Britons think that because Australia has 'stopped the boats' and has a 'points-based immigration system' it's some kind of success story (I suspect they're inclined to see it so because they yearn after its 'loooooovely hot weather').
Truth is it's an authoritarian disaster zone with social monitoring and police repression of speech probably worse--because population more concentrated--than even the yookay or Canada. Asians of all kinds are quite happy under this system, as lamentably are many old stock Anglo-Celtic Australians. Much of the opposition, such as it is, comes from second generation immigrants such as Croats and Lebanese.
Right on! I have Asian ancestry as well, since both of my parents are hapas. White nationalists like Arctotherium need to understand racial nationalism cuts off people who are largely on their side.
The subtext of this article is that very specific political views are genetically determined, which is nonsense. Yes, it has been shown that where you are on the left-right spectrum is partly hereditary, but views on specific policies are highly malleable over time within this spectrum.
There are at least two problems with us. One is that how you are recognized, and how you recognize yourself, based on appearance, is heavily influenced by cultural circumstances. Light skinned Irish, Slavs, and Italians were famously considered not white in the US 100 years ago. Many American Jews are easily confused for non-Jewish white people, but their Jewish identity often remains salient to them and others, and they still vote differently on average. East Asians, who don’t necessarily see themselves as part of one group irrespective of country origin, are no longer considered “under represented minorities.” Mexican Americans are largely of of mixed Spanish and Native American ancestries, but they are not mixed up in anyone’s mind with Navajo Americans across the border who may look similar and have related ancestors. Black Latinos and African immigrants have different different linguistic and cultural traditions from African-Americans descended from American slaves. The whole thing is messy and entropic, and to assign it undue durability is not wise.
The second issue is that generational effects such as the degree of cultural assimilation over generations are strong and cannot be ignored.
In multicultural societies identity is largely genetically determined, which in turn heavily influences political leanings. E.g. I’m X, therefore I support Y, because Y supports my group.
Many or most people who consider themselves part of the "dissident right" acknowledge that there are meaningful differences in the average physical endowments inherited by the members of different ethnic groups, that because humans are corporeal beings, these physical differences affect the mind as much as anything else, and that those who deny these propositions are deceiving themselves (or others).
These views are proscribed in the modern West, and articulating them is thus strongly discouraged by authority figures and society at large. I've observed that among those who are, nonetheless, willing to articulate these views, there is a subset of people who tend to invert the ban: not only is it true that there are meaningful, inherited, physical differences between ethnic groups, but ALL meaningful differences between ethnicities MUST be inherited and physical.
Among this subset, many will say that culture -- practices that are learned rather than inherited -- simply makes no difference. Those who find it hard to assert this with a straight face will sometimes acknowledge that culture makes a difference, but then argue that culture is DETERMINED by physical endowment.
Anyone with personal experience of multiple generations of multiple, co-located, large, and extended families would know that (a) it is false that there are NO meaningful, heritable, physical differences among them and (b) it is false that ALL meaningful differences are heritable and physical. Most of us in the West no longer have this kind of personal experience, however.
You put an awful lot of work into disproving the wrong argument. The best argument for skilled immigration isn’t increasing GDP and economic progress via high IQ.
The best argument is actually much simpler, and much more urgent: we need technological superiority, or at least competitiveness, with other superpowers or potential superpowers. If/when a conflict with China comes, everything will come down to who has the better weapons. This is unromantic and disappointing as much as it is indisputable.
I don’t want a war. I wish wars were still won by courage and cleverness instead of machines and missiles. But none of what I (or you) want matters. This is the reality: we can recruit the very best minds in the world and hustle like hell to stay ahead, or we can fall behind. If you love and want to preserve America so badly, consider what seems worse: a gradually more Asian electorate, or a century of being pushed around by the Chinese because we know we have no other choice.
Intelligence (by average and standard deviation) are absolutely not evenly dispersed throughout humanity. America has enough intelligence and ability in the native (European) stock to be able to compete. Chinese do steal tech and trade secrets to accelerate their own development path but once they move into a position close to the forefront, they push ahead on their own. That was my point about Deepseek and Huawei’s chips; they didn’t poach the tech from others, but achieved these world-first breakthroughs on their own - no Indian H1Bs needed.
The historical track record speaks for itself; states that imported foreigners to do various types of work, and especially those that allowed them into the elites, decayed (late stage Rome), while the states that went on upward arcs did so while they saw a flowering of invention and growth within their native populations (various European empires 17th-19th centuries). I even cited the Nazis as an extreme example, because they were xenophobic but hugely innovative. No Indian geniuses needed to stay ahead.
I understand what you say about having worked with many foreigners in STEM to the benefit of STEM in America, but consider the counter-factual that instead of running a continual foreign-talent import program to save a few $$$ in the short run, the US invests in developing a sizeable native STEM talent base for the long run? That would benefit the US even more. We won’t know for sure until we try it, but evidence from around the world and history indicates it’s a good idea.
The foreign talent import conveyor belt is unsustainable because in the long run those with superior demographics will win out and so American elites will be replaced by various Asians, simply because there are so many more of them. They’re not just STEM workers but also people with an ethnic identity and particular worldview. After a few years here they get citizenship and can become politically active. Their politics and worldview leans Leftist and anti-white. We are kind of already there in most major US cities (London is another example), with minority-majority administrations pushing the interests of anything that isn’t white, straight, or male over anything that is.
China just schooled the entire US tech industry with DeepSeek. Talent was all homegrown, no H1Bs required. A couple of years before that Huawei beat the West to 7nm chip technology, again without immigrants.
The Nazis had the best weapons of WW2, technologically speaking, and they weren’t exactly 3rd world immigration friendly.
If you assume that intelligence, talent and genius are evenly distributed among humanity, a nation with a population 3x ours should have 3x as many intellectual resources to draw on. Also, and more relevant, China has a multi-generational history of stealing research and trade secrets without any scruples, skipping the spin up time required in many industries when private companies (or publicly-funded research in more principled Western nations) put in the sweat equity.
I’m not qualified to comment on Nazi Germany, so maybe I’m totally wrong. But I can say from 15 years of STEM experience, in and out of DOD, some of it spent working on cutting edge research, is that a significant portion of the greatest minds I’ve worked with were imported, to our nation’s great benefit.
Hey you mind if I ask you a question I saw a blog attacking Donald Trump a mass immigration and I'm not an expert on it could I ask you to look at it or respond to it would you mind
Hey this might seem off topic but I saw a blog attacking Trump a mass immigration and I'm not an expert on this could I ask you to take a look at that blog and give me your thoughts
Britons think that because Australia has 'stopped the boats' and has a 'points-based immigration system' it's some kind of success story (I suspect they're inclined to see it so because they yearn after its 'loooooovely hot weather').
Truth is it's an authoritarian disaster zone with social monitoring and police repression of speech probably worse--because population more concentrated--than even the yookay or Canada. Asians of all kinds are quite happy under this system, as lamentably are many old stock Anglo-Celtic Australians. Much of the opposition, such as it is, comes from second generation immigrants such as Croats and Lebanese.
I'm still not convinced that it's practical to cut off *all* Asian immigration.
Surely, it should be feasible to only permit high IQ, right-leaning Asians to immigrate to the West. That'd be a great way to gain the best of both worlds. https://zerocontradictions.net/faqs/immigration#unfavorable-races
As a productive, right-leaning Asian immigrant, I agree😂😊
Right on! I have Asian ancestry as well, since both of my parents are hapas. White nationalists like Arctotherium need to understand racial nationalism cuts off people who are largely on their side.
Yup. It's more productive to win the culture war at home than exclude talented immigrants- these cultures aren't inherently liberal.
The subtext of this article is that very specific political views are genetically determined, which is nonsense. Yes, it has been shown that where you are on the left-right spectrum is partly hereditary, but views on specific policies are highly malleable over time within this spectrum.
There are at least two problems with us. One is that how you are recognized, and how you recognize yourself, based on appearance, is heavily influenced by cultural circumstances. Light skinned Irish, Slavs, and Italians were famously considered not white in the US 100 years ago. Many American Jews are easily confused for non-Jewish white people, but their Jewish identity often remains salient to them and others, and they still vote differently on average. East Asians, who don’t necessarily see themselves as part of one group irrespective of country origin, are no longer considered “under represented minorities.” Mexican Americans are largely of of mixed Spanish and Native American ancestries, but they are not mixed up in anyone’s mind with Navajo Americans across the border who may look similar and have related ancestors. Black Latinos and African immigrants have different different linguistic and cultural traditions from African-Americans descended from American slaves. The whole thing is messy and entropic, and to assign it undue durability is not wise.
The second issue is that generational effects such as the degree of cultural assimilation over generations are strong and cannot be ignored.
In multicultural societies identity is largely genetically determined, which in turn heavily influences political leanings. E.g. I’m X, therefore I support Y, because Y supports my group.
Identity as a cultural concept changes over time, sometimes drastically
I meant identity literally as in “this is how I look and am recognized as such”. A person of East Asian origin will never be mistaken for an African.
Many or most people who consider themselves part of the "dissident right" acknowledge that there are meaningful differences in the average physical endowments inherited by the members of different ethnic groups, that because humans are corporeal beings, these physical differences affect the mind as much as anything else, and that those who deny these propositions are deceiving themselves (or others).
These views are proscribed in the modern West, and articulating them is thus strongly discouraged by authority figures and society at large. I've observed that among those who are, nonetheless, willing to articulate these views, there is a subset of people who tend to invert the ban: not only is it true that there are meaningful, inherited, physical differences between ethnic groups, but ALL meaningful differences between ethnicities MUST be inherited and physical.
Among this subset, many will say that culture -- practices that are learned rather than inherited -- simply makes no difference. Those who find it hard to assert this with a straight face will sometimes acknowledge that culture makes a difference, but then argue that culture is DETERMINED by physical endowment.
Anyone with personal experience of multiple generations of multiple, co-located, large, and extended families would know that (a) it is false that there are NO meaningful, heritable, physical differences among them and (b) it is false that ALL meaningful differences are heritable and physical. Most of us in the West no longer have this kind of personal experience, however.
I’ll have to dig it up, but a large proportion of the “startups“ created by Indians were fake, thereby artificially boosting the supposed impact.
You put an awful lot of work into disproving the wrong argument. The best argument for skilled immigration isn’t increasing GDP and economic progress via high IQ.
The best argument is actually much simpler, and much more urgent: we need technological superiority, or at least competitiveness, with other superpowers or potential superpowers. If/when a conflict with China comes, everything will come down to who has the better weapons. This is unromantic and disappointing as much as it is indisputable.
I don’t want a war. I wish wars were still won by courage and cleverness instead of machines and missiles. But none of what I (or you) want matters. This is the reality: we can recruit the very best minds in the world and hustle like hell to stay ahead, or we can fall behind. If you love and want to preserve America so badly, consider what seems worse: a gradually more Asian electorate, or a century of being pushed around by the Chinese because we know we have no other choice.
Intelligence (by average and standard deviation) are absolutely not evenly dispersed throughout humanity. America has enough intelligence and ability in the native (European) stock to be able to compete. Chinese do steal tech and trade secrets to accelerate their own development path but once they move into a position close to the forefront, they push ahead on their own. That was my point about Deepseek and Huawei’s chips; they didn’t poach the tech from others, but achieved these world-first breakthroughs on their own - no Indian H1Bs needed.
The historical track record speaks for itself; states that imported foreigners to do various types of work, and especially those that allowed them into the elites, decayed (late stage Rome), while the states that went on upward arcs did so while they saw a flowering of invention and growth within their native populations (various European empires 17th-19th centuries). I even cited the Nazis as an extreme example, because they were xenophobic but hugely innovative. No Indian geniuses needed to stay ahead.
I understand what you say about having worked with many foreigners in STEM to the benefit of STEM in America, but consider the counter-factual that instead of running a continual foreign-talent import program to save a few $$$ in the short run, the US invests in developing a sizeable native STEM talent base for the long run? That would benefit the US even more. We won’t know for sure until we try it, but evidence from around the world and history indicates it’s a good idea.
The foreign talent import conveyor belt is unsustainable because in the long run those with superior demographics will win out and so American elites will be replaced by various Asians, simply because there are so many more of them. They’re not just STEM workers but also people with an ethnic identity and particular worldview. After a few years here they get citizenship and can become politically active. Their politics and worldview leans Leftist and anti-white. We are kind of already there in most major US cities (London is another example), with minority-majority administrations pushing the interests of anything that isn’t white, straight, or male over anything that is.
China just schooled the entire US tech industry with DeepSeek. Talent was all homegrown, no H1Bs required. A couple of years before that Huawei beat the West to 7nm chip technology, again without immigrants.
The Nazis had the best weapons of WW2, technologically speaking, and they weren’t exactly 3rd world immigration friendly.
If you assume that intelligence, talent and genius are evenly distributed among humanity, a nation with a population 3x ours should have 3x as many intellectual resources to draw on. Also, and more relevant, China has a multi-generational history of stealing research and trade secrets without any scruples, skipping the spin up time required in many industries when private companies (or publicly-funded research in more principled Western nations) put in the sweat equity.
I’m not qualified to comment on Nazi Germany, so maybe I’m totally wrong. But I can say from 15 years of STEM experience, in and out of DOD, some of it spent working on cutting edge research, is that a significant portion of the greatest minds I’ve worked with were imported, to our nation’s great benefit.
“The supreme function of statesmanship is to provide against preventable evils.” - Enoch Powell
This is too negative. Failing to achieve an achievable good is just as objectionable as failing to prevent a preventable evil.
Hey you mind if I ask you a question I saw a blog attacking Donald Trump a mass immigration and I'm not an expert on it could I ask you to look at it or respond to it would you mind
Hey this might seem off topic but I saw a blog attacking Trump a mass immigration and I'm not an expert on this could I ask you to take a look at that blog and give me your thoughts