»  Radio Derb — Transcript

        Saturday, March 7th, 2015


•  Play the sound file


[Music clip: From Haydn's Derbyshire March No. 2, fife'n'drum version]

01 — Intro.     And Radio Derb is on the air! This is your percipiently genial host John Derbyshire with some gems from the week's news.

The most important news story of the week from the point of view of our country, its population, and its future, was the capitulation in Congress of resistance to Barack Obama's flooding the country with illegal aliens. Let's lead off with that.


02 — Republicans fold on amnesty.     The President's executive orders granting amnesty to millions of illegals means much extra work for ICE, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency**, which reports to the DHS, the Department of Homeland Security. All that extra work needs funding; and funding of government operations is the responsibility of Congress, now in the hands of the Republican Party.

The Republicans wrote up a funding bill for DHS, but added amendments that excluded funds to process Obama's mass amnesty. The bill passed the House and went to the Senate. Senate Democrats threatened to filibuster it, and Senate Republicans don't have the 60 votes required to quash a filibuster. So there was an impasse.

Radio Derb advised the Republicans to stand fast and not fund DHS, whose operations are mostly futile anyway, rather than yield on amnesty. For reasons I cannot fathom, congressional Republicans failed to heed my advice. On Tuesday this week they folded, and passed DHS funding without the amendments. Score one for Barack Obama and his plan to swamp the historic American nation with Democrat-voting low-IQ high-fertility future welfare clients from south of the border.

The capitulation here was of course catastrophic, and opened up a number of fault lines in our current political system. Let's explore that.

** A colleague points out that I got this wrong:

"Nope, the workload is for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, USCIS.

"And USCIS runs mostly off user fees, not congressional appropriations. So the important amendments included in the House-passed bill forbade the spending of user fees for carrying out the executive-diktat amnesty. (I think they did other things, too.)

"USCIS could have continued to carry out its other functions.

"So if the Repubs had said, over and over, that we're funding all of DHS except for the carrying out of the amnesty, they might have carried the day. But as Thomas Sowell would say, most Repubs are completely inarticulate."


03 — Obama's Supreme Soviet.     One thing you see clearly from the DHS funding fiasco is the power, the wellnigh imperial power, of a Democratic President.

As I noted in my sky-sundering bestseller We Are Doomed, the political history of the United States has featured a long tug-of-war between the executive and legislative power, between President and Congress, between the Hamiltonian tendency and the Madisonian. There is nothing new in that; and I don't think the Presidency in this era, as an institution, is any more imperial than at other times.

A Democratic President, though, has an advantage that a Republican President doesn't have: His congressional party will march in lockstep behind him. The congressional Democratic Party is now a solidly multiculturalist, open-borders bloc, united in hostility to the traditional American nation. There are no more Blue Dogs, no more conservative Democrats.

Congressional Republicans, on the other hand, are all over the place, with a center of gravity a millimeter or two to the right of New York Times liberalism, but a wide spread.

On the National Question, for example, there are open-borders Republicans like John Boehner and Mario Diaz-Balart in the House and Lindsey Graham and Mitch McConnell in the Senate; and there are immigration patriots like Representatives Duncan Hunter and Steve King and Senators Jeff Sessions and Jim Inhofe. There is, you might say, a diversity of opinions. A Republican President has to do some hard work to corral congressional majorities on National Question issues, supposing he wants to, which the last Republican President didn't.

Congressional Democrats are not like that, certainly not on the National Question. Let me boil it down to some basic numbers for you.

I just went to the NumbersUSA website and looked up the immigration score cards for congresscritters from both parties. NumbersUSA gives every congressperson a grade, from A+ down to F-, on immigration issues.

Among Republican House members, 69 percent — I'm going to work with percentages here, if you don't mind — 69 percent of GOP Representatives got graded A or A+, while 28 percent were F or F-. Got that? 69 percent firm immigration patriots, 28 percent total open borders. That's the House. Among Republican Senators, 59 percent were A or A+, eight percent were F or F-. See what I mean? Diversity!

Now the Democrats, once again in percentages. Democratic House members: A or A+, zero percent; F or F-, 99 percent. In fact it's worse than that: two Representatives were not graded, having no voting record on immigration. Of the others, every single one was graded F-! For Democrat Senators the unity was even more solid: 100 percent, every single one, was graded F-.

Where congressional Democrats are concerned, we're not even in the U.S.A. any more: This might as well be the Supreme Soviet. The President doesn't have to work these guys; he just has to stroll into the House chamber once a year and bask in the applause.

I don't see how you could want any more conclusive evidence that U.S. immigration policy is just a farm system for future Democratic voters. The incredible thing is that so many GOP legislators — 28 percent in the House, including the Speaker, eight percent in the Senate, including the Majority Leader — are just fine with it. These turkeys go gobbling into the division lobbies on every immigration issue and vote for Thanksgiving.

I'm tired of hearing Republicans called the Stupid Party. "Stupid" isn't even close. How about "the Suicide Party?"


04 — Jeb Bush, lead balloon.     To get the U.S.A. back to some semblance of demographic stability, it follows that it would help to not have a Democrat President. In the nation's present political configuration, that means having a Republican President.

How much it helps depends on who we get. Having an immigration romantic with longstanding family and business ties to Mexico, doesn't help a bit, as we discovered with George W. Bush. We'd discover it all over again with his brother Jeb, if Jeb ever got to be President. Fortunately for the Republic, that's looking increasingly unlikely.

Radio Derb very rarely makes predictions. These words get archived, and people like to throw stuff back at you. I'll make a prediction right now, though. One year from now — March 7th, 2016 — Jeb Bush will not be running for President. He will have withdrawn from the race.

[Added when archiving:  Yep. He dropped out February 20th 2016.]

I'm even tempted to halve that time span and say "six months from now …" but look, I'm a conservative, including a conservative gambler.

Jeb's already in difficulties. He's polling third among Republicans for the New Hampshire primaries, which are only eleven months away, behind Rand Paul and Chris Christie, in spite of having bags of money and major name recognition. And as lackluster as his performance is among Republicans at large, he is really unpopular among conservatives. In the CPAC straw poll last week he placed fifth, with eight percent, behind Rand Paul, Scott Walker, Ted Cruz, and Ben Carson. Jeb can console himself with the reflection that he at least out-polled Donald Trump.

Frankly I don't see anyone on the current list of GOP hopefuls that I'd vote for with any enthusiasm. I saw Rand Paul speak last month at the Bartley dinner, as reported on Radio Derb. In the 2012 campaign I got to question him across a table at National Review. Nice guy and a decently good speaker, but clueless on the National Question.

I want my kids to live in the U.S.A., not Brazil. I also want a candidate who'll stand up to the multiculturalists and black grievance rackets. That's not Paul. The guy took breakfast with Al Sharpton, for crying out loud, last November at Sharpton's request. Nobody who wants my vote should touch Sharpton with a ten-foot pole, other than to whack him on his lying, hustling, cocaine-dealing, murder-inciting, tax-dodging reverend head with it. Rudy Giuliani, when he was Mayor of New York City, banned Sharpton from City Hall, and once canceled a meeting on the spot when he saw Sharpton among the attendees. That's the right way to deal with Sharpton.

So no, I can't see voting for Rand Paul with any enthusiasm; or at all, unless I really have time on my hands come Election Day.

Who else have we got? Next segment.


05 — The GOP nitwit lineup.     Of the other three ahead of Jeb Bush in the CPAC poll, Scott Walker appeals the most. He has showed real spine standing up to the public-sector employee lobbies, and I heartily applaud him for that.

(Once again, if you're new to Radio Derb, we refuse to call these public-sector lobbies "unions." They're not seeking a bigger share of some private employer's profits, as unions do; they're seeking a bigger share of the public fisc, and that makes them lobbies, not unions.)

I'm not convinced that Walker is ready for national office, though. He was in favor of amnesty for illegals just two years ago. He's been walking back from that position in recent interviews, but that's coming late to the party.

You have to wonder — as I do with Marco Rubio, another amnesty penitent — how deep the sincerity is there, and whether they'll be right back mumbling about "a path to citizenship" when the big-money donors from the cheap-labor lobbies tug on the leash.

Ted Cruz is more sound on illegal immigration, but unfortunately nuts on the legal kind. He wants to greatly expand the H-1B program to undercut American tech workers and push them out of jobs. No sale.

Ben Carson is far worse, a total amnesty enthusiast, and dumb as a stick on legal immigration. "We need a guest-worker program," he says in his book, as if this was some brilliant, original idea he just had.

Once again, I'm sorry, I have to quote myself here, from a letter I wrote to the New York Post when they editorially called for a guest-worker program. Quote from my letter, which was of course not published, quote:

Under the heading "Temporary (Nonimmigrant) Worker" the website of the U.S. Customs and Immigration Service lists twenty-one guest-worker visa categories: CW-1, E-1, E-2 (two types), E-3, H-1B, 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, and TN. These 21 visa categories encompass all kinds of workers, from seasonal agricultural laborers to concert pianists.

If you are in the presence of one of these nitwit politicians when he calls for a guest-worker program, politely ask him why, when we already have 21 such programs, we need a 22nd? For maximum effect, memorize that list of visa categories. I've actually had the opportunity to try this with a couple of national-level politicians, and I tell you, it's royal fun. Deer in the headlights.


06 — Who wants Hillary?     I guess for balance I should take a look at how the Democratic field for 2016 is shaping up.

Hillary Clinton's the big name there, of course. She's fast turning into the Jeb Bush of her party, though. That is, major name recognition, but as people start to concentrate on the race, fewer and fewer Democrats actually want her. Perhaps we really have had enough of Bushes and Clintons.

And Hillary's just not a very plausible candidate on any grounds. She was a mediocre Secretary of State: worse than mediocre if you think that, for example, we were better off when Libya was a stable, peaceful dictatorship under Gaddafy than we are now, when it is an arena for feuding warlords and a transit station for millions of illegals from black Africa to break into Europe.

Before that Hillary was a lackluster two-term Senator from New York State. Before that she was somebody's wife. It's just not impressive; not even in an age when sitting in meetings listening to the grievances of welfare queens in the Chicago ghetto counts as accomplishment.

And then there's the whole Clinton thing: the limitless sense of entitlement and of being above the laws that apply to petty folk. Everything they do comes off as shifty, questionable. To borrow an image from Dr Johnson: If you had Bill or Hillary round for dinner, after they'd left you'd count your spoons.

That side came out yet again this week with the revelation that while Secretary of State, Hillary had had a private email server set up in her house so that her emails wouldn't be archived on the federal government servers. Not just her private emails, all her emails, including those sent and received on State Department business. That is actually illegal, as if illegality ever bothered the Clintons.

And in the perfect Clintonian touch, Hillary herself issued a memo to all State Department personnel instructing them not to use personal email accounts for government business; in other words, not to do what she herself was doing!

Democratic voters don't seem to find Hillary very inspiring. The leftist press has been turning out headlines like this one in the March 5th Washington Post, quote: Amid Clinton controversies, Democrats seek alternative.

So who is there? Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley's being talked about a lot, and he's been travelling around early primary states making himself known. He's proud to call himself a "progressive," which means he's out on the left, to the left of Mrs Clinton. He refers to illegal aliens as "new Americans," for example, and in his governorship he's showered favors on them: college tuition breaks, driver licenses, you know the deal.

Naturally I wouldn't vote for the guy if he came round and painted my house for me; but Democrats like that kind of thing, and he's got lots of executive experience. He was Mayor of Baltimore before he was Governor.

Former Senator and Secretary of the Navy Jim Webb is more my kind of guy, though I don't know what he's doing in the Democratic Party. He actually seems to favor American citizens over foreigners, which is downright eccentric in that party. He's also a decorated veteran, has written a shelf-full of books, and has scoffed at feminism and the diversity rackets. What is he doing in the Democratic Party?

Webb has formed an exploratory committee, and Radio Derb says good luck to him. I'd rather see him as President than some of those Republican donor poodles. I doubt it'll happen, though. For one thing, he seems to be totally out of sync with the anti-American, anti-white party of Barack Obama and Luis Gutiérrez. For another, he's 69 years old and would be almost 71 at inauguration, a year older than Reagan was. Pity.

And then there's a bunch of "progressive" mediocrities. Elizabeth Warren's been getting heap plenty attention and been invited into wigwams all over to smoke peace pipe, but she swears she's not running. New York Governor Andrew Cuomo has ten percent in the New Hampshire poll, but unfortunately has to concentrate his energies the next few months in staying out of jail. And then of course there's our Vice President Joe Biden. [Laughter.]

So we may end up with Hillary after all, faute de mieux. What a depressing thought. A hundred and sixty-five million people are eligible to be President, and we come up with Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush!

H.L. Mencken said, quote: "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard." Looks like H.L. Mencken was right.


07 — A nationalist gives Nancy conniptions.     Benjamin Netanyahu, the Prime Minister of Israel, came and made a speech to a joint session of the U.S. Congress.

To reiterate our position on the event, as stated last week: Radio Derb wishes Israel well and likes Netanyahu, but we'd rather he'd stayed home. This country generates all the politics it can consume from domestic sources, we don't need to import other countries' politics. With an Israeli election coing up March 17th, I don't think it's cynical to think that that's what was going on here, or a big part of it.

That said, Netanyahu's speech before Congress illuminated the real political divide in the West today. Netanyahu stepped forward and spoke, above all else, as a nationalist. In his 40-minute speech the expression "the Jewish people" occurred five times; "our people" twice; "my people" once; "the people of Israel" once.

It was raw nationalism. That's what made it illuminating. A lot of people still think of "left" and "right" as some kind of difference over economics. There are still some traces of that, but when we talk about "left" and "right" nowadays, the real divide is between nationalism and patriotism on one side, globalism and multiculturalism on the other.

In all Western countries, wellnigh everyone wants a welfare state, and wellnigh everyone wants a thriving capitalist economy. Those things aren't controversial. What's controversial is the idea of a nation as being the home of some one particular people of mostly common ancestry and common culture.

In Israel the commonality is Jewish: Jews from all over — ashkenazi, sephardi, mizrahi — but Jews. In the U.S.A. the commonality is European, with a small black admixture and much smaller Amerindian and Asian ones, united under northwest-European social and political norms and the English language.

That whole idea, the nationalist idea, is loathed and rejected by the modern left. Netanyahu embodies it, and to the Democrats in the House chamber on Tuesday, his speech was like garlic to vampires.

The funny thing — and I mean funny-haha, not funny-peculiar — the hilarious thing was that these bitter anti-nationalists had to sit and listen to Netanyahu with teeth clenched because the Democratic Party can't afford to tick off its Jewish voters. Those voters may or may not like Netanyahu, but they sure do like Israel.

The psychic stresses generated were tremendous. You could practically see the circuit-breakers popping in poor Nancy Pelosi's head. She actually confessed her pain in an official statement afterwards, quote:

As one who values the U.S.-Israel relationship, and loves Israel, I was near tears throughout the Prime Minister's speech — saddened by the insult to the intelligence of the United States.

End quote.

That's not why you were near tears, Nancy. You were near tears because of the psychic stress of sitting for 40 minutes listening to a proud nationalist whose cause, for political reasons, you have to pretend to support.

My VDARE.com colleague James Kirkpatrick wrote a brilliant piece about all this that I urge you to read. It was posted on VDARE Wednesday morning. Here are some edited quotes to give the flavor, but I urge you to read the whole thing. Quotes:

Many American conservatives like to claim that criticism of Israel is driven by antisemitism, but the truth is that anti-Israel sentiment on the Left is mostly driven by anti-nationalism …

One of the most circulated opinions on social media was the wish that Netanyahu could be our President. It's hard not to see this as Americans' sublimated desire for any kind of nationalism that can plausibly be termed "Western." To a lesser extent, this is also what informs the relatively favorable treatment Russian President Vladimir Putin receives among some groups on the American Right. The difference is that because of the lingering double standard about Jewish nationalism and European nationalism, American conservatives can still, to some extent, support Israeli nationalism and even militarism without being called racist …

The Republicans' showy admiration for Israel, combined with their simultaneous shameful surrender on immigration, reveals them as the political equivalent of cuckolds. They openly acknowledge what patriotism and leadership look like. They simply choose not to do it.

End quote.


08 — Holder nukes Ferguson.     From our nation's capital down, down, into the darkest pit of oppression and cruelty, the frozen heart of racist oppression, the fear-haunted capital of white supremacist tyranny. Yes, folks, I am speaking about Ferguson, Missouri.

This week the federal Justice Department issued two reports pertinent to the incident last August where arrogant black thug Michael Brown, after robbing a convenience store, attacked a cop and got shot dead for his trouble.

One report was issued by the Department's Criminal Division, who had been tasked with investigating the possibility of a federal Civil Rights charge against the police officer, Darren Wilson. The other report came out of the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, formerly the domain of the ferociously anti-white Hispanic activist Thomas Perez, notorious for, among other things, deep-sixing the investigation of the New Black Panther voter-intimidation case in Philadelphia during the 2008 election. President Obama rewarded Perez for dismissing the Black Panther case by making him Secretary of Labor.

Well, what do these reports say? The first one says, in 86 pages of fine detail, with a mass of physical evidence and the testimony of scores of witnesses, that there are no grounds to indict Officer Wilson for depriving Thug Brown of his civil rights.

The gist of this first report is that the shooting occurred just as Officer Wilson said it did, and that witnesses who said otherwise were lying. Thug Brown never had his hands up, never said "Don't shoot!" and was charging Officer Wilson when he was shot. Stories to the contrary were fabrications, invented by malicious people and eagerly publicized by gullible and irresponsible journalists — none of whom, I think I can safely guarantee, will apologize for the trouble and destruction they incited.

The only surprise there is that such an honest and scrupulously factual report should have come out of Eric Holder's Justice Department.

The second report, from the much more radicalized Civil Rights Division, is a spiteful hit job on the town of Ferguson and its police department. Blacks in Ferguson are stopped and arrested more than whites, it says. Well, duh: blacks are more criminal than whites, in Ferguson and everywhere else. This is just the old disparate-impact racket.

To quote at random from Heather Mac Donald's excellent piece at National Review Online, quote:

Black drivers in Ferguson were twice as likely to be searched, even though searches of white drivers were more likely to turn up contraband … [But] such a statistic is meaningless unless one knows the underlying rate at which black and white drivers had outstanding warrants — which will trigger a search — and what their behavior was upon being stopped.

The report also charged Ferguson with using the police department as a, quote, "collection agency," issuing tickets and summonses so that the fines levied could boost municipal revenues.

I am shocked, shocked. A town uses traffic tickets and other fines to boost revenue? Who ever heard of such a thing? Well, we all did, of course. It's a fine old American tradition. Not just in small towns, either. New York Post, March 2nd, quote:

City cops are routinely denied overtime and vacation, demoted to menial posts and ultimately threatened with being fired for not making quotas, a scathing new class-action lawsuit charges.

End quote.

New York cops are expected to make at least one arrest and issue at least 20 summonses a month.

For a place like Ferguson, white flight is an accelerant here. In 1970 Ferguson was 99 percent white; today it is about one-quarter white. That huge influx of nonwhites has depressed property values, driven out businesses, and severely impacted property-tax revenues. The town has to make up the lost revenues somehow.

The report will have its effect, though. Ferguson police will stop arresting black criminals; crime in Ferguson will soar; the last few white people and decent black people will leave; and Ferguson will sink to the level of Camden, New Jersey, Baltimore, or Detroit. Ferguson will have been even more comprehensively destroyed than it already has been by the media-inspired lootings and burnings: as comprehensively as if a nuclear bomb had been dropped on it. Thanks, Mr Holder.


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

Imprimis:  You'll recall that Barack Obama, on being elected President in 2008, was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize by the prize committee in Norway for … well, for being a black guy who'd got elected President of the U.S.A. Anyway, I presume it wasn't for his previous main achievement: Getting asbestos removed from a public housing project in Chicago. While undoubtedly worthy in its own way, that wasn't really much of a contribution to world peace.

Many of us at the time thought this was a negrophilia too far. We have now been vindicated: Thorbjørn Jagland, the head of Norway's Nobel Peace Prize committee, was removed on Tuesday this week and demoted to the rank of mere member in what the press wires describe as "an unprecedented move."

There are wheels within wheels here. Obama's award in 2009 was followed by the 2010 award to Liu Xiaobo, a Chinese dissident who was jailed for criticizing the Communist Party. That award outraged the ChiCom Party bosses. China froze diplomatic relations with Norway following that award. This probably hurt Norwegian feelings somehow.

Be that as it may, I'd like to think, though I cannot confirm, that Norway's Progress Party, a patriotic and immigration-restrictionist party that has been part of the ruling coalition in Norway since the country swung right in the election of September 2013, had something to do with the booting of negrophile Thorbjørn Jagland.

Good riddance to the fool anyway, although he remains on the prize committee voting panel, just no longer as chairman.


Item:  New York City's communist Mayor, Bill de Blasio, got his knickers in a twist Wednesday at a news conference to announce that the city's public schools will henceforth observe the Muslim festivals of Eid al-Adha and Eid al-Fitr as holidays.

The knicker-twisting came about as a result of one of those paradoxes inherent in modern liberalism. Cultural Marxists like de Blasio of course despise all religion as an instrument of class oppression; but they want to celebrate Islam because its adherents are mosty non-white, and so are oppressed and discriminated against by white people of the wrong kind.

De Blasio's presser was therefore painful to watch if you are a multiculti leftist, but hilarious if you are not. New York public advocate Letitia James, a black lady, commenced the proceedings by telling the attendees that America is, quote, "one nation under all," apparently finding the extra syllable, from "all" to "Allah," a divinity too far.

It was downhill from there, with de Blasio concluding his own speech with a few sentences in Spanish. As we all know, New York Muslims, when they are not speaking Arabic or Urdu or Bengali or Pushtu or Farsi to each other, lapse naturally into Spanish.

Ah, multiculturalism — isn't it wonderful!


ItemDuang. Say it loud, and there's music playing. Say it soft, and it's almost like praying. Duang …

What the heck am I talking about here? Well, this is one of my little forays into the Chinese language. That language, as I think most people know, is fundamentally monosyllabic. There are 408 monosyllables, from which the entire spoken language is constructed. You get a list of these monosyllables at the beginning of any Chinese dictionary.

The list begins with a, ai, an, ang, ao, ba, bai, ban, bang, bao, and proceeds through the Latin alphabet to zhun, zhuo, zi, zong, zou, zu, zuan, zui, zun, and zuo. You get some extra mileage from the tone system, so that zou multiplies into zōu, zóu, zŏu, and zòu. Not every syllable occurs in every tone; net-net, the tone system expands the 408 basic syllables to around twelve hundred.

That's the basic syllable list. Every word in the Chinese language is built up from those twelve hundred toned syllables.

Now here's the thing: Duang is not an allowed syllable. It doesn't occur in Chinese. Or it didn't, until this week.

Movie actor Jackie Chan was discussing his hair back in a 2004 TV interview. Concerning a shampoo commercial he'd done, he said, quote: "I didn't want the commercial to have lots of special effects, making my hair look … duang — suddenly blacker and shinier …" He made up that un-Chinese syllable on the spur of the moment, and it went without comment at the time.

In the strange way things happen in popular culture, this 11-year-old clip suddenly got picked up by Chinese hipsters and, as we say, "went viral" on Chinese social media. The nonsense syllable is now part of the Chinese language, and the 408 basic syllables are now 409.

And yes, there's a written character, which you can inspect by going to Wikipedia and searching on duang, d-u-a-n-g. "The meaning is unclear," says Wikipedia.

What a strange world we live in nowadays. There's your Word of the Week, though: duang.


10 — Signoff.     That's it, ladies and gentlemen, and thank you for listening.

Jackie Chan … well, he's a shill for the ChiCom mass murderers, but hey, a guy has to make a living. He's also a not-bad pop singer. I'm going to let him sing us out with "Endless Love." My translation of the lyrics begins thus:

Resolve my most mysterious waiting;
Stars fall, the wind is blowing;
At last you are in my arms again;
Hearts tremble,
Believe my constant true heart.
I promise to wait a thousand years,
No matter how many winters …

Hey, it sounds better in Chinese. More from Radio Derb next week!


[Music clip: Jackie Chan, "Endless Love."]