The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Peter Frost ArchiveBlogview
A Look Back Over 2015
Marion-Maréchal Le Pen. This year, she received 45% of the popular vote in one of France's regions, as a Front National candidate. Credit: Wikimedia Commons/Remi JDN
Marion-Maréchal Le Pen. This year, she received 45% of the popular vote in one of France's regions, as a Front National candidate. Credit: Wikimedia Commons/Remi JDN

We must act now to bring anti-globalist parties to power: the UKIP in Britain, the Front national in France, the Partij voor de Vrijheidin the Netherlands, the Alternative für Deutschland in Germany, and the Sverigedemokraterna in Sweden. How, you may ask? It’s not too complicated. Just go into the voting booth and vote. You don’t even have to talk about your dirty deed afterwards.

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 it, you need only go out into the street or just look out the window. A people used to be there, stable, occupying the same territory for fifteen or twenty centuries. And all of a sudden, very quickly, in one or two generations, one or more other peoples have substituted themselves for it. It’s been replaced. It’s no longer itself. 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. (Camus, 2012)

Two breaches have been made in the dike that used to hold back this process of replacement: one in Libya and the other in Syria. Through them is pouring the demographic overflow that has been building up in Africa and the Middle East. 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.”

I’m not using the word “incredible” lightly. This wave of immigrants won’t be a one-time-only thing. It won’t come to an end when conditions improve in their home countries. Indeed, once it gets under way it can only increase in magnitude, and spreading it over a wider area will do nothing to stop the increase. Instead of being confined to Western and Southern Europe, the Great Replacement will be extended to Eastern Europe. Swell. You call that a solution?

Instead of replacing native Europeans, why not replace their leaders? Why not vote them out of office? That was the solution I advocated back in January and still do. Political change is more certain when done by peaceful means at the ballot box, as opposed to being imposed by coercion and illegal acts. Unfortunately, this option faces a number of obstacles.

The obstacles are threefold:

Unwillingness to play by the rules

In this, the problem lies not so much with Europe’s nationalist parties as with their opponents. It’s the latter who are not willing to play by the rules.

This was the case in Belgium, where in 2004 a court ruling shut down the Vlaams Blok, a party that had won 24% of the popular vote for the Flemish parliament the same year.

In October 2000, the Centre for Equal Opportunities and Opposition to Racism, together with the Dutch-speaking Human Rights League in Belgium registered a complaint at the Correctional Court, in which they claimed that three non-profit organisations connected to the Vlaams Blok (its education and research office and the “National Broadcasting Corporation”) had violated the 1981 anti-racism law. The publications which were referred to included its 1999 election agenda and 1997 party platform. The challenged passages included those where the party called for a separate education system for foreign children, a special tax for employers employing non-European foreigners, and a restriction of unemployment benefits and child allowances for non-European foreigners. (Wikipedia – Vlaams Blok, 2015)

Elsewhere, nationalist parties have faced a combination of judicial and extrajudicial harassment. Indeed, when antifas commit brazen acts of violence that go unpunished, one cannot help but wonder whether the correct term is “quasi-judicial.” The antifas are functioning as a kind of secret police that is allowed to do what the regular police cannot do.

Even without the antifas, the level of harassment is considerable. In 2013, for example, the European Parliament stripped Marine Le Pen of her parliamentary immunity for having denounced the illegal blocking of French streets for Muslim prayers:

For those who want to talk a lot about World War II, if it’s about occupation, then we could also talk about it (Muslim prayers in the streets), because that is occupation of territory. …It is an occupation of sections of the territory, of districts in which religious laws apply. … There are of course no tanks, there are no soldiers, but it is nevertheless an occupation and it weighs heavily on local residents(Wikipedia – Marine Le Pen, 2015)

For that comment, she was dragged before the courts, being finally acquitted this year. Compare that with the indulgence reserved for the magazine Le Nouvel Observateur when it featured a tweet on its twitter page that called for the mass rape of women who vote FN. The tweet was removed but there was no apology, and there certainly won’t be any prosecution by the Minister of Justice—as was the case with Marine’s comment.

This is the reality of political debate in Western Europe. One side can speak with impunity, whereas the other has to watch what it says.

Extremist image of nationalism

In 2015, the progress of nationalist parties was not uniform. In Greece, Chrysí Avgí (Golden Dawn) seems to have stalled at 7% of the popular vote. In Norway, Fremskrittspartiet (Progress Party) lost support in local elections, this being part of a decline that began in 2011 … with Breivik’s terrorist attacks.

In Norway, it is now difficult to be a nationalist without being associated with Anders Breivik or church burnings by black metallists. In Greece, nationalism is tarred with Nazi-like rhetoric and imagery—this, in a country that Nazi Germany had occupied during the last war. It is a sign of just how bad things are that so many Greeks are still willing to vote for a party that revels in an extremist image.

This problem is inevitable with any movement that begins on the fringes among people who feel alienated. As nonconformists they tend to be lone wolves, and as lone wolves they tend to act without restraint, sometimes mindlessly. Such people are both a help and a hindrance for any new political movement.

Assimilation into the dominant political culture

There is also the reverse problem. In the Venice state election, the Liga Veneta received 41% of the popular vote. This might seem to be good news, since the Liga Veneta is part of the Lega Nord, which in turn is allied with the Front National in France.

Unfortunately, things are not as they might seem. When a new party comes closer to power, it tends to assimilate mainstream values because its leaders now have to navigate within that culture—daily encounters with the media, meetings with campaign donors, invitations to wine and cheese parties … The result may be seen in the Liga Veneta’s political platform for 2010-2015:

The challenges that Veneto should face in the next decades, said the party, were to enhance “internationalization” in the era of globalization, to overcome the traditional Venetian policentrism and interpret Veneto as a united and cohesive region: a “European region in Italian land”. The program stressed also concepts such as “Europe of the regions”, “Europe of citizens”, “global Veneto”, “openness toward the world”, “green economy”, “urban planning” in respect of the environment, “respect for diversity” and “integration” of immigrants, along with the more traditional “think globally, act locally”. (Wikipedia – Liga Veneta)

It is not enough for nationalist parties to gain power. They must also have confidence in their ideas and change the way other people think. Otherwise, they’ll end up assimilating into the dominant political culture.

But there was progress in 2015

Despite these problems—harassment, lack of discipline, ideological assimilation—most nationalist parties are moving forward. In the first round of France’s recent regional elections, the Front Nationaltook first place in six of the thirteen regions in Europe (four others are overseas). Yes, it was shut out in the second round, when left-wing parties threw their support behind the main right-wing party, but this defeat was only a partial one. While not securing the office of president in any region, the FN is now represented on all regional councils of European France, ranging from a high of 34% of council seats in Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur to a low of 8% in Corsica. Imagine a similar situation in the United States: a nationalist party with at least 8% of the seats in every state legislature.

This year saw gains for nationalist parties elsewhere. In Poland,Prawo i Sprawiedliwosc (Law and Justice) took power with 38% of the vote, in large part because of its opposition to immigration. In Switzerland, Schweizerische Volkspartei (Swiss People’s Party) became the leading party, receiving 29% of the popular vote, up from 27%. In Denmark, Dansk Folkeparti (Danish People’s Party) earned 21% of the popular vote, up from 12%.

Outside Europe, in other European-descended societies, the picture is more mixed. In the United States, Donald Trump has shattered the phoney consensus on massive demographic change, but even if elected he will face a long uphill battle against opposition from the bureaucracy and from entrenched factions in society at large, particularly the business community—which has long been a source of funding for the Republican Party.

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.

As for the Parti Québécois, it began in the 1960s as an alliance of the traditional left and the traditional right. Over time, both factions withered away, being replaced by the new synthesis of globalism and post-nationalism. The PQ became an anti-nationalist nationalist party. They lost power largely because they could no longer energize their natural constituency while failing to make inroads into others. Well, good riddance.

*****************************************************

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.

I don’t know whether I will resume my column in the new year. The legal environment in Canada has changed over the past few months, especially with the adoption of Bill 59. If need be, I will concentrate on writing papers for academic journals.

References

Camus, R. (2012). ” Renaud Camus à L’AF : ” J’ai une conception lazaréenne de la patrie ” “, L’Action française, no 2832,
http://www.actionfrancaise.net/craf/?Entretien-Renaud-Camus-a-L-AF-J-ai

Wikipedia – Liga Veneta. (2015)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liga_Veneta

Wikipedia – Marine Le Pen (2005).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_Le_Pen

Wikipedia – Vlaams Blok. (2015).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlaams_Blok#Court_of_Cassation_ruling_.282004.29

(Reprinted from Evo and Proud by permission of author or representative)
 
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
[]
  1. 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.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are only available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also only be used once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    http://www.unz.com/pfrost/a-look-back-over-2015/#comment-1265991
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. 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
  3. 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...
  4. @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/
  5. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    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
  6. anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    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
  7. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"] says: • Website     Show CommentNext New Comment

    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.
  8. @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.
  9. @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.
  10. @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
  11. @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.
  12. @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
  13. 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?

  14. “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
  15. 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
  16. @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
  17. @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.
  18. @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
  19. 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
  20. 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.
  21. - 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.
  22. @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....
  23. 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
  24. @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
  25. @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.
  26. 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
  27. 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
  28. @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.
  29. @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.
  30. 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
  31. @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
  32. @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.
  33. “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
     
  34. @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
  35. @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.
  36. @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
  37. 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
  38. @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!
  39. 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.)
  40. 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
  41. @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
  42. @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
  43. @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
  44. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    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
  45. @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
  46. @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
  47. 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!
  48. @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
  49. @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
  50. @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.
  51. @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
  52. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @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
  53. @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
  54. 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.
  55. @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?
  56. 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
  57. @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.
     
  58. @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.
  59. @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
  60. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @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?
  61. @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.
  62. @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
  63. @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?
  64. @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.
  65. @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
  66. @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
  67. @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.
  68. @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
  69. @Romanian
    Isn't Ron Unz Jewish himself?

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

    Read More
  70. @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
  71. 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.
  72. 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
  73. 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
  74. @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
  75. @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......
  76. @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.
  77. @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
  78. @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
  79. @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
  80. @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
  81. @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
  82. @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
  83. @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.
  84. @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
  85. “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
  86. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @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
  87. 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.
  88. @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
  89. 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
  90. @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
  91. @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
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 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
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Peter Frost Comments via RSS