The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Peter Frost ArchiveBlogview
The Changing Face of Gangnam
Going global is modern ... and sexy. Multicultural Festival, Gyeonggi-do, 2011 (Wasabcon)
Going global is modern ... and sexy. Multicultural Festival, Gyeonggi-do, 2011 (Wasabcon)

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 gone the farthest, becoming an Asian poster boy for immigration and multiculturalism—a radical departure from the mono-ethnic face it once had.

South Korea opened up to immigration in the late 1980s, initially to repatriate ethnic Koreans from China and the Soviet Union. From the mid-1990s onward, the immigrant stream steadily broadened to include Southeast Asians and, later, South Asians and even Africans (Kim, 2004). Meanwhile, a new channel opened up: brides for lonely men, mostly “never-married men in rural areas and previously married men of low socioeconomic status in urban areas” (Lee, 2014, p. 174). At one point, such marriages accounted for 10% of all marriages in the country as a whole and one third in rural areas (Yoon et al., 2008). These figures understate the demographic impact because the brides, particularly the ones from the Philippines, Vietnam, and Indonesia, eventually outdo the national average of 1.2 children per woman.

How fast is South Korea changing? Officially, the figures are somewhat reassuring: “If the current trend continues, the proportion of foreigners residing in South Korea will increase to 2.8% in 2010, 5% in 2020, and 9.2% in 2050″ (Yoon et al., 2008). But these figures are not what they seem. As in Western Europe, there are no statistics on ethnic origin. There are only statistics on the number of “registered foreign residents,” and that number may overestimate or underestimate the actual change in ethnic makeup. On the one hand, the term “registered foreign resident” includes ethnic Koreans from abroad. On the other hand, it excludes the adult children of naturalized foreigners, as well as the growing number of illegal immigrants and visa overstayers who may be as numerous as legal immigrants (Moon, 2010).

The change seems to be most visible in the countryside, both in the schools and in the fields:

All one needs to do is travel around to Korea’s rural towns. I’m serious. Don’t listen to the stupid statistics if it says foreigners only make up 2% or whatever to try and make you feel better. Just visit these towns. Best places to go are at bus stops or bus terminals as most migrant workers can’t afford a car and so they take the buses.

You’ll see Filipinos, Vietnamese, Chinese, Indonesians, other SE Asians, and then you’ll see your Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, Sri Lankans…..they are everywhere, at bus stops, at bus terminals, at your grocery stores, walking around in packs and large groups, many of them loiter around the alley ways or behind grocery store buildings and have little meetings speaking loudly in their native tongues. At night, if you listen out your windows, you’ll hear mostly Vietnamese and Tagalog guys and girls yelling and screaming either in drunken stupor or just flirtatious exuberance [...] (Makemykimchi, 2014)

Reinventing Korea

This demographic change enjoys State backing. As early as 2006, President Roh declared, “It is irreversible for Korea to move towards a multiracial and a multicultural society” (Kim, 2014a). School curricula are now being rewritten to emphasize diversity and multiculturalism. The old view of Korea as a nation state is being replaced by that of Korea as a proposition nation:

Mono-ethnicism was not officially removed from K-12 social studies and moral education textbooks until February, 2007. For example, social studies textbooks for sixth graders used to mention that “Korea consists of one ethnic group. We, Koreans, look similar and use the same language” (Moon, 2010).

The textbooks are being rewritten partly under pressure from the United Nations, via The Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD). Criticism has especially focused on the teaching of Korean children that their country is “one-blood, one-language, and one-culture”:

CERD has recommended recognizing the multi-ethnic character of contemporary Korean society and promoting understanding, tolerance, and friendship among the different ethnic and national groups in Korea. In education, CERD has recommended that the Korean government include human rights awareness programs in the official curriculum. A revised curriculum should describe a Korean society in which people from multiple ethnic and cultural backgrounds live together harmoniously. (Moon, 2010)

The public are likewise getting into line. Opinion surveys show growing support not only for non-Korean immigration but also for a ban on public meetings of racially prejudiced people (Yoon et al., 2008). The shift in opinion seems to reflect a desire to be modern and Western: “multicultural tolerance is constructed as a virtue of advanced, more developed [Western] countries” (Kim, 2014b).

Hong and Sohn (2014) see the rapid acceptance of multiculturalism as a case of “punctuated equilibrium.” For a long time, multiculturalism was blocked by an entrenched belief that Koreans are one people and one blood. Then, within a little over a decade, this self-image completely reversed itself: “As the number of immigrants increased and Koreans began to face the inevitable reality that they should embrace those immigrants as ‘Koreans’, the Korean government eventually adopted a large, rapid, and radical change in policy in order to make up for past inattention to the issue with the goal of transforming Korea from a homogenous to a multicultural society.” As multiculturalism became the new norm, problems were increasingly interpreted as proof that this norm was not being sufficiently enforced. For instance, in the face of high dropout rates among multicultural children, “a new policy was introduced to protect the human rights of immigrants and support multicultural families.”

The speed of it all is surprising. As Hong and Sohn (2014) ask, “Why did a shift in multicultural policy happen relatively fast in Korea?” A commonly cited reason is a sense of inevitability: “citizens believed that the social process and resulting multi-ethnic society is an inevitable trend that Korea must accept whether it likes it or not” (Hong and Sohn, 2014). This reason often appears as the main one:

Most of all, globalization is inevitable. More and more foreigners move into Korea every year. How to peacefully coexist with new comers and consolidate social members are significant issues in the twenty first century. The old paradigm of ethnic exclusivity and separation is ineffective and even dangerous. (Woo, 2013, p. 35)

There are other reasons. The same cultural conformity that blocked multiculturalism for so long may now be accelerating its acceptance. There is also a widespread perception of multiculturalism as a Western value and thus worth emulating (Kim, 2014b). Finally, Americanization is much more advanced in South Korea than elsewhere in East Asia, particularly among the largely U.S.-educated elite. Knowledge of English is widespread, and the native language itself has become highly anglicized. North Korean defectors feel confused when they hear South Koreans because of the many English words in their speech (Sung, 2015)

Unintended consequences

Today, South Koreans believe they will do better in the global marketplace if they become multicultural and multiethnic. Will they? Keep in mind that their country has few resources, other than its people. It is this asset, more than any other, that has enabled South Korea to succeed in competitive world markets. Future economic performance will thus hinge on how well “multicultural” children perform, for such children are a growing share of the population. In 2011, the government announced that the number of children with at least one parent of non-Korean heritage had reached 150,000, a fourfold increase over the last four years. They are expected to number over 1.6 million by 2020, with a third of all children born that year the offspring of international unions (Lim, 2011). By then, they will also make up half of all rural children (Park, 2011).

To date, these children are underperforming, as seen by their dropout rates in 2005: 15.4% in primary school (vs. 0.4% of all South Korean children); 39.7% in middle school (vs. 4.0%); and 69.6% in high school (vs. 8.7%) (Hong and Sohn, 2014; see Note). The blame is usually placed on social or linguistic factors: lack of fluency in Korean, teasing by classmates, and unfamiliarity with Korean culture. “The main problem facing the targeted students is not their inability to overcome the differences but the othering of the students by the schools” (Park and Watson, 2011).

Yet school performance is no better among those multicultural children who speak Korean fluently and have no history of rejection by classmates. The underperformance is not in the spoken language, where deficiencies could result from lack of interaction with native speakers, but in reading and writing, where deficiencies tend to be more cognitive in nature. “These students do not have any particular problems in daily conversation, but get into great difficulties with their reading comprehension, vocabulary, and writing skills” (Youngdal and Hi-Won, 2010).

An interview with one teacher provides a description of three such children:

[...] the three students were very passive and had less confidence in themselves. When it came to their mothers, in particular, they appeared embarrassed and discouraged. They were never alienated or teased by others, but they had very poor performance in class. In fact, they were away behind in writing. Even though I gave them an extra lesson after class for an hour every day, there was no improvement.

Kang (2010) similarly notes that the children of international marriages tend to prefer less abstract subjects: “Their favourite subjects are music/painting/physical education (42.6%), while they dislike math (38.1%), social studies (19.2%) and Korean (12.7%).”

Youngdal and Hi-Won nonetheless conclude that reading and writing skills, but not speaking skills, are impaired by the presence of a foreign mother in the home. Yet the pattern of impairment should be the reverse, since the relationship with one’s mother generally involves verbal face-to-face contact.

If we separate the children of foreign workers from the offspring of international marriages, we find that the first category shows the expected pattern. Deficiencies are greatest in those subjects, like social studies and Korean, that require the most familiarity with Korean language and culture. The pattern is reversed, however, when we look at children from international marriages. Deficiencies are greatest in math, where learning tasks are more abstract and incur higher cognitive demands. English, too, is difficult, even though many of the children have Filipino mothers who know that language better than do most Korean mothers.

The students from international marriages indicated that math (26.8%) was the most difficult subject, followed by Social Studies (22.3%) and English (21.5%). Among the students of foreign workers, on the contrary, Social Studies (25.0%) was ranked highest in difficulty, followed by Korean (21.8%), Math (18.5%), and Science (14.1%). In other words, the students from international-marriage families are having a hard time in school due to a higher level of math curriculum and different culture rather than the language barrier. Children of foreign workers, on the other hand, face language and cultural barriers as the major obstacles for fitting in at school. (Youngdal and Hi-Won, 2010)

In short, the cognitive deficiency seems unrelated to social or linguistic handicaps. To the extent that the latter are reduced, the former remains and becomes proportionately more serious. The high dropout rate among “multicultural” children is due not so much to poor language skills or social exclusion as to the high demands of South Korean schools.

South Korean schools are tough. It’s not just the advanced level of the coursework; it’s also the regulation uniforms, the semi-regimented nature of the classroom, and the long school day. If one includes after-school tutoring, middle and high school students don’t get home until well after dark.

Just imagine North American children going through the same system. Many of them would likewise drop out, not because of teasing or language problems but because the bar is set too high.

Conclusion

South Korea is not prosperous because it has natural resources or because it had once colonized other countries. Korea was in fact a colony from 1910 to 1945 and had previously been a “Hermit Kingdom” largely shut off from the rest of the world.

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. Sure, more research is needed. In the meantime, wouldn’t it be best to put this massive demographic experiment on hold?

It’s not too late for South Korea to change course. To do so, however, will require a willingness to chart one’s own course, as opposed to blindly following what others do.

Note

Lim (2011) cites lower dropout rates: “Due to discrimination, poorer language proficiency, and limited school support, they are facing below national average dropout rates of 20 percent in middle school and 40 percent in high school. This, along with a lack of social capital, suggests these children face a future as the country’s permanent, racialized underclass.” No reference is provided, although these figures resemble those from an earlier survey conducted in 2001.

References

Anon. (2012). Number of Multicultural Kids in School Grows Explosively, The Chosunilbo, Sept. 22http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2012/09/22/2012092200339.html

Anon. (2014). More Multicultural Kids in Korean Schools, The Chosunilbo, Sept. 22 http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2014/09/22/2014092201001.html

Hong, S., and H. Sohn (2014). Informal Institutional Friction and Punctuations: Evidence from Multicultural Policy in Korea, Public Administration, 92, 1075-1089. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2437415

Kang, S.W. (2010). Multicultural education and the rights to education of migrant children in South Korea, Educational Review, 62(3), 287-300 http://books.google.ca/books?hl=fr&lr=&id=sgnKAwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA37&ots=IbaiytqXKh&sig=BtM7Jr5lD3P7eZ1Qxbl-cWM5RdM#v=onepage&q&f=false

Kim, N-K. (2014a). Multicultural Challenges in Korea: the Current Stage and a Prospect, International Migration, 52, 100-121 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2435.2009.00582.x/full

Kim, N. (2014b). Developmental multiculturalism in the East and liberal multiculturalism in the West? XVIII Isa World Congress of Sociology, Yokohama, July 13-19, 2014 https://isaconf.confex.com/isaconf/wc2014/webprogram/Paper35657.html

Kim, W-B. (2004). Migration of foreign workers into South Korea: from periphery to semi-periphery in the global labor market, Asian Survey, 44, 316-335. http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.1525/as.2004.44.2.316?uid=3739448&uid=2&uid=3737720&uid=4&sid=21105861421863

Lee, M.K. (2014). Multicultural education in Republic of Korea: social change and school education, in H. Park and K-K. Kim (eds.) Korean Education in Changing Economic and Demographic Contexts, Springer, pp. 173-190. http://books.google.ca/books?hl=fr&lr=&id=XerHBAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA172&ots=da05Si6Vsj&sig=VkY371iZzDONLiqYrY3pkQT4DYE#v=onepage&q&f=false

Lim, F.J. (2011). Korea’s Multicultural Future, The Diplomat, July 20 http://thediplomat.com/2011/07/south-koreas-multiethnic-future/

Makemykimchi (2014). Korean Sentry Forum, August 23 http://www.koreansentry.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=42&start=1380#p59605

Moon, S. (2010). Multicultural and Global Citizenship in the Transnational Age: The Case of South Korea, International Journal of Multicultural Education, 12, 1-15. http://www.ijme-journal.org/ijme/index.php/ijme/article/viewArticle/261

Park, S. (2011). Korean Multiculturalism and the Marriage Squeeze, Contexts, 10, 64-65. http://ctx.sagepub.com/content/10/3/64.short

Park, G.C. and S.L. Watson. (2011). In Context: Multicultural Education in Korea–Lessons for American Educators, Multicultural Education, 19, 2-6. http://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ955928

Sung, M. (2015). An Abuse of Culture: North Korean Settlers, Multiculturalism, and Liberal Democracy, Asian Social Science, 11, 48-54 http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ass/article/view/44263

Woo, C.H. (2013). Sociopolitical Change and Nationality Law: Establishment and Future Directions of the Korean Nationality Act in a Comparative Perspective, M.A. thesis, Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, East Asian Languages and Cultures, Columbia University http://academiccommons.columbia.edu/catalog/ac:161177

Yoon, I-J.,Y-H. Song, Y-J. Bae. (2008). South Koreans’ Attitudes toward Foreigners, Minorities and Multiculturalism, Paper prepared for presentation at the Annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, Boston, MA, August 1-4, 2008. http://www.waseda-giari.jp/sysimg/rresults/456_report_r1-1.pdf

Youngdal, C. and Y. Hi-Won. (2010). “Korea’s Initiatives in Multicultural Education” Suggesting “Reflective Socialization, http://website.education.wisc.edu/inei/wp-content/uploads/Documents/NP-KO.pdf

 
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Of Related Interest
shutterstock_199883306
Alt-Right Leader Richard Spencer
spirit of america / Shutterstock.com
The sources of America’s immigration problems—and a possible solution
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
[]
  1. I think Koreans are to east Asians as Senegalese are to Africans, and Danes to Europeans. So Korea probably will suffer because it has special characteristics. However it also has the legacy of Japanese running the country (as did Taiwan) so some of their success is probably due to that head start and lack of belief in classical economics.

    Or maybe not, because Switzerland and Korea are the countries with the lowest government spending as a proportion of GDP in the developed world. here. They are also the richest. But in Switzerland most people don’t know who the prime minister is while in korea the government is in everything and the Korean rich were virtually ordered to invest in Korea or else. They had the death penalty for capital flight there.

    So it is HBD that explains everything, not the availability of capital and labour as the neo classical economists say. Korea is heading for disaster.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are only available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also only be used once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    http://www.unz.com/pfrost/the-changing-face-of-gangnam/#comment-874459
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  2. As in Western Europe, there are no statistics on ethnic origin.

    There are, or at least close. As of April 2013:

    According to the Ministry of Justice and the Immigration Department, there were 1,501,761 foreigners residing in Korea as of Sunday. [...] Chinese—including ethnic Koreans from China—accounted for 49.9% of Korea’s foreign population. They were followed by Americans (9.3%); Vietnamese (8.1%); Japanese, Filipinos and Thais (3% each); Uzbeks (2.5%); Indonesians (2.3%) and Mongolians (1.8%).

    We’ll see that a huge majority of these “foreigners” are close kindred people. Many are even ethnic Koreans! In fact, a close analysis of the data finds 540,000 of the registered foreigners are “ethnic Koreans” (of which 460,000 are Korean-Chinese, and 43,000 Korean-Americans [with U.S. citizenship].) This all comes from the Korean government.

    Note also that U.S. military personnel and dependents, who exist in a strange kind of parallel society with little to no interaction with locals, are also included in these statistics. They account for a third of the “Americans (9.3%)”, with Korean-Americans another third.

    Summary.

    South Korea Resident Population (April 2013) (approx.)
    50.0 million : Koreans, native
    1.49 million : Foreigners, of whom:
    0.54 million : Ethnic Koreans, from abroad
    0.52 million+ Close-Kindred East Asians (Chinese, Japanese, Thai, Mongolian, Vietnamese only; adding in others will push this higher)
    Under 0.43 million : Others (something under 0.8% of total population, and this includes U.S. military and dependents, as well as tourists and students; many of those who are residents will also be East Asian by ancestry)

    After whittling down these 0.43 million as above, you will find many South Asian factory workers and so on, it’s true, in certain cities. The notion that Korea is anything close to becoming multicultural, though, at current trajectory, is a fantasy.

    As for increasing acceptance of multiculturalism in theory, this is true but also very shallow. Polls also show a majority of Koreans have never had a conversation with a single foreigner, ever.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Isn't "multiculturalism" somewhat context dependent? From an American perspective, "mutliculturalism" tends to be defined in terms of broad categories. From this perspective, the multiculturalism of many other countries isn't regarded as very multicultural.

    For example, how multicultural should Germany be considered? The largest non-German group in Germany are the Turks, who make up about 3% of Germany's population. The rest of the non-German population is mainly other European nationalities. From the American perspective of multiculturalism then , these non-German groups could be considered kindred Caucasians and not really multicultural. Turks in the US are classified as white/Caucasian and can be considered like southern European and Mediterranean Americans.

    If America's minorities were predominantly European and Turkish like Germany's, it wouldn't be considered very multicultural in its own terms. Yet Germans themselves and many outside Germany seem to regard Germany's demographic situation as multicultural.
  3. At no point in history has immigration not happened. So yes, I do think there is potential for harm here. But I tend to think people in the west see what immigration has done to their home land, and they automatically assume the same will happen elsewhere.

    A lot of these foreign immigrants are other Asians. It is farmers marrying Vietnamese or Phillipino women because all the local women left to the city. Will there be other groups coming in and upsetting the order, or people immigrating in such high numbers that they crowd out natives?

    I tend to no think so. Asians are not near as politically correct as westerners, and I think before it became a huge problem the local population would rebel against it. If there was continuing immigration, because they are following the western model, it would not be blacks, Muslims, and Mexicans. It would be Vietnamese, Phillipinos, and Cambodians. An entirely different scenario than what we find in the west.

    Read More
  4. South Korea is prosperous because it has … Koreans

    While I know from experience that Koreans are smart, I would politely suggest a few other reasons for their success. American largesse in the decades after 1945. Highly authoritarian “state capitalist” regimes from 1961 through the1980s (Stalin also produced apparent solid economic growth in the USSR). Passivity before superiors to such an extreme extent that workers would do anything the boss says, to include accepting lower salaries, accepting being cheated on money/conditions, lots of unpaid overtime work, and etc., which all adds up to better profits and economic advance — but at a steep and disturbing cost (note Korea’s suicide rate is often the world’s highest).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    I think in general wages have gone up over the course of Korea's economic development. I don't think it's really the case that Koreans have been accepting lower salaries.

    Also Korea seems to have pretty strong and militant labor unions, especially compared to the US. Here's a story from a few years ago about some factory workers there who took over the factory in protest. It's hard to imagine anything like it happening in the US these days.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znMSlqp2KYQ
  5. Hail,

    Yes, the category “registered foreigner” is broken down by national origin (and ethnic origin in the case of diaspora Koreans). But there is no breakdown of Korean citizens by ethnic origin, as is the case in Canada and the United States. Naturalized foreigners, and their children, are simply considered to be Koreans.

    Today, naturalized foreigners and their children greatly outnumber registered foreigners. In 2011, the government announced that the number of children with at least one parent of non-Korean heritage had reached 150,000, a fourfold increase over the last four years. They are expected to number over 1.6 million by 2020, with a third of all children born that year the offspring of international unions. By then, they will also make up half of all rural children.

    You stress the point that many “registered foreigners” are actually ethnic Koreans. The proportion is actually about a third. This proportion is much smaller among the second generation because ethnic Koreans have a fertility of 1.2 whereas Southeast Asians (Filipinos, Vietnamese, Indonesians) have a much higher fertility rate (about twice as high in the case of Filipino women).

    Finally, there are large numbers of illegal immigrants in South Korea. How many? It’s difficult to say. Moon (2010) says they are as numerous as legal immigrants. Perhaps that’s an exaggeration, but their numbers are substantial. Their ethnic composition is also different, since ethnic Koreans have no need to immigrate illegally.

    In short, statistics don’t lie, but they don’t necessarily say what you think they do. In this case, the official statistics understate the degree of actual ethnic change by a factor of two or three.

    Carlos,

    You seem to be arguing that all Asians are the same or similar. If we’re talking about cognitive performance, there are considerable differences within Asia, and even between East Asia and Southeast Asia.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Carlos
    @Peter.

    I do not think all Asians are the same. But since the premise of your article is comparing the immigration experience in America with the immigration experience in Korea, it is worth noting that Vietnamese or Cambodians will have an easier time assimilating in Korean culture than black or Mexicans would in white culture.

    Any societal change is potentially beneficial or harmful, but there are reasons why I don't think you can draw the same conclusions. The lack of widespread welfare in Asia and the lack of political correctness is what I would point to.
  6. 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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    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.
  7. 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.

    Well, I don’t know. To quote from one of your sources:
    “Saeteomin (North Korean defectors) youth often fail to adapt to schools4.
    Scholastic records, friendships with fellow students, and language barriers, are representative of those issues”

    Since North Koreans are (most probably, I think) for the most part of Korean ethnicity. They have the same problems as other immigrants. So, it seems there is quite some probability that the problems are in the system.

    Furthermore, most other immigrants are for what I remember Chinese or Chinese Koreans, which shouldn’t make much of a difference for the cognitive make-up. Their problems are probably mostly cultural.

    Read More
  8. 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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @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.
  9. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Hail
    As in Western Europe, there are no statistics on ethnic origin.

    There are, or at least close. As of April 2013:

    According to the Ministry of Justice and the Immigration Department, there were 1,501,761 foreigners residing in Korea as of Sunday. [...] Chinese—including ethnic Koreans from China—accounted for 49.9% of Korea’s foreign population. They were followed by Americans (9.3%); Vietnamese (8.1%); Japanese, Filipinos and Thais (3% each); Uzbeks (2.5%); Indonesians (2.3%) and Mongolians (1.8%).
     
    We'll see that a huge majority of these "foreigners" are close kindred people. Many are even ethnic Koreans! In fact, a close analysis of the data finds 540,000 of the registered foreigners are "ethnic Koreans" (of which 460,000 are Korean-Chinese, and 43,000 Korean-Americans [with U.S. citizenship].) This all comes from the Korean government.

    Note also that U.S. military personnel and dependents, who exist in a strange kind of parallel society with little to no interaction with locals, are also included in these statistics. They account for a third of the "Americans (9.3%)", with Korean-Americans another third.

    Summary.

    South Korea Resident Population (April 2013) (approx.)
    50.0 million : Koreans, native
    1.49 million : Foreigners, of whom:
    0.54 million : Ethnic Koreans, from abroad
    0.52 million+ Close-Kindred East Asians (Chinese, Japanese, Thai, Mongolian, Vietnamese only; adding in others will push this higher)
    Under 0.43 million : Others (something under 0.8% of total population, and this includes U.S. military and dependents, as well as tourists and students; many of those who are residents will also be East Asian by ancestry)

    After whittling down these 0.43 million as above, you will find many South Asian factory workers and so on, it's true, in certain cities. The notion that Korea is anything close to becoming multicultural, though, at current trajectory, is a fantasy.

    As for increasing acceptance of multiculturalism in theory, this is true but also very shallow. Polls also show a majority of Koreans have never had a conversation with a single foreigner, ever.

    Isn’t “multiculturalism” somewhat context dependent? From an American perspective, “mutliculturalism” tends to be defined in terms of broad categories. From this perspective, the multiculturalism of many other countries isn’t regarded as very multicultural.

    For example, how multicultural should Germany be considered? The largest non-German group in Germany are the Turks, who make up about 3% of Germany’s population. The rest of the non-German population is mainly other European nationalities. From the American perspective of multiculturalism then , these non-German groups could be considered kindred Caucasians and not really multicultural. Turks in the US are classified as white/Caucasian and can be considered like southern European and Mediterranean Americans.

    If America’s minorities were predominantly European and Turkish like Germany’s, it wouldn’t be considered very multicultural in its own terms. Yet Germans themselves and many outside Germany seem to regard Germany’s demographic situation as multicultural.

    Read More
  10. North Koreans are (most probably, I think) for the most part of Korean ethnicity. They have the same problems as other immigrants.

    No, their problems in school are similar to those of the children of foreign workers. Both groups do most poorly in subjects that require cultural and linguistic skills. Even though North Korean defectors speak Korean, they have trouble understanding South Koreans because of the high number of English words. There are also dialectal differences. Finally, there are the problems associated with adjusting to life in a Westernized society.

    With “multicultural children,” who largely have Southeast Asian mothers, we see a different pattern of deficiency, which is strongest in abstract subjects like mathematics.

    most other immigrants are for what I remember Chinese or Chinese Koreans

    This is like the story of the man who looks for his car keys under the street light “because the light is better there.” A little over half of all registered foreigners are of East Asian origin (ethnic Koreans, Chinese, Japanese). But that statistic poorly tracks the process of ethnic change. Once foreigners become naturalized, they and their children disappear from the statistics. The statistics also exclude illegal immigrants.

    Also, because of differences in fertility, the second generation is disproportionately Southeast Asian and South Asian.

    For all of these reasons, the official figures are unreliable. Not because they are false, but because people assume that “foreigner” means “someone who is not of Korean origin.” It doesn’t.

    The same problem applies to Western Europe. Officially, there are only 3 million “foreigners” in France. But there are 2.2 million people who were foreigners but now have French citizenship. And these two groups together — 5.2 million — have 7 million offspring. And yet even that figure of over 12 million understates the reality of ethnic change (there is now a growing third generation). The problem is not that the statistics lie. The problem is the taboo against collecting data on ethnic origin. So people incorrectly use the number of “foreigners” as a rough proxy. It isn’t.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country
    Regarding France, I'd assume that you're aware of this report, but in the off chance that you're not, here it is:

    http://www.fdesouche.com/481589-drepanocytose-la-carte-de-france-du-grand-remplacement

    Basically, around a third of births in France are tested for sickle cell disease. Only babies that are of African, South Asian or Southern Mediterranean (Greek, Southern Italy, Turkey) origin are screened. Granted, some of those babies could be of Italian or even southern French origin, but the vast majority will be black, North African or South Asian.

    There are various factors that could lead one to believe the number of non-white births are higher or lower than the 34% listed in the report, but the ball park figure is likely reasonable. If you combine that figure with continued immigration and a continued higher birth rate for non-whites, you can surmise that the under-30 French population will turn majority non-white as early as 2030 and almost certainly by 2050.

    Of course, that may not happen. France may halt immigration and whites might increase their birthrate while non-white decrease their rate. However, the best case scenario for France is to 1/3 non-white, but even that seems unlikely.
  11. South Korean schools are tough. It’s not just the advanced level of the coursework; it’s also the regulation uniforms, the semi-regimented nature of the classroom, and the long school day. If one includes after-school tutoring, middle and high school students don’t get home until well after dark.

    Just imagine North American children going through the same system. Many of them would likewise drop out, not because of teasing or language problems but because the bar is set too high.

    Finland, everyone’s favorite poster child, serves as a counterpoint to the value of such rigorous grinding found in East Asian societies. The Finns are much more lax in their school demands and workload, but they “perform” just as well. IQ is clearly the key factor.

    Read More
  12. How fast is South Korea changing? Officially, the figures are somewhat reassuring: “If the current trend continues, the proportion of foreigners residing in South Korea will increase to 2.8% in 2010, 5% in 2020, and 9.2% in 2050″

    Do you expect the trend to continue unopposed once the size the immigrant fraction become large enough to be salient to the average Korean?

    Read More
  13. Isn’t “multiculturalism” somewhat context dependent?

    Yes, because “multiculturalism” is a highly subjective and sometimes nonsensical term. In Korea, children are called “multicultural” even though they were born in Korea, speak Korean fluently, and are thoroughly immersed in modern Korean culture. If they perform differently at school, the difference is assumed to be “cultural.”

    Human populations differ statistically across a wide range of mental and behavioral traits. Most of these differences are weakly statistical, but they are nonetheless real. If you repopulate Germany with Turks, you will have a different country behaviorally and psychologically. It doesn’t matter whether the country is still “white.” Keep in mind that the category “white” has a political and ideological component. At present, the American government considers North Africans and Middle Easterners to be “white.” At the next census, they will have their own category.

    The same reasoning applies to Korea. Sure, most immigrants to Korea are “Asians,” but “Asia” is simply a geographical designation. It means nothing in terms of culture or genetics. More research is needed, but East Asia looks like a high IQ “plateau” in relation to the rest of Asia. To the extent that immigrants come to Korea from beyond that plateau, there will be a lowering of mean IQ, as well as changes to other mental and behavioral traits.

    The Finns are much more lax in their school demands and workload, but they “perform” just as well. IQ is clearly the key factor.

    I don’t know whether Koreans would do just as well in a lax school environment. They do very well in Canada and the U.S.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    I don’t know whether Koreans would do just as well in a lax school environment. They do very well in Canada and the U.S.
     
    That is a good question indeed.
    , @Sean
    The ruling economic dogma is that the differences between counties' productiveness are due to differences in the availability of capital and labour. (eg given by economist Ha-Joon Chang is the belief that Guatemala has labour and could make BMWs if it had the capital.) South Korea has sufficient capital and falling population, and so it is only rational for it to import labour.

    Both Finland and South Korea severely restricted foreign direct investment while they were developing . In Finland there are 10 applicants for every place to train as a teacher, even though they are not terribly well paid. In S. Korea teachers are recruited from the top 5% of schools leavers and handsomely paid.

    By my way of thinking, Koreans' conformism and incredibly high rates of alcoholism indicates they have the high dopamine receptors variants that are implicated in receptiveness to culture, and alcoholism. They are significantly different to Chinese.

    Britain is well down the replacement road.

  14. Korean ethnic uniformity is a real thing. Part biology, but also governmentally driven.
    Partly, due to external current and past threats- Japan, N.Korea, and no doubt general misgivings about US military presence.

    I visited Korea in 1987 and the national anthem would play at 4pm and all the pedestrians would
    stop walking and put their hands over their hearts like clockwork. In an 8th grade reader on Korea,
    from the 80s, the author wrote about the lack of national cohesion and weakness of a “Korean spirit”.

    The Korean honorific system- marking status, a central facet of the Korean language, was originally not used by ordinary people, but was created and evolved by Confucian stratification.

    Korea is a uniformity outlier. Biological uniformity being doubled up through elite enforced uniformity. Now that there are forces working against the uniformity, doesn’t mean the uniformity is a net positive.

    Although, from a scholar’s perspective I can definitely see why threats to Korea’s academic consumerism would be seen with some head scratching. Not that you’d do that, Professor Frost.

    Read More
  15. Korean ethnic uniformity is a real thing. Part biology, but also governmentally driven.
    Partly, due to external current and past threats- Japan, N.Korea, and no doubt general misgivings about US military presence.

    -Hacienda

    The Mongol occupation is really what forged this Korean sense of national unity. It’s very old.

    Korea is a uniformity outlier. Biological uniformity being doubled up through elite enforced uniformity. Now that there are forces working against the uniformity, doesn’t mean the uniformity is a net positive.

    Once it’s gone, what you call “uniformity” is gone forever. And who could call Korea “uniform” except for someone who has contempt for all distinct cultures? Neither the religion, the people, nor the intellectual heritage of Korea is uniform. But it is “Korean, ” and that still means something.

    Would you prefer it’s replaced with some “hodgepodge” as Obama recently called the US? Multiculturalism is drab and ugly in practice. I prefer to see different things in different places, and not just geographical features and plants. The idea of a world in which everyone is some indiscriminate shade and character is a nightmare. I have no idea why some people revel in that. Is it hatred, envy or a twisted aesthetic? I can’t tell.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hacienda
    The Mongol invasions were certainly a pivotal point. But much of what we associate with Korea preceded the Mongols.

    I'm not against ethnic cohesion per se. But, the much ballyhooed Korean cohesion is something of a myth. There has to be sense of pragmatism, of what is possible culturally in any given time period. It's just a fact that living in Seoul is 100x more exciting than living in the country. The farmboys can't compete.

    There's a Korean proverb "A rich man wants no family ties." Money is the new Korean reality.
    Pointless to fight it.

  16. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Hail
    "South Korea is prosperous because it has … Koreans"

    While I know from experience that Koreans are smart, I would politely suggest a few other reasons for their success. American largesse in the decades after 1945. Highly authoritarian "state capitalist" regimes from 1961 through the1980s (Stalin also produced apparent solid economic growth in the USSR). Passivity before superiors to such an extreme extent that workers would do anything the boss says, to include accepting lower salaries, accepting being cheated on money/conditions, lots of unpaid overtime work, and etc., which all adds up to better profits and economic advance -- but at a steep and disturbing cost (note Korea's suicide rate is often the world's highest).

    I think in general wages have gone up over the course of Korea’s economic development. I don’t think it’s really the case that Koreans have been accepting lower salaries.

    Also Korea seems to have pretty strong and militant labor unions, especially compared to the US. Here’s a story from a few years ago about some factory workers there who took over the factory in protest. It’s hard to imagine anything like it happening in the US these days.

    Read More
  17. @Peter Frost
    Hail,

    Yes, the category "registered foreigner" is broken down by national origin (and ethnic origin in the case of diaspora Koreans). But there is no breakdown of Korean citizens by ethnic origin, as is the case in Canada and the United States. Naturalized foreigners, and their children, are simply considered to be Koreans.

    Today, naturalized foreigners and their children greatly outnumber registered foreigners. In 2011, the government announced that the number of children with at least one parent of non-Korean heritage had reached 150,000, a fourfold increase over the last four years. They are expected to number over 1.6 million by 2020, with a third of all children born that year the offspring of international unions. By then, they will also make up half of all rural children.

    You stress the point that many "registered foreigners" are actually ethnic Koreans. The proportion is actually about a third. This proportion is much smaller among the second generation because ethnic Koreans have a fertility of 1.2 whereas Southeast Asians (Filipinos, Vietnamese, Indonesians) have a much higher fertility rate (about twice as high in the case of Filipino women).

    Finally, there are large numbers of illegal immigrants in South Korea. How many? It's difficult to say. Moon (2010) says they are as numerous as legal immigrants. Perhaps that's an exaggeration, but their numbers are substantial. Their ethnic composition is also different, since ethnic Koreans have no need to immigrate illegally.

    In short, statistics don't lie, but they don't necessarily say what you think they do. In this case, the official statistics understate the degree of actual ethnic change by a factor of two or three.

    Carlos,

    You seem to be arguing that all Asians are the same or similar. If we're talking about cognitive performance, there are considerable differences within Asia, and even between East Asia and Southeast Asia.

    @Peter.

    I do not think all Asians are the same. But since the premise of your article is comparing the immigration experience in America with the immigration experience in Korea, it is worth noting that Vietnamese or Cambodians will have an easier time assimilating in Korean culture than black or Mexicans would in white culture.

    Any societal change is potentially beneficial or harmful, but there are reasons why I don’t think you can draw the same conclusions. The lack of widespread welfare in Asia and the lack of political correctness is what I would point to.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Vendetta
    What makes you think a Cambodian is closer to a Korean than a Mexican is to a Caucasian Amercican?
  18. @Bill P

    Korean ethnic uniformity is a real thing. Part biology, but also governmentally driven.
    Partly, due to external current and past threats- Japan, N.Korea, and no doubt general misgivings about US military presence.

    -Hacienda
     
    The Mongol occupation is really what forged this Korean sense of national unity. It's very old.

    Korea is a uniformity outlier. Biological uniformity being doubled up through elite enforced uniformity. Now that there are forces working against the uniformity, doesn’t mean the uniformity is a net positive.
     
    Once it's gone, what you call "uniformity" is gone forever. And who could call Korea "uniform" except for someone who has contempt for all distinct cultures? Neither the religion, the people, nor the intellectual heritage of Korea is uniform. But it is "Korean, " and that still means something.

    Would you prefer it's replaced with some "hodgepodge" as Obama recently called the US? Multiculturalism is drab and ugly in practice. I prefer to see different things in different places, and not just geographical features and plants. The idea of a world in which everyone is some indiscriminate shade and character is a nightmare. I have no idea why some people revel in that. Is it hatred, envy or a twisted aesthetic? I can't tell.

    The Mongol invasions were certainly a pivotal point. But much of what we associate with Korea preceded the Mongols.

    I’m not against ethnic cohesion per se. But, the much ballyhooed Korean cohesion is something of a myth. There has to be sense of pragmatism, of what is possible culturally in any given time period. It’s just a fact that living in Seoul is 100x more exciting than living in the country. The farmboys can’t compete.

    There’s a Korean proverb “A rich man wants no family ties.” Money is the new Korean reality.
    Pointless to fight it.

    Read More
  19. Perhaps we can find some country of origin statistics and do the usual type of predictor study that John Fuerst and I have been doing for Western European countries.

    Read More
  20. Well, if Koreans want to imitate Westerners, they first need to notice that as the West becomes more Multicultural and embraces the social pathology of Leftist utopianism, the West is swiftly declining in every way. The West is busy squandering its inheritance and allowing barbaric squatters to do their dirty work for them and ignoring the fact that these squatters are dispossessing them.

    Asians do seem to be devotees of the hive mind though, marching in lockstep with whatever fad sweeps them up. That being said, God help the immigrants if the Koreans become disenchanted. Have you ever seen Koreans riot? They are highly organized violent rioters who appear to be afraid of absolutely nothing.

    Read More
  21. @Carlos
    @Peter.

    I do not think all Asians are the same. But since the premise of your article is comparing the immigration experience in America with the immigration experience in Korea, it is worth noting that Vietnamese or Cambodians will have an easier time assimilating in Korean culture than black or Mexicans would in white culture.

    Any societal change is potentially beneficial or harmful, but there are reasons why I don't think you can draw the same conclusions. The lack of widespread welfare in Asia and the lack of political correctness is what I would point to.

    What makes you think a Cambodian is closer to a Korean than a Mexican is to a Caucasian Amercican?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jimmu
    Exactly. I am not at all convinced that there is more genetic distance between the average white American and the average Mexican immigrant than there is between SE Asians and Koreans. The "they all look the same to me" line is hardly sufficient evidence.
  22. “South Korea is prosperous because it has … Koreans”

    And North Korea clearly shows that having Koreans is not sufficient to become prosperous.

    Interestingly North Koreans have warned South Korean officials of the dangers of immigration. From B.R. Myers’ The Cleanest Race:

    In May 2006 North and South Korean generals met to discuss a realignment
    of the maritime border between the two states. In
    preliminary small talk the South’s delegation leader mentioned that
    farmers in his half of the peninsula had taken to marrying women
    from other countries. His counterpart made no effort to hide his
    displeasure. “Our nation has always considered its pure lineage to
    be of great importance,” he said. “I am concerned that our
    singularity will disappear.” The South Korean, dismissing such
    marriages as a mere “drop of ink in the Han River,” responded that
    the mainstream would suffice to preserve the nation’s identity.
    More concerned with racial purity than cultural identity, the DPRK
    general replied, “Since ancient times our land has been one of
    abundant natural beauty. Not even one drop of ink must be
    allowed.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bill P
    The Korean origin myth seems to be a metaphor for some early mixing of races. The Korean people supposedly sprang from a union between an enlightened culture bearer and a she-bear, who I'd assume represents the tribal, shamanic substrate.

    Of course, that doesn't mean that contemporary immigrants to Korea are enlightened ones by any means, but it's fun to speculate about who first came into Korea with wheels and bronze.

    , @Sean
    In 1870 agriculture accounted for 47% of output in Sweden. South Korea's output was still 47 % agricultural in 1953. North Korea makes clothing out of rocks
    , @Epaminondas
    "And North Korea clearly shows that having Koreans is not sufficient to become prosperous."

    You're being disingenuous here. NO ethnicity can do well economically under the kind of Stalinist regime present in North Korea.
  23. @affenkopf
    “South Korea is prosperous because it has … Koreans”

    And North Korea clearly shows that having Koreans is not sufficient to become prosperous.

    Interestingly North Koreans have warned South Korean officials of the dangers of immigration. From B.R. Myers' The Cleanest Race:

    In May 2006 North and South Korean generals met to discuss a realignment
    of the maritime border between the two states. In
    preliminary small talk the South’s delegation leader mentioned that
    farmers in his half of the peninsula had taken to marrying women
    from other countries. His counterpart made no effort to hide his
    displeasure. “Our nation has always considered its pure lineage to
    be of great importance,” he said. “I am concerned that our
    singularity will disappear.” The South Korean, dismissing such
    marriages as a mere “drop of ink in the Han River,” responded that
    the mainstream would suffice to preserve the nation’s identity.
    More concerned with racial purity than cultural identity, the DPRK
    general replied, “Since ancient times our land has been one of
    abundant natural beauty. Not even one drop of ink must be
    allowed.”
     

    The Korean origin myth seems to be a metaphor for some early mixing of races. The Korean people supposedly sprang from a union between an enlightened culture bearer and a she-bear, who I’d assume represents the tribal, shamanic substrate.

    Of course, that doesn’t mean that contemporary immigrants to Korea are enlightened ones by any means, but it’s fun to speculate about who first came into Korea with wheels and bronze.

    Read More
  24. @Vendetta
    What makes you think a Cambodian is closer to a Korean than a Mexican is to a Caucasian Amercican?

    Exactly. I am not at all convinced that there is more genetic distance between the average white American and the average Mexican immigrant than there is between SE Asians and Koreans. The “they all look the same to me” line is hardly sufficient evidence.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Carlton Meyer
    A couple old Filipino jokes are revealing:

    "The Japanese travel to conquer, the Chinese travel to trade, and the Filipino travels to cockfight."

    "Yankee go home, and take me with you."

    Back to Korea, The American political elite are dangerously ignorant about Korean culture. The South Koreans are not our allies, but fair weather friends. The USA is wasting billions of dollars a year on the bogus North Korean threat, as I wrote about a year ago:

    http://www.g2mil.com/casey.htm

    which includes this part:

    Most South Koreans do not view Americans as saviors from communism. They have no memory of the Korean war and want peace. A key step is the closure of American bases because North Korea has long maintained that the withdrawal of all foreign forces from the Korean peninsula is a prerequisite for peace. There are no Chinese or Russian forces in North Korea, even though South Korea is far stronger. South Korea political leaders deal with a growing number of nationalists and pacifists who want the American military to leave, and traditional supporters of a long standing alliance. Many South Koreans support American bases only because they benefit from the billions of dollars in annual American military spending, which generates tens of thousands of jobs.

    Attitudes would harden if thousands of South Koreans perish during a brief and senseless artillery exchange across the DMZ. Millions of South Koreans would blame the U.S. Army for instigating the incident, or escalating it, no matter the evidence. Violent protests may erupt outside U.S. military bases as thousands of angry South Koreans mass for revenge. American troops and their families may be forced to flee South Korea under armed escort by the South Korean Army as part of a humiliating retreat from South Korea. American Congressmen may also prompt a retreat, demanding to know why American troops live in such danger.

    American troops may be expelled without a major incident since modern South Korea has become a world economic power with proud people who often fight with American servicemen on the streets of South Korea. These minor incidents may eventually ruin our alliance to the extent that South Korean leaders expel American forces from South Korea. This may also occur should tensions rise between China and Japan. Koreans have strong cultural and trading ties with China, still dislike Japan, and do not want their nation to become a battleground again. If war threatens between China and Japan or its close ally the USA, South Korea would probably declare neutrality. The South Korean Army would peacefully seize American bases and quickly expel American troops.
  25. @Peter Frost
    Isn’t “multiculturalism” somewhat context dependent?

    Yes, because "multiculturalism" is a highly subjective and sometimes nonsensical term. In Korea, children are called "multicultural" even though they were born in Korea, speak Korean fluently, and are thoroughly immersed in modern Korean culture. If they perform differently at school, the difference is assumed to be "cultural."

    Human populations differ statistically across a wide range of mental and behavioral traits. Most of these differences are weakly statistical, but they are nonetheless real. If you repopulate Germany with Turks, you will have a different country behaviorally and psychologically. It doesn't matter whether the country is still "white." Keep in mind that the category "white" has a political and ideological component. At present, the American government considers North Africans and Middle Easterners to be "white." At the next census, they will have their own category.

    The same reasoning applies to Korea. Sure, most immigrants to Korea are "Asians," but "Asia" is simply a geographical designation. It means nothing in terms of culture or genetics. More research is needed, but East Asia looks like a high IQ "plateau" in relation to the rest of Asia. To the extent that immigrants come to Korea from beyond that plateau, there will be a lowering of mean IQ, as well as changes to other mental and behavioral traits.

    The Finns are much more lax in their school demands and workload, but they “perform” just as well. IQ is clearly the key factor.

    I don't know whether Koreans would do just as well in a lax school environment. They do very well in Canada and the U.S.

    I don’t know whether Koreans would do just as well in a lax school environment. They do very well in Canada and the U.S.

    That is a good question indeed.

    Read More
  26. Do you expect the trend to continue unopposed once the size the immigrant fraction become large enough to be salient to the average Korean?

    The magnitude of ethnic change is only one of several factors. If we look at the United Kingdom, there was a sharp rise in non-European immigration, and immigration in general, from the late 1990s onward. Yet opposition was largely muted and easily contained whenever it did arise.

    The most relevant factors are:

    - how the elite sees the situation; and
    - its ability to impose its views on the general population

    At present, the dominant elite view is that human beings are by nature fungible and easily exchangeable. Yes, we may be culturally different, and some of these differences may be troublesome, but such differences will dissolve away over time. If they don’t, this process is being impeded by discrimination or, perhaps, by radical ideologies.

    This view is set within a larger “globalist” view: through the free movement of labor and capital, unfair differences in income between the world’s regions will be reduced and eventually eliminated; economies of scale will be increased; possibilities for wealth creation will likewise be increased; and humanity will, on average, be much better off.

    There are cracks appearing in the above world view, but only cracks. “Radical ideology” seems to be replacing “discrimination” as the catchall explanation for the underperformance of certain groups. There also seems to be a growing recognition that globalism will cause a levelling downward of incomes for most people in the Western world, but some writers argue that this is a necessary price for greater global equality.

    I see little recognition in elite opinion that globalism will eventually destroy the high-trust societies that made the market economy possible and that still produce much of the world’s wealth. It is indeed far from likely that globalism will make humanity, on average, better off. Instead, it will probably lead to a replacement of free market societies with authoritarian market societies.

    It is not enough to wait for the elite to change its mind. More has to be done to persuade everyone that globalism is inherently flawed, particularly in its willful ignorance of human differences.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous

    At present, the dominant elite view is that human beings are by nature fungible and easily exchangeable.
     
    I don't think the elite believe that, for example, human beings are biologically identical. I think they believe that human beings are fungible as far as the interests of the elite are concerned, which are simply maintaining the elites' status and power and its rent-seeking positions in society.
  27. Typical academic BS:

    “Why did a shift in multicultural policy happen relatively fast in Korea?” A commonly cited reason is a sense of inevitability: “citizens believed that the social process and resulting multi-ethnic society is an inevitable trend that Korea must accept whether it likes it or not”

    As with the USA and Europe, greedy corporations and billionaires seek to import cheaper labor, and temp visas and illegals are best since they can be held in a slave-like status under threat of deportation. In the USA, illegal workers replaced slavery. Making them legal does no good because it allows them to move on to better jobs (displacing higher paying native born) and opening jobs for more illegals. If any granted legal status stay and become “uppity” by demanding higher wages or perks like cold water, they are fired and replaced by new illegals. Any American who complains about this form of slavery is called a racist, or a new slur “xenophobic”.

    South Koreans workers are seeing the result with stagnant wages and more arrogant owners, who spin this invasion with BS that importing slaves is a “social process” that is inevitable. And as in the USA, the offspring of these slaves do not fit well into their society and many refuse to work as slaves, so form gangs and turn to crime.

    Read More
  28. 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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    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.
    , @Priss Factor
    "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.

    , @bach

    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?
  29. @Peter Frost
    Isn’t “multiculturalism” somewhat context dependent?

    Yes, because "multiculturalism" is a highly subjective and sometimes nonsensical term. In Korea, children are called "multicultural" even though they were born in Korea, speak Korean fluently, and are thoroughly immersed in modern Korean culture. If they perform differently at school, the difference is assumed to be "cultural."

    Human populations differ statistically across a wide range of mental and behavioral traits. Most of these differences are weakly statistical, but they are nonetheless real. If you repopulate Germany with Turks, you will have a different country behaviorally and psychologically. It doesn't matter whether the country is still "white." Keep in mind that the category "white" has a political and ideological component. At present, the American government considers North Africans and Middle Easterners to be "white." At the next census, they will have their own category.

    The same reasoning applies to Korea. Sure, most immigrants to Korea are "Asians," but "Asia" is simply a geographical designation. It means nothing in terms of culture or genetics. More research is needed, but East Asia looks like a high IQ "plateau" in relation to the rest of Asia. To the extent that immigrants come to Korea from beyond that plateau, there will be a lowering of mean IQ, as well as changes to other mental and behavioral traits.

    The Finns are much more lax in their school demands and workload, but they “perform” just as well. IQ is clearly the key factor.

    I don't know whether Koreans would do just as well in a lax school environment. They do very well in Canada and the U.S.

    The ruling economic dogma is that the differences between counties’ productiveness are due to differences in the availability of capital and labour. (eg given by economist Ha-Joon Chang is the belief that Guatemala has labour and could make BMWs if it had the capital.) South Korea has sufficient capital and falling population, and so it is only rational for it to import labour.

    Both Finland and South Korea severely restricted foreign direct investment while they were developing . In Finland there are 10 applicants for every place to train as a teacher, even though they are not terribly well paid. In S. Korea teachers are recruited from the top 5% of schools leavers and handsomely paid.

    By my way of thinking, Koreans’ conformism and incredibly high rates of alcoholism indicates they have the high dopamine receptors variants that are implicated in receptiveness to culture, and alcoholism. They are significantly different to Chinese.

    Britain is well down the replacement road.

    Read More
  30. @affenkopf
    “South Korea is prosperous because it has … Koreans”

    And North Korea clearly shows that having Koreans is not sufficient to become prosperous.

    Interestingly North Koreans have warned South Korean officials of the dangers of immigration. From B.R. Myers' The Cleanest Race:

    In May 2006 North and South Korean generals met to discuss a realignment
    of the maritime border between the two states. In
    preliminary small talk the South’s delegation leader mentioned that
    farmers in his half of the peninsula had taken to marrying women
    from other countries. His counterpart made no effort to hide his
    displeasure. “Our nation has always considered its pure lineage to
    be of great importance,” he said. “I am concerned that our
    singularity will disappear.” The South Korean, dismissing such
    marriages as a mere “drop of ink in the Han River,” responded that
    the mainstream would suffice to preserve the nation’s identity.
    More concerned with racial purity than cultural identity, the DPRK
    general replied, “Since ancient times our land has been one of
    abundant natural beauty. Not even one drop of ink must be
    allowed.”
     

    In 1870 agriculture accounted for 47% of output in Sweden. South Korea’s output was still 47 % agricultural in 1953. North Korea makes clothing out of rocks

    Read More
  31. @Jimmu
    Exactly. I am not at all convinced that there is more genetic distance between the average white American and the average Mexican immigrant than there is between SE Asians and Koreans. The "they all look the same to me" line is hardly sufficient evidence.

    A couple old Filipino jokes are revealing:

    “The Japanese travel to conquer, the Chinese travel to trade, and the Filipino travels to cockfight.”

    “Yankee go home, and take me with you.”

    Back to Korea, The American political elite are dangerously ignorant about Korean culture. The South Koreans are not our allies, but fair weather friends. The USA is wasting billions of dollars a year on the bogus North Korean threat, as I wrote about a year ago:

    http://www.g2mil.com/casey.htm

    which includes this part:

    Most South Koreans do not view Americans as saviors from communism. They have no memory of the Korean war and want peace. A key step is the closure of American bases because North Korea has long maintained that the withdrawal of all foreign forces from the Korean peninsula is a prerequisite for peace. There are no Chinese or Russian forces in North Korea, even though South Korea is far stronger. South Korea political leaders deal with a growing number of nationalists and pacifists who want the American military to leave, and traditional supporters of a long standing alliance. Many South Koreans support American bases only because they benefit from the billions of dollars in annual American military spending, which generates tens of thousands of jobs.

    Attitudes would harden if thousands of South Koreans perish during a brief and senseless artillery exchange across the DMZ. Millions of South Koreans would blame the U.S. Army for instigating the incident, or escalating it, no matter the evidence. Violent protests may erupt outside U.S. military bases as thousands of angry South Koreans mass for revenge. American troops and their families may be forced to flee South Korea under armed escort by the South Korean Army as part of a humiliating retreat from South Korea. American Congressmen may also prompt a retreat, demanding to know why American troops live in such danger.

    American troops may be expelled without a major incident since modern South Korea has become a world economic power with proud people who often fight with American servicemen on the streets of South Korea. These minor incidents may eventually ruin our alliance to the extent that South Korean leaders expel American forces from South Korea. This may also occur should tensions rise between China and Japan. Koreans have strong cultural and trading ties with China, still dislike Japan, and do not want their nation to become a battleground again. If war threatens between China and Japan or its close ally the USA, South Korea would probably declare neutrality. The South Korean Army would peacefully seize American bases and quickly expel American troops.

    Read More
  32. @ Hepp
    I don´t think that competition with caucasians / blacks for women would make koreans riot. they would rather go the way the japanese do, just avoid the other sex, or be depressed and commit suicide. Also the same would happen like in western countries. In western countries caucasian men have to compete with subsaharan african man for women, and the latter have clearly some advantages. But caucasian men di not protest because there is no solidarity. It simply works that way that the 15% / 25 % least attractive white males do not get any women and the 10 % most attractive still do get a lot of women. But those who are most attractive do not feel any sympathy to the less attractive but rather see them as losers who should be avoided and made fun of

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hepp
    I think that if the underclass is upset it doesn't matter, since they don't have the brains to do anything about it anyway. The only white men who have to compete with blacks are the underclass. Educated white men have access to Asian and Hispanic girls more and more (go to an Ivy League campus or one in California and see for yourself), so even if some women defect to other races or man-hating feminism there's still some kind of equilibrium.

    If Korea ever let in skilled immigrants, educated Asian women would flock to them. And there would be no back up plan, as there is with white men and Asian/Hispanics. It's one thing to be a loser because there's no one for you, it's another to be alone but see women of your race with other men as the norm.
    , @Anonymous
    How these groups react is going to be contingent:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contest_to_kill_100_people_using_a_sword

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

    Civilization bottles up male aggression and then torments masculine sensibilities so that they can be unleashed in war or other manipulated hysterias. And, yes "hysteria" is the proper term for this distorted masculine behavior as it is a form of parasitic castration -- males so castrated have been, in fact, feminized including macho warrior types. The big problem with Western civilization at present is it has bought its own material about "sexism" and can't deal rationally with the primordial contract between males and civilization that removes from men their independence as killers in exchange for provision of group territorial defense. The "borderless" religion of Western elites takes the ordinary torment to which males are subject as part of civilized hysteria, and compounds it with ineffectual manipulation. Organizations like ISIS feed on this -- the more vicious and violent, the better the marketing and the more followers -- fanatical followers -- they attract out of this denied masculine hysteria of the West.
  33. @affenkopf
    “South Korea is prosperous because it has … Koreans”

    And North Korea clearly shows that having Koreans is not sufficient to become prosperous.

    Interestingly North Koreans have warned South Korean officials of the dangers of immigration. From B.R. Myers' The Cleanest Race:

    In May 2006 North and South Korean generals met to discuss a realignment
    of the maritime border between the two states. In
    preliminary small talk the South’s delegation leader mentioned that
    farmers in his half of the peninsula had taken to marrying women
    from other countries. His counterpart made no effort to hide his
    displeasure. “Our nation has always considered its pure lineage to
    be of great importance,” he said. “I am concerned that our
    singularity will disappear.” The South Korean, dismissing such
    marriages as a mere “drop of ink in the Han River,” responded that
    the mainstream would suffice to preserve the nation’s identity.
    More concerned with racial purity than cultural identity, the DPRK
    general replied, “Since ancient times our land has been one of
    abundant natural beauty. Not even one drop of ink must be
    allowed.”
     

    “And North Korea clearly shows that having Koreans is not sufficient to become prosperous.”

    You’re being disingenuous here. NO ethnicity can do well economically under the kind of Stalinist regime present in North Korea.

    Read More
  34. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Peter Frost
    Do you expect the trend to continue unopposed once the size the immigrant fraction become large enough to be salient to the average Korean?

    The magnitude of ethnic change is only one of several factors. If we look at the United Kingdom, there was a sharp rise in non-European immigration, and immigration in general, from the late 1990s onward. Yet opposition was largely muted and easily contained whenever it did arise.

    The most relevant factors are:

    - how the elite sees the situation; and
    - its ability to impose its views on the general population

    At present, the dominant elite view is that human beings are by nature fungible and easily exchangeable. Yes, we may be culturally different, and some of these differences may be troublesome, but such differences will dissolve away over time. If they don't, this process is being impeded by discrimination or, perhaps, by radical ideologies.

    This view is set within a larger "globalist" view: through the free movement of labor and capital, unfair differences in income between the world's regions will be reduced and eventually eliminated; economies of scale will be increased; possibilities for wealth creation will likewise be increased; and humanity will, on average, be much better off.

    There are cracks appearing in the above world view, but only cracks. "Radical ideology" seems to be replacing "discrimination" as the catchall explanation for the underperformance of certain groups. There also seems to be a growing recognition that globalism will cause a levelling downward of incomes for most people in the Western world, but some writers argue that this is a necessary price for greater global equality.

    I see little recognition in elite opinion that globalism will eventually destroy the high-trust societies that made the market economy possible and that still produce much of the world's wealth. It is indeed far from likely that globalism will make humanity, on average, better off. Instead, it will probably lead to a replacement of free market societies with authoritarian market societies.

    It is not enough to wait for the elite to change its mind. More has to be done to persuade everyone that globalism is inherently flawed, particularly in its willful ignorance of human differences.

    At present, the dominant elite view is that human beings are by nature fungible and easily exchangeable.

    I don’t think the elite believe that, for example, human beings are biologically identical. I think they believe that human beings are fungible as far as the interests of the elite are concerned, which are simply maintaining the elites’ status and power and its rent-seeking positions in society.

    Read More
  35. @Erik Sieven
    @ Hepp
    I don´t think that competition with caucasians / blacks for women would make koreans riot. they would rather go the way the japanese do, just avoid the other sex, or be depressed and commit suicide. Also the same would happen like in western countries. In western countries caucasian men have to compete with subsaharan african man for women, and the latter have clearly some advantages. But caucasian men di not protest because there is no solidarity. It simply works that way that the 15% / 25 % least attractive white males do not get any women and the 10 % most attractive still do get a lot of women. But those who are most attractive do not feel any sympathy to the less attractive but rather see them as losers who should be avoided and made fun of

    I think that if the underclass is upset it doesn’t matter, since they don’t have the brains to do anything about it anyway. The only white men who have to compete with blacks are the underclass. Educated white men have access to Asian and Hispanic girls more and more (go to an Ivy League campus or one in California and see for yourself), so even if some women defect to other races or man-hating feminism there’s still some kind of equilibrium.

    If Korea ever let in skilled immigrants, educated Asian women would flock to them. And there would be no back up plan, as there is with white men and Asian/Hispanics. It’s one thing to be a loser because there’s no one for you, it’s another to be alone but see women of your race with other men as the norm.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ebizur
    Hepp,

    Have you ever actually lived in an East Asian country?

    In general, I would say the men tend to be very friendly toward and interested in foreigners (especially "White" people). The women, not so much (especially toward "White" women).

    I think you are suffering from unfounded hubris or a bad case of U.S. stereotype credulity.

    Please recall that a certain Japanese politician who has recently been flamed for calling for the institution of an apartheid-like regime in order to handle immigration of foreigners into that country is a woman.
  36. 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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bill P

    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.
     
    I'll say. I grew up in a neighborhood with a lot of FOB Asians (and a lot of much better established ones). The contrast between the SE Asians and others was pretty stark, not only in terms of academic success, but criminality as well.

    It was a bit sad in retrospect. I played on a very competitive youth soccer team with a couple excellent SE Asian athletes, including a Khmer and a Filipino. Not long after high school the Khmer ended up a junkie and the Filipino, a guy I really liked personally, got killed in a gunfight with police after robbing a bank. That really made me feel bad when I saw it on the news.

    Although there were plenty in the neighborhood, there were no NE Asians on my team -- they were all at home studying while we were playing ball.
    , @Anonymous
    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/
  37. I had no idea that South Korea has a shortage of people. It always seemed like kind of a crowded place to me. Go figure.

    Read More
  38. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Erik Sieven
    @ Hepp
    I don´t think that competition with caucasians / blacks for women would make koreans riot. they would rather go the way the japanese do, just avoid the other sex, or be depressed and commit suicide. Also the same would happen like in western countries. In western countries caucasian men have to compete with subsaharan african man for women, and the latter have clearly some advantages. But caucasian men di not protest because there is no solidarity. It simply works that way that the 15% / 25 % least attractive white males do not get any women and the 10 % most attractive still do get a lot of women. But those who are most attractive do not feel any sympathy to the less attractive but rather see them as losers who should be avoided and made fun of

    How these groups react is going to be contingent:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contest_to_kill_100_people_using_a_sword

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

    Civilization bottles up male aggression and then torments masculine sensibilities so that they can be unleashed in war or other manipulated hysterias. And, yes “hysteria” is the proper term for this distorted masculine behavior as it is a form of parasitic castration — males so castrated have been, in fact, feminized including macho warrior types. The big problem with Western civilization at present is it has bought its own material about “sexism” and can’t deal rationally with the primordial contract between males and civilization that removes from men their independence as killers in exchange for provision of group territorial defense. The “borderless” religion of Western elites takes the ordinary torment to which males are subject as part of civilized hysteria, and compounds it with ineffectual manipulation. Organizations like ISIS feed on this — the more vicious and violent, the better the marketing and the more followers — fanatical followers — they attract out of this denied masculine hysteria of the West.

    Read More
  39. @Peter Frost
    North Koreans are (most probably, I think) for the most part of Korean ethnicity. They have the same problems as other immigrants.

    No, their problems in school are similar to those of the children of foreign workers. Both groups do most poorly in subjects that require cultural and linguistic skills. Even though North Korean defectors speak Korean, they have trouble understanding South Koreans because of the high number of English words. There are also dialectal differences. Finally, there are the problems associated with adjusting to life in a Westernized society.

    With "multicultural children," who largely have Southeast Asian mothers, we see a different pattern of deficiency, which is strongest in abstract subjects like mathematics.

    most other immigrants are for what I remember Chinese or Chinese Koreans

    This is like the story of the man who looks for his car keys under the street light "because the light is better there." A little over half of all registered foreigners are of East Asian origin (ethnic Koreans, Chinese, Japanese). But that statistic poorly tracks the process of ethnic change. Once foreigners become naturalized, they and their children disappear from the statistics. The statistics also exclude illegal immigrants.

    Also, because of differences in fertility, the second generation is disproportionately Southeast Asian and South Asian.

    For all of these reasons, the official figures are unreliable. Not because they are false, but because people assume that "foreigner" means "someone who is not of Korean origin." It doesn't.

    The same problem applies to Western Europe. Officially, there are only 3 million "foreigners" in France. But there are 2.2 million people who were foreigners but now have French citizenship. And these two groups together --- 5.2 million -- have 7 million offspring. And yet even that figure of over 12 million understates the reality of ethnic change (there is now a growing third generation). The problem is not that the statistics lie. The problem is the taboo against collecting data on ethnic origin. So people incorrectly use the number of "foreigners" as a rough proxy. It isn't.

    Regarding France, I’d assume that you’re aware of this report, but in the off chance that you’re not, here it is:

    http://www.fdesouche.com/481589-drepanocytose-la-carte-de-france-du-grand-remplacement

    Basically, around a third of births in France are tested for sickle cell disease. Only babies that are of African, South Asian or Southern Mediterranean (Greek, Southern Italy, Turkey) origin are screened. Granted, some of those babies could be of Italian or even southern French origin, but the vast majority will be black, North African or South Asian.

    There are various factors that could lead one to believe the number of non-white births are higher or lower than the 34% listed in the report, but the ball park figure is likely reasonable. If you combine that figure with continued immigration and a continued higher birth rate for non-whites, you can surmise that the under-30 French population will turn majority non-white as early as 2030 and almost certainly by 2050.

    Of course, that may not happen. France may halt immigration and whites might increase their birthrate while non-white decrease their rate. However, the best case scenario for France is to 1/3 non-white, but even that seems unlikely.

    Read More
  40. The problem with this article (as I see it) is its unmentioned assumption that “doing well” means increasing one’s GDP. Clearly, the Koreans want to live in a world where people of different backgrounds can learn to live among one another – regardless of GDP.

    Read More
  41. Yes. Cambodians are not the same as East Asians. And they may not be accepted as such in that society.

    But the point is that a Cambodian assimilating in Korea will have an easier time than a black or Hispanic would in a white America.

    I think it has to do with the need to cooperate in an agricultural society. The same can be found in largely agricultural European societies. The need to cooperate and be less of an individual.

    I don’t think Cambodians will flood Korea anyways. I think it would be more likely poor Vietnamese, poor Chinese, and poor N. Koreans.

    Importing mass immigrants is so 20th century anyways. Anyone who walks into a Walmart can see the person less checkout stands work fine. And anyone can see that old school manufacturing is changing with machinery making things much easier to operate with less workers.

    I’m not saying that there won’t be any immigration. Just that it won’t be the same as what we have experienced here in the west.

    Read More
  42. Do Korean chicks dig white Amrican guys?? I find K-girls very appealing,say no more,nudge nudge.

    Read More
  43. @Hepp
    I think that if the underclass is upset it doesn't matter, since they don't have the brains to do anything about it anyway. The only white men who have to compete with blacks are the underclass. Educated white men have access to Asian and Hispanic girls more and more (go to an Ivy League campus or one in California and see for yourself), so even if some women defect to other races or man-hating feminism there's still some kind of equilibrium.

    If Korea ever let in skilled immigrants, educated Asian women would flock to them. And there would be no back up plan, as there is with white men and Asian/Hispanics. It's one thing to be a loser because there's no one for you, it's another to be alone but see women of your race with other men as the norm.

    Hepp,

    Have you ever actually lived in an East Asian country?

    In general, I would say the men tend to be very friendly toward and interested in foreigners (especially “White” people). The women, not so much (especially toward “White” women).

    I think you are suffering from unfounded hubris or a bad case of U.S. stereotype credulity.

    Please recall that a certain Japanese politician who has recently been flamed for calling for the institution of an apartheid-like regime in order to handle immigration of foreigners into that country is a woman.

    Read More
  44. Priss Factor [AKA "whyem whyempty whyempathy"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    There are many angles to this subject. It could be Koreans are very dumb about what’s going on and headed for a disaster. Or maybe they are not as dumb as we think we are.

    As many said, ‘multiculturalism’ means different things to different peoples.
    It seems, for the time being, most of the minorities counted as ‘multi-cultural’ in Korea are fellow Koreans from abroad or fellow East Asians like Chinese, Japanese, and Vietnamese. By Western Standards, this might not be thought of as ‘multi-cultural’.

    Maybe Koreans want the cachet of ‘multiculturalism’ to win approval from the West without practicing the kind of multiculturalism that is prevalent in the West. Europe, for instance, is importing huge numbers of people from OUTSIDE Europe whereas Koreans are mostly taking people from Asia, esp East Asia. So, Korean definition of ‘multiculturalism’ is rather inflated by western standards. When even Korean ethnics from other nations are considered as ‘foreigners’, something is rather fishy in Korean multiculturalism.

    On the other hand, because Korea has been so insular and homogeneous for so long, it could be that even foreigners from neighboring East Asian nations can be a bit jarring to Koreans than, say, a Hindu-American to a white person in America. It’s like when America had been Anglo-American for so long, even the arrival of other Europeans seemed like the sky was falling.

    (It could be the combination of insularity and idealized images have blinded Koreans to dangers ahead. As Korea has been predominantly Korean for so long, many Koreans probably take it for granted that Korea will always remain Korean — like the hare taking for granted that it will win the race against the tortoise. And then, there’s the idealized image of diversity in Hollywood movies, European movies, and American TV shows that are surely by many Koreans. And mostly likely, Korean TV follow the same guidelines by showing idealized portraits of interracial couples or diversity. So, the insularity of Koreans make them take things for granted and not panic. And the naive idealism of Koreans influenced by pop culture and increasingly politically correct education may have infused an overly rosy view of what diversity has in store for them.)

    Maybe, Koreans really are too dumb to see the dangers, not least because they are so slavish about winning approval of the West. Ian Buruma has a chapter about Korea in his book GOD’S DUST. He says Koreans are very nationalistic but their pride is one of inferiority complex. It’s not so much about ‘we are great’ but ‘we want to be recognized as worthy by the great nations of the world’. Korea doesn’t so much want a place in the sun as bask in the glory of the sun(of the great nations).

    So, Korean nationalism has a component of envy and resentment. So, when Koreans are treated with kid gloves(hiding a iron fist to be sure) by a great power, they fall all over themselves and try to win more approval. I think Americans are trying to butter up this aspect of Korean-ness by over-praising Korean pop culture and its ‘role in the world’. So, US backed Banky Moon as UN secretary general. He hasn’t done much and it’s a BS role, but Koreans are full of themselves that one of their own is ‘running the UN’. Of course, UN is just a puppet-tool of the great powers, especially the US and its satellite EU nations, but Koreans just love the symbolism. And when Obama invited Psy the trashy idiot of the worthless song ‘gangnam style’, Koreans were full of pride that one of their own won such fame and recognition. Never mind he’s a pile of turd. The fact is he became a freak sensation around the world and even started a dance craze in the US. And when Kim Dae-Jung won the Nobel Peace prize–the most worthless crap in the world(Obama got one for doing nothing)–, Koreans were flipping out and falling all over themselves that one of their own finally got a Nobel, by golly. It was hilarious watching the Korean conniptions on BBC.
    And Korean-American celebrities are promoted by Hollywood and TV in minor roles. They get worthless bit parts or are used for comic relief, but Koreans are full of pride that some of their own are making a splash in America.

    And of course, there’s the so-called Korean Wave. The French Wave had artistic value. Korean Wave is mostly trashy K-pop where plastic-surgeried robotic sex whores gyrate their bodies according to program. There’s also Korean soap opera that is stupid, inane, shallow, narcissistic, and soulless. But because they’ve won some popularity around the world, Koreans are awful proud of themselves as global players even though their pop culture sucks and even though idiots around the world pay attention to that garbage. (There is an interesting Korean cinema movement, however. But then, because so many Korean art film-makers win accolades abroad, they become more attuned to foreign opinions than the needs of their own countrymen.)

    There’s also the issue of North Korea, an embarrassment on a huge scale. Because North Korea has associated nationalism and homogeneity with idiocy, tyranny, and slavery, South Koreans go out of their way to distance themselves from the North by highlighting how different they are from those savage idiot Koreans in the North. So, Korean-American writers and activists will do lectures and make documentaries about how horrible North Korea is to win approval from Westerners, especially Americans who saved the South from the North and made the economic development of the South possible by opening US markets to Korean products. Also, as US has allowed massive immigration from Korea, Koreans want to show that they too can be like great Americans by doing the same thing.

    Of course, it takes historical amnesia for South Koreans to maintain the myth that US was the heroic saver of South Korea from North Korea. After all, it was Roosevelt’s regime that created North Korea by dividing Korea like a piece of steak and handing over the northern half to USSR so that Stalin could turn the north into a communist slave state. Stalin didn’t come up with the plan to divide Korea. It wasn’t the Koreans’ idea. It was Roosevelt’s idea to divide Korea and give one half to Stalin, thereby setting the stage for the Korean War that was triggered when US openly declared, with the Acheson Line, that US would protect Japan and Taiwan but not South Korea. A green light for the North to attack with Stalin and Mao’s blessing. When North did attack and nearly unified Korea, US changed its mind and then dumped all the bombs and firepower left over from WWII on Korea. Great for the military-industrial complex while millions of Korean civilians were killed or maimed by US bombing. US war crimes in North Korea equal Japanese lunacy in China and Indonesia. But because South Korea was ruled by puppets of the US, the official narrative is that US has been this generous ally that saved South Korea from the communist North. Koreans are willfully amnesiac about the fact that Roosevelt was the one who cut Korea and offered half to totalitarian Stalin to do as he please. Roosevelt’s invitation to Stalin to occupy north China also ensured communist victory over all of China. But since South Korea is a puppet satellite state of the US, the people there have been fed a historical fiction. Of course, it’s true, in the strictest sense, that Americans did save the South from the North. But consider the larger context. The North was created when Roosevelt offered half of Korea to Stalin without consulting any Korean. Of course Roosevelt didn’t consult Koreans since no Korean would have agreed with it.

    Koreans are whoreans. Korea is Whorea. Koreans bark loudly about what Japan did to Korea but they are utterly silent about what US did to Korea. It wasn’t the Japanese who divided Korea. It was Roosevelt who cut a nation in half though it had nothing to do with WWII. Whatever one thinks of Germany, it got divided because it triggered World War II and invade the USSR. Korea was a victim nation, but it got punished from the end of WWII to the end of Korean War. After 4 million dead, it remained divided just as before. But who divided Korea? Who set the grounds for the Korean War by dividing the nation and handing one half to mass killer tyrant Stalin? And which nation dropped more bombs on North Korea than in all of the Pacific theater in World War II? US didn’t just attack military targets but went out of its way to kill as many civilians as possible. And yet, South Whoreans serve as slaves to the US while still nagging about what Japan did during WWII. South Koreans act big and tough toward Japan, but it’s just cowardice. Koreans scream at Japan because it’s a defeated and politically powerless nation. After all, ever since Japan lost WWII, it’s been the geisha shoeshine boy of the US. Both Japan and South Korea were allowed to get rich but only in total political obeisance to the US that can destroy their economies overnight. So, South Korea ragging on Japan is like one whore ragging one another whore, one dog barking at another dog. (The narrative that US liberated Korea from Japan also requires some degree of amnesia. Initially, US had given Japan full blessing in the colonization of Korea. Besides, Roosevelt had promised Japan that it can keep Taiwan, Korea, and Manchuria as long as it pulls out from rest of China. US-as-liberator narrative is a mere accident of history. And even the liberation imposed by US divided the nation in half and handed over half to Stalinist slavery. So, just as US made and then unmade Saddam Hussein in Iraq, US aided and then destroyed Japan in the colonization of Korea.)

    But of course, there’s much to be said of the positive influences of the US on South Korea, at least when the US was run by Anglo-Americans. American missionaries did a lot of selfless work in building churches, hospitals, schools, and universities. US industries and markets provided South Korea with the opportunity to learn technology and build a modern economy(though, to be sure, much of the investment capital came from Japan and Germany than from the US). And US universities educated generations of Korean elites(and there was a time when American universities were not a den of politically correct dogma and tyranny). And American-style democracy was a great inspiration to the protest movement in the 80s. But there was a price to pay. Just as Japan economically benefitted in the 1950s from the destruction of Korean War, Korean economy got jump-started in the 1960s by South Koreans serving as attack dogs of Americans in the Vietnam War. Even now, it’s been said there are Vietnamese whose faces turn white when you mention South Korean troops in the war. Korean thugs were brutal and vicious, not much better than Japanese soldiers in Nanking. Serving as mercenaries of Americans, they helped build the Korean economy; but it was by aiding and abetting US destruction of another Asian nation. Of course, the North Vietnamese were communists and fighting for a vile ideology, but they were still fighting for patriotism and national pride whereas South Vietnam(especially Saigon) had been reduced to a vast whore house of the American military. South Korea played mini-me in this sordid affair, running their own whorehouses and treating Vietnamese women as sex slaves. (At the very least, Vietnamese can take pride in having unified their nation and driven the enemy occupiers out. Vietnamese defeated the French empire, American empire, and fought off the Chinese empire. There’s real pride in that, whereas Korean history in the 20th century is one of constant dependence and toady behavior to bigger powers. Koreans bitch about how their women were treated as ‘sex slaves’ by the Japanese during WWII, but Koreans do a great job showing off, via mainly K-pop and other trash, that they are experts at acting like whores and prostitutes to the world. No personality, no soul, no identity. Just mannequin-like whores with plastic-surgery-altered faces going through programmatic sex doll motions. Utterly interchangeable with other sex robot dolls. This is the female ideal promoted by Korea, but Koreans bitch about their history of prostitution by bigger nations. Maybe bigger nations treated Korea as a whore because Koreans are so good at it.)

    At least when US was a Wasp-ruled nation with normal majority-rule morality, there were many positive cultural influences South Korea could draw inspiration from. Think of John Wayne movies about honor, truth, dignity, courage, and the like. Think of movies like SHANE and others. At least US wasn’t promoting the likes of Masha Gessen back then. As a white majority nation ruled a white majority, America back then understood and appreciated Korea as a nation ruled by the Korean majority(even if it took orders from its master the US).

    So, UN urged South Korea to abandon textbooks that emphasized how Koreanness is racial and historical as well as cultural. UN wants to turn ‘Koreanness’ into merely a linguistic/cultural thing so that ANYONE can be construed as ‘Korean’. So, if a Filipino comes to Korea and speaks some Korean and eats some Kimchi, he is as Korean as Koreans whose ancestry goes back 1000s of yrs and whose ancestors from time immemorial are buried in the Korean soil. If indeed Korean is merely ‘cultural’, then anyone around the world who learns to speak some Korean, reads a bit about Korean society, and indulges in trashy Korean pop culture might as well be Korean. But what value does this kind of identity have? If I learn some Armenian and wear an Armenian hat, am I Armenian? If I beat a bongo drum and wear a dashiki, am I Congolese? It’s a case of culture deracinated and made soulless. It’s culture as a global brand, a Bennetton ad, or a Coca Cola commercial.
    If this is the definition of ‘Koreanness’, it means Koreans whose ancestors have lived, died, and been buried there for 1000s of years are no more Korean than anyone else in the world who might learn some Korean words, eat some Kimchi, and watch some stupid Korean soap opera. Are Koreans really dumb enough to fall for this nonsense? Maybe… because we now live in a world of pop-saturation. Children grow up hooked to videogames, comic books(especially Japanese kind where all the characters are made to look white/un-Asian), US movies, American TV shows like ‘sex and the city’ and other garbage, MTV, hip hop, and homo-style fashion. One gets the impression that young Koreans have no sense of history and no interest in anything that isn’t ‘cool’, ‘hip’, ‘up to date’, ‘latest hot thing’, and etc. Now, most ancestors all around the world were not cool. They were simple folks. But people today exist only because their ‘uncool’ ancestors existed and toiled and died on the land and produced families. Historical consciousness connects people to their ancestors even though the latter were different in many ways. But the mania for Pop Culture has made all of us around the world addicted to whatever happens to be ‘hot right now’ and the hell with everything else. It’s like Pop Culture is like a drug that abolishes the past in our memory.
    Since so many young Koreans only know Popular Culture, they have no soulful and blood-sweat-and-tears connection to the past. But this is the same everywhere, isn’t it? We’ve all become pop-addicted lunatics with little historical sense. Orthodox Jews and Israeli Jews may be the only exceptions as they do everything to maintain their sense of history, uniqueness, specialness, interests, identity, obligation to their forebears, and the unity of land and race and culture. But the rest of us? We’re like Native Americans with their casinos. Never mind the past.

    Though the human mind is capable of sophisticated/complex things, the fact is we are mostly driven by emotions and sensations/drives. There are just several basic emotions–sadness, happiness, anger, envy, hate, fear, insecurity, anxiety, etc.–and just a few basic drives–hunger, thirst, lust, aggression, etc. And there’s narcissism and spiritual need to revere something. All these emotions, drives, and sensibilities can easily be manipulated by the powers-that-be that control the media of images and sounds. Therefore, if the powers-that-be control the emotions and sensations, they can control the minds of most people who aren’t capable of thinking to begin with. If one associates ‘racism’ with images of KKK, one has convinced most people that anything associated with white racial interests is evil. If you show some noble looking black woman in a movie to some syrupy music, you’ve convinced a lot of women that blackness is holy and if you disagree, you’re a bad person, a ‘racist’. If you show homos with lots of rainbow colors looking so cheerful and clean, you’ve convinced many people that homos are angels. And surely, South Koreans soak up American TV, movies, and the like. Because the US media silences or suppresses dissident/alternative voices about the problems of ‘diversity’, many in the East have no idea about the full extent of the problems of diversity in America. (And Hip Hop culture has glamorized the biggest social disaster in America: the social dysfunctions of the black underclass. What should be seen as an unmitigated disaster has come to be celebrated as empowerment and stylishness.) After all, even white Liberals in northern American states don’t know the full extent of the disaster. They get their news from the media that suppresses so much of the reality of racial problems. And European movies generally show the positive side of ‘diversity’. And that’s what South Koreans surely suck up from the world. The South Koreans masses get it from dumb TV shows and Hollywood movies. And South Korean elites soak it up from college classes, books, art films, and study-abroad-in-America. In some ways, Korean deficiency in English may make them more PC. If you are fluent and well-grounded in English, you’re more likely to argue with what you read or at least be more critical. But if you’re struggling to read English, you’ll be too caught up in trying to make sense of the text to have energy left over to debate the text.
    Also, there’s almost no counter- or dissident view against PC in the West.

    Korean education, like most of Asian education, stresses learning by rote absorption and reverence for teachers. So, Koreans are more likely to be slavish to whomever their teachers/masters are. Why did Koreans become communists so fast in the North? Why did so many Koreans become Christians almost overnight? In the pre-modern era, why was Korean Confucianism even more extreme and absolute than Chinese Confucianism? Why is Korean crassness and materialism more trashy than crassness in most parts of the world? If we note this pattern of Korean mental behavior, then it’s understandable why Koreans are acting like lemmings and falling over the cliff together. Koreans are whores, and they try harder at being whores than any other people. This is true even of North Korea. North Korea may take pride in being politically more independent than South Korea, and it is. But its populace are total whores to the ruling regime of fat pigs right out of Animal Farm. So, if North Korean communism collapses, I suspect its people who were once groveling before Kim clan will become whores to American-style materialism almost overnight. Lemming whore mentality.

    It may well be the case that some Koreans, especially the elites, have this idea that Korean-ness can become like French-ness. A great global cultural standard, a matter of cultural prestige. Maybe the idea that anyone can become Korean means that Korean culture is so great that it will inspire people from all over the world to share in and partake of the glory of Korean culture. Since Koreans suffer from cultural inferiority complex, maybe the idea of non-Koreans choosing to learn Korean and even become ‘Korean’ is deeply flattering to Korean elites. But they are fooling themselves. French culture is infinitely greater than Korean culture, but the many diverse immigrant groups in France don’t give a shit about high French culture, art, literature, history, and etc. They learn a trashy version of French lingo, just wanna have sex with French women, and they culturally assimilate into American rap culture than to French high culture. If French culture, a true glory of the world, cannot inspire immigrants to appreciate it, what chance does Korean history and culture have in inspiring non-Koreans to appreciate it?

    Also, how can non-Koreans in Korea feel a historical bond to Korean ancestors when their own ancestors are from other nations? When a Greek looks at a image or sculpture of ancient Greeks, there’s a sense of connection not only of culture but of blood. He thinks ‘that was my people, my ancestors’. When a black African looks at an old African artifact, he thinks, ‘that depicts my forebears, my ancestors’. Of course, anyone can culturally appreciate the art and artifacts of other nations. I’m not Uzbek but I can appreciate Uzbek art and music. I’m not Italian but I can appreciate Italian paintings and etc. But I can never look at a Florentine painting and feel, ‘ah, my people, my ancestors’. That privilege rightfully belongs to Italians.
    Same goes for Korean history and culture. Koreans are not just people who speak Korean but who have survived and remained as Koreans because they have deep genetic roots in their homeland in which their ancestors have lived and died and been buried and returned to the earth for 1000s of yrs, even during pre-history. So, what kind of a foolish Korean would say, “I’m no more especially Korean than some Bangladeshi immigrant who arrived and learned few words of Korean and eats Kimchi”? So, is that all that means to be Korean? Is Korean culture so vapid and shallow that anyone can become Korean just by learning a few words and eating Kim chi and shaking his or her ass to K-pop slop?

    Why follow the lead of demented nations like Great Britain–once a great nation, now a pitiful nation that is afraid even to report on Muslim gang rapists of white girls–where being British now amounts to listening to rap, having a nose ring, having sex with men from all over the world, beating on bongo drums, getting dreadlocks, wearing baggy pants, rioting over soccer, and alternately praising homo culture and attacking critics of Muslims as ‘Islamophobes’ while, at the same time, urging Muslims to stop being ‘homophobes’. What kind of national identity is that? It’s idiotic, but when London held the Olympics, the world press praised it as so wonderful, and I suppose idiot Koreans got envious because their nation isn’t similarly ‘diverse’.

    If Koreans are truly a proud people, why do they feel this need to win the approval of ‘greater’ nations? And why should Koreans feel ashamed for their relative lack of ‘diversity’? Perhaps, the New World(the Americas) was bound to be diverse since the original inhabitants were conquered by white colonists. Thus, both North and South America ended up with the conquering race and the conquered race that experienced genocide, slavery, and expulsion from their ancestral lands. Also, the New World brought over millions of African slaves. And then it needed to exploit labor by bringing more Europeans to run factories, Chinese coolies to build railroads, and Japanese farmers to grow strawberries. So, the ‘diversity’ jazz in the West wasn’t some happy enterprise but the product of conquest, genocide, slavery, and labor exploitation. There’s much shame and horror as well as glory and greatness to the New World story of diversity. Hawaii is much celebrated as a diverse place, but its original inhabitants are now only 25% of the population. Their ancestral lands are mostly owned and managed by whites and Asians. In effect, the original inhabitants lost their homeland to foreigners in exchange for ‘diversity’. Do Koreans want to end up the same way in their own homeland?

    Latin America is diverse because the original inhabitants(of Asiatic origin who crossed the Bering Strait during the Ice Age) were conquered, enslaved, and raped by white Conquistadors. Even today, the original inhabitants of Latin America live on the bottom stratum of society while whites and light-skinned mestizos rule most of the land. So, there’s a lot of ugliness and horror associated with the history of diversity. Russians certainly didn’t much enjoy diversity forced upon them by rapacious Mongol thugs.

    So, why should Koreans feel inadequate and apologetic for their lack of diversity? Should they be ashamed that their nation wasn’t conquered and raped like Peru and Philippines by the Spanish? Should they feel ashamed that their nation didn’t import millions of black slaves from Africa? Koreans didn’t commit those ‘historical crimes’, so why should they feel shame for their lack of diversity? Maybe white folks in the New World feel they must atone for having stolen the land from Indians. Maybe their way of atonement is to share America with all the world. (But how does this redress the ‘wrong’ done to Indians? It will mean that American Indians will have lost their lands not only to white folks but to diverse races/ethnic groups from all over the world. Imagine a people conquering your land and then atoning for their ‘historical sin’ by inviting lots of more people from all over the world to conquer and settle in your land as well.) What do Koreans have to atone for? Korea wasn’t stolen from any other people. It has always belonged to the Korean people, and Koreans have defended it and survived on it for 1000s of years.

    As for Europeans, maybe they want to atone for their history of imperialism. Because they’d conquered other lands and settled there, maybe they want to atone by sharing their wealth and lands with peoples from their former colonies—like with Indian immigrants in UK and Algerian immigrants in France. But Korea never conquered or colonized other nations. What responsibility do Koreans have to take in huge amounts of immigrants from other nations? Are Koreans trying to be as retarded as Swedes who, though not having colonized Africa and the Middle East, feel some moral compunction to open their nation to blacks and Muslims? Why? It’s seems there’s a blend of moral self-loathing and moral narcissism behind it. On the one hand, dumb Swedes feel ‘we are blond and blue-eyed, and that means we are like Nazis, so we must make ourselves less white and more mixed to be racially improved’. On the other hand, dumb Swedes feel ‘we are so wonderful because we care so much, and we will do right what ‘racist’ white Americans did so wrong with non-white minorities’. According to this view, the problems of minorities, mainly blacks, in the US are entirely due to whites. But hopefully in Sweden, African immigrants will flourish because Swedes are so full of goodwill. In fact, Somali immigrants and Muslims are messing up Sweden royally.

    Now, I believe in the (John)Derbyshire Rule. I think any society can gain by some degree of genetic diversity. It’s like adding salt and pepper to the meat. Some degree of racial mixing can be beneficial to any nation. But too much will forever alter the genetic integrity of a people. If 50 million Chinese settled in France and had babies with French folks, France would an Eurasian nation; it would no longer be a European one. Likewise, it’s no problem if some non-Koreans come to Korea, marry Koreans, and their children become blended into the Korean gene pool. But when Koreans are having so few babies — the population is due to shrink by 40% with every generation — , it is downright racial suicide for Koreans to expand immigration so that Korea will become more ‘diverse’. Why does Korea have to be new Bangladesh, new India, new China, new Thailand, new Cambodia, or new Vietnam? Bangladeshis have Bangladesh, and they are not gonna allow it become New Korea. Indians have India, a huge nation with lots of people, and they are not going to let it become New Korea. Chinese have a huge nation — Manchuria alone is many times bigger than Korea — with a huge population, and they are not gonna allow it to be New Korea. Thais have their own country, and they are not going to allow Thailand to be New Korea. So, why do Koreans feel this need to turn their nation into a hodgepodge of Asian nations(and even non-Asian nations)? Are Koreans so hungry for Western approval that they will sell out their motherland to ‘diversity’ so just Harvard and Hollywood elites will pat Koreans like dogs?
    Now, if Korea were a huge nation, I might understand the impulse behind the desire for more immigration. Nations like Canada and Australia are huge and still largely unsettled. Though I disapprove of their immigration policies, they have plenty of room for newcomers. But Korea is very small. There isn’t much to share. Also, even though Korea is densely populated, its population isn’t that big. Just 5% of China is the equal to the entire population of Korea. If all Koreans moved to India, Indian would still be overwhelmingly Indian. But if just 5% of Indians came to Korea, they would equal the entire population of Korea. Koreans would lose their nation.

    Incidentally, Japanese argument for Japan-Korean unity was very much like multiculturalist mania today. Japanese said Korea belongs to Japanese and Koreans equally than just to the Koreans. Indeed, Japanese went further and said they are for the unity and cooperation of all Asian nations under the benign rule of the Japanese. So, why should any Asian nation resist? Just collaborate so that all of Asia will be one united empire of brotherhood and etc. Under this logic, there was no more need for Koreanness since Koreans could now all be ‘Japanese’. If Japanese colonialism tried to do away with Korean identity by banning Korean names and language, multi-culturalism tries to do away with Korean identity by saying ANYONE can become Korean. By using this logic, anyone in any part of the world should have the right to come to Korea and become Korean if he or she feels like it. All he or she has to do is learn some Korean, eat Kim chi, and shake his/her ass to K-pop. With Korean-ism reduced to something so shallow, what the hell would a Korean be? Besides, if anyone can become Korean, why even insist that they must learn the Korean language? Gee, maybe that’s ‘language-ist’, as horrible as being ‘racist’? Since language is a ‘social construct’, why not say any language is ‘Korean’ or counts as ‘alternative Korean’. So, if a Chinese guy says he feels like speaking Chinese in Korea and demands that Koreans should accommodate his ‘right’, maybe Chinese language should be accepted as the ‘other Korean language’. If Koreans really want to be like multi-lingual American without an official language, then Korean should do away with ‘language-ism’ as well. Why, it’s discriminatory against other languages!!! And just like in America, maybe the immigration narrative should replace the original native history. It could emphasize how some Mongol or Thai person made his journey to Korean to become ‘Korean’ and remake Korea into a glorious multi-culti nation while denouncing traditional Korea as too homogeneous, too xenophobic, too exclusive, too ‘racist’, too whatever else that gives PC folks wet dreams, etc. Use the new immigration narrative to piss on the entire history and ancestry of Koreans who didn’t enjoy the fruitful blessings of ‘diversity’ that was foisted upon Peru and Philippines by Spanish imperialists(or on the Spanish by the North African Moors).

    Globalism has led to inflation of Korean self-esteem and confidence. Because Korea became a global player with samsung and other gadgets, they think they matter so much. But consumer products are here today, gone tomorrow. After all, what happened to K-mart and Sears Roebuck? A nation, race, and culture are more than about global products. North Korea has no global presence in international trade, but it’s just as Korean as South Korea because it’s composed of people of Korean race, culture, and language. West Germany and East Germany were economically very different but they were still one people because both were populated with Germans. If East Germany had been emptied of Germans and replaced totally by Hungarians or Poles, would unification have made sense? No, it would have been as impossible as reunifying Kosovo with Serbia since Muslim Albanians had pretty much taken over all of Kosovo. Race, culture, and identity matter.

    Korea may be a global player in consumer products and trashy pop culture. But China is fast catching up in the consumer electronics market. And trashy K-pop stars of today will be forgotten in a few yrs and replaced by a new crop of whore and idiots. Consumer products and pop culture can be nice and/or fun, but they cannot serve as the primary basis of a race, nation, and culture. For thousand of years, Koreans didn’t have K-pop and cellphones, but they were just as Korean as Koreans today. Why? Because they were racially and culturally Korean and maintained their historical consciousness as a people. Ethnicity is deep. It’s not about trends and fashions in business and popular culture. Who remembers who was the pickle merchant in Poland 300 yrs ago? But Poles remember the legends of their ancestors who fought and died defending their homeland.

    Koreans may be a global player in business and in tagging along as the running dog of the US(and increasingly as servile dog to rising China as well), but Koreans need to understand that Koreans can only survive as Koreans in Korea, a very small nation. Sure, there is a Korean diaspora all over the world, but those communities will eventually vanish. As Korea now has very low birthrate, there will be fewer Korean emigration to other nations. In time, Korean-Americans will assimilate and mix with other races and become part of generic white/black/brown America. Same with Koreans in Latin America. While immigrant Koreans might keep up with the language and be active in the Korean-immigrant community, their children will mix with other races and have part-Korean kids who will then mix more and become even less Korean. If full-blooded Korean immigrants in other nations hardly keep up with Korean-ness, what’s the chances of half-Korean or quarter-Korean or eighth-Korean descendants maintaining Korean identity. There simply aren’t enough Koreans to become dominant in other nations. Korean immigrants and over-seas workers are not going to have a permanent impact on Southeast Asia, India, Africa, Latin America, America, or Canada. They will assimilate and eventually their children and children’s children will lose their Korean identity and historical memory. Despite Korean self-delusion about ‘cool global Korea’, Korean cultural and racial identity simply cannot compete with others. If someone is 1/4 German, 1/4 Italian, 1/4 Jewish, and 1/4 Korean, which identity will he or she favor? German culture is a great one with Beethoven and Bach. Italian culture is linked with the Roman Empire and Renaissance. Jewish culture is 3,500 yrs old and one of the greatest in the world. Korean culture simply doesn’t come anywhere close. Of course, a culture doesn’t have to be great to have value. If Korean culture has meaning for Koreans, that’s all that matters as to why it should be preserved. Most cultures around the world are not great, but they mean a great deal to the people who belong to that culture. And unless a people preserve their own culture, it will be lost. I mean if Uzbeks or Azerbaijanis wanna piss away their identity and culture, who’s gonna stop them? Likewise, if Koreans want to piss away their identity and culture, no one will come to their rescue. America is urging Korea to piss away its identity, just like Japanese colonialists once urged Koreans to do so. Japanese said, “Just become the Other Japanese and members of the larger Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere”. And Americans say, “Just become global and part of mixed-up humanity.” Japanese said any Korean can and must become Japanese, and Americans say anyone should be allowed to become Korean. Since Korean elites are a bunch of collaborationist whores, they are doing for America what their forebears once did for the Japanese. And of course North Koreans were slavish to their Russian and Chinese masters during the Cold War. Still, Russians and Chinese never insisted that North Korea make itself less Korean or redefine Korean-ness so as to render it meaningless.

    In fact, most Koreans who move permanently to other nations will just be a drop in the bucket and mix with the whole. In time they and their children will forget their Korean-ness. They will racially mix with the larger majority natives and culturally adopt the norms of the dominant culture. Korea is the ONLY place where Korean-ness can truly survive as a permanent identity and culture. But if Korea practices open doors immigration and allows non-Koreans(with the full backing of UN and the US) to dictate what it means to be ‘Korean’, then Korean-ness will be lost even in Korea, and then Korean-ness will be lost from the entire world. If Koreans are okay with that — just like idiotic Europeans are resigned to their own racial/cultural demise — , then what can we say? We would have to conclude that Koreans are nothing but a bunch of whores or whoreans who surrendered their nation, race, and culture to the globalist typhoon. They turned their nation into a McNation. Instead of KFC in Korea, it became a case of KFC as Korea. KFC in Korea is a good idea. But KFC as Korea means that Korea is just a soulless marketplace where even racial/cultural identity is just some interchangeable consumer brand. Racial and cultural identity have meaning in relation to a deep understanding and appreciation of the past. If one’s identity is as skin-deep like the last fashion in pop culture, then one has no real identity. One’s identity has just become a trashy narcissistic game of ‘me so horny’ trendiness.
    But this is to be expected from South Koreans who indulge in skin-deep plastic surgery to look like members of another race. They reject the looks bestowed on them by their own DNA and want to look like other races in facial features and hair color. Is it surprising that such vapid trans-racial idiots would be turned on by the cult of diversity? If Koreans, via plastic surgery and hair-dyeing, can pretend to be other races, I suppose the logic is that anyone can become Korean by eating kimchi and shaking one’s ass to the prostitution music of K-pop.

    Don’t Koreans want one place in the world to call their rightful home? While many Koreans might have good lives in other nations, they can only be minorities and will fade away in time. They are not essential. If not a single Korean-American had ever come and lived in America, America would still be America. Korean-Americans are not essential to American history in the way Anglo-Americans are who laid down the political, linguistic, economic, cultural, and otherwise foundations of America. Same for Koreans in China. China is still China without Koreans, and Koreans in China can only be a tiny minority. Same goes for Koreans in Latin America, Middle East, and Europe. Individual Koreans may be successful and do well, but they are still part of an insignificant minority. Latin America is still Latin America without Koreans.

    It is only in Korea that a Korean is truly at home. It is only in Korea where Korean-ness is truly significant, essential, and fundamental to the nation. If Korea had no Koreans, it would not be a nation. A Russia without Koreans is still Russia. But Korea without Koreans is no longer Korea. So, Koreans should, at the very least, defend and preserve their nation as their own because it’s the only place in the world that is their true homeland, the only place in the world where they comprise the great majority, where they have ancestral ties to the land, where their language is the main mode of communication, where their history unfolded from the beginning of time. Almost all the Koreans that ever existed lived, died, and were buried in that small piece of land. The flesh and bones of Korean ancestors become the dust and dirt that people walk on today. When Koreans walk on Korean soil, they’re not simply walking on dirt but on the remains of their ancestors who were returned to the earth. So, if Koreans feel no special bond to their own land and just want to turn Korea into a shopping mall & globalist fun-house and bring in tons of foreigners to take over the country, then Koreans have lost their soul and their minds. They’ve become just like stupid Europeans who are pissing away their great and glorious racial and cultural heritage by turning their ancestral lands over to Muslim and Africans. What kind of people would do that? It’s tantamount to pissing on the graves of one’s ancestors.

    If Koreans lose their homeland, they will have no place to call their home. Even their own country will be like any other part of the world where Koreans would just be a minority. Do Koreans want to Kosovo-ize Korea? Kosovo was once the sacred homeland of Serbians. But the mass demographic arrival of Albanian Muslims made it no longer Serbian — permanently. Serbians lost their sacred homeland forever. Palestinians lost their homeland forever. Hawaiians are minorities in their own homeland forever. The native peoples of Latin America don’t even run their own nations. They’ve been conquered, enslaved, and subjugated; their racial bloodlines have been mixed by rape and miscegenation.
    Koreans and Europeans may argue that their commitment to globalism, race-mixing, and open borders is done freely and willingly. But do most Europeans and Koreans really want this or have they been brainwashed or coerced by the globalists? In truth, both Europe and Korea are not free nations. US can destroy the economies of EU and Korea. US is now exerting pressure on Korea to embrace ‘same sex marriage’ with the promise that Korea will win economic favors if it obeys. Many Koreans want to collaborate with their American overlords like their ancestors collaborated with the Japanese. In some ways, American neo-colonialism is more dangerous than the Japanese kind was. Under the Japanese, at least Koreans knew they were under the occupation by a foreign nation. But Americans exert their power more secretively and subtly. It creates the illusion that Korea is an ‘equal partner’ when it is just a running dog of the US. If Korea is a free nation, does it have the freedom to do business with Iran? Or with Russia? Or, must Korea win the approval of the US? If Korea acts on its own in defiance of US wishes, US can exert political and business pressure to destroy Korea. Also, as US has made ‘same sex marriage’ sacrosanct, it can ruin the reputation of any nation that won’t embrace it as well. If Korea wants to be a ‘cool nation’ selling stuff to US for the foreseeable future, it may have to accept ‘same sex marriage’ so that American consumers won’t see Koreans as ‘uncool’. Koreans are NOT free. They are economic puppets of the US. Koreans must surely have noticed how US used its muscle to bend EU to participate in the diplomatic and political War Against Russia. Koreans are whores. Even though their fate under the Japanese was similar to that of Palestinians under the Zionists, Koreans(especially deranged Korean Christian Zionists) side with Israel. Even though Tibetans live under Chinese occupation just like Koreans once lived under Japanese occupation, Koreans say nothing about China’s tyranny.

    US, in order to globalize and eradicate traditional Korea, flatters Koreans that they are significant players in the New World Order. But Koreans are nothing more than stick figures, puppets, grocery clerks, running dogs, and waterboys of Americans. South Korea is like Manchukuo under the Japanese. Japanese pretended that it was aiding independent Manchuria from foreigners, but in fact, Manchurians were reduced to running dogs of the Japanese. Popular culture increasingly features Korean-Americans and Koreans in a more prominent way, but what kind of Korean and Korean-American behavior do Americans praise and encourage most? Americans encourage Koreans acting like worthless rappers(imitating black ghetto culture), acting like mamasan ‘me so horny’ whores, acting like yellow coon comedians debasing their own. Koreans, so hungry for approval from the ‘superior’ races of whites and blacks, will go to any lengths to act the clown, flunky, toady, or fool. As for guys like Banky Moon, how pathetic. They are nothing but running dogs of UN-style globalism controlled by US and EU. US might help to promote Korea’s enlarged role in the world, but it’s all just an illusion. Koreans have no real power but must just rubber-stamp everything endorsed by Americans. Just as Japanese colonialists used Korean soldiers and officials to rule over their empire, American neo-imperialists are recruiting Koreans to participate in the globalist order. Koreans may feel flattered, but they have no real power and no independence.

    In the past several decades, the most successful parts of the non-white world were in homogeneous East Asia: Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and China. Though Singapore is said to be multi-cultural, it has been overwhelmingly Chinese. This success story goes against the Politically Correct Narrative that ‘diversity is a strength’. The East Asian story suggests homogeneity + unity + diligence + intelligence = success. In contrast, most diverse nations around the world have been less successful and torn by endless strife. Just look at the Middle East and South Africa. But the US narrative says ‘diversity is our strength’. So, East Asia is urged to diversify with the false promise that doing so will make them stronger and richer when, in fact, it’s totally false. Are Koreans dumb enough for fall for this line?

    Of course, there’s the problem of Korean population decline. In the case of rural Korean men and lower-class Korean men, it’s understandable why they may have chosen to bring over foreign women to be their brides. Men want to marry, and upwardly mobile Korean women don’t want to marry them. Also, many Korean women now prefer to be single for the rest of their lives. And it’s also understandable that many Koreans now don’t want to do ‘demeaning’ labor. In a way, it’s Confucianism rearing its ugly head again. As a form of status-obsessed ideology, Confucianism respected the educated elites with ‘clean jobs’ while looking down on those doing ‘dirty’ manual labor. As awful as Mao was — and he was very awful — , his attack on Confucianism in China was understandable. The positive side of communism was in emphasizing that all workers and all kinds of labor are meaningful and dignified. And there was some of this in National Socialism too, what with its ideal of rows and rows of German workers with shovels building roads and digging ditches. When Korea was poor, people did what they had to make a living. But ever since Korea became moderately rich, everyone seems to be obsessed with status again. To save their face and pride, they don’t want to do ‘dirty’ work. Especially as ‘dirty’ foreigners become associated with certain kinds of ‘lowly’ work, even poor Koreans seem to avoid certain jobs despite huge unemployment problems. It could be that what Korea needs is a bit of communism or national socialism. Just a bit. Maybe there should be a national workforce program that requires ALL young people to do volunteer work with their hands. It might send a message that no work is below anyone’s dignity. Any work, no matter how ‘lowly’ is dignified since work makes the world go around.

    But class-status-obsessed Koreans are all about face and pride. So, even those who need some kind of work refuse to work at ‘dirty’ jobs, and those jobs go to foreigners. Since foreigners are often exploited and paid low wages, those jobs become even appealing with the arrival of more and more foreigners. Also, Koreans seem to raise kids as bragging rights according to certain news stories. Parents want their children to go to good schools and make lots of money so that they can brag about their kids. Otherwise, they don’t want to have kids at all. There’s no love for kids simply because kids are precious. It’s all about bragging rights and status comparison. In some ways, modern Koreans are shallower and stupider than poor dirty Koreans of the past, but this is true of Europe as well. In the past, people had kids because family was part of life. Today, it’s all about either bragging rights in Korea or self-fulfilment in the West. If Koreans want to maintain a racial and cultural sense of Korea, they need to focus on creating families and family life. If they want to create a new soulless concept of Korean-ness as being all about economics and globalism, then it doesn’t matter if foreigners flood into Korea and forever change the fundamental genetic and cultural character of Korea. It would only be about money and nothing else.
    But is a true nation only about money and luxuries? Such a nation cannot last long. Do Koreans really want to turn Seoul into something like London that is now over 50% of non-British? Or into Paris where 50% of newborns are non-French? This is what happens when identity surrenders to ideology. This is what happens when economics take priority over blood bonds.

    Of course, Koreans should treat foreigners in Korea with decency and goodwill. But Koreans should also insist that Korea is essentially a Korean nation for Koreans. Foreigners can come to work in Korea. They can come as tourists. They can come and work as professionals. But when it comes to citizenship, Koreans should insist that Koreans have every right to ensure that Korea will be a nation of real Koreans. While non-Koreans should be allowed to marry into Korean nation, there has to be a limit to this. After all, if every Korean man and every Korean woman married a non-Korean foreigner, Korea would no longer be Korea. And then if all their half-Korean kids married non-Koreans, everyone would be only 1/4 Korean. Three fourths of their identity would be something else than Korean. It would lead to dual, triple, or quadruple loyalty. The idea that non-Koreans in huge numbers will be just as Korean as real Koreans is ridiculous. Look at the US. Many Mexican-Americans feel close to Mexico than to the US. Black Americans look to Africa than to Europe as their ancestral homeland even though they speak English. And this is after 300 yrs in America. And in Europe, many Muslims have greater loyalty to their Islamic homelands than to decadent and soulless Europe. Many African immigrants still feel more African than European. Chinese-Americans have a dual loyalty. Koreans in Japan have dual loyalty. Even after a hundred years, they maintain their separateness from the Japanese. And it’s not only because of Japanese discrimination but because many Koreans in Japanese believe in keeping their separate identity. So, the idea that non-Koreans can just become good little loyal Koreans is a lot of nonsense.

    Of all the Korean diaspora community, the Korean-American is the most significant. But should Koreans be looking to Korean-Americans as a model? Korean-Americans tend to be either a trashy bunch who indulge in pop culture or politically correct drones who just parrot what their teachers have crammed into their heads. What passes for Korean-American pop culture is mainly stupid Korean-American imitating black culture of guns, whores, pimps, and thugs. Most Korean-Americans don’t seem to speak the language, have no knowledge of Korean history, have no sense of culture, and etc. They just try to win the approval of whites and blacks by mindlessly imitating everything that is trashy and shallow in American culture. As for Korean-American intellectual class, they are a bunch of unimaginative and colorless drones who just swallow all the politically correct nonsense taught to them by their professors. They never challenge their teachers and professors. They just serve as teacher’s pets to get good grades and earn positions. They study not for the truth but for privilege and status.

    Does Korea want to emulate and take advice from these bunch of idiots and drones? The trashy Korean-Americans will only teach Koreans(back in the homeland) about how to use drugs, binge drink, be promiscuous, imitate ghetto black thugs and whores, and etc. And so-called ‘intellectual’ Korean-Americans will go back to Korea to spread the same politically correct bullshit about ‘diversity’. It appears that Korean-Americans and Koreans are so dumb that they are willing to embrace even ‘white guilt’ when Korea isn’t guilty of any ‘historical crime’ or ‘historical sin’ against other nations. Koreans never invaded any nation, and Koreans never brought black slaves to Korea. And Koreans live on their own homeland that was NOT stolen from any other people. Korea is not like the Americas or Australia that were ‘stolen’ from other peoples. So, why do Koreans try to feel ‘guilty’ about ‘historical crimes’ they didn’t commit? Are they such whores of American whites that they even try to imitate ‘white guilt’?
    If anything, it is the US that should fess up about how it once aided and abetted Japan in the colonization of Korea. US should fess up about how it divided Korea at the end of World War II and handed the northern half to Stalin. It is US that should fess up about how it committed near-genocidal bombing campaigns in North Korea during the Korean War. US should fess up about how it employed Korean mercenaries as vicious attack dogs in the Vietnam War. Who are Americans to judge Koreans about anything? Who are Americans to be passing judgement on Koreans on its lack of ‘diversity’ or some crap? Why does Korea need ‘diversity’ or ‘diversity training’ when Koreans didn’t invade other nations or bring millions of black slaves to Korea? Why should Koreans bring upon themselves the fate of Hawaiian natives who are now a minority in their own homeland that is mostly occupied by whites and Asians?

    Also, the sexual behavior of Korean-Americans should alert Koreans as to why diversity is disaster for Koreans. In the US, too many Korean-Americans intermarry with other races. So many children of Korean-Americans will be half-Koreans and then their children will be 1/4 Koreans and then their children will be 1/8 Koreans and so on. In America, it doesn’t matter since minorities should assimilate with the majority if they so choose.
    But suppose Korea were dragged across the Pacific and conjoined to America as the 51st state. Suppose there’s open borders between Korea and America in celebration of ‘diversity’. What will happen to Korean-ness? So many Koreans will just marry and have kids with non-Koreans, and so many Americans will just move to Korea(as the 51st American state) and turn it into just another California, Oregon, or Colorado. And then there will no more distinct entity called Korea. Do Koreans really want this as their future? If so, they are dumb and deserve to fade from the earth.

    Don’t Koreans feel any deep connection to their tragic land in which their ancestors survived the Japanese onslaught in the late 16th century? Don’t Koreans feel a sacred connection to the land in which 3 to 4 million of their countrymen perished during the Korean War? Did all those Koreans die in vain and did the survivors rebuild their nation in vain? It would have been in vain if today’s Koreans feel a closer to diverse peoples all over the world than to their own ancestors who fought and struggled to survive so that their own descendants would keep ownership of their homeland. Do today’s Koreans feel closer to Bangladeshi and Madagascarians than to their ancestors and their own heritage? This isn’t to say that Koreans shouldn’t appreciate other races, peoples, nations, and cultures. Koreans have much to learn from other peoples and nations. And openness in trade and ideas have done wonders for Korea. But all said and done, a nation isn’t a nation unless it has a people bound by sacred memory, heritage, historical consciousness, and blood and soil. Without such a national mind-set, a nation is nothing more than a bazaar, a shopping mall, a Disneyland, a McDonalds, or Starbucks coffee shop. After the devastation of the Korean War, Korea had an economy smaller than that of many African nations. It had no global brands or companies. And yet, it was as Korean or even more Korean than it is today. Why? Because it was the land of Koreans and their culture and history. Even if a meteor hits Seoul tomorrow and wipes out all the economy, Korea will still be Korea as long as Koreans maintain their sense of blood and soil and sacred memory. One third of the Japanese economy was wiped out during World War II, but Japan still remained Japan because it was still Japan inhabited by Japanese with their own historical consciousness. Greece was under Turkish rule for over 300 yrs but it remained Greek because Greeks continued to live and breed on their own lands. Poland was once wiped off the map by Russians and Prussians, but the Polish nationhood still remained because Poles who spoke Polish and kept their historical memory never gave up. Thus, their nation was reconstituted again at the end of World War I. And even after World War II and even under Soviet occupation, Polish nation still survived because Poles never let go of their national and historical consciousness.

    And yet, so many Greeks, Poles, and Koreans today are flushing their nations, identities, values, and memories down the toilet in their mindless worship of globalism. In a way, globalism is more dangerous and destructive than tyrannies of the past. When Greeks were under Turkish rule, they understood they were an occupied people. And Poles knew they weren’t free under Russians and Prussians. And Koreans knew they were a captive people under the Japanese. But globalism gives the false illusion to all these people that they are free, happy, and having a great time because they got internet, TV, movies, and videogames. But if a people addicted to hedonism and politically correct banalities surrender their identities, historical memories, and blood-and-soil connection to the land, can they be said to be free as a people? Maybe they are free as individuals, but a nation is more than about free individuals looking for fun. It is about individuals sharing a sacred bond, common narratives, love of nation, and appreciation of their ancestors who survived through thick and thin to bequeath the sacred land to their descendants for posterity. Without such a sense of things, a nation cannot last. It cannot survive. If a nation is only made up of free individuals who only care about personal pleasures, it is bound to crumble and perish and blo

    Read More
  45. Globalists seem intent on stopping countries from following any unique policies which deviate from those prescribed by UN advisers and Anglo-American business consultants.

    Japan is constantly lectured by the Economist magazine to liberalise its economy and increase immigration.

    Switzerland has one of the best performing economies in the West, despite having much lower levels of university participation than most western countries. No doubt it will soon be under pressure to double its student intake so that it reaches the graduate underemployment levels of English-speaking countries like the US (where 45 percent of graduates aren’t in degree-level jobs).

    Read More
  46. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ohwilleke
    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.
    , @bach

    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).
  47. @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.

    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.

    I’ll say. I grew up in a neighborhood with a lot of FOB Asians (and a lot of much better established ones). The contrast between the SE Asians and others was pretty stark, not only in terms of academic success, but criminality as well.

    It was a bit sad in retrospect. I played on a very competitive youth soccer team with a couple excellent SE Asian athletes, including a Khmer and a Filipino. Not long after high school the Khmer ended up a junkie and the Filipino, a guy I really liked personally, got killed in a gunfight with police after robbing a bank. That really made me feel bad when I saw it on the news.

    Although there were plenty in the neighborhood, there were no NE Asians on my team — they were all at home studying while we were playing ball.

    Read More
  48. Whyem,

    In the future, please limit the length of your comments.

    It seems, for the time being, most of the minorities counted as ‘multi-cultural’ in Korea are fellow Koreans from abroad or fellow East Asians like Chinese, Japanese, and Vietnamese

    A little over half of “resident foreigners” are ethnic Koreans and other East Asians. Illegal immigrants are about one third East Asian (Chinese), with the rest being mainly Southeast Asian and South Asian. If we look at the children of “international marriages” (both those born in Korea and those born elsewhere from previous relationships), most of them seem to have Southeast Asian mothers (because of their higher fertility rate).

    I’ll have to rewrite part of my column. In 2009, the definition of “foreign resident” was expanded to include naturalized foreigners and their children. It still excludes adult children of foreigners and illegal immigrants, so statistics on “foreign residents” still understate the magnitude of ethnic change. This kind of statistic is also biased toward the characteristics of immigrants who came to Korea during the 1990s. Current immigration now comes predominantly from Southeast Asia and South Asia.

    http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20110726000910

    So how Korean is South Korea today? At the end of 2014, there were 1.8 million “registered foreign residents” and 208,778 illegal immigrants. The second figure includes only those people who have been identified as illegal immigrants, the actual total being closer to half a million. Finally, there are the adult children of immigrants, for whom we have no figures.

    Ethnic Koreans make up a third of all foreign residents and 0% of all illegal immigrants. So there are probably close to 2 million non-Koreans who have come to Korea through recent immigration. If we include adult children of immigrants, it looks like South Korea is now 4 to 5% non-Korean. That figure will rise substantially in the near future, partly because of immigration, partly because of higher fertility among immigrants, and partly because of the older age structure of the Korean population.

    http://koreajoongangdaily.joins.com/news/article/Article.aspx?aid=3000211

    Read More
  49. Priss Factor [AKA "whyem whyempty whyempathy"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @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.
  50. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    “‘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.
  51. 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
  52. @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...
  53. 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...
  54. @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
  55. @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.
  56. @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
  57. Priss Factor [AKA "whyem whyempty whyempathy"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @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
  58. @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
  59. “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.

  60. 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
  61. 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
  62. 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
  63. Priss Factor [AKA "whyem whyempty whyempathy"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    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/
  64. @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.
  65. “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.
  66. 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?
  67. Priss Factor [AKA "whyem whyempty whyempathy"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    “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
  68. 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
  69. @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
  70. @ 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.

  71. @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
  72. Priss Factor [AKA "whyem whyempty whyempathy"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @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
  73. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @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.
  74. 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
  75. @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.
  76. @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
  77. @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
  78. @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
  79. @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
  80. @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
  81. @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
  82. 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
  83. 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?
  84. 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
  85. @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
  86. 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.

  87. @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
  88. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @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.
  89. @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.
  90. 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.
  91. Priss Factor [AKA "whyem whyempty whyempathy"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @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
  92. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @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
  93. Priss Factor [AKA "whyem whyempty whyempathy"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    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
  94. @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
  95. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @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.
  96. 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
  97. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @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
  98. 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.
  99. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @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
  100. @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.
  101. @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.
  102. [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?
  103. @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
  104. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @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
  105. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @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
  106. 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.
  107. 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.
  108. 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
  109. 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.
  110. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @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
  111. 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?
  112. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @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
  113. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @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
  114. @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
  115. 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.
  116. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    “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
  117. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @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
  118. @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.
  119. 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.
  120. @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
  121. 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
  122. 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
  123. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @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
  124. @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 .
  125. […] 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
  126. @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.
  127. @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.
  128. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @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.
  129. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @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
  130. @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?
  131. @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
  132. Priss Factor [AKA "whyem whyempty whyempathy"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @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.
  133. 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
  134. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    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.

  135. Priss Factor [AKA "whyem whyempty whyempathy"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @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
  136. Priss Factor [AKA "whyem whyempty whyempathy"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    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
  137. “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
  138. anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @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
  139. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @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
  140. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @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
  141. @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
  142. @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
  143. @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
  144. @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
  145. @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
  146. […] 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
Current Commenter says:

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


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Peter Frost Comments via RSS