The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Peter Frost ArchiveBlogview
Hiatus
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
The Second Class Carriage. Honoré Daumier (1808-1879), Credit: Wikimedia Commons
The Second Class Carriage. Honoré Daumier (1808-1879), Credit: Wikimedia Commons
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

I’ll be on vacation until October and will probably have little time for my weekly column. I hope to profit from this hiatus to rethink my priorities for the next twelve months.

That rethink will include this column. Is it reaching its target audience? Are changes needed? A recurring suggestion is that I should write more simply and in a less pedantic style. Yes, plain language is best. A lot of academic writing suffers from turgid jargon, not to mention silly attempts to imitate the syntax of French deconstructionists. But it’s not as if I write my columns first and later try to impress folks by inserting “organizing principle,” “evolutionary trajectory,” and other bafflegab. That’s how I think. Jargon also allows me to squeeze complex ideas into a few words. A certain amount is unavoidable, unless you want to read columns that are twice as long.

Russia, Russia, Russia …

Another suggestion is that I should write more pieces about foreign politics, like “Impressions of Russia.” In The Unz Review that column got me 246 comments (My score was higher with only one other column “The Jews of West Africa”). Yet I wrote it off the top of my head.

So why not write about Russia? To be honest I don’t feel qualified. I remember my first impressions of that country and how so many turned out to be incomplete or dead wrong. Nonetheless, those same first impressions turn up again and again in pieces by journalists and other writers.

Like the ones who go on about “grim-faced Russians weighed down by centuries of oppression.” I’ve read that refrain so often it’s no longer funny. Russians dislike smiling at strangers because it’s considered rude—and also because a stranger with attitude might take it the wrong way. But among friends and family they laugh and smile like anyone else. This is changing, to be sure. On my last visit I noticed many store employees flashing American-style smiles at customers.

Then there’s that travel writer who said he knew he was being spied upon because the hotel maid looked like a top model. Uh, that’s just the local demographics, and the fact that many young women work in services to pay for their university education. In the West, students are supposed to work as unpaid “interns.”

Finally, many journalists have been writing that Russia is hell on earth for gays and lesbians. The real situation is like that of the West in the 1970s: homosexuality is no longer illegal but most people still consider it wrong. So gays and lesbians get disowned by their parents and beaten up by young toughs. On the other hand, they form a large and very visible community with its own bars, magazines, and festivals. I remember going to a night club where about a third of the clientele were openly gay or lesbian. It was no hole-in-the wall either.

So if some journalists think Russia today is evil, they should also think the West in the 1970s was evil. Maybe they do.

Of course, there is a big difference between us in the 1970s and Russians today. We had to wait forty years to see how things would turn out. They don’t have to wait. They can just look at us. That cuts two ways. On the one hand, Russian gays and lesbians look at the West and feel frustrated. They want change to happen faster. On the other hand, traditional Russians look at the West and feel dismayed. They want no part of this change.

Can you blame them? In the 1980s I supported gay rights on the principle of “live and let live.” Gays weren’t asking to be accepted by people who didn’t accept them, least of all religious conservatives. They just wanted to be left alone, as consenting adults, and who could be against what consenting adults do in private?

The next three decades then saw a ratcheting upward of gay rights. For example, since 2012 all Ontario schools have had to allow gay/lesbian clubs on their premises, even Catholic and elementary schools. So much for freedom of religion. So much for “consenting adults.” Gays and lesbians seem to be like any pressure group: they make whatever promises are necessary to get what they want and then forget them when they get what they want.

So Russia is a bit like our past. Only it’s a past where people have a better idea of the future.

Punditry, left vs. right, and globalism

That’s about all I have to say about Russia. If you want to know more, ask someone from that country.

What about punditry on other topics? Again, I don’t feel qualified, and there are columnists far better at that than me.

I also have mixed feelings about punditry. It aims not so much to change how people think as to confirm what they think. So the net effect is to polarize public opinion. Liberals become more self-assured about their ideology and conservatives likewise. Yet, as I see it, both groups are equally wrong, and both have betrayed their original principles.

As I see it (again), the worst threat comes from the right. It’s the right that best articulates globalism and is best able to persuade everyone that it’s for their own good. And globalism will be much more far-reaching—and devastating—than communism ever was. It is literally the abolition of all barriers to the free flow of capital, trade, and labor. In the best scenario, wages and working conditions will be levelled downward throughout the West. In the worst scenario, the whole world will be worse off because the conditions most suitable to wealth creation are in the high-trust societies of the West.

Those societies are not high-trust because of laws, constitutions, or charters of rights. They are that way because of their cultural, behavioral, and psychological characteristics—low levels of personal violence, high levels of affective empathy and guilt proneness, strong orientation toward the future rather than the present, and so on. It was that mental package that made the rise of the West possible.

That mental package is now being dissolved, not so much by “cultural Marxists” as by business interests that want to cut labor costs and increase GDP. They feel no animosity toward the West and its national identities. They just feel those identities have had their day. In their opinion, this is how we’ll all move into a better and more prosperous future.

People are entitled to their opinions, but this one—globalism—isn’t competing with the others on a level playing field. It dominates the media, the think tanks, and even the entertainment industry. And it dominates both the left and the right. It’s an opinion that has succeeded not on its own merits but because it has much more money behind it.

This has always been a problem in open, democratic societies. It has gotten worse, however. This is partly because the top 1% have proportionately more money nowadays and partly because they have less sense of national loyalty nowadays. They’ll say it out loud: “Why should I feel more loyal to someone who works here than to someone who works in another country?” This sort of view is promoted by eminently conservative groups, like the Fraser Institute here in Canada.

Punditry becomes part of the problem to the degree it shores up the false dichotomy of “left” versus “right.” Today, the real one is globalism versus the forces it opposes.

Reference

Ostroff, J. (2015). How Canada got its first Catholic elementary school gay-straight alliance, Huffington Post, May 11
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/05/11/polly-quinn-gsa-catholic-elementary-school_n_7226896.html

(Republished from Evo and Proud by permission of author or representative)
 
49 Comments to "Hiatus"
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. KEEP WRITING! Love your stuff!

    Read More
    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
    /pfrost/hiatus/#comment-1096485
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  2. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"] says:

    “The next three decades then saw a ratcheting upward of gay rights.”

    ‘Gay’ wrongs are not rights.

    Forcing people celebrate deviancy is not a right. It is about power and coercion.

    Jews came out of the closet in admitting they were the main force behind it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    Will go celebrate deviance like genius and criativity... (convenieeeens is a synonimous for conservatoids).
    , @Drapetomaniac
    "Forcing people celebrate deviancy is not a right. It is about power and coercion."

    Spot on. That is why panarchism is needed. Even libertarians and anarchists want to force their beliefs on others.

    It took thousands of years for freedom of religious beliefs to occur, it is quite apparent that there isn't a thousand years left in mankind's lifespan for freedom of political beliefs to happen.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panarchism

    Panarchism is a political philosophy emphasizing each individual's right to freely join and leave the jurisdiction of any governments they choose, without being forced to move from their current locale. The word "panarchy" was invented and the concept proposed by a Belgian political economist, Paul Émile de Puydt, in an article called "Panarchy" published in 1860.[1] The word "panarchy" has since taken on additional, separate meanings, with the word "panarchism" referring to the original definition by de Puydt.[1]

    De Puydt, a proponent of laissez-faire economics,[1] wrote that "governmental competition" would allow "as many regularly competing governments as have ever been conceived and will ever be invented" to exist simultaneously and detailed how such a system would be implemented. As David M. Hart writes: "Governments would become political churches, only having jurisdiction over their congregations who had elected to become members."[2]
  3. TWS says:

    Write what you want. You are one of my must reads. I like your HBD stuff best.

    Read More
  4. Julian says:

    Enjoy your break Peter, I hope you return refreshed. You raise an interesting point, the major threat to existing populations is probably globalisation and the dominance of neo-liberal policies on both sides of the political divide.

    Read More
  5. Julian says:

    I guess another issue is how do you convince right minded people who care about conserving panda bears and protecting the environment, that human groups also have conservation value? Armand Leroi suggested this in relation to Andaman Islanders.

    “There is a final reason race matters. It gives us reason — if there were not reason enough already — to value and protect some of the world’s most obscure and marginalized people. When the Times of India article referred to the Andaman Islanders as being of ancient Negrito racial stock, the terminology was correct. Negrito is the name given by anthropologists to a people who once lived throughout Southeast Asia. They are very small, very dark, and have peppercorn hair. They look like African pygmies who have wandered away from Congo’s jungles to take up life on a tropical isle. But they are not.

    The latest genetic data suggest that the Negritos are descended from the first modern humans to have invaded Asia, some 100,000 years ago. In time they were overrun or absorbed by waves of Neolithic agriculturalists, and later nearly wiped out by British, Spanish and Indian colonialists. Now they are confined to the Malay Peninsula, a few islands in the Philippines and the Andamans.

    Happily, most of the Andamans’ Negritos seem to have survived December’s tsunami. The fate of one tribe, the Sentinelese, remains uncertain, but an Indian coast guard helicopter sent to check up on them came under bow and arrow attack, which is heartening. Even so, Negrito populations, wherever they are, are so small, isolated and impoverished that it seems certain that they will eventually disappear.

    Yet even after they have gone, the genetic variants that defined the Negritos will remain, albeit scattered, in the people who inhabit the littoral of the Bay of Bengal and the South China Sea. They will remain visible in the unusually dark skin of some Indonesians, the unusually curly hair of some Sri Lankans, the unusually slight frames of some Filipinos. But the unique combination of genes that makes the Negritos so distinctive, and that took tens of thousands of years to evolve, will have disappeared. A human race will have gone extinct, and the human species will be the poorer for it.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/14/opinion/a-family-tree-in-every-gene.html?_r=0

    Read More
  6. Pat Casey says:

    I’ve learned a lot from this corner over the past several months, and the writing style is fine and dandy to this slacker with no science background. Keep it up. Back ago over at Steve’s blog, I asked about any studies looking at the range of plasticity of IQ. Surely everyone is not the same, surely nurture effects some more than others. And what does greater plasticity correlate with? That would be interesting to know. This one is a bit out of left field, but I’ve come across some very disturbing stuff about MK-Ultra and its supposed successors lately, and a sober and learned round up of the professional literature on mind-control/hypnosis would fill a very wanting lacuna on the internet. In that vein, I encourage you to dive into para-pshychology. I got into it byway of the late Colin Wilson, and I do believe there’s a breakthrough around the bend, would more good minds were thinking about it.

    Read More
  7. The number of comments should not be a criteria for your writing decisions. I, and most other people, have nothing to add on a scientific article, no matter how interesting it is, while everybody has an opinion about Russia or current events, but in the end is the solid articles that make the difference. Fluffier stuff can be fun once in a while, but it shouldn’t be the only course.

    Read More
  8. Numinous says:

    People are entitled to their opinions, but this one—globalism—isn’t competing with the others on a level playing field. It dominates the media, the think tanks, and even the entertainment industry. And it dominates both the left and the right. It’s an opinion that has succeeded not on its own merits but because it has much more money behind it.

    That’s a very jaundiced view of globalization. One of the main promises of globalization is that it can reduce strife and armed conflict, possibly eliminating them altogether if uniformity of economic conditions and cultural values can be achieved. Nation states were formed through a very similar process, by elites of various constituent parts making common cause, and deciding to collaborate rather than fight each other. Egalitarian and redistributive movements inevitably start after a prolonged period of peace. There is no reason to assume that similar dynamics won’t occur in a globalized world with dissolving national borders. As long as these changes occur very gradually. I understand peoples’ emotional attachments to the idea of their respective nations, but those nations are no more sacrosant than the (smaller) local entities they replaced and obliterated.

    Read More
    • Replies: @TWS
    Yes this experiment is working so well. Those smaller groups were mostly the same ethnicity. Put different ethnicities together and you'll get strife, warfare, and conflict at every level. Sure the elites like big bunches of people like a fungible asset for their use and amusement.

    The larger the groups the more the rent-taker classes can skim and the useless parasites can feed off the host. Larger groups means less accountability, transparency, and response to local wants and needs.

    The same oligarchs can run Brussels forever and never even need worry about the actual people in fact when the people decide they've had enough the ruling class in a society like that can always import a new 'people'. Rotherham isn't England anymore. It's a transplanted Pakistani community.

    Parts of Sweden and Norway are rape central due to Africans and middle easterners. Parts of the Netherlands, France, and England are 'no go' zones for non Muslims.

    WWI and WWII were started over similar issues. Only an iron hand can hold together two groups that do not want to be together. Personally, I'd rather live in separate ethnic enclaves than Tito's Yugoslavia or Stalin's Soviet Empire.
    , @Drapetomaniac
    "I understand peoples’ emotional attachments to the idea of their respective nations, but those nations are no more sacrosant than the (smaller) local entities they replaced and obliterated."

    And I have absolutely no understanding of your emotional attachment to the idea of government. You support a worldwide system with a monopoly on the use of force to fix a world besot with many smaller systems all with a monopoly on the use of force in a given area. Like that's going to turn out well - better start looking for angels to run it.

    It is just a belief system, like religion, only far more deadly and destructive. So keep it to yourself, please.
  9. @Priss Factor
    "The next three decades then saw a ratcheting upward of gay rights."

    'Gay' wrongs are not rights.

    Forcing people celebrate deviancy is not a right. It is about power and coercion.

    Jews came out of the closet in admitting they were the main force behind it.

    Will go celebrate deviance like genius and criativity… (convenieeeens is a synonimous for conservatoids).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Priss Factor
    Difference between rare gift and gross deviance.

    If Einstein could figure out the universe, a rare gift. If he bent over to be boofed by George Takei and Perez Hilton, just an ewwwww deviance.
  10. I agree with those who say that you should keep on keeping on. Don’t change your style of writing and of course, as Socrates said, have the philosophical spirit of a dog, which means on the one hand barking at strangers while on the other greeting friends with a tail wag i.e. only speak about that with which you are familiar.

    Read More
  11. My tastes are probably atypical, but I enjoy your writing style. One can’t please everyone, after all, but my vote would be to keep doing what you already do well and let others write in a more casual style.

    Read More
  12. Jim says:

    I have no problems with your writing style and I find your articles very interesting. I hope you will continue with your contributions.

    There can be a kind of “gotcha” in some of the comments made here that can be annoying plus some responses tend to be obsessive. But human communication is never perfect and I believe many of your readers benefit from your insights. I will be sorry if you do not return to the blog from your hiatus.

    Read More
  13. Just be yourself, that is good enough.

    And screw target audiences, that is for the mainstream media whores, God knows we have enough of them. Write for yourself, write for the truth, write to help clarify your own thoughts. You are after all just another under paid blogger, so dumbing down your message to reach a wider audience has no payback except to bring in more babbling ideologues into your comment section.

    Oh, and keep up the good work.

    Read More
  14. anon says: • Disclaimer

    please don’t be swayed by comments – it reflects where the raw nerves currently are but not necessarily where they will be. thinking outside the box is valuable and there’s not enough of it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Don't Drone Me, Bro!
    I completely agree. A writer shouldn't give the readers what they (appear to) want - at the end of this primrose path lies an oeuvre of articles ending with "- and what happened next made me stand up and cheer!" liberally illustrated with lolcats. Give the readers what you have.

    (Admittedly, now that the commentariat has expressed their desire for you to give them what they *don't* want, you are placed in a rather tricky position. Start stocking up on amusing reaction gifs.)

    Writing is a lonely enterprise by nature. I understand the desire for feedback and community, but I think the urge to please - particularly the urge to please the loudest elements of a shadowed crowd - works against the work, and against finding meaning and fulfillment in the work. If you find yourself craving popular approval, I'd suggest finding another outlet for this need. I understand sex changes are quite the thing.

  15. Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] says: • Website

    The real situation is like that of the West in the 1970s: homosexuality is no longer illegal but most people still consider it wrong. So gays and lesbians get disowned by their parents and beaten up by young toughs.

    This is a profoundly misleading analogy. It is not warranted in the least, since totally different set of factors forming attitudes in Russia is in play. It is also this set which is being consistently ignored by the Western Russia “observers”, “scholars”, “analysts”, what have you–hence a present state of “Russian Studies” in the West, which can only be described as a militant ignorance. Even when Russia is “bad”, most of Western “academe” can not even give a competent explanation of why Russia is bad. So, the real situation, bar some ultra-liberal enclaves in Russian urban centers, is nothing like the “West in the 1970s” and it will NOT evolve like the West’s situation.

    Read More
  16. Interesting that PF uses the word “score” when referring to the number of comments. I can see how that dynamic would emerge at this site. Some columns, Steve Sailor’s, seem to get consistently high numbers of comments.

    Other writers often get very few. I catch myself almost feeling sorry for some of them.

    Does Unz ever remove columns for “lack of interest” based on a consistent lack of comments? Hopefully not, and I doubt it, as that does not seem to be his style with this invaluable website.

    PF’s columns seem, on the whole, to be quite “competitive” with regard to comment totals. But in the end, I side with those commenters who have said, “Don’t worry about the number of comments or the criticisms of a few.” This publication is about covering a range of topics and perspectives that are often not appealing to the masses. But a mini-sabbatical is never a bad thing to recalibrate what one thinks is important enough to write about.

    Read More
  17. Punditry becomes part of the problem to the degree it shores up the false dichotomy of “left” versus “right.” Today, the real one is globalism versus the forces it opposes.

    I strongly agree.

    Read More
  18. You can’t fool me! You’ve no intention of stopping. I realised how much you crave acceptance when you implored a commenter who called you Frost, to call you Peter! What’s that all about!?

    Read More
  19. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"] says:
    @Santoculto
    Will go celebrate deviance like genius and criativity... (convenieeeens is a synonimous for conservatoids).

    Difference between rare gift and gross deviance.

    If Einstein could figure out the universe, a rare gift. If he bent over to be boofed by George Takei and Perez Hilton, just an ewwwww deviance.

    Read More
  20. Peter, I hope you won’t be surprised to know that I look forward to reading whatever you choose to write about.

    Read More
  21. rod1963 says:

    Peter Frost wrote:

    As I see it (again), the worst threat comes from the right. It’s the right that best articulates globalism and is best able to persuade everyone that it’s for their own good. And globalism will be much more far-reaching—and devastating—than communism ever was.

    Yes globalism is far more dangerous to humanity than communism. Globalism was always a piratical approach to business that only benefits a few in the end at the cost of eradicating cultures and communities along with the environment. It is though quite adept at hiding itself under various guises including Republicanism, Cultural Marxism. They have no problem playing the antifa against the nationalists trying to preserve the country. While the antifa think they are helping people. Or convincing whites that following Ayn Rand’s hyper individualistic sociopathic anything goes form of capitalism is a good thing while ignoring all the destructive side-effects that go along with it.

    People are entitled to their opinions, but this one—globalism—isn’t competing with the others on a level playing field. It dominates the media, the think tanks, and even the entertainment industry. And it dominates both the left and the right. It’s an opinion that has succeeded not on its own merits but because it has much more money behind it.

    Spot on. Big business has been able to silence the opposition and enforce conformity on the topic of globalism. Yes on it’s own it cannot compete. At it’s core it’s a toxic and exploitative system that is a insult to humanity. Not just Westerners but all people, every where, except to those at the very top.

    There is no bigger threat to the people of the West than globalism.The globalists(Davos crowd) concocted the scheme to import millions of 3rd worlders to drive down wages and benefits in the 1st world to 3rd world levels and to break the back of the middle-class and make them pliant.

    And worse, they own the political class. All now operate from the same page. Cameron, Obama, Merkel, the Clintons, the Bushes, etc. All interchangeable.

    Read More
  22. “As I see it (again), the worst threat comes from the right. It’s the right that best articulates globalism and is best able to persuade everyone that it’s for their own good.”

    Certainly. The leaders on the right emphasize all the moral foundations and use them to manipulate the masses. In the end, the only morality that they adhere to is that which benefits themselves directly and benefits most of their gullible followers vicariously.

    The liberals emphasize three of the foundations and the much maligned, but correct, libertarians, emphasize only one.

    Read More
  23. @Priss Factor
    "The next three decades then saw a ratcheting upward of gay rights."

    'Gay' wrongs are not rights.

    Forcing people celebrate deviancy is not a right. It is about power and coercion.

    Jews came out of the closet in admitting they were the main force behind it.

    “Forcing people celebrate deviancy is not a right. It is about power and coercion.”

    Spot on. That is why panarchism is needed. Even libertarians and anarchists want to force their beliefs on others.

    It took thousands of years for freedom of religious beliefs to occur, it is quite apparent that there isn’t a thousand years left in mankind’s lifespan for freedom of political beliefs to happen.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panarchism

    Panarchism is a political philosophy emphasizing each individual’s right to freely join and leave the jurisdiction of any governments they choose, without being forced to move from their current locale. The word “panarchy” was invented and the concept proposed by a Belgian political economist, Paul Émile de Puydt, in an article called “Panarchy” published in 1860.[1] The word “panarchy” has since taken on additional, separate meanings, with the word “panarchism” referring to the original definition by de Puydt.[1]

    De Puydt, a proponent of laissez-faire economics,[1] wrote that “governmental competition” would allow “as many regularly competing governments as have ever been conceived and will ever be invented” to exist simultaneously and detailed how such a system would be implemented. As David M. Hart writes: “Governments would become political churches, only having jurisdiction over their congregations who had elected to become members.”[2]

    Read More
  24. “Today, the real one is globalism versus the forces it opposes.”

    Or dysphemistically: those who desire to manipulate, control, and use almost everyone else as objects versus those not so disposed.

    Read More
  25. Dr. Frost,

    For what it’s worth, I am not a native English speaker but I have no problem reading your essays or following the line of reasoning in your arguments. As a comparison, I have been reading Steve Sailer for a lot longer than I have been reading you and I very much appreciate the topics he brings up and how he analyzes them, but I occasionally have to read his sentences more than once to get the meaning. An example of a writer whose prose is brilliantly crisp is Pat Buchanan, but the topics he brings up aren’t as wide-ranging as Sailer’s (or yours), and the analysis isn’t as incisive either.

    Read More
  26. Sean says:

    People are entitled to their opinions, but this one—globalism—isn’t competing with the others on a level playing field. It dominates the media, the think tanks, and even the entertainment industry. And it dominates both the left and the right. It’s an opinion that has succeeded not on its own merits but because it has much more money behind it.

    This has always been a problem in open, democratic societies. It has gotten worse, however. This is partly because the top 1% have proportionately more money nowadays and partly because they have less sense of national loyalty nowadays.

    http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/social-mobility-memos/posts/2014/02/10-opposites-dont-attract-assortative-mating-reeves

    http://ideas.time.com/2012/02/07/the-new-upper-class-and-the-real-reason-we-dislike-them/

    Charles Murray: Fifty years ago, the people who rose to the most influential positions overwhelmingly had Hank’s kind of background, thoroughly grounded in the American mainstream. Today, people of influence are characterized by college education, often from elite colleges. The men are married not to the girl next door but to highly educated women socialized at the same elite schools who are often as professionally successful as their husbands. They were admitted to this path by a combination of high IQ and personality strengths. They are often the children — and, increasingly, grandchildren — of the upper-middle class and have never known any other kind of life. [...]

    https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-imprinted-brain/201004/why-genes-matter-more-ever

    In 1930, Ivy League graduates had IQs just over 1 standard deviation (SD) above the population mean. By 1990 it was almost 2.7 SDs above, and as Herrnstein and Murray(link is external) pointed out, “when a society makes good on the ideal of letting every youngster have equal access to the things that allow cognitive ability to develop, it is in effect driving the environmental component of IQ variation closer and closer to nil.”

    Could associative mating mean the top 1% have proportionately more IQ nowadays?

    Read More
  27. TWS says:
    @Numinous

    People are entitled to their opinions, but this one—globalism—isn’t competing with the others on a level playing field. It dominates the media, the think tanks, and even the entertainment industry. And it dominates both the left and the right. It’s an opinion that has succeeded not on its own merits but because it has much more money behind it.
     
    That's a very jaundiced view of globalization. One of the main promises of globalization is that it can reduce strife and armed conflict, possibly eliminating them altogether if uniformity of economic conditions and cultural values can be achieved. Nation states were formed through a very similar process, by elites of various constituent parts making common cause, and deciding to collaborate rather than fight each other. Egalitarian and redistributive movements inevitably start after a prolonged period of peace. There is no reason to assume that similar dynamics won't occur in a globalized world with dissolving national borders. As long as these changes occur very gradually. I understand peoples' emotional attachments to the idea of their respective nations, but those nations are no more sacrosant than the (smaller) local entities they replaced and obliterated.

    Yes this experiment is working so well. Those smaller groups were mostly the same ethnicity. Put different ethnicities together and you’ll get strife, warfare, and conflict at every level. Sure the elites like big bunches of people like a fungible asset for their use and amusement.

    The larger the groups the more the rent-taker classes can skim and the useless parasites can feed off the host. Larger groups means less accountability, transparency, and response to local wants and needs.

    The same oligarchs can run Brussels forever and never even need worry about the actual people in fact when the people decide they’ve had enough the ruling class in a society like that can always import a new ‘people’. Rotherham isn’t England anymore. It’s a transplanted Pakistani community.

    Parts of Sweden and Norway are rape central due to Africans and middle easterners. Parts of the Netherlands, France, and England are ‘no go’ zones for non Muslims.

    WWI and WWII were started over similar issues. Only an iron hand can hold together two groups that do not want to be together. Personally, I’d rather live in separate ethnic enclaves than Tito’s Yugoslavia or Stalin’s Soviet Empire.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Numinous

    Larger groups means less accountability, transparency, and response to local wants and needs.
     
    True, but governance need not be completely centralized. Federalism is the answer. It's worked fine in the United States for the past 2 centuries, hasn't it?

    Rotherham isn’t England anymore. It’s a transplanted Pakistani community.
     
    Not sure what the EU had to do with that. Rotherham would be what it is even if the European project had never begun.

    Only an iron hand can hold together two groups that do not want to be together.
     
    That's true. But people who are not antagonistic towards each other can and do live peacefully together, and in some cases assimilate, no? Like the UK in recent centuries. Also, one could argue that nation-states don't necessarily solve the problem of mutual antagonism. Any friction between the people or their elites cannot be managed, as they would in a single polity; there's a higher chance this will lead to armed conflict. Also, venal elite can always deflect from their shortcomings by blaming the foreigner, thereby creating and perpetuating conflict.

    The premise of globalization (and this may not come to pass) is that when people come in contact with each other, they figure out that they have much in common with each other, and past antagonisms will gradually dissolve. One could argue that present-day Muslim extremism is a reaction to precisely this dynamic. Once people in Muslim countries are exposed to foreign (western) cultures, they find much to like and get "less Muslim". Some people don't like that and strike out in reaction.
  28. Numinous says:
    @TWS
    Yes this experiment is working so well. Those smaller groups were mostly the same ethnicity. Put different ethnicities together and you'll get strife, warfare, and conflict at every level. Sure the elites like big bunches of people like a fungible asset for their use and amusement.

    The larger the groups the more the rent-taker classes can skim and the useless parasites can feed off the host. Larger groups means less accountability, transparency, and response to local wants and needs.

    The same oligarchs can run Brussels forever and never even need worry about the actual people in fact when the people decide they've had enough the ruling class in a society like that can always import a new 'people'. Rotherham isn't England anymore. It's a transplanted Pakistani community.

    Parts of Sweden and Norway are rape central due to Africans and middle easterners. Parts of the Netherlands, France, and England are 'no go' zones for non Muslims.

    WWI and WWII were started over similar issues. Only an iron hand can hold together two groups that do not want to be together. Personally, I'd rather live in separate ethnic enclaves than Tito's Yugoslavia or Stalin's Soviet Empire.

    Larger groups means less accountability, transparency, and response to local wants and needs.

    True, but governance need not be completely centralized. Federalism is the answer. It’s worked fine in the United States for the past 2 centuries, hasn’t it?

    Rotherham isn’t England anymore. It’s a transplanted Pakistani community.

    Not sure what the EU had to do with that. Rotherham would be what it is even if the European project had never begun.

    Only an iron hand can hold together two groups that do not want to be together.

    That’s true. But people who are not antagonistic towards each other can and do live peacefully together, and in some cases assimilate, no? Like the UK in recent centuries. Also, one could argue that nation-states don’t necessarily solve the problem of mutual antagonism. Any friction between the people or their elites cannot be managed, as they would in a single polity; there’s a higher chance this will lead to armed conflict. Also, venal elite can always deflect from their shortcomings by blaming the foreigner, thereby creating and perpetuating conflict.

    The premise of globalization (and this may not come to pass) is that when people come in contact with each other, they figure out that they have much in common with each other, and past antagonisms will gradually dissolve. One could argue that present-day Muslim extremism is a reaction to precisely this dynamic. Once people in Muslim countries are exposed to foreign (western) cultures, they find much to like and get “less Muslim”. Some people don’t like that and strike out in reaction.

    Read More
    • Replies: @IA
    Aren't you the guy who screams "racist" at YT over at Sailer's?
  29. IA says:
    @Numinous

    Larger groups means less accountability, transparency, and response to local wants and needs.
     
    True, but governance need not be completely centralized. Federalism is the answer. It's worked fine in the United States for the past 2 centuries, hasn't it?

    Rotherham isn’t England anymore. It’s a transplanted Pakistani community.
     
    Not sure what the EU had to do with that. Rotherham would be what it is even if the European project had never begun.

    Only an iron hand can hold together two groups that do not want to be together.
     
    That's true. But people who are not antagonistic towards each other can and do live peacefully together, and in some cases assimilate, no? Like the UK in recent centuries. Also, one could argue that nation-states don't necessarily solve the problem of mutual antagonism. Any friction between the people or their elites cannot be managed, as they would in a single polity; there's a higher chance this will lead to armed conflict. Also, venal elite can always deflect from their shortcomings by blaming the foreigner, thereby creating and perpetuating conflict.

    The premise of globalization (and this may not come to pass) is that when people come in contact with each other, they figure out that they have much in common with each other, and past antagonisms will gradually dissolve. One could argue that present-day Muslim extremism is a reaction to precisely this dynamic. Once people in Muslim countries are exposed to foreign (western) cultures, they find much to like and get "less Muslim". Some people don't like that and strike out in reaction.

    Aren’t you the guy who screams “racist” at YT over at Sailer’s?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Numinous
    I don't know who YT is. And, to the best of my knowledge, I don't recall ever using the word "racist" in any comment I have registered on this website, on Sailer's blog or any other's. (though you can check for yourself by browsing through the archive of my comments.)
  30. Numinous says:
    @IA
    Aren't you the guy who screams "racist" at YT over at Sailer's?

    I don’t know who YT is. And, to the best of my knowledge, I don’t recall ever using the word “racist” in any comment I have registered on this website, on Sailer’s blog or any other’s. (though you can check for yourself by browsing through the archive of my comments.)

    Read More
    • Replies: @IA

    Usually, it was the dregs of British society who moved to India trying to gain wealth and knowing that they could literally get away with murder without fear of retribution simply because they possessed white skins.
     
    Sailer, April 24 11:16
    , @IA

    So unlike HBDers, I don’t believe that mixing of genes by itself will inevitably result in a calamity for human civilization.
     
    Except for the dregs.
    , @IA

    I was myself (briefly) on an H1B visa a few years ago before returning to India, having gone to grad school at a reputed US university.
     
    Bingo.

    - Sailer Feb. 28 9:10am

    , @IA

    You treat anyone foreign to you as unrecognizably alien whose actions and motivations just cannot be similar to what you regard as normal human behavior (normative human behavior for you being white American behavior.) Therefore, you spend a lot of time trying to analyze these people and spin theories inspired by your (race- and HBD-based) ideologies.
     
    - Sailer, Feb. 27 10:00am
  31. IA says:
    @Numinous
    I don't know who YT is. And, to the best of my knowledge, I don't recall ever using the word "racist" in any comment I have registered on this website, on Sailer's blog or any other's. (though you can check for yourself by browsing through the archive of my comments.)

    Usually, it was the dregs of British society who moved to India trying to gain wealth and knowing that they could literally get away with murder without fear of retribution simply because they possessed white skins.

    Sailer, April 24 11:16

    Read More
  32. IA says:
    @Numinous
    I don't know who YT is. And, to the best of my knowledge, I don't recall ever using the word "racist" in any comment I have registered on this website, on Sailer's blog or any other's. (though you can check for yourself by browsing through the archive of my comments.)

    So unlike HBDers, I don’t believe that mixing of genes by itself will inevitably result in a calamity for human civilization.

    Except for the dregs.

    Read More
  33. IA says:
    @Numinous
    I don't know who YT is. And, to the best of my knowledge, I don't recall ever using the word "racist" in any comment I have registered on this website, on Sailer's blog or any other's. (though you can check for yourself by browsing through the archive of my comments.)

    I was myself (briefly) on an H1B visa a few years ago before returning to India, having gone to grad school at a reputed US university.

    Bingo.

    - Sailer Feb. 28 9:10am

    Read More
    • Replies: @Numinous
    And what's your point? Nothing you have listed above contradicts what I said earlier, nor do you make any effort to logically criticize. And I stand by everything I said earlier. Your dog whistles may be understood by some others who comment around here, but please explicate for my benefit.
    , @Numinous
    One more thing: if you feel that comments from anyone who is not part of your club/milieu (i.e., white Americans, or Westerners) is akin to trespassing, then please be open about it. I know most of you come to this site to vent, and I'll shut up. Mr. Frost is, of course, free to ban me. I have never made any effort to hide my background or my opinions about HBD, but I'm not going to attach my resume to every comment I publish.
  34. IA says:
    @Numinous
    I don't know who YT is. And, to the best of my knowledge, I don't recall ever using the word "racist" in any comment I have registered on this website, on Sailer's blog or any other's. (though you can check for yourself by browsing through the archive of my comments.)

    You treat anyone foreign to you as unrecognizably alien whose actions and motivations just cannot be similar to what you regard as normal human behavior (normative human behavior for you being white American behavior.) Therefore, you spend a lot of time trying to analyze these people and spin theories inspired by your (race- and HBD-based) ideologies.

    - Sailer, Feb. 27 10:00am

    Read More
  35. @Numinous

    People are entitled to their opinions, but this one—globalism—isn’t competing with the others on a level playing field. It dominates the media, the think tanks, and even the entertainment industry. And it dominates both the left and the right. It’s an opinion that has succeeded not on its own merits but because it has much more money behind it.
     
    That's a very jaundiced view of globalization. One of the main promises of globalization is that it can reduce strife and armed conflict, possibly eliminating them altogether if uniformity of economic conditions and cultural values can be achieved. Nation states were formed through a very similar process, by elites of various constituent parts making common cause, and deciding to collaborate rather than fight each other. Egalitarian and redistributive movements inevitably start after a prolonged period of peace. There is no reason to assume that similar dynamics won't occur in a globalized world with dissolving national borders. As long as these changes occur very gradually. I understand peoples' emotional attachments to the idea of their respective nations, but those nations are no more sacrosant than the (smaller) local entities they replaced and obliterated.

    “I understand peoples’ emotional attachments to the idea of their respective nations, but those nations are no more sacrosant than the (smaller) local entities they replaced and obliterated.”

    And I have absolutely no understanding of your emotional attachment to the idea of government. You support a worldwide system with a monopoly on the use of force to fix a world besot with many smaller systems all with a monopoly on the use of force in a given area. Like that’s going to turn out well – better start looking for angels to run it.

    It is just a belief system, like religion, only far more deadly and destructive. So keep it to yourself, please.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Numinous

    You support a worldwide system with a monopoly on the use of force to fix a world besot with many smaller systems all with a monopoly on the use of force in a given area.
     
    No. Read my comments again.

    It is just a belief system, like religion, only far more deadly and destructive.
     
    And your belief system is not like a religion? The entities you are attached to (nation, race) got formed long before you were born, which gives you the luxury of not judging them critically and accepting them for what they are. That's the definition of a religion.

    So keep it to yourself, please.
     
    I'm just making an argument. I have zero influence over anyone. If even an argument threatens your most cherished beliefs, perhaps it's time you questioned them?
  36. Numinous says:
    @Drapetomaniac
    "I understand peoples’ emotional attachments to the idea of their respective nations, but those nations are no more sacrosant than the (smaller) local entities they replaced and obliterated."

    And I have absolutely no understanding of your emotional attachment to the idea of government. You support a worldwide system with a monopoly on the use of force to fix a world besot with many smaller systems all with a monopoly on the use of force in a given area. Like that's going to turn out well - better start looking for angels to run it.

    It is just a belief system, like religion, only far more deadly and destructive. So keep it to yourself, please.

    You support a worldwide system with a monopoly on the use of force to fix a world besot with many smaller systems all with a monopoly on the use of force in a given area.

    No. Read my comments again.

    It is just a belief system, like religion, only far more deadly and destructive.

    And your belief system is not like a religion? The entities you are attached to (nation, race) got formed long before you were born, which gives you the luxury of not judging them critically and accepting them for what they are. That’s the definition of a religion.

    So keep it to yourself, please.

    I’m just making an argument. I have zero influence over anyone. If even an argument threatens your most cherished beliefs, perhaps it’s time you questioned them?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Drapetomaniac
    ""No. Read my comments again."

    "That’s a very jaundiced view of globalization. One of the main promises of globalization is that it can reduce strife and armed conflict, possibly eliminating them altogether if uniformity of economic conditions and cultural values can be achieved."

    So criticizing someone's opposition to globalization by offering up the highly unlikely beliefs of supporters of globalization is suppose to tell me that you are against globalization? Globalization can only occur through the actions of government.

    Trying not to use the feminine part of your brain when commenting would help with clarity.

    "I’m just making an argument. I have zero influence over anyone. If even an argument threatens your most cherished beliefs, perhaps it’s time you questioned them?"

    If you support government in any way then you are threatening me, not any beliefs.
  37. Numinous says:
    @IA

    I was myself (briefly) on an H1B visa a few years ago before returning to India, having gone to grad school at a reputed US university.
     
    Bingo.

    - Sailer Feb. 28 9:10am

    And what’s your point? Nothing you have listed above contradicts what I said earlier, nor do you make any effort to logically criticize. And I stand by everything I said earlier. Your dog whistles may be understood by some others who comment around here, but please explicate for my benefit.

    Read More
  38. Numinous says:
    @IA

    I was myself (briefly) on an H1B visa a few years ago before returning to India, having gone to grad school at a reputed US university.
     
    Bingo.

    - Sailer Feb. 28 9:10am

    One more thing: if you feel that comments from anyone who is not part of your club/milieu (i.e., white Americans, or Westerners) is akin to trespassing, then please be open about it. I know most of you come to this site to vent, and I’ll shut up. Mr. Frost is, of course, free to ban me. I have never made any effort to hide my background or my opinions about HBD, but I’m not going to attach my resume to every comment I publish.

    Read More
  39. If a person is too lazy to look up what something means on the internet (I remember having to use those huge big dictionaries) then are they really going to put the effort into understanding what is being expressed?

    Read More
  40. RW says:

    Very interesting articles. Not too technical at all. Keep writing.

    How does globalism affect the genome and vice-versa?

    Read More
  41. RW says:

    Maybe a bit pedantic, but it’s not the jargon. Perhaps try inserting more real world examples and illustrations here and there to make your points.

    Read More
  42. Wade says:

    Keep writing. I wouldn’t change much either.

    I’ve been thinking how someone like me could convince someone like you, Peter, to keep writing. As a non-Academic I’m probably not the “target audience” you’re wondering whether or not is listening. I’m guessing your target audience would be other left-of-center academics specifically the ones that have been “pwned” by the globalist right. All I can say is that this is a very noble goal and I bet that you’ll eventually get other academics’ attentions, if you haven’t already. It only takes one or two like minded, but talented people, to make a huge difference. Look how Steve Sailer’s popularity has literally snowballed.

    I used to be free-market libertarian type. Reading Steve Sailer over the years really opened up my eyes. For one thing, it’s what lead me to your blog and I’m enjoying your essays immensely! I think there’s a lot of cross-pollination between different ideologies occurring on Unz.com. Even if it’s skewed to the right.

    Are changes needed? A recurring suggestion is that I should write more simply and in a less pedantic style. Yes, plain language is best. A lot of academic writing suffers from turgid jargon, not to mention silly attempts to imitate the syntax of French deconstructionists.

    Ok, but unlike french deconstructionists or Zizek!, your writing has substance. I think the problem is that academic style writing takes longer to sink in to a community. It takes a lot of second hand testimony from other writers who say things like “Over on Peter’s blog, he was discussing, X…” and then it eventually sinks into our thick, right-wing skulls. Just one or two of your posts can have the same impact that a dozen posts from other bloggers at Unz’s site can have. I find myself thinking about Guilt-cultures vs Shame-cultures all the time thanks to you. The distinctions you describe have far reaching implications. It’s the sort of thing that can really change a person’s thinking on globalism even after years of indoctrination from right-wing mouthpieces like John Stossel.

    Please keep writing!!!

    Read More
  43. @Numinous

    You support a worldwide system with a monopoly on the use of force to fix a world besot with many smaller systems all with a monopoly on the use of force in a given area.
     
    No. Read my comments again.

    It is just a belief system, like religion, only far more deadly and destructive.
     
    And your belief system is not like a religion? The entities you are attached to (nation, race) got formed long before you were born, which gives you the luxury of not judging them critically and accepting them for what they are. That's the definition of a religion.

    So keep it to yourself, please.
     
    I'm just making an argument. I have zero influence over anyone. If even an argument threatens your most cherished beliefs, perhaps it's time you questioned them?

    “”No. Read my comments again.”

    “That’s a very jaundiced view of globalization. One of the main promises of globalization is that it can reduce strife and armed conflict, possibly eliminating them altogether if uniformity of economic conditions and cultural values can be achieved.”

    So criticizing someone’s opposition to globalization by offering up the highly unlikely beliefs of supporters of globalization is suppose to tell me that you are against globalization? Globalization can only occur through the actions of government.

    Trying not to use the feminine part of your brain when commenting would help with clarity.

    “I’m just making an argument. I have zero influence over anyone. If even an argument threatens your most cherished beliefs, perhaps it’s time you questioned them?”

    If you support government in any way then you are threatening me, not any beliefs.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Numinous
    Being continuously misconstrued is tiresome, so this will be my last comment on this thread. Feel free to have the last word.

    So criticizing someone’s opposition to globalization by offering up the highly unlikely beliefs of supporters of globalization is suppose to tell me that you are against globalization? Globalization can only occur through the actions of government.
     
    I am for globalization, as long as it happens at a slow (even glacial) pace. People adjust to (and get emotionally attached to) the prevailing culture in their surroundings during their formative years (teens to early 30s). The culture you so cherish would not have been one your great-grandparents would have been comfortable in, but that's ok, as they don't have to live in that culture.

    I am a sort-of libertarian, so I do not look forward to a globalization that is imposed by a centralized world government. Even in a globalized world, I envision substantial local autonomy and diversity. Global contacts will be driven by the grassroots, by ordinary people, by traders. People might move a lot, but will return to (and spend most of their time in) their home communities.

    Trying not to use the feminine part of your brain
     
    I'm not sure what that means. Are you saying I'm being emotional? In what way? Anyway, I'll let that go.

    If you support government in any way then you are threatening me, not any beliefs.
     
    You mean a central world government, and not a local government, right? Surely you don't want no government at all? Well, I don't want that either; any "world government" in a globalized world would be just a facilitator and mediator, not a ruler.
  44. Numinous says:
    @Drapetomaniac
    ""No. Read my comments again."

    "That’s a very jaundiced view of globalization. One of the main promises of globalization is that it can reduce strife and armed conflict, possibly eliminating them altogether if uniformity of economic conditions and cultural values can be achieved."

    So criticizing someone's opposition to globalization by offering up the highly unlikely beliefs of supporters of globalization is suppose to tell me that you are against globalization? Globalization can only occur through the actions of government.

    Trying not to use the feminine part of your brain when commenting would help with clarity.

    "I’m just making an argument. I have zero influence over anyone. If even an argument threatens your most cherished beliefs, perhaps it’s time you questioned them?"

    If you support government in any way then you are threatening me, not any beliefs.

    Being continuously misconstrued is tiresome, so this will be my last comment on this thread. Feel free to have the last word.

    So criticizing someone’s opposition to globalization by offering up the highly unlikely beliefs of supporters of globalization is suppose to tell me that you are against globalization? Globalization can only occur through the actions of government.

    I am for globalization, as long as it happens at a slow (even glacial) pace. People adjust to (and get emotionally attached to) the prevailing culture in their surroundings during their formative years (teens to early 30s). The culture you so cherish would not have been one your great-grandparents would have been comfortable in, but that’s ok, as they don’t have to live in that culture.

    I am a sort-of libertarian, so I do not look forward to a globalization that is imposed by a centralized world government. Even in a globalized world, I envision substantial local autonomy and diversity. Global contacts will be driven by the grassroots, by ordinary people, by traders. People might move a lot, but will return to (and spend most of their time in) their home communities.

    Trying not to use the feminine part of your brain

    I’m not sure what that means. Are you saying I’m being emotional? In what way? Anyway, I’ll let that go.

    If you support government in any way then you are threatening me, not any beliefs.

    You mean a central world government, and not a local government, right? Surely you don’t want no government at all? Well, I don’t want that either; any “world government” in a globalized world would be just a facilitator and mediator, not a ruler.

    Read More
  45. @anon
    please don't be swayed by comments - it reflects where the raw nerves currently are but not necessarily where they will be. thinking outside the box is valuable and there's not enough of it.

    I completely agree. A writer shouldn’t give the readers what they (appear to) want – at the end of this primrose path lies an oeuvre of articles ending with “- and what happened next made me stand up and cheer!” liberally illustrated with lolcats. Give the readers what you have.

    (Admittedly, now that the commentariat has expressed their desire for you to give them what they *don’t* want, you are placed in a rather tricky position. Start stocking up on amusing reaction gifs.)

    Writing is a lonely enterprise by nature. I understand the desire for feedback and community, but I think the urge to please – particularly the urge to please the loudest elements of a shadowed crowd – works against the work, and against finding meaning and fulfillment in the work. If you find yourself craving popular approval, I’d suggest finding another outlet for this need. I understand sex changes are quite the thing.

    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