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

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

Leave a Reply -


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

    The Cheju massacre, US puppet ruler Syngman Rhee, US operational authority over the armed forces until 1949, the Northwest Youth League death squads, the Park Chung-hee coup, the US-owned National Youth League under famous US toady Bum Suk Lee, the Cherokee cables, Clinton golfing on the killing fields – the ICCPR puts the kibosh on all that.

    The Americanization Frost frets about is going to take care of itself once the ROK stops being a US colony terrorized by puppets. Already hot young Asians are attracted to a newly free country, as evinced by the quote from hilariously obvious repressed homosexual makemykimchi: “Vietnamese and Tagalog guys and girls yelling and screaming either in drunken stupor or just flirtatious exuberance.”

    You haven’t seen anything yet. Just wait till they reunify with the North.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • […] and multiculturalism —a radical departure from the mono-ethnic face it once had”—The Changing Face of Gangnam, UNZ.org, February 14, 2016. Gangnam is an exclusive district in the capital city of […]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Priss Factor
    "And an almost-Chinee province, like Tibet. And would have become one if Japan hadn’t wrested it from China in 1895. Please get off your high horse. The extinction of the Korean language would have had little more significance than the extinction of any of the other languages that once existed in the ancient kingdoms that now comprise China today. The language you speak today is merely the language of your most recent conqueror."

    Fate of Tibet is a sad one. It is being swallowed up by Han Chinese. Of course, Chinese invoke 'multi-culturalism' as a form of neo-imperialism. They claim to 'celebrate diversity' and inundate Tibet with massive Han-Chinese immigration/migration. I suppose there are benefits to the Tibetans in terms of economics and development. But it seems Tibet will be lost forever due to demographic and economic domination of the Chinese. This is the dark side of 'multi-culturalism'. It doesn't work out evenly. If Tibetans made up 90% of China in demographics and territory and if Han Chinese made up only 2 million out of 1.3 billion people, then it's likely that Tibetans would be swallowing up the Chinese. But because there are many more Chinese than Tibetans, 'multi-culturalism' in China means Chinese taking over Tibetans. Chinese culture and identity will remain, but Tibetan identity is iffy for the future. If you mix a gallon of milk with a spoonful of orange juice, it will not be half milk and half orange juice. It will overwhelmingly be milk.
    This is why Chinese are for multi-culturalism in China. It favors Han Chinese domination over smaller groups in the NW and SW territories that were conquered by the Han Chinese. It's why Russians are for multiculturalism. It can be invoked to claim Russian domination over Siberia where non-Russians live.

    But there's one crucial difference between Tibet and Korea. Though racially and culturally, the Koreans are closer to the Chinese than the Chinese are to Tibetans, Korea has long been recognized as an independent state by China. As was Vietnam by China despite all the troubles between them.
    The understanding was that Korea should recognize the Chinese Empire as the Middle Kingdom, and in turn, China would recognize the Kingdom of Korea as a tributary state with its independent political, social, cultural, and economic sovereignty. For most of Chinese history, China didn't see Korea as part of China, and Koreans maintained their independence.

    The war in 1895 with Japan wasn't about ownership but influence over Korea. Likewise, China entered the Korean War for influence, not ownership. US did too, in Korea and Vietnam. US wasn't trying to take national possession of Korea and Vietnam--as they did with Hawaii--but merely trying to defend their geopolitical influence there.
    Initially, Japan was vying for influence too, but their imperial designs eventually decided to annex Korea and use it as a launching pad for the conquest of northern China, especially Manchuria.

    Chinese didn't see Korea as a part of China. As Tibetans and Muslims in the Northwest provinces were low in population and stretched across vast territories, Chinese felt they should own those lands and govern those relatively backward peoples. But Chinese regarded Koreans(and Vietnamese)as people of reasonably advanced civilizations in densely populated kingdoms who had a stake in the governance of their own kingdoms/nations.

    Even when China bailed out Korea in the Japanese invasion of the late 16th century, it didn't try to take ownership of Korea.

    Chiang Kai-Shek of KMT never regarded Korea as part of China. He wanted Manchuria and Taiwan back from the Japanese, but he never thought to regain Korea from Japan.
    And when Mao came to power, he pressed Stalin for Mongolia but was perfectly content with Korea as an independent state. As Stalin had installed a puppet regime in Mongolia, Mao had to swallow his pride and accept Mongolia as an 'independent state' and Soviet satellite. Had it not been for the Soviet entry into North Asia in the final stages of WWII, Mongolia would likely have been a part of China. But Chinese never thought to include Korea as part of China. Mongolia was a vast territory back then with a population of 1 million. China could have easily ruled over them. But as China always found out with the Vietnamese, it's much tougher to rule over a more advanced people in a densely populated nation.

    As for the Korean language, it doesn't mean anything to the world or to the Chinese. But I assume it means everything to the Koreans themselves. Every language is distinct, and as the Korean language has been the language of Koreans for 1000s of yrs, why should Koreans not preserve it?
    If Jews brought back Hebrew in Israel after it nearly died out--and it's certainly culturally and historically significant to Jews--, why shouldn't Koreans not carry on with Korean? Isn't it the duty of any people to preserve their identity, history, culture, and language?

    After all, even after 100os of years and even after the Ottoman occupation, Greeks still speak Greek. Well, good for them.
    A people should preserve their language and culture because such things mean everything to themselves. Never mind what such things might mean to the world. I don't know much about Armenian culture and language, but I hope Armenians do everything to preserve them.
    The difference between animals and humans is animals have no history, no memory(prior to their own existence), no culture, and no language. But humans do have memory, culture, identity, and language. True, globalist pop-culture tries to reduce everyone to a hedonistic beast addicted to junk culture, porn, amnesia, and fashions, but fads and trends are not long-lasting. What really lasts is race, culture, and historical memory.
    And I don't see why Koreans shouldn't preserve what they have and indeed had for possibly over 200o yrs in that corner of the world.

    Even if all cultures are artificial, some cultures have a longer history and pedigree than others. If a culture is primitive and without historical memory--except for vague oral culture--, it is understandably difficult to preserve in the face of modernity. But some cultures are old and ancient and they've developed a long historical memory and identity.

    Consider the Irish. True, the British forced English on the Irish and Gaelic became a relic. Even so, Irish identity remained and the Irish pressed for independence and got it after many centuries.
    The Vietnamese lived under French imperialism for over a century, but they too struggled to preserve and defend what is unique to their nation and culture.

    So, its' not true that a people simply submit to their conquerors. Chinese and Russians were conquered by the Mongols, but they eventually re-emerged as Russians with Russian identity/culture and Chinese with Chinese identity/culture. Spain was under Moorish occupation for a long spell, but it re-emerged as a Christian European nation.

    A proud people, even under conquest, maintain their identity and culture, and they re-emerge to take control of their own destiny. Jews had been conquered by all sorts of people, but they outlasted them all. Should they have simply surrendered to their conquerors and become other groups or peoples? Well, if that's what they'd wanted, I guess that's what would have happened, and the Jewish people and culture would have been lost to history. But Jews maintained their identity and culture, and so they are still around. Foolish? Wise? Who's to say, but I'll bet Jews are glad that they had survived as a people and a culture.

    Btw, arguing that a nation should maintain its culture is not being on a high horse. High horse would be telling everyone to get with the globalist program.

    Well said! Every nation and its people should have the right of self-determination.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Anon

    But ‘Korean’ isn’t just some political-social construct imposed by foreign power. It is organic, historical, racial, and cultural.
     
    And an almost-Chinee province, like Tibet. And would have become one if Japan hadn't wrested it from China in 1895. Please get off your high horse. The extinction of the Korean language would have had little more significance than the extinction of any of the other languages that once existed in the ancient kingdoms that now comprise China today. The language you speak today is merely the language of your most recent conqueror. Unless you are personally related to the royals, there's no need to get all het up about that language, or their cultural baggage, especially considering they might, in antiquity, have slaughtered some of your distant relatives while massacring their way to the top. Funny how rabid nationalists like to gloss over that bit. Want to be a traditionalist? Start keeping score all the way back.

    And an almost-Chinee [sic] province, like Tibet. And would have become one if Japan hadn’t wrested it from China in 1895.

    This is just wrong. Korea for most of its feudal history was a suzerainty of China’s, but it was always internally autonomous and its population endogamous. The Chinese didn’t change that, the Mongols didn’t change that, the Jurchens didn’t change that, the Japanese didn’t change that. But unfortunately it would appear, the Koreans themselves are now wilfully destroying their greatest source of strength.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • S Korea’s problems stem from christian conversion.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Anonymous
    Koreans are a pain in the ass for all their neighbors. And for all their brains, they have no real achievements of their own in thousands of years. China and Japan will be more than happy if it devolves into a mongrelized brothel of soap operas and short-skirted pop singers.

    Koreans are a pain in the ass for all their neighbors. And for all their brains, they have no real achievements of their own in thousands of years. China and Japan will be more than happy if it devolves into a mongrelized brothel of soap operas and short-skirted pop singers.

    Where do you get this stuff?

    No, the opposite is true. The pain in the ass were Japan and the northern barbarians. Korea has a long list of innovations and inventions (unlike Japan).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @just a guest
    "South Korea is prosperous because it has … Koreans. "

    Not really true over the long term. Until the Japanese took over, Korea was consistently the poorest and most backward of any of the major Asian countries (excluding Laos, Cambodia, and probably the Philippines)

    For most of the last millennium Korea was much less advanced across all fields - public administration, architecture, technology, agriculture, crafts and commercial development - than Japan or China, and in many case than Vietnam, Thailand, or Burma.

    The prosperity of modern Korea vis a vis Vietnam or China reflects a unique mix of influences from Japanese rule, its position as a front-line ally of the US during the cold war with all its benefits of international exchange, training, and money, and probably the spread of Christianity. But it really is quite a recent development in Asian history.

    For most of the last millennium Korea was much less advanced across all fields – public administration, architecture, technology, agriculture, crafts and commercial development – than Japan or China, and in many case than Vietnam, Thailand, or Burma.

    No, the opposite was true.

    In NE Asia, Japan was the laggard until recently.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Hepp
    I think that the potential for backlash to immigrants in the East lies in how utterly unattractive Asian men are, even to women of their own race. If they think they're celibate now, wait till these guys have to compete with whites or blacks. Doesn't seem like a problem when a lot of the immigrants are Vietnamese and therefore look the same. But it potentially could blow up.

    I think that the potential for backlash to immigrants in the East lies in how utterly unattractive Asian men are, even to women of their own race.

    You seem to believe the status quo is fixed?

    You see no correlation between economics, pop culture, the media, and perceived levels of attractiveness?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Sean
    The Korean language and culture is less distinctive that the HBD characteristics of the Koreans themselves. And those characteristics are going.

    Linguistically, Korean language is distantly related to Finnish and therefore Hungarian. Go figure. Wonder how that occurred?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous
    The Pew Research Twitter feed contrasted the liberalisation of adultery with strong public opinion very much against.

    https://t.co/QcedPl2HEw

    Obviously this is no more the will of Korean people than it is of Korean traditional values.
    Paradise being lost?
    Thanks to western NGOs?

    I therefore suggest today's Korean's willingness to outmarriage reflect a dissatisfaction with one's own culture and idealisation of the 'other' rather than directly encouraged/imposed from above. That is, Japanese women see Korean men as more masculine than their own, even as Korean women find their men unsatisfactory on the same grounds. The grass becomes greener across the border if someone hasn't crossed the border.

    The Japanese borrow the word 'anomie' to describe this complex of disatisfaction reflected in things such as low socialisation by atomisation (hikikomori phenomenon), low birthrate, increases of suicide and elective abortion, high rates of depression, stress and other socially induced mental health problems etc.

    All these issues affect the west to varying degrees and sites such as Chateau Heartiste and Return of Kings reflect a preference for idealised foreign women like Eastern Europeans, rooted in anomie about the gender norms on these guy's own doorsteps. Anti-feminism sets out to cure this, but if the same trends are epidemic in East Asia (low feminism), the problem must be disrupted post-industrial gender roles of which feminist thought is merely a legitimisation.

    Uh, Japan is roughly 98% ethnically and racially Japanese. Japan and Korea are ancient enemies, or rivals is the modern politically correct term. There is very little direct reason to believe that this rivalry will change anytime soon, and perhaps it shouldn’t.

    If Korea is having some problems with multiculturalism and lessening or weakening their own culture of thousands of yrs, then why should Japan follow after their example to weaken their own culture in turn? Especially if it was initiated by Korea, of which Japan does not owe a thing to.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Peter Frost
    I would politely suggest a few other reasons for their success. American largesse in the decades after 1945.

    Uh, does the Korean War qualify as "largesse"? Joking aside, Great Britain was the leading beneficiary of the Marshall Plan, yet it seemed to benefit the least. The benefits of foreign aid tend to wash out over time, and I would be surprised if the Marshall Plan had any discernable effects today.

    But also keep in mind that the US military is still on the DMZ line, is it not? They have been there since the end of the Korean War. Cannot the South Korean military defend its own nation without US assistance? One would tend to think that by now it certainly would be more than able to do so.

    Also, the US for some twenty years after WW2 was the military keeper in the Far East. Several nations there, including Korea, were prohibited from defending their own interests and increasing military spending. Glad to see that they are starting to do so now, at least in Korea.

    By why exactly is the US military still on the DMZ line remains a complete and total mystery. South Korea does not belong to the United States. Let them defend their own border by themselves.

    Also, perhaps another part of the US largesse referenced is that US markets have been more open and receptive to Korean made goods for about the last two and a half decades when before it was not.

    So, actually, the affects post-Korean War have been largely beneficial to South Korea, at least in helping to develop it into a first rate economic power.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • “Americanization is much more advanced in Korea than elsewhere in east-asia.”

    Is it a coincidence that christianity by adherents is also much more advanced than elsewhere in properous parts of east-asia? (Philippines is not prosperous).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Priss Factor [AKA "whyem whyempty whyempathy"] says:

    The world is totally nuts.

    Get a load of this:

    Korea to go extinct by 2750:

    http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2014/08/25/2014082500859.html

    Spain urged to ‘learn from Korea’:

    http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2015/03/04/2015030401361.html

    So, is Spain gonna go in 2800?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Priss Factor [AKA "whyem whyempty whyempathy"] says:
    @Anonymous
    The Pew Research Twitter feed contrasted the liberalisation of adultery with strong public opinion very much against.

    https://t.co/QcedPl2HEw

    Obviously this is no more the will of Korean people than it is of Korean traditional values.
    Paradise being lost?
    Thanks to western NGOs?

    I therefore suggest today's Korean's willingness to outmarriage reflect a dissatisfaction with one's own culture and idealisation of the 'other' rather than directly encouraged/imposed from above. That is, Japanese women see Korean men as more masculine than their own, even as Korean women find their men unsatisfactory on the same grounds. The grass becomes greener across the border if someone hasn't crossed the border.

    The Japanese borrow the word 'anomie' to describe this complex of disatisfaction reflected in things such as low socialisation by atomisation (hikikomori phenomenon), low birthrate, increases of suicide and elective abortion, high rates of depression, stress and other socially induced mental health problems etc.

    All these issues affect the west to varying degrees and sites such as Chateau Heartiste and Return of Kings reflect a preference for idealised foreign women like Eastern Europeans, rooted in anomie about the gender norms on these guy's own doorsteps. Anti-feminism sets out to cure this, but if the same trends are epidemic in East Asia (low feminism), the problem must be disrupted post-industrial gender roles of which feminist thought is merely a legitimisation.

    “That is, Japanese women see Korean men as more masculine than their own…”

    What do you expect from a bunch of guys weaned on cartoons and video games?

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

    The Pew Research Twitter feed contrasted the liberalisation of adultery with strong public opinion very much against.

    https://t.co/QcedPl2HEw

    Obviously this is no more the will of Korean people than it is of Korean traditional values.
    Paradise being lost?
    Thanks to western NGOs?

    I therefore suggest today’s Korean’s willingness to outmarriage reflect a dissatisfaction with one’s own culture and idealisation of the ‘other’ rather than directly encouraged/imposed from above. That is, Japanese women see Korean men as more masculine than their own, even as Korean women find their men unsatisfactory on the same grounds. The grass becomes greener across the border if someone hasn’t crossed the border.

    The Japanese borrow the word ‘anomie’ to describe this complex of disatisfaction reflected in things such as low socialisation by atomisation (hikikomori phenomenon), low birthrate, increases of suicide and elective abortion, high rates of depression, stress and other socially induced mental health problems etc.

    All these issues affect the west to varying degrees and sites such as Chateau Heartiste and Return of Kings reflect a preference for idealised foreign women like Eastern Europeans, rooted in anomie about the gender norms on these guy’s own doorsteps. Anti-feminism sets out to cure this, but if the same trends are epidemic in East Asia (low feminism), the problem must be disrupted post-industrial gender roles of which feminist thought is merely a legitimisation.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Priss Factor
    "That is, Japanese women see Korean men as more masculine than their own..."

    What do you expect from a bunch of guys weaned on cartoons and video games?
    , @Anonymous
    Uh, Japan is roughly 98% ethnically and racially Japanese. Japan and Korea are ancient enemies, or rivals is the modern politically correct term. There is very little direct reason to believe that this rivalry will change anytime soon, and perhaps it shouldn't.

    If Korea is having some problems with multiculturalism and lessening or weakening their own culture of thousands of yrs, then why should Japan follow after their example to weaken their own culture in turn? Especially if it was initiated by Korea, of which Japan does not owe a thing to.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • South Korea has just legalised adultery Hundreds of people were sent to prison for it just ten years ago. South Korea is proof, if proof were needed, that globalising capitalism has no more to do with freedom or the people wellbeing than aggressive war does. Park Chung-hee put economic growth over all else.

    When he came to power in 1961, South Korea’s per capita income was only US$72.00. North Korea was the greater economic and military power on the peninsula due to the North’s legacy of high industrialization such as the power and chemical plants, and also the large amounts of economic, technical and financial aid it received from other communist bloc countries such as the Soviet Union, East Germany and China. South Korean industry saw remarkable development under Park’s leadership.

    That makes me think that south Korea’s elite had a state-centric motive of state survival. Maybe all state policy aims at that.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Priss Factor [AKA "whyem whyempty whyempathy"] says:
    @Anon

    But ‘Korean’ isn’t just some political-social construct imposed by foreign power. It is organic, historical, racial, and cultural.
     
    And an almost-Chinee province, like Tibet. And would have become one if Japan hadn't wrested it from China in 1895. Please get off your high horse. The extinction of the Korean language would have had little more significance than the extinction of any of the other languages that once existed in the ancient kingdoms that now comprise China today. The language you speak today is merely the language of your most recent conqueror. Unless you are personally related to the royals, there's no need to get all het up about that language, or their cultural baggage, especially considering they might, in antiquity, have slaughtered some of your distant relatives while massacring their way to the top. Funny how rabid nationalists like to gloss over that bit. Want to be a traditionalist? Start keeping score all the way back.

    “And an almost-Chinee province, like Tibet. And would have become one if Japan hadn’t wrested it from China in 1895. Please get off your high horse. The extinction of the Korean language would have had little more significance than the extinction of any of the other languages that once existed in the ancient kingdoms that now comprise China today. The language you speak today is merely the language of your most recent conqueror.”

    Fate of Tibet is a sad one. It is being swallowed up by Han Chinese. Of course, Chinese invoke ‘multi-culturalism’ as a form of neo-imperialism. They claim to ‘celebrate diversity’ and inundate Tibet with massive Han-Chinese immigration/migration. I suppose there are benefits to the Tibetans in terms of economics and development. But it seems Tibet will be lost forever due to demographic and economic domination of the Chinese. This is the dark side of ‘multi-culturalism’. It doesn’t work out evenly. If Tibetans made up 90% of China in demographics and territory and if Han Chinese made up only 2 million out of 1.3 billion people, then it’s likely that Tibetans would be swallowing up the Chinese. But because there are many more Chinese than Tibetans, ‘multi-culturalism’ in China means Chinese taking over Tibetans. Chinese culture and identity will remain, but Tibetan identity is iffy for the future. If you mix a gallon of milk with a spoonful of orange juice, it will not be half milk and half orange juice. It will overwhelmingly be milk.
    This is why Chinese are for multi-culturalism in China. It favors Han Chinese domination over smaller groups in the NW and SW territories that were conquered by the Han Chinese. It’s why Russians are for multiculturalism. It can be invoked to claim Russian domination over Siberia where non-Russians live.

    But there’s one crucial difference between Tibet and Korea. Though racially and culturally, the Koreans are closer to the Chinese than the Chinese are to Tibetans, Korea has long been recognized as an independent state by China. As was Vietnam by China despite all the troubles between them.
    The understanding was that Korea should recognize the Chinese Empire as the Middle Kingdom, and in turn, China would recognize the Kingdom of Korea as a tributary state with its independent political, social, cultural, and economic sovereignty. For most of Chinese history, China didn’t see Korea as part of China, and Koreans maintained their independence.

    The war in 1895 with Japan wasn’t about ownership but influence over Korea. Likewise, China entered the Korean War for influence, not ownership. US did too, in Korea and Vietnam. US wasn’t trying to take national possession of Korea and Vietnam–as they did with Hawaii–but merely trying to defend their geopolitical influence there.
    Initially, Japan was vying for influence too, but their imperial designs eventually decided to annex Korea and use it as a launching pad for the conquest of northern China, especially Manchuria.

    Chinese didn’t see Korea as a part of China. As Tibetans and Muslims in the Northwest provinces were low in population and stretched across vast territories, Chinese felt they should own those lands and govern those relatively backward peoples. But Chinese regarded Koreans(and Vietnamese)as people of reasonably advanced civilizations in densely populated kingdoms who had a stake in the governance of their own kingdoms/nations.

    Even when China bailed out Korea in the Japanese invasion of the late 16th century, it didn’t try to take ownership of Korea.

    Chiang Kai-Shek of KMT never regarded Korea as part of China. He wanted Manchuria and Taiwan back from the Japanese, but he never thought to regain Korea from Japan.
    And when Mao came to power, he pressed Stalin for Mongolia but was perfectly content with Korea as an independent state. As Stalin had installed a puppet regime in Mongolia, Mao had to swallow his pride and accept Mongolia as an ‘independent state’ and Soviet satellite. Had it not been for the Soviet entry into North Asia in the final stages of WWII, Mongolia would likely have been a part of China. But Chinese never thought to include Korea as part of China. Mongolia was a vast territory back then with a population of 1 million. China could have easily ruled over them. But as China always found out with the Vietnamese, it’s much tougher to rule over a more advanced people in a densely populated nation.

    As for the Korean language, it doesn’t mean anything to the world or to the Chinese. But I assume it means everything to the Koreans themselves. Every language is distinct, and as the Korean language has been the language of Koreans for 1000s of yrs, why should Koreans not preserve it?
    If Jews brought back Hebrew in Israel after it nearly died out–and it’s certainly culturally and historically significant to Jews–, why shouldn’t Koreans not carry on with Korean? Isn’t it the duty of any people to preserve their identity, history, culture, and language?

    After all, even after 100os of years and even after the Ottoman occupation, Greeks still speak Greek. Well, good for them.
    A people should preserve their language and culture because such things mean everything to themselves. Never mind what such things might mean to the world. I don’t know much about Armenian culture and language, but I hope Armenians do everything to preserve them.
    The difference between animals and humans is animals have no history, no memory(prior to their own existence), no culture, and no language. But humans do have memory, culture, identity, and language. True, globalist pop-culture tries to reduce everyone to a hedonistic beast addicted to junk culture, porn, amnesia, and fashions, but fads and trends are not long-lasting. What really lasts is race, culture, and historical memory.
    And I don’t see why Koreans shouldn’t preserve what they have and indeed had for possibly over 200o yrs in that corner of the world.

    Even if all cultures are artificial, some cultures have a longer history and pedigree than others. If a culture is primitive and without historical memory–except for vague oral culture–, it is understandably difficult to preserve in the face of modernity. But some cultures are old and ancient and they’ve developed a long historical memory and identity.

    Consider the Irish. True, the British forced English on the Irish and Gaelic became a relic. Even so, Irish identity remained and the Irish pressed for independence and got it after many centuries.
    The Vietnamese lived under French imperialism for over a century, but they too struggled to preserve and defend what is unique to their nation and culture.

    So, its’ not true that a people simply submit to their conquerors. Chinese and Russians were conquered by the Mongols, but they eventually re-emerged as Russians with Russian identity/culture and Chinese with Chinese identity/culture. Spain was under Moorish occupation for a long spell, but it re-emerged as a Christian European nation.

    A proud people, even under conquest, maintain their identity and culture, and they re-emerge to take control of their own destiny. Jews had been conquered by all sorts of people, but they outlasted them all. Should they have simply surrendered to their conquerors and become other groups or peoples? Well, if that’s what they’d wanted, I guess that’s what would have happened, and the Jewish people and culture would have been lost to history. But Jews maintained their identity and culture, and so they are still around. Foolish? Wise? Who’s to say, but I’ll bet Jews are glad that they had survived as a people and a culture.

    Btw, arguing that a nation should maintain its culture is not being on a high horse. High horse would be telling everyone to get with the globalist program.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reezy
    Well said! Every nation and its people should have the right of self-determination.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Southfarthing
    It doesn't matter that the 1965 Act imposed a limit on Mexican immigration because nobody cared to enforce it.

    Even if the act hadn't occurred, the macro trends would have been the same:
    - increasing population in Mexico
    - demand for cheap labor
    - liberals wanting to erase borders

    The 1965 Act was a historical contingency that resulted from the macro trends, not the other way around.

    Ted Kennedy was probably motivated by resentment related to anti-Catholic agitation. The act was not a response to a sudden increase in Mexican immigration.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Anon

    But ‘Korean’ isn’t just some political-social construct imposed by foreign power. It is organic, historical, racial, and cultural.
     
    And an almost-Chinee province, like Tibet. And would have become one if Japan hadn't wrested it from China in 1895. Please get off your high horse. The extinction of the Korean language would have had little more significance than the extinction of any of the other languages that once existed in the ancient kingdoms that now comprise China today. The language you speak today is merely the language of your most recent conqueror. Unless you are personally related to the royals, there's no need to get all het up about that language, or their cultural baggage, especially considering they might, in antiquity, have slaughtered some of your distant relatives while massacring their way to the top. Funny how rabid nationalists like to gloss over that bit. Want to be a traditionalist? Start keeping score all the way back.

    The Korean language and culture is less distinctive that the HBD characteristics of the Koreans themselves. And those characteristics are going.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Linguistically, Korean language is distantly related to Finnish and therefore Hungarian. Go figure. Wonder how that occurred?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @ridiculous
    What a ridiculous analysis.
    For those with low IQ and lack of critical thinking skill, think about this:
    For this to be a proper comparison, you have to test the IQ of the parents of "mixed unions" and the IQ of "Korean" parents. Then for comparable IQ groups, you compare their children and their academic performance, cognitive ability, with the caveat that academic performance in Korea is dependent on after school tutoring. They spend enormous sums on tutoring for their children to the point of making their children no more than little test takers. Do these children from "mixed unions" have the means for such tutoring or do they go to the fields after school as most of them live in rural area?
    It's so obvious that only the worse, poorest, least desirable Korean men would go out of their country to find wives, who similarly in their native countries would also be the least desirable. So what you have is the least desirable marrying least desirable, producing mediocre children. What's new?
    The same thing happens in Europe, USA, or any where else where poor people go to find better economic opportunities. What's new?
    And the much touted Korean people, which was responsible for their economic prowess, can be viewed as nothing more than as a vassal for USA. All their products are copies off USA technology, their economy grew because of USA favoritism and trade favored status.
    Look at their cars, nothing but copies of Japan, German models.
    Theirs is a complete lack of creativity; so maybe with an injection of new blood, they can boost their creativity and imagination a bit.

    All their products are copies off USA technology, their economy grew because of USA favoritism and trade favored status.
    Look at their cars, nothing but copies of Japan, German models.
    Theirs is a complete lack of creativity; so maybe with an injection of new blood, they can boost their creativity and imagination a bit.

    The US has the same trade policies with Korea as it does with Zambia, Egypt, Thailand and the Philippines. Why aren’t these countries making automobiles that are copies of Japanese and German models? Korean scribes were writing down their history on bamboo strips thousands of years ago when the English were running around in animal skins. The wheel of history turns in cycles, at least for those with the cognitive ability to seize their moment.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Priss Factor
    Maybe to clarify matters, Koreans should make a distinction between Korean citizenship--a legal matter--and Korean ethno-identity. This way, they can say non-Koreans can become citizens of Korea, but ONLY Koreans by blood can be Korean nationals.

    Consider Singapore. It's a diverse city-state though with large Chinese majority. Non-Chinese can be Singaporeans, but non-Chinese Singaporeans cannot claim to be Chinese-Singaporeans. Only Chinese Singaporeans can claim to be Chinese Singaporeans. And only Asian-Indian Singaporeans can claim to be Asian Indian Singaporeans.

    A similar kind of logic exists in the US. Anyone can become a US or American citizen, but not anyone can claim to be part of some ethnic group. To be an Irish-American, you need Irish ancestry. To be a Polish-American, you need Polish ancestry. To be a black-American, you need Sub-Saharan African ancestry. To be a Palestinian-American, you need Palestinian ancestry.
    So, even though all kinds of people can be a legal American citizen, no one cannot claim to be a member of just any ethno-American community. A Swedish-American cannot demand that he be recognized as an African-American. A Laotian-American cannot claim to be recognized as a Jewish-American.

    So, maybe Koreans should make a distinction between Korean by nationality/blood/ethnicity and Citizen of Korea by legality. Unless they do this, the meaning of Korean will become diluted, confused, and meaningless.

    In the case of 'Singaporean', a more diverse meaning of the term is possible since Singapore was an imperialist creation by the British that brought together various ethnic groups. There was no such thing as a 'Singaporean' to begin with. It was indeed an artificial imperialist construct. (It's also true of 'Indonesian' as modern 'Indonesia' was essentially a Dutch invention by pulling together various islands of diverse tribes together into a 'nation').

    But 'Korean' isn't just some political-social construct imposed by foreign power. It is organic, historical, racial, and cultural. Therefore, expanding 'Korean' to mean something like 'Singaporean' totally misses the point of what it means to be Korean. To be Korean really means to be part of a Korean national-genetic family.

    So, if Koreans do want non-Koreans to be citizens of Korea, they should make a distinction between Korean nationals who must be Korean by blood and Citizens of Korea who enjoy legal rights but aren't recognized as Korean ethnies.

    But ‘Korean’ isn’t just some political-social construct imposed by foreign power. It is organic, historical, racial, and cultural.

    And an almost-Chinee province, like Tibet. And would have become one if Japan hadn’t wrested it from China in 1895. Please get off your high horse. The extinction of the Korean language would have had little more significance than the extinction of any of the other languages that once existed in the ancient kingdoms that now comprise China today. The language you speak today is merely the language of your most recent conqueror. Unless you are personally related to the royals, there’s no need to get all het up about that language, or their cultural baggage, especially considering they might, in antiquity, have slaughtered some of your distant relatives while massacring their way to the top. Funny how rabid nationalists like to gloss over that bit. Want to be a traditionalist? Start keeping score all the way back.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean
    The Korean language and culture is less distinctive that the HBD characteristics of the Koreans themselves. And those characteristics are going.
    , @Priss Factor
    "And an almost-Chinee province, like Tibet. And would have become one if Japan hadn’t wrested it from China in 1895. Please get off your high horse. The extinction of the Korean language would have had little more significance than the extinction of any of the other languages that once existed in the ancient kingdoms that now comprise China today. The language you speak today is merely the language of your most recent conqueror."

    Fate of Tibet is a sad one. It is being swallowed up by Han Chinese. Of course, Chinese invoke 'multi-culturalism' as a form of neo-imperialism. They claim to 'celebrate diversity' and inundate Tibet with massive Han-Chinese immigration/migration. I suppose there are benefits to the Tibetans in terms of economics and development. But it seems Tibet will be lost forever due to demographic and economic domination of the Chinese. This is the dark side of 'multi-culturalism'. It doesn't work out evenly. If Tibetans made up 90% of China in demographics and territory and if Han Chinese made up only 2 million out of 1.3 billion people, then it's likely that Tibetans would be swallowing up the Chinese. But because there are many more Chinese than Tibetans, 'multi-culturalism' in China means Chinese taking over Tibetans. Chinese culture and identity will remain, but Tibetan identity is iffy for the future. If you mix a gallon of milk with a spoonful of orange juice, it will not be half milk and half orange juice. It will overwhelmingly be milk.
    This is why Chinese are for multi-culturalism in China. It favors Han Chinese domination over smaller groups in the NW and SW territories that were conquered by the Han Chinese. It's why Russians are for multiculturalism. It can be invoked to claim Russian domination over Siberia where non-Russians live.

    But there's one crucial difference between Tibet and Korea. Though racially and culturally, the Koreans are closer to the Chinese than the Chinese are to Tibetans, Korea has long been recognized as an independent state by China. As was Vietnam by China despite all the troubles between them.
    The understanding was that Korea should recognize the Chinese Empire as the Middle Kingdom, and in turn, China would recognize the Kingdom of Korea as a tributary state with its independent political, social, cultural, and economic sovereignty. For most of Chinese history, China didn't see Korea as part of China, and Koreans maintained their independence.

    The war in 1895 with Japan wasn't about ownership but influence over Korea. Likewise, China entered the Korean War for influence, not ownership. US did too, in Korea and Vietnam. US wasn't trying to take national possession of Korea and Vietnam--as they did with Hawaii--but merely trying to defend their geopolitical influence there.
    Initially, Japan was vying for influence too, but their imperial designs eventually decided to annex Korea and use it as a launching pad for the conquest of northern China, especially Manchuria.

    Chinese didn't see Korea as a part of China. As Tibetans and Muslims in the Northwest provinces were low in population and stretched across vast territories, Chinese felt they should own those lands and govern those relatively backward peoples. But Chinese regarded Koreans(and Vietnamese)as people of reasonably advanced civilizations in densely populated kingdoms who had a stake in the governance of their own kingdoms/nations.

    Even when China bailed out Korea in the Japanese invasion of the late 16th century, it didn't try to take ownership of Korea.

    Chiang Kai-Shek of KMT never regarded Korea as part of China. He wanted Manchuria and Taiwan back from the Japanese, but he never thought to regain Korea from Japan.
    And when Mao came to power, he pressed Stalin for Mongolia but was perfectly content with Korea as an independent state. As Stalin had installed a puppet regime in Mongolia, Mao had to swallow his pride and accept Mongolia as an 'independent state' and Soviet satellite. Had it not been for the Soviet entry into North Asia in the final stages of WWII, Mongolia would likely have been a part of China. But Chinese never thought to include Korea as part of China. Mongolia was a vast territory back then with a population of 1 million. China could have easily ruled over them. But as China always found out with the Vietnamese, it's much tougher to rule over a more advanced people in a densely populated nation.

    As for the Korean language, it doesn't mean anything to the world or to the Chinese. But I assume it means everything to the Koreans themselves. Every language is distinct, and as the Korean language has been the language of Koreans for 1000s of yrs, why should Koreans not preserve it?
    If Jews brought back Hebrew in Israel after it nearly died out--and it's certainly culturally and historically significant to Jews--, why shouldn't Koreans not carry on with Korean? Isn't it the duty of any people to preserve their identity, history, culture, and language?

    After all, even after 100os of years and even after the Ottoman occupation, Greeks still speak Greek. Well, good for them.
    A people should preserve their language and culture because such things mean everything to themselves. Never mind what such things might mean to the world. I don't know much about Armenian culture and language, but I hope Armenians do everything to preserve them.
    The difference between animals and humans is animals have no history, no memory(prior to their own existence), no culture, and no language. But humans do have memory, culture, identity, and language. True, globalist pop-culture tries to reduce everyone to a hedonistic beast addicted to junk culture, porn, amnesia, and fashions, but fads and trends are not long-lasting. What really lasts is race, culture, and historical memory.
    And I don't see why Koreans shouldn't preserve what they have and indeed had for possibly over 200o yrs in that corner of the world.

    Even if all cultures are artificial, some cultures have a longer history and pedigree than others. If a culture is primitive and without historical memory--except for vague oral culture--, it is understandably difficult to preserve in the face of modernity. But some cultures are old and ancient and they've developed a long historical memory and identity.

    Consider the Irish. True, the British forced English on the Irish and Gaelic became a relic. Even so, Irish identity remained and the Irish pressed for independence and got it after many centuries.
    The Vietnamese lived under French imperialism for over a century, but they too struggled to preserve and defend what is unique to their nation and culture.

    So, its' not true that a people simply submit to their conquerors. Chinese and Russians were conquered by the Mongols, but they eventually re-emerged as Russians with Russian identity/culture and Chinese with Chinese identity/culture. Spain was under Moorish occupation for a long spell, but it re-emerged as a Christian European nation.

    A proud people, even under conquest, maintain their identity and culture, and they re-emerge to take control of their own destiny. Jews had been conquered by all sorts of people, but they outlasted them all. Should they have simply surrendered to their conquerors and become other groups or peoples? Well, if that's what they'd wanted, I guess that's what would have happened, and the Jewish people and culture would have been lost to history. But Jews maintained their identity and culture, and so they are still around. Foolish? Wise? Who's to say, but I'll bet Jews are glad that they had survived as a people and a culture.

    Btw, arguing that a nation should maintain its culture is not being on a high horse. High horse would be telling everyone to get with the globalist program.

    , @reezy

    And an almost-Chinee [sic] province, like Tibet. And would have become one if Japan hadn’t wrested it from China in 1895.
     
    This is just wrong. Korea for most of its feudal history was a suzerainty of China's, but it was always internally autonomous and its population endogamous. The Chinese didn't change that, the Mongols didn't change that, the Jurchens didn't change that, the Japanese didn't change that. But unfortunately it would appear, the Koreans themselves are now wilfully destroying their greatest source of strength.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Sean

    without a major acceleration in the 1960s
     
    Shouldn't there have been a major deceleration (or an absolute) reduction is 1965 if the act was restricting a largely unrestricted border?


    I don't think the constant increase without a major acceleration is evidence there was effectively an open border with Mexico until 1965. Immigration leads to diasporas and that lowers the cost of immigration, thereby causing a massive acceleration in immigration. In regard to Mexican immigration there are demographic confounds, and the legal position seems to have been out of line with the practice, but the main point at issue is whether the act was a watershed in increasing total non-European immigration. Anyway there can be no argument that the 1965 act was not presented as a close the Mexican border measure, so even if it was, it seems absolutely no-one released .

    It doesn’t matter that the 1965 Act imposed a limit on Mexican immigration because nobody cared to enforce it.

    Even if the act hadn’t occurred, the macro trends would have been the same:
    - increasing population in Mexico
    - demand for cheap labor
    - liberals wanting to erase borders

    The 1965 Act was a historical contingency that resulted from the macro trends, not the other way around.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean
    Ted Kennedy was probably motivated by resentment related to anti-Catholic agitation. The act was not a response to a sudden increase in Mexican immigration.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Southfarthing

    "After 100,000 angry Internet articles and blog posts have been published denouncing the 1965 Act, I tend to doubt the mistake can ever be corrected."
     
    I came to the same conclusion when I looked at the historical number of Hispanics in the U.S.. Despite periodic efforts like Operation Wetback, it was a smooth rate of increase from 1850 onward, without a major acceleration in the 1960s.

    Various historical contingencies fed into it, like WW2 and the competition with the Soviets to win non-European hearts and minds, but these are a distraction from the macro-trends involved.

    without a major acceleration in the 1960s

    Shouldn’t there have been a major deceleration (or an absolute) reduction is 1965 if the act was restricting a largely unrestricted border?

    I don’t think the constant increase without a major acceleration is evidence there was effectively an open border with Mexico until 1965. Immigration leads to diasporas and that lowers the cost of immigration, thereby causing a massive acceleration in immigration. In regard to Mexican immigration there are demographic confounds, and the legal position seems to have been out of line with the practice, but the main point at issue is whether the act was a watershed in increasing total non-European immigration. Anyway there can be no argument that the 1965 act was not presented as a close the Mexican border measure, so even if it was, it seems absolutely no-one released .

    Read More
    • Replies: @Southfarthing
    It doesn't matter that the 1965 Act imposed a limit on Mexican immigration because nobody cared to enforce it.

    Even if the act hadn't occurred, the macro trends would have been the same:
    - increasing population in Mexico
    - demand for cheap labor
    - liberals wanting to erase borders

    The 1965 Act was a historical contingency that resulted from the macro trends, not the other way around.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • […] Given the risk, that we do not know which groups will integrate and succeed and prove a worthwhile investment (and its is a significant financial investment on our part) and which groups will continue bleeding the natives, why on earth take such a gamble? Lately developed Asian countries like Korea are making the same mistake as the West and letting in just about anyone to rubbish results. […]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Ron Unz
    It's not very complicated, Peter. Any Mexican who paid his $47 fee (or whatever) and waited a day or two for medical processing could legally immigrate to the U.S. after the 1924 Act.

    However, in addition to these legal immigration provisions, the border itself was almost completely unpatrolled and open. Since lots of Mexicans were extremely poor and also didn't pay a lot of attention to government formalities, many/most of them tended not to even bother with official immigration procedures and saved their $47 by just crossing the border "illegally." Most of the time no one cared and the local businessmen were happy to hire them whether or not they'd paid their $47 fee, but every now and then a sharp American recession persuaded the politicians to round up and deport the "illegal" Mexicans, which happened in the 1930s and again in the 1950s. As "Sean" noted, sometimes such roundups also (unlawfully) included legal Mexican immigrants or even American-born Mexicans with U.S. citizenship (though I strongly suspect the latter were just the young children of the illegals being picked up).



    Given that American rightwingers have been so enormously agitated about immigration for the last couple of decades, it's important to realize that was *not* the case before about the 1980s. During the 1960s, almost nobody cared about immigration, and since so many of the harder-core rightwing activists were focused on the Captive Nations of Eastern Europe, many of them tended to support reopening the borders long shut by the 1924 Act. A few years back I ended up digitizing virtually all the leading opinion publications from that era, and I'd guess that the amount of political agitation focused on the 1964 Civil Rights Act was maybe 100x or 200x the agitation surrounding the 1965 Immigration Act. In fact, I could barely find any rightwingers who even mentioned it, the one exception being some rightwing columnist writing in (I think) Human Events. He said he worried it could eventually change America's racial balance, and argued it was totally unnecessary from the economic perspective since we already allowed unlimited Latin American immigration.

    The reason there was so little Mexican immigration during the pre-1965 Open Borders Era was that Mexico was tremendously underpopulated back then. If you look at Wikipedia, you'll see that the Mexican population increased from 20M to 91M between 1940 and 1995, plus maybe another 25M Mexicans who'd moved to the U.S. during that period or were the children of parents who had. If not for the 1965 Act, the latter figure might have been more like 50-60M

    So the 1965 Act was certainly intended to "open America's borders" and immigration did indeed skyrocket during the decades that immediately followed, but the two things had almost nothing to do with each other and were purely coincidental in timing. My guess is that the confusion began with Peter Brimelow's Alien Nation book in 1994, and after 100,000 angry Internet articles and blog posts have been published denouncing the 1965 Act, I tend to doubt the mistake can ever be corrected.

    “After 100,000 angry Internet articles and blog posts have been published denouncing the 1965 Act, I tend to doubt the mistake can ever be corrected.”

    I came to the same conclusion when I looked at the historical number of Hispanics in the U.S.. Despite periodic efforts like Operation Wetback, it was a smooth rate of increase from 1850 onward, without a major acceleration in the 1960s.

    Various historical contingencies fed into it, like WW2 and the competition with the Soviets to win non-European hearts and minds, but these are a distraction from the macro-trends involved.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean

    without a major acceleration in the 1960s
     
    Shouldn't there have been a major deceleration (or an absolute) reduction is 1965 if the act was restricting a largely unrestricted border?


    I don't think the constant increase without a major acceleration is evidence there was effectively an open border with Mexico until 1965. Immigration leads to diasporas and that lowers the cost of immigration, thereby causing a massive acceleration in immigration. In regard to Mexican immigration there are demographic confounds, and the legal position seems to have been out of line with the practice, but the main point at issue is whether the act was a watershed in increasing total non-European immigration. Anyway there can be no argument that the 1965 act was not presented as a close the Mexican border measure, so even if it was, it seems absolutely no-one released .
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Peter Frost
    Most of the legislators are long dead or retired. It’s only relatively recently that Asian immigration has been significantly altering the demographic composition of the country.

    Gerald Ford died in 2006. Edward Kennedy died in 2009. I don't have the time to check, but you'll find that most of the lawmakers who voted for that bill died in the 1990s or after the year 2000. The effects of chain migration were already evident by the 1980s and certainly by 1990 when Bush Sr raised the immigration intake from 500,000 to 700,000.

    The fact that Ford and other individuals who had been involved in the legislation didn’t say anything publicly towards the ends of their lives is not evidence that they foresaw or willed all its consequences that insidiously played themselves out over decades.

    Chin’s article addresses the claim that the legislators did not expect that Asian immigration would increase relative to pre-1965 levels, a claim I’ve never heard anyone make. Chin refutes the claim by quoting people who had been involved in the legislation decades before saying that they did indeed expect Asian immigration to increase relative to pre-1965 levels. Some of these people also said that while they expected Asian immigration to increase, they didn’t expect it to icnrease to the levels that it did. Chin’s article does not support the idea that Congress as a whole or all these legislators completely foresaw and willed the long-term consequences of the legislation.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Any Mexican who paid his $47 fee (or whatever) and waited a day or two for medical processing could legally immigrate to the U.S. after the 1924 Act.

    There was also a literacy test. On the other hand, the literacy test and the medical exam were waived for those Mexicans who arrived by first-class rail. The unstated purpose was to restrict the entry of darker-skinned peons, who usually had trouble meeting those three requirements: head tax + literacy test + medical exam. That’s why so many entered illegally. They had no other choice (other than staying home).

    it’s important to realize that was *not* the case before about the 1980s. During the 1960s, almost nobody cared about immigration, and since so many of the harder-core rightwing activists were focused on the Captive Nations of Eastern Europe, many of them tended to support reopening the borders long shut by the 1924 Act.

    The 1924 Act was killed by its success. By the 1960s, there was a new generation of Americans who couldn’t see what all the fuss was about. Most of them assumed their country would always be more or less what it was back then. Their lawmakers should have known better, but the zeitgeist of the Civil Rights era made it difficult for them to spell out their apprehensions in plain English. And there were others who knew where the U.S. was headed but “chose not to know.”

    I’m still surprised by that commenter who said that the U.S. received little immigration from the Third World (aside from Mexico) until “recently.” I remember hearing academics in the 1990s talk about America’s demographic transformation, and they weren’t simply talking about Hispanic immigration.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • j says: • Website

    Before WWII the US had a population of about 150 million, while Mexico had 20 million and Guatemala 2 million, just as Ron remarked. The Latino “invasion” that so excites the minds of many today, was then unimaginable. Mexican singers and actors had an exotic appeal and were very popular in the States.

    What only illuminates the issue of South Korean demographics, which most commenters find rather obscure.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Peter Frost
    Most of the legislators are long dead or retired. It’s only relatively recently that Asian immigration has been significantly altering the demographic composition of the country.

    Gerald Ford died in 2006. Edward Kennedy died in 2009. I don't have the time to check, but you'll find that most of the lawmakers who voted for that bill died in the 1990s or after the year 2000. The effects of chain migration were already evident by the 1980s and certainly by 1990 when Bush Sr raised the immigration intake from 500,000 to 700,000.

    And if one sees this very same outlook active as far back as 300 years ago despite being unable yet to express itself in population replacement, then all the more reason not to treat it as an isolated phenomena

    I think t think it is increasingly believed by academic historians that the 13 colonies rose against what they saw as a papist plot: religious liberty for Catholics under the Quebec act. Fanatical Catholic hater Benedict Arnold (an early hero of the revolution) switched sides because some ‘Patriots’ attended a Catholic service for French allies. George Washington had to forbid his officers and men from regularly burning the pope in effigy. In the late 19 century James G. Blaine, a Representative and a Senator (from Maine of the French Canadian Catholics Ron Unz mentioned) caused anti Catholic education amendments to be passed in most states. That is where private schooling in the US came from, long before the racial integration of public schools (which BTW was quite often most drastic in ethnic Catholic areas).
    Senator Ted Kennedy told the Senate during a civil rights debate that he saw ” No Irish Need Apply” signs when growing up. That cannot possibly be true but he said it.

    Fascinating about the population boom and that surely explains the changing attitude of the Mexican government. I have read that many children went back with their parents. It is true that there was no real enforcement but paradoxically that made people less willing to go through the procedures and so maybe 5 – 13 percent of the immigrants from Mexico didn’t get the papers, or had simply lost them (difficult to imagine anyone losing that documentation today).

    The 1965 Act may not have been causal, but it was indicative of what was at the very least an insouciant attitude to immigration and population replacement.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Most of the legislators are long dead or retired. It’s only relatively recently that Asian immigration has been significantly altering the demographic composition of the country.

    Gerald Ford died in 2006. Edward Kennedy died in 2009. I don’t have the time to check, but you’ll find that most of the lawmakers who voted for that bill died in the 1990s or after the year 2000. The effects of chain migration were already evident by the 1980s and certainly by 1990 when Bush Sr raised the immigration intake from 500,000 to 700,000.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean

    And if one sees this very same outlook active as far back as 300 years ago despite being unable yet to express itself in population replacement, then all the more reason not to treat it as an isolated phenomena
     
    I think t think it is increasingly believed by academic historians that the 13 colonies rose against what they saw as a papist plot: religious liberty for Catholics under the Quebec act. Fanatical Catholic hater Benedict Arnold (an early hero of the revolution) switched sides because some 'Patriots' attended a Catholic service for French allies. George Washington had to forbid his officers and men from regularly burning the pope in effigy. In the late 19 century James G. Blaine, a Representative and a Senator (from Maine of the French Canadian Catholics Ron Unz mentioned) caused anti Catholic education amendments to be passed in most states. That is where private schooling in the US came from, long before the racial integration of public schools (which BTW was quite often most drastic in ethnic Catholic areas).
    Senator Ted Kennedy told the Senate during a civil rights debate that he saw " No Irish Need Apply" signs when growing up. That cannot possibly be true but he said it.

    Fascinating about the population boom and that surely explains the changing attitude of the Mexican government. I have read that many children went back with their parents. It is true that there was no real enforcement but paradoxically that made people less willing to go through the procedures and so maybe 5 - 13 percent of the immigrants from Mexico didn't get the papers, or had simply lost them (difficult to imagine anyone losing that documentation today).

    The 1965 Act may not have been causal, but it was indicative of what was at the very least an insouciant attitude to immigration and population replacement.

    , @Anonymous
    The fact that Ford and other individuals who had been involved in the legislation didn't say anything publicly towards the ends of their lives is not evidence that they foresaw or willed all its consequences that insidiously played themselves out over decades.

    Chin's article addresses the claim that the legislators did not expect that Asian immigration would increase relative to pre-1965 levels, a claim I've never heard anyone make. Chin refutes the claim by quoting people who had been involved in the legislation decades before saying that they did indeed expect Asian immigration to increase relative to pre-1965 levels. Some of these people also said that while they expected Asian immigration to increase, they didn't expect it to icnrease to the levels that it did. Chin's article does not support the idea that Congress as a whole or all these legislators completely foresaw and willed the long-term consequences of the legislation.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Peter Frost
    Ron,

    I was merely correcting your curious use of the term "absolutely unlimited." There were limits, and those limits seem to have had major impacts on Mexican immigration. If the U.S. had open borders with Mexico prior to 1965, why were large numbers of Mexican immigrants being labelled as "illegal" and summarily deported? For instance, there was Operation Wetback during the 1950s:


    Overall, there were 1,078,168 apprehensions made in the first year of Operation Wetback, with 170,000 being captured from May to July 1954.[36] The total number of apprehensions would fall to just 242,608 in 1955, and would continuously decline by year until 1962, when there was a slight rise in apprehended workers

     

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Wetback

    Then there was the Mexican Repatriation of the late 1920s and 1930s:


    The Mexican Repatriation refers to a mass migration that started in the late 1920s, but increased substantially during the Great Depression, when as many as two million people of Mexican descent were forced or pressured to leave the US. This event occurred during the latter end of the Hoover Presidency and into Franklin Delano Roosevelt's second term.[1] The event, carried out by American authorities, took place without due process.[2] The Immigration and Naturalization Service targeted Mexicans because of "the proximity of the Mexican border, the physical distinctiveness of mestizos, and easily identifiable barrios."[3]

    Studies have provided conflicting numbers for how many people were “repatriated” during the Great Depression. The State of California passed an "Apology Act" that estimated 2 million people were forced to relocate to Mexico and an estimated 1.2 million were US citizens. Authors Balderrama and Rodriguez have estimated that the total number of repatriates was about one million, and 60 percent of those were citizens of the United States. These estimates come from newspaper articles and government records and the authors assert all previous estimates severely under counted the number of repatriates (Balderrama). An older study conducted by Hoffman argues that about 500,000 people were sent to Mexico.

     

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Repatriation

    It’s not very complicated, Peter. Any Mexican who paid his $47 fee (or whatever) and waited a day or two for medical processing could legally immigrate to the U.S. after the 1924 Act.

    However, in addition to these legal immigration provisions, the border itself was almost completely unpatrolled and open. Since lots of Mexicans were extremely poor and also didn’t pay a lot of attention to government formalities, many/most of them tended not to even bother with official immigration procedures and saved their $47 by just crossing the border “illegally.” Most of the time no one cared and the local businessmen were happy to hire them whether or not they’d paid their $47 fee, but every now and then a sharp American recession persuaded the politicians to round up and deport the “illegal” Mexicans, which happened in the 1930s and again in the 1950s. As “Sean” noted, sometimes such roundups also (unlawfully) included legal Mexican immigrants or even American-born Mexicans with U.S. citizenship (though I strongly suspect the latter were just the young children of the illegals being picked up).

    Given that American rightwingers have been so enormously agitated about immigration for the last couple of decades, it’s important to realize that was *not* the case before about the 1980s. During the 1960s, almost nobody cared about immigration, and since so many of the harder-core rightwing activists were focused on the Captive Nations of Eastern Europe, many of them tended to support reopening the borders long shut by the 1924 Act. A few years back I ended up digitizing virtually all the leading opinion publications from that era, and I’d guess that the amount of political agitation focused on the 1964 Civil Rights Act was maybe 100x or 200x the agitation surrounding the 1965 Immigration Act. In fact, I could barely find any rightwingers who even mentioned it, the one exception being some rightwing columnist writing in (I think) Human Events. He said he worried it could eventually change America’s racial balance, and argued it was totally unnecessary from the economic perspective since we already allowed unlimited Latin American immigration.

    The reason there was so little Mexican immigration during the pre-1965 Open Borders Era was that Mexico was tremendously underpopulated back then. If you look at Wikipedia, you’ll see that the Mexican population increased from 20M to 91M between 1940 and 1995, plus maybe another 25M Mexicans who’d moved to the U.S. during that period or were the children of parents who had. If not for the 1965 Act, the latter figure might have been more like 50-60M

    So the 1965 Act was certainly intended to “open America’s borders” and immigration did indeed skyrocket during the decades that immediately followed, but the two things had almost nothing to do with each other and were purely coincidental in timing. My guess is that the confusion began with Peter Brimelow’s Alien Nation book in 1994, and after 100,000 angry Internet articles and blog posts have been published denouncing the 1965 Act, I tend to doubt the mistake can ever be corrected.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Southfarthing

    "After 100,000 angry Internet articles and blog posts have been published denouncing the 1965 Act, I tend to doubt the mistake can ever be corrected."
     
    I came to the same conclusion when I looked at the historical number of Hispanics in the U.S.. Despite periodic efforts like Operation Wetback, it was a smooth rate of increase from 1850 onward, without a major acceleration in the 1960s.

    Various historical contingencies fed into it, like WW2 and the competition with the Soviets to win non-European hearts and minds, but these are a distraction from the macro-trends involved.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Peter Frost
    Well then we’re back to my original question.

    We're also back to my question. Of the 76 senators who voted for the bill, why did none of them speak out against the "unexpected" increase in immigration? And why should the results have been so unexpected? It's long been known that chain migration tends to grow exponentially. It's not exactly a recent phenomenon.

    Hispanic immigration, which is regarded as a long term consequence of the 1965 legislation. However, Hispanic immigration isn’t addressed at all in Chin’s paper.

    It's not addressed in Chin's paper because the 1965 act restricted immigration from Mexico. For the first time, all Western hemisphere countries were made subject to national quotas. If you don't believe me, ask Ron. Ask anyone. Why do you insist on a point that is obviously incorrect?

    I am quite sure there exist selfish Japanese businessmen who would love to enrich themselves with cheap labor. But the Japanese nation as a whole had other priorities and organized the economy accordingly.


    Because most Japanese businessmen, like most Japanese in general, still have a strong sense of national identity. So there are limits to what they will do, these limits being either self-imposed or imposed by their entourage. This is no longer the case in Western countries. Most Western businessmen live in a social environment where globalism is normative and where the nation-state is considered old hat. The Japanese haven't got to that stage ... yet.

    According to Chin’s article, the legislators expected an increase in Asian immigration. Most of the legislators are long dead or retired. It’s only relatively recently that Asian immigration has been significantly altering the demographic composition of the country. Until relatively recently, the demographic composition of the country was significantly altered primarily by Hispanic immigration.

    If the ethnic mix of the country was being upset following the legislation while its legislators were still alive or active in public life primarily by a demographic unrelated to the legislation, I’m not sure why the legislators would speak out. Not to mention that it was a process that insidiously played out over decades.

    Chin’s paper simply doesn’t show what you suggest it does.

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

    “Actually, it’s exactly the other way round: The 1965 Immigration Act didn’t *open* America’s borders, it *closed* America’s borders, for the first time putting a legal limit on Latin American immigration.”

    It opened the borders to the entire world other than Mexico.

    As for Mexico, the new law didn’t do much good since the borders were so porous and since illegals were allowed to stay.

    So, Mexicans kept on crossing the borders and the rest of the world came streaming in too.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Well then we’re back to my original question.

    We’re also back to my question. Of the 76 senators who voted for the bill, why did none of them speak out against the “unexpected” increase in immigration? And why should the results have been so unexpected? It’s long been known that chain migration tends to grow exponentially. It’s not exactly a recent phenomenon.

    Hispanic immigration, which is regarded as a long term consequence of the 1965 legislation. However, Hispanic immigration isn’t addressed at all in Chin’s paper.

    It’s not addressed in Chin’s paper because the 1965 act restricted immigration from Mexico. For the first time, all Western hemisphere countries were made subject to national quotas. If you don’t believe me, ask Ron. Ask anyone. Why do you insist on a point that is obviously incorrect?

    I am quite sure there exist selfish Japanese businessmen who would love to enrich themselves with cheap labor. But the Japanese nation as a whole had other priorities and organized the economy accordingly.

    Because most Japanese businessmen, like most Japanese in general, still have a strong sense of national identity. So there are limits to what they will do, these limits being either self-imposed or imposed by their entourage. This is no longer the case in Western countries. Most Western businessmen live in a social environment where globalism is normative and where the nation-state is considered old hat. The Japanese haven’t got to that stage … yet.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    According to Chin's article, the legislators expected an increase in Asian immigration. Most of the legislators are long dead or retired. It's only relatively recently that Asian immigration has been significantly altering the demographic composition of the country. Until relatively recently, the demographic composition of the country was significantly altered primarily by Hispanic immigration.

    If the ethnic mix of the country was being upset following the legislation while its legislators were still alive or active in public life primarily by a demographic unrelated to the legislation, I'm not sure why the legislators would speak out. Not to mention that it was a process that insidiously played out over decades.

    Chin's paper simply doesn't show what you suggest it does.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Ron Unz
    Actually, it's exactly the other way round: The 1965 Immigration Act didn't *open* America's borders, it *closed* America's borders, for the first time putting a legal limit on Latin American immigration.

    The key point is that the 1924 Immigration Act never applied to the Western Hemisphere, including Mexico and the rest of Latin America. Absolutely unlimited immigration from South of the border was the law. Similarly, there was enormous (and very unpopular) French-Canadian immigration into New England during the 1920s, but given the law, nothing could be done about it.

    Very few people in 1965 cared much about the Immigration Act, which was seen as a sentimental measure to restore European immigration, cut off by the 1924 Act. Indeed, if I recall recorrectly, imposing restrictions on Latin American immigration was actually added to the bill by the pro-immigration side as a very minor sop to the anti-immigration forces, with neither side much caring one way or the other. I think Kevin Macdonald discusses it in one of his books.

    In fact, one of the very, very few conservative columnists who publicly opposed the 1965 Act at the time argued that the bill was unnecessary from the economic perspective because we already allowed unlimited immigration from Latin America.

    For years, ignorant rightwingers have been demanding that the 1965 Act be repealed. Remember that crazy proposal from Bush (endorsed by Kerry) a few years ago that would have established an Open Borders policy and allowed unlimited foreign immigration? That actually amounted to repealing the 1965 Act!

    I'd guess that if the 1965 Act hadn't passed, Latin American immigration during the 1980s and 1990s might have reached 5M per year.

    I've pointed all of these facts out on numerous occasions, but Internet nonsense is impossible to kill, so setting the record straight is probably a hopeless task.

    Ron Unz is completely right about the 1965 immigration bill. It actually put a cap on Latin American immigration.

    Peter – selfish businessmen exist in every community. I am quite sure there exist selfish Japanese businessmen who would love to enrich themselves with cheap labor. But the Japanese nation as a whole had other priorities and organized the economy accordingly. In fact the Japanese deliberately sacrifice economic efficiency for employment and market share in a variety of ways as a reflection of national priorities. Consumers suffer, but greater job security and social stability, as well as the long-term viability of key industries, strike the Japanese as worth more than short-term profits and enormous wealth for the few.

    The American situation reflects the priorities of the elite, not just the business imperatives of a few billionaires focused on short term profits and massive personal enrichment at the expense of everyone else.

    What strikes me is the narrowness of outlook common in discussions about population replacement. If population replacement was an isolated phenomena unrelated to whats going on in other areas of our national life, it would make sense to treat as a special case. But the outlook reflected in population replacement is seen across the entirety of our national life – at that point, one must understand it as but one expression of an underlying impulse that is active across the entire field of our national life. And if one sees this very same outlook active as far back as 300 years ago despite being unable yet to express itself in population replacement, then all the more reason not to treat it as an isolated phenomena.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Peter Frost
    Anon,

    The proponents of the bill were not surprised that the composition of American immigration shifted from being mainly of European origin to mainly of non-European origin. Nor were they surprised that the overall level of immigration increased. So we're arguing over whether they expected to see the massive rise in immigration that eventually did happen.

    If the results of the 1965 bill were as surprising to its proponents as you surmise, why, then, did its main proponent, Ted Kennedy, fail to utter a word of protest? Why didn't he say, "Look, this isn't at all what we intended!! Let's amend the immigration act to bring it into line with our expectations!"

    Sarcasm aside, Ted Kennedy had many faults, but naïvete was not one of them. As Larry Auster remarked:

    The only way to describe such a situation is that the legislators were uncomprehending or deceitful. I think a critic must say of such legislators, that regardless of their statements made to accommodate public opinion to this bill, its real effect had to be—and has been—radically to transform America. Therefore the legislators were naive or dishonest in their assurances, and this bill was passed under false pretences.

     

    it was primarily Hispanic immigration that significantly altered the demographic composition of the country.


    As Ron pointed out, the 1965 Act actually imposed a numerical upper limit to Mexican immigration where none had existed before. The changes to American immigration were not simply a result of the 1965 Act. They were also due to subsequent changes and amnesties by Reagan and Bush Sr., as well as a growing refusal to enforce immigration law.

    The Hispanic immigration wave is already being overtaken by other waves. Americans will feel nostalgic for the time when they only had Hispanic immigration to worry about.

    The only way to describe such a situation is that the legislators were uncomprehending or deceitful.

    Well then we’re back to my original question.

    If it’s the case that the legislators were either ignorant or deceitful, then it’s no longer the case that Congress as a whole or some unspecified “they” implemented the bill with the specific aim of effecting the actual consequences that the bill ended up having. The question then becomes, who exactly knew what exactly, and when did they know it?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Peter Frost
    Anon,

    The proponents of the bill were not surprised that the composition of American immigration shifted from being mainly of European origin to mainly of non-European origin. Nor were they surprised that the overall level of immigration increased. So we're arguing over whether they expected to see the massive rise in immigration that eventually did happen.

    If the results of the 1965 bill were as surprising to its proponents as you surmise, why, then, did its main proponent, Ted Kennedy, fail to utter a word of protest? Why didn't he say, "Look, this isn't at all what we intended!! Let's amend the immigration act to bring it into line with our expectations!"

    Sarcasm aside, Ted Kennedy had many faults, but naïvete was not one of them. As Larry Auster remarked:

    The only way to describe such a situation is that the legislators were uncomprehending or deceitful. I think a critic must say of such legislators, that regardless of their statements made to accommodate public opinion to this bill, its real effect had to be—and has been—radically to transform America. Therefore the legislators were naive or dishonest in their assurances, and this bill was passed under false pretences.

     

    it was primarily Hispanic immigration that significantly altered the demographic composition of the country.


    As Ron pointed out, the 1965 Act actually imposed a numerical upper limit to Mexican immigration where none had existed before. The changes to American immigration were not simply a result of the 1965 Act. They were also due to subsequent changes and amnesties by Reagan and Bush Sr., as well as a growing refusal to enforce immigration law.

    The Hispanic immigration wave is already being overtaken by other waves. Americans will feel nostalgic for the time when they only had Hispanic immigration to worry about.

    Like I said, I read the article. Other readers here should read the article for themselves, specifically Part 2 of the article, rather than just take our words for it. It can be skimmed pretty quickly. What they’ll find is that it doesn’t support the notion that many proponents of the bill fully knew its long term consequences. It just shows that the claim that the proponents of the bill did not believe that Asian immigration would increase at all is incorrect by citing some proponents claiming that they did indeed believe Asian immigration would increase as a result of the bill. Some of these proponents are cited as saying that while they expected an increase in Asian immigration, in some cases “substantially” so, they didn’t anticipate as large an increase as actually resulted.

    Yes, non-Hispanic immigration, such as Asian immigration, is now beginning to have a significant impact on the demographic composition of the country. But until relatively recently, the major impact on the demographic composition of the country resulted from Hispanic immigration, which is regarded as a long term consequence of the 1965 legislation. However, Hispanic immigration isn’t addressed at all in Chin’s paper.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Anon,

    The proponents of the bill were not surprised that the composition of American immigration shifted from being mainly of European origin to mainly of non-European origin. Nor were they surprised that the overall level of immigration increased. So we’re arguing over whether they expected to see the massive rise in immigration that eventually did happen.

    If the results of the 1965 bill were as surprising to its proponents as you surmise, why, then, did its main proponent, Ted Kennedy, fail to utter a word of protest? Why didn’t he say, “Look, this isn’t at all what we intended!! Let’s amend the immigration act to bring it into line with our expectations!”

    Sarcasm aside, Ted Kennedy had many faults, but naïvete was not one of them. As Larry Auster remarked:

    The only way to describe such a situation is that the legislators were uncomprehending or deceitful. I think a critic must say of such legislators, that regardless of their statements made to accommodate public opinion to this bill, its real effect had to be—and has been—radically to transform America. Therefore the legislators were naive or dishonest in their assurances, and this bill was passed under false pretences.

    it was primarily Hispanic immigration that significantly altered the demographic composition of the country.

    As Ron pointed out, the 1965 Act actually imposed a numerical upper limit to Mexican immigration where none had existed before. The changes to American immigration were not simply a result of the 1965 Act. They were also due to subsequent changes and amnesties by Reagan and Bush Sr., as well as a growing refusal to enforce immigration law.

    The Hispanic immigration wave is already being overtaken by other waves. Americans will feel nostalgic for the time when they only had Hispanic immigration to worry about.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Like I said, I read the article. Other readers here should read the article for themselves, specifically Part 2 of the article, rather than just take our words for it. It can be skimmed pretty quickly. What they'll find is that it doesn’t support the notion that many proponents of the bill fully knew its long term consequences. It just shows that the claim that the proponents of the bill did not believe that Asian immigration would increase at all is incorrect by citing some proponents claiming that they did indeed believe Asian immigration would increase as a result of the bill. Some of these proponents are cited as saying that while they expected an increase in Asian immigration, in some cases "substantially" so, they didn't anticipate as large an increase as actually resulted.

    Yes, non-Hispanic immigration, such as Asian immigration, is now beginning to have a significant impact on the demographic composition of the country. But until relatively recently, the major impact on the demographic composition of the country resulted from Hispanic immigration, which is regarded as a long term consequence of the 1965 legislation. However, Hispanic immigration isn't addressed at all in Chin's paper.
    , @Anonymous

    The only way to describe such a situation is that the legislators were uncomprehending or deceitful.
     
    Well then we're back to my original question.

    If it's the case that the legislators were either ignorant or deceitful, then it's no longer the case that Congress as a whole or some unspecified “they” implemented the bill with the specific aim of effecting the actual consequences that the bill ended up having. The question then becomes, who exactly knew what exactly, and when did they know it?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Peter Frost
    So the question becomes, as I said, who knew what, and when did they know it?

    The paper I attached (by Gabriel Chin) indicates that many proponents of the bill fully knew its long-term consequences. There were also many who "chose not to know." This was the mid-1960s, and immigration had already become the third rail of politics. It's significant that the only lawmakers who voted against the bill were Southern Democrats and a few people from the mid-West. That says a lot about the degree of conformity that prevailed on this issue.

    I just read Chin’s article. It doesn’t indicate at all what you claim it does: that many proponents of the bill fully knew its long term consequences

    Rather it argues against the claim that the proponents of the bill did not believe that Asian immigration would increase at all as a result of the bill. It cites some proponents claiming that they did believe Asian immigration would increase as a result of the bill, with some proponents claiming they expected a “substantial” increase and some that expected a large increase but not as large as what actually followed after the bill.

    The article primarily discusses Asian immigration, and there’s no discussion of Hispanic immigration. It’s only relatively recently that Asian immigration has been significantly altering the demographic composition of the country. After the passing of the 1965 immigration legislation, it was primarily Hispanic immigration that significantly altered the demographic composition of the country.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • What a ridiculous analysis.
    For those with low IQ and lack of critical thinking skill, think about this:
    For this to be a proper comparison, you have to test the IQ of the parents of “mixed unions” and the IQ of “Korean” parents. Then for comparable IQ groups, you compare their children and their academic performance, cognitive ability, with the caveat that academic performance in Korea is dependent on after school tutoring. They spend enormous sums on tutoring for their children to the point of making their children no more than little test takers. Do these children from “mixed unions” have the means for such tutoring or do they go to the fields after school as most of them live in rural area?
    It’s so obvious that only the worse, poorest, least desirable Korean men would go out of their country to find wives, who similarly in their native countries would also be the least desirable. So what you have is the least desirable marrying least desirable, producing mediocre children. What’s new?
    The same thing happens in Europe, USA, or any where else where poor people go to find better economic opportunities. What’s new?
    And the much touted Korean people, which was responsible for their economic prowess, can be viewed as nothing more than as a vassal for USA. All their products are copies off USA technology, their economy grew because of USA favoritism and trade favored status.
    Look at their cars, nothing but copies of Japan, German models.
    Theirs is a complete lack of creativity; so maybe with an injection of new blood, they can boost their creativity and imagination a bit.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon

    All their products are copies off USA technology, their economy grew because of USA favoritism and trade favored status.
    Look at their cars, nothing but copies of Japan, German models.
    Theirs is a complete lack of creativity; so maybe with an injection of new blood, they can boost their creativity and imagination a bit.
     
    The US has the same trade policies with Korea as it does with Zambia, Egypt, Thailand and the Philippines. Why aren't these countries making automobiles that are copies of Japanese and German models? Korean scribes were writing down their history on bamboo strips thousands of years ago when the English were running around in animal skins. The wheel of history turns in cycles, at least for those with the cognitive ability to seize their moment.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Maybe there were legal Open Borders. for those willing to pay and put up with a rigmarole, but there was apparently resistance within the Mexican immigrant community to taking up US citizenship. The vast majority (5-13%) did not have papers. Mexican Repatriation “The State of California passed an “Apology Act” that estimated 2 million people were forced to relocate to Mexico and an estimated 1.2 million were US citizens.”

    ULTIMATELY, the program (Operation Wetback) came as a result of pressure from the Mexican government to stop illegal entry of Mexican laborers in the United States based largely on the Bracero Program”

    It is not just about what the US government was doing.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • So the question becomes, as I said, who knew what, and when did they know it?

    The paper I attached (by Gabriel Chin) indicates that many proponents of the bill fully knew its long-term consequences. There were also many who “chose not to know.” This was the mid-1960s, and immigration had already become the third rail of politics. It’s significant that the only lawmakers who voted against the bill were Southern Democrats and a few people from the mid-West. That says a lot about the degree of conformity that prevailed on this issue.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    I just read Chin's article. It doesn't indicate at all what you claim it does: that many proponents of the bill fully knew its long term consequences

    Rather it argues against the claim that the proponents of the bill did not believe that Asian immigration would increase at all as a result of the bill. It cites some proponents claiming that they did believe Asian immigration would increase as a result of the bill, with some proponents claiming they expected a "substantial" increase and some that expected a large increase but not as large as what actually followed after the bill.

    The article primarily discusses Asian immigration, and there's no discussion of Hispanic immigration. It's only relatively recently that Asian immigration has been significantly altering the demographic composition of the country. After the passing of the 1965 immigration legislation, it was primarily Hispanic immigration that significantly altered the demographic composition of the country.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Ron,

    I was merely correcting your curious use of the term “absolutely unlimited.” There were limits, and those limits seem to have had major impacts on Mexican immigration. If the U.S. had open borders with Mexico prior to 1965, why were large numbers of Mexican immigrants being labelled as “illegal” and summarily deported? For instance, there was Operation Wetback during the 1950s:

    Overall, there were 1,078,168 apprehensions made in the first year of Operation Wetback, with 170,000 being captured from May to July 1954.[36] The total number of apprehensions would fall to just 242,608 in 1955, and would continuously decline by year until 1962, when there was a slight rise in apprehended workers

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Wetback

    Then there was the Mexican Repatriation of the late 1920s and 1930s:

    The Mexican Repatriation refers to a mass migration that started in the late 1920s, but increased substantially during the Great Depression, when as many as two million people of Mexican descent were forced or pressured to leave the US. This event occurred during the latter end of the Hoover Presidency and into Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s second term.[1] The event, carried out by American authorities, took place without due process.[2] The Immigration and Naturalization Service targeted Mexicans because of “the proximity of the Mexican border, the physical distinctiveness of mestizos, and easily identifiable barrios.”[3]

    Studies have provided conflicting numbers for how many people were “repatriated” during the Great Depression. The State of California passed an “Apology Act” that estimated 2 million people were forced to relocate to Mexico and an estimated 1.2 million were US citizens. Authors Balderrama and Rodriguez have estimated that the total number of repatriates was about one million, and 60 percent of those were citizens of the United States. These estimates come from newspaper articles and government records and the authors assert all previous estimates severely under counted the number of repatriates (Balderrama). An older study conducted by Hoffman argues that about 500,000 people were sent to Mexico.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Repatriation

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ron Unz
    It's not very complicated, Peter. Any Mexican who paid his $47 fee (or whatever) and waited a day or two for medical processing could legally immigrate to the U.S. after the 1924 Act.

    However, in addition to these legal immigration provisions, the border itself was almost completely unpatrolled and open. Since lots of Mexicans were extremely poor and also didn't pay a lot of attention to government formalities, many/most of them tended not to even bother with official immigration procedures and saved their $47 by just crossing the border "illegally." Most of the time no one cared and the local businessmen were happy to hire them whether or not they'd paid their $47 fee, but every now and then a sharp American recession persuaded the politicians to round up and deport the "illegal" Mexicans, which happened in the 1930s and again in the 1950s. As "Sean" noted, sometimes such roundups also (unlawfully) included legal Mexican immigrants or even American-born Mexicans with U.S. citizenship (though I strongly suspect the latter were just the young children of the illegals being picked up).



    Given that American rightwingers have been so enormously agitated about immigration for the last couple of decades, it's important to realize that was *not* the case before about the 1980s. During the 1960s, almost nobody cared about immigration, and since so many of the harder-core rightwing activists were focused on the Captive Nations of Eastern Europe, many of them tended to support reopening the borders long shut by the 1924 Act. A few years back I ended up digitizing virtually all the leading opinion publications from that era, and I'd guess that the amount of political agitation focused on the 1964 Civil Rights Act was maybe 100x or 200x the agitation surrounding the 1965 Immigration Act. In fact, I could barely find any rightwingers who even mentioned it, the one exception being some rightwing columnist writing in (I think) Human Events. He said he worried it could eventually change America's racial balance, and argued it was totally unnecessary from the economic perspective since we already allowed unlimited Latin American immigration.

    The reason there was so little Mexican immigration during the pre-1965 Open Borders Era was that Mexico was tremendously underpopulated back then. If you look at Wikipedia, you'll see that the Mexican population increased from 20M to 91M between 1940 and 1995, plus maybe another 25M Mexicans who'd moved to the U.S. during that period or were the children of parents who had. If not for the 1965 Act, the latter figure might have been more like 50-60M

    So the 1965 Act was certainly intended to "open America's borders" and immigration did indeed skyrocket during the decades that immediately followed, but the two things had almost nothing to do with each other and were purely coincidental in timing. My guess is that the confusion began with Peter Brimelow's Alien Nation book in 1994, and after 100,000 angry Internet articles and blog posts have been published denouncing the 1965 Act, I tend to doubt the mistake can ever be corrected.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Hepp

    Contemporary low birthrates are in the context of advanced industrial societies. The kind of groups who tend to high birthrates in this context likely wouldn’t have advanced industrial societies in the first place.
     
    I understand your point, but I think that might be a bit too deterministic. Mormons in the US, for example, are well above replacement level, showing the importance of ideology. I think if governments prioritized healthy breeding to the same extent that they prioritized GDP growth, things would be a lot better. But I think Asian countries are aping western norms, and adopting their ideas about how a state should behave.

    The Mormon classification varies from people who are essentially completely separated from advanced industrial society, such as polygamous fundamentalist Mormon sects in isolated communities in rural Utah, Nevada, Arizona, Colorado, etc., to people who are lapsed or only nominally Mormon and are completely embedded in advanced industrial society, and everything in-between.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Peter Frost
    [Ted Kennedy] was interviewed by NPR in 2006 and was asked about this prediction. He suggested that it wasn’t foreseen, at least by him

    No one likes to be called a liar. There is evidence, however, that Ted Kennedy misled other lawmakers about the eventual increase in immigration that would result:

    In an exchange of the floor of the Senate, in the presence of floor manager Edward Kennedy, the meaning of the bill was spectacularly misinterpreted in a way that suggested there was an additional protection against changes in the immigration stream.

    Some senators may have voted for the 1965 law believing that a provision allowing unlimited immigration of immediate family members of citizens applied only to people who were citizens when the law was passed, and not to persons who became citizens through birth or naturalization after 1965. This was an important issue. If people born or naturalized after 1965 were required to unify their families through numerically limited quota immigration, then (leaving aside emergency situations) the 1965 law would have been extremely predictable-- only 290,00 visas would be available each year, and every alien who wanted to come in would have to get one of them, or wait until next year. If this interpretation had been correct, the chain migration phenomenon would have been significantly dampened.

     


    [...] However, on the floor of the Senate, proponents did not explain that non-quota, immediate relative immigration was a permanent feature of the law which would permit anyone who became a citizen in the future to bring their relatives to the United States. Instead, non-quota immigration was characterized as a transitional "clean-up" program, allowing people who were citizens on the date of the Act to reunify their families by bringing in immediate relatives.

     

    When questioned on this point, Edward Kennedy simply described the preference system again. He did not correct another proponent who said there was no danger of chain migration.

    http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1121504

    The key point is that the 1924 Immigration Act never applied to the Western Hemisphere, including Mexico and the rest of Latin America. Absolutely unlimited immigration from South of the border was the law.


    Absolutely unlimited? No, not unless you're using those two words in an unusual sense. The Immigration Act of 1917 doubled the head tax and imposed a literacy test on Mexican immigrants. Then in 1919 Mexicans entering the United States were required to apply for admission at lawfully designated ports of entry. Other practices were instituted, making it harder for Mexicans to enter, especially lower-class Mexicans:

    During the 1920s immigration policy rearticulated the U.S.-Mexican border as a cultural and racial boundary, as a creator of illegal immigration. Federal officials self-consciously understood their task as creating a barrier where, in a practical sense, none had existed before. The service instituted new policies--new inspection procedures and the formation of the Border Patrol--that accentuated the difference between the two countries.

    Inspection at the Mexican border involved a degrading procedure of bathing, delousing, medical line inspection, and interrogation. The baths were new and unique to Mexican immigrants, requiring them to be inspected while naked, have their hair shorn, and have their clothing and baggage fumigated. Medical line inspection, modeled after the practice formerly used at Ellis Island, required immigrants to walk in single file past a medical officer.49 These procedures were particularly humiliating, even gratuitous, in light of the fact that the Immigration Act of 1924 required prospective immigrants to present a medical certificate to the U.S. consul when applying for a visa, that is, before travel to the United States. Medical line inspection at Ellis Island was eliminated after 1924, and at El Paso the service exempted all Europeans and Mexicans arriving by first class rail from medical line inspection, the baths, and the literacy test.

    The Border Patrol functioned within an environment of increased racial hostility against Mexicans; indeed, its activities helped constitute that environment by aggressively apprehending and deporting increasing numbers of Mexicans. The Border Patrol interrogated Mexican laborers on roads and in towns, and it was not uncommon for "sweeps" to apprehend several hundred immigrants at a time. By the early 1930s the service was apprehending nearly five times as many suspected illegal aliens in the Mexican border area as it did in the Canadian border area. The Los Angeles newspaper La Opinión believed the aggressive deportation policy would result in a "de-Mexicanization of southern California."

    Moreover, many Mexicans entered the United States through a variety of means that were not illegal but comprised irregular, unstable categories of lawful admission, making it more difficult to distinguish between those who were lawfully in the country and those who were not. Mexicans living in Mexican border towns who commuted into the United States to work on a daily or weekly basis constituted one category of irregular entry. The service counted these commuters as immigrants and collected a one-time head tax from them. It also required them to report to the immigration station once a week for bathing, a hated requirement that gave rise to a local black market in bathing certificates.

    It was ironic that Mexicans became so associated with illegal immigration because, unlike Europeans, they were not subject to numerical quotas and, unlike Asiatics, they were not excluded as racially ineligible to citizen-ship. But as numerical restriction assumed primacy in immigration policy, its enforcement aspects--inspection procedures, deportation, the Border Patrol, criminal prosecution, and irregular categories of immigration--created many thousands of illegal Mexican immigrants.

     

    http://sociol321l-sp12.wikispaces.umb.edu/file/view/Strange+Career+of+the+Illegal+Alien.pdf/315923660/Strange+Career+of+the+Illegal+Alien.pdf

    In short, there is the law and then there is the enforcement of the law. A weak law, if zealously enforced, is better than a strong law that is weakly enforced. Current American immigration law could be made a lot tougher simply by enforcing it.

    I don’t doubt the possibility that Ted Kennedy may have lied or misled other regarding the ramifications of the bill. But it’s not that clear from your citations. It also seems entirely possible that Kennedy sincerely believed that the bill wouldn’t have the major effects that it ended up having, if only because he wasn’t bright enough to conceive that this was a significant possibility of the bill. He wasn’t regarded the sharpest tool in the shed….

    At any rate, if it’s the case that Kennedy either lied and misled others or didn’t recognize the consequences of the bill himself, then it makes no sense to claim that Congress as a whole or some unspecified “they” implemented the bill with the specific aim of effecting the actual consequences that the bill ended up having. If an individual or group does something as a result of being deceived or of being ignorant of the consequences of that thing, then it can’t be said that the individual or group did that thing in order to effect those consequences.

    So the question becomes, as I said, who knew what, and when did they know it?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Peter Frost
    [Ted Kennedy] was interviewed by NPR in 2006 and was asked about this prediction. He suggested that it wasn’t foreseen, at least by him

    No one likes to be called a liar. There is evidence, however, that Ted Kennedy misled other lawmakers about the eventual increase in immigration that would result:

    In an exchange of the floor of the Senate, in the presence of floor manager Edward Kennedy, the meaning of the bill was spectacularly misinterpreted in a way that suggested there was an additional protection against changes in the immigration stream.

    Some senators may have voted for the 1965 law believing that a provision allowing unlimited immigration of immediate family members of citizens applied only to people who were citizens when the law was passed, and not to persons who became citizens through birth or naturalization after 1965. This was an important issue. If people born or naturalized after 1965 were required to unify their families through numerically limited quota immigration, then (leaving aside emergency situations) the 1965 law would have been extremely predictable-- only 290,00 visas would be available each year, and every alien who wanted to come in would have to get one of them, or wait until next year. If this interpretation had been correct, the chain migration phenomenon would have been significantly dampened.

     


    [...] However, on the floor of the Senate, proponents did not explain that non-quota, immediate relative immigration was a permanent feature of the law which would permit anyone who became a citizen in the future to bring their relatives to the United States. Instead, non-quota immigration was characterized as a transitional "clean-up" program, allowing people who were citizens on the date of the Act to reunify their families by bringing in immediate relatives.

     

    When questioned on this point, Edward Kennedy simply described the preference system again. He did not correct another proponent who said there was no danger of chain migration.

    http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1121504

    The key point is that the 1924 Immigration Act never applied to the Western Hemisphere, including Mexico and the rest of Latin America. Absolutely unlimited immigration from South of the border was the law.


    Absolutely unlimited? No, not unless you're using those two words in an unusual sense. The Immigration Act of 1917 doubled the head tax and imposed a literacy test on Mexican immigrants. Then in 1919 Mexicans entering the United States were required to apply for admission at lawfully designated ports of entry. Other practices were instituted, making it harder for Mexicans to enter, especially lower-class Mexicans:

    During the 1920s immigration policy rearticulated the U.S.-Mexican border as a cultural and racial boundary, as a creator of illegal immigration. Federal officials self-consciously understood their task as creating a barrier where, in a practical sense, none had existed before. The service instituted new policies--new inspection procedures and the formation of the Border Patrol--that accentuated the difference between the two countries.

    Inspection at the Mexican border involved a degrading procedure of bathing, delousing, medical line inspection, and interrogation. The baths were new and unique to Mexican immigrants, requiring them to be inspected while naked, have their hair shorn, and have their clothing and baggage fumigated. Medical line inspection, modeled after the practice formerly used at Ellis Island, required immigrants to walk in single file past a medical officer.49 These procedures were particularly humiliating, even gratuitous, in light of the fact that the Immigration Act of 1924 required prospective immigrants to present a medical certificate to the U.S. consul when applying for a visa, that is, before travel to the United States. Medical line inspection at Ellis Island was eliminated after 1924, and at El Paso the service exempted all Europeans and Mexicans arriving by first class rail from medical line inspection, the baths, and the literacy test.

    The Border Patrol functioned within an environment of increased racial hostility against Mexicans; indeed, its activities helped constitute that environment by aggressively apprehending and deporting increasing numbers of Mexicans. The Border Patrol interrogated Mexican laborers on roads and in towns, and it was not uncommon for "sweeps" to apprehend several hundred immigrants at a time. By the early 1930s the service was apprehending nearly five times as many suspected illegal aliens in the Mexican border area as it did in the Canadian border area. The Los Angeles newspaper La Opinión believed the aggressive deportation policy would result in a "de-Mexicanization of southern California."

    Moreover, many Mexicans entered the United States through a variety of means that were not illegal but comprised irregular, unstable categories of lawful admission, making it more difficult to distinguish between those who were lawfully in the country and those who were not. Mexicans living in Mexican border towns who commuted into the United States to work on a daily or weekly basis constituted one category of irregular entry. The service counted these commuters as immigrants and collected a one-time head tax from them. It also required them to report to the immigration station once a week for bathing, a hated requirement that gave rise to a local black market in bathing certificates.

    It was ironic that Mexicans became so associated with illegal immigration because, unlike Europeans, they were not subject to numerical quotas and, unlike Asiatics, they were not excluded as racially ineligible to citizen-ship. But as numerical restriction assumed primacy in immigration policy, its enforcement aspects--inspection procedures, deportation, the Border Patrol, criminal prosecution, and irregular categories of immigration--created many thousands of illegal Mexican immigrants.

     

    http://sociol321l-sp12.wikispaces.umb.edu/file/view/Strange+Career+of+the+Illegal+Alien.pdf/315923660/Strange+Career+of+the+Illegal+Alien.pdf

    In short, there is the law and then there is the enforcement of the law. A weak law, if zealously enforced, is better than a strong law that is weakly enforced. Current American immigration law could be made a lot tougher simply by enforcing it.

    It’s been a few years since I investigated the matter, but I vaguely recall that the immigration entry fee for Mexicans was something like $47, perhaps a few hundred dollars in today’s money. So any Latin American who paid the present day equivalent of something like $600 and underwent a medical inspection could legally immigrate to the U.S. If the 1965 Act hadn’t revoked that Open Borders policy and imposed quotas, maybe one-third of Latin America would have moved to the U.S. during the 1980s and 1990s.

    You cite some multicultural leftist complaining that Mexican immigrants had to undergo the same Ellis Island-style medical screening that European immigrants did during the Open Borders era and that Mexicans who didn’t bother paying their $47 immigration fee sometimes were caught and deported by the border patrol. So what?

    The whole argument is just silly. We had a legal Open Borders policy with all of Latin America until 1965. Now obviously the government could have chosen to reduce the actual impact by raising the legal immigration fee to something gigantic like $20,000. Perhaps the Bush or Obama Administrations would have adopted that policy as a back-door means of eliminating immigration to America, or if not, then Sen. Jeff Sessions could have gotten a veto-proof majority in Congress to impose such a policy by legislation. Given the enormous power of the anti-immigration lobby in DC and the pitiful weakness of the business interests on the other side, this seems very plausible.

    I think that’s game, set, and match.

    Let’s just be honest and simply admit that virtually all the anti-immigration activists on the Internet have spent the last couple of decades totally mistaken about what the 1965 Act did and did not do, and move on from there. Everyone makes mistakes.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • [Ted Kennedy] was interviewed by NPR in 2006 and was asked about this prediction. He suggested that it wasn’t foreseen, at least by him

    No one likes to be called a liar. There is evidence, however, that Ted Kennedy misled other lawmakers about the eventual increase in immigration that would result:

    In an exchange of the floor of the Senate, in the presence of floor manager Edward Kennedy, the meaning of the bill was spectacularly misinterpreted in a way that suggested there was an additional protection against changes in the immigration stream.

    Some senators may have voted for the 1965 law believing that a provision allowing unlimited immigration of immediate family members of citizens applied only to people who were citizens when the law was passed, and not to persons who became citizens through birth or naturalization after 1965. This was an important issue. If people born or naturalized after 1965 were required to unify their families through numerically limited quota immigration, then (leaving aside emergency situations) the 1965 law would have been extremely predictable– only 290,00 visas would be available each year, and every alien who wanted to come in would have to get one of them, or wait until next year. If this interpretation had been correct, the chain migration phenomenon would have been significantly dampened.

    [...] However, on the floor of the Senate, proponents did not explain that non-quota, immediate relative immigration was a permanent feature of the law which would permit anyone who became a citizen in the future to bring their relatives to the United States. Instead, non-quota immigration was characterized as a transitional “clean-up” program, allowing people who were citizens on the date of the Act to reunify their families by bringing in immediate relatives.

    When questioned on this point, Edward Kennedy simply described the preference system again. He did not correct another proponent who said there was no danger of chain migration.

    http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1121504

    The key point is that the 1924 Immigration Act never applied to the Western Hemisphere, including Mexico and the rest of Latin America. Absolutely unlimited immigration from South of the border was the law.

    Absolutely unlimited? No, not unless you’re using those two words in an unusual sense. The Immigration Act of 1917 doubled the head tax and imposed a literacy test on Mexican immigrants. Then in 1919 Mexicans entering the United States were required to apply for admission at lawfully designated ports of entry. Other practices were instituted, making it harder for Mexicans to enter, especially lower-class Mexicans:

    During the 1920s immigration policy rearticulated the U.S.-Mexican border as a cultural and racial boundary, as a creator of illegal immigration. Federal officials self-consciously understood their task as creating a barrier where, in a practical sense, none had existed before. The service instituted new policies–new inspection procedures and the formation of the Border Patrol–that accentuated the difference between the two countries.

    Inspection at the Mexican border involved a degrading procedure of bathing, delousing, medical line inspection, and interrogation. The baths were new and unique to Mexican immigrants, requiring them to be inspected while naked, have their hair shorn, and have their clothing and baggage fumigated. Medical line inspection, modeled after the practice formerly used at Ellis Island, required immigrants to walk in single file past a medical officer.49 These procedures were particularly humiliating, even gratuitous, in light of the fact that the Immigration Act of 1924 required prospective immigrants to present a medical certificate to the U.S. consul when applying for a visa, that is, before travel to the United States. Medical line inspection at Ellis Island was eliminated after 1924, and at El Paso the service exempted all Europeans and Mexicans arriving by first class rail from medical line inspection, the baths, and the literacy test.

    The Border Patrol functioned within an environment of increased racial hostility against Mexicans; indeed, its activities helped constitute that environment by aggressively apprehending and deporting increasing numbers of Mexicans. The Border Patrol interrogated Mexican laborers on roads and in towns, and it was not uncommon for “sweeps” to apprehend several hundred immigrants at a time. By the early 1930s the service was apprehending nearly five times as many suspected illegal aliens in the Mexican border area as it did in the Canadian border area. The Los Angeles newspaper La Opinión believed the aggressive deportation policy would result in a “de-Mexicanization of southern California.”

    Moreover, many Mexicans entered the United States through a variety of means that were not illegal but comprised irregular, unstable categories of lawful admission, making it more difficult to distinguish between those who were lawfully in the country and those who were not. Mexicans living in Mexican border towns who commuted into the United States to work on a daily or weekly basis constituted one category of irregular entry. The service counted these commuters as immigrants and collected a one-time head tax from them. It also required them to report to the immigration station once a week for bathing, a hated requirement that gave rise to a local black market in bathing certificates.

    It was ironic that Mexicans became so associated with illegal immigration because, unlike Europeans, they were not subject to numerical quotas and, unlike Asiatics, they were not excluded as racially ineligible to citizen-ship. But as numerical restriction assumed primacy in immigration policy, its enforcement aspects–inspection procedures, deportation, the Border Patrol, criminal prosecution, and irregular categories of immigration–created many thousands of illegal Mexican immigrants.

    http://sociol321l-sp12.wikispaces.umb.edu/file/view/Strange+Career+of+the+Illegal+Alien.pdf/315923660/Strange+Career+of+the+Illegal+Alien.pdf

    In short, there is the law and then there is the enforcement of the law. A weak law, if zealously enforced, is better than a strong law that is weakly enforced. Current American immigration law could be made a lot tougher simply by enforcing it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ron Unz
    It's been a few years since I investigated the matter, but I vaguely recall that the immigration entry fee for Mexicans was something like $47, perhaps a few hundred dollars in today's money. So any Latin American who paid the present day equivalent of something like $600 and underwent a medical inspection could legally immigrate to the U.S. If the 1965 Act hadn't revoked that Open Borders policy and imposed quotas, maybe one-third of Latin America would have moved to the U.S. during the 1980s and 1990s.

    You cite some multicultural leftist complaining that Mexican immigrants had to undergo the same Ellis Island-style medical screening that European immigrants did during the Open Borders era and that Mexicans who didn't bother paying their $47 immigration fee sometimes were caught and deported by the border patrol. So what?

    The whole argument is just silly. We had a legal Open Borders policy with all of Latin America until 1965. Now obviously the government could have chosen to reduce the actual impact by raising the legal immigration fee to something gigantic like $20,000. Perhaps the Bush or Obama Administrations would have adopted that policy as a back-door means of eliminating immigration to America, or if not, then Sen. Jeff Sessions could have gotten a veto-proof majority in Congress to impose such a policy by legislation. Given the enormous power of the anti-immigration lobby in DC and the pitiful weakness of the business interests on the other side, this seems very plausible.

    I think that's game, set, and match.

    Let's just be honest and simply admit that virtually all the anti-immigration activists on the Internet have spent the last couple of decades totally mistaken about what the 1965 Act did and did not do, and move on from there. Everyone makes mistakes.
    , @Anonymous
    I don't doubt the possibility that Ted Kennedy may have lied or misled other regarding the ramifications of the bill. But it's not that clear from your citations. It also seems entirely possible that Kennedy sincerely believed that the bill wouldn't have the major effects that it ended up having, if only because he wasn't bright enough to conceive that this was a significant possibility of the bill. He wasn't regarded the sharpest tool in the shed....

    At any rate, if it's the case that Kennedy either lied and misled others or didn't recognize the consequences of the bill himself, then it makes no sense to claim that Congress as a whole or some unspecified "they" implemented the bill with the specific aim of effecting the actual consequences that the bill ended up having. If an individual or group does something as a result of being deceived or of being ignorant of the consequences of that thing, then it can't be said that the individual or group did that thing in order to effect those consequences.

    So the question becomes, as I said, who knew what, and when did they know it?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Anonymous
    I meant the variation between different groups being heritable, rather than a specific absolute birthrate being heritable.

    Contemporary low birthrates are in the context of advanced industrial societies. The kind of groups who tend to high birthrates in this context likely wouldn't have advanced industrial societies in the first place.

    Contemporary low birthrates are in the context of advanced industrial societies. The kind of groups who tend to high birthrates in this context likely wouldn’t have advanced industrial societies in the first place.

    I understand your point, but I think that might be a bit too deterministic. Mormons in the US, for example, are well above replacement level, showing the importance of ideology. I think if governments prioritized healthy breeding to the same extent that they prioritized GDP growth, things would be a lot better. But I think Asian countries are aping western norms, and adopting their ideas about how a state should behave.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    The Mormon classification varies from people who are essentially completely separated from advanced industrial society, such as polygamous fundamentalist Mormon sects in isolated communities in rural Utah, Nevada, Arizona, Colorado, etc., to people who are lapsed or only nominally Mormon and are completely embedded in advanced industrial society, and everything in-between.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Peter Frost
    Regarding the 1965 immigration legislation, its sponsors claimed that it would not have a major demographic impact in terms of absolute numbers or ethnic composition.


    Yes, they made that claim, but they thought otherwise:

    The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 may prove to be the most consequential of the Great Society civil rights initiatives. The Act removed a preference for whites which had been a central feature of American immigration and nationality law since 1790; the resulting diversification of the immigrant stream will make America a "majority minority" nation within a few decades. Many commentators contend that the diversification that resulted from race-neutral immigration policy was unanticipated, undesired or both, from the perspective of the Congress that passed the Act. This article reexamines the question, drawing on legislative history as well as interviews with key legislators such as Gerald R. Ford, cabinet members including Nicholas deB. Katzenbach, and other participants in the development of the Act. The article concludes that it is more likely that Congress, largely the same one that passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, rejected the idea of America as a white nation. Congress actually intended to eliminate racial discrimination, and welcomed the diversification that it knew would result.

     

    http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1121504

    Actually, it’s exactly the other way round: The 1965 Immigration Act didn’t *open* America’s borders, it *closed* America’s borders, for the first time putting a legal limit on Latin American immigration.

    The key point is that the 1924 Immigration Act never applied to the Western Hemisphere, including Mexico and the rest of Latin America. Absolutely unlimited immigration from South of the border was the law. Similarly, there was enormous (and very unpopular) French-Canadian immigration into New England during the 1920s, but given the law, nothing could be done about it.

    Very few people in 1965 cared much about the Immigration Act, which was seen as a sentimental measure to restore European immigration, cut off by the 1924 Act. Indeed, if I recall recorrectly, imposing restrictions on Latin American immigration was actually added to the bill by the pro-immigration side as a very minor sop to the anti-immigration forces, with neither side much caring one way or the other. I think Kevin Macdonald discusses it in one of his books.

    In fact, one of the very, very few conservative columnists who publicly opposed the 1965 Act at the time argued that the bill was unnecessary from the economic perspective because we already allowed unlimited immigration from Latin America.

    For years, ignorant rightwingers have been demanding that the 1965 Act be repealed. Remember that crazy proposal from Bush (endorsed by Kerry) a few years ago that would have established an Open Borders policy and allowed unlimited foreign immigration? That actually amounted to repealing the 1965 Act!

    I’d guess that if the 1965 Act hadn’t passed, Latin American immigration during the 1980s and 1990s might have reached 5M per year.

    I’ve pointed all of these facts out on numerous occasions, but Internet nonsense is impossible to kill, so setting the record straight is probably a hopeless task.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Aaron
    Ron Unz is completely right about the 1965 immigration bill. It actually put a cap on Latin American immigration.

    Peter - selfish businessmen exist in every community. I am quite sure there exist selfish Japanese businessmen who would love to enrich themselves with cheap labor. But the Japanese nation as a whole had other priorities and organized the economy accordingly. In fact the Japanese deliberately sacrifice economic efficiency for employment and market share in a variety of ways as a reflection of national priorities. Consumers suffer, but greater job security and social stability, as well as the long-term viability of key industries, strike the Japanese as worth more than short-term profits and enormous wealth for the few.

    The American situation reflects the priorities of the elite, not just the business imperatives of a few billionaires focused on short term profits and massive personal enrichment at the expense of everyone else.

    What strikes me is the narrowness of outlook common in discussions about population replacement. If population replacement was an isolated phenomena unrelated to whats going on in other areas of our national life, it would make sense to treat as a special case. But the outlook reflected in population replacement is seen across the entirety of our national life - at that point, one must understand it as but one expression of an underlying impulse that is active across the entire field of our national life. And if one sees this very same outlook active as far back as 300 years ago despite being unable yet to express itself in population replacement, then all the more reason not to treat it as an isolated phenomena.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Peter Frost
    Regarding the 1965 immigration legislation, its sponsors claimed that it would not have a major demographic impact in terms of absolute numbers or ethnic composition.


    Yes, they made that claim, but they thought otherwise:

    The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 may prove to be the most consequential of the Great Society civil rights initiatives. The Act removed a preference for whites which had been a central feature of American immigration and nationality law since 1790; the resulting diversification of the immigrant stream will make America a "majority minority" nation within a few decades. Many commentators contend that the diversification that resulted from race-neutral immigration policy was unanticipated, undesired or both, from the perspective of the Congress that passed the Act. This article reexamines the question, drawing on legislative history as well as interviews with key legislators such as Gerald R. Ford, cabinet members including Nicholas deB. Katzenbach, and other participants in the development of the Act. The article concludes that it is more likely that Congress, largely the same one that passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, rejected the idea of America as a white nation. Congress actually intended to eliminate racial discrimination, and welcomed the diversification that it knew would result.

     

    http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1121504

    I suppose the question is, who knew what, and when did they know it?

    Ted Kennedy said in Congress in 1965, during a debate about the bill, that,

    “First, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually…Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset.”

    He was interviewed by NPR in 2006 and was asked about this prediction. He suggested that it wasn’t foreseen, at least by him:

    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5393857

    Q: What’s striking about the debate in 1965 is how so many people did not expect a huge increase in immigration, or a change in the demographics of the nation. You told Congress that immigration levels would remain “substantially the same,” and that “the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset.” Why weren’t these changes foreseen?

    Q: But the level of even legal immigration has increased dramatically since 1965, even though many supporters of the legislation then said it would not.

    KENNEDY: Everybody obviously wants to come, because this is the land of opportunity, but we’ve seen a rather dramatic shift as well in terms of the birthrate here. That was not really foreseen.

    You’re having now the leveling off of the birthrate here among a number of families. You certainly saw that in terms of Europe and Western Europe, where there is an actual decline. I don’t think we foresaw that so much at the time, 40 years ago. But that is a fact, and that sends all kinds of messages.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Regarding the 1965 immigration legislation, its sponsors claimed that it would not have a major demographic impact in terms of absolute numbers or ethnic composition.

    Yes, they made that claim, but they thought otherwise:

    The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 may prove to be the most consequential of the Great Society civil rights initiatives. The Act removed a preference for whites which had been a central feature of American immigration and nationality law since 1790; the resulting diversification of the immigrant stream will make America a “majority minority” nation within a few decades. Many commentators contend that the diversification that resulted from race-neutral immigration policy was unanticipated, undesired or both, from the perspective of the Congress that passed the Act. This article reexamines the question, drawing on legislative history as well as interviews with key legislators such as Gerald R. Ford, cabinet members including Nicholas deB. Katzenbach, and other participants in the development of the Act. The article concludes that it is more likely that Congress, largely the same one that passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, rejected the idea of America as a white nation. Congress actually intended to eliminate racial discrimination, and welcomed the diversification that it knew would result.

    http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1121504

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    I suppose the question is, who knew what, and when did they know it?

    Ted Kennedy said in Congress in 1965, during a debate about the bill, that,

    "First, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually...Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset."
     
    He was interviewed by NPR in 2006 and was asked about this prediction. He suggested that it wasn't foreseen, at least by him:

    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5393857

    Q: What's striking about the debate in 1965 is how so many people did not expect a huge increase in immigration, or a change in the demographics of the nation. You told Congress that immigration levels would remain "substantially the same," and that "the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset." Why weren't these changes foreseen?

    ...

    Q: But the level of even legal immigration has increased dramatically since 1965, even though many supporters of the legislation then said it would not.

    KENNEDY:
    Everybody obviously wants to come, because this is the land of opportunity, but we've seen a rather dramatic shift as well in terms of the birthrate here. That was not really foreseen.

    You're having now the leveling off of the birthrate here among a number of families. You certainly saw that in terms of Europe and Western Europe, where there is an actual decline. I don't think we foresaw that so much at the time, 40 years ago. But that is a fact, and that sends all kinds of messages.
     
    , @Ron Unz
    Actually, it's exactly the other way round: The 1965 Immigration Act didn't *open* America's borders, it *closed* America's borders, for the first time putting a legal limit on Latin American immigration.

    The key point is that the 1924 Immigration Act never applied to the Western Hemisphere, including Mexico and the rest of Latin America. Absolutely unlimited immigration from South of the border was the law. Similarly, there was enormous (and very unpopular) French-Canadian immigration into New England during the 1920s, but given the law, nothing could be done about it.

    Very few people in 1965 cared much about the Immigration Act, which was seen as a sentimental measure to restore European immigration, cut off by the 1924 Act. Indeed, if I recall recorrectly, imposing restrictions on Latin American immigration was actually added to the bill by the pro-immigration side as a very minor sop to the anti-immigration forces, with neither side much caring one way or the other. I think Kevin Macdonald discusses it in one of his books.

    In fact, one of the very, very few conservative columnists who publicly opposed the 1965 Act at the time argued that the bill was unnecessary from the economic perspective because we already allowed unlimited immigration from Latin America.

    For years, ignorant rightwingers have been demanding that the 1965 Act be repealed. Remember that crazy proposal from Bush (endorsed by Kerry) a few years ago that would have established an Open Borders policy and allowed unlimited foreign immigration? That actually amounted to repealing the 1965 Act!

    I'd guess that if the 1965 Act hadn't passed, Latin American immigration during the 1980s and 1990s might have reached 5M per year.

    I've pointed all of these facts out on numerous occasions, but Internet nonsense is impossible to kill, so setting the record straight is probably a hopeless task.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Peter Frost
    Vietnamese or Cambodians will have an easier time assimilating in Korean culture than black or Mexicans would in white culture.

    I would say the reverse. Koreans feel some affinity for other East Asians, i.e., Chinese and Japanese. The Vietnamese are perceived as being transitional between East Asians and Southeast Asians. If a Korean is in a good mood, he or she might accept the Vietnamese as a kindred people.

    But Cambodians? No. The attitude toward Southeast Asians is like the European attitude toward Roma and Middle Easterners. It's not just that they're noticeably darker-skinned (although that is a big factor). It's also because they behave differently, being louder, more expressive, and less disciplined.

    How much “rougher” are the Cambodians relative to Koreans? Are they rougher than the rougher elements of Western men? This article by a Western expat in Cambodia suggests that the rougher elements of Western men, obviously not representative of Western men in general, and African men are rougher than the Cambodian norm:

    http://www.khmer440.com/k/2013/12/7-ways-cambodia-can-solve-its-foreign-dude-problem/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Aaron wrote,

    “Why do these absurd sexual politics always pop up in threads about Asians?

    As anyone who knows anything about the Asian woman/white male thing knows very well, it consist almost entirely of ugly Asian women getting with less desirable white males. Its a stock joke among both groups. …

    This is well known by all parties concerned except those who wish to delude themselves for obvious reasons.”

    Thank you for pointing this out to the deluded folks on this thread.

    I wouldn’t even argue against the idea that some Asian women’s dislike for their male compatriots and attempts to snare a foreign (usually White) male may have something to do with sex or sexuality. I just wish people would wisen up and realize that, in most cases, it is probably not relevant in the way that you have imagined it to be.

    Silence is golden, so I will just leave it at that.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Hepp
    Yes, there's a heritability angle to it, but any group naturally inclined to a 1.2 TFR wouldn't have evolved in the first place. Something is very wrong with the assumptions underlying modern society.

    I meant the variation between different groups being heritable, rather than a specific absolute birthrate being heritable.

    Contemporary low birthrates are in the context of advanced industrial societies. The kind of groups who tend to high birthrates in this context likely wouldn’t have advanced industrial societies in the first place.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hepp

    Contemporary low birthrates are in the context of advanced industrial societies. The kind of groups who tend to high birthrates in this context likely wouldn’t have advanced industrial societies in the first place.
     
    I understand your point, but I think that might be a bit too deterministic. Mormons in the US, for example, are well above replacement level, showing the importance of ideology. I think if governments prioritized healthy breeding to the same extent that they prioritized GDP growth, things would be a lot better. But I think Asian countries are aping western norms, and adopting their ideas about how a state should behave.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Anonymous
    Birthrates are probably a heritable trait like anything else and thus likely vary among people and population groups. "Modernity" probably plays a role but likely isn't the whole story.

    I don't know how reliable J.P. Rushton's very simple model is, but if I remember correctly, he claimed that in general Negroids tended to have the highest birthrates and Mongoloids the lowest, with Caucasoids in an intermediate position.

    The Obamas have two kids, the Bushes have two, the Clintons have one. What does it have anything to do with heritage trait? It is a personal choice based on income, life style, career ambition, and religious belief more than anything else. It was not unusual for a Chinese married couple to have five or six children in the 50′s. 1.2 billion Chinese didn’t come out of nowhere, you know. But time have changed. Most of the Chinese middle class families living in big cities can’t afford or have the time to raise two kids even if the one child policy is not enforced. People who have more than two kids are usually rich or live in the countryside.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Priss Factor [AKA "whyem whyempty whyempathy"] says:

    Take Care of My Cat is an informative movie about modern day Korea. Not sure if it’s representative but it’s persuasive.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Peter Frost
    There is a clear logic that connects attitudes like the promotion of Soviet interests over western ones, which nearly all western intellectuals did not so long ago, and population replacement.

    I've met many globalists, particularly within the business community. None of them struck me as being self-hating or masochistic. If anything, they seemed to have an inflated opinion of their self-worth and enjoyed spending money on themselves. Politically, the older ones were anti-Soviet during the Cold War (and now they're anti-Putin). In general, they considered themselves conservative on the economy and foreign policy and liberal on social issues.

    If we go back to the 1960s, the shift to global immigration was a bipartisan effort. In the U.S., the 1965 immigration act was ratified by a Democrat president, but it won the votes of most Republican lawmakers. Supporters included then congressman Gerald Ford (R) and then congressman Robert Dole (R). When the vote went to the senate, the bill passed by a vote of 76 to 18. In the senate, 52 Democrats voted yes, 14 no, and 1 abstained. Of the Republicans 24 voted yes, 3 voted no, and 1 abstained.

    In Canada, it was the Progressive Conservative Party that led the way in implementing global immigration:

    Initially, John Diefenbaker and the Progressive Conservatives did little to signal that they would introduce bold changes in immigration policy. True, during the election campaign the combative Saskatchewan lawyer had promised that under a Progressive Conservative government immigration would play a vital role in Canada’s development.

    [...] During her term as Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Ellen Fairclough oversaw a steady improvement in the operation and procedures of the Immigration Service. Measured against this and her other accomplishments, however, was one of even greater significance—the long–overdue and radical reform that virtually abolished the “White Canada” immigration policy.

    [...] When the new regulations were implemented on 1 February 1962, Canada became the first of the three large receiving countries in international migration—the other two being the United States and Australia—to dismantle its discriminatory immigration policy.

     

    http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/publications/legacy/chap-6.asp

    No, the push for global immigration did not come principally from hippies, baby boomers, Jews, or "Cultural Marxists." It was made by men and women of the Greatest Generation, largely for two reasons:

    - to win friends and gain influence in the newly independent countries of the Third World. We wanted to show the Third World that we were better than the Communist bloc. Obama's father was brought to the U.S. at that time for the same sort of reason.

    - to tap into new sources of labor, at a time when European immigration to North America was declining. Even back then there was much talk about looming "labor shortages."

    In the United States, there were successive moves after 1965 to increase immigration levels, and these moves were largely Republican-backed and signed into law by Republican presidents:

    - In 1986, Reagan proclaimed an amnesty that not only provided about three million illegal immigrants with citizenship but also set off a baby boom.
    - Bush Sr. signed into law the Immigration Act of 1990, which raised the annual legal intake of immigrants from 500,000 to 700,000. And like his son, he declined to enforce sanctions against employers of illegal immigrants.

    By the time of Bush Jr., total immigration, both legal and illegal, was running at over one and a half million a year. Far from ending illegal immigration, Reagan’s amnesty had set off a new wave of “undocumented workers” from south of the border. By 2007, the U.S. was home to an estimated 12.5 million illegal immigrants—more than four times the number that Reagan had amnestied.

    Regarding the 1965 immigration legislation, its sponsors claimed that it would not have a major demographic impact in terms of absolute numbers or ethnic composition.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Priss Factor [AKA "whyem whyempty whyempathy"] says:
    @Hepp

    This is very true. In Asia, Asian women generally have no choice but to marry Asian men.

     

    Yes, and looking at the birthrates in Korea, Japan, and Taiwan, a lot of Asian women would rather be single than be with an Asian man. And that's a tragedy, to be honest. Except for enthnomasochism, the diseases of modernity seem to hit Asians even worse than whites.

    “Yes, and looking at the birthrates in Korea, Japan, and Taiwan, a lot of Asian women would rather be single than be with an Asian man. And that’s a tragedy, to be honest. Except for enthnomasochism, the diseases of modernity seem to hit Asians even worse than whites.”

    That could be part of the reason. But keep in mind European birthrates and white American birthrates have plunged too.

    I think in the case of Japan, Taiwan, and Korea, it has something to do with less family pressure than in the past. Also, in the past, many marriages were either arranged or made through match-makers. Those practices have died out, so individuals must find their own mates. It could be Asians are not very good at this, not least because so many Asian males and females spent their younger yrs hitting the books than working on their social skills. It could also be that East Asians are innately less expressive and sociable.

    Also, as Asians have been having fewer kids, it could be parents are more supportive of their precious kids and want them to marry someone ideal or find happiness(than cave into obligation). If you have lots of kids, you might just want to get rid of them by pressuring them to marry. But if you have just one or two children, you might pour so much attention on them that they grow up thinking that the world should revolve around them.

    Another factor is status-mania. When Asia was poorer, people just had to make do what they had. As Asia got richer, many more people feel that the dream of a good life is in their grasp. So, anything less than good is seen as bad or unworthy. So, people want the good job, the good life, the good spouse, the good everything. Anything less is seen as insulting to their sense of pride.

    Also, Asian women now work more and so have own means of income. They don’t have to marry. Also, Asian men have a reputation of being male-chauvinist. In the past, when women depended on men, they had to put up with bad male behavior. But today, women don’t have to put up with bad male behavior. So, if Asian males are still behaving like male chauvinist pigs, women will shun them because they are reminded of their own pig-like fathers.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • There is a clear logic that connects attitudes like the promotion of Soviet interests over western ones, which nearly all western intellectuals did not so long ago, and population replacement.

    I’ve met many globalists, particularly within the business community. None of them struck me as being self-hating or masochistic. If anything, they seemed to have an inflated opinion of their self-worth and enjoyed spending money on themselves. Politically, the older ones were anti-Soviet during the Cold War (and now they’re anti-Putin). In general, they considered themselves conservative on the economy and foreign policy and liberal on social issues.

    If we go back to the 1960s, the shift to global immigration was a bipartisan effort. In the U.S., the 1965 immigration act was ratified by a Democrat president, but it won the votes of most Republican lawmakers. Supporters included then congressman Gerald Ford (R) and then congressman Robert Dole (R). When the vote went to the senate, the bill passed by a vote of 76 to 18. In the senate, 52 Democrats voted yes, 14 no, and 1 abstained. Of the Republicans 24 voted yes, 3 voted no, and 1 abstained.

    In Canada, it was the Progressive Conservative Party that led the way in implementing global immigration:

    Initially, John Diefenbaker and the Progressive Conservatives did little to signal that they would introduce bold changes in immigration policy. True, during the election campaign the combative Saskatchewan lawyer had promised that under a Progressive Conservative government immigration would play a vital role in Canada’s development.

    [...] During her term as Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Ellen Fairclough oversaw a steady improvement in the operation and procedures of the Immigration Service. Measured against this and her other accomplishments, however, was one of even greater significance—the long–overdue and radical reform that virtually abolished the “White Canada” immigration policy.

    [...] When the new regulations were implemented on 1 February 1962, Canada became the first of the three large receiving countries in international migration—the other two being the United States and Australia—to dismantle its discriminatory immigration policy.

    http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/publications/legacy/chap-6.asp

    No, the push for global immigration did not come principally from hippies, baby boomers, Jews, or “Cultural Marxists.” It was made by men and women of the Greatest Generation, largely for two reasons:

    - to win friends and gain influence in the newly independent countries of the Third World. We wanted to show the Third World that we were better than the Communist bloc. Obama’s father was brought to the U.S. at that time for the same sort of reason.

    - to tap into new sources of labor, at a time when European immigration to North America was declining. Even back then there was much talk about looming “labor shortages.”

    In the United States, there were successive moves after 1965 to increase immigration levels, and these moves were largely Republican-backed and signed into law by Republican presidents:

    - In 1986, Reagan proclaimed an amnesty that not only provided about three million illegal immigrants with citizenship but also set off a baby boom.
    - Bush Sr. signed into law the Immigration Act of 1990, which raised the annual legal intake of immigrants from 500,000 to 700,000. And like his son, he declined to enforce sanctions against employers of illegal immigrants.

    By the time of Bush Jr., total immigration, both legal and illegal, was running at over one and a half million a year. Far from ending illegal immigration, Reagan’s amnesty had set off a new wave of “undocumented workers” from south of the border. By 2007, the U.S. was home to an estimated 12.5 million illegal immigrants—more than four times the number that Reagan had amnestied.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Regarding the 1965 immigration legislation, its sponsors claimed that it would not have a major demographic impact in terms of absolute numbers or ethnic composition.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Anonymous
    Birthrates are probably a heritable trait like anything else and thus likely vary among people and population groups. "Modernity" probably plays a role but likely isn't the whole story.

    I don't know how reliable J.P. Rushton's very simple model is, but if I remember correctly, he claimed that in general Negroids tended to have the highest birthrates and Mongoloids the lowest, with Caucasoids in an intermediate position.

    Yes, there’s a heritability angle to it, but any group naturally inclined to a 1.2 TFR wouldn’t have evolved in the first place. Something is very wrong with the assumptions underlying modern society.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    I meant the variation between different groups being heritable, rather than a specific absolute birthrate being heritable.

    Contemporary low birthrates are in the context of advanced industrial societies. The kind of groups who tend to high birthrates in this context likely wouldn't have advanced industrial societies in the first place.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Hepp

    This is very true. In Asia, Asian women generally have no choice but to marry Asian men.

     

    Yes, and looking at the birthrates in Korea, Japan, and Taiwan, a lot of Asian women would rather be single than be with an Asian man. And that's a tragedy, to be honest. Except for enthnomasochism, the diseases of modernity seem to hit Asians even worse than whites.

    Birthrates are probably a heritable trait like anything else and thus likely vary among people and population groups. “Modernity” probably plays a role but likely isn’t the whole story.

    I don’t know how reliable J.P. Rushton’s very simple model is, but if I remember correctly, he claimed that in general Negroids tended to have the highest birthrates and Mongoloids the lowest, with Caucasoids in an intermediate position.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hepp
    Yes, there's a heritability angle to it, but any group naturally inclined to a 1.2 TFR wouldn't have evolved in the first place. Something is very wrong with the assumptions underlying modern society.
    , @A4
    The Obamas have two kids, the Bushes have two, the Clintons have one. What does it have anything to do with heritage trait? It is a personal choice based on income, life style, career ambition, and religious belief more than anything else. It was not unusual for a Chinese married couple to have five or six children in the 50's. 1.2 billion Chinese didn't come out of nowhere, you know. But time have changed. Most of the Chinese middle class families living in big cities can't afford or have the time to raise two kids even if the one child policy is not enforced. People who have more than two kids are usually rich or live in the countryside.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Peter Frost
    There simply is no precedent for any Asian country to turn against itself, and the question of immigration in the west cannot be separated from the general western turn against itself – indeed it can only be understood as one of its many expressions.

    There is little precedent for what is happening to Western Europe today (I'm talking here about massive population replacement). As recently as the 1980s, non-European immigration was confined to the former colonial powers: the United Kingdom, France, and the Netherlands. It was arguably a case of "chickens coming home to roost." Today, immigration has not simply increased in volume; it is also spreading into many other countries. In the face of this demographic change, there is certainly a strange paralysis that results in part from recent European history and in part from longer-standing ideological trends.

    As for your second point, I agree that everything has a prior cause. Northwest Europeans have a longstanding tendency toward individualism and moral universalism, and these tendencies have enabled them to organize their societies along lines that have nothing to do with kinship or ethnicity. This new social environment has in turn pushed them even farther in the same direction. And so on and so forth.

    That being said, I'm not a fatalist. I don't believe that certain things are just "inevitable" and that we should just lie back and let it all happen. We have it in our power to determine the course of our history.

    It’s more like 105 to 108 for East Asia.

    When I cited a range of 100 to 105 I was thinking of a paper that critiqued Lynn's estimates (which are based largely on overseas Chinese) and whose author I can't remember.

    This map of mean IQ in China suggests a range of 104 to 108:
    https://theslittyeye.wordpress.com/2011/11/19/iq-geography-in-china/

    Clearly you are one of those people who are obsessed with racial purity. What exactly is the big deal with that?

    If you want productive debate, you should avoid caricaturing your opponent's position. First, I'm not obsessed. I'm concerned -- deeply concerned, if you wish -- about the demographic trends now playing out in Europe and, increasingly, elsewhere. According to the UN, the fertility decline has stalled throughout most of sub-Saharan Africa and has actually reversed in some countries, like Somalia. At current rates, Africa's population will quadruple by the end of this century:

    http://demog.berkeley.edu/~jrw/Eprints/gerland.etal.2014_Science.pdf

    Trends are only trends, but there is a lot of momentum built into Africa's demographic growth, which is already producing a large demographic surplus that will have to go somewhere and which is already going somewhere.

    As for "purity," please see the first sentence of this comment. We're not looking at a few Somali or Nigerian restaurants here and there. We are looking at population change on a scale never seen before. Much will be lost. What is really tragic is that we are only beginning to understand the degree to which human populations differ from each other. I condemn antiracists not only for their ignorance but also for their desire to impose irrevocable change at a time when the jury is still out on this issue. The burden of proof is on those who seek irrevocable change, not on those who oppose it.

    The key point is I don’t believe that population replacement can be considered in isolation. It can only be understood as one expression of the many ways the west has turned against itself. There is a clear logic that connects attitudes like the promotion of Soviet interests over western ones, which nearly all western intellectuals did not so long ago, and population replacement. Nor can population replacement be considered without reference to the historical record. There is a clear logic connecting population replacement with the self-hate of western writers in the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries.

    Population replacement can be best understood as the latest – and perhaps final – development of a historical trend that began in the 18th century and continued in a clear logical progression. In that sense it has more than a precedent – it has propulsive force.

    Self-hate does not affect the masses but is confined to western intellectuals, who from the period of the industrial revolution on began to be afflicted with a peculiar condition barely known in other cultures – alienation. Clearly, turning against the west is seen as offering some kind of salvation from this predicament.

    I cannot see how individualism has anything to do with it.

    The key feature of the modern west is to outlaw self-interest for whites, either collectively or as individuals, yet individualism merely re-focuses self-interest away from the group and towards the individual. Individualists should have no problem vigorously pursuing their own self-interest. Individualism is not hostile to self-interest yet the distinguishing feature of modern western morality is the illegitimacy of self-interest for whites – very much even on the individual level as whites are asked to give up scarce places at elite colleges, etc, etc.

    Nor can I detect any universal morality as essential to modern western ethics is that whites are treated in an exceptional manner – quite different standards are applied to them.

    Universal morality merely means the same standards are applied to all, but says nothing about the specific content of these standards, which differ by culture. Why did the west evolve a specific morality hostile to the principle of self-interest (not just collective but individual)? And why did it then apply these standards only to itself, while not just giving everyone else an exemption but actively working to realize the self-interest of others at its own expense?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • This is very true. In Asia, Asian women generally have no choice but to marry Asian men.

    Yes, and looking at the birthrates in Korea, Japan, and Taiwan, a lot of Asian women would rather be single than be with an Asian man. And that’s a tragedy, to be honest. Except for enthnomasochism, the diseases of modernity seem to hit Asians even worse than whites.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Birthrates are probably a heritable trait like anything else and thus likely vary among people and population groups. "Modernity" probably plays a role but likely isn't the whole story.

    I don't know how reliable J.P. Rushton's very simple model is, but if I remember correctly, he claimed that in general Negroids tended to have the highest birthrates and Mongoloids the lowest, with Caucasoids in an intermediate position.
    , @Priss Factor
    "Yes, and looking at the birthrates in Korea, Japan, and Taiwan, a lot of Asian women would rather be single than be with an Asian man. And that’s a tragedy, to be honest. Except for enthnomasochism, the diseases of modernity seem to hit Asians even worse than whites."

    That could be part of the reason. But keep in mind European birthrates and white American birthrates have plunged too.

    I think in the case of Japan, Taiwan, and Korea, it has something to do with less family pressure than in the past. Also, in the past, many marriages were either arranged or made through match-makers. Those practices have died out, so individuals must find their own mates. It could be Asians are not very good at this, not least because so many Asian males and females spent their younger yrs hitting the books than working on their social skills. It could also be that East Asians are innately less expressive and sociable.

    Also, as Asians have been having fewer kids, it could be parents are more supportive of their precious kids and want them to marry someone ideal or find happiness(than cave into obligation). If you have lots of kids, you might just want to get rid of them by pressuring them to marry. But if you have just one or two children, you might pour so much attention on them that they grow up thinking that the world should revolve around them.

    Another factor is status-mania. When Asia was poorer, people just had to make do what they had. As Asia got richer, many more people feel that the dream of a good life is in their grasp. So, anything less than good is seen as bad or unworthy. So, people want the good job, the good life, the good spouse, the good everything. Anything less is seen as insulting to their sense of pride.

    Also, Asian women now work more and so have own means of income. They don't have to marry. Also, Asian men have a reputation of being male-chauvinist. In the past, when women depended on men, they had to put up with bad male behavior. But today, women don't have to put up with bad male behavior. So, if Asian males are still behaving like male chauvinist pigs, women will shun them because they are reminded of their own pig-like fathers.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @A4
    South Korea will be done in by the country's low birth rate, not by its immigration policy.
    ..................................................................................................................................................
    A new population simulation by South Korea’s National Assembly Research Service has observers worried about the country’s long-term future.

    According to the research service’s projections, South Korea’s population will become completely extinct by 2750 if the country’s birth rate of 1.19 children per woman continues. The country currently has one of the lowest fertility rates in the world, leading only Hong Kong, Taiwan, Macau and Singapore.

    http://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/could-south-koreas-low-birth-rate-really-mean-extinction-n190151

    According to the research service’s projections, South Korea’s population will become completely extinct by 2750 if the country’s birth rate of 1.19 children per woman continues.

    Population projections 50 years into the future are fantasy

    i.e., that’s a big if

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • REPORTS about South Korean men taking brides from Cambodia (and other South-East Asian countries) by means of human-trafficking rings—which essentially had enslaved the women they styled as wives—prompted the government to ban foreign marriages temporarily in 2008. Last year that ban was reinstated, though only as it applies to South Korean men.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • There simply is no precedent for any Asian country to turn against itself, and the question of immigration in the west cannot be separated from the general western turn against itself – indeed it can only be understood as one of its many expressions.

    There is little precedent for what is happening to Western Europe today (I’m talking here about massive population replacement). As recently as the 1980s, non-European immigration was confined to the former colonial powers: the United Kingdom, France, and the Netherlands. It was arguably a case of “chickens coming home to roost.” Today, immigration has not simply increased in volume; it is also spreading into many other countries. In the face of this demographic change, there is certainly a strange paralysis that results in part from recent European history and in part from longer-standing ideological trends.

    As for your second point, I agree that everything has a prior cause. Northwest Europeans have a longstanding tendency toward individualism and moral universalism, and these tendencies have enabled them to organize their societies along lines that have nothing to do with kinship or ethnicity. This new social environment has in turn pushed them even farther in the same direction. And so on and so forth.

    That being said, I’m not a fatalist. I don’t believe that certain things are just “inevitable” and that we should just lie back and let it all happen. We have it in our power to determine the course of our history.

    It’s more like 105 to 108 for East Asia.

    When I cited a range of 100 to 105 I was thinking of a paper that critiqued Lynn’s estimates (which are based largely on overseas Chinese) and whose author I can’t remember.

    This map of mean IQ in China suggests a range of 104 to 108:

    https://theslittyeye.wordpress.com/2011/11/19/iq-geography-in-china/

    Clearly you are one of those people who are obsessed with racial purity. What exactly is the big deal with that?

    If you want productive debate, you should avoid caricaturing your opponent’s position. First, I’m not obsessed. I’m concerned — deeply concerned, if you wish — about the demographic trends now playing out in Europe and, increasingly, elsewhere. According to the UN, the fertility decline has stalled throughout most of sub-Saharan Africa and has actually reversed in some countries, like Somalia. At current rates, Africa’s population will quadruple by the end of this century:

    http://demog.berkeley.edu/~jrw/Eprints/gerland.etal.2014_Science.pdf

    Trends are only trends, but there is a lot of momentum built into Africa’s demographic growth, which is already producing a large demographic surplus that will have to go somewhere and which is already going somewhere.

    As for “purity,” please see the first sentence of this comment. We’re not looking at a few Somali or Nigerian restaurants here and there. We are looking at population change on a scale never seen before. Much will be lost. What is really tragic is that we are only beginning to understand the degree to which human populations differ from each other. I condemn antiracists not only for their ignorance but also for their desire to impose irrevocable change at a time when the jury is still out on this issue. The burden of proof is on those who seek irrevocable change, not on those who oppose it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Aaron
    The key point is I don't believe that population replacement can be considered in isolation. It can only be understood as one expression of the many ways the west has turned against itself. There is a clear logic that connects attitudes like the promotion of Soviet interests over western ones, which nearly all western intellectuals did not so long ago, and population replacement. Nor can population replacement be considered without reference to the historical record. There is a clear logic connecting population replacement with the self-hate of western writers in the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries.

    Population replacement can be best understood as the latest - and perhaps final - development of a historical trend that began in the 18th century and continued in a clear logical progression. In that sense it has more than a precedent - it has propulsive force.

    Self-hate does not affect the masses but is confined to western intellectuals, who from the period of the industrial revolution on began to be afflicted with a peculiar condition barely known in other cultures - alienation. Clearly, turning against the west is seen as offering some kind of salvation from this predicament.

    I cannot see how individualism has anything to do with it.

    The key feature of the modern west is to outlaw self-interest for whites, either collectively or as individuals, yet individualism merely re-focuses self-interest away from the group and towards the individual. Individualists should have no problem vigorously pursuing their own self-interest. Individualism is not hostile to self-interest yet the distinguishing feature of modern western morality is the illegitimacy of self-interest for whites - very much even on the individual level as whites are asked to give up scarce places at elite colleges, etc, etc.

    Nor can I detect any universal morality as essential to modern western ethics is that whites are treated in an exceptional manner - quite different standards are applied to them.

    Universal morality merely means the same standards are applied to all, but says nothing about the specific content of these standards, which differ by culture. Why did the west evolve a specific morality hostile to the principle of self-interest (not just collective but individual)? And why did it then apply these standards only to itself, while not just giving everyone else an exemption but actively working to realize the self-interest of others at its own expense?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • A pure race is by definition a species. It should be ‘clear’ that Peter does not believe that Koreans are a different species.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Peter Frost
    Until the Japanese took over, Korea was consistently the poorest and most backward of any of the major Asian countries

    Korea was poor because it didn't want to pay the price of becoming rich. It was not called "The Hermit Kingdom" for nothing. Foreign trade and influences were strictly limited, and a policy of economic autarky was followed as much as possible. There was a fear that the Korean people would lose their identity, their culture and, ultimately, their existence if they opened up to foreign trade.

    Terms like "poor" and "backward" are subjective. Today, South Korea is "rich" and "progressive"; it also has one of the lowest fertility rates in the world and is opening up to large-scale immigration. In a few years, half of all rural children will be "multicultural." You may consider such concerns trifling, but some people would consider them very important, even existential.

    You may consider such concerns trifling, but some people would consider them very important, even existential.

    Clearly you are one of those people who are obsessed with racial purity. What exactly is the big deal with that?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Peter Frost
    international marriages in Korea involve Korean fathers who are at the bottom of the barrel socio-economically within Korean society,

    This is only partly true. In urban areas, the husbands of mail-order brides tend to be divorced and of low economic status. In rural areas, they are almost always never-married -- there just aren't enough single women available. Single rural women prefer to move to the cities. We have the same phenomenon in North America and much of Europe. The people who remain in the countryside are disproportionately male.

    There is much scientific support for the alternate explanation: mean IQ is high in East Asia (China, Korea, Japan), being in the range of 100 to 105, and falls to the low to mid 90s in Southeast Asia. Vietnam may or may not occupy an intermediate position (There is debate back and forth on that point). I suspect there is similar geographic variation for many other mental and behavior traits, such as impulse control, future time orientation, monotony avoidance, and anger threshold.

    mean IQ is high in East Asia (China, Korea, Japan), being in the range of 100 to 105

    It’s more like 105 to 108 for East Asia. While Europe ranges from 89 to 101 with the average around 96-97.

    Source: http://www.ttu.ee/public/m/mart-murdvee/EconPsy/2/Lynn_Meisenberg_2010_National_IQs_calculated_and_validated_for_108_nations.pdf

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @ohwilleke
    One thing that distinguishes South Korea culturally from the rest of Asia, is that it has by far the highest percentage of Christians (about 50%), in part, due to the important role played by Christian organizations (among them, of all things, the YMCA) in resisting Japanese occupation.

    While Korean Christianity is its own special flavor (I attended a Korean Christian church for about a year) - with both missionary Evangelical leanings relative to the nominal denominations, and a Confucian substrate ideology that influences the content of sermons, it is hardly the straight up, universally respected and consensus Confucianism of Japan, for example.

    The process of this mass religious transformation has given Korean culture more opportunity to innovate with relative freedom from local tradition than many Asian cultures.

    One thing that distinguishes South Korea culturally from the rest of Asia, is that it has by far the highest percentage of Christians (about 50%)

    Nonsense. South Korea is at most 30% christian and North Korea is less than 2% christian. Of the 75 million population of the korean peninsula over 60 million are non-christian. The most christian nations in Asia are the Phillipines and East Timor. Phillipines has 90 million christians or 90% of the population.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Korea#Religion

    Btw, the most advanced asian nation, Japan, is also one of the least christian…

    East Asia as a region is the least contaminated by the middle-eastern religions (christianity, islam and judaism). Big advantage over the rest of the world…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Anonymous
    RAMZPAUL is an activist type. He's not exactly interested in the most objective understanding of the facts here.

    Apparently he's alarmed by some not very representative data from some dating site where the white men rated Asian women more highly than white women and thinks that this somehow means that most white men now want to marry Asian women or something. So he tries to suggest that Asian women don't like Eurasian men, presumably to suggest to all these white men out there who supposedly want to marry Asian women that Asian women won't like their sons or something.

    Which isn't the case at all. Eurasian men are very popular among Asian women. Eurasian men without any acting talent at all and who can't even speak the language become celebrities in Asia simply because Asian women find them appealing:

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

    The plastic surgery East Asians get seem to be designed to produce a Eurasianized appearance.

    If he wants to be factually accurate, he should just stick to saying that white women don't like Eurasian men, because at least that's plausible. But presumably he thinks that that will be less effective since white men marrying Asian women likely care less about what white women are going to think.

    I imagine Eurasian men would be more appealing to white women than Asian men are.

    Which isn’t the case at all. Eurasian men are very popular among Asian women. Eurasian men without any acting talent at all and who can’t even speak the language become celebrities in Asia simply because Asian women find them appealing:

    Yeah, Eurasians can do fine. Lots of Central Asian peoples are essentially Eurasian tribes (e.g. Uyghurs), and they don’t seem to have an identity crisis. Having known a number of Eurasians growing up, I’d say they’re probably a bit more attractive on average than their unmixed peers, but that might be the “exotic” effect (fair skin and black hair are a pleasant and somewhat rare combination). Some of them are certainly stunning.

    My best friend is Eurasian, and married to a white woman. He doesn’t seem to have suffered much from it, probably because his parents were both rather unique intellectuals with a natural affinity for each other (a professor and a psychiatrist).

    I do think in the US white female/Asian male pairings might be a bit more stable than the more standard white male/Asian female. I wouldn’t recommend a white guy marry an Asian woman unless he really knows what he’s getting into, and it’s based on more than just desire (of course that applies to all marriages, but more so for these pairings). Interracial marriage is a challenge, despite what people say these days. And of course it does have an effect on the kids.

    In order to make it work, parents should choose one culture or the other, and stick to it. The split identity is more of a problem than the features and skin tone. These people who try to accommodate both just complicate things for the kids.

    As for me, I took the easy way and had a few northern European kids. We can sit around on Martin Luther King Day having milk and cookies while watching old school American movies and cartoons and not worry about a thing.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Oscar Peterson
    “Why did a shift in multicultural policy happen relatively fast in Korea?”

    It’s probably not a “multicultural policy.” It’s really a labor supply and labor cost control policy. Who is going to clean Korean restrooms–Koreans? It’s the same reason for Pakistanis in Britain, Algerians in France and Mexicans (formerly Italians, Poles, et al) in the US. Yes, left-liberal diversity fetishists like it and may (as with the 1965 Immigration Act) push it, but labor supply for non-tradable service sector jobs–construction, sanitation, agriculture, food processing, retail and hospitality is the real issue.

    Surely that is more to do with allowing immigration to begin with? I will use Britain as an example because I know it well.

    Britain always had plenty of unemployed people from the 70s onwards. If immigration were strict and controlled, wages for the kind of jobs you illustrate would have been filled by the unemployed natives of the time.

    The other factor would be the welfare system of Britain. If welfare is more generous than the job offers then the unemployed will avoid taking them. This has been referred to as the poverty trap as loss of welfare from taking low wage jobs can make one poorer than being unemployed. But if immigration were prohibited then the businesses requiring the labour would be forced to pay more and thus the country could have had lower numbers on welfare and thus could have lowered taxes or increased the tax free allowance to make the lower pay jobs more desirable.

    However, by allowing basically open border immigration, it has kept downward pressure on wages by increasing labour supply, and at the same time there has been upward pressure on welfare payments by the natives not finding desirable enough employment. The current attempt to solve the problem is Universal Credit whereby the poverty trap is supposed to be avoided by allowing welfare payments at a lesser level to be paid when entering employment.

    But the fact is, if immigration were prohibited then wages would have simply had to rise to fill the positions businesses found necessary.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Aaron
    Why do these absurd sexual politics always pop up in threads about Asians?

    As anyone who knows anything about the Asian woman/white male thing knows very well, it consist almost entirely of ugly Asian women getting with less desirable white males. Its a stock joke among both groups. Its as rare for a desirable white male to prefer an Asian women as it is for a pretty Asian girl to prefer a white male. If you are a white male with an Asian girl you are almost by definition a loser, and if you are a pretty Asian woman with a white male its almost certain that for some reason or other you aren't wanted by desirable Asian males. As in all things there are exceptions but they are few.

    This is well known by all parties concerned except those who wish to delude themselves for obvious reasons.

    Nearly everyone prefers mates of their own race simply because you grew up with them are, are familiar with them, fantasized about them first, formed your sexual preferences based on their features, and probably had your first sexual experiences with them, if for no other reason.

    As for the risible comments about black men, there is no reason to expect Asian women will react to them any differently than white women have - in other words the vast majority will dislike or be indifferent to them, and a small minority - far from all of them ugly or "trash" as some wish to believe - will have a special interest in them.

    There is even a small minority of white women who have a special fetish for Asian men. Look it up its all over the web. While in Asia I have met one such woman – and she was far from unattractive.

    There’s a minority for everything.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Anonymous
    RAMZPAUL is an activist type. He's not exactly interested in the most objective understanding of the facts here.

    Apparently he's alarmed by some not very representative data from some dating site where the white men rated Asian women more highly than white women and thinks that this somehow means that most white men now want to marry Asian women or something. So he tries to suggest that Asian women don't like Eurasian men, presumably to suggest to all these white men out there who supposedly want to marry Asian women that Asian women won't like their sons or something.

    Which isn't the case at all. Eurasian men are very popular among Asian women. Eurasian men without any acting talent at all and who can't even speak the language become celebrities in Asia simply because Asian women find them appealing:

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

    The plastic surgery East Asians get seem to be designed to produce a Eurasianized appearance.

    If he wants to be factually accurate, he should just stick to saying that white women don't like Eurasian men, because at least that's plausible. But presumably he thinks that that will be less effective since white men marrying Asian women likely care less about what white women are going to think.

    I imagine Eurasian men would be more appealing to white women than Asian men are.

    Why do these absurd sexual politics always pop up in threads about Asians?

    As anyone who knows anything about the Asian woman/white male thing knows very well, it consist almost entirely of ugly Asian women getting with less desirable white males. Its a stock joke among both groups. Its as rare for a desirable white male to prefer an Asian women as it is for a pretty Asian girl to prefer a white male. If you are a white male with an Asian girl you are almost by definition a loser, and if you are a pretty Asian woman with a white male its almost certain that for some reason or other you aren’t wanted by desirable Asian males. As in all things there are exceptions but they are few.

    This is well known by all parties concerned except those who wish to delude themselves for obvious reasons.

    Nearly everyone prefers mates of their own race simply because you grew up with them are, are familiar with them, fantasized about them first, formed your sexual preferences based on their features, and probably had your first sexual experiences with them, if for no other reason.

    As for the risible comments about black men, there is no reason to expect Asian women will react to them any differently than white women have – in other words the vast majority will dislike or be indifferent to them, and a small minority – far from all of them ugly or “trash” as some wish to believe – will have a special interest in them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Aaron
    There is even a small minority of white women who have a special fetish for Asian men. Look it up its all over the web. While in Asia I have met one such woman - and she was far from unattractive.

    There's a minority for everything.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • I for one simply can’t believe this represents a serious shift in Korean policies.

    There simply is no precedent for any Asian country to turn against itself, and the question of immigration in the west cannot be separated from the general western turn against itself – indeed it can only be understood as one of its many expressions.

    By contrast, the west has a rich 300 year old tradition of turning against itself – self-hatred, if you will – first among philosophers, then artists, writers, adventurers, and exiles, and finally after 1945, in the economic and political sphere as well.

    Whatever the sources of this western tradition it is entirely absent in Asia.

    Allowing foreigners to overrun your country cannot be understood as a passive measure, as many seem to wish to understand it – it must be actively willed as part of a general turn against the instruments of national power and the forms of national expression. The same people who opposed any use of western power against the Soviet Union or anyone else or any other kind of western self-assertion are the ones now promoting immigration.

    Not only have Asians never developed or sustained such a tradition, but they lack the experience of overwhelming success in all fields against all comers which underlies and sustains western guilt.

    Whatever the full explanation for western guilt, it depends on the near total dominance the west has enjoyed for a very long time and that is only now showing signs of eroding.

    I cannot see Korea changing in a very large way that goes beyond the merely cosmetic.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Truth
    Dude, that's a GREAT link you put up. You should read the sub-links...

    https://longingfordeath.wordpress.com/2014/11/12/the-best-thing-a-eurasian-child-can-be-is-a-failure/

    https://longingfordeath.wordpress.com/2015/02/05/eurasian-mental-illness-in-motion-example-number-1/

    RAMZPAUL is an activist type. He’s not exactly interested in the most objective understanding of the facts here.

    Apparently he’s alarmed by some not very representative data from some dating site where the white men rated Asian women more highly than white women and thinks that this somehow means that most white men now want to marry Asian women or something. So he tries to suggest that Asian women don’t like Eurasian men, presumably to suggest to all these white men out there who supposedly want to marry Asian women that Asian women won’t like their sons or something.

    Which isn’t the case at all. Eurasian men are very popular among Asian women. Eurasian men without any acting talent at all and who can’t even speak the language become celebrities in Asia simply because Asian women find them appealing:

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

    The plastic surgery East Asians get seem to be designed to produce a Eurasianized appearance.

    If he wants to be factually accurate, he should just stick to saying that white women don’t like Eurasian men, because at least that’s plausible. But presumably he thinks that that will be less effective since white men marrying Asian women likely care less about what white women are going to think.

    I imagine Eurasian men would be more appealing to white women than Asian men are.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Aaron
    Why do these absurd sexual politics always pop up in threads about Asians?

    As anyone who knows anything about the Asian woman/white male thing knows very well, it consist almost entirely of ugly Asian women getting with less desirable white males. Its a stock joke among both groups. Its as rare for a desirable white male to prefer an Asian women as it is for a pretty Asian girl to prefer a white male. If you are a white male with an Asian girl you are almost by definition a loser, and if you are a pretty Asian woman with a white male its almost certain that for some reason or other you aren't wanted by desirable Asian males. As in all things there are exceptions but they are few.

    This is well known by all parties concerned except those who wish to delude themselves for obvious reasons.

    Nearly everyone prefers mates of their own race simply because you grew up with them are, are familiar with them, fantasized about them first, formed your sexual preferences based on their features, and probably had your first sexual experiences with them, if for no other reason.

    As for the risible comments about black men, there is no reason to expect Asian women will react to them any differently than white women have - in other words the vast majority will dislike or be indifferent to them, and a small minority - far from all of them ugly or "trash" as some wish to believe - will have a special interest in them.

    , @Bill P

    Which isn’t the case at all. Eurasian men are very popular among Asian women. Eurasian men without any acting talent at all and who can’t even speak the language become celebrities in Asia simply because Asian women find them appealing:
     
    Yeah, Eurasians can do fine. Lots of Central Asian peoples are essentially Eurasian tribes (e.g. Uyghurs), and they don't seem to have an identity crisis. Having known a number of Eurasians growing up, I'd say they're probably a bit more attractive on average than their unmixed peers, but that might be the "exotic" effect (fair skin and black hair are a pleasant and somewhat rare combination). Some of them are certainly stunning.

    My best friend is Eurasian, and married to a white woman. He doesn't seem to have suffered much from it, probably because his parents were both rather unique intellectuals with a natural affinity for each other (a professor and a psychiatrist).

    I do think in the US white female/Asian male pairings might be a bit more stable than the more standard white male/Asian female. I wouldn't recommend a white guy marry an Asian woman unless he really knows what he's getting into, and it's based on more than just desire (of course that applies to all marriages, but more so for these pairings). Interracial marriage is a challenge, despite what people say these days. And of course it does have an effect on the kids.

    In order to make it work, parents should choose one culture or the other, and stick to it. The split identity is more of a problem than the features and skin tone. These people who try to accommodate both just complicate things for the kids.

    As for me, I took the easy way and had a few northern European kids. We can sit around on Martin Luther King Day having milk and cookies while watching old school American movies and cartoons and not worry about a thing.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Priss Factor [AKA "whyem whyempty whyempathy"] says:
    @Erik Sieven
    @ whyem whyempty whyempathy

    those poor guys. This is an interesting niche in the internet, which has merged some 5-10 years ago. This "eurasian male community" is one of the only groups who believe in human biological diversity but have nothing to do with explicit hbd related content. Simply because the evidence they face is too strong

    “This ‘eurasian male community’ is one of the only groups who believe in human biological diversity but have nothing to do with explicit hbd related content. Simply because the evidence they face is too strong.”

    They are sort of like mestizo males, right? Mestizos, being of European and Meso-American(of Asiatic origin) descent, are EuroIndian if not exactly Eurasian.

    It seems Mexican mestizo-males and the like are not very popular on the dating market. But I think they are more successful than Eurasian males in getting girls for one simple reason. They don’t aim very high. If you’re a short stocky mestizo male in Texas, you might be happy marrying some low-class ‘white trash’ or some poor Mexican chick.

    But since Eurasian males tend to come from more affluent families and are better educated, they have higher aims and want high-class white chicks. But it aint happening so easily. But they might still have a better chance with Asian chicks than pure-blooded Asian males might. I think your average Asian chick will favor someone like John Lone(who I think is Eurasian)over Bobby Lee or Eddie Huang or who’s that American Idol singer who looks like a tard?

    Mestizo males don’t aim too high:

    http://www.anyclip.com/movies/the-wild-bunch/angels-woman/#!info/

    And they are more into machismo.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Peter Frost
    Until the Japanese took over, Korea was consistently the poorest and most backward of any of the major Asian countries

    Korea was poor because it didn't want to pay the price of becoming rich. It was not called "The Hermit Kingdom" for nothing. Foreign trade and influences were strictly limited, and a policy of economic autarky was followed as much as possible. There was a fear that the Korean people would lose their identity, their culture and, ultimately, their existence if they opened up to foreign trade.

    Terms like "poor" and "backward" are subjective. Today, South Korea is "rich" and "progressive"; it also has one of the lowest fertility rates in the world and is opening up to large-scale immigration. In a few years, half of all rural children will be "multicultural." You may consider such concerns trifling, but some people would consider them very important, even existential.

    You make a good point that Korea’s situation in the early modern period was at least partly self-imposed for ideological reasons.

    However, while a number of East Asian countries made an official commitment to autarky and exclusion of foreign trade and influences in the early modern period (Tokugawa Japan, large periods of the Ming and Qing dynasties) Korea is distinctive for its much lower levels of literacy, urbanization, sophisticated commerce, improvements in agriculture, and civil society (guilds, scholarly associations) even among its peers.

    I think it is also an open question whether the isolationist and anti-commercial policies of the Chosen period were done to maintain the integrity of the Korean people and their culture or to make the Korea a model for rigorous enforcement of neo-Confucian principles. I have not read enough of Korean scholars in the period to see whether they linked their commitment to “correct” philosophy with the preservation of a Korean ethnic and cultural identity. I do know they looked down on the Ming Chinese for letting heterodox philosophy “pollute” classic neo-Confucianism and on the Japanese for letting military lords have a leading role in society, however. Do not want to divert the conversation too much into early modern Confucianism however!

    I agree with to your points about the challenge the Korea has brought on itself with an ill-thought out embrace of multiculturalism in a society which had no history of it. If anything, recognizing the newness of Korean prosperity makes looking at the impact of a sudden switch to a multi-ethic nation more relevant.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @ whyem whyempty whyempathy

    those poor guys. This is an interesting niche in the internet, which has merged some 5-10 years ago. This “eurasian male community” is one of the only groups who believe in human biological diversity but have nothing to do with explicit hbd related content. Simply because the evidence they face is too strong

    Read More
    • Replies: @Priss Factor
    "This 'eurasian male community' is one of the only groups who believe in human biological diversity but have nothing to do with explicit hbd related content. Simply because the evidence they face is too strong."

    They are sort of like mestizo males, right? Mestizos, being of European and Meso-American(of Asiatic origin) descent, are EuroIndian if not exactly Eurasian.

    It seems Mexican mestizo-males and the like are not very popular on the dating market. But I think they are more successful than Eurasian males in getting girls for one simple reason. They don't aim very high. If you're a short stocky mestizo male in Texas, you might be happy marrying some low-class 'white trash' or some poor Mexican chick.

    But since Eurasian males tend to come from more affluent families and are better educated, they have higher aims and want high-class white chicks. But it aint happening so easily. But they might still have a better chance with Asian chicks than pure-blooded Asian males might. I think your average Asian chick will favor someone like John Lone(who I think is Eurasian)over Bobby Lee or Eddie Huang or who's that American Idol singer who looks like a tard?

    Mestizo males don't aim too high:

    http://www.anyclip.com/movies/the-wild-bunch/angels-woman/#!info/

    And they are more into machismo.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @just a guest
    "South Korea is prosperous because it has … Koreans. "

    Not really true over the long term. Until the Japanese took over, Korea was consistently the poorest and most backward of any of the major Asian countries (excluding Laos, Cambodia, and probably the Philippines)

    For most of the last millennium Korea was much less advanced across all fields - public administration, architecture, technology, agriculture, crafts and commercial development - than Japan or China, and in many case than Vietnam, Thailand, or Burma.

    The prosperity of modern Korea vis a vis Vietnam or China reflects a unique mix of influences from Japanese rule, its position as a front-line ally of the US during the cold war with all its benefits of international exchange, training, and money, and probably the spread of Christianity. But it really is quite a recent development in Asian history.

    Just curious, where is the evidence that Korea was more backward across all fields compared to other Asian countries for the past 1,000 years? Confucist ideology suppressed commercial development during the Chosun dynasty, so maybe you have a point there. However public administration during that era was heavily influence by the Chinese system. I doubt that it was more backward than Japan to any significant extent.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • The Dopamine D4 receptor gene shows a gender-sensitive association with cognitive empathy: Evidence from two independent samples

    low-growth state, much like the West

    That depends what part of the West you are talking about.

    For most of the last millennium Korea was much less advanced across all fields

    Korea has a solid manufacturing base businesses employing highly skilled indigenous labour. Samsung is the world’s largest maker of televisions, smartphones and memory chips by market share, The domestic refrigerator market is cutthroat in Korea

    Apple is under attack by Korea (ideologically and competitively). Korea has the adaptations for co-operative enterprises, so their currently successful model will be much more vulnerable to replacement immigration.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Priss Factor [AKA "whyem whyempty whyempathy"] says:

    “South Korea is prosperous because it has … Koreans. ”

    “Not really true over the long term.”

    I think you’re missing the point. Many Jews were poor for long stretches of history too. And Chinese were poor under Mao.

    Obviously, you need rule of law, property laws, opportunities, modern educational structures, and etc.
    But all things being equal, Koreans are likely to excel more than lower-IQ people in some other nations.

    If both Koreans and Cambodians practice democratic capitalism, Koreans will do better.
    But if Koreans live under Stalinism while Cambodians practice capitalist-democracy, Cambodians will do better.

    So, being Korean isn’t enough. Just like being German isn’t enough. At the end of the Cold War, many East Asians were doing better than East Germans since East Germany hadn’t allowed much in the way of economic growth and innovation.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Until the Japanese took over, Korea was consistently the poorest and most backward of any of the major Asian countries

    Korea was poor because it didn’t want to pay the price of becoming rich. It was not called “The Hermit Kingdom” for nothing. Foreign trade and influences were strictly limited, and a policy of economic autarky was followed as much as possible. There was a fear that the Korean people would lose their identity, their culture and, ultimately, their existence if they opened up to foreign trade.

    Terms like “poor” and “backward” are subjective. Today, South Korea is “rich” and “progressive”; it also has one of the lowest fertility rates in the world and is opening up to large-scale immigration. In a few years, half of all rural children will be “multicultural.” You may consider such concerns trifling, but some people would consider them very important, even existential.

    Read More
    • Replies: @just a guest
    You make a good point that Korea's situation in the early modern period was at least partly self-imposed for ideological reasons.

    However, while a number of East Asian countries made an official commitment to autarky and exclusion of foreign trade and influences in the early modern period (Tokugawa Japan, large periods of the Ming and Qing dynasties) Korea is distinctive for its much lower levels of literacy, urbanization, sophisticated commerce, improvements in agriculture, and civil society (guilds, scholarly associations) even among its peers.

    I think it is also an open question whether the isolationist and anti-commercial policies of the Chosen period were done to maintain the integrity of the Korean people and their culture or to make the Korea a model for rigorous enforcement of neo-Confucian principles. I have not read enough of Korean scholars in the period to see whether they linked their commitment to "correct" philosophy with the preservation of a Korean ethnic and cultural identity. I do know they looked down on the Ming Chinese for letting heterodox philosophy "pollute" classic neo-Confucianism and on the Japanese for letting military lords have a leading role in society, however. Do not want to divert the conversation too much into early modern Confucianism however!

    I agree with to your points about the challenge the Korea has brought on itself with an ill-thought out embrace of multiculturalism in a society which had no history of it. If anything, recognizing the newness of Korean prosperity makes looking at the impact of a sudden switch to a multi-ethic nation more relevant.
    , @Bliss

    You may consider such concerns trifling, but some people would consider them very important, even existential.
     
    Clearly you are one of those people who are obsessed with racial purity. What exactly is the big deal with that?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • “South Korea is prosperous because it has … Koreans. ”

    Not really true over the long term. Until the Japanese took over, Korea was consistently the poorest and most backward of any of the major Asian countries (excluding Laos, Cambodia, and probably the Philippines)

    For most of the last millennium Korea was much less advanced across all fields – public administration, architecture, technology, agriculture, crafts and commercial development – than Japan or China, and in many case than Vietnam, Thailand, or Burma.

    The prosperity of modern Korea vis a vis Vietnam or China reflects a unique mix of influences from Japanese rule, its position as a front-line ally of the US during the cold war with all its benefits of international exchange, training, and money, and probably the spread of Christianity. But it really is quite a recent development in Asian history.

    Read More
    • Replies: @cjh
    Just curious, where is the evidence that Korea was more backward across all fields compared to other Asian countries for the past 1,000 years? Confucist ideology suppressed commercial development during the Chosun dynasty, so maybe you have a point there. However public administration during that era was heavily influence by the Chinese system. I doubt that it was more backward than Japan to any significant extent.
    , @bach

    For most of the last millennium Korea was much less advanced across all fields – public administration, architecture, technology, agriculture, crafts and commercial development – than Japan or China, and in many case than Vietnam, Thailand, or Burma.
     
    No, the opposite was true.

    In NE Asia, Japan was the laggard until recently.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Priss Factor
    Interesting stats:

    http://www.ramzpaul.com/2015/02/why-dont-white-men-like-white-women.html
    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    RAMZPAUL is an activist type. He's not exactly interested in the most objective understanding of the facts here.

    Apparently he's alarmed by some not very representative data from some dating site where the white men rated Asian women more highly than white women and thinks that this somehow means that most white men now want to marry Asian women or something. So he tries to suggest that Asian women don't like Eurasian men, presumably to suggest to all these white men out there who supposedly want to marry Asian women that Asian women won't like their sons or something.

    Which isn't the case at all. Eurasian men are very popular among Asian women. Eurasian men without any acting talent at all and who can't even speak the language become celebrities in Asia simply because Asian women find them appealing:

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

    The plastic surgery East Asians get seem to be designed to produce a Eurasianized appearance.

    If he wants to be factually accurate, he should just stick to saying that white women don't like Eurasian men, because at least that's plausible. But presumably he thinks that that will be less effective since white men marrying Asian women likely care less about what white women are going to think.

    I imagine Eurasian men would be more appealing to white women than Asian men are.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Priss Factor [AKA "whyem whyempty whyempathy"] says:
    Read More
    • Replies: @Truth
    Dude, that's a GREAT link you put up. You should read the sub-links...

    https://longingfordeath.wordpress.com/2014/11/12/the-best-thing-a-eurasian-child-can-be-is-a-failure/

    https://longingfordeath.wordpress.com/2015/02/05/eurasian-mental-illness-in-motion-example-number-1/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • The Korean economy is now going through a transition into a low-growth state, much like the West and Japan. We’ll see if the Korean Elites can afford to continue the current immigration policy in the face of stagnating income growth and under-employment.

    Also, Asians in Asia are different from Asian-Americans. Don’t project too much of what you see of Asian-Americans into East Asia. People tend to behave differently in different social circumstances, especially when they are the majority instead of being an afterthought.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Who is going to clean Korean restrooms–Koreans?

    Why not?

    Look, there is never a shortage of people for dirty jobs. There is only a shortage of employers who are willing to pay the going rate — the market value, if you wish. If labor were in short supply for the occupations you describe, wages would be rising more rapidly in those occupations than in others. Yet this is not what we see. Often, we see the reverse. Wages have been halved in the slaughterhouse industry, and this reduction coincides with the mass introduction of low-wage immigrant labor.

    Is it just a coincidence that the median wage has scarcely risen since the mid-1970s? At that time, it was common to see native-born people, especially students, doing the jobs you describe. Now, they’re a rare sight. It’s not because they’re spoiled rotten. It’s because employers — as a social class — are spoiled rotten by access to compliant low-wage labor

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • international marriages in Korea involve Korean fathers who are at the bottom of the barrel socio-economically within Korean society,

    This is only partly true. In urban areas, the husbands of mail-order brides tend to be divorced and of low economic status. In rural areas, they are almost always never-married — there just aren’t enough single women available. Single rural women prefer to move to the cities. We have the same phenomenon in North America and much of Europe. The people who remain in the countryside are disproportionately male.

    There is much scientific support for the alternate explanation: mean IQ is high in East Asia (China, Korea, Japan), being in the range of 100 to 105, and falls to the low to mid 90s in Southeast Asia. Vietnam may or may not occupy an intermediate position (There is debate back and forth on that point). I suspect there is similar geographic variation for many other mental and behavior traits, such as impulse control, future time orientation, monotony avoidance, and anger threshold.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bliss

    mean IQ is high in East Asia (China, Korea, Japan), being in the range of 100 to 105
     
    It's more like 105 to 108 for East Asia. While Europe ranges from 89 to 101 with the average around 96-97.

    Source: http://www.ttu.ee/public/m/mart-murdvee/EconPsy/2/Lynn_Meisenberg_2010_National_IQs_calculated_and_validated_for_108_nations.pdf
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • “Why did a shift in multicultural policy happen relatively fast in Korea?”

    It’s probably not a “multicultural policy.” It’s really a labor supply and labor cost control policy. Who is going to clean Korean restrooms–Koreans? It’s the same reason for Pakistanis in Britain, Algerians in France and Mexicans (formerly Italians, Poles, et al) in the US. Yes, left-liberal diversity fetishists like it and may (as with the 1965 Immigration Act) push it, but labor supply for non-tradable service sector jobs–construction, sanitation, agriculture, food processing, retail and hospitality is the real issue.

    Read More
    • Replies: @zog
    Surely that is more to do with allowing immigration to begin with? I will use Britain as an example because I know it well.

    Britain always had plenty of unemployed people from the 70s onwards. If immigration were strict and controlled, wages for the kind of jobs you illustrate would have been filled by the unemployed natives of the time.

    The other factor would be the welfare system of Britain. If welfare is more generous than the job offers then the unemployed will avoid taking them. This has been referred to as the poverty trap as loss of welfare from taking low wage jobs can make one poorer than being unemployed. But if immigration were prohibited then the businesses requiring the labour would be forced to pay more and thus the country could have had lower numbers on welfare and thus could have lowered taxes or increased the tax free allowance to make the lower pay jobs more desirable.

    However, by allowing basically open border immigration, it has kept downward pressure on wages by increasing labour supply, and at the same time there has been upward pressure on welfare payments by the natives not finding desirable enough employment. The current attempt to solve the problem is Universal Credit whereby the poverty trap is supposed to be avoided by allowing welfare payments at a lesser level to be paid when entering employment.

    But the fact is, if immigration were prohibited then wages would have simply had to rise to fill the positions businesses found necessary.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Bill P

    In December, about 20 Cambodian workers engaged in a bloody group fight inside a bar in Gimhae, South Gyeongsang Province.

    The incident is belatedly becoming the talk of town after surveillance camera footage showing their brutal fight was aired on TV Wednesday.

    Some of the Cambodian men, who all work in factories in Gimhae or Busan on temporary visas, sustained deep stab wounds and bone fractures that will require months of hospital treatment, police say.
     
    That's nothing. One night, when I was spending a blissful evening with a half-Korean girl at her place in the local slum, the sound of heavy, sustained gunfire interrupted our youthful commingling. It was the early 90s on Rainier Avenue, so it wasn't entirely out of place, but sirens wailed for some 45 minutes following the spasm of violence. Whatever it was, we thought, it must be pretty serious.

    Turns out some SE Asian gangsters had invaded a nearby disco and slaughtered five people with assault rifles, wounding a number of others. A real bloodbath.

    And then of course there was the Wah Mee Massacre, which my dad helped solve thanks to his frequent patronage of subterranean drinking and gambling establishments in Chinatown (a family tradition that goes back to my Norwegian businesswoman great grandmother, apparently), back in the early 80s. Vietnamese gunmen invaded a Chinese illegal gambling den and stole the purse, executing a dozen or so people in the process before fleeing to Toronto.

    Years later, I ended up teaching ESL to one of the victims' daughters, who had suffered a great deal from the loss in terms of social status and options in life. She was a very good, hardworking woman, but never had the opportunity to move on after the tragedy. This shows the true, hidden impact of these crimes. They linger for generations.

    I remember the night of that Seattle massacre (2/18-19/1983). I was a 1L at the UW School of Law, and I was on a date with a 2L, who became my longtime girlfriend. We were on the couch in her living room, in her apartment, kitty-corner from the (then) law-school building, getting to know each other better, when those poor people were gunned down, a few miles away. It has always served to remind me of the nature of life– as in the famous painting of Icarus’ fatal plunge into the sea, while others carry on with their own daily tasks, unaware of his fate.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Priss Factor [AKA "whyem whyempty whyempathy"] says:
    @Hepp
    I think that the potential for backlash to immigrants in the East lies in how utterly unattractive Asian men are, even to women of their own race. If they think they're celibate now, wait till these guys have to compete with whites or blacks. Doesn't seem like a problem when a lot of the immigrants are Vietnamese and therefore look the same. But it potentially could blow up.

    “I think that the potential for backlash to immigrants in the East lies in how utterly unattractive Asian men are, even to women of their own race.”

    This is very true. In Asia, Asian women generally have no choice but to marry Asian men. But once Asians come to America, a huge number of Asian women will marry outside the race because they don’t want to marry anyone who looks like their fathers. Asian women find Asian men to be too short, nerdy, unattractive, awkward. This may or may not be truer among Korean-American women. They have a reputation for being impulsive, status-conscious, and materialistic. Therefore, they are more likely to follow their passions.
    The very idea of having a child with a Korean man might disgust an Korean-American woman. Why do so many Korean women have plastic surgeries? They want to look more white. In America, I think many Asian-American women want to have what might be called womb-plastic-surgeries so that their own children will look less Asian and more white. If they reject Asian seed and take white seed in their wombs, their children will look half-white and will have undergone genetic plastic surgery. Just like Japanese want to see white-looking anime characters, it could be Korean-American women want to hold and nurture white-looking babies than ‘ugly’ Asian-looking ones.

    Though Asian-American women may be officially politically correct and speak the usual cliches about racial equality and all that, they probably prefer babies that are deemed ‘racially superior’ by having white or Eurasian features. They might respect or love their fathers as parents but they don’t respect them as ‘men’. They want to receive the seed of men of what is deemed as the ‘superior’ race that usually happens to be white but it may also change to black as so many Asian-Americans are into hip hop culture.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Hepp
    I think that the potential for backlash to immigrants in the East lies in how utterly unattractive Asian men are, even to women of their own race. If they think they're celibate now, wait till these guys have to compete with whites or blacks. Doesn't seem like a problem when a lot of the immigrants are Vietnamese and therefore look the same. But it potentially could blow up.

    I am not sure that Asian chicks are all that attracted to blacks, especially given the response by the rest of the family. White guys are desirable if they are good looking. An average white guy to a hot Asian chick probably has no more pull than another Asian guy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Anonymous
    "'I'm afraid of migrant workers'

    Bloody group fight of 20 Cambodian workers frighten Gimhae residents"

    http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2015/02/116_173603.html

    In December, about 20 Cambodian workers engaged in a bloody group fight inside a bar in Gimhae, South Gyeongsang Province.

    The incident is belatedly becoming the talk of town after surveillance camera footage showing their brutal fight was aired on TV Wednesday.

    Some of the Cambodian men, who all work in factories in Gimhae or Busan on temporary visas, sustained deep stab wounds and bone fractures that will require months of hospital treatment, police said.

    During the fight, they smashed bottles of beer and soju, and threw dozens of chairs at each other, breaking dishes and glasses. The owner of the bar said he was lucky that they only cost him his tables and dishes, not his life.

    "There were a lot of blood stains. I could have been hit by any of the bottles they threw," he said.

    Residents in Gimhae were frightened by the videos of the incident.

    "I thought of foreign factory workers as being docile, hardworking and somewhat naïve. But this likely breaks that stereotype. They could be violent and dangerous, too. I'm afraid of them," a resident said.
     

    In December, about 20 Cambodian workers engaged in a bloody group fight inside a bar in Gimhae, South Gyeongsang Province.

    The incident is belatedly becoming the talk of town after surveillance camera footage showing their brutal fight was aired on TV Wednesday.

    Some of the Cambodian men, who all work in factories in Gimhae or Busan on temporary visas, sustained deep stab wounds and bone fractures that will require months of hospital treatment, police say.

    That’s nothing. One night, when I was spending a blissful evening with a half-Korean girl at her place in the local slum, the sound of heavy, sustained gunfire interrupted our youthful commingling. It was the early 90s on Rainier Avenue, so it wasn’t entirely out of place, but sirens wailed for some 45 minutes following the spasm of violence. Whatever it was, we thought, it must be pretty serious.

    Turns out some SE Asian gangsters had invaded a nearby disco and slaughtered five people with assault rifles, wounding a number of others. A real bloodbath.

    And then of course there was the Wah Mee Massacre, which my dad helped solve thanks to his frequent patronage of subterranean drinking and gambling establishments in Chinatown (a family tradition that goes back to my Norwegian businesswoman great grandmother, apparently), back in the early 80s. Vietnamese gunmen invaded a Chinese illegal gambling den and stole the purse, executing a dozen or so people in the process before fleeing to Toronto.

    Years later, I ended up teaching ESL to one of the victims’ daughters, who had suffered a great deal from the loss in terms of social status and options in life. She was a very good, hardworking woman, but never had the opportunity to move on after the tragedy. This shows the true, hidden impact of these crimes. They linger for generations.

    Read More
    • Replies: @D. K.
    I remember the night of that Seattle massacre (2/18-19/1983). I was a 1L at the UW School of Law, and I was on a date with a 2L, who became my longtime girlfriend. We were on the couch in her living room, in her apartment, kitty-corner from the (then) law-school building, getting to know each other better, when those poor people were gunned down, a few miles away. It has always served to remind me of the nature of life-- as in the famous painting of Icarus' fatal plunge into the sea, while others carry on with their own daily tasks, unaware of his fate.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Anonymous
    Koreans are a pain in the ass for all their neighbors. And for all their brains, they have no real achievements of their own in thousands of years. China and Japan will be more than happy if it devolves into a mongrelized brothel of soap operas and short-skirted pop singers.

    That “mongolized brothel”, called Korea, just surpassed Japan in per capita GDP converted based upon purchasing power, to be second in the OECD. Its ranking has improved over the time frame that it has allowed immigration. Correlation isn’t causation, but correlations always have causes.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • South Korea will be done in by the country’s low birth rate, not by its immigration policy.
    ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
    A new population simulation by South Korea’s National Assembly Research Service has observers worried about the country’s long-term future.

    According to the research service’s projections, South Korea’s population will become completely extinct by 2750 if the country’s birth rate of 1.19 children per woman continues. The country currently has one of the lowest fertility rates in the world, leading only Hong Kong, Taiwan, Macau and Singapore.

    http://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/could-south-koreas-low-birth-rate-really-mean-extinction-n190151

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    According to the research service’s projections, South Korea’s population will become completely extinct by 2750 if the country’s birth rate of 1.19 children per woman continues.
     
    Population projections 50 years into the future are fantasy

    i.e., that's a big if...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Sean

    While I know from experience that Koreans are smart
     
    No, their success is more due to ther conformism. Confucian doctrine that just happens to be in in people who happen to have gene variants for group cohesion that massively increase the effect of culture. And it is a shame culture.

    One thing that distinguishes South Korea culturally from the rest of Asia, is that it has by far the highest percentage of Christians (about 50%), in part, due to the important role played by Christian organizations (among them, of all things, the YMCA) in resisting Japanese occupation.

    While Korean Christianity is its own special flavor (I attended a Korean Christian church for about a year) – with both missionary Evangelical leanings relative to the nominal denominations, and a Confucian substrate ideology that influences the content of sermons, it is hardly the straight up, universally respected and consensus Confucianism of Japan, for example.

    The process of this mass religious transformation has given Korean culture more opportunity to innovate with relative freedom from local tradition than many Asian cultures.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bliss

    One thing that distinguishes South Korea culturally from the rest of Asia, is that it has by far the highest percentage of Christians (about 50%)
     
    Nonsense. South Korea is at most 30% christian and North Korea is less than 2% christian. Of the 75 million population of the korean peninsula over 60 million are non-christian. The most christian nations in Asia are the Phillipines and East Timor. Phillipines has 90 million christians or 90% of the population.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Korea#Religion

    Btw, the most advanced asian nation, Japan, is also one of the least christian...

    East Asia as a region is the least contaminated by the middle-eastern religions (christianity, islam and judaism). Big advantage over the rest of the world...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • South Korea is prosperous because it has … Koreans. Replacing them with immigrants will destroy its competitive advantage. We see this in the poor performance of second-generation immigrants, which is only partly due to social or linguistic handicaps. There is also a cognitive deficiency that persists even when these handicaps are greatly reduced.

    The far more plausible interpretation is that international marriages in Korea involve Korean fathers who are at the bottom of the barrel socio-economically within Korean society, and that women who seek to marry them from abroad are likewise not socio-economically elite in their home countries.

    It should hardly be surprising that children of the least academically able people in Korea and spouses who weren’t that hot academically themselves, don’t do well in school.

    Realistically, the international brides, following the “fit immigrant” hypothesis, are probably smarter than their husbands, on average, although at a linguistic and social skills disadvantage in Korean society.

    A more appropriate comparison would be to compare the academic performance of children of international marriage to the academic peformances of their fathers and mothers respectively.

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

    “‘I’m afraid of migrant workers’

    Bloody group fight of 20 Cambodian workers frighten Gimhae residents”

    http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2015/02/116_173603.html

    In December, about 20 Cambodian workers engaged in a bloody group fight inside a bar in Gimhae, South Gyeongsang Province.

    The incident is belatedly becoming the talk of town after surveillance camera footage showing their brutal fight was aired on TV Wednesday.

    Some of the Cambodian men, who all work in factories in Gimhae or Busan on temporary visas, sustained deep stab wounds and bone fractures that will require months of hospital treatment, police said.

    During the fight, they smashed bottles of beer and soju, and threw dozens of chairs at each other, breaking dishes and glasses. The owner of the bar said he was lucky that they only cost him his tables and dishes, not his life.

    “There were a lot of blood stains. I could have been hit by any of the bottles they threw,” he said.

    Residents in Gimhae were frightened by the videos of the incident.

    “I thought of foreign factory workers as being docile, hardworking and somewhat naïve. But this likely breaks that stereotype. They could be violent and dangerous, too. I’m afraid of them,” a resident said.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bill P

    In December, about 20 Cambodian workers engaged in a bloody group fight inside a bar in Gimhae, South Gyeongsang Province.

    The incident is belatedly becoming the talk of town after surveillance camera footage showing their brutal fight was aired on TV Wednesday.

    Some of the Cambodian men, who all work in factories in Gimhae or Busan on temporary visas, sustained deep stab wounds and bone fractures that will require months of hospital treatment, police say.
     
    That's nothing. One night, when I was spending a blissful evening with a half-Korean girl at her place in the local slum, the sound of heavy, sustained gunfire interrupted our youthful commingling. It was the early 90s on Rainier Avenue, so it wasn't entirely out of place, but sirens wailed for some 45 minutes following the spasm of violence. Whatever it was, we thought, it must be pretty serious.

    Turns out some SE Asian gangsters had invaded a nearby disco and slaughtered five people with assault rifles, wounding a number of others. A real bloodbath.

    And then of course there was the Wah Mee Massacre, which my dad helped solve thanks to his frequent patronage of subterranean drinking and gambling establishments in Chinatown (a family tradition that goes back to my Norwegian businesswoman great grandmother, apparently), back in the early 80s. Vietnamese gunmen invaded a Chinese illegal gambling den and stole the purse, executing a dozen or so people in the process before fleeing to Toronto.

    Years later, I ended up teaching ESL to one of the victims' daughters, who had suffered a great deal from the loss in terms of social status and options in life. She was a very good, hardworking woman, but never had the opportunity to move on after the tragedy. This shows the true, hidden impact of these crimes. They linger for generations.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.