Thanks for writing this. This is an important distinction, so if I may, I’d like to expound upon who is actually “anti-China”. The Anti-China crowd fall into several camps:

The first camp is ethnic Chinese that live outside China; I’m including Chinese-Americans, Taiwanese, and Hong Kongers all in the same group here. They left mainland China for a variety of reasons—fear of persecution; pursuit of wealth and status—but generally did so upon the premise that their lives would be better in the United States. They assumed that they would have the mandate of heaven by now, but do not and are therefore bitter.

The second camp are globalist interests embittered by the fact that the Chinese consumer base doesn’t exist for the sake of Western capitalists. These are really just the modern day equivalent of Opium dealers that view the Chinese masses as sheep to be exploited. There’s no real ideological impetus that drives such individuals—they just hate things that get in the way of their making money.

The third camp is the evangelizing white liberals that work for institutions like the State Department. You find many of these in Taiwan and they’re either usually homosexuals, or beta male white bottom feeders there for the poon tang. Worth noting is that such individuals embody the same pathologies of which they accuse their opponents of having. Whereas a white nationalist likely admires the cultural and racial homogeneity from which East Asian nations benefit, a white liberal believes his values are superior and that there is something morally repugnant about the rest of the world not adopting them. Hu be da supremacist now?

The socioeconomic positioning of these seemingly disparate groups stems from a world order in which China is really just an up-and-coming America. To the extent that China exerts actual agency, their prerogative is to bring an end to the Chinese regime as fast as possible.

—

One last thing: it’s important to distinguish between “anti-China or anti-Chinese” and “anti-Chinese-immigration”. If someone was really “pro-China” in the sense of ensuring a preservation of Chinese culture, they would logically be supportive of social configurations that would be conducive to that end (like Chinese remaining in China), and opposed to things that lead to its demise (multiculturalism and immigration). Chinese immigration to America is a nasty process that makes no one happy.

2. Pointless to “Learn” Chinese, or any other Asian language, if you don’t learn it as a child. As a rule (and aside from the Chinese being extreme Racist bigots of the worst sort) Asians never hear their language(s) spoken badly, or by a non-native, and have zero ability to cope with understanding their language spoken less than fluently.

I wanted to quickly refute this as this is bad advice, unnecessarily defeatist, and runs the risk of misleading people. While it is very difficult if not impossible to become “native” in a foreign language without having been raised within it, it is possible to become “fluent”. With daily online lessons and a good teacher, someone can be “fluent” in Mandarin within 2-3 years for less than five grand.

Your answer also presupposes a level of linguistic homogeneity within the Chinese population that doesn’t exist. Not only are there a plethora of Chinese dialects, but each region (North v. South) has a different means by which they pronounce the official Putonghua Mandarin. This is not including the fact that certain regions that fall within the imagined space of “China” (Taiwan and Hong Kong) have demonstrably substandard levels of Mandarin. Japan, on the other hand, is a completely different story…

Same guy, just figured out how to comment with a consistent name just now.

Thank you for this good comment.

Comments like these illustrate that many people here seem to not understand how elite institutions work.

There will always be overqualified gentiles or Asians that will want to get into an Ivy League university no matter how debased the actual education becomes. It was never about the education, but the credentialing and the networks.

Group 1: Ivy League and other institutions admit in piecemeal amounts token gentiles or Asians that are legitimately bright and hardworking, if not terribly independently minded. Doing so actually allows for the actual work to be done and allows the institution to maintain the veneer of meritocratic respectability. This is the future upper middle class and whom the public imagines to be running the country.

Group 2: The rest of the population is comprised of merely average or above-average individuals who come from the right social milieu and check the right boxes. This cohort already knows each other in advance and there is no social mobility involved in them entering said institution. On the contrary, they usually take it for granted. This is the future upper class and the public will never be aware that they exist.

In the end, there will always be high-salaried jobs for Group 1 to serve Group 2. You’ll always be paid much more managing wealth for a series of ultra high net worth individuals than working as a doctor for middle America. Of course, the way in which you get said job is proving social compatibility through an elite credential. So, no, demand for elite credentials will never go away.

I hope you’re right.

4) You completely leave out white people living in the west. These white people can be liberal or conservative. But they are mainly characterized by the fear that China is getting ahead and the west is declining.

This fall within number #2 and #3 within my post. Other than that, people without a desire to make money off China or wish to see China change don’t really care about the place, frankly.

He’s not wrong. The average middle class white citizen has no knowledge of and no desire to know more of the entity known as ‘China’. The idea that the west is filled with back to back sinophobes is just a fantasy, and not a constructive one. They may harbor illusions like it would be better if China were ‘democratic’, but ultimately it is not a pertinent concern to them.

Reddit, twitter and online comment sections are not substitutes for reality. Do not make the same mistake as the haters and fall to projection.

being Black and Japanese challenges long-held beliefs about Japan as monoethnic.

Only in today’s world could an article come to this conclusion while simultaneously acknowledging that Naomi doesn’t feel quite Japanese. Seriously?

This nonsense persists because there are no real Japanese people in the West and most Westerners will never know the cultural baseline for someone “Japanese” . Whereas there are plenty of native Chinese and Koreans that migrate to America out of material acquisitiveness, Japanese are not as motivated to do so and given developed Japan have no reason to do so.

To observe this phenomenon, simply try eating Japanese food in the United States (you can’t). Most supposedly Japanese restaurants are owned by Chinese or Koreans who are intentionally catering to an audience that views all yellow people the same. The reality is that the type of person that could actually make authentic Japanese food couldn’t be bothered to uproot himself to live in what is increasingly a third world-pit.

being Black and Japanese challenges long-held beliefs about Japan as monoethnic.

Only in today’s world could an article come to this conclusion while simultaneously acknowledging that Naomi doesn’t feel quite Japanese. Seriously?

This nonsense persists because there are no real Japanese people in the West and most Westerners will never know the cultural baseline for someone “Japanese” . This is much more the case for Japanese than for Chinese or Koreans. Whenever a hot button issue regarding China comes up (ex. Hong Kong), there is at least an appreciable however marginalized, group of mainland-educated English-speaking Chinese willing to provide a second opinion and anchor the discourse. They ultimately have no voice in public opinion, but you can at least talk to them in private. But there is no such Japanese equivalent. It is simply impossible to find something that resembles an authentic Japanese here because those types wouldn’t come to America right now, much less from a place like Japan.

To observe this phenomenon, try eating Japanese food in the United States (you can’t). Most supposedly Japanese restaurants are owned by Chinese or Koreans intentionally catering to an audience that views all yellow people the same. The reality is that the type of person that could actually make authentic Japanese food couldn’t be bothered to uproot himself to live in what is increasingly a third world-pit. But people here know no better.

You are confusing a general negative perception of China with being a sinophobe. A little bit of nuance is needed here. The former is simply a vague feeling of threat whereas the latter is to be against everything China stands for from the very core of your being.

The average american (and I stress average) is indeed feeling threatened – by the job losses, by the military tensions and mainly by the idea that America is losing her undisputed grip over the world but very few of them are actually against what China IS. Mostly because a) they don’t know and b) even if they do know they simply don’t have the time or energy to care. They may spout this and that about ‘democracy’ or ‘freedom’ or ‘authoritarianism’ but it’s very clear they don’t really have a clue of what they’re talking about and are just parroting MSM talking points to sound informed. What they’re actually attacking isn’t China, but a collection of the worst traits of the USA projected onto a mental construct that they have labelled ‘China’ in their mind. So yes, as an outsider seeing others smear your nation with the ills and evils of their own country is unfair and quite franky, frustrating. But it helps to realize they’re simply making the best of a bad situation. It also helps to realize in the end they’re all powerless anyway.

The average Republican, you will find, are actually conditional china haters. If you listen to their complaints and filter out the anti-Obama/Clinton diatribes (which are quite valid btw), you will find that their gripe is almost exclusively due to the fact that their dominance is being challenged. This is very evident where if you push back even a tiny bit they will very quickly turn to material like ‘nuke chyna’, their infantile reverence of their battle carrier groups or try and bring up Japan/WW2, Korea/Vietnam war about how they/Japan shot and killed your countrymen by the thousands. Because to them, they don’t give a flying fig about ‘the rejuvenation of the downtrodden people of China’, because that’s fag talk. Dominance is everything and to them, geopolitics is analogous to two alpha males sizing each other up right before a drunken barfight.
This isn’t sinophobia and will be the same if you swap out China for Guatemala, Chile or Japan. The result will be the same. Of course the whole “Communism” thing seems like a convenient bugbear, but it’s simply schelling point for their base to rally around. Otherwise you will see the exact same hate for countries like Vietnam, or Laos or Cuba, but you just … don’t.

Liberals, however DO HATE what China is/has become/always was. Because in their mind the chinese shared their dream of a homosexual/multicultural paradise due to that ‘communist’ label. That facade that has protected China for decades is quickly slipping and the libs are waking up to china’s ‘betrayal’. They’re discovering for the first time that China always was and will be a reactionary place. For the liberal true believers, this is fundamentally what the Uighurs/HK and the whole nauseating talk about ‘shared values’ is about.
This is why I agreed with Cho’s assessment. The liberals are the real enemy, because they fundamentally want to change what China IS.

Third party independents aka libertarians fall under the money making guys Cho was talking about earlier. All the low hanging fruit has been picked so now they’re sad. Fuck ’em.

Of course, over a long enough period negative perceptions can harden into a sort of a phobia for a percentage of the population, i.e. the Russians or the Arabs, but we have not reached that point yet. 10-5 years from now, that may change. But if you feel that any criticism of China warrants that person being labelled a sinophobe, regardless of whether that stance is taken due to material insecurity or genuine sino-hatred, you are fundamentally doing more harm than good. People need to vent, and talking smack on the internet hurts noone, In fact it helps China in the long run by channeling negative energy away from doing productive things, lessening the competition. Taking away this avenue of expression will in fact hurt you as they will likely channel that energy into actual concrete action.

*Gentile whites

This is such a terrible comment that I think it’s actually a pro-China bot.

What does being a WASP have to do with this?

Perhaps someone with industry experience can elaborate on this, but I read somewhere that the real reason why old media really started to rot without anyone noticing is that their legacy monetization model become technologically obsolete. No grand conspiracy or anything. They just need to make money to continue to exist and servicing the rich (as opposed to charging for papers) is how they do so.

I’m too young to really know what mainstream publications were like before the internet but the impression I get is that the New York Times and Washington Post were (more) legitimate sources of information 30 years ago. Many Boomers seems oblivious to all this.

By my way of thinking, the West’s venal elites seem to be a reflection of the more competitive nature of Europeans both individually and in their nation states…The elite in the West (Wall Street and the corporate/ political nexus (as VP, Biden went there with his son, who got a billion of Chinese money to invest) were benefiting from globalised interdependent hypercapitalism, and those without a college degree were not. So I don’t think the economic disengagement (Huawei, TickTock) and rising military tension between the US and China is a top down thing.

It is mainly a top down thing, precisely for the reason you describe here.

Competitive, individualist elites care about relative, not absolute, status. China’s continuing rise is not threatening the absolute figures in their bank accounts, but it is beginning to threaten their relative status as top dogs on the global stage. Status wise, being a Wall St., Silicon Valley, US government or foreign policy establishment elite has meant being on the top in relative status in the world by virtue of the US being on top in the world.

US elites were and are fine with China being a low cost manufacturing destination for them that increased their absolute wealth and maintained their relative status. But Chinese competition is now threatening their relative status. China’s attempt to move up the value chain and strengthen its state political, diplomatic, military power threatens US elites’ relative status. Wealthy individual Chinese buying desirable property and engaging in luxury consumption in the US threatens their relative status. Wealthy and or ambitious Chinese students compete with US elite children for limited coveted spots at elite US universities and careers. The extreme lengths that US upper middle/upper class elite parents go to in order to get their children spots at elite universities as revealed in the recent college admissions scandals reveal their intense desire and willingness to cling to their relative status and the pressures on it from Chinese competition. Silicon Valley has enjoyed a monopoly on the global tech sector with negligible competition from Europe and Japan. China’s recent and increasing success and competition in this sector through companies like Huawei and TikTok have distressed many Silicon Valley elites.

The working and lower class is inherently wary and hostile to China simply by virtue of it being an alien race and civilization. China’s success or competition does not have much of an effect on these reflexively hostile and jingoistic attitudes. China could be poor, autarkic, with no trade with the US, like North Korea, and the working/lower class would still be hostile to it all the same. Because of adherence to PC and more cosmopolitan norms, contemporary US elites cannot express or frame their attitudes to China in basic racial or civilizational terms.

Another aspect to US elite behavior, besides differences in individualism vs. collectivism, is that the US population is much more heterogeneous, which results in less solidarity and greater spiteful behavior.

This is very well-written.

A couple of things:

This is nice thinking, but when you have visible minorities this becomes difficult, especially when these visible minorities as a group have difference behaviour traits that can be noticed by the average person, thus creating this Other.

This applies to black-white performance inequalities. I don’t see how this would apply to Asian-white discrepancies.

In the utopian world, everyone would see themselves as part of one human race and there would be a meritocracy which would ensure the optimum functioning of society, a society that works for all its members.

This is overly hyperbolic. The Asian-White distinction remains unnecessary. For example, I’ve seen Chinese get along better with Russians, than Japanese; that same Russian would be less welcome at a dinner of Frenchmen, than a Japanese. Would you disagree?

but I would argue that as the Asian population grows the fault lines will become more obvious,

The fault lines are growing, but not because there’s more Asians. It’s because the Asians that are coming are actively discouraged from assimilating to American society. As a 4th generation Asian-American, I’ve noticed this. I don’t disagree that America has a predominantly European and specifically English heritage. But if you acknowledge this, you must also acknowledge that the decision to allow Asians in the first place and the terms upon which they would enter society were decided by those who were already here… whites (although, again, they didn’t identify as “White” at that time the same way whites do now). Asians cannot be blamed.

The exact same thing happened to Cuban-Americans, many of whom formerly identified as whites because they were basically Spanish people living in Cuba, but who now identify as Hispanic due to identity politics.

I am not sure if you’re a white nationalist, or if you’ve read anything by Jared Taylor. But he notes in one of his books this trend of “reverse-assimilation” among Asians. So, he acknowledges that Asians at one time DID assimilate, but were later punished for doing so.

I live in the United States, although I’ve also lived throughout East Asia. I agree that things aren’t looking good for race relations.

That said, my ancestors came here during a time in which the ancestors of people that currently fall within the white category actually lived in ethnic enclaves. Just watch the Godfather, or Road to Perdition. Hell, the reason why Billy the Kid got killed was because there were tensions between English and Irish cowboys. People don’t realize this because Hollywood has retconned American history. The actors, usually Jewish, that play historical American figures would not have been considered American by the people they are actually playing.

Although they previously lived in ethnic enclaves, the Irish, Jews, and Italians became “White” and the Japanese or Chinese became “Asian”. Unfortunately, the Pre-1965 Japanese/Chinese, of which I am a part, failed to firmly assert themselves as part of the White category. But that doesn’t mean it isn’t hypothetically possible, given what the Jews, Irish, and Italians did. It just depends on whether the existing set of people that fall within the white category let them. Short-term, it may not seem within their interest; long-term it is.

Thanks.

I’ve always felt that East Asians in America were never treated as an in-group (like the Irish bacame) nor as an outgroup (like blacks) but somewhere in between. East Asians are acknowledged to be obviously different to Whites but they are no considered a bad minority unlike say the Hispanics or blacks, the former of which are probably more racially similar to Whites

My guess is that you’re imagining first or second-generation Asians? If you’ve met third, fourth, or fifth (rare, but in existence on the West Coast; you’re interlocutor is one of them), you’re speaking to people whose ancestors came pre-1965. Your views on Asians might change.

I’m not denying that there’s a greater discrepancy in appearance between East Asians and Anglos than Jews and Anglos; I just don’t think people care that much at the end of the day outside of dating. And there wasn’t that much of a split on dating prior to the emergence of Asian identity politics. Blacks are probably unassimilable, but that isn’t because of how they look, but how they act. Do you think otherwise?

There is, after all, a different world abroad against whom the constituent races of American can unite. This is why I’m in favor of a draft, a hold on immigration, and an end to multiculturalism.

Black political power is buttressed by liberal whites including most Jews. A mob of gullible, brainwashed pawns that are unaware of what each other thinks is necessary to create the social dynamic in which people are afraid to criticize blacks.

You’ll notice this if you have a one-on-one conversation with a black in a situation in which your interlocutor cannot compromise your employability. This needs to happen on the internet or outside the United States. Usually, they will revert to “most people think this”, or “we all know that…” when referring to the equality of races.

Without a social contract to obey the word of blacks, they become nothing.

As mentioned in another comment, American blacks need others. This becomes incredibly obvious outside the West.

A certain set of circumstances are necessary for the social dynamic in which you have to manifest political correctness. Besides the black, you need a group of whites that don’t know each other, or at least aren’t collectively aware who is and who is not red-pilled. If so, you’ve entered a low-trust environment in which any non-PC statement runs the risk of compromising your employability. You now have to at least feign a belief in a universe in which systemic racism oppresses blacks, and that they have the moral high ground. Blacks know this and pounce on it. But it is important to know that this environment ONLY EXISTS BECAUSE WHITES LET IT. In this situation, the social contract dictates that you MUST OBEY BLACKS.

How to insulate yourself from these situations is the million dollar question; the best way I’ve found is to study a foreign language (most blacks don’t speak foreign languages well) and thus gain yourself the ability to communicate in a non-censored language. Everything and everyone that speaks English is compromised at this point.

Everyone keeps on talking about the election. I just can’t be bothered to care.

I do care about politics in the sense that I care, as anyone else does, about the distribution of power in the United States and the extent to which American ideas can spread to the rest of the world. These issues, like Israel, are not voted upon.

That’s a bit different than “politics”, a local American ritual in which normies select a random point within the pre-packaged spectrum of political correctness and pick a candidate based on where they live and what’s considered socially acceptable in that locale They then rationalize their decision based on the perception of the candidate’s personality and/or some generality like “I oppose racism”.

Democracy is overrated.

Mr. Unz, it is a nice site; I am very grateful and thank you for it.

It appears other Asian commenters– or those purporting to be Asian– seem to be interpreting anti-Chinese sentiment and a string of concomitant incidents as a top-down, society-wide persecution of Asians. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Now, it is true that fingers have been pointed at China, and it is true that there are incidents in which Americans of Asian descent are confused with Chinese nationals. This leads to situations in which innocent people are harmed. It is also true that the media overlooks all of this. For example, a Japanese pianist was assaulted by teens in Harlem about two weeks ago. Initially, only the New York Post– a tabloid, according to Wikipedia– covered it. Now, it’s a New York Times Story.

The reason why there’s a media blackout of these incidents is because the perpetrators are blacks or Hispanics, not because the victims are Asian. Commenters here don’t seem to realize how the media works: the media does not wish to cover these incidents at all, but if it does, it omits the racial profiler of the attacker in a last ditch attempt to align the incident with the ‘Whites are the only racists’ narrative by hoping people infer that the attacker was Gentile. Ironically enough, the purveyors of this narrative are themselves elite whites and so by interpreting the event as indicative of ‘White Nationalism”, Asians are only proving to be pawns of the very “Whites’ that are controlling them, and that they are perhaps too afraid to call out: Jews.

I don’t like responding to my own comments, but re: my language comment I’ve been looking into Esperanto:

Video Link
Might there be any speakers on this site?

Asian to Asian…I seriously hope you are not suggesting that these hate crimes would be OK if the victim was indeed…Chinese?

I already said that innocent people were being attacked, so, no, I never endorsed the attacks.

I don’t think the poor Hmong\Thai kid cared about the racial profile of the perpetrator, what shade of brown he is, or how it was covered on TV

I also don’t think the Hmong/Thai kid viewed himself as Chinese. Actually, as someone that grew up around these types of people, I’m pretty damn sure that they don’t view themselves as Chinese.

The real question that begs to be asked is whether these hate crimes would have still occurred if COVID was reported to have originated in Barcelona or Brazil?

No, but they’re not happening JUST because it was reported to have started in China. They’re also happening because the existing set of people that physically resemble Chinese are encouraged to maintain a cultural distance from the rest of the demographics of the country, thus making it harder to distinguish between them and actual foreign nationals from China. There was also anti-Chinese prejudice in Japan after the outbreak, but it was never directed against the Chinese raised in Japan that are physically indistinguishable from local Japanese.

Now, it is true that there is increased laxity amongst the policy following the BLM protests, and this manifests itself in non-prosecution of legitimate hate crimes against Asians. But this isn’t because of any recent surge in white nationalism, but more so blacks and Hispanics picking on Asians and getting away with it due to political correctness.

I don’t live in the US anymore so I don’t know how prevalent these anti- Chinese\Asians sentiments are now

So why should we care about what you have to say? I’m Asian, I live in America, it isn’t that bad. I’ve been verbally harassed due to my race recently, but it was due to the person being on drugs, and at the same there were a number of people (every race, including whites) that thought that person was in the wrong and sympathized with my situation. The people that started the GoFundme for the Japanese pianist that was jumped were also white.

The last person that reported on White on Asian violence cited a case in which the perpetrator was Hispanic. The whole thing is a hoax.

Wow, you have me intrigued. Two questions:

1) How did you learn Esperanto in the first place? And when? You said you’ve never met anyone that speaks it, so I guess you’ve never had the chance to use it.

2) You say your wife is Hungary– have you ever thought of moving there? I remember hearing somewhere that if someone wanted to go somewhere “White”, Hungary could be the place. Of course, the most recent Hungarian I met was a decidedly left-leaning, hopelessly conventional academic in Japan.

The Chinese exclusion act was as explicit as it will ever get to how they actually feel about Asians in THEIR country.

… but Chinese immigration also resumed at a later date. You’re picking a specific point in history to indicate how a country has viewed an ethnicity over its entire history. It’s a shoddy methodology.

Perhaps you should spend some time in your ancestral homeland and feel what it is like to be accepted completely for once. You need some perspective in order to reflect on your current circumstances.

I’m of mixed-race, but I’ve lived in both of my constituent ancestral countries. And while there can be a baseline, visceral level of “acceptance” based on appearance, it’s actually a really hollow feeling. For example, I can pass as a Mongolian at times, but am not, and would ultimately never want to live in Mongolia. Now, there is a sense of camaraderie that might exist between me and “local” residents of the countries from which my ancestors originated, but its because I’ve put in the time to learn the language and immerse myself in the culture. It’s not merely a function of us “looking the same”, and it’s something I’ve also found to exist within certain pockets of the United States, at least insofar as identity politics has not yet reared it’s head.

I don’t live in America but my daily life is affected by America’s global hegemony. I also have a lot of investments and companies in America so that makes me a stakeholder. I own a small piece of it. In a capitalistic plutocracy like America, that probably makes me as – or even more- American than you

I guess this is where we differ. You’re confusing the watered down, politically correct, propositional definition of an “American” promulgated by treasonous elites trying to drive down the price of labor, with what a citizen has historically been understood to be. You’re about as American as some British multinational corporation operating in Africa is African, which is to say, not at all. Someone like that might have a stake in the American economy, but they have no stake in the American nation. Of course, right now that sort of parasitism is encouraged because American elites are themselves parasitic, so I blame the game, not the player. And many post 1965 Asians were too late to get to America when it actually had a culture. Hell, I’ve had to engage in this behavior in the past, out of self-preservation. But I know it is without honor, and people eventually catch on it. If you actually view this sort of behavior as normal, you pose an existential threat to those with an actual stake here, and its fully legitimate for them to oppose you.

I encounter foreign nationals from Asia all the time; they claim to be for their constituent country, but in reality, they’re here to avoid having to compete with their countrymen, and ultimately engage in a parasitic existence in which they have no loyalty to the country from which they came, nor to the culture of their destination. It’s a pitiful existence.

No offense, Ron, but you’re being taken for a ride via trolling and you don’t even realize it. There are a couple of things that lead me to believe “Chinaman” is actually a Jew larping as a Chinese, or is at best a non-American overseas Chinese.

First is his repeated usage of the word “Asian”, for example, when using it to reference the purported view towards ‘Asians” that led to the Chinese Exclusion Act. Not only is this factually inaccurate– a concomitant increase in Japanese immigration was observed around the same time; I thought all yellow people were the same?– but it also references that era using terminology not in widespread usage during that time, or even now outside the United States.

Chinese people do not define themselves by racial categories such as “Asian”; they view themselves as Chinese. Same for Koreans, Japanese, and anyone that actually resides within East Asia. People in that region simply do not self-identify using that term, so its usage betrays a complete ignorance regarding how ethnic or national identity is defined. If anything, usage of the term reveals a decidedly American/American-influenced point of view, because it is the only region within which that term might plausibly overlap with “Chinese”. Note that in other parts of the West, particularly Britain, “Asian” refers to those from the Indian subcontinent.

Second, to the extent that anyone “Asian” in America is ethnically Chinese, they are viewed as distinct from the home grown population. There are separate words, 华侨 or 华人, used to denote those abroad, and they even encapsulate those that were born in China but moved to America at later date. The mere existence of these terms precludes the idea that those in China and those outside are functionally equivalent, and we haven’t even gotten to the fact that the legal status of ethnic Chinese without PRC citizenship is not the same. I’m open to any evidence to the contrary.

So any imagined solidarity between people in the PRC and Asian-Americans is just as delusional as white nationalism.

I make an effort to argue my case using facts and logic, and when the discussion gets heated and they have nothing better to say, they start calling me a Jew.

Lol, gotta love how you responded to what I said while replying to someone else’s comment as if I wouldn’t have noticed. Perhaps not hiding your responses in the comment to a different poster might elicit more replies?

You also proceed to do exactly what you’re accusing me of doing, which is not responding to the substance of what I was saying. Specifically, that Chinese don’t view themselves as “Asians” and that overseas Chinese don’t have the same status as those born and raised in China with a local hukou. They also don’t give a rats ass about things like “wokeness”. I’m still waiting for a response.

If you actually read my comment, I specifically say that you’re a Jew OR a overseas Chinese masquerading as an actual Chinese. I guess the latter part of that statement is true given your silence.

“shared his antagonism towards non-white people”

which is why black crimes of violence against whites exceed those of whites against blacks by a huge margin?

“though a proportion were either too embarrassed or too politic to admit their support for his toxic views to pollsters”

Actually, they were terrified of being physically attacked and injured by BLM types who persecute the ordinary, hard-working white people who do the heavy lifting that makes a technological nation work.

“I have often wondered what explains Trump as a political phenomenon, the most extraordinary of our era. I tried to think of any other politician in the world similar to Trump in the hope that an analogy might be illuminating.”

Here, you’re on firm ground. Trump is unique, one of a kind. He truly is an outsider. While he owes no one–and this is commendable–it also means that he has no chits to call in. The establishment was out to destroy him from the beginning. This is what establishments do, part of the very definition of establishment.

Finally, most Americans reject extremist reaction to Covid out of a sense of realism. If you or I get it and die, then so be it. Life goes on. A good many Americans have decided not to cower in their homes like helpless victims in a bunker. This is a sign of courage and maturity, not denial.But I don’t suppose you would understand that, having no first hand experience of what the word “courage’ means. Courage is a verb, not a noun. It’s something one does. I don’t expect many liberals to understand that, since they are largely critics and not people who accomplish much in the way of remaking the physical world in which they live.

The real divide in America is not along racial lines. It is between those of us who are competent and accomplished at making something useful out of raw material and the rest of you who depend upon us. We are knowledgeable, you are uninformed. Because you are uninformed, you pass very strange judgements upon the world. You lay blame where there is no tangible evidence of causation. Your thinking is largely magical, believing as you do in mysterious, non-empirical Forces that roil society.

This is why there is no communication between the groups at war today. You speak one language and we speak another. Our is grounded in technology, science and math and yours is fundamentally religious, a Marxist de-Godded Christianity which nevertheless offers a message of messianic hope to its followers. Your vision is “aspirational”, ours is realistic. You see the world as you wish it to be, we see it as it is. You reject the world in front of you, we accept it. You gloss over real differences, we notice them. We carefully measure, you emote. The least you could do is to stay out of our way and not be a nuisance while we build the world you take for granted.

I speak Mandarin, but what I would say is that there is no need to move to Asia to learn Chinese. It’s fully possible to learn the language via online language learning.

Now, there will certainly be certain cultural cues that you would never get outside of China. But that would be true whether you were in Singapore, Taiwan, or even Hong Kong. You really have to be there to get the whole thing.

Bro, no one from mainland china EVER thinks that Hong Kongers are the same as them. And given the Hong Kong protests, neither do Hong Kongers.

Sit down.

Lol, gotta love how there was no reply to this. GG

China isn’t anti-elite Jew.

China often employs rehashed left wing rhetoric. Because of the slave trade, therefore America has no moral high ground; because of the Holocaust, Europe has no moral high ground. The obvious premise is that these things were bad, or that the received narrative regarding these events is correct.

This is lazy of China and actually sets them back as they are accepted Western-defined parameters of the debate. Jewish-defined, to be more specific. China is no better than the average Joe in thinking that the cause of the world’s problems is ‘Murica’, as opposed to the global, admittedly Western superstructure that uses America as front.

They’ve boxed themselves into a moral framework in which they are now susceptible to charges of anti-Semitism by pointing out that the Jewish Sassoon family was selling Opium.

Dissapointing.

Fascinating story. I plan to have kids in the future and this gives me food for thought.

Correct me if I am mistaken, but it seems as though you think nothing more could have been done to change his development trajectory? Given the circumstances within which he was raised, he was always going to become the person he became? It seems as though people that grow up in such challenging circumstances may find a way to succeed in spite of said circumstances, they bear a scar for which no amount of mental therapy, alcohol, or even societal success could ever compensate

You’re likely much older than I, but I’m curious about your thoughts on this topic. People say boys are done “maturing” by the age of 30. Do you think it is possible for your son to change?

White Homeless Woman With an Education in Math:

Video Link

I understand where you’re coming from. It is sad that this is happening to Norway.

I’m of East Asian descent, but my family has been in America for a quite a long time (hundred+ years) and we originally assimilated to the pre-1960’s WASP culture. Sadly, we’re the exception to the rule and I find myself in unusual situation where I actually have to “un-assimilate”, given that 1) WASP culture is dead, and 2) it’s actually frowned upon by mainstream society to have assimilated to pre-1965 American culture. The term “whitewashed” has been used as a form of disparagement among ethnic minorities throughout my entire life. Even though I am not “white”, I am sympathetic to the argument that mass immigration is in fact irreversibly changing the social fabric of this country, if only because those of us that actually did the “right thing” are now at a strategic disadvantage for having done so.

Do you think homeschooling could have prevented this? Leaving America is simply a band-aid. The cultural influence of America has no geographic limits; even parts of China are affected in some way. Perhaps this is just modernity. Japan also has an increasing divorce rate.

Some people here appear to be interested in WASPS, so I figured it would be worth it to get down a definition from an actual WASP:

There does seem to be some confusion over who or what is a proper American WASP. WASP’s would include non-low class Englishmen and Welshmen and Lowlands Scots, and the English gentry of Ireland. Your religion should be Episcopalian, but it could also be acceptable, depending on the US region, to be Presbyterian or Quaker or Congregationalist. The lower classes adhering to their Baptist faith would not be included, nor would Scots-Irish, Highland Scots, or Irish, nor anyone out of the gutters of Cockney or Liverpool. On the other hand, the oldline Dutch Calvinists of New York would, and it was perfectly acceptable to intermarry with French Huguenots, which they did. Germans and Scandanavians are not WASP’s. Any outmarriage beyond the Hudson Valley Dutch and the French had better be to the likes of a Prinzessin or a Contessa or you would be read out of polite society. The stereotypical WASP of yore was a sandy-haired Anglo-Norman Episcopalian who would have been a descendant of the English class of Country Gentlemen. They would work in a respectable profession and be discreet about money and retain ownership of an old family estateor home of some sort. There are a few of us around still like this who can trace our roots back to the real old country – Normandy. If you are this sort of person, you also know how to weed out and see through the new money crowd and upstarts, including English upstarts raised to the Gentry or Knighthood after the Reformation. Ethnicity is really an extended family, and WASP ethnicity, as described above, is the extended family of the Norman conquerors of Normandy and England who spent centuries intermarrying amongst each other in Normandy, England, and then the Colonies, so as to form a vast cousinage. Being part of a family is something that cannot be bought for any price, which is why new money will never gain you admission to old society.”

Thank you for writing back.

May I ask why your daughters are miserable? How exactly do your daughters behave differently than those of your cousin?

I agree America is realigning. Truthfully, it’s just a regression to the norm. The America experiment was interesting, but I can sense its artificiality the older and older I get.

Regarding Asians

It’s true that Red Staters likely won’t accept Asians. They may be more honest about the fact that Asians should be in Asia, but they won’t view them as kin. In reality, there is nowhere for Asians within the Red-Blue dichothomy: Blue Staters view Asians as castrated coolies meant to lower the cost of labor; Red Staters likely want nothing to do with Asians, and to the extent they do, it will probably be an even worse version of the Blue State treatment. Asians put up with this because they remain under the impression that there exist no alternatives. And the longer Asians reside in America, the harder it will be to leave as they’ve made more ideological committmenets and have a greater share of their social networks within America.

May I recommend “Sixth Column” by Robert Heinlein? There is a character named “Frank Mitsui”, one of many Asian-Americans shot on sight by an invading force of Asians from Asia. This is because such Asians, many of whom are half-breeds, are viewed as incompatible within the White-Yellow dichotomy though which Asians view the world. Heinlein’s analysis is prescient: Asian-Americans, to the extent that they deviate from the Asian norm, have no place in any world order in which China triumphs.

Yes, yes, yes, everyone at this point knows that America is the complete opposite of what it purports itself as and that the rest of the world is enticing. That’s why we follow your writings, which are great, by the way. The more important question is: what happens when a critical mass of people find out? Where do people go?

It appears America is realigning on racial lines. Mr. Dinh, where does this make you want to domicile? As a fellow Asiatic, I am genuinely curious. Would you find yourself in Vietnam?

There is no future for East Asians in the American Red-Blue dichotomy. Blue staters feign ignorance regarding the unassimibility of Asians for the sake of virtue signalling, a more dynamic economy, and lower skilled labor wages; privately, they view them as castrated coolies. Red Staters might be more honest regarding the situation of Asians, but will not view them as kin and will rightfully believe that Asians belong in Asia. East Asians remain under the impression that there exist no other alternatives, with China being EVIL, and the rest of Asia being insufficiently liberal and “democratic”. And the longer they remain here, the more ideological commitments they will have made and the more of a psychological burden it will be to repatriate to one’s ancestral land of origin. #StopAsianHate and other rhetorical ploys will only buy so much time; the beneficiaries of any alteration to the racial spoils system in a nod to Asians will likely go to Asian females that pair with Jews, so the population will continue to experience imbalances.

Given that blacks were forcibly transplated here and Mexican coolies do experience higher wages and have the critical mass required to form lobbies, I find it safe to say that Asians are the only group for whom deliberate immigration to America is probably a mistake. To the extent that the inorganic mix of Indian subcontinentals, Chinese, and Samoans can be considered a “community”, within it exists zero solidarity. Viscerally realizing the ridiculousness of the situation, the females will be in a rush to outmarry. This leaves a surplus of dissatisfied males. Previous generations were such a marginal population that grievances could be squeleched. But once the post 1965 waves comes of age– by which I mean, is of the third generation, realizes the futility of their ancestors moving here, and really is backed into a corner, why wouldn’t they turn to China.

Mr. Dinh, you have assembled an audience that appears to be mostly non-Asian. For that I commend your ability to trasnscend racial lines to communicate information that truthfully everyone in the world should know. But have you ever thought about whether such people would be on your side in darker times?

It is unfortunate that many of the commenters here do not have the maturity to see that weaponized, mass migration is wrong, but at the same time poor, repressed people who are seeking decent employment and have very hard lives should be treated with empathy. It is possible to oppose mass immigration, while at the same time viewing the immigrants as the humans that they are.

Yes, yes, yes.

All media imagery depicts America as an idyllic land of immigrants. Hollywood is the main culprit here, with Netflix next on the list. Many immigrants I know are genuinely surprised to see that people segregate on a racial basis. Again, peering from the outside, there is no way to know of this. If most Americans continue to be brainwashed by the media despite being exposed on a daily basis to reality, imagine how hoodwinked people overseas are. The vast majority of humanity does not have experience with long-term effects of immigration and simply lack a conceptual framework to process what happens over the generations when you move somewhere new and far away and just stay there.

The key here is analyzing what happens to the descendants of immigrants. If immigrants knew that they were digging a grave for their descendants by coming here, the moral hazard ceases to exist. Why would they care if their presence creates a problem for someone else?

Most immigrants are ultimately here for economic reasons and likely have no sense of civic duty, but the reason why they so nonchalantly dismiss any suggestion that their progeny will have problems is that there isn’t any publicly available information on the topic. As an Asian that has been in America for 100+ years I’m well aware of how most immigrants, over the long-term, will ultimately fail to adapt to the United States in any meaningful way. The public will never get access to this information, primarily because most of the “voices”– that is, “Asian-Americans” with institutional sanction– tend to be 2nd generation Americans, post 1965. There is an intentional dearth of information transfer between past and current generations of immigrants from Asia because people would know better. By the time the Asians hit the third generation, they’ve likely made far too many ideological committments to America to have it still be psychologically palatable to return to Asia, assuming they aren’t racially mixed by that point. They will also know no other existence besides that of living on the margins of society.

An examination of Blacks and Hispanics will not deter immigration, because lack of success will always be excused by blaming “Institutional Racism”. Any lack of assimability is thus something that can be remedied by policy in the future and is therefore not an obstacle endemic to America. But according to the logic of America, Asians should have assimilated by now.

I oppose mass-immigration, if only because its bad for the immigrants themselves.

Thanks for engaging.

Living somewhere else, even for a long time, is not the same as integrating. I think the ultimate form of integration is intermarriage.

True. But this isn’t possible anymore. My kind is rather rare in the United States, but to the extent that you actually meet any Asians whose ancestral immigration predates 1900, you’ll probably find that most of their relatives are actually non-Asian. Specifically, they’re usually white.

You’re probably wondering: How is this possible? With so much current media animus against Asians, why would there be such a historically high miscegenation rate with whites? The answer is that the racial landscape has been changing in the last 50 years, and not favorably, for Asians. 80 years ago, “Asians” were Chinese and Japanese, and were most certainly not considered normal, legacy, white Americans. But neither were the Irish, Italians, and Jews (IIJ), many of whom lived in ethnic enclaves and whom arrived in America around the same time as the initial batch of Asians. It was easier to “blend” together at that time because the Ellis Island Americans weren’t really considered fully American either.

Then, a racial realignment occcured, with the Ellis Island Americans becoming “White”, and the legacy Asians becoming “foreigner”. Back to square one.

Linh,

Thank you for writing back.

I think you’re mixing up “assimilating” with “being accepted”. The former does not necessarily lead to the latter and often actually precludes it. People have started realizing this is which why they aren’t even attempting to do the latter anymore.

An Asiatic that finds themselves here is discouraged from viewing themselves as a continuation of the preceding generations of Americans; in fact, one that attempts to do will be viewed as an aberration. The very fact that we’re using the term “Asian” proves my point that we’re required to discuss this topic within an arbitrary set of predefined terms: you know better than I that telling Vietnamese that Cambodians and Thai are kin because they are also “Asian” will get you nowhere. “Asian” refers to Indian subcontinentals in Britain. It means nothing. So long as people feel the need to use this word, no progress will be made.

Linh, the future of “Asians” in America at best resembles “Crazy Rich Asians”. The individuals depicted in that are the equivalent of yellow Jews, exhibiting all of the negative characteristics of the Chinese with none of the positives (i.e. an actual sense of rootedness in China proper). They will of course be called “Asian” rather than “Chinese” as a way of hoodwinking you into dropping your guard around them. You will have nothing in common with them but will be expected to outwardly maintain that you think otherwise. This will all happen as subsequent generations of Vietnamese-Americans struggle to maintain the language, culture, and customs in the face of modernity and being dislocated from Vietnam.

Thanks for responding.

Just becomes someone is “white” by virtue of being “not-black” doesn’t mean they’re a WASP. It doesn’t really mean anything as your second paragraph suggests.

I specifically used the word “legacy” because the way the “white” word is thrown around contemporarily lumps WASPs and non-WASPs together in a way to obsfucate the fact that a large chunk of the latter has not been here that long, and have only recently become accepted as the cultural equivalent of WASPS. Historically illiterate people tend to view the past as a backwards extension of the present and jump to the conclusion that the Jews and Irish founded this country.

Linh,

Thanks. Actions speak louder than words, so it sounds like you agree with me?

So do you think most Asian-Americans should move to Asia?

White ethno-nationalism is politically bankrupt because there is no such thing as “White” people anywhere in the world. European Nations define their ethnos not in terms of their “Whiteness” but in terms of their ethno-linguistic and cultural-religious identities. In the USA, the only “White” people who can claim an ethnos are the Anglo-American descendants of the original English Colonists who later founded the USA by rebelling against the British Empire. They define their ethnos in terms of their White Anglo-Saxon Protestant (WASP) identity. “White” Americans of European immigrant origins who have amalgamated and assimilated into the normative Anglo-American culture do not have an ethnos to define their ethno-linguistic and cultural-religious identities. But that makes White Americans of European immigrant origins a deracinated people whose national identity is defined in terms of civic nationalism based on an ethos encapsulated in the Statue of Liberty. And indeed that’s what they were: European immigrants who passed through Ellis Island to become Americans. A century later, they are no longer Europeans with their own ethnos but have become Americans with the ethos of America welcoming immigrants from all over the world.

Elite university admissions are about 25% meritocratic, 75% not. Overall the system is not.

I’m a middle class bumpkin from flyover country that punched above his weight through standardized test scores and ended up at an “elite” institution. People like me were and are marginalized within the school and basically only exist to provide that sheen of meritocracy that allows the credential to retain value. The majority of people got there through “doing the right things at the right time”, either through test prep services, relationships between athletic teams, and having enough proximity to elite activity and leisure allowed from accumulated wealth that that enabled the construction of a “story” that the adcoms would savor over.

The upper middle class only exists to service the upper class. They do so by working for the wealthy and being the “fall man” for a gullible public that confuses the two because they can’t distinguish between income and wealth.

I’m not mono-ethnic, but I’m 100% East Asian. I’ll leave it at that.

I’ve lived in all of Greater China, Japan, and have visited Korea rather extensively. I spent summers in Asia as a child, and found it preferable to living in the United States, but could not put my finger on why it was so much better and in any event wasn’t in charge of my own life decisions at that point. When I returned, no one in America– even Asian-Americans– knew what I was talking about, or why I missed being there so much. I’m stuck in America now for personal (and COVID-19) reasons, but will be out soon.

I’m of the belief that Asians can should and will return to Asia. The question is whether they come to this realization before it is it too late. Your brother’s offspring remind of me of the Robert Heinlein novel, “Sixth Column”. The novel, written in 1941, depicts a Pan-Asian invasion of the mainland United States, with all Asian-Americasn being shot on sight because they don’t really fit within the “White-Asian” dichotomy. Of course, I doubt such violence will ever occur, but Heinlein was prescient in recognizing that Asians grown stateside don’t really fit back into Asia smoothly.

I am not sure about Vietnam, but for East Asian countries, if a hapa makes a true attempt to go “native”, they can probably fit in over the long-term. By “fit in over the long-term”, I mean that their progeny will be eventually fit in fully; I do not mean that suddenly deciding to domicile there will cause one to be mistaken for a local by locals, because that defies reality. Your brother and his kids can do this, but they probably don’t want to. This requires long-term planning of the highest order.

The biggest hurdle for Asians moving back to Asia is ideological, not cultural and linguistic. One can become fluent– not native– in a language in a couple of years through dedicated work. It’s hard, but not impossible. But that’s the easy part. You’re not just moving from one country to another: you’re moving from a multicultural society to an ethnostate. To do this, people will, at a minimum, need to accept the legitimacy of an ethnostate. But to do so, they will have to accept that most of the relationships they formed stateside were on the basis of a fraudulent worldview and will thus eventually dissapear. This is because its impossible to grow up in America and not be required to socialize with other races and ethnicities; in my case, I wasn’t actually able to meet anyone else of the same ethnic background. I don’t really keep in touch with anyone that I met prior to the age of 18 for this reason, and only a sprinkling of people that I met in my 20’s.

Thanks for responding, but I’m still deciphering your comment.

What is the “that” that you’ve heard for 40 years, and where are you from?

My family used to live in the midwest, by the way.

Please send me an email if you can: [email protected]

Thanks for responding.

This is an immutable characteristic in a meritocracy.

I should have been more specific. Standardized testing, of course, is meritocratic. What is not so meritocratic is a standardized test prep indsutry accompanied with the widespread belief among the lower classes that the test is meant to be winged. I have worked as an LSAT tutor, and there’s a specific part of the test, “Logic Games”, that I think resemble learning a foreign language in that it takes time, but not a super high IQ.

In any event, this is moot, as we both know standardized tests were only one piece of the puzzle and really supplement my overall point in that they’re the magic “25%” ingredient that provides the sheen of meritocracy other “75%” of extracurricular activities and other factors considered in a black box of “holistic admissions”.

I think people mistake mistake “meritocracy” for “social mobility”. Many elite jobs basically involve making rich people richer, and you’re going to be better at that job if you’re already rich and thus know how to socialize with the rich. A system that selects for this probably is “meritocratic” in its own way, but it can never be acknowledged as such because it would require acknowledging the existence of social classes. That’s another problem much larger than university admissions: it’s a critique of the American Dream itself.

I also think that the WASP elites were better precisely because our current form of meritocracy breeds an individualistic sense of entitlement. My original point was that a lot of resources are being propped up to make the current system seem a hell of a lot more conducive to social mobility than it is. I made no statement on whether meritocracy was a good or bad thing.

Can I ask what your (general) background is? You appear to be Chinese with English and Japanese capabilities. Is this correct?

Chinaman is not Chinese.

One of the great mysteries of modern American history is why the old White Anglo-Saxon Protestant (WASP) establishment abdicated its traditional rule in the late 1960’s. This was one of the key events that caused the 60’s to get out of hand. Nobody living in the politically-correct atmosphere of today can be unaware of this establishment’s faults, but as conservatives we can’t help being aware of its virtues, either.

Despite the nonsense said about it by the Left, it was the most enlightened ruling class in the world in its day. America in its final heyday, the 1950’s, had less economic inequality by standard measures than it has today and was a far more contented and morally confident society. This was an elite that sent its own sons, like George Bush Sr., to fight its wars, not somebody else’s. And many of its faults were being remedied at the time it died, anyway – it was still alive and kicking when the 1964-5 civil rights bills, which were opposed by the South, not the establishment as such, were passed.

For those of you whose sense of American social history is blurry, the WASP establishment was the world of the Ivy League, Fifth Avenue, gentlemen’s clubs, the Social Register, elite country clubs, top New York law firms and investment banks, Boston Brahmins, Main Line Philadelphia, the upper management of great corporations like the Pennsylvania Railroad, certain parts of the military, the OSS and its successor the CIA, the Episcopal Church, New England boarding schools, and the old diplomatic corps. It ruled America from Plymouth Rock until the late 1960’s.

The WASP establishment is truly dead and gone a generation ago now[1], so please let no-one imagine that anyone, least of all me, is advocating its return. But the fact is that this country hasn’t had a coherent ruling elite since. Human societies are inevitably hierarchical; the question is whether those at the top take seriously the obligation to govern that their social position imposes on them or whether they merely feather their own nests. In older nations with feudal roots, this function has traditionally been taken by an aristocracy with a sense of noblesse oblige. The WASP establishment was a kind of quasi-aristocracy for democratic America.

Bill Clinton’s crowd were, as David Brooks has accurately diagnosed, essentially bobos (bourgeois bohemians) and their ridiculous anti-establishment counter-culture posturing made clear that they refused to admit that they were the establishment. Except, of course, when the time came to exercise power; hypocrisy came as naturally to them as it does to all liberals. They thus lacked the crucial sense of responsibility for the nation that is at the core of any decent ruling class.

Bush’s crowd, while led by a member of a genuinely patrician old-American family, have at best a pale shadow of this sense of inherited duty. Bush’s desire to identify as a Texan, rather than with his Andover, Yale and Harvard heritage, is a sign that he is running away from something that is no longer accorded the respect it once was. Defense Secretary Rumsfeld probably comes closest to the old ideal in terms of his sense of duty, though it is interesting to note that although educated at ultra-establishmentarian Princeton, he is actually German-American by heritage, a reminder that “WASP” in the American context included a lot of people who are not actually Anglo-Saxon. And Rumsfeld is so blunt compared to the famously understated old establishment.

So how did this establishment, which no-one thought was on the verge of collapse, collapse? Some thoughts:

1. An ethnarchy like WASP-dom in a free society depends on WASPs being richer, better educated, and more powerful than everybody else. This is not sustainable in a dynamic economy where Irishmen and Jews and all sorts of people end up being rich. The WASPs may have been willing to maintain a Jewish quota at Yale (a private institution in all conscience) but they were not willing to repress non-WASPs hard enough to keep them down forever. In fact, they created an economy more open to the advancement of ethnic outsiders than any the world had yet seen. In 1920, they can rely on these people being fresh off the boat and uneducated, but they will not stay that way after a few generations. So this ethnarchy depended upon a basic social inequality that they weren’t prepared to defend. Unlike, say, many Latin American countries, which are still run today by the descendants of the conquistadors because they really are willing to keep their countrymen poor and uneducated. Mexico, for example, is a nation of mostly Indian blood run by Iberian-descended white people who maintain a national myth of “we are all mestizos.”

2. The WASP establishment made a great wrong turn after immigration surged in the 1880’s by defining itself as Anglo-Saxon rather than native American. This had enormous consequences. If they are in essence Anglo-Saxon, it logically follows that they should rule England, not America. They defined themselves as foreigners in their own country for the sake of establishing an unsustainable title to social superiority. It caused them to shrivel into a narrow caste [2] rather than absorbing rising ethnics and defining a distinctively American upper class. (This did happen somewhat, by default, but it lacked this needed ideological underpinning and didn’t happen enough.)

If they had contested the definition of what a “real, indigenous, non-foreign, native American” is, they could have won it, which would have carried the logical consequence that if they were the real Americans and therefore had a title to govern. But they didn’t, either out of snobbery – which is perverse, given that defining oneself against the British is something that George Washington’s generation and the one after would have understood and respected perfectly well – or out of the fact that America lacks enough of a long history and volkish culture for self-definition as an ethnic American to be emotionally satisfying to anyone in a way that it is in other nations.

This ultimately leaves the definition of what is a real American in the ethnic sense unclaimed, producing the void in our self-conception as a people that is later filled with “propositional nation” sophistry. (You can say America is not an ethnically-defined nation, but then what is its boundary? Question: whose well-being should it maximize? Answer: it should conquer the world and give the world what’s good for it.)

3. The spiritual basis of WASP society, the Episcopal Church, was corrupted from within. Religious modernists started taking over the seminaries in the 1930’s, resulting today in the terror-apologizing near-atheist Episcopal Bishop John Spong today and anti-Christian, anti-American Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold. Even among Episcopal bishops who do not express disdain for traditional Christian beliefs, there is a cold, alienated, intellectualized approach to central matters of faith.

4. WASP culture, particularly of the upper-class variety, is dependent upon a sense of superiority over other ethnic groups that is a lot easier to maintain when Britain is ruling 1/4 of the world. This goes away because of the collapse of the British Empire after WW II. And their instinctive sense of the legitimacy of racial and ethnic superiority was shaken by the Nazis.

5. There is great laziness in the generation that grew up in the 1920’s, which is the cohort that abdicated in the 1960’s. F. Scott Fitzgerald wrote about this in his short stories like “Six of One.” A bourgeois class can only really sustain itself if it has a quasi-aristocratic ethos of imposing a duty on itself to rule, which is entirely different from just making money and playing golf. (The biggest myth of the Left is that bourgeois society possesses the will to power.) The 1920’s were similar to the 1990’s in that a stock-market boom caused a lot of people to forget about their values and think making money is enough.

6. There are internal weaknesses in WASP culture, like an emotional coldness that produces alienation between generations with predictable consequences. And there is liquor; this is a stereotype but like all stereotypes it has significant truth.

7. The United States had to become a technocracy after WWII. Technocracy destroys aristocratic and quasi-aristocratic social orders because it requires society to give power to people with the wrong social backgrounds because there aren’t enough trained people with the right ones. If a society has to hire and promote on brains rather than inherited status, inherited status ceases to be inherited. Technocracy becomes mandatory when economic progress and the democratic demand for efficient maximization of the economy produces the need for a huge administrative class. Clearly big government is the enemy of anything quasi-aristocratic. Technology just makes this worse. This is the story of how Pres. Connant of Harvard brought in the SAT. He was very conscious of the caste-destroying effects of what he was doing.

8. The decline of the WASP ascendancy resembles Plato’s hierarchy of regimes and their cycle of decay in book VIII of The Republic. Plato’s analysis is an abstract formulation of the intrinsic truth that all ruling elites constantly face the temptation to cannibalize existing social capital. Why not just enjoy your rule, rather than working to maintain it for the next generation? Why maintain social structure rather than letting it run down? Frankly, this is a profound argument against democracy, i.e. the absolute sovereignty of any one generation. It is an argument for the Burkean sense of traditionalism as our duty to those who came before us and gave us what we have and to those who will come after us whose nation we are borrowing for a time. But this only works if one has a coherent sense of nationhood and peoplehood and we do not. Having a hereditary core to the ruling class can clearly help maintain this sense. Unless, of course, this core decays for the aforementioned reasons.

One of the great virtues of the WASP ascendancy is that it provided, in a nation made ethnically fluid by immigration, a concrete core towards which other groups should assimilate. Those of you who don’t like this, sorry, but they were here first.[3] To have a nation with open boundaries, one needs a solid core, not the “anyone can be an American the instant they sign their passport” chaos we have today. The WASPs played this role despite, as I noted above, failing to define themselves as real Americans rather than Anglo-Saxons as they should have.

The WASP ascendancy also contained, because the WASPs staged the American Revolution and wrote the Constitution, an emotional attachment to this country’s early history and founding that has either dissipated or become abstract, i.e. “propositional nation” sophistry. A nation must revere its history if it is to sustain its identity, and obviously people whose own ancestors were involved in that history have a more concrete relation to it than those of us who came later.

One of America’s big problems as an historical nation has been its lack of interest in culture – Camille Paglia calls America “this masculine pioneer country that has never taken the arts seriously”[4] – and failure to see the need to impose a national culture of real quality as an emotional and intellectual focus of its sense of nationhood. We used to have some of this prior to the 1960’s, but it didn’t really stick and has since been drowned by commercial pop culture and delegitimated by multiculturalism, which denies that we even should have a common culture. One can still see remnants of it here and there, like the architecture of our better old universities. A nation’s sense of identity should be organized around its history and its peoplehood but you need culture to make this pretty so people will like it and feel it as well as think it. It is clearly against our grain to have an Academie Americain to distill our culture for us, but we have various vested interests, like the universities, doing this de facto anyway.

One conclusion one could draw from this is that an artificially-created nation is a rationalist mistake, but I think not, particularly given the ambiguous balance between conscious self-creation and unconscious emergence that exists in the history of many superficially “organic” nations. (Don’t tell me Germany is not a conscious creation! But then of course look what a mess they made; this is clearly a partial, if not a whole, truth.) There is also a degree to which America is not even artificial, i.e. not identical with its state and founded in 1776 but organically growing from 1620, but consciousness of this is undermined by changes in our ethnic makeup due to immigration. An explicitly founded nation merely has to be aware of the temptations to which it is uniquely suspect – like propositionism – and avoid them. Unfortunately, this requires a degree of self-restraint which is against the grain of current American culture.

Though I cannot help noticing that it is a WASP characteristic.

— Robert Locke

Ron,

Sorry, this is off-topic, but did you know the writer Robert Locke? Some of his articles are on site, but the vast majority were on FrontPage.com, and they’ve all since vanished. Furthermore, his Wikipedia page has since been deleted. An archived version is here:

https://web.archive.org/web/20201120180044/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Locke

That is from November 2019, so it appears the canceling happened rather recently.

He used to write for the American Conserative. Did you know him? Is he even alive still?

Ron,

Sorry, this is off-topic, but did you know the writer Robert Locke? Some of his articles are on site, but the vast majority were on FrontPage.com, and they’ve all since vanished. Furthermore, his Wikipedia page has since been deleted. An archived version is here:

https://web.archive.org/web/20201120180044/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Locke

That is from November 2019, so it appears the canceling happened rather recently.

He used to write for the American Conserative. Did you know him? Is he even alive still?

Although various people have speculated on that matter, why do you say that, and how confident do you think you are?

Because he uses the word “Asian”. PRC nationals do not think in those temrs.

People have such a distaste for networking because they’re intentionally misled into thinking that “meritocracy” means “social mobility”.

Merit is almost never directly defined, but it must always include the ability to work well with others on the team. In a low-trust world like this one, people prefer to work through who they already know. quite understandably. Therefore, it is best to already have relationships with the hiring managers in question.

Unfortunately, this means that people already born into a profession have an advantage, and social mobility is overstated. Which it is. America should just come clean with the fact that most people regress to the mean and are statistically unlikely to deviate from their station in life. This would destroy the need for “everyone to become a billionaire”, and people could live in peace

Curious as to whether you noticed any difference in behavior in the “ABJ’s” vs. the “ABC’s”. The former have been in this country much, much longer.

Also, where did you get the term “ABJ” from? This is a term that is never actually used by ABJ’s themselves, but ABC’s to refer to ABJ’s.

How old are you? This advice “sounds” good but can only be meaningfully applied within certain job markets, and was more relevant 30 years ago. It’s more suitable for a high-trust, communal America that doesn’t exist anymore.

In today’s fast-paced, you are nothing to an employer. They will have no reservation about letting you go mere weeks after you’ve been hired, at which point you’ll either have to explain what happened (impossible), or simply deny ever having worked there. One continually has to project a narrative in which every life decision was somehow made in order to secure their current job. Yes, this means retconning history, and explaining how all those years in high school playing sports were instead spent reading the Wall Street Journal or studying programming. But that’s who employers want: individuals whose life revolves around their work, have no independent opinions, and haven’t had the time to have plausibly developed independent opinions, hence ageism. Anyone that that doesn’t fit the mold is ultimately a flight risk.

The need to do so has amplified with the rise of social media. Today, everyone is expected to have a Linkedin page, with every single activity ever done recorded. This results in an unprecedented level of enforced social conformity in which people can’t even admit having been two weeks outside the workforce. This is why I don’t have a social media presence: it’s simply impossible to anticipate where someone’s career will be, and therefore what kind of “story” they will have to tell, given the chaos of the private sector. It’s prudent to simply not say anything, lest you prevent yourself from being able to ‘retcon” your story in the future.

Ok, fair enough.

To be honest, Asians of a more recent vintage prefer non-PC, race-realism. At least I do. Can just get straight to the point about things.

So whats’ your view on Jews?

In addition to being nudged to marry someone “for love”, they’re also discouraged from entering arrangements within which such sentiments can actually manifest themselves. American society feels that people should date someone the same age.

What is your background? How old were you when you moved to China? It was easier 10-20 years ago.

Hi, just curious: what is your background exactly? Did your parents flee China circa 1949? And do you use Twitter by any chance?

Hi, I’m just responding to this comment to continue the previous conversation.

My background is complicated but I do speak those languages. Do you use Twitter?

Fair enough. I’ve been lurking around Unz for a while and can tell who could plausibly be Chinese/Asian.

How do you feel about China now? Many Chinese that came to America during that time were of a rarefied crowd– only 105 people a year were allowed– but their descendants are at best indifferent towards anything that’s happening in the PRC.

Hi,

You leave interesting comments. What is your background? Are you Chinese/have lived in China? Just curious.

Hi, just continuing our conversation here.

I’m of Asiatic descent but live in the West. But speak the languages as you, perhaps not as well.

Do you live in America?

I just wanted to add some nuance to this comment as I am of an Asian family that has been in America for a very, very long time and that has observed the different immigration waves.

First, the way in which many Americans have assimilated, Asian or otherwise, is to out-marry. For Irish, Italian, Jews, this means the weakening of cultural ties towards one ancestors, but it does not necessarily result in the subsequent generation falling within a different racial– as opposed to ethnic– group.

For, Japanese, Chinese, or Koreans, it’s the opposite. If you “assimilate”, it means your kids act, look, and think “white”. It’s by phenotypically resembling, as much as possible, the existing population. Anything less results living in a racial enclave in which behavior is aggressively mandated (see Woke Azns). And worse is that like the blacks, such Asians slowly start to believe that it is normal to live in such an enclave and forget what Asia proper is like. It is a pitiful existence in which one will never experience the highest levels of engagement with society because they ultimately identify with nothing.

One might wonder: “why do Asians keep coming if they can’t assimilate?” Well, one, there isn’t a transfer of information between different generations of Asians: Koreans in Queens probably don’t realize that Japanese-Americans had already started returning to Japan in the 1930’s for better job prospects. America, by definition, attracts people that think learning such information instead of making more money is a waste of time. So it’s unlikely that most Asians will ever become aware of their own history, and to the extent that they do, they will likely respond with “this time is different”/”America is exceptional. Ironically, they will have internalized a very American trait: a linear view of history that posits that anything in the past is bad, less developed, and not indicative of what could happen today.

Second: some Asians, particularly females, might realize this, but are simply too narcissistic to care. They would rather take the 15% salary bump than preserve cultural coherence between generations.

Hi, I responded to another of your comments below. Do you have email, Twitter, Wechat, etc.?

People here keep referencing Japan. Regarding Japanese “elites”:

I am one step removed from a branch of the Imperial Family. I regret to inform you that the youngest generation– the princesses– attend or have graduated from “International Christian University”, a liberal arts college founded in part by Douglas MacArthur. It is in many ways an American school in Japan, with graduates speaking great English but with little real affinity towards traditional Japan.

Regrettably, they seem to have adopted the “international school” approach, one in which graduates superficially resemble locals, but are pure globalists at heart. It’s very unsatisfying interacting with said individuals as they tend to be materialistic and completely alien to and detached from local Japanese culture. They also don’t go through the local school system and instead enroll in prep schools that guaranteed admittance to a top private university, usually Keio. .

More troubling is that many “elite” Japanese that I’ve spoken to, locals that have advanced internally and have graduated from Tokyo University and so on, do not seem to have a conceptual framework by which they can process the existence of said “international Japanese”. The Japanese media does not help, only providing snapshots in time that never reveal the true nature of such individuals. They do not seem to have much experience dealing with globalists that seem like kin up until the very last moment.

In America, non-elite admission to an elite institution usually involves a paradigm shift in which one realizes that what they thought was the upper class is really just the upper middle class, and the true upper class, far from being an upward extension of the rest of society, is in reality an alien presence that knows no national boundaries. Japanese elites seem to have not gone through this process.

Hi, I’m responding here because I wanted to respond to a comment of yours, but its a couple of months old.

You said one of your brothers went to law school, but is miserable now. May I ask why? Did he not like the field he ended up in? Was the law school good?