I’ve been having some ongoing conversations with readers about our open southern border.

I started this two weeks ago with Defy The Open Borders Crazies—Whatever Their Motivation!  A speech by Biden Administration operative Katie Tobin had suggested to me that their motive really was what I have called ”Honest economic boosterism,” with just a dash of moralizing.

But my correspondents are pretty unanimous that I didn’t sufficiently stress the ideological aspect (see A Reader Has More Answers For John Derbyshire On ”What Is Driving The Open Borders Movement?” and my May Diary).

They have persuaded me: I didn’t.

Let me give an illustration.

It’s not uncommon for Social Justice Warriors to refer to me as ”anti-immigrant” [John Derbyshire Disgusts Me, by Jonathan Stein, Mother Jones, October 18, 2007].

That always strikes me as weird—even weirder than usual for Social Justice Warriors, and their ”usual” is already pretty weird.

I am an immigrant. My wife is an immigrant. Around one in three of our friends are immigrants. My boss is an immigrant. So according to these accusers I am anti-myself, anti-Mrs. Derbyshire, anti-one-third of our friends, and anti–Peter Brimelow. Say what?

After a while I figured out what’s going on here. The word ”immigrant” is not being used with its dictionary meaning—its meaning in law, in common usage, its prosaic meaning.

It’s being used as an ideological marker for victimhood.

The essence of an ideology is that it divides humanity into oppressors and victims. In the biggest and most lethal twentieth-century ideology, Marxist-Leninist communism, the oppressors were capitalists, the victims were the working classes.

In Critical Race Theory the oppressors

“If you build it, he will come,” said Shoeless Joe Jackson, the famous white baseball player who briefly dominated the game a century ago, in the  1989 movie Field of Dreams. It remains an American classic, a film so iconic that the film location , an actual baseball diamond in the middle of a cornfield, remains one of the most popular tourist spots in Iowa. However, no one ever points out that all those ballplayers who magically return from the dead to entertain the living are white, from the game’s segregated era.

And even the film’s only black character, Terence Mann, well played by James Earl Jones, does not seem “triggered” by the whiteness of it all.

“Unbelievable!” an awestruck Mann says at the sight of the all-white athletes at play.

In reply, farmer Ray Kinsella, played by Kevin Costner, says: “It’s more than that. It’s perfect.”

S

Subscribe to Ann Coulter’s Substack UNSAFE.

Anticipating this brutal column, CNN has just fired Chris Licht. If the next chairman plans to last any longer, he’d better implement these changes right away!

At the risk of raising a topic even more boring than Ukraine, let’s talk about what’s happening at CNN. There was a major article (i.e., long) in The Atlantic this week about the civil war erupting at CNN over the new CEO, Chris Licht, and his attempt to turn the network into one that people want to watch.

The point of the article was to show that Licht is failing—CNN employees don’t like him, no one understands what he’s trying to do, and ratings are worse than ever.

But what the article actually illustrated is how completely out of touch the media are with normal people. Any effort undertaken by these dolts to reform themselves is doomed to failure.

Licht and his bosses aren’t idiots. They know what the problem is. Their idea is to move CNN away from doomsday MSNBC-style reporting where “everything is an 11” and appeal to a “broader viewership that crave[s] sober, fact-driven coverage.”

Good idea, right?

But Licht has no idea how to do it, and no one else in the media does either—not The Atlantic, not CNN employees, not the New York Times.

They all seem to believe it’s a binary choice: Either left-wing zealots hysterically announcing BREAKING NEWS about Trump 24-7; or... a one-hour interview with Jill Biden.

Wait—what?

Yes, that was one of Licht’s ideas for raking in the viewers. As the Times explained:

“Since Mr. Licht’s 9 p.m. experiment, ‘CNN Primetime,’ ... viewership has fallen below what the network was drawing in the time slot just a few months ago.

At 9 p.m. on March 8, more Americans watched “Homicide Hunter: The Man With No Face” on

See also: “Do As I Say“: The Paradox Of Eugenics And The Jews

Almost all of the Establishment—most mainstream politicians, journalists, academics and literary-types—favors teaching Critical Race Theory. They obsess about “equality” and avoiding “harm” to the “weak” and “marginalized.” Particularly obsessed are women, and women schoolteachers all the more so, due their strong social conformity. Granted, some communities have banned CRT because parents protested, but in the main it still marches through the education system [Ban on teaching critical race theory in Temecula, Calif., sparks heated debate, by Chanelle Chandler, Yahoo! News, March 28, 2023]. Now imagine a world where the entire Establishment, including all the schoolteachers, unquestioningly accepted an ideology based upon eliminating the “weak” and breeding the “strong,” intelligent and genetically healthy, for the future good of the “group.” And imagine that parents protested. Well, you don’t have to imagine it. As I explore in my new book, Breeding the Human Herd: Eugenics, Dysgenics and the Future of the Species, that was the world of just more than a century ago.

In June 1914, just before the outbreak of World War I, there was a “school strike” in Dronfield in Derbyshire in the English Midlands. Parents were horrified to discover that the headmistress was teaching their daughters about eugenics. She had attended a conference at the University of London the previous year, which included a paper read by Sir J. Arthur Thomson, Regius Professor of Natural History at Aberdeen University, on how to teach eugenics. Parents refused to send their daughters to school, then landed in court and were fined. It was a national scandal called the “Peasants’ Revolt at Dronfield.”

The year before, Home Secretary and future Prime Minister Winston Churchill organized

The communist enforcer Hope Not Hate is the British equivalent of America’s Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League. It releases an annual report (downloadable here), entitled State of Hate, the aim of which claims to be to provide “the most comprehensive and analytical guide to the state of far-right extremism in Britain today.” This year’s report is certainly both analytical and comprehensive, but it lacks one key element: far-right extremism.

State Of Hate notes, for example, an alarming jump of 11 per cent in terrorism convictions:

Last year (2022) 20 people were convicted of terrorism-related offences, up from 18 in 2020.

(Note: These figures include only white British offenders.)

Twenty people. But with the exception of a man who threw petrol bombs at a migrant center, then killed himself, all of were involved in online activity, paraphernalia, and literature, i.e., speech. The literature is almost always The Anarchist’s Cookbook and The White Resistance Manual, both freely available on the internet. There were nine teenagers sentenced, one of whom had a “Nazi dagger.” One group had a partially printed 3D gun.

Hope Not Hate is all too obviously longing for a Timothy McVeigh or an Anders Behring Breivik, and all it has is a rogues’ gallery of low-IQ misfits talking about bomb manuals in adolescent chat-rooms. For Hope Not Hate, the problem is not that there is too much “far-right” violence—it is that there is nowhere near enough.

Hope Not Hate’s review of identifiable groups shows similar desperation. Vanguard Britannia, for example, is described as “a fascist group that engages in stickering and graffiti.” This is hardly a British version of The Proud Boys or The Oath Keepers (which were actually Alt-Lite and ostentatiously multiracial, but did have a street presence).

A report on “far-right extremism” needs a bigger threat than graffiti, and the way Hope Not Hate manufactures this threat is by a now familiar misuse of language.

The term “far right” is the British equivalent of the Biden