»  Radio Derb — Transcript

        Saturday, October 25th, 2014

•  Play the sound file (duration 45m14s).

This text will be replaced by the flash music player.

—————————

[Music clip: From Haydn's Derbyshire Marches, organ version]

01 — Intro.     Yes, Radio Derb is on the air! This is your avuncularly genial host John Derbyshire with a compendium of the week's news.

This week I'm having a fire sale on immigration stories. The evidence is good that Obama and his party are determined to flood the country with as many Third World immigrants as they can sign up during the next two years. The evidence is also good that the Republican Party is determined to let them do it. Let's take a look.

02 — Take my country, please.     News bombshell of the week was the unearthing of a document posted October 3rd at FedBizOpps.gov, known to those who know about it as FBO.

FBO is a website run by the federal government. To quote from the training video posted there, FBO, quote, "has been designed as a single point of entry for vendors to find posted federal business opportunities across all departments and agencies," end quote. So if you're selling something you think the feds might want to buy, this is the website for you.

The particular document on FBO that's been getting attention is headed "Card Consumables." The soliciting agency is Homeland Security, soliciting office Citizenship & Immigration Services. What do they want to buy? Quote:

The objective of this procurement is to provide card consumables … that will be used to produce Permanent Resident Cards and Employment Authorization Documentation cards. The requirement is for an estimated 4 million cards annually with the potential to buy as many as 34 million cards total. The ordering periods for this requirement shall be for a total of five years.

End quote. There's some fine print requiring the contractor to be able to cope with sudden surges of demand for cards, up to nine million in that five-year period, in order to, quote, "support possible future immigration reform initiative requirements."

Just to clarify numbers here: We give green cards for permanent settlement to just north of a million foreigners a year. That's for permanent settlement. We also admit a somewhat larger number of guest workers each year, with no right to permanent settlement. So the number of foreigners coming here to work each year legally is two million and change. And by the way, only seven percent of guest workers, one in fourteen, are for agriculture.

Put it another way, for every four Americans who turn 18 each year we take in one new permanent resident and one point something guest worker.

That's the current system. Please note I haven't even mentioned illegal immigrants. And all this is happening with high levels of unemployment, galloping automation, and wages stagnant for twenty years.

Now the government is planning a massive increase in numbers of foreign workers, via some combination of executive action by Obama and hoped-for legislation out of Congress.

Once again: for every four Americans entering the workforce each year, we currently add one immigrant, one-plus guest worker, and some unknown number — perhaps another quarter or third of a worker — illegally. And the administration thinks this is not enough!

03 — We don't need no steenkin' rules.     Oh, and on Friday last week the administration announced a plan to admit 100,000 Haitians to the U.S. to join family members. The family members must be U.S. citizens or legal residents.

A little background information here. A person with relatives abroad — me, for example — and who is a U.S. citizen or legal immigrant, has the right to apply for his relatives to settle here as immigrants. This right is chopped up into preference categories; so that for example if you are the unmarried adult child of a naturalized citizen, you're a First Preference, and have to wait two years in most countries. If on the other hand you are merely the sibling of an adult U.S. citizen, that's Fourth Preference, with a ten-year wait.

Those wait periods are the defaults that apply to most countries. For the Philippines the Fourth Preference wait period is nineteen years.

That's our immigration system: An orderly rule-based process of categories and preferences, all mandated by the people's representatives duly elected in Congress. Foreigners who wish to settle here are expected to wait patiently in their home countries for a few years in accordance with our rules.

Well, the hell with all that! We don't need no steenkin' rules, certainly not rules laid down by buttoned up old white guys with no respect for all the vibrant diversity on offer out there beyond our borders.

So the administration is just going to waive those rules, ignore that waiting period, and give working visas to tens of thousands of Haitians whose only qualification for being here is, they have a family member here, or can fake having one.

That last clause bears emphasizing. I confidently predict that there will be massive levels of fraud. How do you prove you're Jean-Baptiste's brother? You produce a document saying so. Ri-i-ight.

Haiti has 54 percent literacy, placing it number 104 of the 118 nations listed on Wikipedia with a literacy rate, bottom of the second decile in literacy. If you'd like to imagine the opportunities for bribery of public officials, GDP per capita is a rough guide: $1,300 a year. Haiti is ranked 209 out of 228 in the CIA World Factbook. Poverty-wise, that puts them between Sierra Leone and Ethiopia. Holding those facts in your mind, now try to imagine the standard of public record-keeping in Haiti.

You don't in fact need to imagine. The last family-reunification binge the feds went on was for those unaccompanied minors from Central America — remember them? A July 3rd press release from the House Judiciary Committee found that, quote: "An internal Department of Homeland Security report states there is proven or possible fraud in up to 70 percent of asylum applications." The Third World laughs at our safeguards and procedures.

Why would the administration do this — admit 100,000 people, with no regard to employability, education, qualifications, or health, from one of the most backward and dysfunctional places in the world? Well, they are kind enough to tell us why. Because, says the Friday announcement, quote: "The Haitian Family Reunification Parole program promotes a fundamental underlying goal of our immigration system — family reunification," end quote.

If family reunification is a pressing issue for any foreign-born person, they have a very simple solution to hand. If you don't mind me being personal for a moment: I was here on a guest-worker visa in 1986 and petitioned for my wife to get a non-working visa so she could join me. She got one. If she hadn't got one, I would have gone back to England, where I was a citizen, and petitioned the Brits to let her in. That's what I would have done. I really wanted to be with my wife. Family unification — I'm strongly for it.

What on earth is going on here? For forty years, 1924 to 1965, we had strict limits on immigration, strictly enforced. The nation flourished. In 1965 we changed the law to a much more generous sytem, but still one with rules and prescribed numbers. Now we are just waving in tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions, without any regard to their skill sets or likelihood of assimilating. What on earth is going on?

04 — The immigration imperative. What's going on? I wish I could tell you. We thumbsuckers here on the Dissident Right discuss this endlessly among ourselves. There's no shortage of candidate explanations. They're all plausible, but none of them seems to cover the case.

In my own mind I think of this under the heading "The Immigration Imperative" — some psychic driving force that has a strong grip on the collective imagination of the West. Each of those candidate explanations contributes to the force, is a component of it.

We actually know one of the ideological factors. Andrew Neather, a senior policy advisor to Tony Blair's Labour government in Britain, told us five years ago that Blair, Gordon Brown, and their fellow leftists in the government consciously wanted to make Britain multicultural and — these are Neather's words, quote — "rub the Right's nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date," end quote. There's no doubt a similar motive has been at work in the U.S.A. — a dislike of the nation's demography as constituted, a determination to change it.

There's simple political calculation mixed in with the ideology. The north-European welfare states that came up in the decades around 1900, and had spread to the rest of the West by the 1960s, were very wonderful things to Third World people. Allowed to settle in our nations, the Third Worlders naturally gave their votes to the class of managers and ideologues who run the welfare state. The bureaucrats and socialists naturally accepted those votes, and pandered to the newcomers.

There's also money at stake of course. A good steady flow of immigrant workers keeps down wages. Early 20th-century labor leaders all understood that, and campaigned for immigration restriction. The business lobbies of course took the other side. Nowadays a run for office is more expensive than ever, so the business donors are correspondingly more influential; and the labor union movement has been captured by public-sector employee lobbies, for whom poor, welfare-dependent immigrants are clients justifying more government jobs.

Economists are partly to blame, with their grand theoretical models of freely moving people promoting growth wherever they can be freely employed. These people are featureless stick figures with no character or culture, let alone — perish the thought! — any biology.

Jew-haters will tell you it's all the fault of you-know-who: an evil scheme — or, in the kinder'n'gentler theories of Kevin MacDonald, a "group evolutionary strategy" — to break up the gentile culture that was so beastly to their ancestors.

My stock reply to this is that if 97 percent of the U.S. population are such fools as to let themselves be manipulated by the other three percent, they deserve whatever's coming to them. Sure, Jews are way over-represented among open-borders fanatics, but Tony Blair and Gordon Brown aren't Jews, and there are many Jews on the other side, my side: I know several personally. And as Eric Kaufmann showed in his book The Rise and Fall of Anglo-America, sentimentality about immigrants goes way back before Jewish immigration, with deep roots in New England Protestantism.

And back of all that are speculative theories about the evolution of altruism, and ways that altruism can turn pathological. The blogger hbd*chick writes about this a lot, very intelligently, though it's still at this point all speculative. When, twenty or forty years from now, we know some actual facts about the way genes shape social behavior, we may have an answer to the question I keep asking:

What the hell is wrong with white people?

05 — No-one to vote for.     Let's descend from the aery aether of scientific speculation to the grimy exigencies of politics. We have midterm elections coming up in the U.S.A. How does immigration play into that?

Start with the polls. What do the American people think about immigration? The latest poll I can find is from Gallup, for this past June. Gallup asked the question, quote, "In your view, should immigration be kept at its present level, increased, or decreased?" The biggest number was for "decreased," 41 percent. Next was "keep at present level," 33 percent. Just 22 percent wanted immigration increased. Four percent had no opinion.

That's 74 percent, three-quarters of Americans, who do not want immigration increased, and a solid plurality, 41 percent, want it de-creased.

Those people have no voice. There is effectively, in most precincts, no-one they can vote for.

Could it be that the issue isn't salient? When reading opinion polls, you have to take salience into account. Ask people for an opinion about something, they'll give you one; but they don't necessarily care about that topic. There's a poll somewhere on whether people think Pluto should be reinstated as a planet, but that won't be deciding any of the November elections.

So how salient is immigration as an issue? Back to Gallup. In September they polled people on, quote, "What do you think is the most important problem facing this country today?"

"Immigration / Illegal aliens" ranked third, behind "Dissatisfaction with government" at number one and "Economy in general" at number two. So immigration is salient, way salient.

And still that 74 percent who do not want immigration increased, and the 41 percent who want it de-creased, have no-one to vote for.

Certainly the Republican Party is not their friend. A few mavericks like Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama aside, Republicans are either immigration boosters or else they just keep dead silent on the topic. Most of the big power players in the GOP — John Boehner, John McCain, Marco Rubio, Mitt Romney, Rand Paul, Newt Gingrich, Paul Ryan — are boosters.

Among the dead silent ones, last month I introduced you to Monica Wehby over in Oregon, who is challenging incumbent Democratic Senator Jeff Merkley, in next month's election. At that time I was only able to dredge up one thing Ms. Wehby had said about immigration, a remark from earlier in the year that she wants to, quote, "secure the border but increase H-1B visas and guest workers," end quote. Apparently Ms. Wehby does not know that H-1B visas are for guest workers, like the H-1C, H-2A, H-2B, H-3, I, L-1A, L-1B, O-1, P-1A, P-1B, P-2, P-3, Q, R-1, TN, and of course the E-1, E-2, E-3, and CW visas. We're not short of guest-worker categories. Ms. Wehby's ignorance on a topic salient to voters is really disgraceful.

In the month since I reported that, I haven't been able to discover that Ms. Wehby had anything else to say on the topic. A scan of her campaign commercials on YouTube shows her talking about growth, small businesses, corruption, Obamacare (of which she's critical), homosexual marriage (which she supports), and equal pay for women. Immigration? Couldn't find anything.

This is more surprising in Oregon than it might be elsewhere, for reasons that need another segment.

06 — Favors for scofflaws.     Along with the candidates in November's upcoming election, Oregon voters are presented with ballot measures they can vote up or down.

One of these ballot measures is Ballot Measure 88, which, quote, "Provides Oregon resident 'driver card' without requiring proof of legal residence in the United States," end quote. In other words, it grants four-year state drivers licenses to illegals.

The cheap-labor lobbies have been spending a lot of money to persuade Oregon voters to pass this measure. They have a website, YES ON 88, that boasts, quote: "Small business owners, farmers, religious leaders and law enforcement all agree that YES ON 88 will help improve the safety of our communities." That's followed by a long list of endorsers.

"Small business owners" turns out to mean mostly restaurants. "Farmers," right; "religious leaders," uh-huh. I don't actually see anything that counts as "law enforcement." The nearest thing is the American Immigration Lawyers' Association; but lawyers don't enforce the law, they just argue it.

There are lots of public-sector employee lobbies on the list of endorsers. (Radio Derb refuses to call them "unions," which is what they call themselves.) Also lots of ethnic lobby groups.

That list of endorsers for Measure 88 is in alphabetic order. Let me just read off the L's to you, to give the flavor:

La Placita (that's the name of a town in Mexico, and a common name for Mexican restaurants)
La Placita / Jazmeen Jewelry
Las Mujeres De La Raza (that's Spanish for "The Women of the Race")
Latino Business Alliance
Latino Network
Latinos Unidos Siempre (Spanish for "Latinos for ever united")
Latino Victory Fund
League of Minority Voters
Lemelson Vineyards
Lincoln Restaurant
Loosen J. Christopher Wines (another vineyard)
Lotus Rising Project (an ACORN-type Cultural Marxist outfit demanding special privileges for blacks, homosexuals, and the rest)
LULAC of Lane County (LULAC is the League of United Latin American Citizens)

You get the idea. That claim at the YES ON 88 website to have endorsers from law enforcement is a stretch, to put it mildly. I don't say they may not have a cop or two on their side, but if you go to the opposing website, who might have called themselves NO ON 88 but in fact are named PROTECT OREGON DRIVER LICENSES, "PODL" for short, the very first thing you see is from the Sheriffs of Oregon, "Conserving the Peace since 1845." Quote from them:

28 Sheriffs voted to oppose drivers cards. The remaining eight sheriffs have not taken a public position on the measure to our knowledge.

End quote. So law enforcement looks to be pretty solidly against giving drivers licenses to illegals.

So are Oregonians, according to the polls. One taken in the second week of October logged 60 percent "no" against 31 percent "yes." That's in spite of the fact that PODL, the "no" campaign, has been out-spent in advertising and lobbying by about ten dollars to one.

With a wind like that at her back, you'd think Monica Wehby would have had something to say about immigration, if only about the illegal variety. If she has, I can't find it. Probably she still doesn't know that the H-1B is a type of guest-worker visa.

So why isn't Monica Wehby talking about immigration? Is it because she's doing just fine by not talking about it? Hardly; her campaign is tanking. She's 10 to 15 percentage points behind the Democratic incumbent, according to a poll last Sunday. Only 52 percent of Republicans plan to vote for her.

It's true Ms. Wehby has run a clumsy campaign. It's also true, though, that her opponent is a colorless nonentity with a record of doing nothing much in the Senate.

And it is further true that there, out among the voters of Oregon, is all that feeling against favors for illegal aliens; and Ms. Wehby won't touch the topic. There's the political equivalent of a hundred-dollar bill lying there in the road, and she won't pick it up.

And Republicans wonder why they're called the Stupid Party!

07 — Words and music.     I took some criticism from listeners last week for calling Bob Dylan a genius. Sample email, quote:

In 2006 you asked why we no longer produce fine poets like John Betjeman. The answer is, it's your fault. Not just yours of course, but you're an unindicted co-conspirator. You can't call Bob Dylan a genius and expect poets to struggle for excellence.

End quote. Actually, I can. I make no claims for Dylan as a poet. I have three shelves of poetry books here in my study, total length about twelve feet, and not one book of Dylan lyrics. If there is one, I have no plan to buy it. They guy is a singer-songwriter, and that's his genius. He created a sound, a style, no-one had ever heard before. You think that's easy?

Here's an analogy. I'm an opera fan. There are operas I love, that I'd gladly travel forty miles and pay the outrageous seat prices for, but whose librettos are stupid.

I get to quote from myself here. This is from a column I wrote in 2001, longish quote:

In Bellini's [opera] La straniera … the following happens: The jealous Arturo, misunderstanding a meeting between the heroine and her brother, accuses the brother of being his rival. He stabs the brother, who falls into a lake. Apprised of his error by the girl, he throws himself into the lake to save the brother. Both men disappear beneath the waters. The heroine picks up Arturo's sword and calls for help. People come running and, seeing her with the bloody sword, charge her with murder. At her trial, Arturo suddenly rushes in ("oppressed and gasping"). He confesses to her brother's murder. While everyone is stunned by this, the brother walks in. "A God came to my aid," he explains.

End quote. I'm sure Bob Dylan could have worked up something more plausible. La straniera's a lovely opera none the less, and Bellini was a genius, though even more unpleasant in person than Dylan. Even his biographer confessed he couldn't get to like the guy.

All of that, if I had more time, would segue nicely into three news items about opera this week. First item: An Australian opera company cancelling their production of Carmen because there is a song praising cigarettes in it. Second item: Members of the chorus of a French opera company refused to go on stage until a lady in the audience was removed. The lady was wearing a burka and face veil, the latter now illegal in France. Third item: John Adams' opera about the murder of Leon Klinghoffer during the Achille Lauro hijacking in 1985 has raised protests in New York City.

Alas, I'm getting short of time here, so I've said what I have to say about those opera stories in my weekly column at VDARE.com, and I refer you to that.

08 — Strategic leaks for Ferguson.     We've been getting strategic leaks about the Grand Jury deliberations in the Ferguson shooting.

In case your memory needs refreshing: Ferguson is a declining inner suburb of St. Louis, Missouri, where "declining" of course means what it always means: getting blacker. It's where an 18-year-old black man, Michael Brown, was shot by a white cop August 9th. The blacks of Ferguson expressed their disapproval by burning and looting local stores.

A grand jury's looking into the case with a view to possible indictment of the police officer, Darren Wilson. There have, as I said, been strategic leaks.

I'm assuming they're strategic, anyway. The whole case has been suffering badly from what I've called "narrative collapse." The narrative is the template that lefty reporters — who are pretty much the only kind of reporters in the mainstream media — fit their stories to. In the Ferguson case, the narrative requires a white person — the wrong kind of white person, you understand, not a white person like us — being beastly to a harmless, innocent black person. That's how the story gets reported.

Then comes the narrative collapse, when it turns out the white person was acting justifiably — and in the case of George Zimmerman, wasn't even actually white! — while the black person was far from harmless and a fair distance from innocent.

So it's playing out here: But in Ferguson the black rent-a-mob has been especially tenacious. There is a possibility of real, major civic disorder if the police officer, Darren Wilson is not indicted.

The authorities don't yet know whether Officer Wilson will be indicted or not, but they're behaving as though they believe he won't. To avert the disorder, they are therefore breaking the news to the mob a little at a time.

The big leak showed up in the New York Times, October 17th. Quote:

The police officer who fatally shot Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., two months ago has told investigators that he was pinned in his vehicle and in fear for his life as he struggled over his gun with Mr. Brown, according to government officials briefed on the federal civil rights investigation into the matter.

I can't think of any other reason those government officials would be leaking to the Times. Former St. Louis County Police Chief Tim Fitch agrees with me. The origin of the Times report, he says, was to, quote, "coordinate leaks to the media, and to start getting some of the facts out there to kind of let people down slowly." The Chief says he thinks the feds recognize that it's "probably very unlikely" that there are going to be charges against Officer Wilson.

The people you really have to feel sorry for here are the homeowners of Ferguson. Can you imagine what's happening to the market value of their properties?

A lot of those homeowners will be black. Ferguson, we all know, has been suffering from white flight. White flight has another side, though: what you might call black landing.

Imagine you're a working-class black guy, living with your wife and kids in a cruddy apartment in St. Louis around 1990. You have a job with the city, you've saved up a little money, you buy a house in Ferguson and move out there.

Life's good for a few years. Underclass blacks are seeping in, though, helped by Section Eight vouchers and federal mandates on "affordable housing." Along comes a police shooting, in comes the rent-a-mob, down burn the stores, and south goes your property value.

The mob doesn't care about any of that, of course. To them you're just a Tom. The politicians don't care, either, because they know you'll vote Democrat next election — which you will — so you're not worth the trouble of canvassing.

The name of this system is "multiracial democracy."

09 — Miscellany.     And now, our closing miscellany of brief items.

Imprimis:  Here's one of those stories that makes you wonder if the authorities know something they'd rather not tell us. Headline: Emergency Agencies Practice Response To Nuclear Explosion In Times Square. That's from CBS New York, October 22nd.

Yep, New York City's emergency services did a drill to see if they could respond to a 10-kiloton nuclear device exploding at 42nd Street and Seventh Avenue in Times Square. In the scenario, 100,000 people were instantly killed, a wave of overpressure took down buildings for a half-mile radius and did damage for up to two miles, and a radiation cloud swept over the region.

Pretty scary. Who on earth would want to do such a terrible thing?

And as scary as it sounds, if our diversity were to become a casualty, that would be worse.

Item:  The protests in Hong Kong simmer on, with protesters still camped out in the business district.

There have been efforts to get talks going. One by-product of those efforts was a sudden flash of frankness from a member of the globalist elite. This was Hong Kong's chief executive, Leung Chun-ying. Speaking October 20th Mr. Leung said that said if the public were allowed to nominate candidates in Hong Kong elections, then the city's poor would dominate the electoral process.

Well, we know they all think it; but it's unusual to hear one of them say it.

Item:  Dulwich College is a very tony private school for boys in London, England, not far from where my niece lives. The school was founded in 1619. Current fees go up to about $60,000 a year for boarders. Alumni include the mystery writer Raymond Chandler, the philosopher G.E. Moore, and — give it up please for UKIP leader Nigel Farage [applause].

Just the kind of place where you'd expect to find a fanatical communist … and no, I'm not speaking ironically. It is just that kind of place.

So here she is: music teacher Lesley Larkum, a member of the Revolutionary Communist Party of Britain (Marxist-Leninist).

Ms. Larkum is rather particularly a fan of North Korea, a country she has visited. She told the London Daily Mail that she hopes to educate her pupils about North Korea's music, and to teach them North Korean songs: you know, songs like "We Shall Hold Bayonets More Firmly," "The Dear General Uses Distance-Shrinking Magic," and "The Song of Bean Paste."

I wish Ms. Larkum luck with her project, while quietly hoping she'll find a way to slip some Bob Dylan in there.

10 — Signoff.     That's it for this week, ladies and gents. There will be a broadcast next week as usual, but I can't guarantee the quality of it, as next Friday is Halloween. We'll be having a big party here at the studio, and things have been known to get out of hand once the ouzo gets flowing. Rest assured I will do my best to maintain Radio Derb's high standards of professionalism and technical expertise technical expertise technical expertise technical expertise …

Let's have some North Korean music to see us out. Here's a foot-tapping little number titled mijega deombyeodeulmyeon jug-eum-eul juli, which means "Death to U.S. Imperialism." For $60,000 a year you can have Ms. Larkum teach it to your kids.

More from Radio Derb next week.

[Music clip: DPRK Army Choir, "Death to U.S. Imperialism."]