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

 Remember My Information

Topics Filter?
2000 Election 2016 Election 2020 Election Academia Affirmative Action Africa Alt Right American Media American Military Antifa Antiracism Black Crime Black Lives Matter Blacks Brexit Britain Censorship China Conservative Movement Coronavirus Donald Trump Economics England European Right Foreign Policy History Homosexuality Human Biodiversity Humor Ideology Illegal Immigration Immigration IQ Iraq War Ireland Islam Mathematics Miscellaneous Political Correctness Race/Crime Race/Ethnicity Racism Religion Republican Party Republicans Review Russia Science Terrorism The Straggler 2004 Election 2006 Election 2008 Election 2012 Election 2018 Election 9/11 Abortion Abraham Lincoln Afghanistan Africans Al Gore Al Sharpton Aldous Huxley Amazon American Left American Presidents American Renaissance Amnesty Amy Chua Ancient DNA Anglo-Saxons Anglosphere Ann Coulter Anti-Semitism Anti-white Animus Antonin Scalia Artificial Intelligence Arts/Letters Asia Asian Americans Asian Quotas Asians Australia Australian Aboriginals Austria Barack Obama Bill Clinton Boris Johnson Brain British Politics Cambodia Canada Cancer Capitalism Catalonia Catholic Church Central Asia Charles Murray Charlottesville Chelsea Clinton China/America Chinese Chinese Evolution Christianity CIA Civil Liberties Civil Rights Civil War Communism Confederacy Congress Consciousness Conservatism Constantinople Constitutional Theory Corruption Creationism Crime Crusades Cultural Marxism Culture/Society DACA Dalai Lama Dallas Shooting Deep State Democracy Democratic Party Demographics Demography Discrimination Disease Diversity Dreamers East Asians Ebola Education Eisenhower El Salvador Elections Elian Gonzalez Emmanuel Macron Energy Enoch Powell Environmentalism Espionage EU Eugenics Europe European Union Eurozone Evolution Evolution Of Language Evolutionary Biology Facebook Fake News Feminism Ferguson Shooting Fertility Rates Finland Floyd Riots 2020 France Gay Marriage Gays/Lesbians Gaza Flotilla Gender Equality George Floyd George W. Bush George Zimmerman Germany Global Warming Globalism Globalization Goldman Sachs Google Government Debt Government Spending Greece Gun Control Guns H-1B H1-B Visas Haiti Hamilton: An American Musical Harvard Hate Hoaxes Hbd Hillary Clinton Hispanic Crime Hispanics Hitler Hollywood Hong Kong Housing Huey Newton Human Evolution Human Genetics Human Genome Hungary Hunting Ice People Imperialism Indians Infection Intellectuals Intelligence Intelligent Design Internet Iran Iraq Islamophobia Israel Israel Lobby Israel/Palestine Italy James B. Watson James Comey Japan Jared Taylor Jeff Sessions Jeremy Corbyn Jews Jimmy Carter Joe Biden John Derbyshire John McCain Judicial System Jussie Smollett Justice Kaiser Wilhelm Koreans Kurds Libertarianism Libya Love MacArthur Awards Maoism Marc Faber Margaret Thatcher Mark Steyn Martin Luther King Mass Shootings Massacre In Nice Memory Mencken Meritocracy Merkel Mexico Michael Bloomberg Middle East Mind Minorities Mulatto Elite Multiculturalism Muslims National Debt Nationalism NATO Nature Vs. Nurture Neandertal Admixture Nelson Mandela Neocons Neoconservatism New York City New York Times Nicholas Wade Nordics Norman Podhoretz North Korea Northern Ireland Nuclear Weapons Open Borders Orban Orlando Shooting Orwell Ottoman Empire Outsourcing Paris Attacks Pat Buchanan Paul Ryan People's Republic Of China Pete Buttgieg Peter Thiel Philosophy Poetry Police Population Population Growth Probability Proud Boys Public Schools Puerto Rico Quantum Mechanics Race Race And Crime Race And Iq Race Denialism Race/IQ Race Riots Racial Profiling Racial Reality Razib Khan Refugee Crisis Richard Lynn Riots Robots Ron Paul Ron Unz Ronald Reagan Roy Moore Rudyard Kipling Saddam Hussein Sailer Strategy San Bernadino Massacre Scandinavia Science Fiction Science Fiction & Fantasy Scotland Senate Siberia Silicon Valley Singularity Slavery Slavery Reparations Soccer Social Welfare Programs Solzhenitsyn Somalia South Africa Space Program Spain SPLC Stabby Somali Statistics Stephen Wolfram Stereotypes Steve King Steve Sailer Supreme Court Switzerland Syria Ta-Nehisi Coates Taiwan Taxes Tea Party Technology Television The Economist The New York Times Thomas Perez Tibet Tom Wolfe Tony Blair Torture Treason Turkey UKIP Unemployment Uruguay Vietnam Violence Vote Fraud WASPs White Americans White Nationalism White Nationalists White Privilege White Supremacy Wikipedia William Buckley Winston Churchill Woke Capital World Cup World Population World War I World War II Xhosa Yemen Zimbabwe
Nothing found
 TeasersJohn Derbyshire Blogview

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

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

The news recently has featured a spate of people behaving badly. It reveals an increasingly prominent class issue: the widening rift between working-class and lower-middle-class people (manual workers, clerks, small business owners, low-level government staff) and their social superiors in the Ruling Class (billionaires, celebrities, politicians, college professors, corporate media Talking Heads, Human Resources directors, federal power-holders etc.)

This recent lack of respect has all been, as the French say, de haut en bas, “from the high to the low.”

  • First case study: The flap at Smith College about a black student’s complaint that she was harassed for “eating while black.”

This is actually an old story from July of 2018. It’s come into the news again because a low-level white employee at Smith College resigned on February 19th complaining of an anti-white work environment. [ Resignation letter from Smith College employee describes hostile workplace, president responds , by Kate Wilkinson, WWLP, Feb 26, 2021]

Smith College is a tony liberal-arts college for women in Northampton, Massachusetts. A year at Smith will cost your parents a tad over $78,000. The only other thing I’ve heard about Smith is that is the world, if not Solar system, if not galactic, headquarters of lesbianism … but that’s just hearsay.

The story in short: A cafeteria and attached lounge was closed to students for the summer, so high-schoolers on a summer camp program could use it. A black student, Oumou Kanoute (right) raised in the U.S.A. by immigrant parents from Mali, ignored this and took her lunch there anyway, disregarding a reminder from one of the cafeteria workers, a white female.

While she was eating her lunch, a 60-year-old white male janitor—let’s call him Janitor One—saw her there and told campus security. A different janitor, 58 years old, call him Janitor Two, accompanied a campus cop back to the lounge to tell the student she wasn’t supposed to be there.

This janitor was also white, as was the cop. There are a lot of those durn white people in Western Massachusetts. When are we going to fix that?

The black student made a fuss on social media, the college authorities groveled and flagellated themselves, Janitor One was put on paid leave, and a law firm was hired to investigate the incident.

They found nothing, of course; but the college went on groveling regardless.

They offered no apologies for their behavior: no apology to the cafeteria lady, the janitors, or the cop, all of whom had been denounced all over social media—and even in some legacy media—for their cruel, arrogant white supremacy.

So the correlation of forces here is: In the Blue corner, a young black woman from a wealthy family attending a tony college with a huge endowment and $78,000 fees. In the Red corner, four white working-class Americans making minimum wage, or not much above it.

Last I heard, the cafeteria lady got furloughed last fall on account of the pandemic. She’s having trouble getting a new job because when prospective employers look her up, she’s flagged as RACIST.

Janitor One is back from paid leave but declines to be interviewed. Janitor Two left the college soon after the incident, fed up with all the compulsory training sessions in race and intersectionality.

Quote from him, which I think captures the deep truth of the incident: “I don’t know if I believe in white privilege. I believe in money privilege.” [Inside a Battle Over Race, Class and Power at Smith College, by Michael Powell, NYT, February 24, 2021]

I have no news of the cop.

  • Second case study: the renegade Royals, Harry Windsor and his wife Meghan Markle.

Harry, formally the Duke of Sussex, is the younger son of Prince Charles, heir to the British throne. He married Meghan in 2018, and they had a son the following year. We were told a couple of weeks ago that Meghan is again enceinte. She is three years older than Harry, and a divorcee. She’s American and identifies as mixed-race. I’d judge her an octoroon by appearance.

Harry and Meghan’s relations with Harry’s grandparents—which is to say, the Queen and Prince Philip—are famously fraught. Meghan is plainly unsuited to the life of a royal: touring around the country performing ceremonial chores, making small talk with unimportant people, always smiling for the press, and keeping your opinions very strictly to yourself. It’s worse for Meghan because her sister-in-law Kate, William’s wife, is superbly good at it. And then, it’s double worse because Meghan’s head is stuffed up to the nose-holes with all the fashionable cant of racism, feminism, globalism, Trump Derangement Syndrome, and all the dreary rest, which to persons of Grandma and Grandad’s generation—or even to mine, the following generation—just seems weird and silly.

Harry himself is a dim bulb, and doggedly loyal to his wife. Again, to be fair, the first quality there is something he can’t help, and the second one is admirable.

So as you can see, I’m not totally out of sympathy with the Sussexes … Sussices, whatever. But even I’ve been wincing at these latest revelations about the way Meghan treated her royal servants through 2018 and 2019, when she was trying to be a working royal.


Politicians with courage (in Spain)

In the Senate impeachment trial of Donald Trump, February 9th-13th, video footage was shown of events in the Capitol building during the January 6th protests.

I had things to say about that video footage in my February 12th podcast. They were not very kind things. I spoke of the congressfolk “scampering off to safety under the guidance of armed Capitol Hill cops while an un-armed mob filled the corridors.”

I quoted a friend’s email from earlier in the year, one that had made such an impression on me, I’d posted it here on at the time. Here it is again.

Not a single person had the courage to go out and confront a man wearing buffalo horns flanked on either side with what looked like cast tryouts for Duck Dynasty. Had one person done so, he would now be the frontrunner for the presidency in 2024.

That February 12th podcast brought in an email from a different friend, reminding me of a real attempted coup forty years ago this month.

This was in Spain, February 23rd 1981. Francisco Franco had died five years previously after almost forty years of authoritarian rule. His chosen successor was Juan Carlos of the old Spanish royal family, who set about liberalizing Spain in the direction of a constitutional monarchy. Juan Carlos appointed 43-year-old Adolfo Suárez as Prime Minister in mid-1976.

A free election was held a year later, the first since the civil war of 1936-39. Adolfo Suárez’ party won a plurality and he continued as Prime Minister. The following year a new constitution was approved, fulfilling Juan Carlos’ goal: Spain had become a democratic state under constitutional monarchy. In the next election in 1979, Adolfo Suárez’ party again won a plurality and he again continued as Prime Minister.

It’s an uplifting story of an old, proud nation making the transition from authoritarian rule to representative, constitutional democracy in just four years, 1975-79. It was a rocky road, though, as I guess it was bound to be. There were some seriously disgruntled factions in the new Spain, especially on the political right.

In February 1981 one of those factions staged a coup: a real, armed coup, not just some comedians in buffalo horns committing trespass. Antonio Tejero of Spain’s Civil Guard (approximately a uniformed equivalent of the FBI) with armed colleagues entered the lower chamber of Spain’s parliament while it was in session.

What they were in session about was the swearing-in of a new Prime Minister. Adolfo Suárez had resigned a month earlier, facing a revolt in his party and plagued with health problems. The swearing-in roll call was being taken when Tejero and his pals stormed into the chamber.

Quote from Adolfo Suárez’ 2014 obituary in the London Guardian:

Suárez displayed remarkable physical courage, being one of only three parliamentarians who refused to obey Tejero’s order to lie on the floor.

One of the other two was Deputy Prime Minister and former army General Gutiérrez Mellado; the other was Communist Party leader Santiago Carrillo. Concerning the former, the coup’s Wikipedia page records that:

Undeterred, arms akimbo in defiance, 68-year-old General Gutiérrez Mellado refused to sit down, even after Tejero attempted, unsuccessfully, to wrestle him to the floor. Their face-off ended with Tejero returning to the rostrum and Gutiérrez Mellado returning to his seat.

From a review in the Irish Times of Javier Cercas’ 2011 book about the event:

For Cercas the iconic image of the 1981 coup is the refusal of Spain’s beleaguered prime minister, Adolfo Suárez, to obey Tejeros’ order to lie on the floor. Suárez sits resolutely in his seat while his deputy, Gen Manuel Gutiérrez Mellado, challenges Tejero’s men to put down their weapons. Out of camera shot, the leader of the Spanish Communist Party, Santiago Carrillo, also stays put, impassively smoking a cigarette.

There is video footage here.

I wonder, primero, which, if any, of our own federal legislators would display such fearless defiance in the face of a real coup?

And then, segunda: Was smoking still permitted in our own House of Representatives as late as 1981?

Antonio Tejero, by the way

the coup leader

is apparently still among us, now aged 88. At any rate, I have been unable to find any obituaries. He served fifteen years for his armed attempt to overthrow democracy, which is probably less than the capering clowns of January 6th will get for disturbing the solemn deliberations of our brave legislators.

Make America Ordinary Again

The friend who emailed in to remind me of that attempted coup in Spain forty years ago actually lives in Uruguay. His email stirred my longstanding but remote and possibly ill-informed infatuation with Uruguay, a country I have never actually been to.

That in turn got me thinking that I am really not on board with MAGA. I mean, I don’t particularly want to live in a country that’s great. I’d be happy to live in a country that is … ordinary, so long of course as it is well-governed and socially harmonious, with proper respect for personal liberty and a firm rule of law equally applied to all.

Are there any advantages to living in a country that is great? Certainly there are, although they tend to come with dis-advantages attached.

Being militarily great, for example, means you don’t have to worry that other countries will seize your territory. In the case of the U.S.A., however that hardly applies. Two wide oceans protect us; Canada and Mexico are not significant threats; and being militarily great is awfully expensive. We could probably be secure in our territorial integrity while reducing our military expenditures by ninety percent

perhaps ninety-nine percent if we’re willing to take chances with Hawaii and Alaska.

And then there is financial greatness, with everyone else in the world wanting to do business in our national currency. I’m on weak ground here, having no deep understanding of economics. Still, a lot of nations with non-reserve currencies seem to cope just fine; and who knows how things will shake out when currencies go digital, as they seem fated to do?

I grew up in a nation that stopped being great just about the time I was born, although the psychological adjustment to non-greatness took a couple of decades. The main downside of no-longer-greatness for Britain was the mass immigration of people from places the Brits had once practiced their greatness on.


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

Of the sixteen persons nominated for a cabinet position, as listed in the January 23rd issue of The Economist [After the chaos of the Trump era, what can Joe Biden hope to achieve?] nine have now been confirmed by the U.S. Senate and have assumed office. So we are better than halfway through the confirmation process.

You can’t help but notice the diversity. Not one of them—not one of the sixteen—is a non-Hispanic white Protestant heterosexual male. To put that another way: Not one of the sixteen comes from the same slice of the diversity pie as did every single one of our nation’s Founding Fathers.

(Am I still allowed to say “Founding Fathers“? “Founding persons,” whatever.)

That is the working definition of the word “diversity” in our benighted age: no non-Hispanic white Protestant heterosexual males! That’s true diversity!

Only one of the sixteen is a white male Protestant: Peter Buttigieg, the Transportation Secretary; and as an Episcopalian, his Protestantism is borderline. I used to be an Episcopalian, and I recall that bit in the liturgy where we prayed for the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Confessionwise I count eight Roman Catholics, four Jews, two Protestants, one Hindu, and one unknown. By sex they break down as ten guys and six gals. Cutting by race and ethnicity: ten white, three black or blackish, three Hispanic. By sexual preference: fourteen apparently heterosexual, one homosexual, one unknown.

Concerning the confirmation process itself: There is a customary understanding—a sensible one, I think—that a new President is entitled to his cabinet picks, and that the Senators should practice forbearance in challenging them, with due allowance for a bit of televised grandstanding on particular issues. Given that, and the present balance of parties in the Senate, these confirmation hearings are somewhat of a formality.

They can be instructive, though. Instruction this week came from Merrick Garland, picked by Biden—or whoever pulls Biden’s strings—to head the Justice Department.

Justice in the U.S.A. is in serious trouble. It has been politicized. Our Ruling Class has been seized by an ideology: the one loosely called “Wokeness,” although as a longtime fan of Professor Paul Gottfried, I prefer “Cultural Marxism.” This ideology has many facets, but its most central characteristics are 1) deep hostility to the founding stock of the U.S.A.—as illustrated by the statistics I just gave you on Biden’s cabinet picks—and 2) fierce intolerance of all dissent.

In the matter of justice, the effect of that ideology has been to give us a two-tiered system, a shameful double standard. Anarchist mobs who burned, looted, and murdered their way through our cities last year have been smiled on by the courts. The motley protestors who entered the Capitol on January 6th, by contrast, are being hunted down and crushed like bugs: no bail, no celebrity support, no GoFundMe pages, no allowance for personal circumstances.

Sample quote from my new journalistic heroine, Miranda Devine:

As for Portland, Oregon, charges were dropped for 90 percent of rioters arrested in September’s anti-cop violence. One 23-year-old charged with attempted murder, arson, possession of a destructive device, and rioting was released on a $1,000 bond.

Seattle was as bad. Mayor Jenny Durkan lauded the lawlessness that would lead to the fatal shooting of 19-year-old Horace Lorenzo Anderson in July as a “summer of love.”

These were the deadly protests Biden benignly described as “peaceful” and [Kamala] Harris said are “not going to stop … and they should not.”

Yet after a few hours of madness one day in January, every Trump supporter in the country is to be treated as if they flew a plane into the World Trade Center. They all are under suspicion for what Biden said last week was “the greatest threat … in America: domestic terror.”

[ There shouldn’t be a double standard for law & order: Devine , New York Post, February 21, 2021]

Plainly—it could not be more plain—there is one system of justice for persons who hold approved opinions, another for dissidents.

Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence has of course always allowed intent as a factor in the dispensing of justice: an unintended homicide is treated differently from an intended one.

But that principle has now been distorted to:

  • If I burn down your store because of some grudge I bear, not towards you but towards society in general, I will not be punished so long as my grudge is a good fit for the Ruling Ideology.


  • If I enter some federal building unarmed with the vague intention of disrupting a parliamentary procedure—even if uniformed security personnel let me in—and then I put my feet up on a legislator’s desk, I shall be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, so long as my intention, or any of my personal connections, are at odds with Regime Ideology.

This gross and obvious double standard is Third World jurisprudence. It’s how things are done in Congo, Uzbekistan, China, or Guatemala.

No American jurist with any respect for our nation’s history or constitution should tolerate it.


Earlier: Biden’s Treasonous Immigration Bill Opportunity For GOP Leader To Say Two Words “Immigration Moratorium”

Thursday this week the Biden administration brought forth a bill on immigration. It comes in two versions, one for the Senate and one for the House, although the texts are well-nigh identical. Both versions are 353 pages long. [READ: Text of Biden-supported immigration bill, CNN, February 18, 2021]

My boss Peter Brimelow sent me the House version. I obediently settled down to read the thing.

By page 17 I was deep in the weeds.


Subsection (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 5 of title II of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1255 et seq.), as amended by Section 1101, is further amended by inserting after Section 245B the following:


Subsection (a) REQUIREMENTS.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary may adjust the status of a lawful prospective immigrant to that of a lawful permanent resident if the lawful prospective immigrant —

Paragraph (1) subject to subsection (b), satisfies the eligibility requirements set forth in section 245G(b), including all criminal and national security background checks and the payment of all applicable fees;

Paragraph (2) submits an application pursuant to the procedures under section 245G(b)(1);

Paragraph (3) has been a lawful prospective immigrant for not less than 5 years …

At about this point, I lost the will to live. In my defense, I’ll wager that I had already read more of the bill than any of the congresscritters who’ll be called upon to vote on it.

I resolved to do the best I could from secondary sources—that is to say, by poaching from the commentary of other pundits more fluent in Congressperanto than I am.

My shame in this case was assuaged by seeing, as one of the first things these more knowledgeable commentators all said, that the bill stands no chance of becoming law.

Why is that? Well, here you have a conflict of strategies.

The Holy Grail for Open Borders lobbyists—which is to say, all of the well-funded business and ethnic lobbies—has always been “Comprehensive Immigration Reform.” That’s understood to mean a bait-and-switch model, a retread of Ronald Reagan’s 1986 law giving both sides what they want: mass Amnesty to please the lobbies, firm controls on employment and border security as boob-bait for the Bubbas. Once the law’s enacted, the Amnesty rolls ahead but the firm controls melt away quietly under judicial action and Executive Branch inaction.

That’s “Comprehensive Immigration Reform.” It was tried with Arlen Specter’s 2006 bill, again with the McCain-Kennedy bill in 2007, and yet again with the Gang of Eight bill in 2013.

All these efforts failed; but hope springs eternal in the Open-Borders breast. With majorities in both houses, Biden’s people—how naturally we say “Biden’s people,” as if the President were just a holographic image, which he might as well be—figured it was time for another try at “Comprehensive Immigration Reform.”

It actually isn’t, though. With the Covid pandemic, caravans of thousands assembling in Central America, and doubts about Mexico’s continuing fortitude in preventing those caravans crossing Mexican territory, a lot of Democratic congresscritters are getting spooked.

Here was Rep. Vicente Gonzalez, a Texas Democrat, talking this week to

Our party should be concerned. If we go off the rails, it’s going to be bad for us. Biden is going to be dealing with a minority in Congress if he continues down some of these paths.

‘Recipe for disaster’: Dem fears mount over immigration overhaul, by Sabrina Rodriguez and Marc Caputo, February 19, 2021

What to do, then? The lobbyists have to be appeased. And it would be really, really nice to have a big fat tranche of new Democrat voters in place before November 2024.

And I should say before proceeding that while I’ve been flinging around the time-honored expression “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” with gay abandon, this week’s bill is not actually a good fit for that term, as I have defined it. Most to this point: There does not seem to be any boob-bait for the Bubbas. Where are they, those clear promises to secure the border, punish employers of illegal aliens, and the rest?

The optimistic assumption must be that the Congressional drones who drafted this bill know that we know how bogus those promises were in past efforts at “Comprehensive Immigration Reform,” and decided that it wasn’t worth their time to go on lying.

I call this the optimistic assumption because it does at least signal a slight increase in honesty.

• Category: Ideology • Tags: Amnesty, Democratic Party, Immigration, Joe Biden 

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

Reading my New York Post, I caught this little news item from the nearby metropolis: A 72-year-old guy just getting off a subway train in Midtown was knocked to the ground by an assailant unknown to him:

The suspect, described as a man in his 20s and about 5-foot-10 inches tall, was wearing a green jacket with the words “Anti Social” written on it.

Elderly straphanger attacked in Midtown subway station By Jorge Fitz-Gibbon, Larry Celona, Tina Moore and Amanda Woods, NY Post, February 11, 2021

The perp was of course black. As you have heard said several hundred times over the past thirty years, including a couple of times from me: “If it was a white guy they would have told us.

In the art of rhetoric there are terms relating to omission—saying something by pointedly and deliberately not saying it.

I’m not sure precisely which term of rhetorical art applies here. I don’t think it’s apophasis: for that, you have to mention the fact that you won’t mention something. That’s a favorite of Donald Trump’s:

Why would Kim Jong-un insult me by calling me “old,” when I would never call him “short and fat”?

Trump sarcastically responds to Kim Jong Un insults, CNN, November 13, 2017

Strategic Silence—conveying information to the listener by omitting a key fact, as opposed to saying aloud that you’re not going to mention it—must be some other rhetorical figure, not apophasis. I leave it to your own researches.

Here I’m just going to observe that our elite Media have taken it to a new level. They tell us things by being silent about them, knowing that we know the significance of their silence.

The Officer Sicknick case comes under this heading. I passed comment last week on the strange media silence about cause of death.

This was the Capitol Hill cop who, we were told in a January 10th New York times headline, was killed by a Trump supporter—smacked on the head with a fire extinguisher, according to the story.

He Dreamed of Being a Police Officer, Then Was Killed by a Pro-Trump Mob, By Zolan Kanno-Youngs and Tracey Tully, January 8, 2021

Revolver.News just posted a fine report on the Sicknick case, concentrating on the complete lack of information we’ve been getting—i.e. the silence.

Acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen says the DOJ will “spare no resources” in getting to the bottom of what happened to Sicknick. Yet well over a month after his death, precisely zero information has been disclosed by the DOJ, the FBI, the US Capitol Police, the DC medical examiner, the hospital that cared for him, or the treating physicians.

MAGA Blood Libel: Why Are They Hiding The Medical Report? , February 9, 2021

Now we hear that Officer Sicknick’s remains have been cremated. So, no more autopsy. May we have the medical examiner’s report, since it must now be final?

No, apparently, we may not. Why not?

Because it would contradict the story about Sicknick having been killed by Trump supporters,

Prosecutors now concede they have no evidence this happened, and no-one is under investigation. [Investigators struggle to build murder case in death of US Capitol Police officer Brian Sicknick, CNN, February 2, 2021]

But the Ruling Class like this story. It works for them.

Strategic Silence has also been deployed in the Ashli Babbitt case, the shooting of the unarmed young white woman by a black Capitol Hill cop. Early this week we were told that

The shooting of the Capitol rioter, Ashli Babbitt, remains under investigation by the DC Metropolitan Police, the US Attorney’s Office in Washington, DC, and civil rights prosecutors, a routine process for shootings involving the Capitol Police. A final decision hasn’t been made, the people familiar with the probe told CNN.

Justice Department officials could make a final decision in the coming days.

A spokesperson for DC’s Metropolitan Police Department said in an email to CNN that “it is irresponsible to make an investigatory assumption or to jump to any conclusion without completing the thorough investigation.”

Investigators recommend no charges for US Capitol Police officer accused of killing pro-Trump rioter during insurrection, sources say By Evan Perez, Katelyn Polantz and Paul LeBlanc, CNN, February 2, 2021

Cop shoots lady at close range, all on video. How long does a “thorough investigation” take?

Just long enough until everyone’s forgotten about it, I guess.

The lesson here: The media arm of our Ruling Class golem are Masters Of Silence—of informative silence.

What sticks in my throat here is their arrogance. The message to us here in every case is:

We’re not going to give out any information. We’re going to stay silent until it’s Old News and faded into the cosmic microwave background.

Yes, this is informative all by itself: The fact of our silence tells you what the truth is.

You can figure it out. But we don’t care.


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

A leading candidate for the title Truer Words Were Never Said is surely T.S. Eliot’s observation that,

… human kind
Cannot bear very much reality

Burnt Norton, 1936

If you want a set, that quote pairs off nicely with science fiction writer and occasional LSD user Philip K. Dick’s observation in a speech he gave in 1978 that:

Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away.

“How To Build A Universe That Doesn’t Fall Apart Two Days Later”

There is of course a great deal more than that to be said about the nature of reality—a very great deal more. This is one of the oldest topics in philosophy, overlapping with theology, psychology, physics, and other disciplines.

Neuroscience, for example. There’s a mental condition called anosognosia that I mentioned in a column here at VDARE once.

Anosognosia is a condition in which the patient is suffering some severe neurological impairment but does not know it. [Anosognosia,, February 27, 2019] The impairment is strictly neurological, in the higher processing regions of the brain. You might, for example, be suffering from paralysis of a limb, yet be unaware of it.

There are even some extreme cases recorded in which the sufferer is blind but does not know it! The eyes and optic nerves have normal function, but the brain centers that process visual stimulus are not working. To compensate, the brain makes up a visual field, trying to use cues from memory and the other senses.

It doesn’t work very well. You keep falling over things, but you can’t understand why.

Western society seems to have fallen into something like a social anosognosia. Our collective senses are gathering information OK, more than ever before in history in fact. But our collective brain is failing to process it, and compensates by making stuff up.

These things all came to mind when I read this February 2nd column by the notoriously Woke New York Times technology correspondent Kevin Roose [Tweet him]”How the Biden Administration Can Help Solve Our Reality Crisis.”

Steve Sailer and Gregory Hood have tossed and gored the column here at VDARE, but it’s such a big fat target I can’t resist adding my two pennyworth.

Roose locates the reality crisis in two areas: “extremist groups and conspiracy theory movements.”

The only people he actually names as being an “extremist group” are the Proud Boys. His other references are to unnamed “white supremacist groups” and “far-right militias.”

Ctrl-F “Black Lives Matter” … no hits. Ctrl-F “antifa” … no hits.

In the other area of his reality crisis, “conspiracy theory movements,” Roose includes believers in the QAnon theory, people skeptical of Joe Biden’s election victory, and those who think Covid-19 was manufactured in a Chinese lab. Roose actually uses the word “baseless” to describe the beliefs of both latter groups.

The QAnon theory sounds loopy to me, although no loopier than the stuff a lot of harmless, productive, otherwise-sane folk carry around in their heads.

The other two points, election tampering and a lab origin for Covid, are well within the scope of possibility, not at all “baseless.” Much stranger things have turned out to be the case. If Roose had said “improbable,” I might have passed it without comment, but “baseless”? This is highly slanted journalism, even by the dismal standards of the New York Times.

Roose tells us that he called around some “experts” to get ideas about how we might restore a proper respect for reality. Who were they, these “experts”? He doesn’t supply a full roster, but names a few names.

I confess I haven’t had time to do my due diligence and look up these people’s professional output, but the job titles don’t inspire confidence.

“Disinformation researcher”? Uh-huh. Anyone who pays attention knows that the word “disinformation” has at this point been bled dry of all honest significance. It’s just a Woke word, a CultMarx word for any true facts the Ruling Class want suppressed.

Several of the experts, Roose tells us, said the Biden administration should assemble a task force to tackle the reality crisis. This task force would be led by a Reality Czar.

Roose allows that this sounds, quote, “a little dystopian.” Ya think?

A Discussion

Join the Book Club!

My just-posted discussion with John Derbyshire for the VDARE Book Club can be thought of as the completion of a cycle. If we weren’t both mistaken, John Derbyshire coined the term “Dissident Right” and was using it in 2012—which today seems like ancient history. Now, the term has re-emerged as a separation from the “Alt Right” of 2015-2017. We end where we began, as graduates of the historic American Conservative Movement who have realized that changing demographics, cultural degeneracy, and a hostile elite are destroying the things conservatives are supposed to “conserve.” Conservatism Inc. isn’t doing anything about it, so that leaves us.

However, how can we do it? Both John and I are skeptical of the prospects for separation from the United States. The only way the “System” may be brought to a halt is through some external disaster.

Of course, even to contemplate something like that, something akin to the Russian military defeat in the Russo-Japanese war might be required, which is horrifying because it will mean Americans paying for the mistakes of their rulers.

If we’re lucky, John said in the discussion, it will be something more akin to the largely bloodless Suez Crisis that finally brought home to the United Kingdom that was no longer an imperial power.

John suggests that we are on the brink of hard tyranny, something akin to what the Polish and Hungarian peoples faced in the 1960s. (I agree with him.) Looking to the way those nations survived and overcame a hostile regime may be useful for Americans today.

I’ve argued explicitly that the historic American nation is essentially a stateless people, devoid of representation in the Regime that rules over them, discriminates against them, and tries to replace them.

In a global context, the exploding Third World population, especially in Africa, means that immigration issues will surge in importance, even if elites would rather bury the discussion.

John and I discussed these issues and more yesterday. Of course, the point is not just to explain the world, but to change it. There will be hard times ahead. However, this should be seen as a challenge to become and a crucible that will strengthen us. There is hope and reason for faith in victory—not least because of all the readers and supporters who make possible.

Enjoy the discussion (the first 20 minutes of which is posted below) and we look forward to your feedback. If you haven’t already, join the Book Club and get involved.

James Kirkpatrick [Email him |Tweet him @VDAREJamesK] is a Beltway veteran and a refugee from Conservatism Inc. His latest book is Conservatism Inc.: The Battle for the American Right. Read Editor Peter Brimelow‘s Preface here.


A race realism primer

Race realism is of course deeply taboo. Expounders of race realism are mere squeaking mouse voices off in a corner of the room, inaudible in society against the roaring and shrieking of race denialism. Even in the dwindling number of social spaces where some limited dissent from ideological orthodoxy is still allowed, you will not hear race realism. Tucker Carlson will never have Jared Taylor as a guest on his show, nor any of the names in the next paragraph, nor me.

Race realism is true none the less, rooted in the desire to understand the world, while race denialism is a lie, rooted in the desire for social approval. All honor and glory, therefore, to those scholars who, driven by the love of truth — that “faintest of all human passions“—have labored to improve our understanding of race as a biological phenomenon: Greg Cochran, Richard Lynn, Helmuth Nyborg, Tatu Vanhanen, E.O. Wilson, Michael Woodley of Menie, and others no longer among us, notably the late J. Philippe Rushton.

Given the fierce obloquy and sometimes violent physical assault that comes upon any academic working in this area, it’s remarkable that our understanding has made any progress at all. It has, though, and Ed Dutton, Professor of Evolutionary Psychology at Asbiro University in Łódź, Poland, has given an excellent up-to-date summary in his book Making Sense of Race.

Ed himself wrote a column for the book here at VDARE when it came out a few weeks ago, and that column gives the general idea: the book is a primer of race realism. You should buy a copy of your own, though. It’s available on Amazon, although for how much longer in the current climate of intensifying censorship, I wouldn’t venture to speculate.

(Can anyone tell me why in America we pronounce “primer” as if it were spelled “primmer“? Or is that just an impertinent question from an obnoxious immigrant old-timmer? Never mind.)

I read Making Sense with pleasure and instruction. It filled in many gaps for me—things people ask to which I didn’t know the answer.

For instance: According to Rushton’s application of Life History Theory to our species, human populations living for thousands of generations in harsh Arctic conditions will, from dealing with the challenges of their environment, perforce evolve to higher intelligence than others more comfortably situated. This, according to Rushton, accounts for the mean-IQ difference between Northeast Asians (Chinese, Japanese, and Korean, mean 105) and sub-Saharan Africans (mean 70).

Hold on there, though. “Arctic peoples” (by which Ed means Eskimos) have mean IQ only 91, well below Europeans, and even further below Northeast Asians, to whom they bear a strong physical resemblance. What’s up with that? Ed’s answer, which I found plausible, is on pages 117-118.

If we lived in a sane country, Ed’s little primer would be on the recommended-reading list for high-school seniors nationwide. Instead they get Robin DiAngelo and Ibram X. Kendi. Heaven help America!

In hora mortis nostrae—Remembering Kathy Shaidle

Still with Ed Dutton: In a January 28th post here at Ed used the term “mortality salience,” which I had never seen before. A respectable psychology website describes mortality salience as “a psychological state in which a person is consciously thinking about his or her own death.”

Personally, I’m not in that state very often, and would be content never to be in it at all. Other people’s deaths can be food for thought, though.

Kathy Shaidle died early this month. James Fulford posted a notice here at on the 9th. It includes Kathy’s own self-written obituary, which shows a spirit of cheerful resignation. I always admire that.

And envy it. It is unfortunately not granted to many of us to know, with our mental faculties all intact, that we shall die at some point in the near future. Some of us will go unexpectedly, more or less instantaneously: stroke, heart attack, accident. Others will sink into drawn-out senility, until neither death nor anything else has much meaning to us. That was the fate of my own poor parents.

To have time to compose yourself, to put your affairs in order and prepare a dying that accords with the way you have lived—that seems to me ideal, at any rate since modern drugs came up to suppress the final pains.

If you do have that time, the alternative to cheerful resignation is angry defiance of the kind Dylan Thomas urged on his father:

Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Sorry, Taff, I don’t see the point. Sure, it’s honorable to give Death the defiant finger; but that’s what Kathy Shaidle was doing too, just with more class.

• Category: Ideology • Tags: China, Political Correctness 

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

Earlier, by Peter Brimelow: A Long Farewell To Donald Trump, Immigration Patriot. And Thanks.

Back in the Golden Age of Science Fiction seventy-something years ago there was a novel everyone read, title The World of Null-A. It was about a future planet Earth that had moved on from simple Aristotelean logic to something more subtle. So the “A” there stood for Aristotle.

The author, A. E. Van Vogt, was actually promoting a trendy philosophical system called General Semantics. This was one of those pseudoscientific fads that were popular in the mid-20th century, like William Sheldon’s body-typing, Wilhelm Reich’s theory of orgone energy, Immanuel Velikovsky’s colliding planets, or J.B. Rhine’s parapsychology.

I’m a bit surprised to see that the Institute of General Semantics is still around seventy years later. A bit surprised, but only a bit; these fads never disappear completely. In New York City you can still find people practicing Freudian psychoanalysis. I bet there’s a Velikovsky discussion group active on the Upper West Side somewhere.

Well, I shall leave you to look up General Semantics in your own time You might also read The World of Null-A, which can still be found in the sci-fi shelves of municipal libraries. I don’t actually recommend you do either thing; but hey, it’s your time.

Much more relevant to current concerns would be a novel titled The World of Null-T—the “T” of course standing for Trump. We’ve not yet given up on Aristotle‘s logic, but we have, for better or worse, moved on from Trump’s Presidency.

What’s the verdict on that Presidency? My view: it has to be failure.

It’s not that Trump did nothing in those four years. He accomplished a great deal. The evangelist group Liberty Counsel has published a list covering fourteen pages. It’s naturally tilted towards evangelistic concerns, and is too heavy on neoconnery for my taste—”Restoring American Leadership Abroad,” etc.—but there are some real useful actions in there. On immigration, for example, quote:

Removals of convicted criminal aliens increased by 14 percent from FY 2017.

Also on federal regulations:

President Trump has followed through on and exceeded his promise to roll back two regulations for every new one created.

The problem is, none of it has any permanence.

Removals of convicted criminal aliens? Starting yesterday, Thursday, Biden’s DHS has suspended all deportations.

In the matter of enforcing federal law, Congress proposes but the Executive disposes. If DHS, under the President’s instructions, don’t want to enforce the people’s laws on immigration, they don’t have to.

And it’s plain they don’t want to. ICE agents will quickly get the message and head for the donut shop.

Similarly with Trump’s rule on federal regulations. It’s a sensible rule. If you want to add a regulation to the seventy thousand pages of the Federal Register, you first have to annul two existing rules.

Well, forget about that. One of Biden’s first actions—on Wednesday, right after the inauguration—was to rescind that rule. If you want to saddle the U.S. economy with a vast labyrinth of mostly pointless regulations, mostly implemented as special favors to some rent-seeking lobby or other—and that of course is what the new administration does want—seventy thousand pages is not enough! We need more!

It’s the same with cultural issues. Biden—again on Wednesday, so this is high-priority for him—signed an executive order revoking Trump’s ban on federal agencies and federal contractors imposing Critical Race Theory training on employees.

So now, if you work for the feds or one of their contractors, you have to submit to being lectured by black grifters and white lunatics about the evils of whiteness.


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

See, earlier, May 30, 2020: Even Right Abandoning Accused Minneapolis Cop—But They Shouldn’t

The incoming new administration will, with high probability, face three major crises in the next year or so. China will probably invade Taiwan. T he stock market bubble will burst and the economy will contract at exactly the time that the Democrats, seeking to Elect A New People and subjugate the Historic American Nation, open the borders and amnesty 20-30 million illegal aliens.

And then there’s the Derek Chauvin trial.

Chauvin, you’ll recall, is the former Minneapolis Police Officer charged with second-degree murder, third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter in the death of George Floyd last May. Jury selection for Chauvin’s trial begins March 8th, so this is pretty immediate.

Three other police officers who were present at the scene when Officer Chauvin succeeded in restraining Floyd have been charged with lesser offences of the aiding-and-abetting sort:

[Minneapolis Judge Peter] Cahill [Above left] previously ruled in November that it was in the best interest of justice that all four cops be tried together, saying this would allow the jury to have “all of the evidence and the complete picture of Floyd’s death.” But the persisting realities of COVID-19 seem to have changed his mind.

Derek Chauvin to Stand Trial Separately From Other Cops Charged in George Floyd’s Death, by Ishena Robinson, The Root, January 14, 2021

There follows some stuff about the physical limitations of the largest courtroom in the justice center. It’s not big enough for all the lawyers and supporting staff needed when trying four defendants, without violating COVID-19 restrictions.


Given the stakes here, you have to suspect skullduggery.

The stakes for Judge Cahill are, that if you glance over his left shoulder you see the sinister figure of Keith Ellison, Minnesota’s white-hating black Muslim Bernie-bro Attorney General, who is determined to get Chauvin put away for 400 years.

Allowing the jury to have “all of the evidence and the complete picture of Floyd’s death” might get in the way of that. If all of the evidence says that Floyd died of a massive drug overdose only indirectly related—perhaps not related at all—to Officer Chauvin’s having used a commonplace method of restraint on him, [Neck Hold Used By Minneapolis Officer Was Approved By Department Policy,, May 29, 2020]and if one or two intelligent citizens slipped through the jury-selection process, the prosecution’s case could be in trouble.

The stakes for the rest of us: an acquittal of Officer Chauvin would mean another round of mayhem like the one we saw last year—public buildings defaced and torched by anarchist mobs, highways closed, random citizens beaten and killed, private businesses looted, while Biden and his crew blame it all on “white supremacists,” Kamala Harris starts a GoFundMe account to bail out the rioters and looters, and big corporations donate another ten billion dollars to Black Lives Matter.

Remember the Rodney King riots in 1992? They started because the police officers who arrested King and beat him when he resisted, were acquitted at state trial.

King didn’t even die, although he got a broken leg and some nasty bruises.

Plus, America was a lot more sane in 1992 than it is today. That was before Satan rose from the Underworld to gift us with the internet, smartphones, and social media. The rioters back then were mostly black and disorganized: anarchist Goodwhite mobs were not yet a thing.

John Derbyshire
About John Derbyshire

John Derbyshire writes an incredible amount on all sorts of subjects for all kinds of outlets. (This no longer includes National Review, whose editors had some kind of tantrum and fired him. He is the author of We Are Doomed: Reclaiming Conservative Pessimism and several other books. His most recent book, published by com is FROM THE DISSIDENT RIGHT (also available in Kindle).His writings are archived at