»  Radio Derb — Transcript

        Friday, October 7th, 2016

•  Play the sound file (duration 52m13s).

This text will be replaced by the flash music player.

—————————

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

01 — Intro.     And Radio Derb is on the air! Greetings, listeners, from your epistemically genial host John Derbyshire, here with a ration of the week's news.

I have no bulletin items for you this week, no public service announcements, and no advertisements, so let's proceed straight to the week's main news item, which was of course the Vice Presidential candidates debate on Tuesday. Who was in the show? What did we learn? And what did I think?

Here we go.

02 — The Veep debate.     This week saw the Vice Presidential candidates debate. For the Democrats: 58-year-old Tim Kaine, Senator from Virginia for the past four years, before that Governor of Virginia for four years. For the Republicans: 57-year-old Mike Pence, who'd traveled in the opposite career direction, from legislature to executive. He's been Governor of Indiana for four years; before that he was a congressman for ten years.

I must say, it was encouraging to see two boring fifty-something white guys contesting for high office. The fact of them both being Roman Catholics took a little bit of the shine off, though. Are white Protestant males now excluded not only from the Supreme Court but from public life altogether? The Founding Fathers would have been astounded. But then, the Founding Fathers were all racist, sexist, heteronormative, cisgendered oppressors, so I guess it's all right.

The debate organizers were none the less faced with the horrifying prospect, as they were in the Trump-Clinton debate, that this might be an all-white show. Worse yet: It might be an all-white, all-male show. [Scream.] To avoid a catastrophic collapse in the local spacetime continuum, they picked a nonwhite moderator, 42-year-old Elaine Quijano, who is of Filipino ancestry.

I concur with the general opinion that Mike Pence, Donald Trump's running mate, came through the better of the two principals. He was boring middle-aged white guy-ness incarnate. Kaine came through as a little obnoxious, like one of those harmless but small dogs that yap-yap-yap around your feet when you're trying to have an intelligent conversation.

Ms Quijano of course did what she could to help Kaine. Even the New York Times admitted this (although they later de-admitted it). Memo to network suits: Next time you want a partisan female Filipino-American to moderate a political debate, give Michelle Malkin a call.

Some cynics dismissed the Veep debate as inconsequential. I mean, Vice Presidential candidates? Who cares?

That's not good citizenship. Our republic has had 47 Vice Presidents. Fourteen of them became President; that's 30 percent. Nine of them became President by accident, via the death or resignation of the Chief; that's 19 percent.

Those are nontrivial probabilities, the more so as age-wise, both of our two Presidential candidates are outliers historically. Furthermore, both of them face noisy, angry, well-financed lobbies who would like to see them impeached if elected.

So what might we expect from a President Pence or a President Kaine? There is not much doubt about the answer in either case, as both Vice Presidential candidates have long political rap sheets.

Pence would be what my former boss, National Review editor Rich Lowry, calls "a normal Republican." That is to say, he would stand athwart History crying: "Might you possibly consider just slowing down a teeny bit?" To put it another way, he is exactly the kind of Republican that actual Republican voters rejected decisively in the primaries.

My current boss, VDARE.com's Peter Brimelow, correctly notes that Pence did a good job of defending Trump's positions on immigration in the debate. And indeed, NumbersUSA gives Pence an overall grade of B-plus on immigration during his congressional career, which is better than the average "normal Republican."

If you read further through the NumbersUSA report, though, there are some soft brown spots in Pence's record. On H-1B visas to replace middle-class American workers with cheaper foreign hires, for example, he gets an F-minus. Ouch.

At this point I'll take what I can get on immigration; but I wouldn't trust President Pence, any more than any other "normal Republican," not to fold to the cheap labor and anti-white lobbies if push came to congressional shove in a Pence Presidency.

Tim Kaine completes the overall pattern of this election. On one side, we have candidates who are saying a lot of the right things on National Question topics but who we don't altogether trust to follow through in office; while on the other side we have dead certainties for more Cultural Marxist enforcement, demographic replacement, open borders, futile wars, fiscal recklessness, and anti-white jurisprudence.

Kaine is a Goodwhite ethnomasochist out of Central Casting. His natural métier would be supervising a Safe Space for transgender Latinos at some liberal arts college. He actually used to make a living, before he went into politics, arguing before the courts against freedom of association for white Americans.

A Tim Kaine Presidency would be four years of unrelieved Goodwhite preachiness. It doesn't bear thinking about. The intensely self-righteous obnoxiousness he displayed in this debate is characteristic of the breed.

I can't summon up much enthusiasm for a "normal Republican," but I'm glad Mike Pence won this round.

03 — Where is the Alt-Left?     With all the talk there's been about the Alt-Right, we haven't heard anything about an Alt-Left. Why not?

There's plenty of room on the political spectrum for an Alt-Left, which I'm going to assume would mean a race-realist Left. Through most of the twentieth century the Left's strongest card in electoral democracies was the Welfare State. At the electoral level — I'm not speaking of intellectuals here, only of retail politics — the race issue only got tacked on in the 1960s, with the rise of the Civil Rights movement.

The older generations of leftists were frank race realists. Karl Marx himself used the n-word as a term of abuse. William Jennings Bryan, the great Left-populist of the Progressive Era, opposed giving blacks the vote. Left-wing novelist Jack London wrote seriously unkind things about blacks and Asians … and so on. The mid-20th-century Democratic Party may have been the Party of the Little Guy, but it was the little white guy mostly, as their strength in the old Confederacy showed.

The welfare state will go on being popular, the more so as lifespans increase and jobs are wiped out by automation. Will race denialism go on being popular, though? It gives a nice warm rush of moral superiority to today's Goodwhites; but that same rush could be supplied from other sources — animal rights, for example. And race denialism, like Flat Earthism, is vulnerable to refutation by discoveries in science. The Left is supposed to be the science-respecting side of the political spectrum.

You might say that the Alt-Left was already in evidence this campaign season in the Bernie Sanders movement, which was pretty solidly white — so much so that Mrs Clinton was moved to protest about it. Those were gentry liberals, though, securely locked into Goodwhite hypocrisy, scandalized by any negativity towards nonwhites while keeping their own neighborhoods white and sending their kids to private schools. Sanders himself defers meekly to black activists, even allowing them to shut down one of his campaign events.

You might also say that the modern Democratic Party would be fatally weaker if it cast off its nonwhite component. Probably it would; but it may turn out that the Republican Party has been fatally weakened this campaign season by GOP primary voters turning away from its Conservatism, Inc. component. That may be true too; but it's happened none the less. Possibly our entire political party structure is due for collapse and rebuilding.

These thoughts were inspired by Ross Douthat's October 5th column in the New York Times, title: A Trumpism of the Left.

Douthat's not calling for a racially honest American Left — an Alt-Left as I have defined it — and if he were, the Times would not have published him. He is only wondering if there might be a Left style of Trumpism waiting in the historical wings somewhere: a kick-ass Left populism in the style we associate with Latin America; nowadays also with, quote from Douthat, "the ranting, trigger-happy president of the Philippines, Rodrigo Duterte."

Our liberal Goodwhite elites would of course be hurling themselves from high windows if that happened. Again, though, that's pretty much what Conservatism, Inc. panjandrums like George W. Bush and William Kristol have been doing over the rise of Trump, and it hasn't made a difference.

Donald Trump is not the Alt-Right, and Bernie Sanders is not the Alt-Left. They both, though, in their different ways, may be harbingers of radical political changes to come. Politics nowadays is really interesting.

04 — A conservative case for Mrs Clinton.     Let us bring to mind the Oliver Cromwell rule. That great man wrote to the elders of the Church of Scotland, quote: "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken," end quote. The Scots unfortunately did not think it possible, so Cromwell had to invade their country and crush their army at the Battle of Dunbar.

I am wiser than the Scottish church elders. I am willing to think it possible I may be mistaken. In that spirit, let's take a look at the case for Mrs Clinton.

My reference here is to a September 28th post by Scott Alexander at the center-Left blog Slate Star Codex. It's a very long post, nearly five thousand words, so I'll just give you an executive summary of Alexander's eight main points.

Point One. Fiscal management, Republican versus Democrat. The Iraq War cost two trillion dollars; Obamacare cost 1.2 trillion. They're both disasters; but Obamacare is a cheaper disaster — and hey, we get some health care.

Point Two. Trumpism is utopian. It's millennarian. It's chiliastic. It immanentizes the eschaton.

For those who don't know what I'm talking about, there has been a strain of thinking throughout human history, in all civilizations, arguing that a world of perfect peace and justice will one day appear, either by divine intervention or by human revolutionary action. The Christian doctrine of the Second Coming, when Christ returns to Earth for a thousand-year reign, is millennarian; that's where the word comes from. "Chiliastic" is the equivalent word with a Greek root. For "immanentizing the eschaton" I refer you to the writings of Eric Voegelin and William F. Buckley, Jr.

Millennarianism has a long and ghastly history. The ghastliest episode was the Taiping Rebellion in 19th-century China. "Taiping" is short for "Taiping Tianguo," which means "the Heavenly Kingdom of Perfect Peace." The rebellion was suppressed at last by the Imperial authorities, with help from some foreign adventurers — including Harry Flashman — at a cost in lives so large the death toll is not known even to the nearest ten million.

The greatest manifestation of millennarianism in the twentieth century was of course communism. Conservatives are naturally ill-disposed towards millennarian thinking. Well, says Scott Alexander, Trumpism is millennarian. Quote:

This election, it's Hillary who sounds restrained and realistic, and Trump who wants the moon on a silver platter ("It will be the best moon you've ever seen. And the silver platter is going to be yuuuuuge!")

End quote.

Point Three. Trump is a high-variance choice. That's a hifalutin way of saying he's less of a known quantity. Quote:

Maybe he'll kind of dodder around and be kind of funny while not changing much. Or maybe there will be some crisis and Trump will take what could have been a quickly-defused diplomatic incident and turn it into World War III. Remember also that it's more likely the House and Senate both stay Republican than that they both switch to being Democrat. So if Hillary is elected, she'll probably spend four years smashing her head against Congress; if Trump is elected, he will probably get a lot of what he wants.

End quote.

Point Four. Quote: "U.S. conservatism is in crisis, and I think that crisis might end better if Trump loses than if he wins," end quote.

Alexander's saying that the country needs a good, intellectually-grounded conservative movement. The present conservative movement isn't up to the job; it needs overhauling. If Trump wins, we'll have to wait four years or more for the overhaul to start. If he loses, it starts around Thanksgiving.

Point Five. Mrs Clinton will do stuff about global warming; Trump won't.

Point Six. The cultural Establishment — the academy, the media, the arts, and so on — tend to define themselves in opposition to the government. Quote: "When the left controls the government, this is awkward and tends to involve a lot of infighting. When the right controls the government, it gets easy. If Trump controls the government, it gets ridiculously easy." End quote.

Point Seven. Likely Trump will fail; and even if he doesn't fail, quote:

The media will say he failed and people will believe them. And when the anti-PC, anti-social-justice President fails, the reaction will be a giant "we told you so" from the social justice movement, and a giant shift of all the disillusioned young people right into their fold.

End quote. Not sure I understood this one, but see if you can figure it out for yourself.

Point Eight. Epistemic virtue. That is Alexander's phrase for what he elsewhere calls "the long and painful process of having to justify our beliefs." Epistemic virtue is the opposite of point'n'sputter; it's the opposite of confusing disagreement with evil; it's the opposite of mistaking a dissenter who needs convincing for a thought-criminal who needs neutralizing. Epistemic virtue.

Trumpism, says Alexander, is short on epistemic virtue. Its triumph would move us even further away from epistemic virtue than we currently are.

Those are Scott Alexander's eight points, in summary. I hope I haven't misrepresented him. That would be an offense against epistemic virtue, although an involuntary one.

You were probably thinking up objections to those points even as I was reading them off.

On point one, for example, I find it hard to believe that Donald Trump, who has for decades managed billion-dollar companies, would be a worse fiscal manager than Mrs Clinton, who has never managed anything bigger than a lemonade stand.

On point two, again it's hard to believe that a guy as steeped in gritty reality as Trump — putting up buildings, arguing with contractors — is in thrall to a cult of worldly perfection. Millennarianism is core thinking for the radical left — the foundation of their equalist fantasies, their refusal to look reality square in the face.

On point three, Mrs Clinton actually has a track record in the executive branch, and it includes igniting foolish wars. Not WW3, to be sure; but then, she was only Secretary of State, and didn't face a crisis with a nuclear power adversary. As President, her scope would be wider.

As for known and unknown quantities: How much of a known quantity, in the matter of executive experience, was Barack Obama in 2008?

Point four, that rejecting Trump will help the conservative movement get back in shape, sounds to me like concern trolling.

And so on. I leave refuting Alexander's other points as an exercise for the listener. If you need help, there is a long and intelligent comment thread following Alexander's piece, commenters making most of the points you might yourself think of.

As can be seen, I was not persuaded by Scott Alexander's post. I'm still a Trump voter.

I did heed Oliver Cromwell's advice, though; I did think it possible I may be mistaken. I just concluded that I'm not. Epistemic-virtue-wise, I'm clean.

I'm going to thank Scott Alexander anyway for an anti-Trump piece that is at least more than pointing and sputtering. Also for the phrase "epistemic virtue," which I think is kind of nifty.

05 — Why don't black immigrants succumb to "systemic racism"?     VDARE.com is an immigration-restrictionist website. We're also race realist: We accept that in a multiracial society, different races will inevitably, in the generality, precipitate out at different levels, in defiance of any social-engineering intervention not absolutely totalitarian.

Given all that, what do we think about black immigration?

I raise the subject because there have been a couple of news stories recently on, or near, this topic.

Here's an October 6th story from Lifezette.com, a website I haven't yet got a firm handle on so far as its political orientation is concerned, but which has some good interesting posts.

This particular story is a kick in the crotch to the jabber about "implicit bias" and "systemic racism" that we've been hearing from Mrs Clinton and her Vice Presidential sidekick in recent speeches and debates.

Headline: Outcomes for Black Immigrants Undercut Notion of Systemic Racism. Subheading: "Black newcomers find success, suggesting factors other than race hold back black Americans." Opening sentence, quote:

Black immigrants, on average, earn more money and use less welfare than blacks born in the United States, raising doubts about the reach and impact of systemic racism.

End quote. It continues with lots of statistics about how much better immigrant blacks do socially than native blacks.

The whole article is pretty level-headed. For example, they quote Steve Camarota, director of research at the Center for Immigration Studies, without bothering to tell readers, as media outlets normally do, that the Southern Poverty Law Center has tagged CIS as a hateful nest of hate-filled haters who favor the public stoning of illegal immigrants.

The Camarota quote pretty much gives the game away. Camarota notes that thirty percent of black immigrants have college degrees, compared with less than twenty percent of American-born blacks. In other words, we're importing the smart ones.

Sub-Saharan Africa has a billion people. Even with a very low average IQ, that's a heck of a big bell curve, and the extreme right-hand tail has tens of thousands of high-IQ persons in it. A lot of them want to get out of their crappy, corrupt, sinkhole countries, and the U.S.A. is highly favored as a destination.

So, no surprise they're doing well. There are other things to be said, though.

One is "regression towards the mean." Very smart people are sports of nature. Their kids will be smart too, since intelligence is partly heritable, but not as smart as their parents. The overall effect is beneficial in the long run, as regression towards the mean fades with succeeding generations, leaving you with a sub-population — the descendants of these immigrants — overall smarter than the home population back in Africa. That's how Natural Selection works! They just won't be as smart as the original immigrants.

And then there's chain migration. Johnny Fortune from Nigeria may be an excellent fellow; but under our current, insane immigration rules he'll be sponsoring numerous relatives for settlement visas, along with friends and acquaintances who have bribed easily-bribable Nigerian government clerks to provide fake documents "proving" they are related to Johnny. It's statistically unlikely that any of these folk are as smart as Johnny.

And then of course there are the "refugee" rackets. We don't give IQ tests to refugees; and the bribery factor applies here even more so.

With refugees from Africa there are also health issues. Africa is the home of unpleasant diseases, and our refugee screening procedures seem not to be very good.

Just this week we got news that an eight-year-old refugee boy from the Congo died shortly after landing at O'Hare airport in Chicago. The boy was sick prior to the flight, we are told, and suffered diarrhea and vomiting. The Centers for Disease Control got involved, but so far I haven't seen a diagnosis in the news stories.

And then there are African illegals. A visitor or student visa for the U.S.A. isn't that hard to get; and once you're in, you're in. If you can't get a U.S. visa, get one for some South or Central American country, and head north.

This is a fast-growing problem. Daily Caller, October 5th, headline: There's Also An African Migrant Crisis On America's Southern Border. Leadoff sentence, quote:

Just as Europe has experienced a surge of African migrants, Central American countries have experienced a sharp increase in African migrants in 2016 who see the United States as their final destination.

End quote. And, as I keep reminding you, the U.S.A. has already received its first load of African boat people.

Surveying the world at large, it looks as though a good first cut for a sensible immigration policy into Western nations would be: no blacks, no Muslims. The problem with that, in the case of the U.S.A., is the offense it would naturally give to our own black citizens.

I'm not sure how much offense that would be: I recall a couple of incidents — including one actual fist-fight — that suggest much resentment by American blacks towards black immigrants, who, as described in the article I opened with, leapfrog over native blacks into the middle and upper-middle class.

A ban on black immigrants would be an implicit slight on the blackness of our black fellow Americans none the less. The best way around this would be a moratorium on all immigration from anywhere, which is what I argue for here at Radio Derb. Then no citizen has any reason to be offended by our immigration policy, plus we can get to work assimilating the tens of millions who have come in across recent decades.

A sidebar issue here, always worth a mention, is the enthusiasm that immigration fanatics apparently have for plundering the human capital of the Third World. Every one of those high-IQ blacks we're taking in is one less high-IQ person in the source country, to help develop and improve that country.

The Left has been bellyaching for ever about how evil white Europeans stole natural resources from the nations they colonized. OK: If stealing natural resources is bad, why isn't stealing human resources also bad, if not worse?

Personally I couldn't care less what happens to Nigeria, Zimbabwe, or Haiti. But Goodwhites claim they do care; yet they seem to be fine with our accepting all the smart people from those places, depleting their already too small stocks of high-quality human capital.

They're hypocrites. You knew that, of course; but it's always worth saying again.

As is the following thing: If "systemic racism" and "implicit bias" explain the under-performance of black Americans, why don't they work their evil magic against black immigrants?

06 — Persons and unpersons at the Museum of American Blackness.     Radio Derb was remiss in not having covered last month's opening of The Smithsonian National Museum of African American History and Culture, in a prominent place on the Mall in central Washington, D.C.

I haven't yet had an opportunity to visit the Museum, and by some strange omission I was not invited to the opening ceremony, but I shall certainly drop by next time I am in our nation's capital.

Trawling through the Museum's website here, there are of course the usual kinds of things you'd expect: slave manacles, documents from the Freedman's Bureau, masses of displays and photographs on Harriet Tubman, Frederick Douglass and Booker T. Washington.

It's shameful that they don't teach this stuff in our high schools, shameful. Our young people grow up knowing nothing, nothing about these black heroes!

I see there are some exciting and innovative exhibits at the museum, too: an entire wall of black gestures, for example. Did you know there are characteristic black gestures? No, neither did I. Well, I know that running up behind a random white stranger and punching him really hard in the head is a characteristically black thing, but I'm not sure it counts as a gesture.

The Guardian newspaper in London, Britain's chief outlet for CultMarx propaganda, hailed the opening of the Museum as, actual quote from the headline of their story, "A welcome rebuke to dead white men."

That's great, isn't it? Just what we Badwhites need: another rebuke to our ancestors. The ancient Chinese had a religion of ancestor worship; we have a religion of ancestor rebuke.

Here's one person you won't find in the Museum of African American History and Culture, unless you look really hard: Clarence Thomas, our country's second black Supreme Court justice — who, by the way, attains the 25th anniversary of his confirmation to the Court next week, October 15th.

Justice Thomas ought to be an ideal subject for a full-case display at the Museum. Descended from slaves, he was born into serious rural poverty in the Jim Crow South, made his way by diligent study to Yale Law School, then climbed up through state and federal attorney positions to the Supreme Court.

He is also very black. I can testify to this, having met him once. Possibly that's the reason for his exclusion from the museum, I don't know. Institutions of this kind are usually brought to us and supervised by light-skinned blacks, or at darkest by mulattos like Barack Obama. Perhaps that explains it; perhaps Justice Thomas didn't pass the Paper Bag Test, I don't know.

Much more probably he's been passed over for not toeing the CultMarx ideological line. Thomas is a conservative, whose lucid and well-written opinions have done nothing to advance the cause of tearing down the hateful edifice of white male capitalist oppression.

At any rate, the Museum didn't see him as a fit subject for a display. His name appears only once, in an exhibit featuring Anita Hill, the black feminist who tried to derail Thomas's confirmation by the Senate Judiciary Committee.

The Breitbart.com news story I've worked from here tells us that, quote: "The museum didn't return Breitbart News's request for comment," end quote.

What. A. Surprise. Perhaps they were too busy putting the finishing touches to the O.J. Simpson Room.

Should you seek a different angle on the black American experience, may I suggest The Jim Crow Museum of Racist Memorabilia at Ferris University in Big Rapids, Michigan. It features exhibits with names like "The Mammy Caricature,"  "The Tragic Mulatto," and of course "Golliwog Stereotypes."

Again, Justice Thomas isn't given any prominence in the Jim Crow Museum, in spite of having grown up under Jim Crow. He does get a mention in the "The Tom Caricature" exhibit, which tells us that, quote:

Black political conservatives, especially Republicans, are often labeled "Uncle Toms" or "Toms." Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas; Alan Keyes, the Republican presidential candidate; Shelby Steele, the professor and author; Thomas Sowell, the economist; and Walter Williams, the neighborhood activist, have all been publicly called "Uncle Toms." They are accused of being white-identified opportunists. Their motives are impugned.

End quote. Well, that's at least more neutral than yoking Thomas to Anita Hill. Perhaps I'll pass up the Washington museum and instead swing by Big Rapids next time I'm in the Midwest.

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

Imprimis:  How did Hungary's October 2nd referendum come out? This, recall, was the event I told you about in last week's Radio Derb: a referendum, a népszavazás, set up by Hungary's National Conservative government asking whether the European Union should be able to force Hungary to accept settlement of non-European invaders, even against the wishes of Hungary's national parliament.

As sort-of predicted by my somewhat equivocal report last week, many Hungarians seem to have thought the referendum as worded missed the point, and that any result would make no difference anyway. There was thus a low turnout.

Of those who did show up to vote, 98 percent voted No — that the EU should not have that power. Total turnout was only 43 percent, though, short of the 50 percent needed to make the result legally valid.

It was none the less politically valid — a hearty shout of defiance by patriotic Hungarians against globalist open-borders bureaucrats, in this case Euro-crats.

So, legally binding or not, this was yet another assertion of national sovereignty against what my late Uncle Fred used to call "the love-the-world crowd." It will be filed in the history books along with Britain's Brexit vote and the coming election of Donald Trump as another nail in the coffin of elite imperialism.

And for the propagandists of globalism, let me explain once again, for the 93rd time, that the opposite of loving the world is not hating the world: the opposite of loving the world is loving one's own country more than I love other people's countries, however much I may like them.

Item:  Just a brief comment on the fuss over director Tim Burton's new movie. Steve already covered this at more length, but I'll put my two cents in.

The movie is titled Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children. The eponymous home is on a Welsh island during WW2.

What's the fuss about? Well, all the children in the home are white. That's what the fuss is about. No, really.

It's not, please understand, that all the people in the movie are white. Listed third in the billing at movie database IMBd.com is Samuel L. Jackson. No, it's just all the kids in this home on a Welsh island during WW2.

That has got the Los Angeles Times honking, more in fake sorrow than in phony anger, that, honk: "Burton's hallmark as a director is, and always has been, his imagination, his vision. It is sad to discover that, in this regard, he has neither." End honk.

The L.A. Times hit piece includes one of the nastiest bits of journalistic malfeasance I've seen in a while. Justifying the notion that a place in 1940s Wales should show some blacks present there, the Times writes that, quote:

The population of the United Kingdom at that time … boasted millions of people born abroad, from places like India, Jamaica, Pakistan and various African countries. Not a huge percentage of the population, mind you — according to a 1951 census, 4.2 percent of the total U.K. population — but enough.

As Steve shows, by the kind of quantitative analysis not nowadays taught at — in fact probably banned from — schools of journalism, the correct percentage for colored minorities is less than 0.2 percent. Even that tiny number would have been located wellnigh exclusively in big old seaports like London, Liverpool, and, if it's Wales you're interested in, Cardiff. I was born right at the end of WW2 and grew up in an average English town. I didn't see a colored person in the flesh until I was in my teens.

I'm not normally a fan of fantasy movies, but I shall make a point of seeing Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children, just to put a few cents in Tim Burton's pocket, and to vex the preening, sneering, lying fake journalists at the L.A. Times.

Item:  In case you don't really believe that the European Union is a totalitarian project, here's a story about their latest ukase to the British government.

This ukase, 83 pages long, published on October 4th, urges the British government to establish a press regulator charged with seeing that British newspapers don't engage in "hate speech," which apparently includes factually reporting the ethnicity and religious affiliation of terrorists.

They generously note that hate speech is already outlawed in Britain, as indeed it is. Last month a retired soccer star was arrested, booked, and tried in court for telling a black security guard in a dark room that he couldn't tell whether the guard was smiling or not — a microaggression if ever I heard one. Found guilty, the perp had to pay a fine of $3,000.

That is the state of affairs in what was once a free country. It's not good enough for the Eurocrats, though. With microaggressions already illegal, they are going after nanoaggressions. That dealt with, they will move on to picoaggressions, and so ad infinitum.

Fortunately Britain will be out of the EU soon, although it's still not clear when. This may save the Brits from being turned into a nation of zombies whose white inhabitants dare say nothing but soothing words to their colored fellow citizens, and dare show no facial expression in their presence but a fixed smile.

That sound you can hear is George Orwell turning in his grave.

08 — Signoff.     That's this week's portion, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for listening; and to my Muslim listeners, who I am sure must be legion, a very happy new year! There, see, the rest of you didn't know, did you, that October 3rd was Muslim New Year, the year 1438.

To celebrate the Muslim New Year, I'd like to play you some Muslim music. Unfortunately I don't know any; so instead, here's a novelty song totally unrelated to anything in this broadcast — indeed, to anything at all, as far as I can see.

More from Radio Derb next week.

[Music clip: Arthur Godfrey, "I'm a Lonely Little Petunia in an Onion Patch."]