Note: Behind the green door, there is a post about an old post I did on Vladimir Putin as the antidote to Peter the Great, a post about the Amazon series The Bondsman, and the Sunday podcast. Subscribe here or here.

Last week, Trump stunned the world by following through on what he has been promising since he came down the escalator in 2015. He imposed across-the-board tariffs on every country in the world—except Russia. The reason Russia was excluded is that they are already sanctioned to the maximum. The tariff knob does not go past one hundred, so they were not on the list. Every other country was hit with a tariff, even Israel, which should cause some people to rethink things.

This set off the Great Trump Stock Market Crash, which promises to continue this week as the rest of the world responds to the new world order. The old trading models no longer work, so the default fallback in these conditions is cash. The quants were working feverishly last week to update their models in order to find the bargains that will inevitably be sitting there, waiting for the lucky. The smart money thinks the floor is a twenty percent correction, followed by stability.

The yesterday men and the crazies are sure this is the Great Depression, because their history of the world starts in the 1930s. It is a stylized history, such that every modern event can be jammed into the 1930s, the 1960s, or the 1980s. Since they are sure Trump is secretly Hitler, this must be the 1930s—even though we have witnessed many stock market corrections in the last thirty years. The COVID crash, the mortgage bubble, and the dot-com bubble are easy examples.

In reality, what we are seeing is the long-overdue return to normalcy, where American economic policy is aimed at benefiting the American people, rather than abstract concepts from economics departments. If Canada has tariffs on American goods, then the United States should have tariffs on Canadian goods—unless it can be shown that the American people benefit in some way from the imbalance. The same is true for every other country in the world.

One of the weird things about decades of American trade policy is that it has created the same sense of entitlement as government racial policy. Just as nonwhites think they are entitled to be near white people without conditions, the world thinks it has a right to access the American market without conditions. This is most obvious in Europe, which has taken this lopsided arrangement for granted. They have also assumed they are entitled to American defense, while doing nothing in return.

The logic behind this arrangement has always been nonsense—but people love to believe in nonsense, especially their own. We see this with the free trade crowd, who are claiming tariffs will only harm the American people. If that were true, then the rest of the world should have been miserable for the last thirty years. Further, if that were true, then the rest of the world now has a chance to usher in a golden age for their people by eliminating their tariffs instead of raising them.

The truth of the matter is that all economic policy is about trade-offs—especially in global trade. This is why it is called trade, rather than “free.” Having a tariff-free relationship with Canada could make sense if the Canadian government could be trusted, as the American and Canadian economies are so similar. The same is not true for Mexico or Bangladesh. Trade is never just about money—it is also about culture and the national interests of the trading countries.

Of course, what we are seeing is not really about trade so much as it is about getting the American financial house in order. Scott Bessent, the Treasury Secretary and architect of the Trump economic policy, has made this clear. Normalizing American trade relations is just one arrow. Another is the mass reorganization of government that kicked off in January. For the first time in the life of anyone reading this, the size and scope of government will be reduced.

Another arrow is the changes in the tax code that are slowly working their way through both houses of Congress. The Senate passed its version of spending and tax cuts, so now it is on to the House. What is shaping up is a two-pronged approach: one is to put into law the cuts made by the DOGE boys, and the other is a radical revamping of the tax code to reflect the new economic approach. Removing taxes on tips and overtime, for example, is part of the Senate model.

What we are seeing is the most radical alteration to the American economic model since the 1980s. The reason for it is that the old model is unsustainable. As Bessent pointed out, there is a limit to borrowing. For a long time, the American model relied on creating unlimited credit money in the banking system and massive federal borrowing. We have reached the limits of this model. Now, that model threatens the integrity of the American economy, so changes must be made.

More important are the changes in how we think and talk about the economy. For the longest time, the economy has been treated as a god. Americans were expected to tolerate anything to please it. If the economy demanded Haitian cannibals in your town, you had to accept it. If the economy demanded that the quality of your hand tools decline, you just lived with it. If the economy required you to work two jobs to make ends meet, then you did it. The economy was a remorseless god.

This sort of thinking makes sense to an alien overclass that sees the United States as an opportunity to be exploited. It does not make sense if the ruling elite feels a connection and obligation to the people. Shifting from the old transactional model of economics to a nationalistic model requires a new language. Simply pointing at a graph that trends upward is no longer enough. The political class will now have to possess some economic literacy.

It is too soon to know if these changes can make it through Congress. The winners under the old exploitative model will not go quietly. No one knows if the American public will tolerate the pain that must come with the transition. It is not all bad news, though, so the pain may be limited. Energy costs are falling—crude is under sixty dollars a barrel. This could tame inflation enough for the Fed to cut rates. Low taxes and cheap energy will go a long way toward cushioning the transition.

In the end, Bessent is correct. America cannot continue to create credit in the financial system and borrow trillions to hire government workers. We either have an orderly transition back to a normal economy, or we have a disorderly transition. The name for that is collapse—and that is vastly worse than a stock market correction. This is the reason the economic elites are backing this move. They know that the people who suffer the most from failure are the elites.

If you like my work and wish to donate, you can buy me a beer. You can sign up for a SubscribeStar or a Substack subscription and get some extra content. You can donate via PayPal. My crypto addresses are here for those who prefer that option. You can send gold bars through the postal service to: Z Media LLC P.O. Box 1047 Berkeley Springs, WV 25411-3047. Thank you for your support!

This Week’s Show

Contents

• 01m04s Jared spreads terror
• 06m04s Atheism goes woke
• 16m53s Lawfare all over
• 22m13s Human rights lunacy
• 32m59s The Scopes centenary
• 33m52s Civil war? Nah
• 35m18s It is so flat!
• 36m27s Signoff with Maria

Direct Download, The iTunes, Podcast Addict, RSS Feed

Full Show On Spreaker

Full Show On Rumble

Full Show On Odysee 

Transcript

01 — Intro.    And Radio Derb is on the air! Welcome, listeners and readers. That was a fragment of Joseph Haydn’s Derbyshire March No. 2 in the big band version, and this is your sensitively genial host John Derbyshire with some commentary on the week’s news.

To begin with, a couple of segments on the culture.

02 — Jared spreads terror.     On March 27th my dear friend Jared Taylor, the race realist proprietor of the American Renaissance website, addressed students at Colorado Mesa University, a public university in Grand Junction, Colorado, at the invitation of a student club.

The event had of course been arranged in advance. I’ll just quote here from Jared’s long March 31st post on X. Quote:

The first students heard about it was on March 7th, when university president John Marshall sent an 800-word statement to the entire campus. He agonized over [inner quote] “the most difficult and important test CMU has faced when it comes to free speech,” [end inner quote] but explained that the First Amendment is “sacred,” adding that [inner quote] “our task is to empower you to pursue truth.” [end inner quote] He called my views “vile” and “abhorrent,” but told students, [inner quote] “[I]t’s the opportunity of your life … to carefully deconstruct his dehumanizing ideas.” [End inner quote.]

End quote.

Is that actually the voice of an adult male American, president of a university? How has he concluded that Jared’s views are vile, abhorrent, and dehumanising? By a three-minute scan of Jared’s Wikipedia page, probably.

On that subject, though — I mean the subject of University President John Marshall — Jared is, as he always is, the perfect gentleman. Jared is highly intelligent, well-read, well-traveled, and scrupulously well-mannered. He picks no-one’s pocket, breaks no-one’s leg, and keys no-one’s Tesla.

Here he was being interviewed the day after the event by a guy from the university TV station.

[Clip:  Interviewer — President Marshall, here in this community, has actually drawn quite a bit of criticism for even allowing you to come onto campus where some have said you should not have been allowed because of your views and your ideologies, and yet because of freedom of speech and his views on freedom and speech, he allowed that to occur.

Is there anything that you would actually still commend him or credit him for that in any manner, at least, on that level?

Jared — Certainly. In a way, President Marshall was in a tight spot. He apparently believes in the First Amendment. And as a matter of fact there are Supreme Court precedents according to which a publicly-supported university — which CMU is — does not have the right to draw a line and say “these opinions are absolutely unacceptable. You could have made a court case to force him to let me on the campus. He may or may not be aware of that.

But the fact that he stood firm and he said “We believe in freedom of speech” — in fact he called it “sacred” — yes, I commend him for that.]

What that interviewer called Jared’s “ideologies” are, as Jared explained later in the interview, race realism and white advocacy. He believes that races are biological realities, as they surely are. The foundational text of modern biological science has the word “races” in its subtitle. And Jared believes that white people have the right to speak up, politely but firmly, for their collective interests, a thing that nonwhites everywhere believe about their own rights.

That such a person should be the focus of furious controversy at an institution of higher education is a sad commentary on the state of our civilization.

03 — Atheism goes woke.     I gave an oblique mention to Charles Darwin just there. That stirred some long-sleeping memories.

Twenty years ago, when I was writing for National Review, the “Intelligent Design” movement was still going strong, scoffing at the idea that living creatures evolve over many generations from one form to another. Every so often I had to arm-wrestle with I.D. proponents from organizations like the Discovery Institute.

This difference of opinion — loosely tagged as “Darwinism” versus “creationism” — was a real major split within the conservative movement. Politically, creationists were a subset of the Religious Right. National Review being a conservative magazine, they had some influence there. I was occasionally snubbed at the magazine’s events by fellow conservatives who considered Darwinism a form of treason to the cause.

Just twenty years ago, February 2005, National Review published a column in which I scoffed at Intelligent Design. The Discovery Institute, which is based in Seattle, flew a platoon of their big names over to New York for a meeting with National Review editors and staff, including of course me. We spent a whole afternoon kicking the issue around; mainly in a good-natured way, but of course nobody’s mind was changed.

Two years later, in May 2007, these two factions within conservatism, Darwinists and creationists, locked horns at a conference organized by the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C. There were two principals on each side of the argument: for creationism, political scientist John G. West and Economist George Gilder, both from the Discovery Institute; and for Darwinism, political scientist Larry Arnhart and ink-stained wretch John Derbyshire from National Review. The New York Times wrote up the event — the only time my name has ever appeared in their news pages, I think. Quote from their report, quote:

[T]he tension between the proponents of intelligent design and of evolution was occasionally on display. When Mr. Derbyshire described himself as a “lapsed Anglican,” which he compared to “falling out of a first-floor window,” Mr. Gilder piped up, [inner quote] “Did you fall on your head?” [End inner quote.]

End quote.

A year before that, in 2006, academic biologist Jerry Coyne had started his blog titled Why Evolution is True; three years after that he published a book with the same name. The blog is still going strong.

“Strong” actually doesn’t begin to describe it. Today’s post — April 4th 2025 — runs to eleven thousand words with thirty-two images (both still and moving) three charts or maps, and one four-panel cartoon. It’s not just idle ranting, either: nearly a thousand of those words, and one of the charts, is given over to the tariffs issue. (Jerry is skeptical.)

The guy is 75 years old. How on earth does he do it? I can only watch and envy.

Politically, Coyne is on the libertarian left. He’s of Jewish ancestry and a keen Zionist (although not a Cohen), but regards all religion as false. For a long time he was a director on the honorary board of the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF), a longstanding atheist organization headquartered in Madison, Wisconsin.

Then four months ago — December 29th last year — Coyne resigned from the FFRF. The cause of his resignation was an essay published the previous month, November, by Kat Grant, a fellow at the FFRF, arguing forcefully that biological sex is an illusion: that, quote, “A woman is whoever she says she is.” End quote.

Coyne asked to be allowed a rebuttal. FFRF said okay, and posted a short piece he wrote titled: “Biology is not bigotry,” arguing for the reality of biological sex. The day after they posted it, however, they took it down, issuing a statement that the posting was an “error of judgment,” that it “does not reflect our values or principles,” and that it had caused “distress.”

Coyne resigned, along with two other big-name atheists: Steven Pinker and Richard Dawkins.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation has, in other words, gone woke. The woke ideology has captured American atheism, or any rate its most prominent and long-established organization.

Monday this week Jerry Coyne published an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal under the title “Losing My Nonreligion” He insists he didn’t pick that title. He’s still an atheist, just not a woke one. His Zionism should fit pretty well, as anti-Zionism seems to be settling in as a component of woke ideology.

In that Wall Street Journal op-ed Coyne argues that wokism, or at least transgenderism, now exhibits the very same features he objects to in religion. I’ll give you a longish quote. Quote:

In many ways, transgender ideology is no different from the religious dogma the FFRF was founded to oppose. It insists on doctrines that are palpably untrue (“trans women are women”), engages in circular reasoning (“a woman is whoever she says she is”) and affirms mind/body dualism (“your self-concept is more real than your actual sex”).

It also makes anathema of heresy and blasphemy (tarring of dissenters as “transphobes”), attempts to silence critics who raise valid counter arguments, seeks to proselytize children in schools and excommunicates critics (J.K. Rowling is the best-known example). Like religious fundamentalists, proponents of these views have a fierce conviction that they’re morally correct and know what’s best for you and society. To disagree is to be immoral — sinful, you might say.

End longish quote.

So the wheel turns; so atheism morphs into a quasi-religion. I refer you to the quote from myself that follows quotes from George Orwell and A.E. Housman at the top of my home page.

Things used to be so much simpler. Atheist or believer; left or right; Jew or Gentile; if you knew where a person stood on one of those axes you could make a fairly safe guess where he was on the other two. Now people are all over the place.

I’m really having trouble figuring out the twenty-first century.

04 — Lawfare all over.     Boy, this lawfare has really taken off, hasn’t it? Populist nationalists are being lawfared all over the civilized world.

The latest casualty is Marine Le Pen, leader of France’s pop-nat party, National Rally and, according to the Reuters report, a a front-runner in polls for France’s 2027 election. Monday this week a French court found Mlle. Le Pen guilty of misusing EU funds. Now she can’t run in 2027 unless she gets and wins an appeal.

“Misusing EU funds,” eh? I wonder what she did with them. Wrote them in the wrong box on a spreadsheet, perhaps.

It’s happening all over Europe. The establishments there have been watching the way our own elites tried to deal with the menace of Donald Trump. They watched and learned; now they are employing their own judiciaries the way our rulers have been employing ours. U.S.A. shows the way!

Deep state operators from Bucharest to Barcelona have memorized the famous line supposedly uttered by Lavrenty Beria, Stalin’s secret-police chief: “Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime.”

In Barcelona, to be fair, the lawfare is just getting started. The pop-nat party of Spain is called Vox. We just learned this week that the official spokesman for the Vox Party is under police investigation. All right; he’s not the leader of the party, just the spokesman. They have to start somewhere, don’t they?

For what is this gent, whose name is José Antonio Fúster, for what is he being investigated? For misusing EU funds? No, way way worse than that.

Señor Fúster, at a press conference back in July 2023, had read out aloud a list of the first names of people arrested after heavy riots that month in Barcelona. The list went like this: Sabar, Omar, Nassim, Abdelkader, Salah, Salah, Younes, Karim, Jamil, Amir, Ali, Oussama, Hassan, … Sr. Fúster commented, quote: “Can you see any pattern? The only hatred is against Spaniards and their security.” End quote. The man’s an Islamophobe! [Scream.]

Yes, it’s lawfare all over against us pop-nats. That’s quite a revolution. Until recently — well within living memory — the law was a conservative profession. The wigs, the robes, the Latin tags, … conservatism enthroned, or enbenched.

Mr. O’Shaughnessy, has your client never heard the expression sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas?

My Lord: in the remote farming village in County Kilkenny where my client lives, they speak of little else.

Now, somehow, the benches have filled up with wokesters. “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers,” says a rebel in one of Shakespeare’s plays. I don’t want to see anyone hurt, and in fact have met some very pleasant lawyers; but I think Western Civ. might get started on the road to improvement by burning down all the law schools.

05 — Human rights lunacy.     It’s not so much of an issue here, but an ongoing scandal in Britain is the gross mis-application of human rights law. This may, like so many other of Britain’s misfortunes, be a legacy of the evil Tony Blair regime; Blair’s wife is a human-rights lawyer.

There’s usually a particular case in this genre that everyone’s talking about over there, a particularly egregious case. The one that most recently snagged my attention was that of Klevis Bisha, a 39-year-old Albanian.

Mr. Bisha immigrated to Britain illegally at age 15 back in 2001. His asylum claim was rejected, but for reasons unclear he was allowed to stay anyway, and in 2007 granted British citizenship. He married another Albanian, they had three children, and at some point he embarked on a life of crime.

In 2007 his criminality got him jailed. It was found out that he had lied about his origins, telling the authorities he was from Yugoslavia. He was stripped of his citizenship and ordered deported.

However, there were issues with his son. We don’t know the lad’s name, but on appeal an immigration judge ruled that for Mr. Bisha to be deported while his son stayed in Britain would be an offense against human rights. But it would also go against the lad’s human rights for him to go to Albania with his Dad. Why? Here I’ll just quote from the report at GB News, quote:

An immigration tribunal ruled that it would be [inner quote] “unduly harsh” [end inner quote] for [the boy] to be forced to move to Albania with his father owing to his sensitivity around food. The sole example provided to the court was his distaste for the “type of chicken nuggets that are available abroad.”

End quote.

Did you get that? An illegal alien career criminal can’t be deported to Albania because his son doesn’t like Albanian chicken nuggets. To make him eat them would be an offense against his human rights. That’s how crazy the judges are over there in Shakespeare’s island.

What’s being perverted here is the idea of human rights — a proper and sensible idea, worthy of respect if correctly applied.

And human rights are of course truly, grossly, abused elsewhere. I’ve just been reading in the March edition of Literary Review an account of the arrest, trial, and imprisonment of 60-year-old Australian writer Yang Hengjun. Yang is of Chinese origins but an Australian citizen since 2003. Convicted of espionage, on what evidence we don’t know, he’s imprisoned under a suspended death sentence and has been badly ill-treated.

There you certainly have a case for human-rights organizations and human-rights lawyers, and there are of course numerous similar ones. I strongly support the principle of human rights, properly applied. The principle is not properly applied by allowing an illegal alien criminal to stay in your country because of his son’s taste in snack food.

Among those who have remarked on the case of Klevis Bisha is American novelist and journalist Lionel Shriver. Ms. Shriver — and yes, she’s a she, that “Lionel” notwithstanding — is best known as the author of the 2003 novel We Need to Talk About Kevin, from which a rather good movie was made.

Ms. Shriver was being interviewed for the YouTube channel Spiked. Here’s how it went, slightly edited. Her mentions of The Sun refer to a British tabloid newspaper.

[Clip:  Host — Another major area of this, completely unaccountable in a similar vein, is the asylum system, of course. And there’s been a string of absurdities that you’ve written about brilliantly, Lionel, recently …  What do you make of these kinds of cases? and have we just completely lost control?

Shriver — I’ve concluded that the only solution is to eliminate the asylum system altogether. I mean, I realize there’s an element of pie in the sky there, but I don’t mind planting the idea in some politician’s mind. Maybe eventually this stuff will get so insane — though it’s hard to imagine it getting more so — that someone will move on this.

I don’t even think that withdrawing from the European Court of Human Rights is enough. You’d also have to get rid of the refugee convention. And I think that if you’re really going to start picking all this stuff out there are still other treaties that you’d have to withdraw from.

I question the entire system. I don’t understand why, as a legacy of World War Two, we necessarily — just because we feel badly that we weren’t welcoming enough for Jewish refugees, especially before the war — why does that mean that every Western country has to allow that every single person from anywhere in the world who sets a toe in their territory has immediate access to, if nothing else, the entire justice system, which they do not pay for or contribute to?

And here, that system has gone nuts in protecting the rights of the asylum-seeker. One thing that really knocks me back when I read these articles — you know, The Sun loves them — you know: someone can’t be deported because his kid doesn’t like foreign chicken nuggets. I mean, you couldn’t make this stuff up. As a fiction writer, it spares me a lot of bother. [All laugh.]

What really knocks me back is the number of appeals a lot of these people have. You know, it is not unusual to read that somebody has been denied asylum eight or nine times in a row. Why is that possible? Why can’t you just make a single decision and there is no appeal? I mean, we could at least start there …

Host — Or one appeal, or something like that …

Shriver — Yeah. Not even one appeal. Just forget it! [All laugh.] And this is expensive. And on top of that, of course, we allow that if you have set a toe in the territory, then you also have access to welfare; and there is some obligation of the state to put you up. We have all these expensive hotels.

The British people are enraged over this, and so are the Americans. This is where Trump really has his finger on the pulse. This is out of control. The biggest issue in the U.S. economically is asylum-seekers’ access to health care, right? Which costs a fortune in the United States.

So I just … I think it’s out of control. We just take it as a given that most of these people are not actually persecuted. Y’know: they’re looking for, quote “a better life.” (Which is a little advertisement: the title of my new book. It is about immigration … but that’s not out yet.) So, you know, they’re gaming the system. It is just understood. And I don’t even think we’re sufficiently incensed about that.

And furthermore we’re dealing with a judiciary — especially in the U.K. — which is chronically left-wing and is always looking for an excuse to let people stay. The approval rate is something like seventy-five percent. That’s absurd. There’s no way that three-quarters of these people — on boats, for example — are coming from France — terrifying France! — are doing anything but trying to look for better economic opportunities.]

Note to self: Watch out for Lionel Shriver’s next novel, title something like A Better Life.

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

Imprimis:  Since I raised the subject of evolution back there, let me note that this July, July 10th, we come up to the centenary of the Scopes Monkey Trial in Dayton, Tennessee.

That was where two accomplished orators, Clarence Darrow and William Jennings Bryan squared off in court in hopes, on the defendant’s side, of publicizing the case against a state law that forbade the teaching of evolution in schools.

I’m sure the good people of Dayton have some kind of commemorative event planned. I’ll look out for notice of it and try to get down there.

Item:  Most of last week’s Radio Derb was given over to Professor David Betz’s ideas about a coming civil war.

For a different point of view, one that is contrary to Professor Betz, I recommend Keith Woods’ article Don’t Bet on Civil War, which you can read on the internet free of charge. You can also read it in the book Keith published a few months ago, Nationalism: The Politics of Identity.

Keith’s article defies brief summary, so I’ll just give you a paragraph from near the end. Quote:

I believe diversity and ongoing mass-immigration into Western countries will continue to drive unrest and polarisation, but opponents of this agenda should not put their faith in some future uprising or collapse to reverse it. Change will be slower, and will require a lot of hard work winning hearts and minds, organising, gaining power, and taking advantage of disrupting events.

End quote.

Item:  Finally, my favorite news story of the week. This is of course from the Daily Mail. Opening paragraph, quote:

Civilian astronauts captured astounding footage of Earth from space that clearly shows the planet’s curvature, sparking outrage among Flat Earthers.

End quote.

Was this an April Fool prank by the Mail? Doesn’t look like it; the story is dated April 3rd.

I have a soft spot for contrarians and nonconformists of all kinds — well, all harmless kinds. In that spirit, I’m going to take the story as genuine and state my pleasure at knowing there are still Flat Earthers among us. Jolly good luck to you all; but be careful not to fall off the edge.

07 — Signoff.     That’s all, ladies and gents. Thank you for your time and attention. Now get back to work preparing your income taxes. If our President’s loftiest ambitions come true, there may come a day when you’ll never have to do them again.

Saturday evenings Mr and Mrs Derbyshire settle down before the TV with glasses of wine to watch a movie on Netflix. Our choice last Saturday was last year’s Angelina Jolie non-hit Maria, about the last days of the great opera singer Maria Callas. I say “non-hit” because the movie wasn’t very well received. It got an Oscar nomination, but the reviews were sniffy.

Eh, we’ve seen worse. Callas’s later life was somewhat of a train wreck, and that’s hard to capture in a movie. By way of consolation, we got some of her songs, lip-synced of course. Here’s one of the best-known. No apologies for that: it’s rightly famous. “I lived for art, I lived for love, never did harm to a living soul…”

There will be more from Radio Derb next week.

One of the downsides of writing and talking about the current scene is that you often want to kill yourself or kill someone. There are only so many stories about a crazed judge issuing an equally crazed rulings you can read before you want to spit on your hands, raise the black flag and start slitting throats. To paraphrase the late comic George Carlin, there are a lot of people who need to be killed.

It is why it is a good idea to look away from the daily car wreck that is the public square from time to time. It is why I quit Twitter. I will post links to my work there, but otherwise it is on mute. The most popular figures on that platform exist to irritate everyone else, so being active on that site is like inviting people into your home so they can break things and urinate on your carpets.

It is also why this week’s show is deliberately lighthearted. I randomly selected questions from big book of questions and answered them without preparation. I am not sure how many I got through, but it is probably about twenty. The book has three hundred questions in it, so I will probably revisit this format in the future when I feel like raising the black flag and slitting throats.

I have not read all of the questions. For the show I started at the first one and kept going until I ran out of time. I skipped some of them because they were not interesting to me, but that still leaves plenty of material. The interesting thing about the ones I cover in the show is that they have no link to current events, but they relate to things far more important to daily life.

For sites like this to exist, it requires people like you chipping in a few bucks a month to keep the lights on and the people fed. Five bucks a month is not a lot to ask. If you don’t want to commit to a subscription, make a one time donation via crypto. You can send money to: Z Media LLC P.O. Box 1047 Berkeley Springs, WV 25411-3047. You can also use PayPal to send a few bucks. Thank you for your support!

This Week’s Show

Contents

• Intro
• Anger Management
• The Book Of Questions
• The Questions

Direct Download, The iTunes, iHeart Radio, RSS Feed

Full Show On Spreaker

Full Show On Rumble

Full Show On Odysee

Note: Last night, Paul and I did a whole show on AI and the possible consequences of humanity being enslaved by robots. You can watch the replay here and here.

An unresolved mystery in popular culture is why Taylor Swift has become a megastar on the level of Elvis and Michael Jackson. There are plenty of simple explanations like her songs resonate with young females or she is non-threatening, but those apply to many pop stars, yet none have reached the heights of Swift. There is an answer, and it lies in the fundamentals of human psychology, but that answer also suggests that Swift is the death of the pop star phenomenon.

The place to start is with the most popular answer to why Swift is the biggest pop star of the 21st century: her lyrics. The most popular explanation for Swift’s popularity with young females is her songs resonate with them. Yet when you look at her most popular songs, they predate her supposedly young female audience. Her biggest hit is from seventeen years ago. Her next biggest is from eleven years ago. Most of her big hits are from over a decade ago.

That is the strange thing about Taylor Swift. Everyone assumes that her core audience is young females, but in reality, it is middle-aged single white women. Taylor Swift is a middle-aged woman performing hits from over a decade ago. She is a strange mix of current fads and recent nostalgia. Look at her audience and it is the young-ish females you see kicking around the cubicle farms of corporate America, and thirsty males who think a Taylor Swift concert is an opportunity for them.

As to the lyrics of the songs, there is nothing to suggest they are the hook that reels in her core audience. They are echolalic babbling. Pop music at its best is doggerel set to a simple but catchy tune. Most pop songs, especially female power pop, have a simple chorus that expresses a simple emotion, while the rest is gibberish. That is what you see with Taylor Swift songs. Her music also comes with helpful expositions so the listener can contextualize the simple chorus.

The point here is that there is nothing unique about what Taylor Swift is doing to explain her massive popularity. Her formula is the same as every female pop star when it comes to the music itself. Watch a Swift concert, however, and it is clear that the audience is not there for the music. They are there to see Swift. Like Elvis seventy years ago, Swift is popular for being Taylor Swift now. Her popularity rests on being a social phenomenon to her audience.

She is a social phenomenon because she brings other things to the female pop star formula that suggest she may be the last human pop star. The first thing to note is Swift is what young guys call “mid”. Now that she is pushing forty, she is getting a bit dumpy, but even in her prime she was a solid seven, the sort of girl old women would describe as pretty, which meant not homely but not sexy. In fact, her unique quality in the pop ranks is she lacks anything resembling sex appeal.

There is one caveat here: she has naturally unique eyes. This may be why she is so wildly popular with near-middle-age white women. White women put enormous importance on their eyes because it is hugely important to white people, who have a staggering variety of eye colors compared to nonwhites. A woman’s eyes are what will catch the attention of a male, which is why there is so much diversity in the eye color of people from Europe, especially northern Europe.

Women’s makeup puts the focus on the eyes. In some countries, like Iceland, women use makeup so you cannot help but focus on their eyes. In a land full of the most beautiful women on earth, the eyes are what matter. As women age, they tend to focus more on their hair and makeup, with the eyes being the focus. It is also why overweight women tend to wear a lot of makeup. The otherwise average-looking Taylor Swift is an appealing role model for her audience due to her eyes.

There is also the fact that Swift seems to be a boring person. There is no drama in her life or sex tapes leaked on the internet. The few interviews she gives are as compelling as watching paint dry. The closest she gets to drama is dating a football player who is not the quarterback or a superstar. For the women who could not land the star quarterback in high school, this makes Swift weirdly relatable. For her audience, Taylor Swift is the mirror who says they are the fairest of them all.

There are other things leading to Swift’s stardom, but the picture that emerges from these general observations is that it is a formula. Pop music has always relied on these formulas, but they were based on wisdom and experience. Now they can be based on massive data sets crunched by artificial intelligence. The data from who consumes different types of pop music can be combined with the human sciences, the history of pop music, and the software to create the music.

Soon, maybe even now, music executives can ask a couple of DOGE kids to create a pop star maker. They will be given access to the history of pop music, demographics of the current audience, and the quickly growing body of information from the human behavior sciences. They will then produce the attributes of stars in each music genre, their target audience, and expected revenue numbers. In other words, templates for every form of popular musical star.

Instead of hiring actors to play the part, like the boy band producers did in the last century, the music execs will ask their AI engineers to create them. The technology can already produce the audio, and the video will be here soon. That means in weeks an artificial Tay Tay can be beamed to the mobile devices of the target audience and through social media. Their reaction to the “new act” can be used to subtly tweak the “artist’s” algorithm based on those responses.

This may sound absurd but watch a Taylor Swift show and what you see are people holding up their mobile devices. People under the age of forty experience the world now through their mobile device. Theirs is already a meta-existence when it comes to experiencing things in the meatspace. This is accelerating with each wave of people entering adulthood. What matters to them most is not flesh and blood humans, but the avatars in the alternative reality of the internet.

Even if it does not reach the point of replacing humans entirely, it is easy to see why the pop star will not survive much longer. Taylor Swift is proof of concept. She is highly controllable, does not create drama, and ticks the necessary boxes that the formula says are required to be a star. Mass-producing many versions of this with cheaply acquired talent and software is the logical next step, maybe even allowing fans to create their own version of their favorite act.

That is the other thing AI will bring to music. Based on prompts and reactions from the target audience, the act can quickly evolve to their liking. The same process by which you prompt AI to create an image can be silently incorporated into the production of the next Taylor Swift. Not only can AI make the next Taylor Swift, but it will also allow the listener to create their own Taylor Swift. Artificial intelligence will allow everyone to have their own artificial reality in which their Taylor Swift speaks to them.

All of this assumes that some as yet unforeseen consequence to the rollout of AI does not bring the roof down on all of us. Even what we can contemplate opens the doors for life-altering consequences. Technology has destroyed the societal consensus. Just imagine what happens when we have our own popular reality stars. Even so, what Taylor Swift tells us is that the pop star as a human phenomenon is dead. She is the proof of concept that will lead to the Artificial Tay Tay.

If you like my work and wish to donate, you can buy me a beer. You can sign up for a SubscribeStar or a Substack subscription and get some extra content. You can donate via PayPal. My crypto addresses are here for those who prefer that option. You can send gold bars through the postal service to: Z Media LLC P.O. Box 1047 Berkeley Springs, WV 25411-3047. Thank you for your support!

Note: Paul is back from vacation, so that means we are back tonight for the Wednesday livestream, which you can find here and here. You can also watch on Twitter, but there is no link until it is live. Just go to Paul’s Twitter page. The show kicks off at 8:00 PM EDT and the topic tonight is AI.

In 19th century America, it was popular to argue that there are four boxes for maintaining political liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and cartridge. There is also a version that has just three boxes, which drops the jury box from the model. The soap box is public speech used to persuade the ruling class. The ballot box is the democratic process. The jury box is the legal process, and the cartridge box is violence. The order of the boxes is important as it is both a warning and a promise.

The warning here is directed toward the public. Skipping any of these steps will inevitably be self-defeating. The sorts of people who want to litigate everything, for example, are the sorts of people who will litigate away your liberty. We see this with the inferior court judges. They are like all self-defined underdogs. When they get on top, they are just as intolerant and as cruel as the people they opposed. These people are always more dangerous than present tyrants.

The other side of this is directed at the people in charge. Their status as a ruling elite depends on making sure that the traditional rights and protections of the people are maintained in those first two boxes. Once the people abandon the soap box and the ballot box for the jury box, it is not long before they reach for the cartridge box, and there is no turning back from that one. Of course, an elite that uses the jury box to undermine the ballot box is asking for the cartridge box.

That is what we see in the West: the use of lawfare by the managerial class to both circumvent the soap box and the ballot box. The latest example is in France, where the courts have willy-nilly decided that the most popular politician in the country is no longer allowed to participate in politics. Marine Le Pen was found guilty of trumped-up charges and sentenced to what amounts to internal banishment. Her punishment is like what happened to Khrushchev in the 1960s.

This is the pattern in the West. Romania arrested and then banned the most popular politician in the country for the crime of winning the election. Germany is planning to ban the AfD for the crime of being popular. The new Chancellor, Friedrich Merz, has publicly stated that one of his goals will be to work with the EU to overthrow the Hungarian government. Of course, the UK has declared itself an apartheid state by imposing a two-tiered legal regime aimed at the opposition.

The most famous example of the managerial class abuse of the jury box to circumvent the soap and ballot box is Donald Trump. They tried to remove him from office in his first term, then rigged the 2020 election to deny him a second term. When he did not get the message, they used lawfare against him in the same way we see in Europe, except that Trump managed to win at the jury box. Note they reached for the cartridge box when they failed at the jury box.

The assassination of Trump is a good reminder that it is almost always the case that once either side of the political system reaches the jury box, one side or the other will reach for the cartridge box. The jury box is where irreconcilable differences are confirmed to both sides, no matter the result. The reason there is always the smell of sulfur around attorneys is not only due to who they serve. It is also because sulfur is an essential element of gunpowder.

What we see happening in the West is a reminder that the last box in that formulation is essential to preserve the three other boxes. The 19th century French social thinker, Georges Sorel, explained that political violence is not a sign of chaos, but a healthy antidote to political oppression. It is often the creative destruction needed to free the political marketplace so it can produce healthy politics. Violence also has the effect of energizing the people to defend their ancient liberties.

Thomas Jefferson made a similar point in his famous letter to William Smith from which we get the famous quote, “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.” Jefferson was not justifying political violence for its own sake. He pointed out that violent resistance is often a necessary reminder to the ruling class of what lies ahead if they ignore the soap box and the ballot box. Shays’ Rebellion was a warning and a promise.

It may be why American oligarchs joined the Trump team. When Luigi Mangione popped out from behind the car to gun down that insurance executive, it let every oligarch know the cartridge box remains an option. If French judges and politicians suddenly come down with lead poisoning, maybe the poseur class in Paris will suddenly rethink their position too. If not, then it guarantees the French end up at the cartridge box anyway.

This is the most likely end for the West as a whole. The Trump reforms will surely fail, as reform is almost always an effort to relieve the pressure of general discontent while maintaining the status quo. In Europe, the ruling class is nakedly hostile to the native population, hellbent on pulling the roof down to spite the people. They will not be talked out of their positions, and they will not be voted out of them. Since the courts are now owned by the managerial class, it leaves the last option.

The irony of all this is that the great lesson of Western history is that liberty only comes when the people join to spill blood. As the sun sets on Western man, this truth is becoming clearer with each outrage by the ruling class. The people endlessly yelping about “our democracy” are killing the West. It is only through the blood of these parasites and vermin that the new Western man will regain his lands and liberty. After the jury box comes the cartridge box.

If you like my work and wish to donate, you can buy me a beer. You can sign up for a SubscribeStar or a Substack subscription and get some extra content. You can donate via PayPal. My crypto addresses are here for those who prefer that option. You can send gold bars through the postal service to: Z Media LLC P.O. Box 1047 Berkeley Springs, WV 25411-3047. Thank you for your support!

After a flurry of peace talks in Saudi Arabia, the Trump peace initiative regarding the war in Ukraine seems to have run out of steam. The last round of talks stalled over the conditions required to create a Black Sea ceasefire. The Russians laid out the conditions they would require, the conditions they agreed to in 2022 under the Black Sea grain deal. Ukraine flatly rejected those terms this time. The Europeans have also made clear that they will never agree to peace.

After Ukraine and the EU rejected the terms, Putin said some things that got little note in the West but were clearly a signal to the Trump administration. The first was at a meeting of Russian industrialists where Putin told them that despite talks with Washington, they should not expect the end of sanctions. The new world order, so to speak, is one in which the Russian economy will operate independently of the West and within the framework of BRICS.

That was a clear signal to the Trump people that ending sanctions was not a carrot and new sanctions are not a stick. The Russians have moved on from the old model where their economy was connected to the Western model. Despite the last three years, the West remains convinced that sanctions are working, and that Russia desperately wants back into the Western economic model. Until the Trump administration sees the folly in this, negotiations with Russia will go nowhere.

Another thing Putin said was in response to a question at a public event about the Trump effort to get a ceasefire. Putin said there will not be a Minsk 3. This is a reference to prior deals with the West over Ukraine. In Minsk 1 and Minsk 2, the Russians agreed to get trapped Western advisors in the war zone free of the Donbass militias in exchange for a peace deal that never materialized. In both cases, the West just poured more weapons into Ukraine.

This is a very sore subject for Russians. They see these prior deals as efforts to trick and humiliate them. When Trump publicly asked Putin to let the trapped Ukrainian troops in Kursk escape, it set off alarm bells in Moscow. It looked like the same old tricks from the Western tricksters. That is the reason Putin made a point of saying there will never be a Minsk 3. He was telling the Russian public and the Russian elite that he will not be fooled a third time.

That has led to two other things Putin said last week. One is he said the Russian army is ready to finish off the Ukrainian army. That is a bold statement, out of character for Putin. He has been warning of a five- or ten-year war since the West cancelled the Istanbul agreements. To now talk about a quick end of the war suggests that something big is on the drawing board. It could also mean the Ukrainian army is in far worse shape than is being reported.

This comment about the end of the war came with a comment about putting Ukraine into what amounts to receivership. Putin suggested that the post-war process would start with the removal of the Kiev government and put the administration of the country into the hands of a UN group. This caused Trump to call NBC’s Manjaw Crazyeyes and rant about being “pissed off” at Putin. He said he is planning to apply new sanctions to Russia in response to these statements.

What all of this points to is that the Trump peace initiative is dead. The Russians were willing to listen, but now that it is clear that Trump has no leverage over Ukraine or Europe, there is no point in continuing the charade. The war in Ukraine will end by military means and then maybe there can be a negotiated settlement. That was the point Putin was making last week. Whether or not the Trump administration understands this is unknown.

The Pentagon, on the other hand, at least the permanent elements, independent of the administration, does get this. They wrote a long, mendacious thriller for the New York Times where they blame the failure of Project Ukraine on the Ukrainians and to a lesser extent the Trump administration. It is a long post worth reading for no other reason than it is a great example of narrative fantasy. It is written like a spy thriller because it is mostly self-serving fiction.

If you want to know why Western politicians seem to be so clueless about so much, it is because they rely on the storytellers called the media for their version of reality. All over Washington, staffers for elected officials read that Times story, shocked to learn that the American military has been running the war from the start. Normal people have known this since day one because the internet exists and people use it, but elected officials get their reality from the media.

The main point of that work of fiction is to make clear that the Ukraine failure was not the fault of the Military Industrial Complex. All the weapons were, in fact, wonder weapons that totally crushed those primitive Russians. NATO tactics were the best and completely baffled those drunken Russkies. The people who brought you the F-35 want to make clear that when the Russian flag is in Maidan Square, it was the fault of the people who refused to let the American military win the war.

As an aside, if you can get past the self-serving fiction, the article reveals just how close we were to extinction. There were people willing to go all in on attacking Russia, which would have provoked a nuclear retaliation. Unsaid, but implied, is that there were people willing to go nuclear, maybe even preemptively. If the Trump administration is serious about changing foreign policy, a top priority must be hunting down those people and permanently removing them from society.

Putting that aside, what all of this tells us is that there will be no negotiated settlement to the Ukraine war, at least not until things on the battlefield change. Perhaps when the Ukrainian army begins to break in a major way, reality will get over the media firewall into the brains of the political classes in the West. Maybe the Trump administration understands this, maybe not. It does not matter because they are not in control of events, so they can only stand by and watch.

If you like my work and wish to donate, you can buy me a beer. You can sign up for a SubscribeStar or a Substack subscription and get some extra content. You can donate via PayPal. My crypto addresses are here for those who prefer that option. You can send gold bars through the postal service to: Z Media LLC P.O. Box 1047 Berkeley Springs, WV 25411-3047. Thank you for your support!

Note #1: Behind the green door, there is a post about the massive Disney flop Snow White, a post about basketball, and the Sunday podcast. Subscribe here or here.

Scan social media, comments on sites that still allow them, new media platforms like livestreaming services, and what becomes clear is that support for Israel in the United States is shifting. The days of “right-wing” influencers portraying Israel as the frontline of freedom are long gone. Instead, there is mostly indifference, with a fair amount of criticism. So-called left-wing influencers are aggressively antagonistic toward Israel, siding with the Arabs.

The one place where enthusiasm for Israel remains strong is Washington. The Trump administration is cartoonishly pro-Israel, often coming off as a parody of the old pro-Israel stance among conservatives. The Republican Party is similarly over-the-top in its celebration of Israel, as if it worships Israelis. Senator Tom Cotton rarely speaks about his home state, preferring instead to focus on Israel. Even Democrats act as though Israel is their ancestral homeland.

In time, the events of October 7, 2023, may be seen as a turning point for Israel’s relationship with the United States. Rather than sparking another round of American-led violence in the region, it may prove to be the moment that bursts the Israel bubble. Until then, supporting Israel was the default position among the American public, with only fringe voices expressing opposition. Since that day, however, the public square has become a battleground over Israel.

Israel seems to be losing that fight. Young people no longer support Israel, and it is only among senior citizens that you see the old enthusiasm. More accurately, the old enthusiasm exists only with old white people who vote Republican. Demographics play a big role here, as the younger generations are less white. Of course, it also means that the actuarial tables are working hard against the pro-Israel position. In ten years, support for Israel will probably collapse.

This does not mean, as some suggest, that Americans are becoming antisemitic or that a dark historical figure is poised for a comeback. Rather, for an increasing number of Americans, the romanticized view of Jews has faded. Events from eighty years ago no longer shape their thinking. Jews do not hold a special place in their imagination, and as a result, Israel is seen as just another country. More and more, Americans are evaluating Israel through the lens of American interests.

One reason for this is the heavy-handed tactics employed after October 7 to bully Americans into siding with Israel. In this age of widespread mendacity, overegging the pudding raises suspicions. The outlandish claims made by people like Ben Shapiro quickly turned a tragedy into a conspiracy theory. Instead of sympathy for Israel, a majority began to suspect shenanigans. When they called it their 9/11, that seemed to confirm we were being conned yet again into war.

It is fair to say that the year following the attack was an example of disastrous public relations that alienated many Americans. Exaggerated claims about Arabs eating babies and scripted social media campaigns were quickly identified and debunked online. Then came the carpet bombing of Gaza, which struck many as monstrous. While Israel was undoubtedly the victim, indiscriminately bombing apartment buildings and hospitals is still seen as immoral.

The weird thing about the year of ham-fisted public relations is that it was as if the Israel Lobby forgot the internet existed. It was very much an old school media campaign, for a time when the media was four television channels and a local newspaper, not a time when Telegram channels have up-to-the-minute video from even the most remote places in the world. It was a media campaign run by old people for old people who still watch the nightly news.

There is also the fact that, for over a decade, anyone questioning official narratives has been branded as “Hitler.” On the one hand, this rhetoric enrages people. On the other hand, it has become a signal that kooks and crazies are about to create chaos. The Israel Lobby foolishly aligned itself with the unstable elements of the left, and now, it is tarnished by association with the same activists who toppled statues and caused societal unrest.

This complacency is another factor in Israel’s declining support. Since the 1980s, life has been easy for the Israel Lobby. Their critics were banished in the 1990s, so they merely had to issue press releases to get what they wanted. Over time, this made them lazy. Like all lobbying machines, they became focused on Washington, neglecting grassroots efforts. Now, their critics control the grassroots and the new media that inform the next generation.

A larger issue for Israel and its supporters is that the United States is a big country facing big challenges. Israel is a small country. Naturally, it cannot remain at the top of America’s priority list. Furthermore, the Israel Lobby represents only a tiny fraction of the American public. Minoritarianism is unsustainable—just ask Assad. The great tectonic plates of human civilization are shifting against the current Israeli paradigm. The so-called Jewish century is over, and both Jews and Israel must adapt.

Again, this does not mean that a historical villain is making a comeback or that Ben Shapiro will soon be selling tickets to concentration camps to keep the Daily Wire afloat. Americans are not naturally bigoted, despite demographic changes. It simply means that the dominance of the Israel Lobby and the victimhood culture that has shaped Jewish identity for half a century are fading. Like many aspects of the 20th century, these things will soon be relics of the past.

If you like my work and wish to donate, you can buy me a beer. You can sign up for a SubscribeStar or a Substack subscription and get some extra content. You can donate via PayPal. My crypto addresses are here for those who prefer that option. You can send gold bars through the postal service to: Z Media LLC P.O. Box 1047 Berkeley Springs, WV 25411-3047. Thank you for your support!

This Week’s Show

Contents

• 00m46s What would Confucius do?
• 11m36s Place Your Betz (on civil war)
• 21m04s Downgrading, legitimacy, and feral cities
• 38m02s King Charles wants us back
• 39m50s Ashli Babbitt remembered (Trump reminded)
• 41m43s Lithuanian wisdom
• 41m43s Signoff with Dickie Valentine

Direct Download, The iTunes, Podcast Addict, RSS Feed

Full Show On Spreaker

Full Show On Rumble

Full Show On Odysee 

Transcript

01 — Intro.     And Radio Derb is on the air! This is your luxuriantly genial host John Derbyshire with comments on the passing scene.

My comments this week came out a bit longer than usual, so I shall preserve housekeeping issues for a future edition and proceed directly to my first segment.

02 — What would Confucius do?     OK, news story of the week: this fuss over a security breach in the messaging app called Signal, used by senior people in our nation’s security apparatus.

Signal’s pretty fancy, with encryption at both ends of the phone call. It’s by no means the last word in secure communications, though. Quote here from the BBC description of the app, quote:

Data expert Caro Robson, who has worked with the US administration, said it was [inner quote] “very, very unusual” [end inner quote] for high ranking security officials to communicate on a messaging platform like Signal.

[Inner quote]: “Usually you would use a very secure government system that is operated and owned by the government using very high levels of encryption,” [end inner quote] she said.

She said this would typically mean devices kept in [inner quote] very secure government controlled locations” [end inner quote].

End quote.

Well, somehow a journalist called Jeffrey Goldberg got his phone number included in the group chat list used by all those senior security people of ours — a list assembled by Mike Waltz, our President’s National Security Adviser, or more likely by his staff. That resulted in Goldberg seeing exchanges about the recent bombing of the Houthis in Yemen shortly before the attacks actually happened — a pretty serious security breach.

Goldberg is Editor-in-Chief at Atlantic magazine. That’s not a publication I follow, and I can’t recall ever reading anything Jeffrey Goldberg ever wrote. The word on the street is that he suffers from Stage Four Trump Derangement Syndrome, but I’m in no position to confirm or deny that.

The central mystery here is how Goldberg’s name got on Mike Waltz’s chat-group list. Did he do it himself, or have it done for him at his request? Did someone else do it for him without his knowing? Or was it just a fat-finger blunder by one of Waltz’s people?

I think we can rule out the second possibility there. If some third party — the Chinese Embassy, perhaps — figured out how to insert names in the list that shouldn’t be there, they’d have much better things to do with their knowledge than pass it off to some magazine editor.

The first possibility — that Goldberg did it himself, or paid to have it done — can’t be ruled out. Journalists will do anything for a story. A journalist afflicted with Stage Four TDS will do anything, and then anything else, and then sell his wife and children into slavery, to get a story that wounds our President.

Still, Goldberg certainly doesn’t know enough Computer Science to crack end-to-end encryption, and I’m not sure anyone else does. Nor does his behavior after the breach became known seem at all triumphal. So if I were betting on this, I’d take the fat fingers. This was carelessness, not malice.

And if that data expert I just quoted via the BBC is correct, it was a particular carelessness inside a larger carelessness. Waltz’s people shouldn’t be using Signal for their working exchanges.

I guess we’ll find out. Trump has asked Elon Musk and his DOGE investigators to figure out what happened. That’s a super-smart group of people. If this little mystery survives the month, I’ll be surprised.

Meanwhile there’s the politics to be dealt with. The Democrats have of course been making hay with it. It’s the only good news they’ve had for months. The responses by Trump’s people on sessions of public questioning have been less than impressive. “The information in the Signal chats wasn’t classified.” Uh-huh.

There was a serious breach at a high level. Shouldn’t someone pay a price for that? If DOGE comes up with an individual whose fat fingers made it happen, I hope that person gets fired with loss of pension.

Meanwhile, at higher levels, there is the matter of executive authority. Someone at a higher level than the fall guy, with a way higher status, salary and pension, let it happen — albeit unknowingly (we hope). Shouldn’t the Gentleman’s Code kick in? Shouldn’t the senior join the junior in disgrace? If this were Japan, wouldn’t the senior commit seppuku?

There’s a case against that — several cases, in fact.

First case against:  The Gentleman’s Code only works when gentlemen fight gentlemen. There aren’t any gentlemen on the other side. Just the number of actual males seems to be dwindling. For Mike Waltz or Pete Hegseth to resign over the Signal breach would just be feeding the jackals.

Second case against:  The last administration did far worse and got away with it. It wasn’t just the Afghanistan pullout: the Biden family’s corruption scandals and the all-hands-on-deck effort by federal agencies and their media allies to cover up those scandals; the bare-faced lying about our border being secure and inflation under control; the relentless lawfare against Trump …  this security breach, although deplorable, is very small potatoes alongside the past four years’ malfeasances, for which no-one resigned.

Third case against:  It’s very plain, and has often been noted, that Donald Trump learned a lesson from his first term: not to fill key positions in his administration with critters lifted out, still slimy, from the Washington, D.C. Swamp. This time around he’s been more meritocratic, just hiring in the best he could find from anywhere. Mike Waltz and Pete Hegseth may not know which knife and fork to use first at a state banquet, but they are better public servants — better patriots — than Antony Blinken or Merrick Garland.

Anything that might turn the President’s hiring preferences back towards people who are more canny in the ways of high government but less loyal, if not actually dis-loyal, heads us back towards Trump 45.

So there you have three reasons for there not being a resignation. The only reason I can think of for a resignation is to keep the Gentleman’s Code alive: to push forward a decade or two the dark day when our two big political parties are just wild beasts fighting over the corpse of our Constitution.

Perhaps it’s far-fetched of me, but I can’t help thinking of the tension in old China between Confucianism and Legalism. Confucianism, which came up in the fifth century B.C., taught about the maintenance of social order by the cultivation of correct behavior. A couple of hundred years later there came Legalism, a different philosophy, which taught about the maintenance of social order by state power.

All right: I have grossly over-simplified there. There is a binary pattern to political philosophy, though, and not just in old China. Our own Gentleman’s Code, to the degree it still survives, would have got a welcoming smile from Confucius; the unprincipled machinations of the Biden Presidency would likewise have met with a nod and a grunt of approval from Shāng Yāng, the father of Legalism.

03 — Place Your Betz.     Here’s a bloke who’s been showing up on social media the past few weeks: David Betz, Professor of War Studies at King’s College London. I’ll say more about his background in just a minute. First I’ll just explain how he’s ended up on Radio Derb.

A few days ago, idly browsing X, I spotted a video posting with the title “Civil War is Coming: Britain & America’s Violent Future.” How could I resist that? I started watching the video.

It’s from the YouTube account of The New Culture Forum, a British outfit founded by British journalist, TV producer, and politician Peter Whittle. Whittle was a figure in the U.K. Independence Party in the last decade and campaigned for Brexit.

In this New Culture Forum video that got my attention, Peter Whittle was interviewing the aforementioned Professor David Betz about those prospects for civil war in Britain and America.

On civil wars in general, Betz is somewhat of an authority. He explains himself in a different video (which I’ll get to shortly) as follows, quote:

I’m a Professor of War in the Modern World in the War Studies Department at King’s College London. I’ve been employed there for coming on to 25 years now. My area of specialism is contemporary strategy.

My interest in this subject came relatively recently and somewhat surprisingly. I have a specific background in irregular warfare, propaganda, strategic communications; and I’ve been very involved in the discussions surrounding counterinsurgency and specific strategies and techniques in, let’s call them, the expeditionary wars of the War on Terror.

So I’ve spent most of my professional life being concerned with irregular warfare; or fundamentally with the ways in which societies tear themselves apart and attempt, in various ways, to put themselves back together … Nearly all of that, and in which course, I’ve written extensively all kinds of academic work.

End quote.

This New Culture Forum video interview with Peter Whittle lasts for 42m16s. Now, I’m not a great watcher of videos, nor even a great listener of spoken audio. I’m a bookish person. I like to read the material. That’s why I send out Radio Derb in both audio and transcript versions, to cater to people like myself who’d rather read than listen. No offense to anyone, of course. If you’re listening to this, THANK YOU! I just try to cater to all tastes.

In this particular case it didn’t help that Professor Betz is a slow speaker with lots of “ums,” “ahs,” and pauses. Again, no offense to the good Professor, who seems to know his stuff. He’s just not a natural speaker.

So I bailed out on this video around the halfway mark without finding out why a credentialed, seasoned academic expert on irregular warfare thinks that civil war is coming to his country and ours.

Forward to Monday this week, March 24th. I got an email from a friend alerting me to a YouTube post, this one audio only, of Professor Betz talking to a different person on the same topic. My friend urged my attention to this second posting. He noted that Mark Steyn had already passed comment on it, calling it, quote: “the most important thing I linked to this week.” End quote.

The host for this one is Louise Perry, a British journalist not previously known to me, although Mark Steyn says she’s been a guest on his show. Her YouTube account is called “Maiden Mother Matriarch,” and describes itself as, quote, “a podcast about sexual politics.”

What does sexual politics have to do with Civil War?  I hear you ask. So you’re not married, are you?

One more quote from Mark Steyn about this interview, quote:

Louise has the voice of a lovely English rose and Professor Betz is a mild-mannered soft-spoken Canadian, and such accents calmly discussing the road to “civil war” makes it far more unsettling than if it were just another blowhard roaring from his cyber-bunker.

End quote.

Anyway, my friend who’d emailed me this link was really enthusiastic about it; so much so he’d made a transcript in Microsoft Word, which he attached to his email. So now I could read what Professor Betz has to say! This was just as well: the interview with Louise Perry is more than twice as long as the one with Peter Whittle:  1h29m05s.

I agree with my friend and Mark Steyn: that hour and a half of audio is worth the attention of any thoughtful person. But what about a thoughtful person like me, whose attention won’t survive an hour and a half of audio, without even video to at least keep my eyes open?

So as a public service, and for my own future reference, I took my friend’s Microsoft Word version of the Louise Perry – David Betz interview, converted it to HTML, and added it as a single page to my personal website.

And there it is. Listeners, go to johnderbyshire.com, click on “Opinions” in the Navigation box, then on “The National Question.” It’s the first item listed.

Since then I’ve spotted several other interviews with Professor Betz, all on that same theme. British politician and charity organizer Nick Buckley has one on his YouTube account; British nationalist commentator Richard Inman has one on his; a YouTube account called “Skeptical Waves” has one titled “Civil War comes to the West“; and there may be others I’ve missed.

So yes: Civil War is in the air, and Professor Betz is riding the thermals. What does he actually say, though? Next segment.

04 — Downgrading, legitimacy, and feral cities.     Before proceeding, I should let you hear the man himself talking. Here’s a two-minute clip from the Nick Buckley interview. Not only is Professor Betz making a key point, but the clip demonstrates what I said about him not being a gifted speaker. For the transcript I’ve stripped out all the “ums” and “ahs” and pauses, but I’ve left them in the audio.

[Clip:   Betz:  Let me explain what I think is going to happen. It’s sad because I think fundamentally the most important fissure is between nationalism and post-nationalism.

Nationalism is in bad odor and has been, in elite circles, since the world wars, really. But essentially, if one understands it as a love of one’s place and people, then that idea …  I think that idea is one that appeals to Britons across a range of ethnicities.

And if you think of it that way the problem is, our elite — our political, media, certainly our corporate elite — they’re all post-nationalist in their orientation. They don’t think in terms of national interest. In fact they’re suspicious of people who talk about national interest. They think there’s something actually disreputable about that, and rather suspicious — basically, morally suspect — to talk in those terms.

Buckley:  And Keir Starmer perfectly highlighted this when someone asked him on the BBC, “What do you prefer, Davos or Westminster?” and he went: “Davos!”

Betz:  Keir Starmer is the epitomization of this, I think. I mean, he’s hardly alone. He’s an epitomization of an ideal that is, I think, very broadly evident throughout the British establishment.]

End quote.

That’s just a snippet. For the full Betz, listen to the hour-and-a-half Louise Perry interview, or read the transcript at johnderbyshire.com. Be warned, though: it runs to over twelve thousand words. That’s longer than St. Mark’s Gospel.

Just a few points from it.

• Downgrading: At one point Betz uses the word “downgrading.” Louise Perry asks him for a definition. He replies, edited quote:

You can’t just say very factionalized societies are very prone to civil war, because it turns out that the most factionalized societies are to some extent secure from civil war, because there is no single group which is sufficiently dominant to coordinate revolt on its own. So, if your country is broken up into ten or fifteen different factions, then it’s very hard to get a mass movement going because you have to coordinate multiple factions to do so.

On the other end of the spectrum, you could say a country that is very homogeneous (i.e., unfractionated on an ethnic or cultural level) is less prone to civil conflict because it’s easier to arrive at consensus positions, or easier to appeal to pre-political loyalty, as I said.

The danger area is in the middle where you have a previously dominant faction, or a previously dominant identity, that is losing its place in society; and that’s precisely where we are now, where there is the potential for a mass movement. Which is essentially why most of the governments of the Western world (or the internal security forces of the Western world) evince terrible concern with white identity movements …

So “downgrading” is the technical term in the civil war causation literature that refers to a situation in which a formerly dominant social majority fears that it is in peril of losing that dominance; and that is considered to be a highly important factor in civil war causation.

End quote.

• Elite betrayal:edited quote:

A secondary impulse, that is very clear in popular discourse now, is to punish our domestic elite for having failed willfully or simply negligently for this perceived failure to maintain the social contract.

In character, I think the conflict is probably going to echo the peasant revolts of the distant past more so than the progressive leftist revolutions of the previous century and a half. It’s essentially a conservative reaction against the perceived elite alteration or elite betrayal (again a term that one hears a lot now) of the previously understood social rules of the game.

End quote.

• Dirty war: Betz warns us that we — Americans especially — have an image of Civil War based on the 1861-1865 unpleasantness, quote: “uniformed armies fighting each other essentially conventionally on a large scale using regular operations that could be represented on a map,” end quote.

What he’s predicting is much more like what academics in his field call “dirty war”: the kind of thing we’ve seen in Latin American countries with death squads, assassination, kidnappings, and so on, countered by brutally repressive government responses. Quote:

If you imagine a spectrum of civil war, and you imagine the American Civil War on one end of the scale (which is effectively a big conventional conflict within a society, which prior to the outbreak of the conflict was under one sovereign authority), then dirty war is on the other end of the spectrum. It doesn’t have, you know, big conventional military operations, but there is endemic political violence of a relatively organized and systematic nature.

End quote.

• Urban-rural conflict: Betz talks a lot about this. The big cities, after all, are where our treacherous elites are concentrated. He points out that in Britain — and I think it’s true in the U.S.A., too — the infrastructure that supports city life is often located in rural or suburban areas. Edited quote:

I don’t want to go into details because I don’t want it to turn into a tactical manual — but you can think of the gas.

Just simply put, a really obvious one is the gas network. Gas is explosive. It is its own bomb. Its location? It’s a national grid. The Major Accident Hazard Pipelines (that is their name, Major Accident Hazard Pipelines …) are very easy to access. They’re very big, their locations are publicly known. They have to be because of the danger of accidental explosion if you dig around them.

The electrical grid is very vulnerable. It doesn’t take very much to take down an electrical pylon.

End quote.

He talks about social instability in our cities themselves, introducing us — well, introducing me — to the technical term used by scholars of his subject: “feral cities.”

• Legitimacy: Professor Betz leans hard on the concept of legitimacy. Longish edited quote:

Legitimacy is a is a tremendously important idea, but one that’s highly under-theorized …  People like me who have been looking at insurgency and counterinsurgency —we talk about legitimacy all the time, but definitions of it are quite complicated, because it’s not just legality. The problem is it overlaps with legality but it’s not exactly the same thing.

I tend to think of legitimacy as a kind of kind of magic that makes a government work. It is the key variable that determines whether your cost of government is high or low.

If you have high legitimacy then your cost of government is very low. People tend to do the correct thing voluntarily and your symbols of power are in fact powerful: so, coats of arms, flags, policemen’s badges. These things have a kind of material power in a high legitimacy system because that magic is working.

When legitimacy collapses, then your government costs are very high. You have to police everything. You have to watch people because they won’t do the right thing; and indeed, if people are really pissed off, as soon as they’re unobserved they’ll do the wrong thing. They’ll do things to further kludge up the system because they’re angry.

In the current context, I think that governments around the world have been persuaded by certain factors, and by certain people, (notably the tech sector) to believe that they can make up for the problems of cost of governance in a low legitimacy environment through technology — that surveillance is going to bring down the well-known increased costs of governing in a low legitimacy environment.

The problem there is …  that the whole of the kind of electronic surveillance architecture has as its Achilles heel that you can break it. You can cut the cameras down; or —to my point, I think —once things get really serious, you switch off the electricity.

End quote.

Professor Betz’s final conclusions are pessimistic. Louise Perry asks him what the British government can do to head off a civil-war-scale crisis. Betz replies, quote: “Well, in short, I don’t think there’s anything they can do.” End quote. He then qualifies that with some suggestions about preserving cultural artefacts, safeguarding nukes, and being alert to hostile nations taking advantage.

Perry asks him for a time frame. The good Professor replies, quote:

If we can make it through the next five years without it happening, that would be a good sign. I think the rupture is going to come before then, on current trajectory.

End quote.

It’s interesting to hear (or in my case, mostly read) a salaried and respected academic talking calmly about these matters in plain language. I spend a fair amount of time reading — and yes, occasionally listening to or watching — what Mark Steyn referred to back there as “blowhards roaring from their cyber-bunkers.” I guess, on an academic scale, Mark and I myself could be filed under that heading. So it’s good to hear a sober, learnéd voice on our pet topics.

Academics can be wrong, of course. There are no guarantees in the prediction business. That said, Professor Betz’s guess of five years for Britain to go over the cliff seems to me to be all too possible.

For the U.S.A. I’d guess the danger is more remote. If our new administration does enough things right, the danger might disappear altogether. That’s a big “if”; but while we breathe, we hope — dum spiro, spero.

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

I gave over a lot of air time there to Professor Betz — not more than he deserves, I hope — so the brief items are even briefer than usual.

Imprimis:  Readers of the transcript probably noticed a hyperlink back there to the British Royal Family, key members of which seem to be hovering on the edge of conversion to Islam.

Meanwhile, last Thursday the Daily Mail reported that His Britannic Majesty King Charles the Third would make a “secret” offer to President Trump for the United States to become the next “associate member” of the British Commonwealth. Having heard about this, our President responded on Truth Social that he liked the idea.

(If you’re not clear what the British Commonwealth is and what membership in it involves, I refer you to my summary in the March 14th edition of Radio Derb. Probably the President was listening to me.)

If he’s listening to me now, I would strongly urge the President to not take this matter any further. Britain is sinking fast. Any kind of formal diplomatic association carries a risk she might drag us down with her, or at least litter our shores with the wreckage of what was once a nation.

Our President should acquaint himself with Professor Betz’s forecasts and drop the whole stupid idea …  inshallah.

Item:  The Biden administration was truly awful, perhaps the worst ever. That sounds like the squawking of a party hack; but I believe it’s objectively true, and will be the judgment of History.

There were many victims of its lies, corruption, and injustices. One who should not be forgotten was Ashli Babbitt. You no doubt recall that this 35-year-old woman, a 12-year Air Force veteran, was shot dead without warning by Capitol Hill Police Lieutenant Michael Byrd on January 6th 2021 while in a small — and of course unarmed — crowd of demonstrators outside the House Speaker’s lobby.

Last year Judicial Watch filed a wrongful death lawsuit on behalf of Babbitt’s estate, seeking $30 million in damages from the federal government. Lieutenant Byrd meanwhile got a promotion, a raise, and a medal. He’s still on duty.

On Newsmax this week Greg Kelly, interviewing President Trump, told the President that his Department of Justice is still trying to block that lawsuit. Trump admitted he hadn’t known that, and promised to, quote, “take a look at it.”

Thank you, Sir!

Item:  Had you ever heard of Andrius Kubilius before last week? No, me neither.

Looking him up, I see that the 68-year-old Mr Kubilius is a Lithuanian. That excuses us: there aren’t that many famous Lithuanians. He is currently serving in the executive of the European Union as the Commissioner for Defence Industry and Space.

What’s endeared him to me — and to any other American who, like me, can’t figure out what the hell we are still doing in NATO thirty-four years after the Warsaw Pact was disbanded — what’s endeared him to us were remarks he made March 18th at a gathering of the European Commission. Quote:

Four hundred and fifty million EU citizens should not have to depend on 340 million Americans to defend ourselves against 140 million Russians who can’t defeat 38 million Ukrainians.

We really can do better.

It’s time for us to take responsibility for the defence of Europe!

End quote.

I wish I could tell you truthfully that I stood up and cheered when I read that. In fact I stayed rooted to my seat, stunned to immobility by seeing a high official of the European Commission talking sense. God bless you, Mr. Kubilius!

06 — Signoff.     And that’s all I have for you, ladies and gentlemen — the latter group, I hope, ever loyal to the Gentleman’s Code.

Thank you for your time and attention, and please allow me to remind you yet again that you can support the VDARE Foundation by subscribing to Peter Brimelow’s Substack account, or with a check to the Foundation itself at P.O. Box 211, Litchfield-with-a-“t”, CT 06759; and you can support me personally by earmarking that check with my name, or by any of the other options spelled out on my personal website. You can also support me indirectly by subscribing to Chronicles magazine, who publish my work. Thank you!

I have a confession to make prefatory to the sign-out music clip. I have occasional spells of nostalgia for my English childhood. Sometimes in those spells I recall the popular lounge singers of mid-twentieth-century England.

Looking back, I think there was a widespread feeling of national inferiority among the English: America’s lounge singers were so much better than ours. The Yanks had Frank Sinatra and Doris Day, we had Frankie Vaughan and Alma Cogan. I imagine English adults were grumbling among themselves something like: “Darn it, it was bad enough being their junior partner in the war; can’t we at least out-sing them?”

And then, reminiscing, I go to YouTube and pull down one or two of those English crooners I was hearing from the family radio seventy years ago. No, they weren’t as good as their American equivalents, but they mostly weren’t bad. Painted over with a good coat of nostalgia, they were quite listenable.

So here’s one: Dickie Valentine. I’d like to think that as Elon Musk’s guys advance their investigation, whichever dumbo in our national-security bureaucracy put Jeffrey Goldberg on that Signal list is listening, and … sweating.

There will be more from Radio Derb next week.

One of the greatest tricks Americans have ever pulled is convincing themselves and the world that we are not ideologues. At worst, we are the defenders of Western liberalism, which is never described as an ideology. Unlike communism or fascism, it is seen as a set of obvious conclusions arrived at through reason. If anything, the American way is considered a practical antidote to the problems of ideology.

This has always been nonsense, but we have believed it for so long that no one thinks much about it anymore. The closest we get are critiques of liberalism from neo-traditionalists, as if we still live in a liberal age. In reality, America is an ideological state and has been for a long time. The ideology has evolved to suit the times, but the core features have remained unchanged since the 19th century.

This is one reason for the current crisis. The age of ideology is coming to a close, but the United States, especially its ruling class, remains trapped in the age of ideology—like a dinosaur stuck in a tar pit. While other major powers think and talk in practical terms about practical problems, the United States continues to think and talk in explicitly moral terms about abstract concepts.

That is the show this week. It is an exploration of American ideology and the factors that made it possible. This is a topic that could fill up several more shows, so this episode is just a quick summary of the material. I could easily do at least one show on how the two great industrial wars warped the American perspective. The Cold War could be at least one episode, probably two, so this is just a starting point.

For sites like this to exist, it requires people like you chipping in a few bucks a month to keep the lights on and the people fed. Five bucks a month is not a lot to ask. If you don’t want to commit to a subscription, make a one time donation via crypto. You can send money to: Z Media LLC P.O. Box 1047 Berkeley Springs, WV 25411-3047. You can also use PayPal to send a few bucks. Thank you for your support!

This Week’s Show

Contents

• Intro
• American Protestantism
• Nationalism
• Progressivism
• Judeo-Puritanism
• The End Ideology

Direct Download, The iTunes, iHeart Radio, RSS Feed

Full Show On Spreaker

Full Show On Rumble

Full Show On Odysee

Last week the Chinese announced what could be a great leap forward in electric car technology when the Chinese firm BYD announced a five-minute charger. They claim their new technology, it is not just a charger but a battery system as well, will allow a driver to get a 250-mile charge in just five minutes. No one knows if this is true, as Chinese companies are almost as dishonest as American media. Even if it is an exaggeration, it could still be a big deal.

The reason this is viewed as a potential game changer is that it is assumed that the main obstacle to widespread adoption of EV’s is the long recharge. It is unreasonable to expect people to take an hour to recharge when on a road trip. Even a thirty-minute recharge time is unappealing. Decades of needing just a few minutes to fill the tank have conditioned people to expect it. Getting EV technology to this point, therefore, is assumed to be the final boss in the game.

That is not true, but the faithful believe it. The main problem with EV’s is that they do not solve a problem. They are a solution in search of problem and so far, the problems they claim to solve have proven to be either nonsense or grotesque boondoggles executed by the worst people in society. Making the weather potato happy is not motivating anyone to buy an electric car, especially when the total cost of ownership remains significantly higher than conventional vehicles.

The electric car is a lot like the electric book in that the engineering challenges somehow blind the proponents to the central problem. Technology is not an end in itself, but a means to an end. Electronic messaging has displaced written letters because the former is better, cheaper, and faster than the latter. If email came with a small risk of electrocution, we would still be writing letters. If every email cost a dollar to send, there would be no such thing as email.

That was the problem with eBooks. They were not better in any way that mattered to people, and they were not cheaper. There were some advantages, like speed of acquisition and the availability of obscure texts. You could also load up on out of copyright material at a pittance. The trouble is not many people need ready access to Summa Theologica, so these advantages made little difference. It is why the old-fashioned book remains dominant.

The same problem plagues the electric car. For ninety percent of drivers, the car is a practical way to move humans from one place to another. Current technology does that as well as anyone could need. Therefore, the new technology is simply trying to match what the old technology does. Outside of enthusiast and technologists, the electric car will always be pointless. Add in the expense and it becomes an expensive solution to a cheaply solved problem.

There are other reasons why the electric car will remain a niche item. The biggest is the cost, which can never be overcome. The cost of powering an electric car is about three times that of powering a normal car. This is despite the fact that we subsidize electricity in America, and we artificially increase the price of gas and diesel. Strip away the policy choices and electric cars have no market. Natural gas-powered cars would have far more promise as an alternative.

Then there is the cost of production and disposal. For generations old cars have been sent to the scrap yard to be stripped for parts and recycled. We have become amazingly good at recycling our cars. Electric vehicles require special handling due to the batteries. Of course, the cost of production is much higher, even with government subsidies all along the way. Then there is the added cost to the power grid that comes in once adoption reaches a certain point.

Enthusiasts insist that all of this is wrong or can be addressed, but the point here is that the charge time is the least of their worries. If the EV was better, faster, and cheaper than regular cars, the charge time would be ignored. The truth is they are not better in any important ways, they are certainly not cheaper. The eclectic car is certainly faster, but outside the enthusiast niche, this does not matter and what we see is that it does not matter to the sports car enthusiast either.

Now, of course, there is a new problem. The electric car is not cool. It was never really a cool car, but the beautiful people embraced the idea, so that provided the necessary social proof for upper-middle-class white people. The trend setters are now vandalizing Tesla’s, so the cool factor is gone. In fairness, the novelty was wearing off before the kooks took aim at Elon Musk, but now the coolness is gone. The ridiculous looking cyber truck did not help either.

The bigger issue may be a social one. Cars in general, but eclectic cars, in particular, make the “owner” into a serf. Fixing your own car is now an expensive proposition, meaning you need to depend on the repair system. This is deliberate. Car dealerships make more profit from the repair of cars than the sale of them, so the game is to make the owner dependent on the dealer. Electric cars are the worst for this as they are terrifyingly dangerous to repair.

The most terrifying part is you may not even own the car. You pay for it and have the title, but features are increasingly dependent on the manufacture agreeing with your lifestyle and political choices. Tesla can disable your car remotely. Other car makers are going down this same path. Soon, features like heated seats will be software as a service, meaning you must get permission to use them. The eclectic car is the face of this dystopian future of man and machine.

None of this means the electric car is dead. There is a place for the technology, just as there is a niche for eBooks. The developers churning out corporate housing projects could install fast charging stations for the soulless automatons who move into these God-forsaken eyesores. Urban areas could be a good use for electric microcars that only go short distances. Young people could also benefit from cars that can be speed limited and tracked at all times.

In the end, the eclectic car is going to follow the path of other clever engineering projects in that its primary benefit is secondary. The quest for the electric car has made batteries much better. The hunt for new features to justify the cost premium has led to better electronics, information displays and safety features. The dangers of disposal have been a good lesson in reality. The cars themselves may be niche items, but the industry will have benefitted from the exercise.

If you like my work and wish to donate, you can buy me a beer. You can sign up for a SubscribeStar or a Substack subscription and get some extra content. You can donate via PayPal. My crypto addresses are here for those who prefer that option. You can send gold bars through the postal service to: Z Media LLC P.O. Box 1047 Berkeley Springs, WV 25411-3047. Thank you for your support!