• Play the sound file (duration 39m22s).
[Music clip: From Haydn's Derbyshire Marches, piano version]
01 — Intro. And Radio Derb is on the air! This is your judiciously genial host John Derbyshire with news from far and wide.
Listeners have been emailing in to ask me how this Greek crisis is affecting us here on the island. Very little, is the answer. We have long since settled in to a barter economy, and Taki keeps us here at the studio well supplied with goods we can trade with the villagers: a bottle of ouzo for a basket of figs, that sort of thing.
Much more worrying is the increasing flow of boat people from Turkey and North Africa. So far they've been deterred from landing here by the signs we put up in Arabic, declaring the whole island to be a leper colony. My research assistants will play volleyball on the beach at weekends, though, and sooner or later it's going to occur to passing boat people that the girls don't look the least bit leprous.
There'll be more about the boat people in a future broadcast. This week, let's start with the Greek crisis.
02 — Greeks bearing debts. Yes, Greece's financial troubles have reached some kind of endgame. What's this all about?
The fundamental problem is simple enough. The bankers of Northern Europe lent Greece a lot of money, and Greece can't repay it.
Two questions: Why did they lend Greece so much? And: Why can't Greece repay the debts?
Two answers: Greece was in the European free trade zone, and furthermore in the Euro currency family. With all the opportunities that offered for the Greek economy to get vibrant and productive, plus the externally-monitored financial controls implicit in Euro membership, lending money to Greece seemed like a good bet.
But: Greeks turned out to be not much interested in having a productive economy, much more interested in setting up an extravagant welfare state with lots of government jobs. And: Those stern controls turned out to be rather easy to cheat on. By the time truth about Greece's condition came out, the money was lent. After that the sunk-cost fallacy took over: Lending yet more money in hopes of improvement was a less painful option than allowing default. Until it wasn't.
Nobody really wants this to come to a head. You know the old quip about how, if you owe your bank ten thousand dollars, you have a problem; but if you owe your bank ten million dollars, the bank has a problem?
Same thing here. The creditor nations — that is, to a good first approximation, Germany — are in a pickle. These are exporting nations; and in the European free trade zone, it's lesser countries like Greece, Spain, and Italy that buy their products. Greece is not very consequential by herself, but if the precedent for default is set, Spain and Italy may not be far behind, followed by Portugal and Ireland, maybe even France and Britain. If nobody's buying Germany's stuff, Germany's economy tanks … or panzers, if you like
It's uncharted territory, populated for all anyone knows by dragons and tigers. The Germans would rather not find out. They still have folk memories of November 1923, trundling a wheelbarrow full of banknotes to the store to buy a jar of sauerkraut.
Should Americans be worried? A little, yes. When a country's in as much trouble as Greece has been this past few years, with its sovereign securities dirt cheap, there are enterprising people who will buy up all those cheap bonds, gambling that since this is, after all, a country, which isn't going to disappear off the face of the Earth, sooner or later they'll come back and their bonds will be worth boocoo dollars.
Most of those enterprising people are called "hedge fund managers." And no, hedge funds are not just mutual funds for rich people any more: U.S. pension systems, for example, invest in hedge funds.
Sure, sooner or later Greece will come back. As Adam Smith said: "There's a deal of ruin in a country." Unfortunately there's also a deal of time in "later." Right now we're pretty deep into "later," and there are pension checks to be written.
So yes, there are repercussions here.
The latest move in the chess game is that Greece will hold a referendum this Sunday on whether to accept the latest terms offered by Greece's creditors. It's a straight nai or oxi vote (that's "yes" or "no" for those listeners who've forgotten your Greek). Polls are all over the place, with the yeses having a slight edge as we go to tape here.
If the Greeks vote yes on Sunday, the crisis will rumble on quietly for another year or so until some new point of desperation is reached. If they vote no, the scata will hit the anemistyras more or less immediately. Interesting times in Greece.
03 — SCOTUS stamps out dissent. We got the long-awaited Supreme Court ruling on whether the Fourteenth Amendment requires the states to issue marriage licenses to homosexual couples. Yes it does, said a majority of the justices.
Here is the part of the Fourteenth Amendment that's at issue, quote:
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Implicit in those words, said the SCOTUS majority, is an insistence that states must issue marriage licenses to pairs of men and pairs of women. Why only pairs, not trios or quartets, I do not know; perhaps some future ruling of the court will tell us. Does the Amendment also insist that the states issue pilot's licenses to the blind? Not to do so would be to deny the equal protection of the laws, wouldn't it? Another future ruling there, no doubt.
Why our marital arrangements couldn't be left up to our states to decide, as they always have been, is likewise not clear to me. Possibly that just betrays my ignorance of constitutional law. On the other hand, it wasn't clear to Justice Antonin Scalia, either. Quote from his scathing dissent, quote:
The substance of today's decree is not of immense personal importance to me. The law can recognize as marriage whatever sexual attachments and living arrangements it wishes, and can accord them favorable civil consequences, from tax treatment to rights of inheritance. Those civil consequences — and the public approval that conferring the name of marriage evidences — can perhaps have adverse social effects, but no more adverse than the effects of many other controversial laws. So it is not of special importance to me what the law says about marriage. It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me. Today's decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. The opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact — and the furthest extension one can even imagine — of the Court's claimed power to create "liberties" that the Constitution and its Amendments neglect to mention.
End quote. Compare the crisp, measured reasoning of Justice Scalia with the breathless schoolgirl vaporings of Justice Kennedy, voting with the majority, quote:
No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death.
End quote. All that may be true; but what does it have to do with the content of the Fourteenth Amendment? Perhaps Justice Kennedy is planning to retire to a career with the Hallmark Greeting Card Company.
He continues, quote:
It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves.
End quote. Is that true?
Over the last four years, the General Social Survey has asked married respondents, categorized by sexual orientation, whether they have ever had sex with someone other than a spouse while married. Here are the percentages responding "yes," by sexual orientation.
So … would it really, quote, "misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage"?
And if Justice Kennedy can be so wrong in understanding an easily-checked point of fact — it took me less than a minute to find that source — what should we think of his understanding of the Fourteenth Amendment?
04 — The color of crime. The church shooting in Charleston, South Carolina on June 17th, though of course a ghastly tragedy for the murdered churchgoers and their loved ones, was a gift to upholders of the Cultural Marxist narrative about black Americans tiptoeing around in fear of evil whites seeking to harm them.
The jeering triumphalism of the narrative-pushers has, however, had the result of bringing this particular aspect of the narrative into the spotlight of public attention; and that has had the unwanted side effect — unwanted by the anti-white agitators, I mean — of getting people to look closely at the actual statistics on interracial crime, helpfully collected for us by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, an agency within, but to some degree independent of, the Justice Department.
Those statistics show a thing that I pointed out three years ago: Of all violent single-offender crimes in the U.S.A. in which one party — offender or victim — was black and the other wasn't, five out of six involve a black offender and a nonblack victim.
Those figures exclude homicide. They come from the National Crime Victimization Survey, the great virtue of which is that it tallies reports by crime victims whether or not the crime resulted in a police report or an arrest.
Homicide victims don't give very good reports, though, so for homicide figures you have to go to the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports. I did the math on that, too, a couple of weeks ago, with the conclusion that, quote:
While homicide is a very rare event and we are dealing with tiny probabilities here, any given black was almost fifteen times more likely to have killed a white in 2013 (probability 0.001000 percent) than any given white was to have killed a black (probability 0.000068 percent).
Other researchers have been chiming in with similar results. Heather Mac Donald, for example, had an excellent article on this topic at National Review Online Wednesday, exploding the bare-faced lie that whites are more dangerous to blacks than vice versa.
Will this now scotch the narrative once and for all?
I seriously doubt it. If you have access to YouTube, bring it up and key into the search box the three words "crime and race." Near the top of the list of items that come up is a news conference held by a young-looking Jared Taylor in June of 1999 — sixteen years ago.
This was on the occasion of the first publication of Jared's well-researched booklet The Color of Crime. Jared had had his researchers go through the government statistics just as I did, just as Heather Mac Donald did, and extract the true facts about interracial violent crime.
Incredible as it seems now, that news conference was covered by C-Span (which is why it's on YouTube) and written up by at least one broadsheet newspaper. Today, sixteen years later, the narrative is stronger than ever, and no respectable news outlet will report anything Jared says or does without authorization from the Southern Poverty Law Center.
So I don't hold out great hopes that this latest round of frankness about interracial crime will leave much of a permanent impression on the collective American psyche. As the poet reminded us, though:
The truth is great, and shall prevail,
05 — Trump thumped. Two weeks ago Radio Derb welcomed the entry of Donald Trump into the race to be 2016 Republican Presidential candidate. Trump came in with a fine tub-thumping speech which included the following, quote:
When do we beat Mexico at the border? They're laughing at us, at our stupidity. And now they are beating us economically. They are not our friend, believe me. But they're killing us economically.
That got Trump in a world of hurt with corporate America, which is more relentlessly PC than any liberal arts college you can name.
NBC, which has hosted The Apprentice since 2004, has terminated its business relationship with Trump. Univision, the Hispanic-supremacist TV network, will no longer cover Trumps' Miss U.S.A. and Miss Universe beauty pageants. Macy's department stores will no longer stock Trump's signature line of shirts and ties. Gasped a company spokescritter from the fainting couch, quote:
Macy's is a company that stands for diversity and inclusion. We do not believe [Trump's] disparaging characterizations portray an accurate picture of the many Mexicans, Mexican Americans and Latinos who have made so many valuable contributions to the success of our nation.
The Donald don't embarrass easy, though. This is no weeny donor-whipped, focus-group-shy ordinary Republican chickenheart. He's suing Univision for half a billion dollars on the grounds that Univision is attempting to suppress his freedom of speech.
That sounds like a bit of a stretch to me. Still, if the case were to come before me for judgement, I'd award Trump the full half billion, plus costs, just to stick a finger in the eye of the Hispanic supremacists.
06 — A patriotic Democrat! While I'm covering 2016 election news, I may as well note the entry of two more candidates into the Presidential stakes: former Senator and Secretary of the Navy Jim Webb for the Democrats and New Jersey Governor Chris Christie for the GOP.
I had words to say about Jim Webb back in March and I'll repeat them here, quote from myself:
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?
End quote. About Christie my feelings are mixed, as I expressed after meeting him back in 2011. He's good on some basics of government spending and responsibility, but limp as old lettuce on immigration and the Second Amendment.
Bottom line here: If it's Webb or Christie in 2016, I'll be voting for Webb. Sorry, Chris, but a patriotic Democrat beats an open-borders Republican for my vote. I continue to be amazed, though, that there still is such a thing as a patriotic Democrat.
07 — Trump-Coulter 2016! A couple of weeks ago Radio Derb put forward the suggestion of a Trump-Coulter ticket: Donald Trump for President, Ann Coulter for Vice President. I'll admit I wasn't being altogether serious there; but the more I think about that ticket, the more I like it. Seriously.
Look at it this way. Political conformity has settled like a thick fog over the whole American landscape. The mainstream institutions that decide what gets discussed in the public sphere, with what vocabulary and what diction — I'm talking about the media, the schools and universities, the big corporations, the courts, the churches, the political party bosses — these mainstream institutions are all striving mightily to enforce uniformity of thought and stamp out dissent.
They have ruled out of court any critical approach to many really important topics — issues that will have major effects on the kind of country our grandchildren will live in, or even whether they will live in a single country at all. Immigration is the foremost such topic, but there are many others.
For example: Through denial of the realities of innate, biological race and sex differences we are stuck with stupid, expensive, wasteful, and pernicious policies in areas from education to law enforcement, from hiring firefighters to putting women in submarine crews. Any attempt to discuss those realities in public is shouted down as "bigotry."
If you've listened much to Radio Derb, or browsed Dissident Right websites like VDARE.com, American Renaissance, Château Heartiste, Unz Review, and Refugee Resettlement Watch, that's all old news to you. The question is, what can we do about it? We sane, civilized people, I mean: we who understand that murdering some kind old ladies in a church, quite aside from being an act of heartless barbarism, isn't going to help any.
Well, we can bellyache on the Internet. That is personally satifying, and also, I'll argue in just a moment, socially useful. It doesn't directly penetrate the fog, though. The entire patronage of all those websites I mentioned doesn't add up to more than the population of an average provincial city. Steve Sailer doesn't get invited on Fox News; Jared Taylor isn't being asked to give college commencement addresses.
We need some high-powered flashlights to shine through the gloom. Speaking truth to power is noble and worthwhile, but it only has social effect if it's heard above the yammer of pop culture and the heavy suffocating drone of goodwhite propaganda.
In the month of June the Kultursmog was indeed pierced by two bright rays of light. Ann Coulter published her book on the slow, deliberate destruction of the U.S.A. by open-borders fanatics; and Donald Trump — who, Ann tells us …
Those voices were heard. Ann's was heard because she's a gifted writer and researcher and a quick-witted public speaker who has built up a wide readership for her many books. Trump's was heard because, however much you may scoff at him as a vanity candidate, he has billions of dollars to spend on his campaign without having to court donors. He also has a genius for self-promotion and an intimate acquaintance with the mechanisms and procedures of the mass media.
For me, watching Trump and Coulter perform has dispelled some of the gloom of this past few days. I also take hope from some signs I think I see in Ann's book that while the work we do out here on the Dissident Right barely registers against the squawking of the mainstream media and the bellowing of the Social Justice enforcers, none the less some of it gets picked up and transmitted on by people whose voices can be heard.
My suggestion for a Trump-Coulter ticket was, as I said, meant facetiously at the time; but the more I think about it, the more I think their two voices would bring some much-needed realism and frankness to the Presidential campaign.
So let's push for it: TRUMP-COULTER 2016! I'm having some lapel buttons made up.
08 — Puerto Rico today, Cuba tomorrow. News from the Caribbean, ladies and gents.
First, Puerto Rico. The island's governor, Alejandro García Padilla, has made it official: The commonwealth can no longer pay its debts.
Are there parallels here with Greece? How many do you want?
Random extracts from the Wall Street Journal's July 2nd report on the default, quote:
Many … blame Puerto Ricans' dependence on a large public sector with expansive social programs for widening the island's budget deficits and worsening an economic slump that has lasted nearly a decade …
End quotes. Yep, this is our very own Greece, except Puerto Rico never had a Golden Age.
Puerto Ricans are fleeing the island in droves: 55,000 net departures between mid-2013 and mid-2014, says the Journal. That's from a population of 3½ million. At that rate the whole place would empty out in 64 years. They're all heading for the U.S.A., of course. What a boon that will be for the U.S. economy.
And then Cuba. Wednesday this week, President Obama announced that Cuba and the United States will reopen their embassies in each other's capitals. This is part of the Obama administration's efforts to normalize relations with Cuba.
I really can't see the positive in this. Someone asked Henry Kissinger twenty years ago whether there wasn't a good rational case for restoring relations with Cuba. Maybe there was, said Henry, but why should we? For decades Castro did everything he could to vex us. Screw 'em. Let 'em rot.
I can't see that anything's changed. Indeed, with Puerto Rico going belly-up, the case for keeping Cuba fenced off is stronger now than before. Who can doubt that Cuba will be just as incompetently governed as Puerto Rico, with the same consequences; including, given our de facto open borders policies yet another flood of useless mouths from yet another decrepit Caribbean slum.
If I were running the CIA, in fact, I'd stage a Castro-style coup in Puerto Rico and install a fiercely anti-American dictator, to give us the excuse to sever ties and blockade the place for fifty years. Nobody in Washington has any imagination any more, that's the problem.
09 — Miscellany. And now, our closing miscellany of brief items.
Imprimis: First, just a minor terminological grumble. As related in my first segment back there, we have a real possibility that Greece will leave the Eurozone, perhaps leave the EU altogether, or get thrown out. This is referred to in the newspapers as the Grexit. Greece … exit … Grexit, see?
Fair enough; but there's a campaign in Britain to get that country out of the EU. The newspapers over there have started referring to that possibility as, yes, a Brexit.
People who want Puerto Rico thrown out of the union with the U.S.A. have picked up on this, at least in their emails to me. What they want to see, they tell me, is a Prexit.
It's getting kind of annoying, like the habit of sticking the suffix "-gate" on to the name of any kind of political crisis. That one should in all reason have died out around 1985, but it's still going strong. Remember Chris Christie's Bridgegate a couple of years ago?
This Grexit-Brexit-Prexit meme is getting out of hand. It's a crisis, in fact: Exitgate! I say it's spinach and I say the hell with it.
Item: I couldn't help but smile at this story in the New York Times.
Following the Supreme Court's ruling on homosexual marriage, homosexual activists in New York City held a Sunday parade to show the world how proud they are to be sexually abnormal.
At one point on the parade route there was a gathering of Orthodox Jewish protestors decked out in fringed Jewish prayer shawls, orthodox black hats, and side curls. They held up neatly printed signs saying things like "Judaism prohibits homosexuality."
Fair enough, you may say: freedom of speech and all that. Sure: except that when the Times reporter spoke to these protestors he discovered that they weren't Jewish at all. They were Mexican day laborers, hired by an orthodox Jewish group that didn't want their own young people to see parading homosexuals up close.
Is this a great country, or what? You can even hire illegal aliens to do your demonstrating for you.
It does make me wonder, though, about those people burning Confederate flags in South Carolina. Perhaps someone should ask to see their immigration papers.
Item: Bernie Sanders, self-described socialist and new darling of the progressives, candidate for the Democratic Presidential nomination, held a campaign rally at Veterans Memorial Coliseum in Madison, Wisconsin. The rally drew an enthusiastic crowd estimated at ten thousand.
Here's the thing. Go to CNN's coverage of the rally — it's on their website — and tell me if that isn't the whitest crowd you ever saw.
Yeah, yeah, I know: This is Madison, Wisconsin — less than eight percent black, according to city-data.com. Still, this is a Democratic candidate, and from the left wing of the party at that.
Could it be that Bernie Sanders' appeal is strictly to white gentry liberals? Surely not.
Item: Finally, a 21-year-old man working at a Volkswagen factor in Baunatal, Germany was killed by an industrial robot.
Quote from the news report:
When the robot started up, it grabbed the man and thrust him against a metal slab.
End quote. It starts …
10 — Signoff. That's it, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for listening, and very best wishes for a festive and relaxing July 4th weekend.
A little patriotic music is appropriate to see us out. Here's Leonard Warren.
More from Radio Derb next week.
[Music clip: Leonard Warren, "America the Beautiful."]