The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply -


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenters to FollowHide Excerpts
By Authors Filter?
Andrei Martyanov Andrew J. Bacevich Andrew Joyce Andrew Napolitano Boyd D. Cathey Brad Griffin C.J. Hopkins Chanda Chisala Eamonn Fingleton Eric Margolis Fred Reed Godfree Roberts Gustavo Arellano Ilana Mercer Israel Shamir James Kirkpatrick James Petras James Thompson Jared Taylor JayMan John Derbyshire John Pilger Jonathan Revusky Kevin MacDonald Linh Dinh Michael Hoffman Michael Hudson Mike Whitney Nathan Cofnas Norman Finkelstein Pat Buchanan Patrick Cockburn Paul Craig Roberts Paul Gottfried Paul Kersey Peter Frost Peter Lee Philip Giraldi Philip Weiss Robert Weissberg Ron Paul Ron Unz Stephen J. Sniegoski The Saker Tom Engelhardt A. Graham Adam Hochschild Aedon Cassiel Ahmet Öncü Alexander Cockburn Alexander Hart Alfred McCoy Alison Rose Levy Alison Weir Anand Gopal Andre Damon Andrew Cockburn Andrew Fraser Andy Kroll Ann Jones Anonymous Anthony DiMaggio Ariel Dorfman Arlie Russell Hochschild Arno Develay Arnold Isaacs Artem Zagorodnov Astra Taylor Austen Layard Aviva Chomsky Ayman Fadel Barbara Ehrenreich Barbara Garson Barbara Myers Barry Lando Belle Chesler Beverly Gologorsky Bill Black Bill Moyers Bob Dreyfuss Bonnie Faulkner Brenton Sanderson Brett Redmayne-Titley Brian Dew Carl Horowitz Catherine Crump Charles Bausman Charles Goodhart Charles Wood Charlotteville Survivor Chase Madar Chris Hedges Chris Roberts Christian Appy Christopher DeGroot Chuck Spinney Coleen Rowley Cooper Sterling Craig Murray Dahr Jamail Dan E. Phillips Dan Sanchez Daniel McAdams Danny Sjursen Dave Kranzler Dave Lindorff David Barsamian David Bromwich David Chibo David Gordon David North David Vine David Walsh David William Pear Dean Baker Dennis Saffran Diana Johnstone Dilip Hiro Dirk Bezemer Ed Warner Edmund Connelly Eduardo Galeano Ellen Cantarow Ellen Packer Ellison Lodge Eric Draitser Eric Zuesse Erik Edstrom Erika Eichelberger Erin L. Thompson Eugene Girin F. Roger Devlin Franklin Lamb Frida Berrigan Friedrich Zauner Gabriel Black Gary Corseri Gary North Gary Younge Gene Tuttle George Albert George Bogdanich George Szamuely Georgianne Nienaber Glenn Greenwald Greg Grandin Greg Johnson Gregoire Chamayou Gregory Foster Gregory Hood Gregory Wilpert Guest Admin Hannah Appel Hans-Hermann Hoppe Harri Honkanen Henry Cockburn Hina Shamsi Howard Zinn Hubert Collins Hugh McInnish Ira Chernus Jack Kerwick Jack Rasmus Jack Ravenwood Jack Sen James Bovard James Carroll James Fulford Jane Lazarre Jared S. Baumeister Jason C. Ditz Jason Kessler Jay Stanley Jeff J. Brown Jeffrey Blankfort Jeffrey St. Clair Jen Marlowe Jeremiah Goulka Jeremy Cooper Jesse Mossman Jim Daniel Jim Kavanagh JoAnn Wypijewski Joe Lauria Johannes Wahlstrom John W. Dower John Feffer John Fund John Harrison Sims John Reid John Stauber John Taylor John V. Walsh John Williams Jon Else Jonathan Alan King Jonathan Anomaly Jonathan Rooper Jonathan Schell Joseph Kishore Juan Cole Judith Coburn K.R. Bolton Karel Van Wolferen Karen Greenberg Kelley Vlahos Kersasp D. Shekhdar Kevin Barrett Kevin Zeese Kshama Sawant Lance Welton Laura Gottesdiener Laura Poitras Laurent Guyénot Lawrence G. Proulx Leo Hohmann Linda Preston Logical Meme Lorraine Barlett M.G. Miles Mac Deford Maidhc O Cathail Malcolm Unwell Marcus Alethia Marcus Cicero Margaret Flowers Mark Danner Mark Engler Mark Perry Matt Parrott Mattea Kramer Matthew Harwood Matthew Richer Matthew Stevenson Max Blumenthal Max Denken Max North Maya Schenwar Michael Gould-Wartofsky Michael Schwartz Michael T. Klare Murray Polner Nan Levinson Naomi Oreskes Nate Terani Ned Stark Nelson Rosit Nicholas Stix Nick Kollerstrom Nick Turse Noam Chomsky Nomi Prins Patrick Cleburne Patrick Cloutier Paul Cochrane Paul Engler Paul Nachman Paul Nehlen Pepe Escobar Peter Brimelow Peter Gemma Peter Van Buren Pierre M. Sprey Pratap Chatterjee Publius Decius Mus Rajan Menon Ralph Nader Ramin Mazaheri Ramziya Zaripova Randy Shields Ray McGovern Razib Khan Rebecca Gordon Rebecca Solnit Richard Krushnic Richard Silverstein Rick Shenkman Rita Rozhkova Robert Baxter Robert Bonomo Robert Fisk Robert Lipsyte Robert Parry Robert Roth Robert S. Griffin Robert Scheer Robert Trivers Robin Eastman Abaya Roger Dooghy Ronald N. Neff Rory Fanning Sam Francis Sam Husseini Sayed Hasan Sharmini Peries Sheldon Richman Spencer Davenport Spencer Quinn Stefan Karganovic Steffen A. Woll Stephanie Savell Stephen J. Rossi Steve Fraser Steven Yates Sydney Schanberg Tanya Golash-Boza Ted Rall Theodore A. Postol Thierry Meyssan Thomas Frank Thomas O. Meehan Tim Shorrock Tim Weiner Tobias Langdon Todd E. Pierce Todd Gitlin Todd Miller Tom Piatak Tom Suarez Tom Sunic Tracy Rosenberg Virginia Dare Vladimir Brovkin Vox Day W. Patrick Lang Walter Block William Binney William DeBuys William Hartung William J. Astore Winslow T. Wheeler Ximena Ortiz Yan Shen
Nothing found
By Topics/Categories Filter?
2016 Election 9/11 Academia AIPAC Alt Right American Media American Military American Pravda Anti-Semitism Benjamin Netanyahu Blacks Britain China Conservative Movement Conspiracy Theories Deep State Donald Trump Economics Foreign Policy Hillary Clinton History Ideology Immigration IQ Iran ISIS Islam Israel Israel Lobby Israel/Palestine Jews Middle East Neocons Political Correctness Race/IQ Race/Ethnicity Republicans Russia Science Syria Terrorism Turkey Ukraine Vladimir Putin World War II 1971 War 2008 Election 2012 Election 2014 Election 23andMe 70th Anniversary Parade 75-0-25 Or Something A Farewell To Alms A. J. West A Troublesome Inheritance Aarab Barghouti Abc News Abdelhamid Abaaoud Abe Abe Foxman Abigail Marsh Abortion Abraham Lincoln Abu Ghraib Abu Zubaydah Academy Awards Acheivement Gap Acid Attacks Adam Schiff Addiction Adoptees Adoption Adoption Twins ADRA2b AEI Affective Empathy Affirmative Action Affordable Family Formation Afghanistan Africa African Americans African Genetics Africans Afrikaner Afrocentricism Agriculture Aha AIDS Ain't Nobody Got Time For That. Ainu Aircraft Carriers AirSea Battle Al Jazeera Al-Qaeda Alan Dershowitz Alan Macfarlane Albania Alberto Del Rosario Albion's Seed Alcohol Alcoholism Alexander Hamilton Alexandre Skirda Alexis De Tocqueville Algeria All Human Behavioral Traits Are Heritable All Traits Are Heritable Alpha Centauri Alpha Males Alt Left Altruism Amazon.com America The Beautiful American Atheists American Debt American Exceptionalism American Flag American Jews American Left American Legion American Nations American Nations American Prisons American Renaissance Americana Amerindians Amish Amish Quotient Amnesty Amnesty International Amoral Familialism Amy Chua Amygdala An Hbd Liberal Anaconda Anatoly Karlin Ancestry Ancient DNA Ancient Genetics Ancient Jews Ancient Near East Anders Breivik Andrei Nekrasov Andrew Jackson Androids Angela Stent Angelina Jolie Anglo-Saxons Ann Coulter Anne Buchanan Anne Heche Annual Country Reports On Terrorism Anthropology Antibiotics Antifa Antiquity Antiracism Antisocial Behavior Antiwar Movement Antonin Scalia Antonio Trillanes IV Anywhere But Here Apartheid Appalachia Appalachians Arab Christianity Arab Spring Arabs Archaic DNA Archaic Humans Arctic Humans Arctic Resources Argentina Argentina Default Armenians Army-McCarthy Hearings Arnon Milchan Art Arthur Jensen Artificial Intelligence As-Safir Ash Carter Ashkenazi Intelligence Ashkenazi Jews Ashraf Ghani Asia Asian Americans Asian Quotas Asians ASPM Assassinations Assimilation Assortative Mating Atheism Atlantic Council Attractiveness Attractiveness Australia Australian Aboriginals Austria Austro-Hungarian Empire Austronesians Autism Automation Avi Tuschman Avigdor Lieberman Ayodhhya Babri Masjid Baby Boom Baby Gap Baby Girl Jay Backlash Bacterial Vaginosis Bad Science Bahrain Balanced Polymorphism Balkans Baltimore Riots Bangladesh Banking Banking Industry Banking System Banks Barack H. Obama Barack Obama Barbara Comstock Bariatric Surgery Baseball Bashar Al-Assad Baumeister BDA BDS Movement Beauty Beauty Standards Behavior Genetics Behavioral Genetics Behaviorism Beijing Belgrade Embassy Bombing Believeing In Observational Studies Is Nuts Ben Cardin Ben Carson Benghazi Benjamin Cardin Berlin Wall Bernard Henri-Levy Bernard Lewis Bernie Madoff Bernie Sanders Bernies Sanders Beta Males BICOM Big Five Bilingual Education Bill 59 Bill Clinton Bill Kristol Bill Maher Billionaires Billy Graham Birds Of A Feather Birth Order Birth Rate Bisexuality Bisexuals BJP Black Americans Black Crime Black History Black Lives Matter Black Metal Black Muslims Black Panthers Black Women Attractiveness Blackface Blade Runner Blogging Blond Hair Blue Eyes Bmi Boasian Anthropology Boderlanders Boeing Boers Boiling Off Boko Haram Bolshevik Revolution Books Border Reivers Borderlander Borderlanders Boris Johnson Bosnia Boston Bomb Boston Marathon Bombing Bowe Bergdahl Boycott Divest And Sanction Boycott Divestment And Sanctions Brain Brain Scans Brain Size Brain Structure Brazil Breaking Down The Bullshit Breeder's Equation Bret Stephens Brexit Brian Boutwell Brian Resnick BRICs Brighter Brains Brighton Broken Hill Brown Eyes Bruce Jenner Bruce Lahn brussels Bryan Caplan BS Bundy Family Burakumin Burma Bush Administration C-section Cagots Caitlyn Jenner California Cambodia Cameron Russell Campaign Finance Campaign For Liberty Campus Rape Canada Canada Day Canadian Flag Canadians Cancer Candida Albicans Cannabis Capital Punishment Capitalism Captain Chicken Cardiovascular Disease Care Package Carl Sagan Carly Fiorina Caroline Glick Carroll Quigley Carry Me Back To Ole Virginny Carter Page Castes Catalonia Catholic Church Catholicism Catholics Causation Cavaliers CCTV Censorship Central Asia Chanda Chisala Charles Darwin Charles Krauthammer Charles Murray Charles Schumer Charleston Shooting Charlie Hebdo Charlie Rose Charlottesville Chechens Chechnya Cherlie Hebdo Child Abuse Child Labor Children Chimerism China/America China Stock Market Meltdown China Vietnam Chinese Chinese Communist Party Chinese Evolution Chinese Exclusion Act Chlamydia Chris Gown Chris Rock Chris Stringer Christian Fundamentalism Christianity Christmas Christopher Steele Chuck Chuck Hagel Chuck Schumer CIA Cinema Civil Liberties Civil Rights Civil War Civilian Deaths CJIA Clannishness Clans Clark-unz Selection Classical Economics Classical History Claude-Lévi-Strauss Climate Climate Change Clinton Global Initiative Cliodynamics Cloudburst Flight Clovis Cochran And Harpending Coefficient Of Relationship Cognitive Empathy Cognitive Psychology Cohorts Cold War Colin Kaepernick Colin Woodard Colombia Colonialism Colonists Coming Apart Comments Communism Confederacy Confederate Flag Conflict Of Interest Congress Consanguinity Conscientiousness Consequences Conservatism Conservatives Constitution Constitutional Theory Consumer Debt Cornel West Corporal Punishment Correlation Is Still Not Causation Corruption Corruption Perception Index Costa Concordia Cousin Marriage Cover Story CPEC Craniometry CRIF Crime Crimea Criminality Crowded Crowding Cruise Missiles Cuba Cuban Missile Crisis Cuckold Envy Cuckservative Cultural Evolution Cultural Marxism Cut The Sh*t Guys DACA Dads Vs Cads Daily Mail Dalai Lama Dallas Shooting Dalliard Dalton Trumbo Damascus Bombing Dan Freedman Dana Milbank Daniel Callahan Danish Daren Acemoglu Dark Ages Dark Tetrad Dark Triad Darwinism Data Posts David Brooks David Friedman David Frum David Goldenberg David Hackett Fischer David Ignatius David Katz David Kramer David Lane David Petraeus Davide Piffer Davos Death Death Penalty Debbie Wasserman-Schultz Debt Declaration Of Universal Human Rights Deep Sleep Deep South Democracy Democratic Party Democrats Demographic Transition Demographics Demography Denisovans Denmark Dennis Ross Depression Deprivation Deregulation Derek Harvey Desired Family Size Detroit Development Developmental Noise Developmental Stability Diabetes Diagnostic And Statistical Manual Of Mental Disorders Dialects Dick Cheney Die Nibelungen Dienekes Diet Different Peoples Is Different Dinesh D'Souza Dirty Bomb Discrimination Discrimination Paradigm Disney Dissent Diversity Dixie Django Unchained Do You Really Want To Know? Doing My Part Doll Tests Dollar Domestic Terrorism Dominique Strauss-Kahn Dopamine Douglas MacArthur Dr James Thompson Drd4 Dreams From My Father Dresden Drew Barrymore Dreyfus Affair Drinking Drone War Drones Drug Cartels Drugs Dry Counties DSM Dunning-kruger Effect Dusk In Autumn Dustin Hoffman Duterte Dylan Roof Dylann Roof Dysgenic E.O. 9066 E. O. Wilson Eagleman East Asia East Asians Eastern Europe Eastern Europeans Ebola Economic Development Economic Sanctions Economy Ed Miller Education Edward Price Edward Snowden EEA Egypt Eisenhower El Salvador Elections Electric Cars Elie Wiesel Eliot Cohen Eliot Engel Elites Ellen Walker Elliot Abrams Elliot Rodger Elliott Abrams Elon Musk Emigration Emil Kirkegaard Emmanuel Macron Emmanuel Todd Empathy England English Civil War Enhanced Interrogations Enoch Powell Entrepreneurship Environment Environmental Estrogens Environmentalism Erdogan Eric Cantor Espionage Estrogen Ethiopia Ethnic Genetic Interests Ethnic Nepotism Ethnicity EU Eugenic Eugenics Eurasia Europe European Right European Union Europeans Eurozone Everything Evil Evolution Evolutionary Biology Evolutionary Psychology Exercise Extraversion Extreterrestrials Eye Color Eyes Ezra Cohen-Watnick Face Recognition Face Shape Faces Facts Fake News fallout Family Studies Far West Farmers Farming Fascism Fat Head Fat Shaming Father Absence FBI Federal Reserve Female Deference Female Homosexuality Female Sexual Response Feminism Feminists Ferguson Shooting Fertility Fertility Fertility Rates Fethullah Gulen Fetish Feuds Fields Medals FIFA Fifty Shades Of Grey Film Finance Financial Bailout Financial Bubbles Financial Debt Financial Sector Financial Times Finland First Amendment First Law First World War FISA Fitness Flags Flight From White Fluctuating Asymmetry Flynn Effect Food Football For Profit Schools Foreign Service Fourth Of July Fracking Fragrances France Francesco Schettino Frank Salter Frankfurt School Frantz Fanon Franz Boas Fred Hiatt Fred Reed Freddie Gray Frederic Hof Free Speech Free Trade Free Will Freedom Of Navigation Freedom Of Speech French Canadians French National Front French Paradox Friendly & Conventional Front National Frost-harpending Selection Fulford Funny G G Spot Gaddafi Gallipoli Game Gardnerella Vaginalis Gary Taubes Gay Germ Gay Marriage Gays/Lesbians Gaza Gaza Flotilla Gcta Gender Gender Gender And Sexuality Gender Confusion Gender Equality Gender Identity Disorder Gender Reassignment Gene-Culture Coevolution Gene-environment Correlation General Intelligence General Social Survey General Theory Of The West Genes Genes: They Matter Bitches Genetic Diversity Genetic Divides Genetic Engineering Genetic Load Genetic Pacification Genetics Genetics Of Height Genocide Genomics Geography Geopolitics George Bush George Clooney George Patton George Romero George Soros George Tenet George W. Bush George Wallace Germ Theory German Catholics Germans Germany Get It Right Get Real Ghouta Gilgit Baltistan Gina Haspel Glenn Beck Glenn Greenwald Global Terrorism Index Global Warming Globalism Globalization God Delusion Goetsu Going Too Far Gold Gold Warriors Goldman Sachs Good Advice Google Gordon Gallup Goths Government Debt Government Incompetence Government Spending Government Surveillance Great Depression Great Leap Forward Great Recession Greater Appalachia Greece Greeks Greg Clark Greg Cochran Gregory B Christainsen Gregory Clark Gregory Cochran Gregory House GRF Grooming Group Intelligence Group Selection Grumpy Cat GSS Guangzhou Guantanamo Guardian Guilt Culture Gun Control Guns Gynephilia Gypsies H-1B H Bomb H.R. McMaster H1-B Visas Haim Saban Hair Color Hair Lengthening Haiti Hajnal Line Hamas Hamilton: An American Musical Hamilton's Rule Happiness Happy Turkey Day ... Unless You're The Turkey Harriet Tubman Harry Jaffa Harvard Harvey Weinstein Hasbara Hassidim Hate Crimes Hate Speech Hatemi Havelock Ellis Haymarket Affair Hbd Hbd Chick HBD Denial Hbd Fallout Hbd Readers Head Size Health And Medicine Health Care Healthcare Heart Disease Heart Health Heart Of Asia Conference Heartiste Heather Norton Height Helmuth Nyborg Hemoglobin Henri De Man Henry Harpending Henry Kissinger Herbert John Fleure Heredity Heritability Hexaco Hezbollah High Iq Fertility Hip Hop Hiroshima Hispanic Crime Hispanic Paradox Hispanics Historical Genetics Hitler HKND Hollywood Holocaust Homicide Homicide Rate Homo Altaiensis Homophobia Homosexuality Honesty-humility House Intelligence Committee House M.d. House Md House Of Cards Housing Huey Long Huey Newton Hugo Chavez Human Biodiversity Human Evolution Human Genetics Human Genomics Human Nature Human Rights Human Varieties Humor Hungary Hunter-Gatherers Hunting Hurricane Hurricane Harvey I.F. Stone I Kissed A Girl And I Liked It I Love Italians I.Q. Genomics Ian Deary Ibd Ibo Ice T Iceland I'd Like To Think It's Obvious I Know What I'm Talking About Ideology And Worldview Idiocracy Igbo Ignorance Ilana Mercer Illegal Immigration IMF immigrants Immigration Imperial Presidency Imperialism Imran Awan In The Electric Mist Inbreeding Income Independence Day India Indians Individualism Inequality Infection Theory Infidelity Intelligence Internet Internet Research Agency Interracial Marriage Inuit Ioannidis Ioannis Metaxas Iosif Lazaridis Iq Iq And Wealth Iran Nuclear Agreement Iran Nuclear Program Iran Sanctions Iranian Nuclear Program Iraq Iraq War Ireland Irish ISIS. Terrorism Islamic Jihad Islamophobia Isolationism Israel Defense Force Israeli Occupation Israeli Settlements Israeli Spying Italianthro Italy It's Determinism - Genetics Is Just A Part It's Not Nature And Nurture Ivanka Ivy League Iwo Eleru J. Edgar Hoover Jack Keane Jake Tapper JAM-GC Jamaica James Clapper James Comey James Fanell James Mattis James Wooley Jamie Foxx Jane Harman Jane Mayer Janet Yellen Japan Japanese Jared Diamond Jared Kushner Jared Taylor Jason Malloy JASTA Jayman Jr. Jayman's Wife Jeff Bezos Jennifer Rubin Jensen Jeremy Corbyn Jerrold Nadler Jerry Seinfeld Jesse Bering Jesuits Jewish History JFK Assassination Jill Stein Jim Crow Joe Cirincione Joe Lieberman John Allen John B. Watson John Boehner John Bolton John Brennan John Derbyshire John Durant John F. Kennedy John Hawks John Hoffecker John Kasich John Kerry John Ladue John McCain John McLaughlin John McWhorter John Mearsheimer John Tooby Joke Posts Jonathan Freedland Jonathan Pollard Joseph Lieberman Joseph McCarthy Judaism Judicial System Judith Harris Julian Assange Jute K.d. Lang Kagans Kanazawa Kashmir Katibat Al-Battar Al-Libi Katy Perry Kay Hymowitz Keith Ellison Ken Livingstone Kenneth Marcus Kennewick Man Kevin MacDonald Kevin McCarthy Kevin Mitchell Kevin Williamson KGL-9268 Khazars Kim Jong Un Kimberly Noble Kin Altruism Kin Selection Kink Kinship Kissing Kiwis Kkk Knesset Know-nothings Korea Korean War Kosovo Ku Klux Klan Kurds Kurt Campbell Labor Day Lactose Lady Gaga Language Larkana Conspiracy Larry Summers Larung Gar Las Vegas Massacre Latin America Latinos Latitude Latvia Law Law Of War Manual Laws Of Behavioral Genetics Lead Poisoning Lebanon Leda Cosmides Lee Kuan Yew Left Coast Left/Right Lenin Leo Strauss Lesbians LGBT Liberal Creationism Liberalism Liberals Libertarianism Libertarians Libya life-expectancy Life In Space Life Liberty And The Pursuit Of Happyness Lifestyle Light Skin Preference Lindsay Graham Lindsey Graham Literacy Litvinenko Lloyd Blankfein Locus Of Control Logan's Run Lombok Strait Long Ass Posts Longevity Look AHEAD Looting Lorde Love Love Dolls Lover Boys Low-carb Low-fat Low Wages LRSO Lutherans Lyndon Johnson M Factor M.g. MacArthur Awards Machiavellianism Madeleine Albright Mahmoud Abbas Maine Malacca Strait Malaysian Airlines MH17 Male Homosexuality Mamasapano Mangan Manor Manorialism Manosphere Manufacturing Mao-a Mao Zedong Maoism Maori Map Posts maps Marc Faber Marco Rubio Marijuana Marine Le Pen Mark Carney Mark Steyn Mark Warner Market Economy Marriage Martin Luther King Marwan Marwan Barghouti Marxism Mary White Ovington Masha Gessen Mass Shootings Massacre In Nice Mate Choice Mate Value Math Mathematics Maulana Bhashani Max Blumenthal Max Boot Max Brooks Mayans McCain/POW Mearsheimer-Walt Measurement Error Mega-Aggressions Mega-anlysis Megan Fox Megyn Kelly Melanin Memorial Day Mental Health Mental Illness Mental Traits Meritocracy Merkel Mesolithic Meta-analysis Meth Mexican-American War Mexico Michael Anton Michael Bloomberg Michael Flynn Michael Hudson Michael Jackson Michael Lewis Michael Morell Michael Pompeo Michael Weiss Michael Woodley Michele Bachmann Michelle Bachmann Michelle Obama Microaggressions Microcephalin Microsoft Middle Ages Mideastwire Migration Mike Huckabee Mike Pence Mike Pompeo Mike Signer Mikhail Khodorkovsky Militarized Police Military Military Pay Military Spending Milner Group Mindanao Minimum Wage Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study Minorities Minstrels Mirror Neurons Miscellaneous Misdreavus Missile Defense Mitt Romney Mixed-Race Modern Humans Mohammed Bin Salman Moldova Monogamy Moral Absolutism Moral Universalism Morality Mormons Moro Mortality Mossad Mountains Movies Moxie Mrs. Jayman MTDNA Muammar Gaddafi Multiculturalism Multiregional Model Music Muslim Muslim Ban Muslims Mutual Assured Destruction My Lai My Old Kentucky Home Myanmar Mysticism Nagasaki Nancy Segal Narendra Modi Nascar National Debt National Differences National Review National Security State National Security Strategy National Wealth Nationalism Native Americans NATO Natural Selection Nature Vs. Nurture Navy Yard Shooting Naz Shah Nazi Nazis Nazism Nbc News Nbc Nightly News Neanderthals NED Neo-Nazis Neoconservatism Neoconservatives Neoliberalism Neolithic Netherlands Neuropolitics Neuroticism Never Forget The Genetic Confound New Addition New Atheists New Cold War New England Patriots New France New French New Netherland New Qing History New Rules New Silk Road New World Order New York City New York Times Newfoundland Newt Gingrich NFL Nicaragua Canal Nicholas Sarkozy Nicholas Wade Nigeria Nightly News Nikki Haley No Free Will Nobel Prize Nobel Prized Nobosuke Kishi Nordics North Africa North Korea Northern Ireland Northwest Europe Norway NSA NSA Surveillance Nuclear Proliferation Nuclear War Nuclear Weapons Null Result Nurture Nurture Assumption Nutrition Nuts NYPD O Mio Babbino Caro Obama Obamacare Obesity Obscured American Occam's Razor Occupy Occupy Wall Street Oceania Oil Oil Industry Old Folks At Home Olfaction Oliver Stone Olympics Omega Males Ominous Signs Once You Go Black Open To Experience Openness To Experience Operational Sex Ratio Opiates Opioids Orban Organ Transplants Orlando Shooting Orthodoxy Osama Bin Laden Ottoman Empire Our Political Nature Out Of Africa Model Outbreeding Oxtr Oxytocin Paekchong Pakistan Pakistani Palatability Paleoamerindians Paleocons Paleolibertarianism Palestine Palestinians Pamela Geller Panama Canal Panama Papers Parasite Parasite Burden Parasite Manipulation Parent-child Interactions Parenting Parenting Parenting Behavioral Genetics Paris Attacks Paris Spring Parsi Paternal Investment Pathogens Patriot Act Patriotism Paul Ewald Paul Krugman Paul Lepage Paul Manafort Paul Ryan Paul Singer Paul Wolfowitz Pavel Grudinin Peace Index Peak Jobs Pearl Harbor Pedophilia Peers Peggy Seagrave Pennsylvania Pentagon Perception Management Personality Peru Peter Frost Peter Thiel Peter Turchin Phil Onderdonk Phil Rushton Philip Breedlove Philippines Physical Anthropology Pierre Van Den Berghe Pieter Van Ostaeyen Piigs Pioneer Hypothesis Pioneers PISA Pizzagate Planets Planned Parenthood Pledge Of Allegiance Pleiotropy Pol Pot Poland Police State Police Training Politics Poll Results Polls Polygenic Score Polygyny Pope Francis Population Growth Population Replacement Populism Pornography Portugal Post 199 Post 201 Post 99 Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc Post-Nationalism Pot Poverty PRC Prenatal Hormones Prescription Drugs Press Censorship Pretty Graphs Prince Bandar Priti Patel Privatization Progressives Project Plowshares Propaganda Prostitution Protestantism Proud To Be Black Psychology Psychometrics Psychopaths Psychopathy Pubertal Timing Public Schools Puerto Rico Punishment Puritans Putin Pwc Qatar Quakers Quantitative Genetics Quebec Quebecois Race Race And Crime Race And Genomics Race And Iq Race And Religion Race/Crime Race Denialism Race Riots Rachel Dolezal Rachel Maddow Racial Intelligence Racial Reality Racism Radical Islam Ralph And Coop Ralph Nader Rand Paul Randy Fine Rap Music Raqqa Rating People Rationality Raul Pedrozo Razib Khan Reaction Time Reading Real Estate Real Women Really Stop The Armchair Psychoanalysis Recep Tayyip Erdogan Reciprocal Altruism Reconstruction Red Hair Red State Blue State Red States Blue States Refugee Crisis Regional Differences Regional Populations Regression To The Mean Religion Religion Religion And Philosophy Rena Wing Renewable Energy Rentier Reprint Reproductive Strategy Republican Jesus Republican Party Responsibility Reuel Gerecht Reverend Moon Revolution Of 1905 Revolutions Rex Tillerson Richard Dawkins Richard Dyer Richard Lewontin Richard Lynn Richard Nixon Richard Pryor Richard Pryor Live On The Sunset Strip Richard Russell Rick Perry Rickets Rikishi Robert Ford Robert Kraft Robert Lindsay Robert McNamara Robert Mueller Robert Mugabe Robert Plomin Robert Putnam Robert Reich Robert Spencer Robocop Robots Roe Vs. Wade Roger Ailes Rohingya Roman Empire Rome Ron Paul Ron Unz Ronald Reagan Rooshv Rosemary Hopcroft Ross Douthat Ross Perot Rotherham Roy Moore RT International Rupert Murdoch Rural Liberals Rushton Russell Kirk Russia-Georgia War Russiagate Russian Elections 2018 Russian Hack Russian History Russian Military Russian Orthodox Church Ruth Benedict Saakashvili Sam Harris Same Sex Attraction Same-sex Marriage Same-sex Parents Samoans Samuel George Morton San Bernadino Massacre Sandra Beleza Sandusky Sandy Hook Sarah Palin Sarin Gas Satoshi Kanazawa saudi Saudi Arabia Saying What You Have To Say Scandinavia Scandinavians Scarborough Shoal Schizophrenia Science: It Works Bitches Scientism Scotch-irish Scotland Scots Irish Scott Ritter Scrabble Secession Seduced By Food Semai Senate Separating The Truth From The Nonsense Serbia Serenity Sergei Magnitsky Sergei Skripal Sex Sex Ratio Sex Ratio At Birth Sex Recognition Sex Tape Sex Work Sexism Sexual Antagonistic Selection Sexual Dimorphism Sexual Division Of Labor Sexual Fluidity Sexual Identity Sexual Maturation Sexual Orientation Sexual Selection Sexually Transmitted Diseases Seymour Hersh Shai Masot Shame Culture Shanghai Cooperation Organisation Shanghai Stock Exchange Shared Environment Shekhovstov Sheldon Adelson Shias And Sunnis Shimon Arad Shimon Peres Shinzo Abe Shmuley Boteach Shorts And Funnies Shoshana Bryen Shurat HaDin Shyness Siamak Namazi Sibel Edmonds Siberia Silicon Valley Simon Baron Cohen Singapore Single Men Single Motherhood Single Mothers Single Women Sisyphean Six Day War SJWs Skin Bleaching Skin Color Skin Tone Slate Slave Trade Slavery Slavoj Zizek Slavs SLC24A5 Sleep Slobodan Milosevic Smart Fraction Smell Smoking Snow Snyderman Social Constructs Social Justice Warriors Socialism Sociopathy Sociosexuality Solar Energy Solutions Somalia Sometimes You Don't Like The Answer South Africa South Asia South China Sea South Korea South Sudan Southern Italians Southern Poverty Law Center Soviet Union Space Space Space Program Space Race Spain Spanish Paradox Speech SPLC Sports Sputnik News Squid Ink Srebrenica Stabby Somali Staffan Stalinism Stanislas Dehaene Star Trek State Department State Formation States Rights Statins Steny Hoyer Stephan Guyenet Stephen Cohen Stephen Colbert Stephen Hadley Stephen Jay Gould Sterling Seagrave Steve Bannon Steve Sailer Steven Mnuchin Steven Pinker Still Not Free Buddy Stolen Generations Strategic Affairs Ministry Stroke Belt Student Loans Stuxnet SU-57 Sub-replacement Fertility Sub-Saharan Africa Sub-Saharan Africans Subprime Mortgage Crisis Subsistence Living Suffrage Sugar Suicide Summing It All Up Supernatural Support Me Support The Jayman Supreme Court Supression Surveillance Susan Glasser Susan Rice Sweden Swiss Switzerland Syed Farook Syrian Refugees Syriza Ta-Nehisi Coates Taiwan Tale Of Two Maps Taliban Tamerlan Tsarnaev TAS2R16 Tashfeen Malik Taste Tastiness Tatars Tatu Vanhanen Tawang Tax Cuts Tax Evasion Taxes Tea Party Team Performance Technology Ted Cruz Tell Me About You Tell The Truth Terman Terman's Termites Terroris Terrorists Tesla Testosterone Thailand The 10000 Year Explosion The Bible The Breeder's Equation The Confederacy The Dark Knight The Dark Triad The Death Penalty The Deep South The Devil Is In The Details The Dustbowl The Economist The Far West The Future The Great Plains The Great Wall The Left The Left Coast The New York Times The Pursuit Of Happyness The Rock The Saker The Son Also Rises The South The Walking Dead The Washington Post The Wide Environment The World Theodore Roosevelt Theresa May Things Going Sour Third World Thomas Aquinas Thomas Friedman Thomas Perez Thomas Sowell Thomas Talhelm Thorstein Veblen Thurgood Marshall Tibet Tidewater Tiger Mom Time Preference Timmons Title IX Tobin Tax Tom Cotton Tom Naughton Tone It Down Guys Seriously Tony Blair Torture Toxoplasma Gondii TPP Traffic Traffic Fatalities Tragedy Trans-Species Polymorphism Transgender Transgenderism Transsexuals Treasury Tropical Humans Trump Trust TTIP Tuition Tulsi Gabbard Turkheimer TWA 800 Twin Study Twins Twins Raised Apart Twintuition Twitter Two Party System UKIP Ukrainian Crisis UN Security Council Unemployment Unions United Kingdom United Nations United States Universalism University Admissions Upper Paleolithic Urban Riots Ursula Gauthier Uruguay US Blacks USS Liberty Utopian Uttar Pradesh UV Uyghurs Vaginal Yeast Valerie Plame Vassopressin Vdare Veep Venezuela Veterans Administration Victor Canfield Victor Davis Hanson Victoria Nuland Victorian England Victorianism Video Games Vietnam Vietnam War Vietnamese Vikings Violence Vioxx Virginia Visa Waivers Visual Word Form Area Vitamin D Voronezh Vote Fraud Vouchers Vwfa W.E.I.R.D. W.E.I.R.D.O. Wahhabis Wall Street Walter Bodmer Wang Jing War On Christmas War On Terror Washington Post WasPage Watergate Watsoning We Are What We Are We Don't Know All The Environmental Causes Weight Loss WEIRDO Welfare Western Europe Western European Marriage Pattern Western Media Western Religion Westerns What Can You Do What's The Cause Where They're At Where's The Fallout White America White Americans White Conservative Males White Death White Helmets White Nationalist Nuttiness White Nationalists White Privilege White Slavery White Supremacy White Wife Why We Believe Hbd Wikileaks Wild Life Wilhelm Furtwangler William Browder William Buckley William D. Hamilton William Graham Sumner William McGougall WINEP Winston Churchill Women In The Workplace Woodley Effect Woodrow Wilson WORDSUM Workers Working Class Working Memory World Values Survey World War I World War Z Writing WTO X Little Miss JayLady Xhosa Xi Jinping Xinjiang Yankeedom Yankees Yazidis Yemen Yes I Am A Brother Yes I Am Liberal - But That Kind Of Liberal Yochi Dreazen You Can't Handle The Truth You Don't Know Shit Youtube Ban Yugoslavia Zbigniew Brzezinski Zhang Yimou Zika Zika Virus Zimbabwe Zionism Zombies Zones Of Thought Zulfikar Ali Bhutto
Nothing found
All Commenters • My
Comments
• Followed
Commenters
All Comments / On "Denmark"
 All Comments / On "Denmark"
    I wrote the above last January, fearing that Europe would see an acceleration of the massive demographic change already under away—the Great Replacement, to use a term coined by Renaud Camus: Oh, the Great Replacement needs no definition. It isn't a concept. It's a phenomenon, as obvious as the nose on your face. To observe...
  • @Rehmat
    Neyth Nethanyahu - When was the last time you opened the Holy Talmud? Israeli historian Israel Shahak called it the most hate religious literature in the world. It curses Jesus, Mary and Christians. Holy Qur'an on the other hand, raises Jesus and Mary to the level of prophet Moses and his mother.

    If Hitler loved Muslims, how come he never higher a single Muslim in his administration, which was loaded with Christians and Jews.

    Nazi army had 150,000 German Jews but not a single Muslim.

    In October 2015, Netanyahu told the 37th World Zionist Congress that Adolf Hitler only wanted to expel the German Jews, but he was advised by Palestinian Mufti al-Haj Amin al-Husseini (d. 1974 in Lebanon) to exterminate the Jews.....

    http://rehmat1.com/2015/10/22/netanyahu-absolves-hitler-of-holocaust/

    Rehmat: I can’t believe that you are really asking, in good faith, why there were no Muslims in the Nazi government. The reason, as you surely know, is that there ALMOST ZERO muslims in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland at that time — what a lovely state of affairs, too!

    Hopefully it will be that way again in Europe and North America….

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Peter Frost
    The only way how to stop massive migration is to remove the causes which bring it about. Wars, destruction of countries, economic misery, etc.

    War is at most a facilitator. Even without Western meddling in Libya and Syria, the dike would have given way somewhere else. Yes, we should help poorer countries, but much of our help has actually made things worse. Remember the food aid we sent to Ethiopia in 1984-85? At that time, its population was 41 million. Now it's twice that number.

    Nazi army had 150,000 German Jews but not a single Muslim.

    The SS had a largely Muslim division.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/13th_Waffen_Mountain_Division_of_the_SS_Handschar_(1st_Croatian)#Composition

    In any case, we shouldn't be viewing present events through the lens of WWII. We are living in a very different world now.

    “Elites” want us to ape the west, to change our culture, and go flapping about tolerancy, progress, and united Europe.

    Elites have always pursued their own interest. What has changed is the growing divergence between elite interest and national interest. It is this factor that is most disquieting. Life can actually get worse for most people, yet the elites will remain on course because they are actually better off.

    Things will really change when the elites find that things are getting bad in their own lives. The United States began to restrict immigration in the 1920s after a wave of anarchist attacks on leading politicians and businessmen.

    Just publicly quit while continuing to write under a pseudonym.

    Sooner or later people would recognize me as the author, either by the sources I quote or by my pedantic writing style. In any case, stuff I write on my blog ends up being recycled in my journal articles.

    The analysis you offer is essentially that Western elites lack the will to resist the intense population pressure from Africa. (Their “universalism” gets the better of them.) This is simply politically stupid. Open borders has been a long-term project of the transnationals.

    By "lack of will" I mean they don't want to resist. They don't want to protect their nations because they believe that nations are obsolete. They say this sort of thing openly.

    Go back to your original blog, Peter. You can then moderate comments

    Unfortunately, I'm already on the "radar screen." This is why I wanted to get a legal opinion on Bill 59. To make a long story short, I will be prosecuted if I'm perceived as being a "soft target" -- a lone blogger without the financial means to mount a successful defense.

    To prevent prosecution, I should:

    - delete comments that would be considered hateful by most people
    - have a legal team on standby
    - become rich and famous

    you wish there was no discussion period about the nature of neurotic, in-bred, control freak Jews.

    Then start your own blog! What's stopping you?

    Anyway at Peter’s own blog there were none of these problems when you went there in 2012 to argue for your IQ hypothesis.

    When I asked Ron about that, he told me he's not the sort of person to carry a grudge.

    Moreover, to ban discussion of Jews is to condemn oneself to militant stupidity and enforced ignorance. Jewish influence is highly significant politically: it is a major vector in Middle East politics, and Jews (racial or religious) Jews make up maybe a third of the billionairiate.

    I'm not politically correct. In several posts, I have discussed the role of Jewish scholars in reviving antiracism in the 1930s. The war on antiracism began as part of the war on Nazism ("racist" was initially a French translation of Völkisch). It continued after the war because both power blocs wanted to win over the hearts and minds of emerging countries in the Third World.

    I have also discussed the role of ethnic networking in the composition of the U.S. Supreme Court. White Protestants have been progressively eliminated from that body because they don't act collectively. They prefer to be rugged individualists, unlike Jewish and Catholic Americans. Guess who wins at the end of the day?

    But unlike certain people I don't believe that Jews explain everything. Are non-Jewish plutocrats better than Jewish ones? I'm sorry but they aren't. Steve Sailer has written recently about the perverse influence of agribusiness on American immigration policy. You'll find that most of those lobbyists are whitebread Americans.

    I reject anti-Semitism not because I'm a pushover but because I feel it is delusional and, as such, prevents us from identifying the causes of the problems we face.

    Would it be intellectually honest of Mr Frost to acknowledge the superiority of his upbringing and culture? Would it be good for Mr Frost to go back to church and rebuild his culture back to what it was?

    I never left my church. My church left me, as it left many other people like myself.

    I considered joining another church, but all of them are going down the same path. I recently dropped by a "conservative" Protestant church to pick up my wife (she was attending a course there). I noticed numerous newspaper clippings about Muslim refugees on the bulletin board. One of them showed people proudly holding a sign "Let them in!!!"

    On issues of family and sexuality, there are some differences among the churches, but often even those differences are cosmetic. Liberal Christians approve of single motherhood because the struggle for personal autonomy requires it. Conservative Christians approve of single motherhood because the fight against abortion requires it. Liberals create "blended families" through divorce. Conservatives create them through international adoption.

    In my opinion, the Great Replacement is the defining issue of our age. Can anyone here point to one church that has spoken out against the Great Replacement? (preferably one within driving distance)

    What makes Canada different?

    Canada began as an ideological construct. It saw itself as a rampart against American liberalism and as a refuge for those Americans who wished to abandon foolish ideas of individualism, atheism, equality, and so forth.

    This view of ourselves was strengthened during the War of 1812, when the U.S. invaded Canada at a time when British forces were tied down in the war against Napoleon. Nonetheless, the limited numbers of British soldiers and Canadian militiamen not only held their own but even managed to seize large stretches of American territory.

    Through most of the early to mid 19th century, there was an expectation that another war would happen. At the time of the American Civil War, Britain and France made plans to intervene on the side of the South. The South would become an independent state, and parts of the North would be annexed to Canada. In addition, the Mexican Republic would be abolished and turned into a monarchy under French direction.

    That never happened, partly because a large part of the British public was sympathetic to the North, partly because Russia was opposed to the planned intervention, and partly because the North was already becoming a strong military power.

    Ideas live longer than their usefulness. As a rampart against American liberalism, Canada was already obsolete by the late 19th century. Then, gradually, the success of the American experiment began to convince many Canadians that we were wrong and they were right. This was especially true after 1945. Britain was bankrupt, and the U.S. seemed to be the model to follow. The U.S. was succeeding on all fronts: geopolitically, economically, technologically, and so on.

    Anti-Americanism still exists but has been reprogrammed. Americans are reproached for not being sufficiently loyal to their liberal ideals. In a sense, anti-Americanism is an American export. It's like the student who prides himself on being better than his teacher.

    Will this change? If change does come, it will probably come first in Quebec, where the penetration of liberalism is more recent and often superficial. This is why anti-hate laws tend to be more draconian in Quebec than elsewhere. You don't need such laws in a society where most people have internalized correct thinking. In the latter case, it's not the police you have to worry about. It's your employer, your spouse, and even your children.

    But consider, Ron won’t let Peter censor comments … so how can Peter be responsible for what commenters say?

    Someone has to take responsibility. If the anonymous commenter won't assume responsibility for his comments, the responsibility falls to the columnist. And if the columnist can't censor the comments, that's his problem. He freely agreed to that arrangement.

    He freely agreed to that arrangement.

    Yes, even (especially) when it is being presented as a matter of course, never be shepherded (or lulled) into signing off on anything without understanding exactly what you are agreeing to be held to the fire with.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Dear Peter Frost,
    Your column is the best thing that fed my intellect this year. The Christian thing to do is to wish you a decent living in 2016 — away from the Unz Review, if that be the case.
    If you allow me to use this space to pay some homage to mr. Unz, I will just say that this site and unz.org are the works of a true hero.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • - should be “the war on racism” and not “the war on antiracism.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Peter Frost
    The only way how to stop massive migration is to remove the causes which bring it about. Wars, destruction of countries, economic misery, etc.

    War is at most a facilitator. Even without Western meddling in Libya and Syria, the dike would have given way somewhere else. Yes, we should help poorer countries, but much of our help has actually made things worse. Remember the food aid we sent to Ethiopia in 1984-85? At that time, its population was 41 million. Now it's twice that number.

    Nazi army had 150,000 German Jews but not a single Muslim.

    The SS had a largely Muslim division.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/13th_Waffen_Mountain_Division_of_the_SS_Handschar_(1st_Croatian)#Composition

    In any case, we shouldn't be viewing present events through the lens of WWII. We are living in a very different world now.

    “Elites” want us to ape the west, to change our culture, and go flapping about tolerancy, progress, and united Europe.

    Elites have always pursued their own interest. What has changed is the growing divergence between elite interest and national interest. It is this factor that is most disquieting. Life can actually get worse for most people, yet the elites will remain on course because they are actually better off.

    Things will really change when the elites find that things are getting bad in their own lives. The United States began to restrict immigration in the 1920s after a wave of anarchist attacks on leading politicians and businessmen.

    Just publicly quit while continuing to write under a pseudonym.

    Sooner or later people would recognize me as the author, either by the sources I quote or by my pedantic writing style. In any case, stuff I write on my blog ends up being recycled in my journal articles.

    The analysis you offer is essentially that Western elites lack the will to resist the intense population pressure from Africa. (Their “universalism” gets the better of them.) This is simply politically stupid. Open borders has been a long-term project of the transnationals.

    By "lack of will" I mean they don't want to resist. They don't want to protect their nations because they believe that nations are obsolete. They say this sort of thing openly.

    Go back to your original blog, Peter. You can then moderate comments

    Unfortunately, I'm already on the "radar screen." This is why I wanted to get a legal opinion on Bill 59. To make a long story short, I will be prosecuted if I'm perceived as being a "soft target" -- a lone blogger without the financial means to mount a successful defense.

    To prevent prosecution, I should:

    - delete comments that would be considered hateful by most people
    - have a legal team on standby
    - become rich and famous

    you wish there was no discussion period about the nature of neurotic, in-bred, control freak Jews.

    Then start your own blog! What's stopping you?

    Anyway at Peter’s own blog there were none of these problems when you went there in 2012 to argue for your IQ hypothesis.

    When I asked Ron about that, he told me he's not the sort of person to carry a grudge.

    Moreover, to ban discussion of Jews is to condemn oneself to militant stupidity and enforced ignorance. Jewish influence is highly significant politically: it is a major vector in Middle East politics, and Jews (racial or religious) Jews make up maybe a third of the billionairiate.

    I'm not politically correct. In several posts, I have discussed the role of Jewish scholars in reviving antiracism in the 1930s. The war on antiracism began as part of the war on Nazism ("racist" was initially a French translation of Völkisch). It continued after the war because both power blocs wanted to win over the hearts and minds of emerging countries in the Third World.

    I have also discussed the role of ethnic networking in the composition of the U.S. Supreme Court. White Protestants have been progressively eliminated from that body because they don't act collectively. They prefer to be rugged individualists, unlike Jewish and Catholic Americans. Guess who wins at the end of the day?

    But unlike certain people I don't believe that Jews explain everything. Are non-Jewish plutocrats better than Jewish ones? I'm sorry but they aren't. Steve Sailer has written recently about the perverse influence of agribusiness on American immigration policy. You'll find that most of those lobbyists are whitebread Americans.

    I reject anti-Semitism not because I'm a pushover but because I feel it is delusional and, as such, prevents us from identifying the causes of the problems we face.

    Would it be intellectually honest of Mr Frost to acknowledge the superiority of his upbringing and culture? Would it be good for Mr Frost to go back to church and rebuild his culture back to what it was?

    I never left my church. My church left me, as it left many other people like myself.

    I considered joining another church, but all of them are going down the same path. I recently dropped by a "conservative" Protestant church to pick up my wife (she was attending a course there). I noticed numerous newspaper clippings about Muslim refugees on the bulletin board. One of them showed people proudly holding a sign "Let them in!!!"

    On issues of family and sexuality, there are some differences among the churches, but often even those differences are cosmetic. Liberal Christians approve of single motherhood because the struggle for personal autonomy requires it. Conservative Christians approve of single motherhood because the fight against abortion requires it. Liberals create "blended families" through divorce. Conservatives create them through international adoption.

    In my opinion, the Great Replacement is the defining issue of our age. Can anyone here point to one church that has spoken out against the Great Replacement? (preferably one within driving distance)

    What makes Canada different?

    Canada began as an ideological construct. It saw itself as a rampart against American liberalism and as a refuge for those Americans who wished to abandon foolish ideas of individualism, atheism, equality, and so forth.

    This view of ourselves was strengthened during the War of 1812, when the U.S. invaded Canada at a time when British forces were tied down in the war against Napoleon. Nonetheless, the limited numbers of British soldiers and Canadian militiamen not only held their own but even managed to seize large stretches of American territory.

    Through most of the early to mid 19th century, there was an expectation that another war would happen. At the time of the American Civil War, Britain and France made plans to intervene on the side of the South. The South would become an independent state, and parts of the North would be annexed to Canada. In addition, the Mexican Republic would be abolished and turned into a monarchy under French direction.

    That never happened, partly because a large part of the British public was sympathetic to the North, partly because Russia was opposed to the planned intervention, and partly because the North was already becoming a strong military power.

    Ideas live longer than their usefulness. As a rampart against American liberalism, Canada was already obsolete by the late 19th century. Then, gradually, the success of the American experiment began to convince many Canadians that we were wrong and they were right. This was especially true after 1945. Britain was bankrupt, and the U.S. seemed to be the model to follow. The U.S. was succeeding on all fronts: geopolitically, economically, technologically, and so on.

    Anti-Americanism still exists but has been reprogrammed. Americans are reproached for not being sufficiently loyal to their liberal ideals. In a sense, anti-Americanism is an American export. It's like the student who prides himself on being better than his teacher.

    Will this change? If change does come, it will probably come first in Quebec, where the penetration of liberalism is more recent and often superficial. This is why anti-hate laws tend to be more draconian in Quebec than elsewhere. You don't need such laws in a society where most people have internalized correct thinking. In the latter case, it's not the police you have to worry about. It's your employer, your spouse, and even your children.

    But consider, Ron won’t let Peter censor comments … so how can Peter be responsible for what commenters say?

    Someone has to take responsibility. If the anonymous commenter won't assume responsibility for his comments, the responsibility falls to the columnist. And if the columnist can't censor the comments, that's his problem. He freely agreed to that arrangement.

    “Can anyone here point to one church that has spoken out against the Great Replacement? ”

    But how could they speak out against it? Christianity’s message is universal and colour-blind…there really isn’t a way it could be explicitly pro conserving a specific nation or ethnicity. From a Christian point of view aren’t such things meaningless and destined for oblivion anyway? And given how increasingly godless most Europeans and European-descended peoples nowadays are, it seems to me Christianity and the European world are finally diverging…Christianity’s future is the global south, and the churches are behaving accordingly…why should they care about “racist” white people who mostly aren’t fervent believers anymore anyway?
    The only thing that somewhat mystifies me is the excessive Islamophilia displayed by many Christians (odd given Islam’s role as Christianity’s most effective enemy throughout the ages and the current plight of Mideast Christians), but I suppose it’s motivated by resentment against modern secularism and maybe even an hidden admiration for Muslims (who don’t have to tolerate troublesome atheists but just chop them up).
    In a way, I’m increasingly disillusioned with Western civilization…maybe it was always a mistake. I certainly don’t feel much of a connection with the Christian tradition (and in my badly paid academic job I actually have to work with medieval Christian writings…). But there’s no way back to the pre-Christian past either (which in any case isn’t desirable in many ways) nor any meaningful alternative…it’s a dreadful situation,

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • The only way how to stop massive migration is to remove the causes which bring it about. Wars, destruction of countries, economic misery, etc.

    War is at most a facilitator. Even without Western meddling in Libya and Syria, the dike would have given way somewhere else. Yes, we should help poorer countries, but much of our help has actually made things worse. Remember the food aid we sent to Ethiopia in 1984-85? At that time, its population was 41 million. Now it’s twice that number.

    Nazi army had 150,000 German Jews but not a single Muslim.

    The SS had a largely Muslim division.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/13th_Waffen_Mountain_Division_of_the_SS_Handschar_(1st_Croatian)#Composition

    In any case, we shouldn’t be viewing present events through the lens of WWII. We are living in a very different world now.

    “Elites” want us to ape the west, to change our culture, and go flapping about tolerancy, progress, and united Europe.

    Elites have always pursued their own interest. What has changed is the growing divergence between elite interest and national interest. It is this factor that is most disquieting. Life can actually get worse for most people, yet the elites will remain on course because they are actually better off.

    Things will really change when the elites find that things are getting bad in their own lives. The United States began to restrict immigration in the 1920s after a wave of anarchist attacks on leading politicians and businessmen.

    Just publicly quit while continuing to write under a pseudonym.

    Sooner or later people would recognize me as the author, either by the sources I quote or by my pedantic writing style. In any case, stuff I write on my blog ends up being recycled in my journal articles.

    The analysis you offer is essentially that Western elites lack the will to resist the intense population pressure from Africa. (Their “universalism” gets the better of them.) This is simply politically stupid. Open borders has been a long-term project of the transnationals.

    By “lack of will” I mean they don’t want to resist. They don’t want to protect their nations because they believe that nations are obsolete. They say this sort of thing openly.

    Go back to your original blog, Peter. You can then moderate comments

    Unfortunately, I’m already on the “radar screen.” This is why I wanted to get a legal opinion on Bill 59. To make a long story short, I will be prosecuted if I’m perceived as being a “soft target” — a lone blogger without the financial means to mount a successful defense.

    To prevent prosecution, I should:

    - delete comments that would be considered hateful by most people
    - have a legal team on standby
    - become rich and famous

    you wish there was no discussion period about the nature of neurotic, in-bred, control freak Jews.

    Then start your own blog! What’s stopping you?

    Anyway at Peter’s own blog there were none of these problems when you went there in 2012 to argue for your IQ hypothesis.

    When I asked Ron about that, he told me he’s not the sort of person to carry a grudge.

    Moreover, to ban discussion of Jews is to condemn oneself to militant stupidity and enforced ignorance. Jewish influence is highly significant politically: it is a major vector in Middle East politics, and Jews (racial or religious) Jews make up maybe a third of the billionairiate.

    I’m not politically correct. In several posts, I have discussed the role of Jewish scholars in reviving antiracism in the 1930s. The war on antiracism began as part of the war on Nazism (“racist” was initially a French translation of Völkisch). It continued after the war because both power blocs wanted to win over the hearts and minds of emerging countries in the Third World.

    I have also discussed the role of ethnic networking in the composition of the U.S. Supreme Court. White Protestants have been progressively eliminated from that body because they don’t act collectively. They prefer to be rugged individualists, unlike Jewish and Catholic Americans. Guess who wins at the end of the day?

    But unlike certain people I don’t believe that Jews explain everything. Are non-Jewish plutocrats better than Jewish ones? I’m sorry but they aren’t. Steve Sailer has written recently about the perverse influence of agribusiness on American immigration policy. You’ll find that most of those lobbyists are whitebread Americans.

    I reject anti-Semitism not because I’m a pushover but because I feel it is delusional and, as such, prevents us from identifying the causes of the problems we face.

    Would it be intellectually honest of Mr Frost to acknowledge the superiority of his upbringing and culture? Would it be good for Mr Frost to go back to church and rebuild his culture back to what it was?

    I never left my church. My church left me, as it left many other people like myself.

    I considered joining another church, but all of them are going down the same path. I recently dropped by a “conservative” Protestant church to pick up my wife (she was attending a course there). I noticed numerous newspaper clippings about Muslim refugees on the bulletin board. One of them showed people proudly holding a sign “Let them in!!!”

    On issues of family and sexuality, there are some differences among the churches, but often even those differences are cosmetic. Liberal Christians approve of single motherhood because the struggle for personal autonomy requires it. Conservative Christians approve of single motherhood because the fight against abortion requires it. Liberals create “blended families” through divorce. Conservatives create them through international adoption.

    In my opinion, the Great Replacement is the defining issue of our age. Can anyone here point to one church that has spoken out against the Great Replacement? (preferably one within driving distance)

    What makes Canada different?

    Canada began as an ideological construct. It saw itself as a rampart against American liberalism and as a refuge for those Americans who wished to abandon foolish ideas of individualism, atheism, equality, and so forth.

    This view of ourselves was strengthened during the War of 1812, when the U.S. invaded Canada at a time when British forces were tied down in the war against Napoleon. Nonetheless, the limited numbers of British soldiers and Canadian militiamen not only held their own but even managed to seize large stretches of American territory.

    Through most of the early to mid 19th century, there was an expectation that another war would happen. At the time of the American Civil War, Britain and France made plans to intervene on the side of the South. The South would become an independent state, and parts of the North would be annexed to Canada. In addition, the Mexican Republic would be abolished and turned into a monarchy under French direction.

    That never happened, partly because a large part of the British public was sympathetic to the North, partly because Russia was opposed to the planned intervention, and partly because the North was already becoming a strong military power.

    Ideas live longer than their usefulness. As a rampart against American liberalism, Canada was already obsolete by the late 19th century. Then, gradually, the success of the American experiment began to convince many Canadians that we were wrong and they were right. This was especially true after 1945. Britain was bankrupt, and the U.S. seemed to be the model to follow. The U.S. was succeeding on all fronts: geopolitically, economically, technologically, and so on.

    Anti-Americanism still exists but has been reprogrammed. Americans are reproached for not being sufficiently loyal to their liberal ideals. In a sense, anti-Americanism is an American export. It’s like the student who prides himself on being better than his teacher.

    Will this change? If change does come, it will probably come first in Quebec, where the penetration of liberalism is more recent and often superficial. This is why anti-hate laws tend to be more draconian in Quebec than elsewhere. You don’t need such laws in a society where most people have internalized correct thinking. In the latter case, it’s not the police you have to worry about. It’s your employer, your spouse, and even your children.

    But consider, Ron won’t let Peter censor comments … so how can Peter be responsible for what commenters say?

    Someone has to take responsibility. If the anonymous commenter won’t assume responsibility for his comments, the responsibility falls to the columnist. And if the columnist can’t censor the comments, that’s his problem. He freely agreed to that arrangement.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader
    "Can anyone here point to one church that has spoken out against the Great Replacement? "

    But how could they speak out against it? Christianity's message is universal and colour-blind...there really isn't a way it could be explicitly pro conserving a specific nation or ethnicity. From a Christian point of view aren't such things meaningless and destined for oblivion anyway? And given how increasingly godless most Europeans and European-descended peoples nowadays are, it seems to me Christianity and the European world are finally diverging...Christianity's future is the global south, and the churches are behaving accordingly...why should they care about "racist" white people who mostly aren't fervent believers anymore anyway?
    The only thing that somewhat mystifies me is the excessive Islamophilia displayed by many Christians (odd given Islam's role as Christianity's most effective enemy throughout the ages and the current plight of Mideast Christians), but I suppose it's motivated by resentment against modern secularism and maybe even an hidden admiration for Muslims (who don't have to tolerate troublesome atheists but just chop them up).
    In a way, I'm increasingly disillusioned with Western civilization...maybe it was always a mistake. I certainly don't feel much of a connection with the Christian tradition (and in my badly paid academic job I actually have to work with medieval Christian writings...). But there's no way back to the pre-Christian past either (which in any case isn't desirable in many ways) nor any meaningful alternative...it's a dreadful situation,
    , @Sean

    He freely agreed to that arrangement.
     
    Yes, even (especially) when it is being presented as a matter of course, never be shepherded (or lulled) into signing off on anything without understanding exactly what you are agreeing to be held to the fire with.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @AndrewR
    Trust me, he does not just censor the "gas the kikes race war now" type comments.

    What else does he censor in your view?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • “We should note that the tendency to consider individuals, things, objects, and peoples replaceable or interchangeable is fairly widespread and in line with a threefold movement whereby people have become industrialized, deprived of their spirituality, and dumbed down. Call it a later and more generalized stage of Taylorism. At first, we replace only the parts of manufactured goods. Then, we replace workers. Finally, we replace entire peoples.”

    The only good bureaucrat is one with a pistol to his head! Take it away from his head and put it in his hand and there go the Bill of Rights!

    Now we have Lord & Taylorism. It used to be a guy couldn’t figure it out, so he’d go to church, start a revolution and now what’s the salvation? Shopping! The ladies are going to pull down the churches to have the developers throw up Salvation Army style flop houses with state loans in Virginia. Clearly democracy gone cracy with low interest high finance. Everybody is getting a plastic state bread card too and a little ration stamp book. You’ll all be treated to the new free clinic care designed around V.A. health delivery. The finest in the land, which is where they’ll be putting you with less bang and more bureaucracy for your buck and buck you’ll be eating as the deer gets shot you’ll get fed. All your savings will be repurposed to keep the bankrupt corporations and fly circus going to haul suckers to Vegas where the car is the home and the sidewalk is side work. Instead of turning the church into a flop house we can flip the airports and malls. Turn the empty banks in liquor shops with ATM’s. Put the state out of our misery and you and yours. Finally, we replace entire bureaucracies with machines.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Clyde

    What? Ron lets Sailer censor comments and he is not shy about it.
     
    Hmmmmm....never thought about that before but you must be correct. Steve Sailer is an insta-StormFront magnet. He must kick out 10-20 percent _dumb_ass_nazi_ comments depending on what day of the week it is.

    Trust me, he does not just censor the “gas the kikes race war now” type comments.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    What else does he censor in your view?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @AndrewR
    What? Ron lets Sailer censor comments and he is not shy about it. Why not Frost?

    What? Ron lets Sailer censor comments and he is not shy about it.

    Hmmmmm….never thought about that before but you must be correct. Steve Sailer is an insta-StormFront magnet. He must kick out 10-20 percent _dumb_ass_nazi_ comments depending on what day of the week it is.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AndrewR
    Trust me, he does not just censor the "gas the kikes race war now" type comments.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @random observer
    The French Canadians were until the 1960s easily and by a huge margin the most conservative element of Canadian society- rural, agrarian, more Catholic than the Pope, anti-English and anti-semitic in the same breath, you name it. [That last made sense to some degree. Although the political/clerical/and to some extent legal elites were in fact always predominantly French, the business and cultural leaders of a place like Montreal were either Anglo-Saxons or English-speaking Jews].

    To some extent the radical leftist turn of Canadian society since the 1960s has been driven by the collapse of Quebec's lingering old-style French society and its overnight replacement by a modern-style French, hyper-secular, Jacobin-populist society. Suddenly the policies required to placate them became different, the kinds of politicians they elected in Quebec City and Ottawa became very different. And their nationalism ceased to be the former more inward-looking and isolationist kind and became more socialistic and progressive on things like criminal justice and social issues. So the newly demanding effort to integrate them started to emphasize these things as well and to transform wider society.

    One thing though- there was a constituency waiting. Anglo Canadian elites had some characteristics in common with northeastern American elites, particularly the degree to which institutional Protestantism became a progressive and increasingly autosecularizing force in society. The people were, like Americans, not exactly opposed to this worldview at the time.

    Some have said that Canada is more deferential than Australia because the dominant non-English strain was Scottish, where in Australia it was Irish. It's not that the Scots were deferential to power as such [LOL] so much that they had the Presbyterian puritanical streak in them that led to pretentious moralizing. For an American reader, again think something like the trends that turned Massachusetts Congregationalists into Unitarians and Transcendentalists, and then into full-on secular progressives. Whereas the Irish brought to Australia a more 'FU' mentality. [Just as the Scotch Irish did for America].

    There are a lot of limits to this kind of analysis, but it rings true on some levels.

    Then again, I find Australians increasingly ready to lecture the world on progressive matters, it's just at an earlier stage and takes more demotic forms. That actually may make sense. The contemporary Irish are insufferable progressive moralizers, fanning out all over the world to foist this on unsuspecting Africans and Asians.

    Some have said that Canada is more deferential than Australia because the dominant non-English strain was Scottish, where in Australia it was Irish. It’s not that the Scots were deferential to power as such [LOL] so much that they had the Presbyterian puritanical streak in them that led to pretentious moralizing. For an American reader, again think something like the trends that turned Massachusetts Congregationalists into Unitarians and Transcendentalists, and then into full-on secular progressives. Whereas the Irish brought to Australia a more ‘FU’ mentality. [Just as the Scotch Irish did for America].

    Your key words being “pretentious moralizing”. Has there ever been a more pretentious moralizer than Barrack Hussein Obama with his (count ‘em) three Muslim names?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Ron Unz

    Once again I can only say Ron Unz should give you the power to moderate and delete comments so you won’t run the risk of incuring any legal trouble.
     
    Well, since Peter Frost has periodically been complaining about being unable to moderate his own comments and several commenters here have now raised the same issue, I might as well explain the situation...

    When Frost began publishing his columns here, I gave him moderation privileges over his comments. I soon began receiving numerous complaints from commenters who claimed they had been censored and their comments unfairly deleted. In some cases, that was apparently because they had digressed into especially "touchy" subjects, but in other cases it was because they had attempted to factually dispute some of Frost's claims. I wasn't happy about this, but declined to intervene.

    Then he published a long article that I happened to read and disagree with. I very politely raised some technical objections to his analysis in the comments, and his responses became increasingly angry and insulting. I remained very polite, and merely pointed out why I felt my quantitative arguments were probably correct. Finally, he summarily deleted one of my long, detailed, and very polite comments:

    http://www.unz.com/pfrost/western-europe-state-formation-and-genetic-pacification-3/#comment-thread-896994

    I'm a remarkably easy-going fellow about such things, but I'll be damned if I'm going to allow my own (very polite) comments on technical issues to be censored on my own website.

    I daresay virtually any other website proprietor on the Internet would have summarily terminated a columnist who behaved in such an unreasonable manner. I merely revoked his moderation privileges.

    More recently, I've offered to restore his comment moderation privileges so long as (1) he agrees to avoid deleting my own polite and respectful comments in the future and (2) he agrees to moderate his comments in timely fashion, rather than having a huge number of them accumulate in the "pending" queue, thereby cluttering up the comment system and greatly inconveniencing the moderation of the comments for other columnists.

    He said he couldn't make such promises, since (as I recall) he claimed he might need to consult an attorney about approving many of the individual comments. Under such circumstances, it seemed that the least-bad legal option was for our website to continue moderating his comments, thereby providing him some "deniability" from whatever controversial sentiments they might express.

    I can understand why writers complain about "censorship" and I can also understand why those same individuals nonetheless feel compelled to censor comments that might get them into legal trouble. However, I find it less understandable why they would also censor comments that (very politely) point out their possible factual or quantitative errors.

    Consult an attorney…? Christ, just cut the goose loose.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @random observer
    The French Canadians were until the 1960s easily and by a huge margin the most conservative element of Canadian society- rural, agrarian, more Catholic than the Pope, anti-English and anti-semitic in the same breath, you name it. [That last made sense to some degree. Although the political/clerical/and to some extent legal elites were in fact always predominantly French, the business and cultural leaders of a place like Montreal were either Anglo-Saxons or English-speaking Jews].

    To some extent the radical leftist turn of Canadian society since the 1960s has been driven by the collapse of Quebec's lingering old-style French society and its overnight replacement by a modern-style French, hyper-secular, Jacobin-populist society. Suddenly the policies required to placate them became different, the kinds of politicians they elected in Quebec City and Ottawa became very different. And their nationalism ceased to be the former more inward-looking and isolationist kind and became more socialistic and progressive on things like criminal justice and social issues. So the newly demanding effort to integrate them started to emphasize these things as well and to transform wider society.

    One thing though- there was a constituency waiting. Anglo Canadian elites had some characteristics in common with northeastern American elites, particularly the degree to which institutional Protestantism became a progressive and increasingly autosecularizing force in society. The people were, like Americans, not exactly opposed to this worldview at the time.

    Some have said that Canada is more deferential than Australia because the dominant non-English strain was Scottish, where in Australia it was Irish. It's not that the Scots were deferential to power as such [LOL] so much that they had the Presbyterian puritanical streak in them that led to pretentious moralizing. For an American reader, again think something like the trends that turned Massachusetts Congregationalists into Unitarians and Transcendentalists, and then into full-on secular progressives. Whereas the Irish brought to Australia a more 'FU' mentality. [Just as the Scotch Irish did for America].

    There are a lot of limits to this kind of analysis, but it rings true on some levels.

    Then again, I find Australians increasingly ready to lecture the world on progressive matters, it's just at an earlier stage and takes more demotic forms. That actually may make sense. The contemporary Irish are insufferable progressive moralizers, fanning out all over the world to foist this on unsuspecting Africans and Asians.

    A superior post. I read every word. Thanks! I have no time today (Dec 25th) to make a good reply.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @DQDF
    Unless you are deceitful or blind you would notice that the demographics of Melbourne are almost identical to the demographics of Toronto, teleport between those to places and you would hardly see the difference.

    Did you read what I wrote? What made you think I was saying or implying anything about the demographics of Canada compared with Australia (though Random Observer’s thoughtful reply #66 raised demographic explanations? I was referring to cultural differencescand asking for Peter’s opinion on them.

    Actually I suspect that you would find Toronto to be less Catholic than Melbourne……

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @DQDF
    And again stop with your pathetic Islamic takeover of Canada bullshit, compared to Chinese, Indian, and Filipino immigration inflows to Canada, Muslim immigration inflow is a drop in the bucket. I mean how many people in Muslim clothing do you see in Vancouver anyway?

    Were you really addressing me? Would you care to explain why you thought I had ssid anythibg of substance, or at all, amount Muslim immigration to Canada? Did you read what I had said? Random Observer clearly did. See his reply to me at #66.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @random observer
    The French Canadians were until the 1960s easily and by a huge margin the most conservative element of Canadian society- rural, agrarian, more Catholic than the Pope, anti-English and anti-semitic in the same breath, you name it. [That last made sense to some degree. Although the political/clerical/and to some extent legal elites were in fact always predominantly French, the business and cultural leaders of a place like Montreal were either Anglo-Saxons or English-speaking Jews].

    To some extent the radical leftist turn of Canadian society since the 1960s has been driven by the collapse of Quebec's lingering old-style French society and its overnight replacement by a modern-style French, hyper-secular, Jacobin-populist society. Suddenly the policies required to placate them became different, the kinds of politicians they elected in Quebec City and Ottawa became very different. And their nationalism ceased to be the former more inward-looking and isolationist kind and became more socialistic and progressive on things like criminal justice and social issues. So the newly demanding effort to integrate them started to emphasize these things as well and to transform wider society.

    One thing though- there was a constituency waiting. Anglo Canadian elites had some characteristics in common with northeastern American elites, particularly the degree to which institutional Protestantism became a progressive and increasingly autosecularizing force in society. The people were, like Americans, not exactly opposed to this worldview at the time.

    Some have said that Canada is more deferential than Australia because the dominant non-English strain was Scottish, where in Australia it was Irish. It's not that the Scots were deferential to power as such [LOL] so much that they had the Presbyterian puritanical streak in them that led to pretentious moralizing. For an American reader, again think something like the trends that turned Massachusetts Congregationalists into Unitarians and Transcendentalists, and then into full-on secular progressives. Whereas the Irish brought to Australia a more 'FU' mentality. [Just as the Scotch Irish did for America].

    There are a lot of limits to this kind of analysis, but it rings true on some levels.

    Then again, I find Australians increasingly ready to lecture the world on progressive matters, it's just at an earlier stage and takes more demotic forms. That actually may make sense. The contemporary Irish are insufferable progressive moralizers, fanning out all over the world to foist this on unsuspecting Africans and Asians.

    Thanks for your thoughtful and well informed reply. You reminded me of those charming female Irish Presidents who exemplify your case about the contemporary Irish moralizing. (Actually I think the Irish may have got into practice for the contemporary version in their old priest ridden days). And I share your view of the regrettable growth of the Australian pretentions as lecturers to the world – almost entirely on the left except for some of the great and good, especially amongst medical scientists who would be embarrassed for example if they had to explain to friends in the Royal Society or American Academy of Science that Australia wasm’t buying the full line on AGW.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Wizard of Oz
    Peter

    I can easily share your disappointment with European politicians who are failing to preserve Europe in any form early 20th century Europeans could love. But tell us about Canada.

    I say that as one who would like to be able to make useful comparisons with Australia where I think we are very lucky, comparatively, in our ethnic composition and its direction. A few per cent of mostly Lebanese Muslims from misguided 1970s policy aside we have done well since serious immigration, after a long period of relatively small numbers of (especially non- British) immigrants resumed after WW2. First WW2 displaced persons and earlier Jewish refugees then Italians and Greeks with potential never exploited at home. Then Vietnam War refugees and now many bright Chinese (including diaspora) and Indians, often starting as students, are doing a good job of making up for modern dysgenic breeding and improving the age structure of the population. There was a time some 25 years ago when the Transport Accident Scheme in my state was derisively termed "TurkCare" (rhyming with WorkCare which was the workplace injuries compensation scheme) when a number of the small Turkish community's drivers had managed to enhance the productivity of their motor vehicles as harvesters of compensation for soft tissue injuries. But our problems are small which helps explain how left Greens who can't ring enough religion out of global warming fasten upon the woes of our tiny number of Aborigines.

    What makes Canada different? I don't think the absence of a few convicts before the 1850s gold rushes and establishment of colonial self-government could explain much. But it is an impression strongly felt by a lot of Australians that there is a strong line in secular piety preached by Canadians. Typical of my memories is a gathering of (mostly) fairly senior judges to hear a distinguished Canadian female judge lecture us all on the reasons why diversity was important on the bench - with little logic that I remember because it really focused on women and depended on women judges thinking differently from male judges. (It would be interesting to know how much of the broadening of the imagination and preconceptions of today's judges has come from absorbing the Zeitgeist and how much from having women - and gays and immigrants - as fellow judges).

    Has the existence of French Canada and its demands altered Canadian sensibilities generally and in a major way? Have the worst examples south of the border sensitised Canadians to evidences of their own perceived imperfections?

    And again stop with your pathetic Islamic takeover of Canada bullshit, compared to Chinese, Indian, and Filipino immigration inflows to Canada, Muslim immigration inflow is a drop in the bucket. I mean how many people in Muslim clothing do you see in Vancouver anyway?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Were you really addressing me? Would you care to explain why you thought I had ssid anythibg of substance, or at all, amount Muslim immigration to Canada? Did you read what I had said? Random Observer clearly did. See his reply to me at #66.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Wizard of Oz
    Peter

    I can easily share your disappointment with European politicians who are failing to preserve Europe in any form early 20th century Europeans could love. But tell us about Canada.

    I say that as one who would like to be able to make useful comparisons with Australia where I think we are very lucky, comparatively, in our ethnic composition and its direction. A few per cent of mostly Lebanese Muslims from misguided 1970s policy aside we have done well since serious immigration, after a long period of relatively small numbers of (especially non- British) immigrants resumed after WW2. First WW2 displaced persons and earlier Jewish refugees then Italians and Greeks with potential never exploited at home. Then Vietnam War refugees and now many bright Chinese (including diaspora) and Indians, often starting as students, are doing a good job of making up for modern dysgenic breeding and improving the age structure of the population. There was a time some 25 years ago when the Transport Accident Scheme in my state was derisively termed "TurkCare" (rhyming with WorkCare which was the workplace injuries compensation scheme) when a number of the small Turkish community's drivers had managed to enhance the productivity of their motor vehicles as harvesters of compensation for soft tissue injuries. But our problems are small which helps explain how left Greens who can't ring enough religion out of global warming fasten upon the woes of our tiny number of Aborigines.

    What makes Canada different? I don't think the absence of a few convicts before the 1850s gold rushes and establishment of colonial self-government could explain much. But it is an impression strongly felt by a lot of Australians that there is a strong line in secular piety preached by Canadians. Typical of my memories is a gathering of (mostly) fairly senior judges to hear a distinguished Canadian female judge lecture us all on the reasons why diversity was important on the bench - with little logic that I remember because it really focused on women and depended on women judges thinking differently from male judges. (It would be interesting to know how much of the broadening of the imagination and preconceptions of today's judges has come from absorbing the Zeitgeist and how much from having women - and gays and immigrants - as fellow judges).

    Has the existence of French Canada and its demands altered Canadian sensibilities generally and in a major way? Have the worst examples south of the border sensitised Canadians to evidences of their own perceived imperfections?

    Unless you are deceitful or blind you would notice that the demographics of Melbourne are almost identical to the demographics of Toronto, teleport between those to places and you would hardly see the difference.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Did you read what I wrote? What made you think I was saying or implying anything about the demographics of Canada compared with Australia (though Random Observer's thoughtful reply #66 raised demographic explanations? I was referring to cultural differencescand asking for Peter's opinion on them.

    Actually I suspect that you would find Toronto to be less Catholic than Melbourne......
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Julian
    Have a great Christmas Peter and a safe and enjoyable festive season. I hope that you come back refreshed and ready for a great 2016.

    I can only add my support to those above in urging you to please continue. Your columns are always interesting.

    In terms of legal challenges, I really can't think of anything you've written that would fall foul of that legislation. I do hope that you will continue.

    Best,
    j

    Unfortunately, the legal system is rife with foul-play and spurious suits brought solely to harass people into bankruptcy, even though they have done nothing illegal.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Merry Christmas, Peter. Do what you need to stay safe, though of course I hope you keep publishing by some means. Let us know if you do.

    Thanks for all of the posts. They’ve been a great read.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Please continue writing. I learn so much from you.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Peter Frost, I really hope you continue to write this column in the coming year. All the best to you and your loved ones this Christmas season.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Have a great Christmas Peter and a safe and enjoyable festive season. I hope that you come back refreshed and ready for a great 2016.

    I can only add my support to those above in urging you to please continue. Your columns are always interesting.

    In terms of legal challenges, I really can’t think of anything you’ve written that would fall foul of that legislation. I do hope that you will continue.

    Best,
    j

    Read More
    • Replies: @EvolutionistX
    Unfortunately, the legal system is rife with foul-play and spurious suits brought solely to harass people into bankruptcy, even though they have done nothing illegal.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @CK
    Given the initial response by the current Attorney General to the Massacre in California, the imposition of an American equivalent to bill 59 is not unthinkable. As you say the time to prepare is before the event rather than after.
    Ezra Levant and Kathy Shaidle come to mind. It is also good to remember that stupidities Canada makes into laws travel south because the border is so intellectually porous and become laws in the USA.

    Re: bad canadian ideas dripping down south
    I used to browse canadian ”progressive” sites like rabble.ca and about 10 years ago I’d often witness canadian lefties chastising their american comrades about the disturbing freedom of speech that americans enjoyed. They’d argue that actually civilized countries curtailed “hate speech” and that they were very proud that in Canada, not all speech was legal. Back then, the american lefties were still into freedom of speech, though. I’d see the american commenters argue that although they hated “bad” speech, they felt that the best way to fight “bad” speech was to “good speech” louder and stronger.

    It’s amazing to me how things have changed.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Romanian
    Isn't Ron Unz Jewish himself?

    Doesn’t stop the Jew supremacists at the ADL from labelling him the next Hitler.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @geokat62

    ... does it make anyone else seethe with rage that this stuff really happens in a country like Canada?
     
    The Anti-terrorism Act, 2015 (also known as Bill C-51) was introduced and passed by the previous Conservative government of Canada (albeit with the support of the Liberals). Stephen Harper was so pro-Zionist that Bibi Nutn'Yahoo named a bird sanctuary in Israel after the most righteous goy, Stephen.

    We'll see if Justin Trudeau will follow in Harper's footsteps.

    ” Stephen Harper was so pro-Zionist that Bibi Nutn’Yahoo named a bird sanctuary in Israel after the most righteous goy, Stephen. “

    How many millions will Harper get, like the Clintons got from the Jews?

    It pays big time to use your office to help the Jew tribe.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Honorary Thief

    - the Quebec government is waiting to see whether the new federal government will introduce similar legislation. It wants to avoid a situation where a prosecution under a provincial law could be challenged under a federal law, particularly the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

    - the Quebec government, specifically the Quebec Human Rights Commission, wants to make the fight against “Islamophobia” a priority. I don’t know where that puts me.

    - As a rule, human rights commissions go after soft targets, i.e., lone bloggers with no one to defend them. I don’t know where that puts me. If I am prosecuted for what I write, will you come and testify on my behalf? Will you help pay for my legal defense?
     
    .................does it make anyone else seethe with rage that this stuff really happens in a country like Canada?

    … does it make anyone else seethe with rage that this stuff really happens in a country like Canada?

    The Anti-terrorism Act, 2015 (also known as Bill C-51) was introduced and passed by the previous Conservative government of Canada (albeit with the support of the Liberals). Stephen Harper was so pro-Zionist that Bibi Nutn’Yahoo named a bird sanctuary in Israel after the most righteous goy, Stephen.

    We’ll see if Justin Trudeau will follow in Harper’s footsteps.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art
    " Stephen Harper was so pro-Zionist that Bibi Nutn’Yahoo named a bird sanctuary in Israel after the most righteous goy, Stephen. "

    How many millions will Harper get, like the Clintons got from the Jews?

    It pays big time to use your office to help the Jew tribe.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @random observer
    Worth remembering that there is no church in Canada that represents the western Christian heritage of Canada- they have all gone progressive.

    Arguably one might find something of the broader western tradition still among the Catholics, but then as far as the specific Canadian heritage goes that would be inadequate- apart from the French and Irish, Canadian heritage is Protestant. And the Catholics are actually pretty progressive anyway, apart from their unique archetypical bugaboos like birth control and divorce.

    We are stuck with the ghastly Christian Socialism of the United Church and the Presbyterians, or whatever it is the Anglicans are doing now.

    Or one could join one of the modern style evangelical Protestant churches for a bit of robust conservative Christianity, but the flipside is you have to put up with all the silly imported American holy-roller populism. Good or bad, that doesn't look like heritage Canadian Christianity either.

    Also, I don't know about Frost on this score. But I'm 45 and institutional Christianity played no role in developing my 'nice life' in Canada. That was just the place my mother dragged us to be bored by a soporific sermon every week when I was a kid. And gave up eventually.

    Or one could join one of the modern style evangelical Protestant churches for a bit of robust conservative Christianity, but the flipside is you have to put up with all the silly imported American holy-roller populism.

    I’d pass on that, too.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @random observer
    Worth remembering that there is no church in Canada that represents the western Christian heritage of Canada- they have all gone progressive.

    Arguably one might find something of the broader western tradition still among the Catholics, but then as far as the specific Canadian heritage goes that would be inadequate- apart from the French and Irish, Canadian heritage is Protestant. And the Catholics are actually pretty progressive anyway, apart from their unique archetypical bugaboos like birth control and divorce.

    We are stuck with the ghastly Christian Socialism of the United Church and the Presbyterians, or whatever it is the Anglicans are doing now.

    Or one could join one of the modern style evangelical Protestant churches for a bit of robust conservative Christianity, but the flipside is you have to put up with all the silly imported American holy-roller populism. Good or bad, that doesn't look like heritage Canadian Christianity either.

    Also, I don't know about Frost on this score. But I'm 45 and institutional Christianity played no role in developing my 'nice life' in Canada. That was just the place my mother dragged us to be bored by a soporific sermon every week when I was a kid. And gave up eventually.

    But I’m 45 and institutional Christianity played no role in developing my ‘nice life’ in Canada. That was just the place my mother dragged us to be bored by a soporific sermon every week when I was a kid. And gave up eventually.

    Hmm – as you Canadians leave your idealistic Christian churches, your country goes deeper into the toilet. Does one and one make two anymore?

    Could it be that Christian idealism has something of value to say. And the place to get that idealism is in free volitional churches and not in the halls of government.

    Right now the idealistic Christian baby is being thrown out with dirty religious bathwater.

    The volitional community of Christian idealism is of great value to humanity.

    Clearly government force backfires. Look at the sad situation of free speech in Canada. Who is running free speech in Canada – Jews or Christians? If you Canadians want your free speech back you must find your Christian idealism again.

    p.s. Preachers will preach the brand of Christianity that YOU want.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Anonymous
    Welcome to the Internet. I guess the argument is that Peter could/should censor what Jews would consider anti-Semitic comments, including any criticism of Israel, or fall under the Canadian "hate crime" statute. (I guess that Peter should also include censoring what Moslems would consider anti-Moslem comments because Arabs are Semitic.)

    But consider, Ron won't let Peter censor comments ... so how can Peter be responsible for what commenters say? Perhaps Ron should be extradited to Canada to face "hate crime" charges for not censoring the comments written by a Canadian that he won't let the Canadian censor. (Sorry, this is getting convoluted ....)

    The next line of the argument: Peter certainly CAN avoid the presence of anti-Jewish and anti-Moslem comments to his articles that he cannot censor by NOT writing the articles in the first place. In other words, "Peter, shut the f*ck up!"

    Sounds like pre-emptory censorship (a.k.a. political repression) to me.

    What? Ron lets Sailer censor comments and he is not shy about it. Why not Frost?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Clyde

    What? Ron lets Sailer censor comments and he is not shy about it.
     
    Hmmmmm....never thought about that before but you must be correct. Steve Sailer is an insta-StormFront magnet. He must kick out 10-20 percent _dumb_ass_nazi_ comments depending on what day of the week it is.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Wizard of Oz
    Peter

    I can easily share your disappointment with European politicians who are failing to preserve Europe in any form early 20th century Europeans could love. But tell us about Canada.

    I say that as one who would like to be able to make useful comparisons with Australia where I think we are very lucky, comparatively, in our ethnic composition and its direction. A few per cent of mostly Lebanese Muslims from misguided 1970s policy aside we have done well since serious immigration, after a long period of relatively small numbers of (especially non- British) immigrants resumed after WW2. First WW2 displaced persons and earlier Jewish refugees then Italians and Greeks with potential never exploited at home. Then Vietnam War refugees and now many bright Chinese (including diaspora) and Indians, often starting as students, are doing a good job of making up for modern dysgenic breeding and improving the age structure of the population. There was a time some 25 years ago when the Transport Accident Scheme in my state was derisively termed "TurkCare" (rhyming with WorkCare which was the workplace injuries compensation scheme) when a number of the small Turkish community's drivers had managed to enhance the productivity of their motor vehicles as harvesters of compensation for soft tissue injuries. But our problems are small which helps explain how left Greens who can't ring enough religion out of global warming fasten upon the woes of our tiny number of Aborigines.

    What makes Canada different? I don't think the absence of a few convicts before the 1850s gold rushes and establishment of colonial self-government could explain much. But it is an impression strongly felt by a lot of Australians that there is a strong line in secular piety preached by Canadians. Typical of my memories is a gathering of (mostly) fairly senior judges to hear a distinguished Canadian female judge lecture us all on the reasons why diversity was important on the bench - with little logic that I remember because it really focused on women and depended on women judges thinking differently from male judges. (It would be interesting to know how much of the broadening of the imagination and preconceptions of today's judges has come from absorbing the Zeitgeist and how much from having women - and gays and immigrants - as fellow judges).

    Has the existence of French Canada and its demands altered Canadian sensibilities generally and in a major way? Have the worst examples south of the border sensitised Canadians to evidences of their own perceived imperfections?

    The French Canadians were until the 1960s easily and by a huge margin the most conservative element of Canadian society- rural, agrarian, more Catholic than the Pope, anti-English and anti-semitic in the same breath, you name it. [That last made sense to some degree. Although the political/clerical/and to some extent legal elites were in fact always predominantly French, the business and cultural leaders of a place like Montreal were either Anglo-Saxons or English-speaking Jews].

    To some extent the radical leftist turn of Canadian society since the 1960s has been driven by the collapse of Quebec’s lingering old-style French society and its overnight replacement by a modern-style French, hyper-secular, Jacobin-populist society. Suddenly the policies required to placate them became different, the kinds of politicians they elected in Quebec City and Ottawa became very different. And their nationalism ceased to be the former more inward-looking and isolationist kind and became more socialistic and progressive on things like criminal justice and social issues. So the newly demanding effort to integrate them started to emphasize these things as well and to transform wider society.

    One thing though- there was a constituency waiting. Anglo Canadian elites had some characteristics in common with northeastern American elites, particularly the degree to which institutional Protestantism became a progressive and increasingly autosecularizing force in society. The people were, like Americans, not exactly opposed to this worldview at the time.

    Some have said that Canada is more deferential than Australia because the dominant non-English strain was Scottish, where in Australia it was Irish. It’s not that the Scots were deferential to power as such [LOL] so much that they had the Presbyterian puritanical streak in them that led to pretentious moralizing. For an American reader, again think something like the trends that turned Massachusetts Congregationalists into Unitarians and Transcendentalists, and then into full-on secular progressives. Whereas the Irish brought to Australia a more ‘FU’ mentality. [Just as the Scotch Irish did for America].

    There are a lot of limits to this kind of analysis, but it rings true on some levels.

    Then again, I find Australians increasingly ready to lecture the world on progressive matters, it’s just at an earlier stage and takes more demotic forms. That actually may make sense. The contemporary Irish are insufferable progressive moralizers, fanning out all over the world to foist this on unsuspecting Africans and Asians.

    Read More
    • Agree: Wizard of Oz
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Thanks for your thoughtful and well informed reply. You reminded me of those charming female Irish Presidents who exemplify your case about the contemporary Irish moralizing. (Actually I think the Irish may have got into practice for the contemporary version in their old priest ridden days). And I share your view of the regrettable growth of the Australian pretentions as lecturers to the world - almost entirely on the left except for some of the great and good, especially amongst medical scientists who would be embarrassed for example if they had to explain to friends in the Royal Society or American Academy of Science that Australia wasm't buying the full line on AGW.
    , @Clyde
    A superior post. I read every word. Thanks! I have no time today (Dec 25th) to make a good reply.
    , @Clyde

    Some have said that Canada is more deferential than Australia because the dominant non-English strain was Scottish, where in Australia it was Irish. It’s not that the Scots were deferential to power as such [LOL] so much that they had the Presbyterian puritanical streak in them that led to pretentious moralizing. For an American reader, again think something like the trends that turned Massachusetts Congregationalists into Unitarians and Transcendentalists, and then into full-on secular progressives. Whereas the Irish brought to Australia a more ‘FU’ mentality. [Just as the Scotch Irish did for America].
     
    Your key words being "pretentious moralizing". Has there ever been a more pretentious moralizer than Barrack Hussein Obama with his (count 'em) three Muslim names?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Art

    Republican donor Adelson and Trump may be aligning on Israel

    MACAU (Reuters) - Top Republican Party donor Sheldon Adelson said on Friday he met presidential candidate Donald Trump earlier this week and that the two American billionaires broached the issue at the heart of Adelson's political agenda: support for Israel.

    On the subject of Israel, Trump added, "Sheldon knows that nobody will be more loyal to Israel than Donald Trump."
     
    And Trump loves the Mexicans, and he going to get every last black vote. Hmm.

    Me thinks that this meeting is shot across Trump's bow – telling him “the Jew are watching you.”

    p.s. I would not volunteer for Trump's Secret Service detail.

    https://ca.news.yahoo.com/republican-donor-adelson-trump-may-aligning-israel-003125447--finance.html

    p.s. I would not volunteer for Trump’s Secret Service detail.

    I “tried” making the same point in the following comment to Rurik:

    Ignore the “agree.” I mistakenly thought the picture you were referring to was Giraldi’s JFK picture.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Art

    Peter Frost: This will be my last column for 2015, and I wish all of you a very Merry Christmas! Although I no longer go to church, I still consider Christmas to be a very important time of year when we can spend more time with our loved ones and enjoy the traditions of this mid-winter celebration.
     
    May I make a point.

    Mr Frost is an intellectual. He is too intellectually superior to go to Christian church. He has abandoned the thing that created his nice life. What philosophy created his country, what philosophy created his intellectual world, what philosophy created his home life and his community life as a child? Wasn't it the long flow of thoughts and ideals that he received in his Christian church. Thoughts that he heard, his parents heard, and their parents heard was a continuum of progress. Among what they all heard is the ideal of free speech.

    In his country Canada – free speech has been curtailed by people who learned differently from what Mr Frost learned (Jew people). Their religion now controls his country and his free speech. Clearly these Jew people are taking his country backwards.

    Would it be intellectually honest of Mr Frost to acknowledge the superiority of his upbringing and culture? Would it be good for Mr Frost to go back to church and rebuild his culture back to what it was?

    Worth remembering that there is no church in Canada that represents the western Christian heritage of Canada- they have all gone progressive.

    Arguably one might find something of the broader western tradition still among the Catholics, but then as far as the specific Canadian heritage goes that would be inadequate- apart from the French and Irish, Canadian heritage is Protestant. And the Catholics are actually pretty progressive anyway, apart from their unique archetypical bugaboos like birth control and divorce.

    We are stuck with the ghastly Christian Socialism of the United Church and the Presbyterians, or whatever it is the Anglicans are doing now.

    Or one could join one of the modern style evangelical Protestant churches for a bit of robust conservative Christianity, but the flipside is you have to put up with all the silly imported American holy-roller populism. Good or bad, that doesn’t look like heritage Canadian Christianity either.

    Also, I don’t know about Frost on this score. But I’m 45 and institutional Christianity played no role in developing my ‘nice life’ in Canada. That was just the place my mother dragged us to be bored by a soporific sermon every week when I was a kid. And gave up eventually.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art

    But I’m 45 and institutional Christianity played no role in developing my ‘nice life’ in Canada. That was just the place my mother dragged us to be bored by a soporific sermon every week when I was a kid. And gave up eventually.
     
    Hmm – as you Canadians leave your idealistic Christian churches, your country goes deeper into the toilet. Does one and one make two anymore?

    Could it be that Christian idealism has something of value to say. And the place to get that idealism is in free volitional churches and not in the halls of government.

    Right now the idealistic Christian baby is being thrown out with dirty religious bathwater.

    The volitional community of Christian idealism is of great value to humanity.

    Clearly government force backfires. Look at the sad situation of free speech in Canada. Who is running free speech in Canada – Jews or Christians? If you Canadians want your free speech back you must find your Christian idealism again.

    p.s. Preachers will preach the brand of Christianity that YOU want.
    , @Seamus Padraig

    Or one could join one of the modern style evangelical Protestant churches for a bit of robust conservative Christianity, but the flipside is you have to put up with all the silly imported American holy-roller populism.
     
    I'd pass on that, too.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @AndrewR
    How could he get in trouble for what non-him commenters say on a website owned by another person based in another country?

    Welcome to the Internet. I guess the argument is that Peter could/should censor what Jews would consider anti-Semitic comments, including any criticism of Israel, or fall under the Canadian “hate crime” statute. (I guess that Peter should also include censoring what Moslems would consider anti-Moslem comments because Arabs are Semitic.)

    But consider, Ron won’t let Peter censor comments … so how can Peter be responsible for what commenters say? Perhaps Ron should be extradited to Canada to face “hate crime” charges for not censoring the comments written by a Canadian that he won’t let the Canadian censor. (Sorry, this is getting convoluted ….)

    The next line of the argument: Peter certainly CAN avoid the presence of anti-Jewish and anti-Moslem comments to his articles that he cannot censor by NOT writing the articles in the first place. In other words, “Peter, shut the f*ck up!”

    Sounds like pre-emptory censorship (a.k.a. political repression) to me.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AndrewR
    What? Ron lets Sailer censor comments and he is not shy about it. Why not Frost?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Rehmat
    Neyth Nethanyahu - When was the last time you opened the Holy Talmud? Israeli historian Israel Shahak called it the most hate religious literature in the world. It curses Jesus, Mary and Christians. Holy Qur'an on the other hand, raises Jesus and Mary to the level of prophet Moses and his mother.

    If Hitler loved Muslims, how come he never higher a single Muslim in his administration, which was loaded with Christians and Jews.

    Nazi army had 150,000 German Jews but not a single Muslim.

    In October 2015, Netanyahu told the 37th World Zionist Congress that Adolf Hitler only wanted to expel the German Jews, but he was advised by Palestinian Mufti al-Haj Amin al-Husseini (d. 1974 in Lebanon) to exterminate the Jews.....

    http://rehmat1.com/2015/10/22/netanyahu-absolves-hitler-of-holocaust/

    His ‘administration’ was ‘loaded’ with Jews? That must have been the greatest and most perilous work of ‘passing’ in world history.

    The army, perhaps, but then an army operating on that scale sometimes has to turn a blind eye to things to maximize cannon fodder. 150,000 such passing for certifiable Aryans would not actually be that huge a figure for an armed force that pushed 10 million.

    Perhaps the absence of Muslims in Reich ‘administration’ could be put down to the absence of Muslims among the German people. Apart from the occasional eccentric, how many Muslim ‘Germans’ were there in 1939?

    On the other hand the army and SS made considerable use of Muslims where they could find any in Europe or in Russia. There was even a Bosnian SS unit. Then again, by mid-war the SS would take anyone.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @German_reader
    I have to say I'm feeling rather depressed right now about the way things are going. Here in Germany the AfD seems to be riven by infighting. One of their more outspokenly nationalist politicians, Björn Höcke (leader of the AfD in Thuringia), is now under fire for a lecture at a right-wing think tank in which he (for about two minutes out of fifty) spoke about Africa's demographic expansion and the threat it presented to Europe. Maybe somewhat foolishly he claimed this was a consequence of evolution, of r- and k-strategies for reproduction (I suppose he got that from Philipp Rushton). Of course he was charged immediately with "racism", and unfortunately the rest of the AfD seems to be willing to consider him persona non grata for that (though that may only be a pretext, there's been a simmering power struggle for some time between different factions, and Höcke himself isn't blameless). But of course he's absolutely right about the main point: If things continue as they are now, Europe will be overwhelmed by masses of "refugees" from parts of the Islamic world and from sub-Saharan Africa.
    The last few months have been a revelation for me, in a bad way. It's disheartening how most people, even and especially "conservatives", seem to have thoroughly internalized the "anti-racist" narrative. Criticism of Islam is just barely possible, anything even vaguely nationalistic doesn't get a mention at all in official discourse. I don't understand how people can be that idiotic not to understand how current trends will end.
    Anyway, I would be sad if you stopped writing your column here. Once again I can only say Ron Unz should give you the power to moderate and delete comments so you won't run the risk of incuring any legal trouble.

    How could he get in trouble for what non-him commenters say on a website owned by another person based in another country?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Welcome to the Internet. I guess the argument is that Peter could/should censor what Jews would consider anti-Semitic comments, including any criticism of Israel, or fall under the Canadian "hate crime" statute. (I guess that Peter should also include censoring what Moslems would consider anti-Moslem comments because Arabs are Semitic.)

    But consider, Ron won't let Peter censor comments ... so how can Peter be responsible for what commenters say? Perhaps Ron should be extradited to Canada to face "hate crime" charges for not censoring the comments written by a Canadian that he won't let the Canadian censor. (Sorry, this is getting convoluted ....)

    The next line of the argument: Peter certainly CAN avoid the presence of anti-Jewish and anti-Moslem comments to his articles that he cannot censor by NOT writing the articles in the first place. In other words, "Peter, shut the f*ck up!"

    Sounds like pre-emptory censorship (a.k.a. political repression) to me.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Art
    Trump and Israel?

    First Trump says he loves everyone - Mexicans, blacks, and Jews. Maybe it is true.

    Trump knows Jews – one can not function as he has in NYC, and not know Jews. I think that there is an earned respect both ways.

    I trust the Jews to know Jew business. Just looking at the Jew controlled media - it is clear that the Jews have a real fear of him. He is too powerful a personality – he does not totally fear them.

    I think that he will assure Israel's safety – but will not give them the family jewels when they demand them. I think that the Jews will not want for him to get his back up against them and go public about their demands. All it would take is for Trump to speak out as President and the whole Zionist Jew game is over. The last thing the Jew want is a public fight over them. (Actually more and more Jews and Gentiles are turning against Zionism.)

    So with Trump as president there will be no more standing-o Mufti Netanyahu speeches before all of congress.

    Sounds not to bad. Elect him!

    Republican donor Adelson and Trump may be aligning on Israel

    MACAU (Reuters) – Top Republican Party donor Sheldon Adelson said on Friday he met presidential candidate Donald Trump earlier this week and that the two American billionaires broached the issue at the heart of Adelson’s political agenda: support for Israel.

    On the subject of Israel, Trump added, “Sheldon knows that nobody will be more loyal to Israel than Donald Trump.”

    And Trump loves the Mexicans, and he going to get every last black vote. Hmm.

    Me thinks that this meeting is shot across Trump’s bow – telling him “the Jew are watching you.”

    p.s. I would not volunteer for Trump’s Secret Service detail.

    https://ca.news.yahoo.com/republican-donor-adelson-trump-may-aligning-israel-003125447–finance.html

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62

    p.s. I would not volunteer for Trump’s Secret Service detail.
     
    I "tried" making the same point in the following comment to Rurik:

    Ignore the “agree.” I mistakenly thought the picture you were referring to was Giraldi’s JFK picture.
     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-29951222 In boardrooms, banks and governments the belief has taken root that the advance of capitalism is irreversible. The market-based system that developed in the West has spread to nearly every country in the world. Central economic planning of the sort that existed in the former Soviet Union and Mao’s China no longer exists as a separate economic system. An outpost may linger on in North Korea, but there is really only one kind of economy left in the world. [...]
    Equally, there’s no reason to suppose capitalism is going to resume its advance. To my mind the most likely upshot is that the future will be like the past, with the world containing a variety of economic systems. Whatever happens, it won’t be determined by some imaginary process of social evolution. It will be human decisions, interacting with the uncontrollable flow of events, which lead the world into an unknown future.

    https://www.timeshighereducation.com/books/europe-the-struggle-for-supremacy-1453-to-the-present-by-brendan-simms/2004835.article

    Through all the cycles of the rise and fall of a dominant power – 16th-century Spain, France under Louis XIV or Napoleon, or the Kaiser’s Germany – Simms shows how both winners and losers were preoccupied, more or less effectively, with enhancing their economic capacity and administrative efficiency in order to withstand external pressure, or to exert it. Sometimes the domestic changes were revolutionary: both the English Civil War of the 1640s and the “Glorious Revolution” of 1688 had their roots in a perceived need for an English ruler willing to resist the rising power of France. Simms even argues, plausibly, that Britain’s repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846 was motivated largely by Richard Cobden’s “foreign policy” aim of making states more interdependent and thus less prone to conflict.

    I do not know that nation states have such an essential purpose for the political class any longer. They seem to be harking back to Cobden’s ideas. The old function of nation states was simply survival, which meant the support of the common people (who might be called on to fight and die in wars) was required. Post cold war the West is secure against external rival state threats and nuclear weapons have made conventional war against a great power doubly unlikely. The opposition of the people has become irrelevant. Yet we still hear talk of how the population must increase to keep the country important internationally and strong in relation to other supposedly friendly countries. The Economist at the beginning of the year was gloating about Britain’s population exceeding Germany’s in the future. It is a strangely inconsistent thinking to be globalist but still worried about national influence and potential power against supposedly friendly countries. The globalist business elite could be made to alter course if there was a geopolitical threat, because the national governments will act for national cohesion not diversity in circumstances where their state is in real peril.

    I think there will be a very slow build up of a nationalist feeling, although it will seem ineffectual in political terms in the medium term.. If the mercantile-globalist economic strategy ever falls it will be as the result of a slow ideological transformation without apparent effect for decades, but with a international crisis leading to a sudden ethnic nationalist landslide. All this, if it comes to pass, will take about a generation and I think Western countries will have a third of those under 30 wholly or part non European by that time.

    On the other hand, there seems to have been a considerable exaggeration of Western peoples’ non materialistic inclination to sacrifice for the group, and when they do have the inclination the ability to organise to be effective against the well funded and self righteous displacement lobby. I think internal disquiet will be kept under control unless there is some external threat that requires the people to be listened to by the state elite. By the time nationalist parties are on the verge of coming to power, the migrants will be too numerous for any easy resolution and the immigration limiting policies will be seen as a recipe for turmoil, which they probably will be. Again, only a dire state crisis from a rival state will get both people and government to accept that diversity makes a nation state weaker.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Peter Frost
    Björn Höcke (leader of the AfD in Thuringia), is now under fire for a lecture at a right-wing think tank in which he (for about two minutes out of fifty) spoke about Africa’s demographic expansion and the threat it presented to Europe.

    I agree. Throughout most of the world, fertility rates have declined or are declining to replacement level and even lower. There are two big exceptions: sub-Saharan Africa and the Islamist core region of Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Even more worrisome, fertility rates are actually rising in some African countries, like Somalia.

    Even if fertility rates end up falling in those two regions, a lot of momentum is built into their population growth. What we are seeing now is only the beginning. In twenty years time, people will look back at us and wonder how we could have been so blind.

    More the opposite imo – they display extremely strong will towards eradicating their native populations by any means necessary.

    People can be malicious while thinking they are "good." How was it possible that so many good people condoned the burning of witches? Well, witch burning used to be the right thing to do. We see the same perversion of morality today. Once a person or policy is labeled as "racist," the proper moral response is to distance yourself from that person or policy.

    There is no painless way of dismantling that sort of moral consensus. People have to defy it openly, calmly, and in large numbers. Only then will the consensus be shattered.

    In some cases, that was apparently because they had digressed into especially “touchy” subjects, but in other cases it was because they had attempted to factually dispute some of Frost’s claims. I wasn’t happy about this, but declined to intervene.

    Ron,

    Given that you publicly stated your unhappiness, I began deleting fewer comments. Whenever I found a comment offensive , I would go through it to remove offensive content ("niggers," "homos," "Zionist cabal," etc.).

    I don't remember deleting any comments that challenged anything I wrote. I remember deleting MANY off-topic comments about Jews, Jews, Jews. Regardless of the original topic, someone would start talking about Jews, and then other commenters would pile in. Before long the discussion would be only about Jews.

    I remember deleting a sensible comment about Jewish ownership of Sweden's media (via the Bonnier family), and I remember you telling me how unfair that was of me. I suppose I could have pointed out that the Bonniers are no more Jewish than I am a Freemason. I could have also pointed out that the State-owned media in Sweden is even more pro-immigration than the Bonnier-owned media.

    But Jews weren't the topic of discussion, and I didn't want to have yet another column become a discussion about Jews.

    I very politely raised some technical objections to his analysis in the comments, and his responses became increasingly angry and insulting. I remained very polite, and merely pointed out why I felt my quantitative arguments were probably correct.

    We all feel we are polite, sensible, and correct. Above all, correct. The other person is always wrong. Always. That mindset is a common human failing, and I'm not saying you're any worse than me.

    The heat of debate began to rise when you described my position as "extreme" in relation to yours. If I am extreme in relation to The Unz Review, I must be in Stormfront territory. That is how most people would process your remark.

    The debate went off the rails when you argued that the U.S. homicide rate underwent the same rate of decline between 1850 and 1950 that Western Europe had undergone between 1500 and 1750. I replied that the U.S. homicide decline is explained by the aging of the American population. There were proportionately fewer young men in 1950 than there were in 1850. I also pointed out that the U.S. homicide rate rose after 1950, partly because there were far more young men, especially in the African American community.

    Instead of challenging my reply, you simply repeated the same argument over and over, as if I had not replied to it. That's what made me angry. Unlike some people, I'm willing to admit that I can get angry.

    Finally, he summarily deleted one of my long, detailed, and very polite comments

    I closed the comments section to everyone. I felt that the anger level was getting out of hand, and that it was best to let everyone cool off, including myself and yourself.

    He said he couldn’t make such promises, since (as I recall) he claimed he might need to consult an attorney about approving many of the individual comments.

    I wanted to get a legal opinion on Bill 59. The information I have is as follows:

    - the Quebec government is waiting to see whether the new federal government will introduce similar legislation. It wants to avoid a situation where a prosecution under a provincial law could be challenged under a federal law, particularly the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

    - the Quebec government, specifically the Quebec Human Rights Commission, wants to make the fight against "Islamophobia" a priority. I don't know where that puts me.

    - As a rule, human rights commissions go after soft targets, i.e., lone bloggers with no one to defend them. I don't know where that puts me. If I am prosecuted for what I write, will you come and testify on my behalf? Will you help pay for my legal defense?

    This is the sort of problem that doesn't matter ... until it does. The time for making plans is now, not later.

    I can understand why writers complain about “censorship” and I can also understand why those same individuals nonetheless feel compelled to censor comments that might get them into legal trouble.

    In Canada, as in many other countries, the comment section of a column is considered to be an extension of the column. Even if I have no comment control, I can be still held liable for the comments, since I freely and willingly agreed to a situation where I have no control over the comments.

    It's like a man who transfers ownership of his assets to his wife, so that the government can't seize them for unpaid taxes. In that situation, the government will argue that the transfer of ownership was a subterfuge.

    Peter

    I can easily share your disappointment with European politicians who are failing to preserve Europe in any form early 20th century Europeans could love. But tell us about Canada.

    I say that as one who would like to be able to make useful comparisons with Australia where I think we are very lucky, comparatively, in our ethnic composition and its direction. A few per cent of mostly Lebanese Muslims from misguided 1970s policy aside we have done well since serious immigration, after a long period of relatively small numbers of (especially non- British) immigrants resumed after WW2. First WW2 displaced persons and earlier Jewish refugees then Italians and Greeks with potential never exploited at home. Then Vietnam War refugees and now many bright Chinese (including diaspora) and Indians, often starting as students, are doing a good job of making up for modern dysgenic breeding and improving the age structure of the population. There was a time some 25 years ago when the Transport Accident Scheme in my state was derisively termed “TurkCare” (rhyming with WorkCare which was the workplace injuries compensation scheme) when a number of the small Turkish community’s drivers had managed to enhance the productivity of their motor vehicles as harvesters of compensation for soft tissue injuries. But our problems are small which helps explain how left Greens who can’t ring enough religion out of global warming fasten upon the woes of our tiny number of Aborigines.

    What makes Canada different? I don’t think the absence of a few convicts before the 1850s gold rushes and establishment of colonial self-government could explain much. But it is an impression strongly felt by a lot of Australians that there is a strong line in secular piety preached by Canadians. Typical of my memories is a gathering of (mostly) fairly senior judges to hear a distinguished Canadian female judge lecture us all on the reasons why diversity was important on the bench – with little logic that I remember because it really focused on women and depended on women judges thinking differently from male judges. (It would be interesting to know how much of the broadening of the imagination and preconceptions of today’s judges has come from absorbing the Zeitgeist and how much from having women – and gays and immigrants – as fellow judges).

    Has the existence of French Canada and its demands altered Canadian sensibilities generally and in a major way? Have the worst examples south of the border sensitised Canadians to evidences of their own perceived imperfections?

    Read More
    • Replies: @random observer
    The French Canadians were until the 1960s easily and by a huge margin the most conservative element of Canadian society- rural, agrarian, more Catholic than the Pope, anti-English and anti-semitic in the same breath, you name it. [That last made sense to some degree. Although the political/clerical/and to some extent legal elites were in fact always predominantly French, the business and cultural leaders of a place like Montreal were either Anglo-Saxons or English-speaking Jews].

    To some extent the radical leftist turn of Canadian society since the 1960s has been driven by the collapse of Quebec's lingering old-style French society and its overnight replacement by a modern-style French, hyper-secular, Jacobin-populist society. Suddenly the policies required to placate them became different, the kinds of politicians they elected in Quebec City and Ottawa became very different. And their nationalism ceased to be the former more inward-looking and isolationist kind and became more socialistic and progressive on things like criminal justice and social issues. So the newly demanding effort to integrate them started to emphasize these things as well and to transform wider society.

    One thing though- there was a constituency waiting. Anglo Canadian elites had some characteristics in common with northeastern American elites, particularly the degree to which institutional Protestantism became a progressive and increasingly autosecularizing force in society. The people were, like Americans, not exactly opposed to this worldview at the time.

    Some have said that Canada is more deferential than Australia because the dominant non-English strain was Scottish, where in Australia it was Irish. It's not that the Scots were deferential to power as such [LOL] so much that they had the Presbyterian puritanical streak in them that led to pretentious moralizing. For an American reader, again think something like the trends that turned Massachusetts Congregationalists into Unitarians and Transcendentalists, and then into full-on secular progressives. Whereas the Irish brought to Australia a more 'FU' mentality. [Just as the Scotch Irish did for America].

    There are a lot of limits to this kind of analysis, but it rings true on some levels.

    Then again, I find Australians increasingly ready to lecture the world on progressive matters, it's just at an earlier stage and takes more demotic forms. That actually may make sense. The contemporary Irish are insufferable progressive moralizers, fanning out all over the world to foist this on unsuspecting Africans and Asians.
    , @DQDF
    Unless you are deceitful or blind you would notice that the demographics of Melbourne are almost identical to the demographics of Toronto, teleport between those to places and you would hardly see the difference.
    , @DQDF
    And again stop with your pathetic Islamic takeover of Canada bullshit, compared to Chinese, Indian, and Filipino immigration inflows to Canada, Muslim immigration inflow is a drop in the bucket. I mean how many people in Muslim clothing do you see in Vancouver anyway?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Peter Frost: This will be my last column for 2015, and I wish all of you a very Merry Christmas! Although I no longer go to church, I still consider Christmas to be a very important time of year when we can spend more time with our loved ones and enjoy the traditions of this mid-winter celebration.

    May I make a point.

    Mr Frost is an intellectual. He is too intellectually superior to go to Christian church. He has abandoned the thing that created his nice life. What philosophy created his country, what philosophy created his intellectual world, what philosophy created his home life and his community life as a child? Wasn’t it the long flow of thoughts and ideals that he received in his Christian church. Thoughts that he heard, his parents heard, and their parents heard was a continuum of progress. Among what they all heard is the ideal of free speech.

    In his country Canada – free speech has been curtailed by people who learned differently from what Mr Frost learned (Jew people). Their religion now controls his country and his free speech. Clearly these Jew people are taking his country backwards.

    Would it be intellectually honest of Mr Frost to acknowledge the superiority of his upbringing and culture? Would it be good for Mr Frost to go back to church and rebuild his culture back to what it was?

    Read More
    • Replies: @random observer
    Worth remembering that there is no church in Canada that represents the western Christian heritage of Canada- they have all gone progressive.

    Arguably one might find something of the broader western tradition still among the Catholics, but then as far as the specific Canadian heritage goes that would be inadequate- apart from the French and Irish, Canadian heritage is Protestant. And the Catholics are actually pretty progressive anyway, apart from their unique archetypical bugaboos like birth control and divorce.

    We are stuck with the ghastly Christian Socialism of the United Church and the Presbyterians, or whatever it is the Anglicans are doing now.

    Or one could join one of the modern style evangelical Protestant churches for a bit of robust conservative Christianity, but the flipside is you have to put up with all the silly imported American holy-roller populism. Good or bad, that doesn't look like heritage Canadian Christianity either.

    Also, I don't know about Frost on this score. But I'm 45 and institutional Christianity played no role in developing my 'nice life' in Canada. That was just the place my mother dragged us to be bored by a soporific sermon every week when I was a kid. And gave up eventually.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Romanian
    Isn't Ron Unz Jewish himself?

    Yes.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @geokat62

    Elect him.
     
    Hi, Art. Not sure if you've seen my most recent comment on another thread:

    Thanks for sharing the link, schmenz.

    Sam, remember your comment about a strong POTUS and that Trump represented the only hope to stand up to AIPAC? Interested in getting your comments on the following:

    On the subject of Israel, Trump added, “Sheldon knows that nobody will be more loyal to Israel than Donald Trump.”

    [Trump's] also the only Republican candidate with Jewish grandkids: his daughter, Ivanka, became Orthodox after marrying real estate scion Jared Kushner. The family keeps kosher, observes the Sabbath and attends the upscale synagogue Congregation Kehilath Jeshurun.

    http://news.yahoo.com/republican-donor-adelson-trump-may-aligning-israel-003125447--finance.html
     

    Trump and Israel?

    First Trump says he loves everyone – Mexicans, blacks, and Jews. Maybe it is true.

    Trump knows Jews – one can not function as he has in NYC, and not know Jews. I think that there is an earned respect both ways.

    I trust the Jews to know Jew business. Just looking at the Jew controlled media – it is clear that the Jews have a real fear of him. He is too powerful a personality – he does not totally fear them.

    I think that he will assure Israel’s safety – but will not give them the family jewels when they demand them. I think that the Jews will not want for him to get his back up against them and go public about their demands. All it would take is for Trump to speak out as President and the whole Zionist Jew game is over. The last thing the Jew want is a public fight over them. (Actually more and more Jews and Gentiles are turning against Zionism.)

    So with Trump as president there will be no more standing-o Mufti Netanyahu speeches before all of congress.

    Sounds not to bad. Elect him!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art

    Republican donor Adelson and Trump may be aligning on Israel

    MACAU (Reuters) - Top Republican Party donor Sheldon Adelson said on Friday he met presidential candidate Donald Trump earlier this week and that the two American billionaires broached the issue at the heart of Adelson's political agenda: support for Israel.

    On the subject of Israel, Trump added, "Sheldon knows that nobody will be more loyal to Israel than Donald Trump."
     
    And Trump loves the Mexicans, and he going to get every last black vote. Hmm.

    Me thinks that this meeting is shot across Trump's bow – telling him “the Jew are watching you.”

    p.s. I would not volunteer for Trump's Secret Service detail.

    https://ca.news.yahoo.com/republican-donor-adelson-trump-may-aligning-israel-003125447--finance.html
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • If you looked like this, you might have an interest in keeping the rapists out of France.

    Marion Maréchal-Le Pen

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Bill Jones
    The current globalism being practiced on the West is merely what has been perpetrated on the rest of the world since WWII.

    Globalism has been going on for 500 years now. Why do you think Jamaicans are black, and not Arawak and Taino Indians? It’s just now the Indians are native Westerners.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Stephen R. Diamond
    Censoring anti-Semitic comments avoids confronting the phenomena that white nationalism is highly attractive to anti-Semites. That it's embarrassing is no good reason to hide this fact.

    Moreover, to ban discussion of Jews is to condemn oneself to militant stupidity and enforced ignorance. Jewish influence is highly significant politically: it is a major vector in Middle East politics, and Jews (racial or religious) Jews make up maybe a third of the billionairiate.

    The discussion decidedly suffers from neglecting the clannishness of the Jewish quasi-race, which amplifies the dominance they can obtain from their intellects. But this translates into the Jewish members of the ruling class acting as a kind of vanguard of the transnational bourgeoisie, and as such, this vanguard on the whole embodies their united interests.

    Agree. I don’t even know what Jewish means, I think it means different things to different people including those claiming to be Jews themselves. Not being a “Dead-Sea Pedestrian” (credit the Pythons) myself, I ask myself, Is the general policy of modern Israel good for Jews in general? I think not. Jewish everything everywhere is undermined and tarnished, including tradition and culture by acts of inhumanity such as we’ve seen. True Jewishness is better than that. Even Einstein said that the future of world jewry would depend on how they resolved the Palestinian question. More people called him smart than they have me.

    There are good and bad amongst all people and to be sure there appears to exist vast conspiracies to destroy Nations, economies, races and cultures then brutally restructure humanity according to some evil Machiavellian scheme.How these overlap and who is at he centre of the web(s) I have no clue.

    I think such people would only view religion as a tool to exploit and would have their own epistemology rooted in harsh reality as in nature. Is it possible that it is ultimately tribal and genetic and such people may or may not have DNA linking them to the “Promised Land” as told in a lovely story, long, long ago? I would think they’d know how to infiltrate any and all religions in order to play them against one another and dupe naive people into serving a cause not their own?

    I’m not sure Jews in general stand to benefit from the main accusations being made against Jews, other than it would serve to unite people. It could also make life unpleasant as it has in the past.

    My 2cents worth, thanks

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @JustJeff
    Which suits the jews just fine. I'm sure they like having the goyim so emotional. They either get teary-eyed when the lolocaust is mentioned which makes them shill for Israel or they're conspiratorial cranks who think jews are behind every single misfortune and can thus be easily dismissed.

    Rational discussion of some topics is simply impossible in certain times and places.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Priss Factor
    Going with globalism is like the tale of the dog with bone in its mouth staring at its reflection in the water.

    Globalism says it's all about more freedom, liberalism, and democracy. Globalism contrasts its wondrous fruits with nationalism and its poison weeds of repression, reaction, and fear(that must be rooted out).

    But as diversity increases in society, it leads to more tension, more fear, more distrust, more anxiety, more suspicion, more resentment, and more division. In order to contain such problems, the powers-that-be need to institute and enforce more speech controls, more surveillance, more penalty for certain expressions, more dogmatic propaganda in schools, and etc.

    So, by choosing globalism, you don't lose identity and heritage in exchange for more liberty and freedom.
    You lost both identity/heritage AND liberty/freedom.

    Only the globalist elites reap the reward. Since they have money, privilege, and connections, they can afford residence all over the world: London, NY, Warsaw, Paris, Tokyo, Seoul, Hong Kong, Mexico City, Sao Paolo, Athens, Istanbul, etc. They can have a ball as the 'citizens of the world', like Bill Clinton, Soros, Hollywood celebs, the Obamas.
    Even if they reject & lose their own identity and heritage, the world is their oyster. Why not lose their little nation when they can have the entire world as their globalist imperial playground?

    But for the masses? They will not only NOT gain the world but lose their small world that is their nation of heritage, ancestry, and history.

    The current globalism being practiced on the West is merely what has been perpetrated on the rest of the world since WWII.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Globalism has been going on for 500 years now. Why do you think Jamaicans are black, and not Arawak and Taino Indians? It's just now the Indians are native Westerners.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Bill Jones
    While we are bewailing the too little, too late efforts to save the greatest civilization ever created, enjoy some of its finer fruits.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZTZRtRFkvk

    But keep the First Lady of South Carolina, Little Linda Graham well clear of the boys in Red dresses.

    But keep the First Lady of South Carolina, Little Linda Graham well clear of the boys in Red dresses.

    LOL!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • While we are bewailing the too little, too late efforts to save the greatest civilization ever created, enjoy some of its finer fruits.

    But keep the First Lady of South Carolina, Little Linda Graham well clear of the boys in Red dresses.

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62

    But keep the First Lady of South Carolina, Little Linda Graham well clear of the boys in Red dresses.
     
    LOL!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Cagey Beast
    This is true. Before the web, the topic couldn't be discussed because of various sorts of official and unofficial censorship but now the problem is different. Now we have to navigate through a vast ocean of stupidity, trolling and mendacity. On the one hand you have people literally blaming the Jews for everything from global warming to the Boxer Rebellion and on the other you have Jews online claiming that a prayer said by them three times a day is of no real importance whatsoever. So many militantly stupid people "naming the Jew", and so many people trolling and counter-trolling, that the topic is best avoided entirely in online discussions.

    So much stupidity, so much lying that it's bad for one's mental hygiene. Arguing about the Jewish Question online is a great way to waste a beautiful mind.

    Censoring anti-Semitic comments avoids confronting the phenomena that white nationalism is highly attractive to anti-Semites. That it’s embarrassing is no good reason to hide this fact.

    Moreover, to ban discussion of Jews is to condemn oneself to militant stupidity and enforced ignorance. Jewish influence is highly significant politically: it is a major vector in Middle East politics, and Jews (racial or religious) Jews make up maybe a third of the billionairiate.

    The discussion decidedly suffers from neglecting the clannishness of the Jewish quasi-race, which amplifies the dominance they can obtain from their intellects. But this translates into the Jewish members of the ruling class acting as a kind of vanguard of the transnational bourgeoisie, and as such, this vanguard on the whole embodies their united interests.

    Read More
    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
    Agree. I don't even know what Jewish means, I think it means different things to different people including those claiming to be Jews themselves. Not being a "Dead-Sea Pedestrian" (credit the Pythons) myself, I ask myself, Is the general policy of modern Israel good for Jews in general? I think not. Jewish everything everywhere is undermined and tarnished, including tradition and culture by acts of inhumanity such as we've seen. True Jewishness is better than that. Even Einstein said that the future of world jewry would depend on how they resolved the Palestinian question. More people called him smart than they have me.

    There are good and bad amongst all people and to be sure there appears to exist vast conspiracies to destroy Nations, economies, races and cultures then brutally restructure humanity according to some evil Machiavellian scheme.How these overlap and who is at he centre of the web(s) I have no clue.

    I think such people would only view religion as a tool to exploit and would have their own epistemology rooted in harsh reality as in nature. Is it possible that it is ultimately tribal and genetic and such people may or may not have DNA linking them to the "Promised Land" as told in a lovely story, long, long ago? I would think they'd know how to infiltrate any and all religions in order to play them against one another and dupe naive people into serving a cause not their own?

    I'm not sure Jews in general stand to benefit from the main accusations being made against Jews, other than it would serve to unite people. It could also make life unpleasant as it has in the past.

    My 2cents worth, thanks
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Ron Unz

    Once again I can only say Ron Unz should give you the power to moderate and delete comments so you won’t run the risk of incuring any legal trouble.
     
    Well, since Peter Frost has periodically been complaining about being unable to moderate his own comments and several commenters here have now raised the same issue, I might as well explain the situation...

    When Frost began publishing his columns here, I gave him moderation privileges over his comments. I soon began receiving numerous complaints from commenters who claimed they had been censored and their comments unfairly deleted. In some cases, that was apparently because they had digressed into especially "touchy" subjects, but in other cases it was because they had attempted to factually dispute some of Frost's claims. I wasn't happy about this, but declined to intervene.

    Then he published a long article that I happened to read and disagree with. I very politely raised some technical objections to his analysis in the comments, and his responses became increasingly angry and insulting. I remained very polite, and merely pointed out why I felt my quantitative arguments were probably correct. Finally, he summarily deleted one of my long, detailed, and very polite comments:

    http://www.unz.com/pfrost/western-europe-state-formation-and-genetic-pacification-3/#comment-thread-896994

    I'm a remarkably easy-going fellow about such things, but I'll be damned if I'm going to allow my own (very polite) comments on technical issues to be censored on my own website.

    I daresay virtually any other website proprietor on the Internet would have summarily terminated a columnist who behaved in such an unreasonable manner. I merely revoked his moderation privileges.

    More recently, I've offered to restore his comment moderation privileges so long as (1) he agrees to avoid deleting my own polite and respectful comments in the future and (2) he agrees to moderate his comments in timely fashion, rather than having a huge number of them accumulate in the "pending" queue, thereby cluttering up the comment system and greatly inconveniencing the moderation of the comments for other columnists.

    He said he couldn't make such promises, since (as I recall) he claimed he might need to consult an attorney about approving many of the individual comments. Under such circumstances, it seemed that the least-bad legal option was for our website to continue moderating his comments, thereby providing him some "deniability" from whatever controversial sentiments they might express.

    I can understand why writers complain about "censorship" and I can also understand why those same individuals nonetheless feel compelled to censor comments that might get them into legal trouble. However, I find it less understandable why they would also censor comments that (very politely) point out their possible factual or quantitative errors.

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/race-iq-and-wealth/

    Peter has enduring genetic difference explanations for most human attainment and behavioural group differences and has never pretended to be proposing ” cultural or economic influence” to explain differential ethnic group achievement, although he did use a variant of youth bulge theory to explain the recent rise and falls in crime (competition / scarcity among young men). Anyway at Peter’s own blog there were none of these problems when you went there in 2012 to argue for your IQ hypothesis. I don’t think blog debate works well without the author having ultimate authority over commenters.

    The explicit mainstream view among development economists is entirely similar to what you were arguing for (ie non -immutable differences). In comments against the Frost/ Harpending crime paper you were again arguing a non controversial environmental-causation position . Harpending is the only full professor in the US who openly argues a strong HBD position. I suppose Peter may have felt responsible for defending their thesis, being a little embattled up against mainstream received wisdom plus your formidable debating skills, especially as you made some excellent points against the paper that he doubtless had high hopes for.

    He could have been far more sensitive to his being a guest at your table, and it might have been more obvious to you that when a commenter/proprietor/thinker-in-his-own-right sharply disagrees with one of his columnists over the basics on interpretation of evidence in their recently published work, any debate would reach an impasse rather quickly.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Peter, I have always enjoyed your posts and hope you will continue them in 2016. Although I suppose you could get summoned to a Canadian Star chamber, it seems unlikely and I expect you would win with a little help from your friends. Post on Brother.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Stephen R. Diamond
    Your academic contributions are more valuable than your political tripe here published. For example:

    Meanwhile, there has been an incredible loss of will among Europe’s leaders to do anything, other than hectoring recalcitrant nations like Hungary for not taking their “fair share.”
     
    The analysis you offer is essentially that Western elites lack the will to resist the intense population pressure from Africa. (Their "universalism" gets the better of them.) This is simply politically stupid. Open borders has been a long-term project of the transnationals.

    Anyone who depicts this as a matter of "will" aims to encourage authoritarianism.

    Has anyone ever told you that you add value to the conversation? (Other than someone who may have noticed one of your more lucid comments, as difficult as these are to find, and thereby was mislead into thinking that there was a coherent mentality that produced said comment.)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Cagey Beast
    This is true. Before the web, the topic couldn't be discussed because of various sorts of official and unofficial censorship but now the problem is different. Now we have to navigate through a vast ocean of stupidity, trolling and mendacity. On the one hand you have people literally blaming the Jews for everything from global warming to the Boxer Rebellion and on the other you have Jews online claiming that a prayer said by them three times a day is of no real importance whatsoever. So many militantly stupid people "naming the Jew", and so many people trolling and counter-trolling, that the topic is best avoided entirely in online discussions.

    So much stupidity, so much lying that it's bad for one's mental hygiene. Arguing about the Jewish Question online is a great way to waste a beautiful mind.

    IOW, you wish there was no discussion period about the nature of neurotic, in-bred, control freak Jews.

    Gatekeeper wannabes such as yourself long for the good old days when things were a bit more easy to control.

    The game has changed, get used to it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Erik Sieven
    For me speaking about differences between Judaism and Christianity as a (right-wing) German politician is a bit like talking about differences between men and women as a convicted murderer of three ex-wifes. Of course those differences exist, and one can talk about them, for example in a theology course at the Uni, or in the case of the gender differences in a Loriot-like funny way. But in this context it is inappropriate I think.

    Don’t know if I agree with that. Frankly, I’m tired of those self-satisfied Christian Democrat politicians with all their nonsense about our Judeo-Christian values. I’ve got enough of this reclericalization of Germany, at a time when the country is more atheist than ever, and it’s time to expose those Christian Democrat fools as the cretins they are. Maybe taking apart their “Judeo-Christian” nonsense isn’t the best place to start, but I can understand the motivation.
    Besides, Höcke later added that he thought Judaism was a “great religion” and that he himself had been influenced by the thought of Martin Buber. Höcke’s certainly a nationalist and a “racist”, but I’ve seen nothing to indicate that he’s really an antisemite.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Go back to your original blog, Peter. You can then moderate comments and your readers will be spared the incessant arguing over Jews. There are 100 times more Muslims in the world than Jews. Yet somehow this tiny population is responsible for all our problems. I’m getting tired of reading the continual comments in this vein, it detracts from the topic at hand. Those commenters didn’t come to your old blog but they infest this entire site. Sadly because there are many insightful articles here (no, I’m not Jewish).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Your academic contributions are more valuable than your political tripe here published. For example:

    Meanwhile, there has been an incredible loss of will among Europe’s leaders to do anything, other than hectoring recalcitrant nations like Hungary for not taking their “fair share.”

    The analysis you offer is essentially that Western elites lack the will to resist the intense population pressure from Africa. (Their “universalism” gets the better of them.) This is simply politically stupid. Open borders has been a long-term project of the transnationals.

    Anyone who depicts this as a matter of “will” aims to encourage authoritarianism.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    Has anyone ever told you that you add value to the conversation? (Other than someone who may have noticed one of your more lucid comments, as difficult as these are to find, and thereby was mislead into thinking that there was a coherent mentality that produced said comment.)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Art
    "Instead of replacing native Europeans, why not replace their leaders? Why not vote them out of office? "

    Why not vote Trump in? He is without question an American nationalist.

    Bomb-bast and all, he is a true red, white, and blue old fashioned can do American. That is a good thing!

    He is not a legal type, a banker, a politician - he is a builder – let him rebuild America.

    Elect him.

    Elect him.

    Hi, Art. Not sure if you’ve seen my most recent comment on another thread:

    Thanks for sharing the link, schmenz.

    Sam, remember your comment about a strong POTUS and that Trump represented the only hope to stand up to AIPAC? Interested in getting your comments on the following:

    On the subject of Israel, Trump added, “Sheldon knows that nobody will be more loyal to Israel than Donald Trump.”

    [Trump's] also the only Republican candidate with Jewish grandkids: his daughter, Ivanka, became Orthodox after marrying real estate scion Jared Kushner. The family keeps kosher, observes the Sabbath and attends the upscale synagogue Congregation Kehilath Jeshurun.

    http://news.yahoo.com/republican-donor-adelson-trump-may-aligning-israel-003125447–finance.html

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art
    Trump and Israel?

    First Trump says he loves everyone - Mexicans, blacks, and Jews. Maybe it is true.

    Trump knows Jews – one can not function as he has in NYC, and not know Jews. I think that there is an earned respect both ways.

    I trust the Jews to know Jew business. Just looking at the Jew controlled media - it is clear that the Jews have a real fear of him. He is too powerful a personality – he does not totally fear them.

    I think that he will assure Israel's safety – but will not give them the family jewels when they demand them. I think that the Jews will not want for him to get his back up against them and go public about their demands. All it would take is for Trump to speak out as President and the whole Zionist Jew game is over. The last thing the Jew want is a public fight over them. (Actually more and more Jews and Gentiles are turning against Zionism.)

    So with Trump as president there will be no more standing-o Mufti Netanyahu speeches before all of congress.

    Sounds not to bad. Elect him!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • If people are going to get prosecuted because of a comments section they have no power over, the obvious solution is to not have a comments section.

    Some commenters can run a subreddit about your writing and link to your posts over there. You can’t be prosecuted because of links to a different site (reddit) which you have no control over.

    May I suggest Ron Unz could do it himself, there would be no higher service done to the cause of free speech in the Western World. Perhaps instead of hosting the blog as an associate, Ron could do as he is done recently with Krugman, and just link to other blogs without their overt consent in order to supply a comment platform.

    But at any rate close this comments section immediately, and the one on your blog. I don’t know what kind of arrangement Ron Unz has with writers here, but getting in legal trouble is surely not worth it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Art
    "Instead of replacing native Europeans, why not replace their leaders? Why not vote them out of office? "

    Why not vote Trump in? He is without question an American nationalist.

    Bomb-bast and all, he is a true red, white, and blue old fashioned can do American. That is a good thing!

    He is not a legal type, a banker, a politician - he is a builder – let him rebuild America.

    Elect him.

    Because that would be racialist and nativist. They even have to invent a vocabulary for this. Believing in the concept of a nation is nativist? The new left’s is a religion. People will swallow poison if they can be convinced that everyone else is swallowing poison and they can gain status from swallowing poison. Who do they think they are not swallowing poison? The serious believers really believe in this stuff. You have to explain that the litmus test for any idea is how real people are affected. You can oppose racialist witch hunts without being a nazi. That is their biggest fear is being a nazi. When people are reassured that there are alternatives between auschwitz and the new left then you can start having a dialogue.

    Read More
    • Agree: Seamus Padraig
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @German_reader
    "Though I think Höcke´s comments about Christianity and Judaism were very unnecessary."

    Maybe unneccessary, but they were essentially correct. "Judeo-Christian" is an idiotic term that tries to obfuscate the long history of enmity between the two religions. For most of the last two millenia relations between Jews and Christians weren't exactly friendly, and in some ways Judaism has more in common with Islam than with Christianity (there are some good blog posts by Razib Khan about this subject from a few years ago).
    But you're right that it was an unwise move by Höcke to make such a statement about an issue which is pretty irrelevant anyway nowadays. I sometimes get the impression Höcke is a political autist and doesn't get or care how his statements will be interpreted in Germany's hyper-conformist political climate.

    For me speaking about differences between Judaism and Christianity as a (right-wing) German politician is a bit like talking about differences between men and women as a convicted murderer of three ex-wifes. Of course those differences exist, and one can talk about them, for example in a theology course at the Uni, or in the case of the gender differences in a Loriot-like funny way. But in this context it is inappropriate I think.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader
    Don't know if I agree with that. Frankly, I'm tired of those self-satisfied Christian Democrat politicians with all their nonsense about our Judeo-Christian values. I've got enough of this reclericalization of Germany, at a time when the country is more atheist than ever, and it's time to expose those Christian Democrat fools as the cretins they are. Maybe taking apart their "Judeo-Christian" nonsense isn't the best place to start, but I can understand the motivation.
    Besides, Höcke later added that he thought Judaism was a "great religion" and that he himself had been influenced by the thought of Martin Buber. Höcke's certainly a nationalist and a "racist", but I've seen nothing to indicate that he's really an antisemite.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Regnum Nostrum
    The only way how to stop massive migration is to remove the causes which bring it about. Wars, destruction of countries, economic misery, etc. If the causes persist the migration will continue and nothing will stop it.

    when it rains an umbrella helps. It is no good idea to give up using umbrellas for the reason that to make the rain stop one would need to intervene in the complex mechanisms which work in clouds.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • “Instead of replacing native Europeans, why not replace their leaders? Why not vote them out of office? “

    Why not vote Trump in? He is without question an American nationalist.

    Bomb-bast and all, he is a true red, white, and blue old fashioned can do American. That is a good thing!

    He is not a legal type, a banker, a politician – he is a builder – let him rebuild America.

    Elect him.

    Read More
    • Replies: @epochehusserl
    Because that would be racialist and nativist. They even have to invent a vocabulary for this. Believing in the concept of a nation is nativist? The new left's is a religion. People will swallow poison if they can be convinced that everyone else is swallowing poison and they can gain status from swallowing poison. Who do they think they are not swallowing poison? The serious believers really believe in this stuff. You have to explain that the litmus test for any idea is how real people are affected. You can oppose racialist witch hunts without being a nazi. That is their biggest fear is being a nazi. When people are reassured that there are alternatives between auschwitz and the new left then you can start having a dialogue.
    , @geokat62

    Elect him.
     
    Hi, Art. Not sure if you've seen my most recent comment on another thread:

    Thanks for sharing the link, schmenz.

    Sam, remember your comment about a strong POTUS and that Trump represented the only hope to stand up to AIPAC? Interested in getting your comments on the following:

    On the subject of Israel, Trump added, “Sheldon knows that nobody will be more loyal to Israel than Donald Trump.”

    [Trump's] also the only Republican candidate with Jewish grandkids: his daughter, Ivanka, became Orthodox after marrying real estate scion Jared Kushner. The family keeps kosher, observes the Sabbath and attends the upscale synagogue Congregation Kehilath Jeshurun.

    http://news.yahoo.com/republican-donor-adelson-trump-may-aligning-israel-003125447--finance.html
     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Jim
    Having a calm objective discussion of the role of Jews in the contemporary world seems almost impossible. Probably only historians of our times many centuries in the future will be able to do so.

    This is true. Before the web, the topic couldn’t be discussed because of various sorts of official and unofficial censorship but now the problem is different. Now we have to navigate through a vast ocean of stupidity, trolling and mendacity. On the one hand you have people literally blaming the Jews for everything from global warming to the Boxer Rebellion and on the other you have Jews online claiming that a prayer said by them three times a day is of no real importance whatsoever. So many militantly stupid people “naming the Jew”, and so many people trolling and counter-trolling, that the topic is best avoided entirely in online discussions.

    So much stupidity, so much lying that it’s bad for one’s mental hygiene. Arguing about the Jewish Question online is a great way to waste a beautiful mind.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    IOW, you wish there was no discussion period about the nature of neurotic, in-bred, control freak Jews.

    Gatekeeper wannabes such as yourself long for the good old days when things were a bit more easy to control.

    The game has changed, get used to it.
    , @Stephen R. Diamond
    Censoring anti-Semitic comments avoids confronting the phenomena that white nationalism is highly attractive to anti-Semites. That it's embarrassing is no good reason to hide this fact.

    Moreover, to ban discussion of Jews is to condemn oneself to militant stupidity and enforced ignorance. Jewish influence is highly significant politically: it is a major vector in Middle East politics, and Jews (racial or religious) Jews make up maybe a third of the billionairiate.

    The discussion decidedly suffers from neglecting the clannishness of the Jewish quasi-race, which amplifies the dominance they can obtain from their intellects. But this translates into the Jewish members of the ruling class acting as a kind of vanguard of the transnational bourgeoisie, and as such, this vanguard on the whole embodies their united interests.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Rehmat
    Neyth Nethanyahu - When was the last time you opened the Holy Talmud? Israeli historian Israel Shahak called it the most hate religious literature in the world. It curses Jesus, Mary and Christians. Holy Qur'an on the other hand, raises Jesus and Mary to the level of prophet Moses and his mother.

    If Hitler loved Muslims, how come he never higher a single Muslim in his administration, which was loaded with Christians and Jews.

    Nazi army had 150,000 German Jews but not a single Muslim.

    In October 2015, Netanyahu told the 37th World Zionist Congress that Adolf Hitler only wanted to expel the German Jews, but he was advised by Palestinian Mufti al-Haj Amin al-Husseini (d. 1974 in Lebanon) to exterminate the Jews.....

    http://rehmat1.com/2015/10/22/netanyahu-absolves-hitler-of-holocaust/

    A Muslim says ‘watch out for the 15 million Jews’ and ‘but ignore the 1.5 billion Muslims.’

    Boring…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Just publicly quit while continuing to write under a pseudonym. I’d recommend Dick Freeze or Johnson Snow. But, seriously, keep writing and Merry Christmas.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Jim
    Having a calm objective discussion of the role of Jews in the contemporary world seems almost impossible. Probably only historians of our times many centuries in the future will be able to do so.

    Which suits the jews just fine. I’m sure they like having the goyim so emotional. They either get teary-eyed when the lolocaust is mentioned which makes them shill for Israel or they’re conspiratorial cranks who think jews are behind every single misfortune and can thus be easily dismissed.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jim
    Rational discussion of some topics is simply impossible in certain times and places.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Peter Frost
    Björn Höcke (leader of the AfD in Thuringia), is now under fire for a lecture at a right-wing think tank in which he (for about two minutes out of fifty) spoke about Africa’s demographic expansion and the threat it presented to Europe.

    I agree. Throughout most of the world, fertility rates have declined or are declining to replacement level and even lower. There are two big exceptions: sub-Saharan Africa and the Islamist core region of Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Even more worrisome, fertility rates are actually rising in some African countries, like Somalia.

    Even if fertility rates end up falling in those two regions, a lot of momentum is built into their population growth. What we are seeing now is only the beginning. In twenty years time, people will look back at us and wonder how we could have been so blind.

    More the opposite imo – they display extremely strong will towards eradicating their native populations by any means necessary.

    People can be malicious while thinking they are "good." How was it possible that so many good people condoned the burning of witches? Well, witch burning used to be the right thing to do. We see the same perversion of morality today. Once a person or policy is labeled as "racist," the proper moral response is to distance yourself from that person or policy.

    There is no painless way of dismantling that sort of moral consensus. People have to defy it openly, calmly, and in large numbers. Only then will the consensus be shattered.

    In some cases, that was apparently because they had digressed into especially “touchy” subjects, but in other cases it was because they had attempted to factually dispute some of Frost’s claims. I wasn’t happy about this, but declined to intervene.

    Ron,

    Given that you publicly stated your unhappiness, I began deleting fewer comments. Whenever I found a comment offensive , I would go through it to remove offensive content ("niggers," "homos," "Zionist cabal," etc.).

    I don't remember deleting any comments that challenged anything I wrote. I remember deleting MANY off-topic comments about Jews, Jews, Jews. Regardless of the original topic, someone would start talking about Jews, and then other commenters would pile in. Before long the discussion would be only about Jews.

    I remember deleting a sensible comment about Jewish ownership of Sweden's media (via the Bonnier family), and I remember you telling me how unfair that was of me. I suppose I could have pointed out that the Bonniers are no more Jewish than I am a Freemason. I could have also pointed out that the State-owned media in Sweden is even more pro-immigration than the Bonnier-owned media.

    But Jews weren't the topic of discussion, and I didn't want to have yet another column become a discussion about Jews.

    I very politely raised some technical objections to his analysis in the comments, and his responses became increasingly angry and insulting. I remained very polite, and merely pointed out why I felt my quantitative arguments were probably correct.

    We all feel we are polite, sensible, and correct. Above all, correct. The other person is always wrong. Always. That mindset is a common human failing, and I'm not saying you're any worse than me.

    The heat of debate began to rise when you described my position as "extreme" in relation to yours. If I am extreme in relation to The Unz Review, I must be in Stormfront territory. That is how most people would process your remark.

    The debate went off the rails when you argued that the U.S. homicide rate underwent the same rate of decline between 1850 and 1950 that Western Europe had undergone between 1500 and 1750. I replied that the U.S. homicide decline is explained by the aging of the American population. There were proportionately fewer young men in 1950 than there were in 1850. I also pointed out that the U.S. homicide rate rose after 1950, partly because there were far more young men, especially in the African American community.

    Instead of challenging my reply, you simply repeated the same argument over and over, as if I had not replied to it. That's what made me angry. Unlike some people, I'm willing to admit that I can get angry.

    Finally, he summarily deleted one of my long, detailed, and very polite comments

    I closed the comments section to everyone. I felt that the anger level was getting out of hand, and that it was best to let everyone cool off, including myself and yourself.

    He said he couldn’t make such promises, since (as I recall) he claimed he might need to consult an attorney about approving many of the individual comments.

    I wanted to get a legal opinion on Bill 59. The information I have is as follows:

    - the Quebec government is waiting to see whether the new federal government will introduce similar legislation. It wants to avoid a situation where a prosecution under a provincial law could be challenged under a federal law, particularly the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

    - the Quebec government, specifically the Quebec Human Rights Commission, wants to make the fight against "Islamophobia" a priority. I don't know where that puts me.

    - As a rule, human rights commissions go after soft targets, i.e., lone bloggers with no one to defend them. I don't know where that puts me. If I am prosecuted for what I write, will you come and testify on my behalf? Will you help pay for my legal defense?

    This is the sort of problem that doesn't matter ... until it does. The time for making plans is now, not later.

    I can understand why writers complain about “censorship” and I can also understand why those same individuals nonetheless feel compelled to censor comments that might get them into legal trouble.

    In Canada, as in many other countries, the comment section of a column is considered to be an extension of the column. Even if I have no comment control, I can be still held liable for the comments, since I freely and willingly agreed to a situation where I have no control over the comments.

    It's like a man who transfers ownership of his assets to his wife, so that the government can't seize them for unpaid taxes. In that situation, the government will argue that the transfer of ownership was a subterfuge.

    Having a calm objective discussion of the role of Jews in the contemporary world seems almost impossible. Probably only historians of our times many centuries in the future will be able to do so.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JustJeff
    Which suits the jews just fine. I'm sure they like having the goyim so emotional. They either get teary-eyed when the lolocaust is mentioned which makes them shill for Israel or they're conspiratorial cranks who think jews are behind every single misfortune and can thus be easily dismissed.
    , @Cagey Beast
    This is true. Before the web, the topic couldn't be discussed because of various sorts of official and unofficial censorship but now the problem is different. Now we have to navigate through a vast ocean of stupidity, trolling and mendacity. On the one hand you have people literally blaming the Jews for everything from global warming to the Boxer Rebellion and on the other you have Jews online claiming that a prayer said by them three times a day is of no real importance whatsoever. So many militantly stupid people "naming the Jew", and so many people trolling and counter-trolling, that the topic is best avoided entirely in online discussions.

    So much stupidity, so much lying that it's bad for one's mental hygiene. Arguing about the Jewish Question online is a great way to waste a beautiful mind.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Throughout most of the 1400 years of conflict between the West and Islam the West has had a strong numerical advantage. So throughout this period most of the West was pretty safe and the fighting was mostly over the exact boundaries between the two worlds.

    But now the size of the Moslem populations adjacent to Europe has never been as large relative to European populations and the Moslem populations are younger. So the West has never been in greater danger.

    Now it seems highly likely that Europe in the near future will be wracked by massive violence.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • A comment on situation in my motherland, Poland:

    PiS (Law and Justice) has a hardcore vote base of about 25-30%. PiS gained only few percents during last election and it seem to shave off those all gained votes recently. The PiS’ victory was mainly because the idiocy of the previous ruling government: the level of corruption, ass-licking to the west, and insisting that everything is OK and we are “the green island” (e.g. the only country untouched by a crisis in Europe) – when the statistics show that the poverty rates are rising, as well as the inequality rates. Protest against immigration gained few additional votes, but it was rather a party not going against the wishes of their own hardcore voters, not a party trying to get additional votes.

    On the other hand, Kukiz’15, a movement led by a charismatic rock singer, was driven by two sole issues: immigrants and hatred to the current system. That were additional 9% of voters.

    JKM, a controversial right-wing politician, anticommunist who also appealed to anti-immigrant issues (though in his case I doubt he was sincere, since I’ve read him for years and he always was expressing an admiration for free market, open borders and libertarian ideals) had just below 5%, and because of 5% cutoff could not enter the parliament.

    In short, our politics is divided by slightly different things than in the west. As our publicists put it, we have “natives” contra “elites”, though the names sometimes differ – many think we are de facto a postcolonial country.

    “Elites” want us to ape the west, to change our culture, and go flapping about tolerancy, progress, and united Europe. They are usually critical of values such like patriotism, tend to justify communists, church and so on. However, because Poland is conservative country by European standards, even the “elites” recently started to pay lip-service to patriotic past. When they hear about corruption, poverty, or secret services illegal activities, they tend to laugh and call it conspirational theories. They think that only suckers can boast about all lost uprisings and instead we should promote modern values like paying taxes.

    The “natives” instead think highly about uprising, Poland-as-a-martyr rhetoric, they boast of all shed blood and those traitors from the west, they are ultra-nationalist and ultra-religious. They tend to criticise communist past, emphasize the poverty, corruption presence in Poland and the illegal activities of secret services.

    As being atheist conservative, I cannot find place in either of those groups, though on primeval instinct I feel more connection to the “natives”.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Peter Frost
    Björn Höcke (leader of the AfD in Thuringia), is now under fire for a lecture at a right-wing think tank in which he (for about two minutes out of fifty) spoke about Africa’s demographic expansion and the threat it presented to Europe.

    I agree. Throughout most of the world, fertility rates have declined or are declining to replacement level and even lower. There are two big exceptions: sub-Saharan Africa and the Islamist core region of Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Even more worrisome, fertility rates are actually rising in some African countries, like Somalia.

    Even if fertility rates end up falling in those two regions, a lot of momentum is built into their population growth. What we are seeing now is only the beginning. In twenty years time, people will look back at us and wonder how we could have been so blind.

    More the opposite imo – they display extremely strong will towards eradicating their native populations by any means necessary.

    People can be malicious while thinking they are "good." How was it possible that so many good people condoned the burning of witches? Well, witch burning used to be the right thing to do. We see the same perversion of morality today. Once a person or policy is labeled as "racist," the proper moral response is to distance yourself from that person or policy.

    There is no painless way of dismantling that sort of moral consensus. People have to defy it openly, calmly, and in large numbers. Only then will the consensus be shattered.

    In some cases, that was apparently because they had digressed into especially “touchy” subjects, but in other cases it was because they had attempted to factually dispute some of Frost’s claims. I wasn’t happy about this, but declined to intervene.

    Ron,

    Given that you publicly stated your unhappiness, I began deleting fewer comments. Whenever I found a comment offensive , I would go through it to remove offensive content ("niggers," "homos," "Zionist cabal," etc.).

    I don't remember deleting any comments that challenged anything I wrote. I remember deleting MANY off-topic comments about Jews, Jews, Jews. Regardless of the original topic, someone would start talking about Jews, and then other commenters would pile in. Before long the discussion would be only about Jews.

    I remember deleting a sensible comment about Jewish ownership of Sweden's media (via the Bonnier family), and I remember you telling me how unfair that was of me. I suppose I could have pointed out that the Bonniers are no more Jewish than I am a Freemason. I could have also pointed out that the State-owned media in Sweden is even more pro-immigration than the Bonnier-owned media.

    But Jews weren't the topic of discussion, and I didn't want to have yet another column become a discussion about Jews.

    I very politely raised some technical objections to his analysis in the comments, and his responses became increasingly angry and insulting. I remained very polite, and merely pointed out why I felt my quantitative arguments were probably correct.

    We all feel we are polite, sensible, and correct. Above all, correct. The other person is always wrong. Always. That mindset is a common human failing, and I'm not saying you're any worse than me.

    The heat of debate began to rise when you described my position as "extreme" in relation to yours. If I am extreme in relation to The Unz Review, I must be in Stormfront territory. That is how most people would process your remark.

    The debate went off the rails when you argued that the U.S. homicide rate underwent the same rate of decline between 1850 and 1950 that Western Europe had undergone between 1500 and 1750. I replied that the U.S. homicide decline is explained by the aging of the American population. There were proportionately fewer young men in 1950 than there were in 1850. I also pointed out that the U.S. homicide rate rose after 1950, partly because there were far more young men, especially in the African American community.

    Instead of challenging my reply, you simply repeated the same argument over and over, as if I had not replied to it. That's what made me angry. Unlike some people, I'm willing to admit that I can get angry.

    Finally, he summarily deleted one of my long, detailed, and very polite comments

    I closed the comments section to everyone. I felt that the anger level was getting out of hand, and that it was best to let everyone cool off, including myself and yourself.

    He said he couldn’t make such promises, since (as I recall) he claimed he might need to consult an attorney about approving many of the individual comments.

    I wanted to get a legal opinion on Bill 59. The information I have is as follows:

    - the Quebec government is waiting to see whether the new federal government will introduce similar legislation. It wants to avoid a situation where a prosecution under a provincial law could be challenged under a federal law, particularly the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

    - the Quebec government, specifically the Quebec Human Rights Commission, wants to make the fight against "Islamophobia" a priority. I don't know where that puts me.

    - As a rule, human rights commissions go after soft targets, i.e., lone bloggers with no one to defend them. I don't know where that puts me. If I am prosecuted for what I write, will you come and testify on my behalf? Will you help pay for my legal defense?

    This is the sort of problem that doesn't matter ... until it does. The time for making plans is now, not later.

    I can understand why writers complain about “censorship” and I can also understand why those same individuals nonetheless feel compelled to censor comments that might get them into legal trouble.

    In Canada, as in many other countries, the comment section of a column is considered to be an extension of the column. Even if I have no comment control, I can be still held liable for the comments, since I freely and willingly agreed to a situation where I have no control over the comments.

    It's like a man who transfers ownership of his assets to his wife, so that the government can't seize them for unpaid taxes. In that situation, the government will argue that the transfer of ownership was a subterfuge.

    Given the initial response by the current Attorney General to the Massacre in California, the imposition of an American equivalent to bill 59 is not unthinkable. As you say the time to prepare is before the event rather than after.
    Ezra Levant and Kathy Shaidle come to mind. It is also good to remember that stupidities Canada makes into laws travel south because the border is so intellectually porous and become laws in the USA.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ogunsiron
    Re: bad canadian ideas dripping down south
    I used to browse canadian ''progressive" sites like rabble.ca and about 10 years ago I'd often witness canadian lefties chastising their american comrades about the disturbing freedom of speech that americans enjoyed. They'd argue that actually civilized countries curtailed "hate speech" and that they were very proud that in Canada, not all speech was legal. Back then, the american lefties were still into freedom of speech, though. I'd see the american commenters argue that although they hated "bad" speech, they felt that the best way to fight "bad" speech was to "good speech" louder and stronger.

    It's amazing to me how things have changed.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @German_reader
    "Though I think Höcke´s comments about Christianity and Judaism were very unnecessary."

    Maybe unneccessary, but they were essentially correct. "Judeo-Christian" is an idiotic term that tries to obfuscate the long history of enmity between the two religions. For most of the last two millenia relations between Jews and Christians weren't exactly friendly, and in some ways Judaism has more in common with Islam than with Christianity (there are some good blog posts by Razib Khan about this subject from a few years ago).
    But you're right that it was an unwise move by Höcke to make such a statement about an issue which is pretty irrelevant anyway nowadays. I sometimes get the impression Höcke is a political autist and doesn't get or care how his statements will be interpreted in Germany's hyper-conformist political climate.

    It’s perfectly correct that the term Judeo-Christian is a very recent ideological term that has nothing to do with the actual history of the West. Throughout most of the history of the West Jews were a marginalized group frequently the target of intense violence. The description of the West as Judeo-Christian would have astonished Westerners until very recently. The term is purely propagandistic.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • The fact that Europeans are so frightened by a little angry rhetoric shows how badly the don’t want to preserve their nations. Pathetic. Then again, thing’s are even worse in the US. We don’t have nationalists because we don’t have a nation.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Hitler
    Its Islam that gives right wing the votes. Ironically Islam is just like racialism/ethnocentrism. Hitler himself liked Islam because it was a horrible nasty thing just like him.

    Thanks to your dumb, pathetic religion, the world is in flames.

    Neyth Nethanyahu – When was the last time you opened the Holy Talmud? Israeli historian Israel Shahak called it the most hate religious literature in the world. It curses Jesus, Mary and Christians. Holy Qur’an on the other hand, raises Jesus and Mary to the level of prophet Moses and his mother.

    If Hitler loved Muslims, how come he never higher a single Muslim in his administration, which was loaded with Christians and Jews.

    Nazi army had 150,000 German Jews but not a single Muslim.

    In October 2015, Netanyahu told the 37th World Zionist Congress that Adolf Hitler only wanted to expel the German Jews, but he was advised by Palestinian Mufti al-Haj Amin al-Husseini (d. 1974 in Lebanon) to exterminate the Jews…..

    http://rehmat1.com/2015/10/22/netanyahu-absolves-hitler-of-holocaust/

    Read More
    • Replies: @This Is Our Home
    A Muslim says 'watch out for the 15 million Jews' and 'but ignore the 1.5 billion Muslims.'

    Boring...
    , @random observer
    His 'administration' was 'loaded' with Jews? That must have been the greatest and most perilous work of 'passing' in world history.

    The army, perhaps, but then an army operating on that scale sometimes has to turn a blind eye to things to maximize cannon fodder. 150,000 such passing for certifiable Aryans would not actually be that huge a figure for an armed force that pushed 10 million.

    Perhaps the absence of Muslims in Reich 'administration' could be put down to the absence of Muslims among the German people. Apart from the occasional eccentric, how many Muslim 'Germans' were there in 1939?

    On the other hand the army and SS made considerable use of Muslims where they could find any in Europe or in Russia. There was even a Bosnian SS unit. Then again, by mid-war the SS would take anyone.
    , @RadicalCenter
    Rehmat: I can't believe that you are really asking, in good faith, why there were no Muslims in the Nazi government. The reason, as you surely know, is that there ALMOST ZERO muslims in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland at that time -- what a lovely state of affairs, too!

    Hopefully it will be that way again in Europe and North America....
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • - the Quebec government is waiting to see whether the new federal government will introduce similar legislation. It wants to avoid a situation where a prosecution under a provincial law could be challenged under a federal law, particularly the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

    - the Quebec government, specifically the Quebec Human Rights Commission, wants to make the fight against “Islamophobia” a priority. I don’t know where that puts me.

    - As a rule, human rights commissions go after soft targets, i.e., lone bloggers with no one to defend them. I don’t know where that puts me. If I am prosecuted for what I write, will you come and testify on my behalf? Will you help pay for my legal defense?

    ……………..does it make anyone else seethe with rage that this stuff really happens in a country like Canada?

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62

    ... does it make anyone else seethe with rage that this stuff really happens in a country like Canada?
     
    The Anti-terrorism Act, 2015 (also known as Bill C-51) was introduced and passed by the previous Conservative government of Canada (albeit with the support of the Liberals). Stephen Harper was so pro-Zionist that Bibi Nutn'Yahoo named a bird sanctuary in Israel after the most righteous goy, Stephen.

    We'll see if Justin Trudeau will follow in Harper's footsteps.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • The only way how to stop massive migration is to remove the causes which bring it about. Wars, destruction of countries, economic misery, etc. If the causes persist the migration will continue and nothing will stop it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Erik Sieven
    when it rains an umbrella helps. It is no good idea to give up using umbrellas for the reason that to make the rain stop one would need to intervene in the complex mechanisms which work in clouds.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Peter, I now get it … and thank you. The “hate crime” movement in Europe, Canada (and now infecting the United States) is a clever way on the part of “liberals” of making the “conservative” political opposition’s political agenda illegal and subject to prosecution. It is a way of maintaining political dynasties and the opportunity for socialist-leaning politicians and their supporters to maintain power and grow wealthy at the public’s expense.

    The message is clear: Publicly criticize globalization (called internationalism when the Soviet Union existed), open borders, and massive immigration … and risk going to jail. The political repression is enforced through a system of political commissars who populate “Hate Crime Commissions” at national, provincial, and corporate levels.

    Wow! This is all starting to look so “Soviet”: The political opposition is legally banned; scientists who do not parrot the official line are suppressed; those who object are publicly ridiculed and shamed, etc. Is the next step to drive the Internet underground with “samizdat” blogging?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Rehmat
    YES Peter Frost, we need to give power to all those pro-Israel anti-Muslim White racist (Ooops! nationalist parties) so the White folks in those countries can join the coming NWO like the US, Britain and Australia.

    I note that you didn't read that French National Front last all its "popularity" in the second poll last week, even though the party received significant percentage of Jewish votes for the first time.

    But one thing has never changed in France - its hatred toward Muslims who make 16% of country's population as compared to 1/2% Jewish population controlling Sarkozy and Hollande governments.

    http://rehmat1.com/2015/04/26/france-the-republic-of-islamophobia/

    A Muslim trolling for greater Muslim immigration to the West. What next? A tobacco producer lobbying for lower cigarette taxes…boring…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Anonymous
    Dear Peter,

    Can we plead with you to keep your column going? You have a rare gift for communicating the facts and inevitable conclusions (no matter how unsavory) related to soci0-biological science. If not, how can we get access to your academic articles?

    But in a real sense, I share your fears. I blog and reply in cognito because, if my name was known, I could lose my job ... possibly for reading the Unz Review and and absolutely for some of my responses. They might call it a "hate crime" in Canada. Here in the USA (and in spite of that weathered and worn document called the Constitution) we call it PC for transgressing left-wing government, corporate, and academic policies over which we have no input. At the end of the day, the results are the same ... damaged and destroyed careers for participating is what is perhaps one of the "headiest" and "high-brow" Internet sites in the English language. (Definition of "high-brow": "Scholarly or rarefied in taste.")

    As a measure of the threat, the Jewish Anti-Defamation Leage (ADL), has designated the Unz Review an anti-semitic Internet site. See below:

    ANTI-SEMITISM IN THE UNITED STATES

    Ron Unz: Controversial Writer and Funder of Anti-Israel Activists
    January 20, 2014

    Conservative businessman Ron Unz has stirred controversy over the last year by publicizing ideas that appeal to anti-Semites; offering a forum for writers who demonize Israel and funding several anti-Israel activists, some of whom promote anti-Semitic canards. Though Unz does not appear to be an anti-Semite, he provides support to extreme anti-Israel ideologues and his writings resonate with and are regularly cited by anti-Semites.

    http://www.adl.org/anti-semitism/united-states/c/ron-unz-controversial-writer.html?referrer=https://www.google.com/

    Isn’t Ron Unz Jewish himself?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Yes.
    , @AndrewR
    Doesn't stop the Jew supremacists at the ADL from labelling him the next Hitler.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Dahlia says:
    @Ron Unz

    Once again I can only say Ron Unz should give you the power to moderate and delete comments so you won’t run the risk of incuring any legal trouble.
     
    Well, since Peter Frost has periodically been complaining about being unable to moderate his own comments and several commenters here have now raised the same issue, I might as well explain the situation...

    When Frost began publishing his columns here, I gave him moderation privileges over his comments. I soon began receiving numerous complaints from commenters who claimed they had been censored and their comments unfairly deleted. In some cases, that was apparently because they had digressed into especially "touchy" subjects, but in other cases it was because they had attempted to factually dispute some of Frost's claims. I wasn't happy about this, but declined to intervene.

    Then he published a long article that I happened to read and disagree with. I very politely raised some technical objections to his analysis in the comments, and his responses became increasingly angry and insulting. I remained very polite, and merely pointed out why I felt my quantitative arguments were probably correct. Finally, he summarily deleted one of my long, detailed, and very polite comments:

    http://www.unz.com/pfrost/western-europe-state-formation-and-genetic-pacification-3/#comment-thread-896994

    I'm a remarkably easy-going fellow about such things, but I'll be damned if I'm going to allow my own (very polite) comments on technical issues to be censored on my own website.

    I daresay virtually any other website proprietor on the Internet would have summarily terminated a columnist who behaved in such an unreasonable manner. I merely revoked his moderation privileges.

    More recently, I've offered to restore his comment moderation privileges so long as (1) he agrees to avoid deleting my own polite and respectful comments in the future and (2) he agrees to moderate his comments in timely fashion, rather than having a huge number of them accumulate in the "pending" queue, thereby cluttering up the comment system and greatly inconveniencing the moderation of the comments for other columnists.

    He said he couldn't make such promises, since (as I recall) he claimed he might need to consult an attorney about approving many of the individual comments. Under such circumstances, it seemed that the least-bad legal option was for our website to continue moderating his comments, thereby providing him some "deniability" from whatever controversial sentiments they might express.

    I can understand why writers complain about "censorship" and I can also understand why those same individuals nonetheless feel compelled to censor comments that might get them into legal trouble. However, I find it less understandable why they would also censor comments that (very politely) point out their possible factual or quantitative errors.

    When Frost began publishing his columns here, I gave him moderation privileges over his comments. I soon began receiving numerous complaints from commenters who claimed they had been censored and their comments unfairly deleted. In some cases, that was apparently because they had digressed into especially “touchy” subjects, but in other cases it was because they had attempted to factually dispute some of Frost’s claims. I wasn’t happy about this, but declined to intervene.

    There is another who is worse. He heaps abuse on many people and I thought perhaps they were making stupid, inane comments like he claimed they were (because he *is* almost always smarter) until it happened to me.
    My comment didn’t get called, “stupid”, but was deleted because he “couldn’t understand my point”. BS. Long story short, I had only sought to bring to light the original source and all her statements concerning a rather unimportant news item our blogger had written about (but one that was still interesting and fun to talk about). I had discovered that the MSM had very selectively edited the original source’s statements and people, including our blogger, were trying to draw lessons from something that wasn’t real anymore, but a media product.
    My very strong suspicion is that our blogger himself ended up feeling like the MSM, too, and preferring their version! The original source ended up shedding a profoundly bad light on x and our blogger is anti-anti-x. Was surprised as he claims to be for free speech, but now think, while blogger does have a short fuse and gets genuintely impatient at times, much of the invective towards others really is more about looking for excuses to censor while maintaining self-image.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • In Canada, the Conservative Party lost power in Ottawa and the Parti Québécois lost power in Quebec City. To be honest, I feel little regret for either loss. In their earlier incarnation, as the Reform Party, the Conservatives were committed to a sharp reduction in immigration. But that promise fell by the wayside once they took power, and they instead chose a neo-con policy of “Invade the world! Invite the world!” They followed that recipe to the letter and—Surprise! Surprise!—it wasn’t what their own voters wanted, let alone the rest of the electorate. Well, good riddance.

    An accurate nutshell rendering of the situation. I voted for the Reform Party in 1993 and 1997 and the Alliance in 2000. The local candidate was elected all three times, once by less than 70 votes. Those have been the only occasions in my life that I ever had the chance to vote for a political party that approximated my own views.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • “In the United States, Donald Trump has shattered the phoney consensus on massive demographic change…”

    A thought to ponder is what Trump will do if he fails to win the party nomination or isn’t elected president. With his considerable personal assets and media profile he could play a crucial role in undermining the MSM’s stranglehold on political discourse in the US and other English-speaking countries. The MSM is even talking about big businesses being scared to come out anti-Trump for fear of a blacklash from his numerous supporters. However, there’s also a danger that he could get bored of politics if he fails to win the big prize.

    The next couple of years are certainly going to be interesting.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Björn Höcke (leader of the AfD in Thuringia), is now under fire for a lecture at a right-wing think tank in which he (for about two minutes out of fifty) spoke about Africa’s demographic expansion and the threat it presented to Europe.

    I agree. Throughout most of the world, fertility rates have declined or are declining to replacement level and even lower. There are two big exceptions: sub-Saharan Africa and the Islamist core region of Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Even more worrisome, fertility rates are actually rising in some African countries, like Somalia.

    Even if fertility rates end up falling in those two regions, a lot of momentum is built into their population growth. What we are seeing now is only the beginning. In twenty years time, people will look back at us and wonder how we could have been so blind.

    More the opposite imo – they display extremely strong will towards eradicating their native populations by any means necessary.

    People can be malicious while thinking they are “good.” How was it possible that so many good people condoned the burning of witches? Well, witch burning used to be the right thing to do. We see the same perversion of morality today. Once a person or policy is labeled as “racist,” the proper moral response is to distance yourself from that person or policy.

    There is no painless way of dismantling that sort of moral consensus. People have to defy it openly, calmly, and in large numbers. Only then will the consensus be shattered.

    In some cases, that was apparently because they had digressed into especially “touchy” subjects, but in other cases it was because they had attempted to factually dispute some of Frost’s claims. I wasn’t happy about this, but declined to intervene.

    Ron,

    Given that you publicly stated your unhappiness, I began deleting fewer comments. Whenever I found a comment offensive , I would go through it to remove offensive content (“niggers,” “homos,” “Zionist cabal,” etc.).

    I don’t remember deleting any comments that challenged anything I wrote. I remember deleting MANY off-topic comments about Jews, Jews, Jews. Regardless of the original topic, someone would start talking about Jews, and then other commenters would pile in. Before long the discussion would be only about Jews.

    I remember deleting a sensible comment about Jewish ownership of Sweden’s media (via the Bonnier family), and I remember you telling me how unfair that was of me. I suppose I could have pointed out that the Bonniers are no more Jewish than I am a Freemason. I could have also pointed out that the State-owned media in Sweden is even more pro-immigration than the Bonnier-owned media.

    But Jews weren’t the topic of discussion, and I didn’t want to have yet another column become a discussion about Jews.

    I very politely raised some technical objections to his analysis in the comments, and his responses became increasingly angry and insulting. I remained very polite, and merely pointed out why I felt my quantitative arguments were probably correct.

    We all feel we are polite, sensible, and correct. Above all, correct. The other person is always wrong. Always. That mindset is a common human failing, and I’m not saying you’re any worse than me.

    The heat of debate began to rise when you described my position as “extreme” in relation to yours. If I am extreme in relation to The Unz Review, I must be in Stormfront territory. That is how most people would process your remark.

    The debate went off the rails when you argued that the U.S. homicide rate underwent the same rate of decline between 1850 and 1950 that Western Europe had undergone between 1500 and 1750. I replied that the U.S. homicide decline is explained by the aging of the American population. There were proportionately fewer young men in 1950 than there were in 1850. I also pointed out that the U.S. homicide rate rose after 1950, partly because there were far more young men, especially in the African American community.

    Instead of challenging my reply, you simply repeated the same argument over and over, as if I had not replied to it. That’s what made me angry. Unlike some people, I’m willing to admit that I can get angry.

    Finally, he summarily deleted one of my long, detailed, and very polite comments

    I closed the comments section to everyone. I felt that the anger level was getting out of hand, and that it was best to let everyone cool off, including myself and yourself.

    He said he couldn’t make such promises, since (as I recall) he claimed he might need to consult an attorney about approving many of the individual comments.

    I wanted to get a legal opinion on Bill 59. The information I have is as follows:

    - the Quebec government is waiting to see whether the new federal government will introduce similar legislation. It wants to avoid a situation where a prosecution under a provincial law could be challenged under a federal law, particularly the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

    - the Quebec government, specifically the Quebec Human Rights Commission, wants to make the fight against “Islamophobia” a priority. I don’t know where that puts me.

    - As a rule, human rights commissions go after soft targets, i.e., lone bloggers with no one to defend them. I don’t know where that puts me. If I am prosecuted for what I write, will you come and testify on my behalf? Will you help pay for my legal defense?

    This is the sort of problem that doesn’t matter … until it does. The time for making plans is now, not later.

    I can understand why writers complain about “censorship” and I can also understand why those same individuals nonetheless feel compelled to censor comments that might get them into legal trouble.

    In Canada, as in many other countries, the comment section of a column is considered to be an extension of the column. Even if I have no comment control, I can be still held liable for the comments, since I freely and willingly agreed to a situation where I have no control over the comments.

    It’s like a man who transfers ownership of his assets to his wife, so that the government can’t seize them for unpaid taxes. In that situation, the government will argue that the transfer of ownership was a subterfuge.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CK
    Given the initial response by the current Attorney General to the Massacre in California, the imposition of an American equivalent to bill 59 is not unthinkable. As you say the time to prepare is before the event rather than after.
    Ezra Levant and Kathy Shaidle come to mind. It is also good to remember that stupidities Canada makes into laws travel south because the border is so intellectually porous and become laws in the USA.
    , @Jim
    Having a calm objective discussion of the role of Jews in the contemporary world seems almost impossible. Probably only historians of our times many centuries in the future will be able to do so.
    , @Wizard of Oz
    Peter

    I can easily share your disappointment with European politicians who are failing to preserve Europe in any form early 20th century Europeans could love. But tell us about Canada.

    I say that as one who would like to be able to make useful comparisons with Australia where I think we are very lucky, comparatively, in our ethnic composition and its direction. A few per cent of mostly Lebanese Muslims from misguided 1970s policy aside we have done well since serious immigration, after a long period of relatively small numbers of (especially non- British) immigrants resumed after WW2. First WW2 displaced persons and earlier Jewish refugees then Italians and Greeks with potential never exploited at home. Then Vietnam War refugees and now many bright Chinese (including diaspora) and Indians, often starting as students, are doing a good job of making up for modern dysgenic breeding and improving the age structure of the population. There was a time some 25 years ago when the Transport Accident Scheme in my state was derisively termed "TurkCare" (rhyming with WorkCare which was the workplace injuries compensation scheme) when a number of the small Turkish community's drivers had managed to enhance the productivity of their motor vehicles as harvesters of compensation for soft tissue injuries. But our problems are small which helps explain how left Greens who can't ring enough religion out of global warming fasten upon the woes of our tiny number of Aborigines.

    What makes Canada different? I don't think the absence of a few convicts before the 1850s gold rushes and establishment of colonial self-government could explain much. But it is an impression strongly felt by a lot of Australians that there is a strong line in secular piety preached by Canadians. Typical of my memories is a gathering of (mostly) fairly senior judges to hear a distinguished Canadian female judge lecture us all on the reasons why diversity was important on the bench - with little logic that I remember because it really focused on women and depended on women judges thinking differently from male judges. (It would be interesting to know how much of the broadening of the imagination and preconceptions of today's judges has come from absorbing the Zeitgeist and how much from having women - and gays and immigrants - as fellow judges).

    Has the existence of French Canada and its demands altered Canadian sensibilities generally and in a major way? Have the worst examples south of the border sensitised Canadians to evidences of their own perceived imperfections?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Ron Unz

    Once again I can only say Ron Unz should give you the power to moderate and delete comments so you won’t run the risk of incuring any legal trouble.
     
    Well, since Peter Frost has periodically been complaining about being unable to moderate his own comments and several commenters here have now raised the same issue, I might as well explain the situation...

    When Frost began publishing his columns here, I gave him moderation privileges over his comments. I soon began receiving numerous complaints from commenters who claimed they had been censored and their comments unfairly deleted. In some cases, that was apparently because they had digressed into especially "touchy" subjects, but in other cases it was because they had attempted to factually dispute some of Frost's claims. I wasn't happy about this, but declined to intervene.

    Then he published a long article that I happened to read and disagree with. I very politely raised some technical objections to his analysis in the comments, and his responses became increasingly angry and insulting. I remained very polite, and merely pointed out why I felt my quantitative arguments were probably correct. Finally, he summarily deleted one of my long, detailed, and very polite comments:

    http://www.unz.com/pfrost/western-europe-state-formation-and-genetic-pacification-3/#comment-thread-896994

    I'm a remarkably easy-going fellow about such things, but I'll be damned if I'm going to allow my own (very polite) comments on technical issues to be censored on my own website.

    I daresay virtually any other website proprietor on the Internet would have summarily terminated a columnist who behaved in such an unreasonable manner. I merely revoked his moderation privileges.

    More recently, I've offered to restore his comment moderation privileges so long as (1) he agrees to avoid deleting my own polite and respectful comments in the future and (2) he agrees to moderate his comments in timely fashion, rather than having a huge number of them accumulate in the "pending" queue, thereby cluttering up the comment system and greatly inconveniencing the moderation of the comments for other columnists.

    He said he couldn't make such promises, since (as I recall) he claimed he might need to consult an attorney about approving many of the individual comments. Under such circumstances, it seemed that the least-bad legal option was for our website to continue moderating his comments, thereby providing him some "deniability" from whatever controversial sentiments they might express.

    I can understand why writers complain about "censorship" and I can also understand why those same individuals nonetheless feel compelled to censor comments that might get them into legal trouble. However, I find it less understandable why they would also censor comments that (very politely) point out their possible factual or quantitative errors.

    The intelligence displayed in Frost’s COLUMNS is on the level of Sailer, and (no offense to the other great writers on this site) far above any of the other columnists but his super defensive responses to the COMMENTS has always kind of surprised me.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Erik Sieven
    "Anyway, I would be sad if you stopped writing your column here. Once again I can only say Ron Unz should give you the power to moderate and delete comments so you won’t run the risk of incuring any legal trouble."
    that sounds like a good idea. This column is essential.
    regarding Höcke: he is the first politicias who has talked this extremely important subject, as far as I know. Thus I was positively surprised by it. The mainstream media of course talked about it as some "ridiculous" idea...interesting that E.O. Wilson apparently not thought of it as ridiculous. Though I think Höcke´s comments about Christianity and Judaism were very unnecessary.

    Once again I can only say Ron Unz should give you the power to moderate and delete comments so you won’t run the risk of incuring any legal trouble.

    Well, since Peter Frost has periodically been complaining about being unable to moderate his own comments and several commenters here have now raised the same issue, I might as well explain the situation…

    When Frost began publishing his columns here, I gave him moderation privileges over his comments. I soon began receiving numerous complaints from commenters who claimed they had been censored and their comments unfairly deleted. In some cases, that was apparently because they had digressed into especially “touchy” subjects, but in other cases it was because they had attempted to factually dispute some of Frost’s claims. I wasn’t happy about this, but declined to intervene.

    Then he published a long article that I happened to read and disagree with. I very politely raised some technical objections to his analysis in the comments, and his responses became increasingly angry and insulting. I remained very polite, and merely pointed out why I felt my quantitative arguments were probably correct. Finally, he summarily deleted one of my long, detailed, and very polite comments:

    http://www.unz.com/pfrost/western-europe-state-formation-and-genetic-pacification-3/#comment-thread-896994

    I’m a remarkably easy-going fellow about such things, but I’ll be damned if I’m going to allow my own (very polite) comments on technical issues to be censored on my own website.

    I daresay virtually any other website proprietor on the Internet would have summarily terminated a columnist who behaved in such an unreasonable manner. I merely revoked his moderation privileges.

    More recently, I’ve offered to restore his comment moderation privileges so long as (1) he agrees to avoid deleting my own polite and respectful comments in the future and (2) he agrees to moderate his comments in timely fashion, rather than having a huge number of them accumulate in the “pending” queue, thereby cluttering up the comment system and greatly inconveniencing the moderation of the comments for other columnists.

    He said he couldn’t make such promises, since (as I recall) he claimed he might need to consult an attorney about approving many of the individual comments. Under such circumstances, it seemed that the least-bad legal option was for our website to continue moderating his comments, thereby providing him some “deniability” from whatever controversial sentiments they might express.

    I can understand why writers complain about “censorship” and I can also understand why those same individuals nonetheless feel compelled to censor comments that might get them into legal trouble. However, I find it less understandable why they would also censor comments that (very politely) point out their possible factual or quantitative errors.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Honorary Thief
    The intelligence displayed in Frost's COLUMNS is on the level of Sailer, and (no offense to the other great writers on this site) far above any of the other columnists but his super defensive responses to the COMMENTS has always kind of surprised me.
    , @Dahlia

    When Frost began publishing his columns here, I gave him moderation privileges over his comments. I soon began receiving numerous complaints from commenters who claimed they had been censored and their comments unfairly deleted. In some cases, that was apparently because they had digressed into especially “touchy” subjects, but in other cases it was because they had attempted to factually dispute some of Frost’s claims. I wasn’t happy about this, but declined to intervene.

     

    There is another who is worse. He heaps abuse on many people and I thought perhaps they were making stupid, inane comments like he claimed they were (because he *is* almost always smarter) until it happened to me.
    My comment didn't get called, "stupid", but was deleted because he "couldn't understand my point". BS. Long story short, I had only sought to bring to light the original source and all her statements concerning a rather unimportant news item our blogger had written about (but one that was still interesting and fun to talk about). I had discovered that the MSM had very selectively edited the original source's statements and people, including our blogger, were trying to draw lessons from something that wasn't real anymore, but a media product.
    My very strong suspicion is that our blogger himself ended up feeling like the MSM, too, and preferring their version! The original source ended up shedding a profoundly bad light on x and our blogger is anti-anti-x. Was surprised as he claims to be for free speech, but now think, while blogger does have a short fuse and gets genuintely impatient at times, much of the invective towards others really is more about looking for excuses to censor while maintaining self-image.
    , @Sean
    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/race-iq-and-wealth/
    Peter has enduring genetic difference explanations for most human attainment and behavioural group differences and has never pretended to be proposing " cultural or economic influence" to explain differential ethnic group achievement, although he did use a variant of youth bulge theory to explain the recent rise and falls in crime (competition / scarcity among young men). Anyway at Peter's own blog there were none of these problems when you went there in 2012 to argue for your IQ hypothesis. I don't think blog debate works well without the author having ultimate authority over commenters.

    The explicit mainstream view among development economists is entirely similar to what you were arguing for (ie non -immutable differences). In comments against the Frost/ Harpending crime paper you were again arguing a non controversial environmental-causation position . Harpending is the only full professor in the US who openly argues a strong HBD position. I suppose Peter may have felt responsible for defending their thesis, being a little embattled up against mainstream received wisdom plus your formidable debating skills, especially as you made some excellent points against the paper that he doubtless had high hopes for.

    He could have been far more sensitive to his being a guest at your table, and it might have been more obvious to you that when a commenter/proprietor/thinker-in-his-own-right sharply disagrees with one of his columnists over the basics on interpretation of evidence in their recently published work, any debate would reach an impasse rather quickly.
    , @Sean the Neon Caucasian
    Consult an attorney...? Christ, just cut the goose loose.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Erik Sieven
    "Anyway, I would be sad if you stopped writing your column here. Once again I can only say Ron Unz should give you the power to moderate and delete comments so you won’t run the risk of incuring any legal trouble."
    that sounds like a good idea. This column is essential.
    regarding Höcke: he is the first politicias who has talked this extremely important subject, as far as I know. Thus I was positively surprised by it. The mainstream media of course talked about it as some "ridiculous" idea...interesting that E.O. Wilson apparently not thought of it as ridiculous. Though I think Höcke´s comments about Christianity and Judaism were very unnecessary.

    “Thus I was positively surprised by it.”

    I wasn’t, Höcke isn’t mainstream anyway and more or less regarded as a Nazi even by supposed “conservatives” like Nicolaus Fest…in fact I was rather dismayed at how mainstream reactions played out. No awareness about what Africa’s insane demographic growth might mean for Europe. The rot is apparently much deeper than I had thought.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Erik Sieven
    "Anyway, I would be sad if you stopped writing your column here. Once again I can only say Ron Unz should give you the power to moderate and delete comments so you won’t run the risk of incuring any legal trouble."
    that sounds like a good idea. This column is essential.
    regarding Höcke: he is the first politicias who has talked this extremely important subject, as far as I know. Thus I was positively surprised by it. The mainstream media of course talked about it as some "ridiculous" idea...interesting that E.O. Wilson apparently not thought of it as ridiculous. Though I think Höcke´s comments about Christianity and Judaism were very unnecessary.

    “Though I think Höcke´s comments about Christianity and Judaism were very unnecessary.”

    Maybe unneccessary, but they were essentially correct. “Judeo-Christian” is an idiotic term that tries to obfuscate the long history of enmity between the two religions. For most of the last two millenia relations between Jews and Christians weren’t exactly friendly, and in some ways Judaism has more in common with Islam than with Christianity (there are some good blog posts by Razib Khan about this subject from a few years ago).
    But you’re right that it was an unwise move by Höcke to make such a statement about an issue which is pretty irrelevant anyway nowadays. I sometimes get the impression Höcke is a political autist and doesn’t get or care how his statements will be interpreted in Germany’s hyper-conformist political climate.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jim
    It's perfectly correct that the term Judeo-Christian is a very recent ideological term that has nothing to do with the actual history of the West. Throughout most of the history of the West Jews were a marginalized group frequently the target of intense violence. The description of the West as Judeo-Christian would have astonished Westerners until very recently. The term is purely propagandistic.
    , @Erik Sieven
    For me speaking about differences between Judaism and Christianity as a (right-wing) German politician is a bit like talking about differences between men and women as a convicted murderer of three ex-wifes. Of course those differences exist, and one can talk about them, for example in a theology course at the Uni, or in the case of the gender differences in a Loriot-like funny way. But in this context it is inappropriate I think.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @German_reader
    I have to say I'm feeling rather depressed right now about the way things are going. Here in Germany the AfD seems to be riven by infighting. One of their more outspokenly nationalist politicians, Björn Höcke (leader of the AfD in Thuringia), is now under fire for a lecture at a right-wing think tank in which he (for about two minutes out of fifty) spoke about Africa's demographic expansion and the threat it presented to Europe. Maybe somewhat foolishly he claimed this was a consequence of evolution, of r- and k-strategies for reproduction (I suppose he got that from Philipp Rushton). Of course he was charged immediately with "racism", and unfortunately the rest of the AfD seems to be willing to consider him persona non grata for that (though that may only be a pretext, there's been a simmering power struggle for some time between different factions, and Höcke himself isn't blameless). But of course he's absolutely right about the main point: If things continue as they are now, Europe will be overwhelmed by masses of "refugees" from parts of the Islamic world and from sub-Saharan Africa.
    The last few months have been a revelation for me, in a bad way. It's disheartening how most people, even and especially "conservatives", seem to have thoroughly internalized the "anti-racist" narrative. Criticism of Islam is just barely possible, anything even vaguely nationalistic doesn't get a mention at all in official discourse. I don't understand how people can be that idiotic not to understand how current trends will end.
    Anyway, I would be sad if you stopped writing your column here. Once again I can only say Ron Unz should give you the power to moderate and delete comments so you won't run the risk of incuring any legal trouble.

    “Anyway, I would be sad if you stopped writing your column here. Once again I can only say Ron Unz should give you the power to moderate and delete comments so you won’t run the risk of incuring any legal trouble.”
    that sounds like a good idea. This column is essential.
    regarding Höcke: he is the first politicias who has talked this extremely important subject, as far as I know. Thus I was positively surprised by it. The mainstream media of course talked about it as some “ridiculous” idea…interesting that E.O. Wilson apparently not thought of it as ridiculous. Though I think Höcke´s comments about Christianity and Judaism were very unnecessary.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader
    "Though I think Höcke´s comments about Christianity and Judaism were very unnecessary."

    Maybe unneccessary, but they were essentially correct. "Judeo-Christian" is an idiotic term that tries to obfuscate the long history of enmity between the two religions. For most of the last two millenia relations between Jews and Christians weren't exactly friendly, and in some ways Judaism has more in common with Islam than with Christianity (there are some good blog posts by Razib Khan about this subject from a few years ago).
    But you're right that it was an unwise move by Höcke to make such a statement about an issue which is pretty irrelevant anyway nowadays. I sometimes get the impression Höcke is a political autist and doesn't get or care how his statements will be interpreted in Germany's hyper-conformist political climate.
    , @German_reader
    "Thus I was positively surprised by it."

    I wasn't, Höcke isn't mainstream anyway and more or less regarded as a Nazi even by supposed "conservatives" like Nicolaus Fest...in fact I was rather dismayed at how mainstream reactions played out. No awareness about what Africa's insane demographic growth might mean for Europe. The rot is apparently much deeper than I had thought.
    , @Ron Unz

    Once again I can only say Ron Unz should give you the power to moderate and delete comments so you won’t run the risk of incuring any legal trouble.
     
    Well, since Peter Frost has periodically been complaining about being unable to moderate his own comments and several commenters here have now raised the same issue, I might as well explain the situation...

    When Frost began publishing his columns here, I gave him moderation privileges over his comments. I soon began receiving numerous complaints from commenters who claimed they had been censored and their comments unfairly deleted. In some cases, that was apparently because they had digressed into especially "touchy" subjects, but in other cases it was because they had attempted to factually dispute some of Frost's claims. I wasn't happy about this, but declined to intervene.

    Then he published a long article that I happened to read and disagree with. I very politely raised some technical objections to his analysis in the comments, and his responses became increasingly angry and insulting. I remained very polite, and merely pointed out why I felt my quantitative arguments were probably correct. Finally, he summarily deleted one of my long, detailed, and very polite comments:

    http://www.unz.com/pfrost/western-europe-state-formation-and-genetic-pacification-3/#comment-thread-896994

    I'm a remarkably easy-going fellow about such things, but I'll be damned if I'm going to allow my own (very polite) comments on technical issues to be censored on my own website.

    I daresay virtually any other website proprietor on the Internet would have summarily terminated a columnist who behaved in such an unreasonable manner. I merely revoked his moderation privileges.

    More recently, I've offered to restore his comment moderation privileges so long as (1) he agrees to avoid deleting my own polite and respectful comments in the future and (2) he agrees to moderate his comments in timely fashion, rather than having a huge number of them accumulate in the "pending" queue, thereby cluttering up the comment system and greatly inconveniencing the moderation of the comments for other columnists.

    He said he couldn't make such promises, since (as I recall) he claimed he might need to consult an attorney about approving many of the individual comments. Under such circumstances, it seemed that the least-bad legal option was for our website to continue moderating his comments, thereby providing him some "deniability" from whatever controversial sentiments they might express.

    I can understand why writers complain about "censorship" and I can also understand why those same individuals nonetheless feel compelled to censor comments that might get them into legal trouble. However, I find it less understandable why they would also censor comments that (very politely) point out their possible factual or quantitative errors.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"] says: • Website

    Going with globalism is like the tale of the dog with bone in its mouth staring at its reflection in the water.

    Globalism says it’s all about more freedom, liberalism, and democracy. Globalism contrasts its wondrous fruits with nationalism and its poison weeds of repression, reaction, and fear(that must be rooted out).

    But as diversity increases in society, it leads to more tension, more fear, more distrust, more anxiety, more suspicion, more resentment, and more division. In order to contain such problems, the powers-that-be need to institute and enforce more speech controls, more surveillance, more penalty for certain expressions, more dogmatic propaganda in schools, and etc.

    So, by choosing globalism, you don’t lose identity and heritage in exchange for more liberty and freedom.
    You lost both identity/heritage AND liberty/freedom.

    Only the globalist elites reap the reward. Since they have money, privilege, and connections, they can afford residence all over the world: London, NY, Warsaw, Paris, Tokyo, Seoul, Hong Kong, Mexico City, Sao Paolo, Athens, Istanbul, etc. They can have a ball as the ‘citizens of the world’, like Bill Clinton, Soros, Hollywood celebs, the Obamas.
    Even if they reject & lose their own identity and heritage, the world is their oyster. Why not lose their little nation when they can have the entire world as their globalist imperial playground?

    But for the masses? They will not only NOT gain the world but lose their small world that is their nation of heritage, ancestry, and history.

    Read More
    • Agree: Seamus Padraig, geokat62
    • Replies: @Bill Jones
    The current globalism being practiced on the West is merely what has been perpetrated on the rest of the world since WWII.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • anon • Disclaimer says:

    Meanwhile, there has been an incredible loss of will among Europe’s leaders to do anything,

    More the opposite imo – they display extremely strong will towards eradicating their native populations by any means necessary.

    Apart from that – your columns are always food for thought but if the lights are going out in Canada then obviously you have to bear that in mind.

    Either way. Merry Christmas.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Dear Peter,

    Can we plead with you to keep your column going? You have a rare gift for communicating the facts and inevitable conclusions (no matter how unsavory) related to soci0-biological science. If not, how can we get access to your academic articles?

    But in a real sense, I share your fears. I blog and reply in cognito because, if my name was known, I could lose my job … possibly for reading the Unz Review and and absolutely for some of my responses. They might call it a “hate crime” in Canada. Here in the USA (and in spite of that weathered and worn document called the Constitution) we call it PC for transgressing left-wing government, corporate, and academic policies over which we have no input. At the end of the day, the results are the same … damaged and destroyed careers for participating is what is perhaps one of the “headiest” and “high-brow” Internet sites in the English language. (Definition of “high-brow”: “Scholarly or rarefied in taste.”)

    As a measure of the threat, the Jewish Anti-Defamation Leage (ADL), has designated the Unz Review an anti-semitic Internet site. See below:

    ANTI-SEMITISM IN THE UNITED STATES

    Ron Unz: Controversial Writer and Funder of Anti-Israel Activists
    January 20, 2014

    Conservative businessman Ron Unz has stirred controversy over the last year by publicizing ideas that appeal to anti-Semites; offering a forum for writers who demonize Israel and funding several anti-Israel activists, some of whom promote anti-Semitic canards. Though Unz does not appear to be an anti-Semite, he provides support to extreme anti-Israel ideologues and his writings resonate with and are regularly cited by anti-Semites.

    http://www.adl.org/anti-semitism/united-states/c/ron-unz-controversial-writer.html?referrer=https://www.google.com/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Romanian
    Isn't Ron Unz Jewish himself?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Rehmat
    YES Peter Frost, we need to give power to all those pro-Israel anti-Muslim White racist (Ooops! nationalist parties) so the White folks in those countries can join the coming NWO like the US, Britain and Australia.

    I note that you didn't read that French National Front last all its "popularity" in the second poll last week, even though the party received significant percentage of Jewish votes for the first time.

    But one thing has never changed in France - its hatred toward Muslims who make 16% of country's population as compared to 1/2% Jewish population controlling Sarkozy and Hollande governments.

    http://rehmat1.com/2015/04/26/france-the-republic-of-islamophobia/

    Its Islam that gives right wing the votes. Ironically Islam is just like racialism/ethnocentrism. Hitler himself liked Islam because it was a horrible nasty thing just like him.

    Thanks to your dumb, pathetic religion, the world is in flames.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rehmat
    Neyth Nethanyahu - When was the last time you opened the Holy Talmud? Israeli historian Israel Shahak called it the most hate religious literature in the world. It curses Jesus, Mary and Christians. Holy Qur'an on the other hand, raises Jesus and Mary to the level of prophet Moses and his mother.

    If Hitler loved Muslims, how come he never higher a single Muslim in his administration, which was loaded with Christians and Jews.

    Nazi army had 150,000 German Jews but not a single Muslim.

    In October 2015, Netanyahu told the 37th World Zionist Congress that Adolf Hitler only wanted to expel the German Jews, but he was advised by Palestinian Mufti al-Haj Amin al-Husseini (d. 1974 in Lebanon) to exterminate the Jews.....

    http://rehmat1.com/2015/10/22/netanyahu-absolves-hitler-of-holocaust/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • YES Peter Frost, we need to give power to all those pro-Israel anti-Muslim White racist (Ooops! nationalist parties) so the White folks in those countries can join the coming NWO like the US, Britain and Australia.

    I note that you didn’t read that French National Front last all its “popularity” in the second poll last week, even though the party received significant percentage of Jewish votes for the first time.

    But one thing has never changed in France – its hatred toward Muslims who make 16% of country’s population as compared to 1/2% Jewish population controlling Sarkozy and Hollande governments.

    http://rehmat1.com/2015/04/26/france-the-republic-of-islamophobia/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hitler
    Its Islam that gives right wing the votes. Ironically Islam is just like racialism/ethnocentrism. Hitler himself liked Islam because it was a horrible nasty thing just like him.

    Thanks to your dumb, pathetic religion, the world is in flames.
    , @This Is Our Home
    A Muslim trolling for greater Muslim immigration to the West. What next? A tobacco producer lobbying for lower cigarette taxes...boring...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • I would be extremely dissapointed were you to abandon writing for laymen. Yours is a unique gift to us. I have read Steve Sailer for years and am grateful for what I have learned. Your own columns swiftly took their place beside Sailer’s blogging as the most important, anticipated, and profitable of my readings.

    Good luck and Merry Christmas.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • I have to say I’m feeling rather depressed right now about the way things are going. Here in Germany the AfD seems to be riven by infighting. One of their more outspokenly nationalist politicians, Björn Höcke (leader of the AfD in Thuringia), is now under fire for a lecture at a right-wing think tank in which he (for about two minutes out of fifty) spoke about Africa’s demographic expansion and the threat it presented to Europe. Maybe somewhat foolishly he claimed this was a consequence of evolution, of r- and k-strategies for reproduction (I suppose he got that from Philipp Rushton). Of course he was charged immediately with “racism”, and unfortunately the rest of the AfD seems to be willing to consider him persona non grata for that (though that may only be a pretext, there’s been a simmering power struggle for some time between different factions, and Höcke himself isn’t blameless). But of course he’s absolutely right about the main point: If things continue as they are now, Europe will be overwhelmed by masses of “refugees” from parts of the Islamic world and from sub-Saharan Africa.
    The last few months have been a revelation for me, in a bad way. It’s disheartening how most people, even and especially “conservatives”, seem to have thoroughly internalized the “anti-racist” narrative. Criticism of Islam is just barely possible, anything even vaguely nationalistic doesn’t get a mention at all in official discourse. I don’t understand how people can be that idiotic not to understand how current trends will end.
    Anyway, I would be sad if you stopped writing your column here. Once again I can only say Ron Unz should give you the power to moderate and delete comments so you won’t run the risk of incuring any legal trouble.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Erik Sieven
    "Anyway, I would be sad if you stopped writing your column here. Once again I can only say Ron Unz should give you the power to moderate and delete comments so you won’t run the risk of incuring any legal trouble."
    that sounds like a good idea. This column is essential.
    regarding Höcke: he is the first politicias who has talked this extremely important subject, as far as I know. Thus I was positively surprised by it. The mainstream media of course talked about it as some "ridiculous" idea...interesting that E.O. Wilson apparently not thought of it as ridiculous. Though I think Höcke´s comments about Christianity and Judaism were very unnecessary.
    , @AndrewR
    How could he get in trouble for what non-him commenters say on a website owned by another person based in another country?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Commenter redzengenoist has brought to my attention that in his homeland of Denmark, policy seems to have accomplished two rather remarkable feats: Fertility among non-Western immigrant women (primarily Muslims) is down to 1.88 children/child-bearing woman, from a high of 3.4. And, more importantly, the fertility rate among educated Danish women has nearly caught up to...
  • @pwyll
    New evidence of Danes taking a proactive approach to fertility: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/article-2590585/Do-Denmark-Hilarious-travel-video-calls-couples-sex-boost-countrys-population.html

    Funny. I’m pretty certain low fertility isn’t because people aren’t having sex…

    Thanks for that!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan
    @pwyll:

    Funny. I'm pretty certain low fertility isn't because people aren't having sex...

    Thanks for that!

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • […] A Success Story? | JayMan’s Blog […]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Morten Østergaard, Danish Minister for Research, Innovation, and Higher Education. Morten, if you’re reading this post, please reply to my e-mail. I first learned about Danish psychologist Helmuth Nyborg while working on my doctoral thesis. In those pre-Internet days, I plodded my way through the academic literature largely by consulting the Science Citation Index and...
  • Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    I love controversial, if it's intelligent. But this is bad science, because a "Darwinian" paper should not invoke non-Darwinian standard of IQ. When using standard IQ, one should know that average IQ in a poopulation is the best Darwinian IQ to have, as the lowest and highest have the least reproductive success. In short, the IQ test should be restructured in evolutionary terms. This Dane reminds me of Geoffrey Miller (even looks like him), an evolutionary psychologist who mostly doesnt know what he's talking about.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.