»  Radio Derb — Transcript

        Saturday, February 9th, 2013

—————————

[Music clip: From Haydn's Derbyshire Marches]

01 — Intro.     And Radio Derb is on the air! This is your benignly genial host John Derbyshire, broadcasting to you from Taki Magazine's state-of-the-art sound studio here on our private island in the wine-dark Aegean Sea. Brace yourselves, please, for thirty minutes of vigorous vituperation.

By way of introduction to the first couple of segments, let me say that although currently in exile from the dear old U.S.A., I remain a registered Republican.

I actually have a postal vote. When it's election time back in the homeland, our island mailman, the very efficient and dependable Mr. Mamalakis, brings me a ballot. It's quite an important position, being postmaster here on the island. Mr. Mamalakis actually has a rod of office that he carries around with him.

Well, Mr. Mamalakis waits patiently in the olive grove while I mark up my ballot. Sometimes the girls go out and practise their participles on him, or help him polish his rod.

Then when the ballot's ready I take it out to Mr. Mamalakis, he puts it in the pannier of his donkey aong with other outgoing mail, and they trot off down the road towards the dock.

My ballot is then transported by boat across the Aegean to the mainland, thence from Athens by air to New York, to be registered with the diligent folk at Suffolk County Board of Elections. Ah, the miracle of democracy!

But how is America's democracy faring in the opening days of this new administration? Let's take a look.

02 — Gesture politics.     Being a registered Republican is a bit like being a Red Sox supporter in that long drought before Terry Francona showed up. It's masochistic and depressing.

Perhaps it's wrong of me to feel this way. After all, my party — once again, that would be the Republican Party — controls a majority, just barely, of state legislatures, 26 of 'em, and has a comfortable majority of state governorships: 30 altogether. Sure, that's great; but it's a bit like saying that minor-league affiliates of the Red Sox were doing well through all those decades of drought. Sure, sure: but in the big leagues we're just hopeless.

Why is this so? There are a number of theories floating around the blogosphere. There is one, for example, that goes like this.

At the local level, voting for city, county, or state positions, people vote their interests more. At the national level, a vote is more of a fashion statement. Voters care about who's running the U.S.A. less than they care who's running their state; and they care about that less than they care about who's running their city; and they care about that less than they care about who's running their school board.

New York City is usually brought out as evidence for this theory. New Yorkers are pretty solidly Democrat: unionized public-sector workers, minorities, limousine liberals, and Jews. Yet strange to say, New York City hasn't had a Democrat mayor since 1993. Go figure.

Well, proponents of this theory — I'm moderately sympathetic to it — have gone and figured, and what they've figured is, that at the national level, politics has morphed into a lifestyle choice, a kind of gesture politics, where we vote for the stylish guy, or the one who reminds us of our Dad, or the Magic Negro; and we have gone this way because we don't, in our hearts believe it matters who runs things in Washington, D.C. It does matter who runs our city or our state, though; so there we want someone brisk and businesslike, which much less often means a Democrat.

A competing theory says that the country is slowly, quietly falling apart; that states and cities dominated by minorities or liberals have less and less in common with regions where non-liberal white people are in the majority. The blue regions can still swing the bigger units — states and the nation — so they hold the Presidency and the U.S. Senate. Down at the more granular level, the red vote is stronger.

One proponent of this theory, a friend of mine, responded to someone who said: "We may never have another Republican President," by saying rather sharply: "We may never have another Democratic House of Representatives." I think both those statements are a bit present-centric and extreme, but they make a kind of point.

Anyway, that's all preface to what I really want to talk about, which is Eric Cantor's speech this Tuesday at American Enterprise Institute. Let's have a chew on that.

03 — Cantor turns coat     I actually tossed and gored Eric Cantor's speech over at VDARE.com on Thursday. I just have a few afterthoughts to add here.

AEI, that's the American Enterprise Institute where Cantor gave his speech, is a conservative think-tank — a neo-conservative think tank, if you want to be particular about it. They don't spend all their time looking for countries to invade, though; a lot of decent social science gets done there, with a fair range of opinions.

Eric Cantor's a good fit for that audience. Going through the congressman's voting record: Strong on U.S. support for Israel (not very surprising as he's Jewish), anti-U.N., pro-military, supports Patriot Act, and so on. Supported the war in Afghanistan long after he should have done, long after Radio Derb started playing cricket-chirping noises to indicate the utter purposelessness of that war. That's neocon, all right.

On the other hand, he's been against affirmative action, against homosexual marriage, and has a hundred percent rating on immigration from FAIR, the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which is an immigration-restrictionist, anti-amnesty group.

So, Cantor's a mixed bag, pretty much like AEI, where he showed up to give this speech on Tuesday.

The speech was, not to put too fine a point on it, awful. The main point of its awfulness was Cantor's yielding to the idea, currently being carved onto tablets of stone by some staffer over at the Republican National Committee headquarters, that the GOP needs to move to the left on social issues, in particular on education and immigration.

There are two plagues stalking the U.S.A. today, listener, destroying our senses and wasting our substance.

One plague is educational romanticism: the notion that we can cure society's ills, make dumb people smart, get everyone up to college level in academic achievement, stimulate entrepreneurship, and supply all the science and technology whiz-kids we need, by fiddling with the education system.

The other plague is immigration romanticism: the notion that since mass immigration worked well for us from 1880 to 1920, contributing to the great power, wealth, and success of mid-20th-century America, we can pull off the same trick again with another long spell of mass immigration that as well as keeping up the birth rate and meeting the Social Security bills will, er, stimulate entrepreneurship and supply all the science and technology whiz-kids we need.

Cantor signed on to both on Tuesday. On education, he wants more federally-funded programs to help the deserving poor escape from schools made uninhabitable by the un-deserving poor. There are already plenty such programs, Cantor just seems not to know about them. He also wants to shovel more young people and federal money into the college rackets, when already too many people are going to colleges that are bloated with cash. Cantor said nothing about real education reform that might make a real difference, even to the undeserving poor: bring back vocational education, track students by ability, champion the MOOCs, the Massively Open Online Courses we told you about in our January 12th broadcast.

On immigration it was worse. Three years ago Cantor voted against the DREAM Act, that would have given permanent residence to people brought here as children, or who could fake having been so brought. Now where is he? Quote from Cantor: "It is time to provide an opportunity for legal residence and citizenship for those who were brought to this country as children and who know no other home." End quote.

This isn't just a flip-flop; it's a flip-flop and then some — a flip-flop-flop-flop. The DREAM Act at least came with a string of conditions before an illegal infiltrator could be given residence; but there was no mention of conditions on Tuesday. Just hand out those Green Cards, line forms on the left.

What's going on here? If an American wants to vote for a party that proposes throwing federal money at schools and importing another 40 million Mexicans via chain migration, there is already a party they can vote for. It's called the Democratic Party. What on earth do the GOP bosses think they are doing?

I'll hazard a guess in the next segment.

04 — Non-Hispanic whites to GOP: What are we, chopped liver?     So what does the GOP think it's up to?

What it thinks it's up to is making inroads on the Hispanic vote, which last November was ten percent of the total vote nationwide. That percentage will of course get bigger, thanks to terminally stupid policies that our last two Republican presidents heartily supported. It will get bigger a lot faster if we start amnestying illegal infiltrators, who will thereafter shortly be joined by their parents, siblings, parents' siblings, and so on.

Stupid, stupid policies from the Stupid Party. And the stupidity goes on. It's not just Cantor's embarrassing and groveling speech. Check out the cover of the current Time magazine: There you'll see Marco Rubio, the GOP's Great Hispanic Hope, who's going to bring all the Mexicans and Puerto Ricans and Salvadorans flocking in to vote Republican. Yeah, right.

In fact, as Radio Derb told you right after the election, the Hispanic vote was not critical. Ten percent is one in ten. In key states Romney lost, the Hispanic share of the electorate was much less than that: Pennsylvania six percent, Virginia five percent, Wisconsin four percent, Ohio and Michigan three percent. In Iowa, an important state that Romney lost, only two percent of the electorate is Hispanic; 93 percent is non-Hispanic white. Romney lost Iowa: not because insufficient of the two percent voted for him, but because insufficient of the 93 percent did.

Arithmetic does not lie: The GOP lost the presidential vote last year because not enough non-Hispanic white Americans voted for Romney.

How might the GOP get non-Hispanic whites voting for it again? Well, one thing worth trying might be to take a strong line on enforcing immigration laws. The Center for Immigration Studies just commissioned a new survey on illegal immigration using carefully neutral language. They found that, quote:

Most Americans want illegal immigrants to return to their home countries, rather than be given legal status. The findings also show a very large gap in intensity, with those who want illegal immigrants to head home feeling much stronger about that option than those who would like to see illegal immigrants receive legal status.

End quote. So how about it, Republicans? Instead of opening the floodgates with an amnesty and the following chain migration, as per Eric Cantor, instead of constantly pushing the worthless Marco Rubio in our faces as the saviour of the party, how about making a firm, clear statement that the people's laws on immigration should be enforced, and will be by a Republican administration?

Oh, wait a minute, news flash here: Marco Rubio will be giving the GOP response to the State of the Union address next Tuesday. Not only that, the Golden Boy will give the response in both English and Spanish.

Hey, Republican Party: There are still a few of us non-Hispanic white folk in the U.S.A. What are we, chopped liver?

05 — Heroes and villains of the Rhodesia story     My blood is starting to boil here. I get so mad when I think about how these fools are wrecking a great and beautiful country through adherence to sentimental and romantic notions about human nature. Those notions may possibly be true, or they may be false: one day we shall know for sure. If, thirty years from now, we discover that they are false, it will be too late to undo what has been done. It's an experiment, folks: and you, and all the values you were brought up to hold dear as American values, are bubbling away in the retort.

Just as our mothers told us, though, there's always someone worse off than yourself. In that spirit, to soothe our nerves, let's take a look at a country that's really a mess.

The subject here is Zimbabwe, which when I was growing up in England was one part of the grandly-named Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, a British colony with a degree of self-government. The Prime Minister of the thing was a genial fellow named Roy Welensky.

Well, the Federation fell apart in the early 1960s. Nyasaland became Malawi, Northern Rhodesia became Zambia, and Welensky retired to Southern Rhodesia.

Like most of these white British or South African colonial politicians in southern Africa, Welensky liked the local blacks and was sympathetic to their aspirations, but didn't think they were capable of governing themselves. In fact Welensky was famous for saying the following thing, quote: "If you don't like black people, don't come and live in Africa."

Ian Smith, who became Prime Minister of independent Rhodesia in 1965, was of the same mind. He saw events in newly-independent black African countries like Ghana, independent 1957, and Nigeria, independent 1960, as confirming his opinions. Smith had blacks in his parliament and administration and worked with them; but property and educational qualifications for suffrage kept blacks a minority of the electorate, though they were 95 percent of the population.

Smith's opinion, like Welensky's, was that if blacks took over the government the national economy would be wrecked and the whites would be turned on and driven out. This was, of course, considered by British and international elites to be a very disgraceful opinion. They refused all help or recognition to Smith's Rhodesia and imposed sanctions against the country. The Soviets and black African countries fomented and armed a rebellion among Rhodesia's black population and a nasty little guerilla war started up, in which the tribes sometimes forgot they were supposed to be fighting the white man and turned their guns on each other.

These handicaps wore down the Smith government. At last, in 1980, majority rule was established and the blacks took over under Robert Mugabe, still in power today. In the following years the economy was wrecked and whites were turned on and driven out, exactly as Welensky and Smith had foretold. They were perfectly right in their estimate of the blacks, though of course their opinion is still considered disgraceful.

So where are we now? Well, here are a couple of recent news stories from Rhodesia — sorry, Zimbabwe.

News story one from Agence France-Presse, January 29th, quote:

After paying public workers' salaries last week, the balance in Zimbabwe's government public account stood at just $217, Finance Minister Tendai Biti said Tuesday.

"Last week when we paid civil servants there was $217 (left) in government coffers," Biti told journalists in the capital Harare, claiming some of them had healthier bank balances than the state.

End quote. News story two from the BBC News website, February 7th, quote:

Zimbabwe's education minister has deplored the fact that nearly 82 percent of students have failed their basic school leavers' exams …

But David Coltart told the BBC this was an improvement on 2009, when only 14 percent passed …

Zimbabwe used to have one of the best education systems in Africa.

The results reflect the political and economic decline the country has witnessed over the past decade, correspondents say.

End quote. Roy Welensky died in 1991 in England. Ian Smith died in 2007 in South Africa. I suppose most right-thinking people today would consider them to be hate-filled racists. Scanning through their biographies on the internet, I don't see anything like that. The worst you can say about their attitudes to black Africans is that they were paternalistic.

Welensky and Smith were decent men who did their best for the people they governed. I honor their memory. They were replaced by a monster, who ran campaigns of race hatred, wallowed in gross corruption, sold his nation's assets to the communist Chinese, and reduced his people to beggary.

I hope some future human beings, living in a saner time than ours, will be able to say honestly, with voices louder than mine, who were the heroes, who the villains in this sad story.

06 — The gay news     Boy, now I'm really depressed. We got any happy news here? [Rustles papers.]

Hm, no, no happy news … but I do have some gay news. That'll have to do.

Gay news one: Britain's House of Commons, that's the lower chamber of Parliament, passed a bill to allow homosexual marriage through its second reading on Tuesday. Under the British Constitution, a bill has to pass three readings in the House of Commons, then three more in the House of Lords, with a lot of negotiating and committee work in between readings. So this thing is one-third of the way through the process.

Conservatives can take a flicker of encouragement from the fact that 52 percent of Tory Members of Parliament who registered a vote, voted against the bill. That included two cabinet ministers. So there is still some conservatism in the Conservative Party.

Those voting against did not include Prime Minister David Cameron, who is wetter than a summer Sunday in Blackpool — a CINO, you might say: Conservative in Name Only. Cameron is in fact such a cultural Marxist, he snuck this bill into the parliamentary schedule by stealth. It was not an item in his party's election manifesto, and Britain has much graver things to worry about than Adam and Steve walking down the aisle. Or, this being Britain, I suppose I should say Nigel and Graham.

The keynote for the dissenting Tories was struck by Edward Leigh, a Member of Parliament from Lincolnshire (Margaret Thatcher's home county). Said Mr. Leigh, quote:

We should be in the business of protecting cherished institutions and our cultural heritage. Otherwise what, I ask, is a Conservative Party for?

Words to savor. American Republicans, please take note of them. In fact I like them so much I'm going to say them again. Quote:

We should be in the business of protecting cherished institutions and our cultural heritage. Otherwise what, I ask, is a Conservative Party for?

Pause for reflection. [Pause.]

OK, second item of gay news: We were supposed to get a decision this week from the Boy Scouts of America as to whether open homosexuals should be accepted as scoutmasters. The executive board of the BSA was supposed to give a ruling, but they punted. The new date for a decision is May 20th.

Of course nobody in the Scouting movement wants homosexual men taking young boys off into the woods, any more than anyone in the Girl Scouts wants heterosexual men leading teenage girls on camping trips. This change is being forced on the BSA by homosexualist groups leaning on the BSA's corporate donors and municipalities that lease camp grounds to them.

Leading the charge is the sinister, deceptively-named, and George Soros-funded "Human Rights Campaign," which in actuality cares about only one human right: the right to perform homosexual acts. I don't object to that right as a private indulgence; but in pursuit of it, these homosexualist fanatics seek to destroy an organization that has brought healthy and harmless fun to untold millions of boys over more than a hundred years, while giving them solid moral and practical instruction along the way.

Pederasts were a constant nuisance to the Boy Scout movement from its beginning. Robert Baden-Powell, who founded the whole thing in 1908, was constantly vexed by the issue, and devoted a lot of time and trouble to weeding out these nuisances. Now they are to be welcomed with open arms.

It is hard to believe that many parents will be happy about this, so numbers will dwindle and the Boy Scouts will die out, depriving the nation of a useful and healthful institution. Freedom of association, and the right of a private organization to discriminate in a sensible and harmless way, will have been struck another blow.

If any of our politicians, including our so-called conservative politicians, are taking a stand against this, I haven't heard about it.

May I say it once again, please? Thank you. Quote:

We should be in the business of protecting cherished institutions and our cultural heritage. Otherwise what, I ask, is a Conservative Party for?

07 — Miscellany.     And now, a fast gallop through our closing miscellany of brief items.

Imprimis:  This item may strike you as weird. It struck me that way when I read it. On reflection, though … Well, let me tell you the story.

It concerns a Japanese pop group named AKB48. This is a girl group, wildly popular in Japan. Made up of fifteen girls in their teens and early twenties, the group grossed almost 200 million dollars in CD and DVD sales during 2011 alone.

If you go to YouTube and look at their pop videos, though, you see the weirdness. The group members are usually dressed as schoolgirls, in short plaid skirts and demure blouses. In one song, they are actually sitting at desks in a classroom.

Well, if that's what people like in Japan, who are we to object? Better they should be doing this than dive-bombing our aircraft carriers.

To keep up the virginal-innocence facade, though, the group maintains a strict policy of no dating for its members. This caused a problem for group member Minami Minegishi, who was photographed by a tabloid newspaper leaving her boyfriend's house first thing in the morning.

When the terrible news came out, Ms. Minegishi did the Japanese thing. No, no, she didn't commit seppuku, at any rate she hasn't yet. No: she shaved off all her hair and made a weepy, emotional apology to her fans. Posted on YouTube, the clip was viewed five million times before being taken down.

Punch line: Ms. Minegishi is twenty years old.

Weird? Well, let's take a detached view of the matter, looking at it sub specie aeternitatis. I'd say it's less weird than the latest exploit of Lindsay Lohan or Britney Spears; and probably, from a societal point of view, a lot healthier.

Item:  Daniel Greenfield's blog, named "Sultan Knish," is one I check in on regularly. He had a great post a couple of weeks ago, title "The Guns of Obamerica." I urge you to read the whole thing: there's a link in the Radio Derb transcript.

Greenfield's argument is that while the leftist Obama-voting demographics are pushing for gun control, they are harvesting votes from the most criminally gun-happy parts of the country. Quote:

Obama won every major city in the election, except for Jacksonville and Salt Lake City. And the higher the death rate, the bigger his victory. He won New Orleans by 80 to 17 where the murder rate is ten times higher than the national average. He won Detroit, where the murder rate of 53 per 100,000 people is the second highest in the country and twice as high as any country in the world, including the Congo and South Africa. He won it 73 to 26. And then he celebrated his victory in Chicago where the murder rate is three times the statewide average.

These places aren't America. They're Obamerica.

In 2006, the 54 percent of the population living in those 50 metro areas was responsible for 67 percent of armed killings nationwide. Those are disproportionate numbers especially when you consider that for the people living in most of those cities walking into a store and legally buying a gun is all but impossible.

An excellent piece, very quotable.

Item:  Finally: Out with the old, in with the new. This weekend we pass from the Year of the Dragon to the Year of the Snake … in the Chinese lunar calendar, of course.

I'm not sure what the protocol is about eating snake in the Year of the Snake, but if that's a thing you want to do, I recommend doing it in the province of Guizhou in China, where it's something of a local specialty. They let you pick out your snake; then they cut out its gall bladder and serve it to you in a glass of liquor while cooking up the snake meat. Mm-mm, my mouth is watering already.

See: Japanese, Chinese, American — the weirdness is all relative. 恭喜發財! Happy New Year!

08 — Signoff.     That's all for this week, ladies and gents. Some politics, some history, some social issues, and a snake's gall bladder. We leave no stone unturned here at Radio Derb.

For a sign-off, to remind us of happier times when the Republican Party was one that a conservative citizen could vote for without having to bite down hard on a broom handle, and also in honor of Amity Shlaes' new biography of the 30th President, in bookstores next week, here is the 1924 Republican campaign song, "Keep Cool and Keep Coolidge." The sound quality is poor because, hey, it's a 1924 recording, so I'll start you off with the first verse:

"Keep cool and keep Coolidge" is the slogan of the day!
Keep cool and keep Coolidge for the good old U.S.A.!
A lot of politicians cannot do a thing but squawk;
But Calvin Coolidge is a man of action and not talk …

More from Radio Derb next week!

[Music clip: "Keep Cool with Coolidge"]