»  Radio Derb — Transcript

        Friday, November 24th, 2017


•  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! Greetings, listeners, from your wryly genial host John Derbyshire, here at VDARE.com, your one-stop emporium for news on patriotic immigration reform and National Question issues.

It's Thanksgiving weekend here in the U.S.A. On Thursday those of us fortunate enough to do so enjoyed a turkey dinner with family and friends. This year's Thanksgiving joke was that President Trump had pardoned the turkey as is now customary, but the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals immediately suspended the pardon.

Yes, I groaned too. It's all too believable.

Well, well, on with the show. First, a return to a running theme here: the threat of a Big Cuck.


02 — Two weeks to the Big Cuck?     Last week Radio Derb alerted the world to the possibility of an onrushing Big Cuck. The key date here is December 8th, two weeks from today, the deadline for Congress to pass a government spending bill.

If that bill isn't passed, the federal government will have to shut down nonessential services. That means national parks, payments to federal contractors, regulatory enforcement, visa processing, that kind of stuff. The military, coast guard, federal prisons, and so on are hardly affected. Some other agencies like the IRS just get slowed down.

If the shutdown went on for weeks, more federal services would be affected. That's not likely to happen, though. The last shutdown, in October 2013, was just 17 days. The big one, the one everyone remembers, at the end of 1995, was for a total 27 days. It's kabuki theater; something gets worked out.

There are people on both sides of the congressional aisles willing to go to a shutdown, and the central issue in their willingness is the evil and poisonous DACA program to give amnesty to a select, but very large, number of illegal aliens.

On the Republican side are conservatives who fear the Trumpists in the GOP base. They want no DACA clauses in the spending deal.

The Democrats have a corresponding group willing to block the spending deal unless there is a DACA clause, on behalf of Hispanic voters and for the millions more future Democrat voters an amnesty would bring in.

Leadership of both parties in the House of Representatives is talking along with these hardline factions. Paul Ryan said a few days ago, quote:

I don't think we should put artificial deadlines in front of the one we already have.

End quote.

That's in reference to the March 5th deadline President Trump has set for Congress to do something or other about DACA. Ryan was saying there's no need to pack amnesty in with the budget fix, since it'll have to be dealt with by March anyway.

And Nancy Pelosi is lining up with her hardliners, quote:

Kicking the can to next year is just to say 'We're not doing this.' That's how we see that.

End quote.

Rep. Dave Brat — remember him? he's the guy who wiped out GOP cuckmeister Eric Cantor in a primary three years ago, then went on to win Cantor's seat in the midterms — Dave Brat is talking up a deal: "DACA protections," whatever that means (slow amnesty would be my guess) in return for ending chain migration, eliminating the diversity visa, and mandatory E-Verify.

That's nice, Dave; but congressional Democrats would commit mass seppuku on the steps of the Capitol rather than pass anything that might slow down mass immigration.

And politically, the congresscritters — especially in the House — all have those previous government shutdowns in mind. Government shutdowns are not popular with the voting public; and both parties fear being blamed, especially when there's an election on the horizon — in this case, next fall's midterms.

It's not clear to me that these fears are well-founded. Polls showed Republicans being blamed for both those last government shutdowns, in 1995 and 2013; yet in both the 1996 election and the 2014 midterms the GOP did okay. Sure, Clinton got re-elected in '96, but the GOP had fielded a deeply lackluster presidential candidate, and the party picked up two Senate seats anyway.

As the prospectuses say, however, past performance is no guide to future returns, so the congressfolk are fretting.

How this kind of impasse gets resolved depends considerably on the White House. We're bound to end up with some kind of compromise, but the precise nature of the thing depends on how resolutely the President defends his own positions, and how the public responds to them.

The omens there aren't good. Trump has expressed sympathy for the DACA illegals, and seems unenthusiastic about following through on his campaign promises on border security and birthright citizenship. A Big Cuck — amnesty for the illegals in return for passing a budget bill, with maybe some worthless cosmetic measures on immigration enforcement — is a definite possibility.

And again, as I always feel needs saying, however tiresome it is to hear "shoulda, coulda, woulda," again: It's all been so unnecessary. If President Trump had acted forcefully, resolutely to end the DACA program on his first day in office, as he promised, we wouldn't be facing the possibility of a mass amnesty now.

Failure on DACA is the worst strike to date against the Trump Presidency.


03 — Peace is War, Freedom is Slavery, Temporary is Permanent.     DACA isn't the only dubious immigration program the Trump administration seems reluctant to deal with. Here's another one: TPS.

That's Temporary Protected Status, a designation instituted in 1990 for certain kinds of foreigners. To quote from the government's immigration website, quote:

The Secretary of Homeland Security may designate a foreign country for TPS due to conditions in the country that temporarily prevent the country's nationals from returning safely, or in certain circumstances, where the country is unable to handle the return of its nationals adequately. USCIS may grant TPS to eligible nationals of certain countries (or parts of countries), who are already in the United States.

End quote.

The idea is that if a foreigner is here in the U.S.A. in some capacity when there arises a calamity in his home country — an earthquake, epidemic, civil war, or suchlike — the foreigner can stay here and get a work permit (if he doesn't already have one) until it's safe for him to return.

It sounds reasonable enough. This is immigration we're talking about, though, so reason has nothing to do with it. "Temporary," in immigration-speak, means "permanent."

Case in point: Nearly eight years ago, in January 2010, Haiti was struck by a major earthquake. As a result, 60,000 Haitians living in the U.S.A. were given TPS.

They still have it. Apparently our government has determined that Haiti, after eight years — and untold billions in aid for recovery, much of it from U.S. taxpayers — is still, quote, "unable to handle the return of its nationals adequately," end quote.

There was an encouraging development back in May, when then-DHS Secretary John Kelly extended TPS for these Haitians for another six months. That doesn't sound very encouraging; but the statement put out at the time by Kelly's DHS made it sound like that extension would be the last. Sample quotes:

This six-month extension should allow Haitian TPS recipients living in the United States time to attain travel documents and make other necessary arrangements for their ultimate departure from the United States, and should also provide the Haitian government with the time it needs to prepare for the future repatriation of all current TPS recipients …

The Department of Homeland Security urges Haitian TPS recipients who do not have another immigration status to use the time before Jan. 22, 2018 to prepare for and arrange their departure from the United States — including proactively seeking travel documentation …

I believe there are indications that Haiti — if its recovery from the 2010 earthquake continues at pace — may not warrant further TPS extension past January 2018. TPS as enacted in law is inherently temporary in nature, and beneficiaries should plan accordingly that this status may finally end after the extension announced today.

End quote.

That was General Kelly speaking back in May.

Kelly has since then been moved to be White House Chief of Staff. To replace him, President Trump put forward a nominee who seems, to judge from her testimony at Senate confirmation hearings, to favor amnesty and open borders. The Senate committee confirmed her November 14th, and the full senate will vote sometime soon.

Meanwhile the DHS has had as Acting Secretary a civil-service drone named Elaine Duke. Monday this week, two days before the six-month anniversary of General Kelly's pronouncement, Ms Duke announced another extension of TPS for Haitians, this one for eighteen months.

What's the rationale for that? Quote from the DHS press release:

This will provide time for individuals with TPS to arrange for their departure or to seek an alternative lawful immigration status in the United States, if eligible. It will also provide time for Haiti to prepare for the return and reintegration of their citizens.

End quote.

That's nice; but weren't those the same reasons offered for General Kelly's extension six months ago?

It seems pretty plain that these Haitians will never be required to go home. This so-called Temporary Protected Status is just another scam on the American public, like all our other immigration programs.

Michelle Malkin commented some years ago in regards to the adjudication process for illegal aliens, that "it ain't over until the alien wins." These Haitians aren't illegal, although many of them were in the first place, before getting TPS, but a similar principle applies: it ain't over until they get to stay permanently.

As our own correspondent Federale has said in regard to Acting Secretary Duke, a big part of the problem here is President Trump's failure to appoint Trump loyalists to positions in the secondary levels of his administration — or even, if the DHS Secretary-in-waiting's senate testimony is a guide, to positions at the primary levels.

You'd think that the open-borders shills, at least, would be happy with Ms Duke's magnanimity. Not so. Here's Philadelphia Mayor Jim Kenney, addressing the issue on Wednesday this week, quote:

I'm just beside myself with sadness because our President is a bully, our President is a punk, and he just doesn't get it. I don't know where he was raised but his family didn't do a good job raising that guy.

End quote.

The mayor is "beside himself with sadness" that Temporary Protected Status may, just possibly, eighteen months down the road, after eight years and counting, may prove to be —Oh my God! — temporary. I wonder what the mayor's psychic state would be if General Kelly's six-month extension of TPS back in May had been the last, as Kelly seemed to imply it should.

It's not just the Philly mayor, either. There have been street demonstrations against the eighteen-month extension of TPS — against, that is, the possibility that after the eighteen months are up it may not be renewed.

In Florida on Tuesday there was a march on President Trump's Mar-a-Lago club by various leftist and anti-white groups, protesting the horrible cruelty implicit in a mere eighteen-month extension. The Palm Beach Post quoted one participant thus, quote:

It's inhumane given the conditions where we're sending these people back to.

End quote.

Well, yes: Haiti, even after massive aid and rebuilding, is still a godforsaken slum. That's a consequence of its very low levels of human capital, though; and that's not the fault of Americans, or of anyone other than Mother Nature. Why are we supposed to pay for other countries' godforsakenness?

We extended generous hospitality to these people after the earthquake — when, if they'd had any feelings for their own country, you'd think that they'd want to go back and help rebuild it. No: Apparently it's up to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to rebuild it while the Haitians hang out in Palm Beach.

And what's the general principle here? That a TPS recipient doesn't have to return to his home country until that country has the economic and political standards of Switzerland? When does anyone think Haiti will meet that criterion? Some time in the 31st century?

In any case, those 60,000 Haitian recipients of TPS have, during their eight years in our country, brought forth around 30,000 children — all of them, thanks to our insane policy of birthright citizenship, U.S. citizens.

So when these kiddies attain majority they can anyway petition for their parents to get permanent residence in the U.S.

Thus, for some high proportion of the Haitians, even if, by a political miracle, their Temporary Protected Status were eventually to end, obliging them to return to their homeland, thanks to their U.S.-citizen children, their exile from America would only be … temporary.


04 — Voters ignore the Pervnado.     What my New York Post calls the Pervnado rages on, with angry or tearful women appearing out of the underbrush to accuse famous men of having groped them twenty or thirty years ago.

I confess I've lost interest in the whole silly business. The famous people are in any case less and less famous. My own acquaintance with celebrity culture is sketchy at best, and the latest tranche of defendants are mainly just names that I'm vaguely aware of but can't confidently place in any context.

Some model, for example, has accused Russell Simmons of raping her in 1998. When I saw that headline I thought "Wha?" Isn't Russell Simmons that annoying homosexual bloke who makes exercise videos? He raped a model? A female model? Is anyone expected to believe that?

But no, apparently that's someone else with a similar name. Celebritywise, I'm clueless.

Charlie Rose I'm a bit more sure of. He has some talking-head show on some network I never watch. Now I find out he's a liberal, so plainly I haven't been missing anything.

I do know who Al Franken is. He's a senator from one of the midwestern states. Given his voting record, though — NumbersUSA has him an F-minus on immigration — I can't work up much indignation about whatever it is he's supposed to have done.

It looks pretty picayune anyway — normal workplace horsing around the last time I was an employee, back in the Clinton administration.

Ah yes, the Clinton administration. That's the one that was nearly brought down by accusations that Bill Clinton did the kind of things all these celebrity liberals are being hounded out of their jobs for doing. Clinton was of course stoutly defended by, yes, liberals.

Now liberals, especially female ones who feel they need to get aboard the anti-male locomotive, are twisting themselves into pretzels trying to square their attitudes then with their attitudes now.

One of my own state's senators, Liberal Democrat Gyno-American Kirsten Gillibrand, told the New York Times last weekend that she thought Clinton should have resigned after his affair with Monica Lewinsky became known. Then, having said that, she went into pretzel mode. Listen to her trying to jam her left foot into her right ear, quote:

Things have changed today, and I think under those circumstances there should be a very different reaction. And I think in light of this conversation, we should have a very different conversation about President Trump, and a very different conversation about allegations against him.

End quote.

See, the important thing is to redirect the hysteria towards President Trump. If that means an empty, meaningless, way-too-late swipe at Bubba, well hey.

The only aspect of this silly business that stirs me is the charges against Alabama senate candidate Roy Moore, who I very much want to win his election on December 12th, mainly because he's so not a Ryan-McConnell establishment Republican donor puppet empty-suit-bot.

Last Friday there was a rally in support of Roy Moore in Montgomery, the state capital. The newsworthy thing about this rally is that it was all-female. It was in fact organized by Kayla Moore, the candidate's wife. Quote from her:

I have been married to my husband for over 32 years. He was a graduate of West Point and served our country in Vietnam and he has always been an officer and a gentleman. He is a loving father and a grandfather. Most important, he is a Christian.

End quote.

A poll published Thursday this week had Roy Moore up seven points over his liberal Democrat opponent for the senate seat. That's shortly after a different poll showed him six points ahead.

So it looks as though voters don't give these kinds of charges much weight; just as they didn't when they were made against Donald Trump last year, as they didn't when made against Bill Clinton twenty years ago. In politics at least, the sexual harassment charge just isn't very potent.

TV actors and talk-show hosts get fired; movie-studio bosses take forced leave of absence; politicians get elected.

Say what you like against democracy, but sometime the voters are the only ones showing any sense of proportion.


05 — Gender pronoun positionality.     Those of us Americans still grimly holding on to our sanity in all the swirling hysterias can take some slight comfort from the fact that up in the frozen tundra to our north, in what I grew up hearing called the Dominion of Canada, things are even worse.

The current moral panic up there is over pronouns: I, you, he, she, it, we, they. For reasons I can't be bothered to understand, and which I most likely wouldn't be able to understand if I could be bothered, it is now considered a gross moral failing up there to address a person by the wrong pronoun, where "wrong" is defined to mean "upsetting to the person."

Why would a pronoun be upsetting? Well, if you are a guy but believe yourself to be a girl, hearing yourself spoken of as male is upsetting; and vice versa for girls who believe they are guys. So we are told.

How many such people are there, actually? The New York Times says it's 0.6 percent of the adult population — say one in 170. How am I supposed to know one when I see one, so I can avoid giving offense? This no-one can tell me, not even the New York Times. Perhaps they wear a badge or something, I don't know. I don't get out much.

It seems an awfully trivial issue to be roiling the Dominion, but roiling the Dominion it is — especially, of course, in institutes of higher education, where they speak of little else.

That's the background to the creepiest video clip of the week out of Wilfred Laurier University in Ontario.

Laurier, as the university is known for short, has a Department of Communication Studies where, I quote from the website:

We study the intersection of language, media and culture from an interdisciplinary perspective and train students in the histories, theories, and methodologies of Communication Studies.

End quote.

Young teaching assistant Lindsay Shepherd has been teaching a course to first-year students, a course on critical thinking skills. On November 1st she sought to use this topic of pronouns as a way for her students to exercise the critical thinking skills they were, one hopes, acquiring.

She gave the students some information on various approaches to the issue. Among those various approaches was the approach of Jordan Peterson, Professor of Psychology at the nearby University of Toronto.

Prof. Peterson has attained some notoriety in the Dominion by making public his view that the fuss about pronouns is a heap of moose dung. He has refused to accept the position maintained by the Canadian government, that referring to someone by the pronoun "he" when the person would prefer "she" or "they" or "xe" or "Fin-tim-lin-bin-whin-bim-lim-bus-stop-F'tang-F'tang-Olé-Biscuitbarrel," is tantamount to genocide.

So Ms Shepherd showed a brief video clip of Prof. Peterson explaining his position as part of her coverage of the issue to her class.

A week after playing that video clip to her class, Ms Shepherd learned that some unknown number of her 48 students, quite possibly just one of them, had complained to the college administration that the video clip was a violation of the student's human rights.

Ms Shepherd was called into a meeting with three members of the Laurier faculty: Herbert Pimlott, Associate Professor of Communication Studies, Nathan Rambukkana, an Assistant Professor in the department, and Adria Joel, manager of Gendered Violence Prevention and Support at the school. Yes, apparently that's a job.

Ms Shepherd took the precaution of secretly taping this interview. The tape is 43 minutes long, but if you can spare the time you should listen to it. It offers a terrifying glimpse into the Cultural Marxist mind that is absolutely dominant in academia, down here in the states as well as up there in the Dominion.

I'm working with a new computer here and a bit wary about downloads until I know my way around it, so I'll just quote from the transcript at the National Post website.

Here for example is Professor Pimlott, who to judge from his publication list is an old-line Marxist-Leninist — not merely a Cultural Marxist, an actual Dictatorship-of-the-Proletariat kulak-killer. Quote, after Ms Shepherd pointed out that Jordan Peterson is a public figure:

He's a public figure, and a lot of people there like Richard Spencer of, I don't like calling them alt-right, it gives them too much legitimacy, but Richard Spencer, right? The Nazis actually used, this is a historic … issues around the free speech idea in the 1920s in Weimar Germany as an issue around which which is what they're using now. We know that someone like Richard Spencer is using theories and ideas that don't have any academic credibility. He's a public figure. But in terms of, if we introduce someone, we give them greater credibility in a certain condition. I agree that there are public figures out there that bring people, uh, bring hatred, target groups and if you look at statistically the degree of suicide attempts of trans people, young people, it's the highest of any group in society. And, you know, it's, you go through … Indigenous people … and so on. There are things that don't have academic credibility and I just don't think … personally think I have some problems, I have no problems with the fact that these things are out there and people are going to engage them but we have to think of the atmosphere that we also create for the learning process.

Just to remind you: That lungful of illiterate turkey-gobble came out of an Associate Professor of Communication Studies in an accredited university.

Just one more. This is Assistant Professor Rambukkana, who as well as being the most fluent speaker of CultMarx jargon in the room, is also one of the scariest-looking critters I have ever set eyes on. Quote from him:

I understand the position that you're coming from and your positionality, but the reality is that it has created a toxic climate for some of the students …

End quote.

When Ms Shepherd tried to find out how many of her students had complained, the interrogation squad would not tell her. We still don't know.

We do, though, know where Wilfred Laurier University is coming from and their positionality. It is the same place of origin and the same positionality as the rest of the liberal-arts academy, there and here.

The case for destroying liberal-arts colleges and faculties by aerial bombardment, sowing the ground with salt, and assigning surviving faculty to hard labor for life on chain gangs in the Aleutian Islands, has been strong for some time. With the release of that tape, it got stronger. Listen to the dreadful thing and try to tell me you don't agree.


06 — Male embraces female.     A footnote to that. Here's a neat little story from the Japan Times, November 23rd. I don't know why this story should be in that publication, or why I don't see it elsewhere, but it's a ray of light in the linguistic darkness.

I'll just read you the first three grafs straight off, quote:

France has banned the use of gender-neutral language in official documents, cheering defenders of linguistic tradition and angering feminists who see it as a setback for equal rights.

Word declensions in the highly regularized French language mean the ending of many words signals whether they refer to men or women, and so-called inclusive writing had been used to get around this and make some words gender-neutral.

But in a memo to ministers Tuesday, Prime Minister Édouard Philippe banned inclusive writing, saying: [inner quote] "In official documents, the masculine is a neutral form that should be used for terms applicable to women as well as men."

End inner quote, end quote.

May Heaven bless Édouard Philippe! — a man of sense in a world gone mad. Repeat after me, all you folk up there in the Dominion: "The masculine is a neutral form that should be used for terms applicable to women as well as men." Or, as a British Prime Minister once put it: "The male embraces the female."

When you've finished repeating that, you should repeat this other gem. I quoted it in my October Diary, but I make no apology for re-quoting it. It's from Jared Taylor's new book.

We should, says Jared, who is of the same school of thought — the same positionality — as Édouard Philippe, Sir Winston Churchill, and yours truly, we should proudly use such sentences as: "Since man is a mammal, he suckles his young."


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

Imprimis:  Back in September, in the town of Silver Spring, MD, just north of the Washington, DC beltway, the corpse of a young Hispanic man was found in a shallow grave. He had been stabbed many, many times, and his heart had been cut out.

November 11th an arrest was made. The arrestee is 19-year-old Miguel Angel Lopez-Abrego, a known member of the Central American gang MS-13. That means he is almost certainly an illegal alien, although we haven't yet been told.

The feature of this story that grabs you is the bit about the victim's heart being cut out. We've all read about the religious rites of the Aztecs, when hundreds, sometimes thousands of people, many of them volunteers, were sacrificed to please the gods — by having their hearts cut out.

That was in Mexico; MS-13 originated in El Salvador, which is way south of the Aztec territories. So perhaps one shouldn't read too much into this. It's awfully suggestive, though.

It's also of course a reminder of the folly of our open-borders policy towards Mexico and Central America.

Hey, I have an idea: Let's build a wall along the southern border …


Item:  Under the heading "Stuff you kind of knew but is now more or less official," here's a story from BBC news, November 24th, about the more and more open alliance between Israel and Saudi Arabia. Quote:

Last week Israel's Chief of Staff, General Gadi Eisenkot, said in an interview with UK-based Saudi newspaper Elaph, that Israel was ready to exchange intelligence with the Saudis in order to confront Iran. "There are shared interests and as far as the Iranian axis is concerned we are in full accord with the Saudis," he said.

A few days later … a former Saudi justice minister, Dr Muhammad bin Abdul Karim Issa — a close associate of the Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman — told the Israeli newspaper Maariv that [inner quote] "no act of violence or terror that tries to justify itself by invoking the religion of Islam is justified anywhere, including in Israel."

End inner quote, end quote.

That's nice, but think of the effect in Washington, DC. It's been known for years that the biggest foreign splashers-around of money to lobbyists in our capital are Israel and the Saudis. If they're going to join forces and work together to influence our government, that will be a mega-lobby. Lesser folk like the Russians and the Chinese will hardly be able to find a congressman to take to dinner.


Item:  Being now well into geezerhood, I am more than formerly attentive to stories about what transpires, (to quote the language of prayer) "at the hour of our death." So this story about the WW2 veteran, 89 years old, passing away in a medical facility in Georgia three years ago, stuck in my mind.

The veteran, name of James Dempsey, had some kind of breathing failure. He called for help, but the nurses were slow responding. When they did respond, they didn't do the proper procedures — chest compression and so on — and had trouble working Mr Dempsey's oxygen equipment. The situation struck them as funny. When they stopped chortling over Mr Dempsey's bed, he had died.

The family sued the facility. In a deposition, the nursing supervisor claimed that all proper procedures were followed and Mr Dempsey was treated with respect. The family, however, had planted a video camera in Mr Dempsey's room. It contradicted everything she said. After some very lengthy legal procedures — the case went all the way up to the state courts — the family got the video and it's been showing on YouTube.

Mr Dempsey was white; the nurses are black. This is how it will be for many of us whites "at the hour of our death": ignored, mishandled, laughed over as we struggle for our last breaths, by personnel of other races who have been raised from childhood to hate us as privileged oppressors, and who are too stupid, ill-trained, or indifferent to operate life-saving equipment.

I can't resist the temptation to add "at least they didn't cut his heart out." That's morbid and tasteless, though. Besides, it might give people ideas.

Our society has made the bed with decades of relentless anti-white propaganda; and we, alone and helpless "at the hour of our death," will be lying in it.


08 — Signoff.     That's it, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for listening, and I hope your Thanksgiving has been as warm, nourishing, and peaceful as ours.

Now that we have Junior home with us, I'd like to offer particular heartfelt thanks to the U.S. Army for taking care of him this past four years; and for helping our lad develop from a … somewhat difficult teenager to a very promising young American gentleman. Thank you!

There will be more from Radio Derb next week.


[Music clip: More Derbyshire Marches.]