God. He is our God. And we didn’t kill the Son of God. He was just some renegade Jew. Besides, Romans did it more than we did. So fuc* off.”

    It was such defiance against the Christian narrative and resolve to stick with their own narrative that kept the Jews so strong, tough, and resilient over the ages.

    Learn from Jews.

    NEVER EVER OUTSOURCE YOUR NARRATIVE TO ANOTHER PEOPLE, especially if they’re hostile and seeking to gain advantage over you.

  7. Svigor says:

    Priss is right to an extent. I was thinking about this today when some Fox radio program repeated their “we report; you decide” blurb. It occurred for the umpteenth time that the power to report is far more potent than the power to decide. Deciding who gets to run for office is far more potent than the power to choose between the candidates.

    On the other hand, Jewish soft power doesn’t hold much sway in Iran, or Syria, or Saudi Arabia.

    1) Western countries stay on course, are overrun by Muslims, native western populations convert en masse to Islam to protect their families from Muslim predation on “infidels,” and Muslim populations decapitate leftism, put an end to mass immigration, throw homos, leftists, and the rest of the freaks back into the closet, after killing enough to make their point.

    2) Western countries grow a pair, take their countries back from leftists, slam the door on alien immigration, and evict the Muslims.

    Either way, the left loses. As it is now, the first eventuality seems more likely; nothing but violence and single-minded zeal seems likely to stop leftists, and Muslims have plenty of that to give them.

    Instead of being anti-Muslim, why not invite Muslims into the West(for the time being) and side with them against Jews and Zionists(and the homokins, the main allies of Jews)?

    Glen Beck was saying the other day that Fascists, Socialists, and Muslims are going to team up against western liberal democracies. Yeah, that’ would be too bad, I thought.

    I for one am starting to warm to the idea of bringing in large Muslim populations. I mean, if we’re going to be bringing in hordes of third worlders anyway, which we clearly are. They might as well be a bunch of ANTISEMITES!!!

    • Replies: @Qasim
  8. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"] says: • Website

    The Age of Treason.

    How far we’ve come from reason.

    There is also the call for free speech suppression. A new Prohibition against evil spirits.

    It’s Fahrenheit 451.

    When Prohibition hit the US and banned alcohol, it led to the rise of bootleggers.

    It looks like we’ll have to be speech bootleggers. The speech mafia.

    When the system bans trade in free thought, we must distill and distribute it ourselves.

    We must be the Al Capones of free speech.

    We must be the speech gangsters. Sounds like fun.

    We will create our own SPEAKEASYS.

  9. jtgw says: • Website

    So much of this problem is exacerbated by the welfare state. The welfare state is responsible for the ghettoization of second and third generations Muslims, just as much as it’s responsible for the development of white yob culture in Britain, or black ghetto culture in the US. I know some hardline anti-immigrants will argue that immigration is bad even without the welfare state. I disagree, but I think as long as the welfare state remains both libertarians (at least the sensible sort) and conservatives can agree that immigration cannot continue as it is doing. We do need to be much more restrictive about who we admit, while visas, residency and citizenship must be handed out to Muslims cautiously, if at all. The worst kind of immigration, “family reunion”, which typically brings in economic deadweight in the form of women, children and the elderly, needs to be drastically curtailed, since the majority of these people end up on welfare.

    Ideally, I would like to see serious efforts at rolling back the welfare state. I don’t like draconian immigration restrictions, since they also impede the freedom of contract of citizens to do business with foreigners, but the government also has to prioritize limits on expanding the welfare state through importation of more dependents.

  10. @jtgw

    Immigration is the welfare state importing its own constituents and raison d’etre.

    Diversity, liberty or equality; choose one.

    • Replies: @jtgw
  11. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"] says: • Website

    Well, well, Muslims are intolerant, and we must protect tolerant homos from them, right?

    Gayria is worse than Sharia.

    • Replies: @dc.sunsets
  12. Oh no, it’s quite over. Obama’s plan to transform America is in full swing and there is no deterring him. The idea is to do maximum damage ASAP because there are only another 400 days left to affect his transformation. He’s the same brand of demon as Soros. All resources will be used to wipe out the Whites and for what? Blacks and Muslims can’t maintain the infrastructure this country handed over. The evidence is all the American cities wiped out by African American control. Only thing I can’t understand is, who is to pay for it all, the benefits these folks collect?

    Further, (See Sweden, it’s coming here) when the entire country becomes a giant rape culture, a no-go zone for our police, women and children what then? We’ve already ceded control of all our big cities to Blacks and all of them are no-go for Whites. So who the hell is going to pay taxes, who defends this mess? Between feminism, Blacks out of control, the reverse racism against Whites and now the Muslims eating resources like termites, how do they expect Whites, the only ones working, to carry the load even if they were willing? Blacks and feminists in affirmative-action government/social sector jobs don’t count because they’re taxpayer supported, so who is to pay? Same for Europe. This doesn’t end well.

  13. Free Trade and Open Borders are the Neo-Liberal agenda embraced by both red and blue teams. This is how national sovereignty is transferred from Nation States to global monopolist corporations. The New World Order is actually the New Feudalism. Multiculturalism is not real. It is propaganda. What is done in the name of multiculturalism is done to promote the New Feudalism. The people touting multiculturalism are useful idiots.

  14. jtgw says: • Website
    @The Anti-Gnostic

    Immigration can also occur without a welfare state, when a nation’s economy has genuine labor needs that cannot be satisfied from the domestic pool. This is what happened during the 19th century, for example. I think it’s hard for conservatives to imagine how immigration would work without the welfare state, since we have known nothing but the welfare state for half a century, and in some aspects, for even longer than that.

    So no, you are not going to convince me that immigration is always and everywhere a bad thing, just as the open borders believers won’t convince me that it is always and everywhere a good thing.

    But this is really besides the point, since we both agree that, in our current system, immigration is not helping the average American, because of the way costs are socialized while profits are privatized. It should also be clear that immigration is not sui generis, but merely an aspect of the tendency of the modern corporatist welfare state to socialize costs, e.g. corporate welfare, bank bailouts, the Fed monopoly etc etc

  15. Mr. Derbyshire, there’s reason to hope found in the Socionomic Hypothesis (

    This hypothesis holds that as social animals who have certain brain structures in common with herding species, people share an unconscious (or perhaps better, pre-conscious) mood that predisposes certain kinds of behavior based on its condition.

    Under this view, the fact that major stocks averages are sky high indicates that people collectively are in a maniacally high social mood, which translates to a host of behaviors including excessively trusting, “We Are The World” openness. People today don’t know why they tolerate the intolerable; this hypothesis explains it.

    The hypothesis further holds that social mood is endogenously regulated and is utterly unaffected by events, news, or outside attempts to influence it, and that it rises and falls in a fractal pattern first elucidated by R.N. Elliott 70-80 years ago.

    Trees don’t grow to the sky. Stocks (and thus the social mood they mirror) exhibit signs that this once-in-three-centuries social mood mania is nearing roll-over. When it does, the Pop Culture insanity we see exemplified by Bruce Jenner, the Kardashians, Magic Dirt, Blank-Slate and Open-borders, replacement-level immigration will evaporate with it, and we will suddenly be joined by the masses of people wondering who in his right mind ever gave a hint of allegiance to such folly.

    Wait and watch, when the underlying, invisible mood shifts we will see some combination of the following: In-grouping in spades, political revolution kicking out the Multi-culti’s, horror films will surge in dominance, women’s dress hemlines will drop to the floor, stocks will fall and the ocean of IOU’s (bonds) now in existence will crater in value as interest rates skyrocket from Too Much Trust to Trust Nothing.

    Sudden poverty will not be the cause of the tsunami of rage; it will be simply part of the larger sinusoidal trend change that will sweep away the veneer of peace these past decades and replace it with the polar opposite, albeit no more rational than before.

  16. I’m not worried about Syrian refugees.

    Unless they (or their kids, grandkids, etc.) get hold of an honest-to-goodness fission device, the worst they can do is murder a few dozen people, fewer than the number of those killed each day on America’s highways.

    Give the USA a couple of those events, combine it with the end of this Extraordinary Popular Delusion called the Great Asset Mania (the last iteration of which appears prominently in Charles Mackay’s 1841 book under the headings of John Law’s Mississippi Scheme and the South Sea Bubble) and the urgency and amplitude of desire to expel anyone who even vaguely looks like a “terrorist” will be greater than anyone today can imagine.

  17. Qasim says:

    Svigor, your recent comments about Islam and liberalism (in this thread and in others) are interesting, they immediately reminded me of Hitler’s view of Islam. I was wondering if you also had noticed the similarity. (This is a serious question, I am not engaging in some childish “You are a Nazi” rhetoric.)

    ‘It’s been our misfortune to have the wrong religion,” Hitler complained to his pet architect Albert Speer. “Why did it have to be Christianity, with its meekness and flabbiness?” Islam was a Männerreligion—a “religion of men”—and hygienic too.

    As David Motadel writes in “Islam and Nazi Germany’s War,” Muslims fought on both sides in World War II. But only Nazis and Islamists had a political-spiritual romance. Both groups hated Jews, Bolsheviks and liberal democracy.

    • Replies: @bomag
    , @Reg Cæsar
  18. @Priss Factor

    Gayria is worse than Sharia

    Just another signal of a trend at an historic extreme.

    Someone needs to exhume Charles Mackay so he can add another section to his book Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds. The financial mania, fiat money and the LGBT-blah-blah-blah idiocy surely merit their own full chapters.

    This obsession with the relative few people who prefer sex with those who share their plumbing is running its course. In a few years I have no doubt that after it loses it’s Pop Culture cache, there will be a whole lot fewer people who self-identify as queer, and the trans insanity will go back to the closet entirely even as tattoos go back to being associated entirely with gang members, convicts and some units of the military.

    Tolerance in an age a manic optimism turned into pathological toleration, a condition where people are ordered under threat of violence to tolerate the intolerable.

    I wish there were a term for measuring the potential energy stored in the reservoir of rage that is filling behind the damn of required toleration. I suspect the units would be in kilotons, if not megatons by now.

    • Replies: @Priss Factor
  19. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"] says: • Website

    Reason why Sharia is better than Gayria:

    Sharia is about intolerance in the name of true morality.

    Gayria is about intolerance in the name of true immorality.

    Now, there are some crazy laws in Sharia, but it is mostly for family, marriage, faith, devotion, honor, dignity, and etc. It is against stuff like decadence, perversion, degeneracy, adultery, and etc.
    In contrast, Gayria is for degeneracy and decadence themselves.
    Gayria is extreme moralism. Gayria is extreme immoralism that pretends to be the New Moralism.

    Personally, I prefer the formula of moral order + tolerance. A society should uphold moral values and principles but also tolerate those who choose to be different, decadent, and weird.
    That way, we can have core morality for most people but also a liberal society for people who want to be weird, decadent, and/or perverse. I say live and let live.
    It’s like smoking. I say let people smoke if they want to. But let’s not pretend that smoking is the New Health. Smoking is bad for you, period. A good society upholds the fact that smoking is bad for you while also allowing people to smoke.
    Imagine a society that forces you to believe that smoking is good for you.

    There is a reason why I don’t like Sharia and religious fundamentalism. Their core values are often true and meaningful, but they don’t allow for the fact that people are people(flawed), and it’s too much of a social and political chore to go after every weirdo and try to turn society into some kind of moral utopia. Also, temptations do exist, and people often make mistakes or trangressions. So, we have to be realistic with morality and people.

    So, the best formula is to uphold and defend moral values and condemn degeneracy and frown upon overt decadence WHILE also allowing people to indulge in such stuff if they so please. That way, we maintain moral hierarchy and allow freedom.
    A society should not celebrate homosexuality but it should homos to get together at the Lollipop Club and do their homo-ish things.

    But Gayria doesn’t work that way. It has turned morality upside down to the point where we have be believe that fecal penetration among men is some beautiful act. We have to make believe that a man’s bungy is like a vagina. We must make believe in the farce of ‘two mommies’ or ‘two daddies’. We must make believe that if a man cuts off his wiener and gets a fake vagina, he is a she with a real vagina.
    And if we reject such lunacy? We get fired, blacklisted, and attacked by powers that be.

    Sharia is mostly for true morality but overly repressive with it.
    Gayria is mostly false morality and totally repressive with it.

    A true order that balances conservatism and liberalism will uphold true morality and true marriage while also allowing people to act out their vice.
    Nevertheless, such acts of vice must not be institutionalized and moralized as being of equal value with true morality.

    But in our sick world, we must believe that homos are the most clean-cut and clean-butt people in the world. That is so gay.

    • Replies: @greysquirrell
    , @dc.sunsets
  20. @Priss Factor

    The problem with Sharia is that it is stifling, which leads to lack of innovation, arts, entertainement and inspiration. In many ways Sharia is like Soviet communism, it prevents people from trying to do better.

  21. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    “We did win the Cold War, Editor Peter Brimelow reminds us”

    Yes, we did. Bear in mind however that it was our propaganda that won that war. Right now, our propaganda is working against us.

    • Replies: @dc.sunsets
    , @Bill Jones
  22. @Priss Factor

    Personally, I prefer the formula of moral order + tolerance. A society should uphold moral values and principles but also tolerate those who choose to be different, decadent, and weird.

    Humans are genetically predisposed to create hierarchies, and thus political jockeying at all levels of interaction is inescapable.

    That which constitutes the measuring stick(s) changes from time to time. When tolerance became the measuring stick, it was only a matter of time before the political state’s viciousness was seized by those playing king-of-the-hill for their superior-to-yours tolerance, and voluntary tolerance became mandatory tolerance…which became pathological tolerance.

    I don’t really care if one man wishes to suck the penis of another, or accept that penis into his colon. I don’t understand the draw, and my training in microbiology irrefutably shows that the latter is extraordinarily unhealthy, guaranteed to produce a weakened immune system (AIDS is obviously not a disease caused by a retrovirus, Peter Duesberg is right.) Not my problem.

    But the notion that I am bound by law to pay homage to men who behave this way, that I am FORCED to associate with people I don’t respect, this is the definition of pathological tolerance. Those squatting on the Moral High Ground have made this my problem, and I join many, many others in seeing my rage quotient grow with each new “government” demand (do this or else) that I cow tow to the latest protected class of deviant. I’m left wondering who I despise more, the deviants or those ostensibly like me who force me to associate with the intolerable.

    The key here is the involvement of the political state. Without the political state’s organized monopoly on initiated violence, no enforcement mechanism would be handed to those who desire to foist their peculiar perversities onto me and mine.

    Sharia is by definition a political enforcement mechanism. It ostensibly operates under a theocracy, but so too does Political Correctness/Cultural Marxism’s gayria. The latter only appears secular; it is in fact no less a product of a metaphysical belief system which in America is Progressivism and in the UK & European social democracies is Fabianism. Progressivism has clear roots in Puritan theology, but Fabianism’s secular roots simply shed the Protestant Christian label earlier, that’s all. Screw you, George Bernard Shaw.

    My point is that while I agree with you, I prefer a society bound by shared morality moderated by personal tolerance, such a place is utterly Utopian. The political state is the ultimate Original Sin of Mankind. If a stateless society was ever instituted it would in no time be replaced by the masses of born slaves who would clamor for a king (master) and kings always have a retinue (overseers.) Sallust said it best, 2000 years ago: “Most men do not desire liberty; most only wish for a just master.”

    This is the basis for unalterable belief in the political state; it is the metaphysical outcome of the way humans think within groups. We are stuck with a state because our fellow men are mere beasts whose souls are those of chattel, of livestock.

    We get the “government” to which our neighbors consent, or at least acquiesce. The result of this complex system is ever-changing and under the control of no man or group thereof. We can complain all we want, but regardless of the tyranny-flavor-of-the-month, we’re pretty much stuck with it. The only saving grace is that, “This too will change.” No trend lasts forever, and trees don’t grow to the sky.

    Today’s unhinged state-driven deviance is a sign of apogee nearby. I sincerely doubt it will last a whole lot longer.

  23. @Anonymous

    “We” didn’t win the Cold War.

    The USSR simply succumbed to irrefutable laws elucidated by Mises in his 1922 book, Socialism.

    Resources are axiomatically scarce, and useful allocation of heterogeneous resources in the absence of factor prices (established in a market economy) is literally, irrefutably impossible. Waste, as a signal of capital consumption, is the inescapable result. The USSR simply consumed all its seed corn and breeding stock (capital.)

    All it took then was adding in a vastly elevated social mood which stripped the central political system of consent…so it dissolved.

    All systems that centrally plan resource allocation produce waste. A fully command economy (a la the USSR) generates waste on a scale that cannot properly be measured. This critique of socialist “economies” is the elephant in the living room, the one absolutely no one is willing to refute (because it is axiomatic.)

    The USSR lasted only long enough to squander whatever productive capital preexisted. The same thing is happening today in the West, where belief in the efficacy of central planning only appears less embedded. In fact, the move to a fully fiat reserve currency (in 1964 & 1971) followed by a debt issuance binge (debt = wealth in GroupThink under conditions of manic optimism) has generated a situation where capital consumption must be astonishingly vast, but disguised by the creation of a vast illusion of wealth.

    The fate of the USSR simply foreshadows the denouement of the fiat money/central banking/debt orgy of the West.

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
  24. So we get rid of the 20-30% of the black and brown getting welfare but allow the 70-80% white folks stay on those same rolls! How ’bout that? That is indeed, odd! Keep on talking…………

    • Replies: @D. K.
  25. @jtgw

    So much of this problem is exacerbated by the welfare state. The welfare state is responsible for the ghettoization of second and third generations Muslims, just as much as it’s responsible for the development of white yob culture in Britain

    Sorry but I come from Britain, and I really don’t believe the welfare state is responsible for white yob culture in Britain.

    I grew up in the 1970s, in the South East of England where we had full employment, and we had yob culture in the South East of England back then, and before then.

    If I were a lefty I’d blame Thatcher. But we had yob culture before Thatcher, and we had yob culture when we had full employment

    I suspect you get this from Dalrymple and I’ve read some of his books and many of his City Journal articles, and I like his stuff and most of what he has to say, but we had yob culture when we had full employment.

    In fact, if you look at somewhere like Glasgow, they had notorious vicious razor gangs back in the 1930s before there was any form of welfare state.

    Why Glasgow had 6 times more street gangs than London even though London was 10 times the size of Glasgow, is something to ponder.

    But what Glasgow did have was diversity. Even though in Scotland, it had the demographics of Northern Ireland.

    But the Welfare state clearly wasn’t part of the equation because it didn’t exist.

    • Replies: @Anonymous Nephew
    , @bomag
  26. @Working Class Englishman

    WCE – I’ve tried to find hard stats for the number of murders carried out by “Glasgow’s Notorious Razor Gangs” and it’s pretty difficult – I suspect the victims over ten years could be counted on the fingers of one hand. It’s almost certainly because crime was so low back then that the gangs became infamous. Their modern equivalents could probably match their totals in six months.

    I agree that yobbery can exist outside the Welfare State – most of the nasty guys I’ve known had jobs, but then I don’t live on an estate – but it’s grown an awful lot since the 50s.

  27. Lupa says:

    This is a battle between globalism and national self-interest and sovereignty. It should not be perceived as a left vs right or liberal vs conservative battle.
    The entire political spectrum across Europe and the US has been infiltrated by finance, they lobby the notion that white nations’ future welfare is doomed without mass immigration. Political leaders, marinated in the discourse of the global capitalist elite through international pr-organs, and immensely in awe of industry, swallow these ideas like axioms.
    In truth, they are no oracles and cannot predict the fate of our nations, but they do know that it erodes social cohesion (decreasing any source of organized power among the populace), decreases labor security (and ability to negotiate on fair grounds), increases general population (consumer-base) and gives an alibi to further dismount public welfare by overloading it (opening up medical and education for private interests) – all good things for business, not for society as whole.
    Whereas all we know is that it brings us more crime, more insecurity, less influence over our shared resources and a less desirable society culturally.
    Whether it saves our pensions is not something either of us know. We can only make a rational decision based on what we have yet seen: mass immigration from muslim nations brings chaos.
    Oppose globalization, oppose the tentacles of business and oppose any person promoting it.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  28. So perhaps the appropriate course of action is mass expulsion of Muslims from our countries and really firm control of borders and visas.

    Firm control of borders and visas is a very good idea. Expelling masses of people for having chosen or inherited Islam as their faith is a very bad idea.

    Under attack by a global insurgency of salafis, takfiris and other Muslim radicals, we cannot afford open borders, uncontrolled immigration or lax enforcement of travel and visa restrictions. We are in an unsought world war; if we fail to recognize this, we might be destroyed.

    Our Islamist insurgent enemies are indeed motivated by religion and their motives are indeed supported by scriptural and historical traditions within Islam. To deny this is indeed to be “diversity-whipped” and such denial must be opposed and exposed as dangerously false. We must be on our guard against enemy forms and interpretations of Islam.

    Yet Islam has many forms and interpretations, of which only a few are hostile, and some have long befriended us. We have Muslim allies and Muslim citizens who deserve, and reliably reward, our support. We also have a duty to uphold religious freedom, not just as an ideal, but as a practical method for winning and keeping loyalty at home and abroad. Let us not betray our friendships, our alliances, our citizens or our Constitution. That too would be treason.

    • Replies: @rod1963
  29. bomag says:

    But still…Islam is a civilization killer; or at least ones based on science and technology.

    Even under Christianity it was a slog; the Church banning the teaching of heliocentrism and infinitesimals and all that.

    Of course, the religion known as Progressiveism does plenty of killing of its own. Like the roadside African mechanic relayed back in the day, “In Zaire we kill trucks; in Uganda they kill people.” Islam kills the infrastructure that keeps trucks running; Progressiveism kills off entire bloodlines of people under its sway.

  30. bomag says:
    @Working Class Englishman

    There’s more to it than just welfare; but welfare makes things worse; and in large part by selecting for those who thrive under welfare.

  31. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Agreed, the heads of the various leading countries all belong to the same royal family having more in common with each other than with the masses of their own countries. But how to get rid of them? Also, there doesn’t seem to be any organized group or party that represent the interests of the majority of people who are on standby and ready to step in were the present political class to be cleared out. Neither party is offering anything whatsoever except more of what people don’t want. Even if Trump were somehow to become president it’s possible the entire political machine of both parties would work to undercut him and thwart anything that’s not part of the script. We’ll probably be dealing with this insanity for the rest of our lives.

  32. I am tired of repeating myself, but: this is a historical necessity.

    The crucial mistake virtually all conspiracy- theories minded people make is that they try to pin-point a clearly defined group (mostly religious, ethnic, racial,..) as *the* source of major socio-cultural changes, and frequently it’s Jews (sometimes masons or something similar).

    And this is a major misfire, because no such group exists. There is no causal connexion between any ethnicity/race/… & great upheavals in the West (and in the US) in past 3-4 decades, especially re immigration debates, influx of culturally & racially foreign and inimical masses, disintegration of family & denigration of national loyalties etc. To think that a group (or groups), which is relatively easy to identify, can be the source of such monumental upheavals bespeaks of historical illiteracy.

    There was no ethnic nor ideological group of people behind such shattering revolutions & world-view changes like transition from Roman republic to Imperial Rome, Protestant Reformation, Crusades, formation of national monarchies, Enlightenment, collapse of “divine rights” of kings, imperialist expansion of European powers, national awakening in the 19th C, WW1 and WW2,… Not Jews, not masons, not Illuminati, not Rosicrucians, not some occult brotherhood residing in the Himalayas.

    Simply, Western civilization has come to a dead end –as it was the continuity of the 18th C Enlightenment– and we are witnessing the processes of further decay, encapsulated in famous hypothetical question ascribed to Lenin: ” Are the forces which propel us to greatness the same that will, transformed by mutations of History, eventually lead to our collapse ?”

    A man who, despite his shortcomings & delusions about the role of technology, various national cultures and their dominant currents, understood this better than most was Oswald Spengler. The Western civilizational matrix is old and tired. And this is the root of the Western decline. That what plagues the West & the US the most (race replacement, PC “liberal” ideological muzzle, hedonist emptiness & biological collapse manifested in infertility, pathological altruism, lunatic ideological fashions like n-th wave of feminism, media aggression promoting “diversity” & homosexualism- as different from homosexuality, self-hatred of European & Western culture….)-this is as present, although a bit modified, in Italy, Spain, Denmark, Norway, France, Germany, Switerland,.. as in the US. And in these countries Jewish presence in the media & the overall life is negligible or non-existent.

    Although ruling elites differ in these countries, they are a mixture of hereditary aristocracy, established bourgeois families & plutocratic oligarchs. These groups have, historically, served their countries. Now, they are morally & culturally bankrupt and serve outmoded gods whose future is annihilation- similar situation that had befallen pompous & deluded aristocrats in the 18th-19th C or imperialist jingoists in the 20th.

    The failure of nerve that comes with exhausted & geriatric social-cultural matrix is to blame, not some group conspiracy.

    But, the societal-cultural matrix is exhausted, not the people. Mr. Derbyshire’s flaw, in my opinion, is linear extrapolation of current events. He should know from history this is a fatal mistake. Just compare Europe in 1930 (cars, planes, fascism, communism, cubism, quantum mechanics, relativity, psychoanalysis, radio, tanks, films, ..) and during 1900 (technologically, scientifically, ideologically and artistically more or less the same as 1880).

    • Replies: @Ivy
  33. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Groovy Battle for Blair Mountain"] says:


    Peter Brimelow’s ongoing enthusiasm for the Cold War is the fundamental cause behind the Historic Native Born White American Majority’s rapid race-replacement.

    Vietnam was destroyed and now is becomming rapidly gay normed and becomming a hot spot for Homo-pedophile Gay Tourism. That’s right..The USMC homo normed Vietnam. In 2015, Camp Lejune celebrates Gay Pride !!!! week-or is it month now.

    It is not a coincidence that the War Criminal JFK…who brought the Human Species to within 60 seconds of permanent extinction back in 1962…was agitating for the racial transformation of the US in a book he wrote in the 1950’s.

    Here is how I see it in my Irish brain:1962=1965=2015=election night Nov 3 2016(Russell’s theory of types)……assuming thermonuclear species extinction has not yet taken place)….

    • Replies: @D. K.
  34. res says:
    @D. K.

    I would really like to see “Time on AFDC” broken down by race.

  35. Thank you, John Derbyshire.

    When I comment on these things, I often just sound ignorant, thereby opening myself to criticism.

    “Hence my gloom”

    You, on the other hand, express these truths well.

    I hope you enjoy a wonderful Thanksgiving! That would be appropriate, as our powers-that-be do their best to defile and destroy our rightful inheritance.

  36. Ivy says:
    @Bardon Kaldian

    What are your thoughts about Jacques Barzun’s book From Dawn to Decadence?

    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
  37. “We must face the fact: the national institutions of the West are now fiercely protective of Muslims and hostile to the native ancestral populations.”
    those institutions are not only hostile to western native populations but also to non-muslim populations elsewhere. They don´t like and work against Hindu Indians, Han Chinese, Serbs, Russians, non-muslim minorities in western countries etc.

  38. D. K. says:
    @War for Blair Mountain

    November 3 was Election Day, earlier this month, for those places holding elections, in the United States. The next presidential election, in the United States, is due to take place on November 8, 2016– twenty-eight years to the day after George Bush the Elder was elected to his lone term, fifty-six years to the the day after Jack Kennedy was elected to his lone (and famously unfinished) term, and eighty-four years to the day after Franklin Roosevelt was elected to his first term.

    So, just how much faith should readers place in someone who cannot even figure out when the next presidential election (in his own country?) is due to take place (despite the obvious pattern, during this “longer half” of the current four-century Gregorian Calendar cycle)?

    • Replies: @D. K.
  39. @Ivy

    This is one of the best books on general cultural history & I always highly recommend it. Unfortunately, it has a few rather obvious flaws: Barzun has covered Britain and France extensively, but his treatment of Germany is inadequate (not biased, but too limited). Also, although one can argue indefinitely what “West” means, his complete neglect of Russia is inexcusable. He didn’t write seriously about Dostoevsky; on the other hand, Walter Bagehot has received a treatment absolutely incommensurate with his value or influence. So, in sum – a magnificent display of erudition with some evident weaknesses.

  40. rod1963 says:
    @A Fred Reader

    We should expel Muslim our population, at best they are a unassimilable group whose religion is antithetical to Western civilization and values. Their presence doesn’t enhance anything, it detracts. Time after time Western societies are forced to alter their ways in order to placate bombastic Muslim protests.

    What they’ve done in Europe is proof of them needing to be removed.

    Poll after poll shows at least 20-25% of them support Jihad and terrorism and if this amount is willing to openly state that in a PEW poll, I’m willing to bet there are a lot more who do as well.

    Oh yeah lets not forget about the Saudis bankrolling most mosques in North America as well as supplying all theological study materials – most of which support the hard line schools of thought. BTW this was brought out by a devout Sufi Muslim who visited hundreds of mosques.

    And we are seeing the fruits of Islam in action with the surge of young Muslims men raised here in America going to jihad in the ME or worse doing jihad here such as the last two community college attacks and the one in Chattanooga. Lets not forgot about the Army’s golden Muslim Maj. Hassan who was treated with kid gloves yet murdered his own men.

    The worse thing about Muslims is they can radicalize at any time. They can normal for years and then like Hassan become radicalized in a matter of months then go on a murder spree as dictated by the Koran.

    They need to go, there is no upside with Muslims, only a misery.

  41. D. K. says:
    @D. K.

    P.S. For the record, the only reason that I made an issue out of it was because I knew that it was not a mere typo: “And the Punjabis surrounding Grumman-Norththrop will be enthusiastically voting us into a racial minority on Nov 3 2016.” [That improper lack of a comma, on the other hand, I put down to an unfortunate idiosyncrasy….]

  42. MarkinLA says:

    A visit to any dollar store or Big Lots would tell you that what you are saying isn’t true. A market economy produces tons of waste in the form of useless and unsold products that have to be dumped or given away.

    The USSR was the only real force in the Warsaw Pact and there was no significant consumer economy since so much of the intellectual and industrial base was utilized by the military to make up for their reluctant “allies”. The USSR was destroyed economically by Germany and they were not getting any help to rebuild from the Marshal Plan like the western Europeans. The USSR didn’t “squander” their productive capital unless you think armament factories moved east past the range of German bombers can replace all the factories destroyed in the cities in the west of the USSR.

    The Chinese seem to be doing very well with a command economy and Japan’s MITI did an amazing job of turning Japan into an economic powerhouse by directing its industries into areas with high returns instead of wasting their scarce resources on making crap.

    • Agree: Seamus Padraig
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    , @Reg Cæsar
  43. @Anonymous

    Nah, the USSR just lost it first, due to the massive overspend on a useless parasitic military.

    The US is losing it now

  44. … as authentic Syrian passports can be purchased for a few hundred dollars in the bazaars of the Middle East.

    How many matriculas consulares do they trade for?

  45. @MarkinLA

    Japan’s MITI did an amazing job of turning Japan into an economic powerhouse by directing its industries into areas with high returns

    Two of those industries, Honda and Sony, got where they were by resisting MITI’s instructions. Honda would still be specializing in rice cookers had MITI had its way.

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
  46. @Qasim

    ‘It’s been our misfortune to have the wrong religion,” Hitler complained to his pet architect Albert Speer. “Why did it have to be Christianity, with its meekness and flabbiness?” Islam was a Männerreligion—a “religion of men”—and hygienic too.

    GB Shaw also praised Islam– and they brag about it. (On their proselytizing pamphlets.)

    But Bernard Shaw and Hitler? Who’s strike three?

  47. @MarkinLA

    … instead of wasting their scarce resources on making crap.

    The Swedes have an interesting take on this– instead of “directing” heathy industries, they instead kill off the dogs. Saab almost disappeared while the US propped up the rest of GM.

    I don’t know if killing moribund industries is the proper business of the state, but it’s more efficient than putting them on IV. Not that the Chrysler chapter of UAW would agree.

  48. @Lupa

    Oppose globalization, oppose the tentacles of business and oppose any person promoting it.

    Better yet, integrate the gated communities of the élites. Make it the price of further immigration.

    They’ll come around in time.

  49. MarkinLA says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    Honda and Sony were both headed by extraordinary individuals. I believe Soichiro Honda was quite the racer. Expecting him to stay away from his passion was unrealistic.

  50. Asif Khan says:

    Yes, e should look into expelling all child molesters – white male; all serial killers – again white male; all rapists, spies and on and on.

    • Replies: @D. K.
  51. D. K. says:
    @Asif Khan

    Who is this “e” person that you are seeking to empower? Please clarify for us, also: Are you saying that even White males should be expelled, if they fall into one of those criminal categories; or, are you saying that only White males, who fall into one of those criminal categories, should be expelled; or, are you (ludicrously) claiming that that all child molesters and serial killers, inter alia, are, in fact, White males, in the United States?

  52. I’ve postponed my project of making a suicide attack on the wickedest powerful person in the world until my 99th birthday (taste and modesty require me to avoid the Queen’s telegram a year later – not least because it would probably be from King Charles or Australia’s republican replacement). So, John, can you advise on the steps I might usefully and effectively take to have myself at the centre of a cause celebre on free speech in the British Isles where I retain the starting PR advantage of still being nominally a member of the English Bar. What website, links, social media would you recommend? What initial targets given that you and I share many prejudices (derived from having thought deeply about and being right on most things PC)?

    • Replies: @random observer
  53. John, your anguish should give some appreciation of the extent to which American autochthenes were pissed off with European assylum seekers in relatively recent history.

  54. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    I thought this website was supposed to post “Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media” — this racist trash is all over the MSM.

  55. @Wizard of Oz


    Please accept my salute for your ambition, courage, and optimism alike.

    I was just planning to wait until I retire and then fly a Confederate flag everyday, which as I am in Canada will be rather an unambiguous statement.

  56. MichaelOH says:

    OT: The sophists, haters, liars and bigots should not be forgotten. In that spirit I give you Enrique Cardova.

  57. luke5 says:

    Do you really believe that white people in the UK are the most violent community in the UK?

    The UK government publishes crime stats,welfare stats, which do not support your view.

    I assume you are a Dalrymple reader and so believe his lies when he calls anyone in the UK :”English”.

    • Replies: @jtgw
  58. jtgw says: • Website

    Where did I say I believed that whites were the most violent? I’m saying that violence and antisocial behavior is not confined to any one ethnicity, but that it is a behavior that is exacerbated by the welfare state, which discourages the kind of behavior that formerly the poor needed to lift themselves up out of poverty. Now that the government assures the poor of subsistence, they have no motivation to better themselves and fall into crime and idleness.

  59. We must face the fact: the national institutions of the West are now fiercely protective of Muslims and hostile to the native ancestral populations.

    Tell it to four million dead Muslims.

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
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All John Derbyshire Comments via RSS