Saturday, December 19, 2015

A look back over 2015

Marion-Maréchal Le Pen (Wikicommons - Remi JDN). This year, she received 45% of the popular vote in one of France's regions, as a Front National candidate.


We must act now to bring anti-globalist parties to power: the UKIP in Britain, the Front national in France, the Partij voor de Vrijheid in 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 National took 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.


Camus, R. (2012). " Renaud Camus à L'AF : " J'ai une conception lazaréenne de la patrie " ", L'Action française, no 2832, 

Wikipedia - Liga Veneta. (2015) 

Wikipedia - Marine Le Pen (2005). 

Wikipedia - Vlaams Blok. (2015). 


Malcolm Smith said...

And over here in Australia, a government lost power because it was too soft on illegal immigration. The next one set about to ruthlessly turn back the boats. And it worked.

TarkMargi Vyakti said...

Hi Peter, as I see it, the West, particularly its ruling elites, is suffering from a condition I'll call empathobesity.

For a long time, an egalitarian, empathetic impulse was an asset in the West as it created an ever expanding educated and productive class of citizens by diffusing political franchise from monarchs to lords to wealthy commoners to middle class men to all men to all adults, followed by welfare and universal healthcare etc.

To illustrate, starting with the Magna Carta in 1215, we have the English civil war in 1642, the glorious revolution in 1688, Habeas Corpus, the reform acts of the 19th century, the representation of the people acts of the early 20th, feminism, Welfare, the sexual revolution, mass migration, gay rights, animal rights, transgender rights and so on.

The initial steps have had an unambiguously positive payoff as they expanded the class of educated people able to undertake scientific and industrial progress. This is why the scientific and industrial revolutions occurred in England where also we see the first diffusion of political power with the Magna Carta in 1215.

At some point however, this impulse has turned into a dogma and run into diminishing returns, perhaps around the mid 19th century. Thus, the extension of empathy to adherents of a hostile religion is likely to be a major drag, not gain.

Yet, the west, like an obese person compelled by instinct to eat in excess, the West cannot shake off its pathological empathy (hence empathobesity).

I've made this argument in more detail at Please have a look and see if you find it convincing.

This Is Our Home said...


I think that your work is really excellent and it would be my privilege to build you your own blog at my site. You would then have an account and be able to run whatever policy on comments and so on that you like.

It is quite recently made so there's not so much content yet.

Michel Normandeau-Voyer said...

Totally agree with you peter, if i where a european i would vote fore any anti low iq muslim imigration political party. Bruxel elite seems to be convince by the blank slate hypothese. to you want europe to become a favela (bidonville). greeting from Montreal. Si les européens avaient les couilles des australiens!

Michel Normandeau-Voyer said...

Merci pour ton travail Peter

Peter Frost said...


It's difficult for any Western country to restrict immigration because all Western countries are more or less integrated into the same ideological system. It's possible to oppose illegal immigration and not suffer ostracism, but at some point one also has to criticize legal immigration.


Empathy has become pathological in the same way that sugar and salt consumption has become pathological. In an environment where sugar and salt are relatively rare, it's good to have a strong liking for sweet or salty foods. Unfortunately, such foods are now much more available in modern environments.

Empathy is not maladaptive when the objects of empathy are relatively few in number, e.g., the other inhabitants of your village or passing strangers. Today, our capacity for empathy is now being exploited by millions of people -- most of whom will never reciprocate our altruism.

A second problem is that the boundaries of our moral community have been ideologically altered. In the past, non-Christians were considered to be outside our moral community, and it was considered right to judge their behavior by a higher standard (since they would probably not reciprocate any acts of altruism and, in fact, would likely exploit such acts to their advantage). Today, everyone is potentially a member of our moral community. The only people we can exclude are "racists" and "bigots."

I would say the turning point came with the political enshrinement of moral universalism, first with the American Revolution and then with the French Revolution. At that point, the West became locked into a trajectory of increasing individualism and universalism, combined with a war against residual forms of collective identity (ethny, parochialism, family, gender).

This is our home,

It would be premature for me to say anything at this time. The problem is not simply the need to moderate the comments section. There's also the need for a legal team to fend off any prosecutions. It's not so much a money problem (although money is a factor), it's also the problem of not looking like a "soft target."


Le problème ici n'est pas simplement un manque de couilles. Il y a aussi un manque de volonté. Nous sommes tous dominés par des élites qui croient que l'avenir passe par le globalisme. Dans une grande mesure, celles-ci poursuivent leur propre intérêt : elles s'enrichissent en exportant les emplois du secteur manufacturier vers des pays à faible coût de main-d'œuvre, puis inversement en important une main-d'œuvre à faible coût pour inonder le secteur tertiaire.

C'est surtout ce qui se passe en Amérique du Nord. Le globalisme, c'est rentable pour ceux qui peuvent financer les partis politiques, les médias et même une bonne partie des commentateurs et des leaders d'opinion.

Dans le cas de l'Europe, un problème subsidiaire est le manque d'autonomie idéologique. L'Europe est à la remorque des Etats-Unis sur ce plan.

StephenNGreen said...

Have always thought 'moderation theory' explained the accommodation to power quite well

Michel Normandeau-Voyer said...

Globalism is not a problem in itself it is more of a a catch-all term anyway. Masse immigration of low or high quality are to different matter who are in turn not relate to international trad or international investment in the short or long terme.

"Dans le cas de l'Europe, un problème subsidiaire est le manque d'autonomie idéologique. L'Europe est à la remorque des Etats-Unis sur ce plan"

Çà ne me convainc pas du tout, as-tu des références à me recommander?

Peter Frost said...

"Masse immigration of low or high quality are to different matter who are in turn not relate to international trad or international investment in the short or long terme."

You should read the Wall Street Journal. Or Fortune magazine. Believe me, the same people who lobby for outsourcing of manufacturing are also lobbying for insourcing of low-wage workers for services and construction (The difference is that jobs in services and construction, by their very nature, cannot be relocated).

"as-tu des références à me recommander?"

Les fondations américaines ont joué un rôle important dans les relations culturelles internationales au xxe siècle. L'analyse de leurs activités est d'un grand intérêt pour étudier l'influence américaine en France. Leurs champs d'action ont pour cibles intellectuels, universitaires, administrateurs publics, montrant que l'américanisation touche les élites françaises, et que les États-Unis jouent un rôle dans le processus de reconstruction des connaissances scientifiques et des modes de travail. Cette étude des carrières des boursiers Rockefeller illustre l'ensemble du programme Rockefeller en France entre 1917 et 1970 et donne une meilleure connaissance des méthodes de la fondation : les boursiers agissent comme vecteurs des nouvelles formes de connaissances et de pratiques apprises pendant leurs séjours aux États-Unis.

Tark Marg said...

I fully agree. The next step, wrenchingly hard though it may be, is to spread the word about this maladaptive turn of empathy.

In this task I believe using terms like "empathobesity" or "emapthallergy" might serve to illuminate the issue.

As I see it, we need to provide an intellectual framework to diagnose and direct the malaise and foreboding that the general public feels about the future. Without such an intellectual frame of reference, the ferment we see now in the west will mostly be dissipated as heat rather than turned into illuminating light.

Do you have thoughts about how one could go about this?

Peter Frost said...


We must help people transition from private thoughts to expression of those thoughts in the public sphere. If they're really shy, they can simply go into the voting booth and vote. That's already a lot. Too many people don't vote, and too many vote for a mainstream party (because they don't want to "waste" their vote). A vote for a mainstream party is a wasted vote because all of those parties now receive money from the same donor class.

We must also translate pedantic concepts into talking points that are easily understood. Steve Sailer is a good example of this sort of popularization. So, yes, we need an intellectual framework, but it must be made accessible to the man and woman in the street.

For example, the concepts of empathy overload and pathological altruism can be explained with reference to "cat ladies." We all know such people. They pick up stray cats and take them into their homes until their homes become unlivable. They can't stop because they have a strong capacity for empathy.

The same talking points could be written about exploitation of guilt proneness. There is a lot of selective indignation over the Atlantic slave trade, but much less over the capture and sale of black slaves to the Middle East (this trade being equivalent in volume) and none at all over the white slave trade, which ended only two centuries ago and was also comparable in volume.

Finally, we need more primary research on the evolution of affective empathy and guilt proneness in our species. These are not behaviors that we learn. In fact, they are largely hard-wired and display high heritability.

Tark Marg said...

"yes, we need an intellectual framework, but it must be made accessible to the man and woman in the street"

While that is indisputable, it seems to me that a clear articulation of the historical background and origins of this phenomenon will make a great impact, especially on the intellectual elite. These have a huge influence on the popular opinion through the media and convincing them could yield substantial dividends.

This was the intent behind my post at my blog. Can I trouble you to read it and give some feedback about the substance and style? I'd also appreciate tips about how to attract more eyeballs. I'm sure that you have many other demands on your time, but I believe we share the same great concern about what the future holds.

Peter Frost said...


Yes, I have other demands on my time. There were two reasons for shutting down my blog, at least temporarily:

- to distance myself from people who are obsessed with Jews, Jews, Jews, either because they really believe what they write or because they are shills and trolls.

- to free up more time for academic writing. Currently, my interests don't fall within the time period you're interested in.

Rocha said...


Your Blog will be missed, if you can try to write at least in a fortnightly or
monthly basis.

As for the legal aspects if we think only of them we are doomed, but your concern is sound.

Greetings from Brazil.

Chris Crawford said...

Please forgive such a late comment. I'd like to make a couple of points.

First European countries are suffering from an inversion of the population age distribution. Until quite recently, there were many more young working people than retired people. But with declining birth rates, that is rapidly changing, and the ratio of workers to pensioners is falling rapidly. There are only three solutions to this:
a. reduce pension payments. This is politically impossible because pensioners have too much voting power.
b. increase pension contributions from workers. This will engender intense political conflict from overtaxed workers.
c. import new workers.

The USA provides an excellent example of the right way to handle this. As a nation of immigrants, the USA has developed an effective system for integrating immigrants into the new culture -- the "melting pot". It's not perfect, but it works rather well. The USA is not suffering from the pension problem to anywhere near the magnitude that Japan, Europe, and China are or will be facing.
Roughly one million immigrants enter the USA each year -- that's the same number that entered the EU in 2015. For the USA, one million migrants per year is business as usual; for the EU, it's a crisis. The total number of immigrants residing in the USA is about 40 million; in the EU, it's about 30 million.

Of course, the USA is not facing the sudden deluge of immigrants that the EU is facing, and I doubt that it could handle such a huge surge. But it has the right culture for coping with the problem. The European nations have had great difficulty integrating immigrants into their culture. They have much to learn from the USA.

I agree that the influx of refugees of the magnitude the EU is facing is unhealthy, because the EU nations as not as culturally experienced in dealing with lots of immigrants. They don't have the institutions for it. Worse, immigrants to the EU tend to cluster together more tightly than those in the US. It will take decades for the EU nations to learn how to handle the influx, and until then I agree that restrictions on immigration are well-advised. But I would reduce the flow, not eliminate it.

A more important point here is the reason behind the surge of immigration: violent conflicts in the Middle East. The developed nations of the world must recognize that "no nation is an island" in the sense that violent conflicts in the Middle East have detrimental effects on every other nation. We must accept a new principle of international relations that every nation has a legitimate reason to minimize violent conflict in other nations. The civil war in Syria is hurting everybody, and so the nations of the world -- and especially the nations of the EU -- would be well advised to intervene militarily to stabilize the situation.

The Middle East has been a source of violence all over the world for many years, and it just keeps getting worse every year. It is time for a general peace to be imposed upon the entire region by the developed nations of the world. Until that is accomplished, the refugees will continue pouring in.

Peter Frost said...

"if you can try to write at least in a fortnightly or
monthly basis."

I will eventually return to blogging, but I can't say when.

"There are only three solutions"

There's a fourth: encourage family formation. Such policies have worked in Russia and Israel. It just takes political will.

"The USA is not suffering from the pension problem"

As the "baby boomers" move out of the work force and into retirement, however, expenses will come to exceed tax receipts and then, after several more years, will exceed all OASDI trust income, including interest. At that point the system will begin drawing on its trust fund Treasury Notes, and will continue to pay benefits at the current levels until the Trust Fund is exhausted.

As for young immigrants paying for the pensions of aging Americans, don't kid yourself. On average, immigrants are tax consumers and not tax payers:

• Households headed by illegal aliens imposed more than $26.3 billion in costs on the federal government in 2002 and paid only $16 billion in taxes, creating a net fiscal deficit of almost $10.4 billion, or $2,700 per illegal household.

• Among the largest costs are Medicaid ($2.5 billion); treatment for the uninsured ($2.2 billion); food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches ($1.9 billion); the federal prison and court systems ($1.6 billion); and federal aid to schools ($1.4 billion).

• With nearly two-thirds of illegal aliens lacking a high school degree, the primary reason they create a fiscal deficit is their low education levels and resulting low incomes and tax payments, not their legal status or heavy use of most social services.

• On average, the costs that illegal households impose on federal coffers are less than half that of other households, but their tax payments are only one-fourth that of other households.

"A more important point here is the reason behind the surge of immigration: violent conflicts in the Middle East"

Most of the immigrants passing through Libya and Syria are not from war-torn countries. I agree that our meddling in those two countries has greatly facilitated this surge of immigration, but it's not the ultimate cause. The ultimate cause is a rate of population growth in sending countries that greatly exceeds their ability to provide jobs and a decent standard of living.

Chris Crawford said...

It's true that illegal immigrants consume more in government services than they pay in taxes, but that is primarily because they ARE illegal. Legal immigrants make a big positive contribution both in terms of taxes and, more important, in raw economic terms. Since they are at the bottom end of the economic ladder, they spend a greater percentage of their income than the wealthy. This increases the velocity of money. The value of savings is determined by interest rates; the phenomenally low interest rates of current times indicate that the economy would grow faster with more consumer spending and less saving. That implies greater emphasis on the bottom end of the wealth ladder.

Moreover, legal immigrants have higher levels of education than natives.

Another crucial point: immigrants have a stronger educational and work ethic than natives -- even the illegal immigrants. In effect, the USA puts up a barrier and says, "Only people who can jump this high can get in, legally or illegally." The biggest victim of illegal immigration is Mexico, which is losing its most ambitious and hardest-working to us.

As for the origins of the refugees arriving in the EU, you can see a breakdown of that information here:

It shows that Syrians are the biggest group, followed by Afghanis, Kosovars, and Iraqis. It makes it pretty clear that the wars in the Middle East are the primary factor in the surge of refugees this year.

Anonymous said...

For example, the concepts of empathy overload and pathological altruism can be explained with reference to "cat ladies." We all know such people. They pick up stray cats and take them into their homes until their homes become unlivable. They can't stop because they have a strong capacity for empathy.

"Cat lady syndrome" is likely caused by a pathogen such as toxoplasma gondii:

Rather than empathy or altruism. "Pathological altruism", like homosexuality, is also likely caused by environmental insults such as pathogens or external manipulation, rather than having evolved because it was adaptive.

Vot said...

Peter, Thank you so much for your blog, I've been reading it on and off for two days and it's absolutely fascinating. I am very interested in the subjects you are studying and can't believe I have not discovered your blog before now. Please keep up your important work.