|
|
|
Those smart Asians As readers of this blog will have noted, there are many on the mainstream right (including some of our own bloggers) that are strong proponents of Asian immigration. They argue that Asian immigration is a strength because it is composed of smart educated individuals who would make for very productive citizens. They would not burden the state but actually boost the numbers of smart productive citizens and would be a net boost to the economy. But reality which is always more complex than fanciful theories, often throws a spanner in the works. Steve Sailer looks at the peculiar tendency of smart Asians to vote Left. Not only do the smart Asians vote Left but education and facility with the English language makes them even more Leftwing. For instance, in the last Presidential election, Kerry trumped Bush 74-24 for the Asian vote but took the vote of American-born Asians by 80-18. This confirms my suspicion that “smart” and “dumb” immigration are really engines of the same aircraft. The aircraft is multiculturalism and the long term death of the nation that practices this folly. It seems to me that even if immigration is restricted only to the “smart” (from sources that are overwhelmingly non-traditional, ie. non-white), it has the simple effect of actually increasing the number of voters that consistently vote for the Left. And once the Left becomes politically unassailable, “dumb” immigration follows. It seems to me on this basis that there are limits to how far the very concept of nation state can be stretched by fanciful theories. The most astonishing statistic provided by Sailer is that South Asians voted by a margin of 90-8for the Democrats even though they are the wealthiest ethnic group among Asian Americans. Food for thought for the proponents of “smart immigration”. UPDATE: John Derbyshire chimes in at National Review, ASIAN PACIFIC AMERICAN HERITAGE MONTH [John Derbyshire] Er, actually, no. The Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund has released the results of a huge exit poll conducted after the presidential election. The 11,000 Asian American** voters polled went 74-24 for Kerry over Bush. Looks like Asian Americans are shaping up the way the Jews did: You know, earn like Episcopalians, vote like Puerto Ricans. So let’s see: Black Americans vote Democrat by around 8 to 1; Asians by 3 to 1; Hispanics by 3 to 2, and Muslims by, well, best not to ask. Anyone got any ideas for a Republican immigration policy? Comments:2
Posted by JW Holliday on Mon, 23 May 2005 06:04 | # A South Asian (not Razib nor GC) commentator at GNXP wrote:- “I tend to agree with Oscar. I’m a Sikh on the east coast of the U.S., and I’ve been on the receiving end of a great deal of interesting profanity in the past three years. Most of it is of the “What’s up, BIN LADEN?” variety, though some gets more directly malicious. Also, a close family member was assaulted on the street in New York City in 2002. Overall, I think the surge of anti-brown-immigrant feeling we saw here died down pretty quickly. As much as I am a hardcore Democrat, I have to credit the Bush administration for neutralizing the potential for a real upsurge in racist politics that many of us expected to see.” So ... we see a lighter SA type (Sikhs being lighter than Dravidics) having problems. He is a “hardcore Democrat” yet praises far-left Chimpoleon for his anti-racist policies. Note the identification with “brown immigrants” - perhaps some sort of nascent “brown race consciousness” - with Sepia Mutiny being just one on-line manifestation? 3
Posted by Phil Peterson on Mon, 23 May 2005 06:25 | # Here’s one more interesting explanation:
The only problem with that theory is that it was Kerry who was vocal on outsourcing not Bush! 4
Posted by jonjayray on Mon, 23 May 2005 07:05 | # Australia is about 10% East-Asian but is heavily conservative. I think a lot depends on time and place 5
Posted by Phil Peterson on Mon, 23 May 2005 07:27 | # Australia is about 10% East-Asian but is heavily conservative. I think a lot depends on time and place. Whats the voting pattern for Asians in Australia, John? Also, the reason Australia remains somewhat “conservative” is because racial minorities are a much smaller percentage of the population in Australia (only 10 percent) than in the US (30 percent). Australia does not have large numbers of Hispanics and Blacks with enormous racial lobbies voting for one party. But remember that Australia already takes in more immigrants proportionately than does America (Australia is tiny relative to the US). In about 20 years or thereabouts when the immigrants are 25 percent of the population or more, they will make for a powerful voting block. And once combined with perpetual white Liberals they will become an unassailable political force. Perhaps Australia’s “conservatives” are digging their own graves? Food for thought. 6
Posted by Stuka on Mon, 23 May 2005 09:19 | # My own experience leads me to believe that South Asians vote Democratic because they perceive the GOP to be the White Man’s Party, and whites are their direct competition in medicine, business, finance, etc. They vote Democratic in order to stick it to Whitey. Sailer’s article should be required reading for all right-wing liberals (masquerading as “conservatives”) with an Asian immigration fetish, especially the Bush administration and its fan club, the FReepers. 7
Posted by Martin Hutchinson on Mon, 23 May 2005 10:15 | # I’m very glad of the Asians in my son’s school; they’re pretty well the only kids who do any work and take it seriously (it’s a public school in a middle/upper middle class district.) American youth culture and popular culture are incredibly anti-intellectual and dumbed down, so if you’re putting a kid through the school system, you’d better hope he has Asian classmates. Having said that, I see no reason to welcome high Asian immigration much more than other immigration (although probably a little more.) It tends to reduce domestic living standards more than competition from Asian businesses in their own countries, and diversity is in itself conducive to higher crime rates. I would however regard emerging Asia as Conservatives’ principal ally in the long term fight against the forces of darkness, socialism and ignorance. Certainly, Latin America, Africa and most of Europe line up on the other side in this struggle. Recent immigrants tend to vote left; I think the third and fourth generation Nisei are majority GOP, if only because of their economic success. Equally, the God Squad and its influence on the Bush adminsitration must be profoundly alienating to most non-Moonie Asians. 8
Posted by Phil Peterson on Mon, 23 May 2005 10:20 | # Recent immigrants tend to vote left; I think the third and fourth generation Nisei are majority GOP, if only because of their economic success. Actually the opposite is true. The Asian vote started mildly in favour of the Republicans but has moved relentlessly leftward since:
I agree that western “youth culture” is in the Sewer. But as the Asians have children that grow up in the same culture, they will imbibe its elements as well. I think that the way to deal with the corrosive youth culture is not by importing foreigners but by dealing with the culture itself and those who produce it (the big media). 9
Posted by Phil Peterson on Mon, 23 May 2005 10:25 | # Equally, the God Squad and its influence on the Bush adminsitration must be profoundly alienating to most non-Moonie Asians. While I don’t particularly like Evangelicals, it seems ridiculous to me that Conservatives ought to be asking their political parties to eschew all appeals to Christianity because immigrants find it offensive or it turns them off. What this shows again is that people are not fungible. Asians may or may not possess a good work ethic and family values but they are basically aliens and there will always be elements of the old country that they will always be at odds with. The question is: how much farther to the left do the Republicans in the US go to try and win more Asian votes (without actually obliterating whatever miniscule differences there are between them and the Dems)? 10
Posted by Phil Peterson on Mon, 23 May 2005 10:59 | # I would however regard emerging Asia as Conservatives’ principal ally in the long term fight against the forces of darkness, socialism and ignorance. I dunno if thats accurate. The only Asian nation that tends to be coherently conservative is Japan. Japan has political and economic freedom and relatively low taxes (and paradoxically to completely contradict John Ray’s theory that homogenous nations love Socialism, Japan is more capitalist than many nations in the west that are much more diverse). But what other examples are there? China is a corrupt brutal tyranny that promotes capitalism but then kills thousands of political dissidents every year. South Korea has already started producing bizarre lefty type governments that dislike America and find some strange brotherhood with Communist North Korea. Singapore is a dictatorship that has a measure of economic freedom but its a dictatorship. Malaysia is a crypto-dictatorship. Taiwan is democratic and pro-Free Markets for the moment but that might change with time. So in sum, the forces of darkness seem to be equally strong in Asia as they are here in Europe. 11
Posted by Martin Hutchinson on Mon, 23 May 2005 12:29 | # Singapore is NOT a dictatorship, it is a democracy where the electorate has the sense to vote the right way every time, usually by about a 60-40 majority. As a result, it has among the best living standards in the world, having been only just above subsistence at independence. Singapore gets a bad press in the West because it like a clean tidy city and thus harasses journos, who are a scruffy lot. It also beats corrupt Western youth with a rattan. It is an EXCELLENT Conservative society. W has lost Asian votes compared to Reagan/his Daddy because W doesn’t represent the free market, small government, unassertive foreign policy pro-intellect society that Asians like. Instead he is prey to the most odious Christian superstitions, never saw a public spending program he didn’t like, invades places without good reason (and may thereby make a draft inevitable) and passed an education bill that throws resources at the dummies while actually hampering school districts that try to cater to bright kids. Asian kids are an enormous benefit to public schools because the smart ones are more likely to be in those schools than at Groton/Andover/St. Albans. 12
Posted by Phil Peterson on Mon, 23 May 2005 13:05 | # W has lost Asian votes compared to Reagan/his Daddy because W doesn’t represent the free market, small government Martin, I doubt if this is true. I was waiting for someone to argue that Bush lost Asian votes because Asians think he’s too Left-wing. He lost Asian votes because he is seen as too right-wing. I can’t see how voting overwhelmingly for the Democrats, not only for Kerry but also for Senators and Congressmen establishes a belief in small government. If anything, some of the most virulent proponents of Affirmative Action (which hurts Asians the most) are in the Democratic party. To be fair to Bush, he tried winning some Asian votes by keeping the likes of Norman Mineta and appointing Elaine Chao. But in the game of competitive ethnic politics, the Republicans will lose every time because the Democrats will always outbid them in the game. John Derbyshire has provided some of the better analysis on this question. Note that Debyshire’s wife is mainland Chinese so he has a much better hold on Asian immigrant attitudes than most commentators on the right. 14
Posted by Kubilai on Mon, 23 May 2005 13:18 | # I’m very glad of the Asians in my son’s school; they’re pretty well the only kids who do any work and take it seriously (it’s a public school in a middle/upper middle class district.) American youth culture and popular culture are incredibly anti-intellectual and dumbed down, so if you’re putting a kid through the school system, you’d better hope he has Asian classmates. - Martin My children are in a school that is ~40% White, ~40% East Asian, and ~20% South Asian. They absolutely hate the mix because their reasoning is the Asians have an overt air of condescension directed at the White kids. The Chinese are more discreet in their contempt, while the South Asians are more arrogantly vocal. Big surprise. This isn’t “sour grapes” because both my kids do quite well in school and keep pace with the top performers. They aren’t at the top, however I do not think they need to be and thus do not pressure them to be academic automatons. I prefer them to have a more normal social upbringing as well. That is not so for the Asian parents. I too, do not mind the competition because it forces my children to work that much harder without realizing it. However, Whites did just fine without that external pressure to succeed from Asians in years past. What has been the downfall of Whites and academics? Oh yeah, the glorification of the Negro and his abject failures in language and formal schooling. We do NOT need to have Asians force us to study harder because as I said, we did just fine all these decades and centuries without it. What we need is to distance our exposure to the lowest feculent culture which has been brought into our homes and passed as “caviar” by the MSM. My own experience leads me to believe that South Asians vote Democratic because they perceive the GOP to be the White Man’s Party, - Stuka I believe I mentioned this before on here, however during last years federal elections, one of local papers always goes out to the public and asks people what they think of certain topics and in one issue it asked what they thought of the candidates. A Bengali man clearly stated “the conservative party was too White”. How much more clearer can one be? I couldn’t believe they had the nerve to print such a racist remark, yet they did. 15
Posted by Martin Hutchinson on Mon, 23 May 2005 13:19 | # Derb’s article relates to immigrants from China, a Communist country. Other East Asians are different, as are Indians. Immigrants will tend Democrat, but the appeal of Reagan Republicanism (if we ever see such a thing again) is considerable in the long run. Certainly Asians are a better bet than other immigrants, including Brits, who tend to be soft-left. 16
Posted by Phil Peterson on Mon, 23 May 2005 13:27 | # Derb’s article relates to immigrants from China, a Communist country. Note that some of the pro-Republican tilt of the earlier Asian vote had to do with escaping Communism. They tended to vote Republican because they had escaped Communist countries or the threat of Communism and heard the most consistent anti-communist rhetoric from the Reaganites. That generation has now grown old and the new generation that takes its place is obsessed with identity politics. East Asians are different, as are Indians. Indians are different. They are the most overwhelmingly Pro-Democrat group among Asians! They voted 90-9 in favour of Kerry! 17
Posted by Phil Peterson on Mon, 23 May 2005 13:42 | # This should provide a useful guide to the victimhood-obsessed mind of (well educated) South Asian immigrants. 18
Posted by Phil Peterson on Mon, 23 May 2005 13:49 | # Instead he is prey to the most odious Christian superstitions, never saw a public spending program he didn’t like, invades places without good reason (and may thereby make a draft inevitable) - Martin Hutchinson That’s an ingenious argument Martin. I thought you were pro-war on Iraq? 19
Posted by Martin Hutchinson on Mon, 23 May 2005 14:15 | # I’m pro having done Iraq right in the first place, in 1991, when it would have been infinitely easier. I think PC’hood and the nitwit Bremer messed them up this time—they didn’t have a tame Iraqi in place to insert. However, it may turn out OK in the end, and if we get a deep recession, and don’t invade anywhere else, recruiting weill rise and a draft won’t be necessary. I’m VERY anti invading places to impose democracy, which doesn’t work and is Wilsonian nonsense. Given that, and there being no WMD, even though I favored the Iraq war on balance at the time, I’m now not sure why we did it. 20
Posted by Phil Peterson on Mon, 23 May 2005 14:27 | # I’m VERY anti invading places to impose democracy, which doesn’t work and is Wilsonian nonsense. Thats good to hear Martin. I think that only leaves John among the bloggers here who think Democracy will fall from the sky to the benefit of the Iraqis. 21
Posted by Phil Peterson on Mon, 23 May 2005 14:39 | # Given that, and there being no WMD, even though I favored the Iraq war on balance at the time, I’m now not sure why we did it. Here’s an insightful comment on that subject. 22
Posted by Matra on Mon, 23 May 2005 15:12 | # The situation in Canada may be of interest to some of you as most ethnic minorities here are Asian (the top 7 source countries for immigrants are all Asian) and when we talk about minorities in Canada we generally mean Chinese, Indian, Sri Lankan, etc. In the last federal election (June 2004) the ruling left of centre Liberal Party once again managed to hold on to power (though with a minority government) mostly because the Conservative Party failed to make significant inroads in the metropolitan areas of Ontario, which have most of Canada’s immigrants. This despite a huge corruption scandal that caused the Liberals to lose a lot of its traditional support. Here are some observations about our election and immigrants (mostly Asians): * Areas with more than a 20% immigrant population almost all went to the Liberals * Every single Conservative Party seat in the Greater Toronto area was an area where fewer than 5% were ethnic minorities. I suspect it is also the case for the country as a whole. * Even in metropolitan areas with a significant Asian vote, where support for the Liberal Party did decline, the main beneficiary was usually the socialistic NDP rather than the Conservative Party. With the exception of a couple of old trade union towns that was not the case in non-immigrant parts of English Canada where the Conservatives benefited from the Liberal decline. * Unlike white Canadians there were no noticeable voting preferences based on class within the Asian communities. This despite the far greater importance these immigrants normally attach to class and status in other areas of life. * As far as I know every single prominent political observer in Canada believes the Liberals last minute attacks on the Western/Albertan (ie white, “Anglo-Saxon”, evangelical, “redneck”,) character of the Conservative Party were DECISIVE in securing victory in metropolitan areas, especially Greater Toronto * In provincial elections, which usually revolve around economic issues, the provincial level Conservative Party, does somewhat better in Asian immigrant areas, though not well enough to win the last election in 2003. It’s generally believed the Conservatives do better in provincial elections with Asians because Western Canada and all it conjures up (ie traditional white Christian Canada) is absent from the campaign. * In French-speaking Quebec immigrants (more diverse and not quite as Asian dominated than the rest of Canada) voted for the party - almost always the Liberals - that was most likely to defeat the nationalistic Bloc Quebecois, which is supported almost exclusively by the ethnically French community. Conclusion: Whether they are in English or French Canada immigrants from Asia and elsewhere, no matter what their economic status, nationality or religion is, overwhelmingly vote against the party they perceive to be most representative of the traditional majority culture of the part of Canada in which they live. 23
Posted by Phil Peterson on Mon, 23 May 2005 15:30 | # Matra, Thanks for the information. I was going to mention the perpetual Liberal slide of Canada as the best example to back my argument. But I didn’t have all the details with me. It really is a living example of what happens with mass immigration from non-traditional sources (whether that immigration is “dumb” or “smart”). 24
Posted by JW Holliday on Mon, 23 May 2005 16:04 | # The following may be of interest as well: http://harvardsaa.org/subgroups.php?group=6 ... what we see is:= a) a “brown” racial consciousness 25
Posted by JW Holliday on Mon, 23 May 2005 16:10 | # I see a fundamental schism here between two sets of bloggers/commentators. It seems to be the traditional divide between constitutional patriotism (in one form or another) vs. Salterian nationalism (regardless of the labels people may give). As a representative of the latter group, whether or not a society is “conservative” (or whatever) is secondary to whether or not the society is white (i.e, European-derived). I realize this divide exists, and harbor no illusions of “converting” anyone. Actually, the divide may be, in some ways, a strength of this blog, in that there is diversity (our favorite word) of opinion, and the inevitable controversies help to illuminate issues and hone arguments. That being said, I could care less if Singapore is a “conservative” society or not. It is not western, it is not white. I admire much about them, and wish them well, but we have to do what we must do in our own lands, and in my opinion that means zero Asians. This does not mean, as some clever aliens imply, that I love low-IQ criminal whites and identify with such, or think that such low-level whites make “better citizens” (defined in a proximate manner, I presume) than intelligent, law-abiding Asians. I recognize problems inherent in the white underclass and I am a strong proponent of eugenics (or, at least, anti-dysgenics). I favor a re-ordering of society away from today’s dumbed-down MTV/American Idol/Oprah trash and towards something better. The point is: I want to do it with our people. The choice is not between high-IQ Asians and low-IQ whites. The choice is between an orderly white society with great potential and all other scenarios. That is where I draw the distinction. I want neither dumbass white slobs, criminals, junkies, and welfare addicts NOR do I want biologically, culturally, and historically alien Asians for whom I have no greater affinity than I would have for “Alpha-7 from Mars.” 26
Posted by stari_momak on Mon, 23 May 2005 16:15 | # I’ve always had a hard time thinking of East Asians as another race. Long noses, sunken eyes, etc. They are the classic NEC. And many of the British raised females are positively lovely. Does that make me a traitor? 27
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 23 May 2005 16:25 | # Nope. Makes you human. The point remains that the English cannot hold on to their homeland for another half-century of mass immigration. It is a stark choice ... loyalty to what you are and what you love or to what you are not and don’t. There is no middle way, no comfortable, humanist, OK-with-your-conscience position by which our love of self and land can co-exist with our new-learned “openness” and membership of the global community. Sorry, you have to choose. So choose wisely. 28
Posted by Kubilai on Mon, 23 May 2005 16:38 | # Matra, excellent synopsis of the recent Canadian federal election fiasco. JW, thanks for that link and I too am firmly in the Salter group. The supposed choice that the CPers give, ie high IQ Asians vs low IQ Whites, is nothing more than a strawman. Even if it wasn’t, we have the ABSOLUTE right to maintain our homelands the way WE want them and NOT how they think they should be. 29
Posted by Mark Richardson on Mon, 23 May 2005 17:13 | # Phil, you’re spot on in your comments about Australian voting patterns. If you look at a map of Melbourne the seats won by the left-liberal Labor Party correspond to an astonishing degree with the areas of heaviest immigration. What has kept the right-liberal Liberal Party in power is John Howard’s successful efforts to win over the white working-class vote, particularly in areas of Sydney. There are now as many workers who vote Liberal as Labor. But this can only be a short to medium term strategy. The more immigrants the Liberals bring in, the harder it will be for them to win seats. “Stealing” white working class votes from Labor will no longer be enough to offset the immigrant vote. 31
Posted by Phil Peterson on Mon, 23 May 2005 17:48 | # Mark, Thanks. Just as I thought. Are there any opinion polls from recent elections which provide a breakdown by ethnicity? I can see a clear pattern here: US: Asians vote heavily for the Democrats and the gap has widened to the point where the GOP can kiss the Asian vote goodbye. Canada: The Liberal Party’s base appears to be concentrated heavily among immigrants and perpetual white Liberals. So that leaves Australia. My gut feeling is that the trend in Australia would be the same. The plain fact of the matter is that in a contest between two parties for the “minority vote” (regardless of whether the minority is rich or poor), the perceived “less nationalistic” and more “inclusive” party wins and the party that is perceived as identifying more closely with the majority loses. So with those facts, I hope our “high IQ immigration” proponents seriously consider their propositions. For people like us its a no-brainer because we see Nations as large families and recognise that they have boundaries. Once those boundaries are made too loose or porous, the Nations cease to exist. But for “right Liberals”, the greater or more important issue is the survival of “right liberal” politics. So even if they care nothing for the racial makeup of any Nation, they should care about the impact of immigration (including “smart” immigration”) on the politics. In an ideal world, it might have been possible to shield the politics from those effects if the media, academia, schools and virtually all other organs of opinion formation had not been captured by leftists (if “right Liberal” politics is all someone cares about). But in a situation where there is already a massive treasonous body in our midst (composed of our own natives), bringing in large numbers of foreigners who are likely to gang up with them politically seems like political suicide to me (even if one doesn’t care about race). 32
Posted by Svigor on Mon, 23 May 2005 18:13 | # JW: I usually just return to the family analogy (it isn’t really an analogy at all): just because my cousin is a loser doesn’t mean he’s no longer my cousing. The white underclass isn’t just any underclass, it’s OUR underclass. 33
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 23 May 2005 19:01 | # “Conclusion: Whether they are in English or French Canada immigrants from Asia and elsewhere, no matter what their economic status, nationality or religion is, overwhelmingly vote against the party they perceive to be most representative of the traditional majority culture of the part of Canada in which they live.” (—Matra) This is also how Jews vote—and not just vote, but seek generally to steer things, using what influence they have (which can be considerable, such as Jewish influence in Hollywood): against the traditional majority culture. There are exceptions among Jewish voters of course, but this uncrackable eighty percent vote for the Dem Party every election, no matter what the issues, no matter who the candidate, come hell or high water, would certainly seem compatible with this interpretation. It’s like what England has always done, according to a recent MR.com thread: sided with the opponents of whatever Continental power they thought was rising at any particular moment in history. It’s an effort to prevent a potential rival—or a potential enemy—from becoming stronger than you. Maybe this is some sort of predictable minority voting pattern? It certainly seems logical. 34
Posted by John S Bolton on Mon, 23 May 2005 19:37 | # I would like to end mass immigration and substiute an allmerit policy with very strict language requirements. Allmerit means no children or other relatives getting visas just for that reason. The number should be less than those who emigrate per year, around 200,000; and there can be security requirements essentially blocking all of the moslem countries and China, on top of that, if necessary for national security. The merit standard is verbal IQ, so we should get mostly Europeans. At all events the needs of progress in science and technology should be taken care of, and this may require some tens of thousands, but not hundreds of thousands per year in those fields. We can’t trust companies or colleges to nominate the best rather than the most exploitable above some threshold level of ability. This sho8uld tend to be positive for EGI’s, as Salter himself insists, a group with a 30 point higher IQ average(his example is whites in Zimbabwe) will raise the carrying capacity of a country. They also will not breed rapidly, as fertility is depressed by each additional year of education. Each additional point of IQ correlates to more time spent in school. 35
Posted by Matra on Mon, 23 May 2005 19:44 | # Matra - “Unlike white Canadians there were no noticeable voting preferences based on class within the Asian communities” That should read: Unlike with white Canadians there were no noticeable voting differences based on class within the Asian communities. In other words virtually all Asians voted for the Liberal Party whether they were working class or, as most seem to be, middle or upper class. Block voting by even small ethnic groups can, of course, be quite effective. The only significant difference between Asians in the two countries is that Asian-Americans may come into close contact, and thus conflict, with a native (blacks) minority in the US whereas in Canada there are few blacks outside of particular (run-down) neighbourhoods and virtually no N American Indians anywhere near the metropolitan areas where Asians settle. However, this does not appear to cause any differences in Asian voting patterns. Whether they are in Canada or the US it is opposition they appear to vote for the parties that seem most to most representative of native white Christians. 36
Posted by Matra on Mon, 23 May 2005 20:31 | # I can understand some conservatives saying they don’t mind Asian immigrants, as they tend to be smarter and more law abiding than immigrants from some other continents. Several of the doctors and vets in my 95% white Anglo-Saxon/Celtic Ontario town are Indians, and one of the best restaurants is run by a Chinese family who seem to work longer hours than anyone else in town. Good luck to them. But if I drive 30-40 minutes along the highway I’m in a Toronto suburb that also started off with a tiny non-white minority but is now at least 50% - I’d say closer to 75% - non-white, mostly Sikhs and Jamaicans. Whites are leaving that comfortable middle class suburb in droves for some reason, though the few I’ve spoken to are coy about why they left. I have heard stories of racial bullying of white students and even teachers in one of its schools. I don’t mind small numbers of Asians moving here, integrating into the community, and providing services that the locals under present circumstances, can’t fill. But, where does it all end? Canadians of Indian descent have higher living standards than white natives yet (like in the US and UK) they still have racial quotas and all kinds of other privileges enshrined in law. To even mention removing these privileges or restricting immigration is so toxic that even our Alberta-based “right wing” Conservative Party will purge anyone from its ranks who even brings up these subjects in public. I’ve never heard a representative from any ethnic minority community calling for an end to racial quotas or even a temporary halt to immigration. That does not fill me with confidence regarding their commitment to a non-racial agenda. And what is the track record of these “new Canadians” regarding minority rights back in their own Asian homelands? I’ve spent many hours listening to both Sikhs and Hindus talk about each other, never mind Muslims, and frankly, I’d rather not take the chance of ever being a minority under the rule of any of them. The stakes are too high. Indeed, what is to stop these high IQ immigrants from some day utilising their intelligence and the other skills they possess against our majority culture? It seems to me they are already doing so. If I’m forced to choose between high IQ Asians and, say, Africans, I’d agree with some conservatives that the former would be preferable. But that’s a false choice. Why should we be forced to choose between any of them? The West is our inheritance, not theirs. We are under no moral obligation to take in any immigrants. 37
Posted by ummjack on Mon, 23 May 2005 21:59 | # Asian Americans vote Left for the same reason anyone does; they’ve been brainwashed. And just like everyone else in my generation, they read “Atlas Shrugged” and it’s all over. The only thing that is preventing a massive rightward turn is lack of outreach, especially to young people. But even if that never happens, as more and more Asians homeschool, fewer and fewer people will be brainwashed, and then it’s all over. Nobody’s going to be falling for any socialist nonsense in America as the best and the brightest are brought up entirely outside of the corrupt system of public education. The next generation of Asian Americans are going to make John Birch look like Jane Fonda. 38
Posted by Andrew L on Tue, 24 May 2005 00:40 | # If you would like to experience the Immigration policy, visit a hospital , where the victoms are ,raped or stabbed or shot or just bashed to near death, if they are lucky, and for the less violent ones, sit out side a Center_link office, (Social security)and wonder if you are actually in Australia, and wonder if we have become the global socialist dumping ground, we pay for it.Hard to Imagine where the unemployment figures come from, unless they only measure white folk, More than possible. Asian , Arab, African, etc, etc, etc, where are those Europeans we are told about, stop hiding and show your face. Is there any one of them out there.Need less to say, A friend is a grade two primery teacher, and there is only one white Australian, in the class, the rest are Middle East and Pacific Islanders, God help us. 39
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 24 May 2005 01:12 | # Andrew, I’ve read there are country towns in Oz where Tonga Islander immigrants have been beating the hell out of the local Abos who come into town Saturday nights to have a beer. The Abo young men, it seems, are physically smaller than the Tongans, with more gracile body builds, are less aggressive, and don’t move around town in groups for self-defense the way the Tongans apparently do, and so keep getting the tar beaten out of them, winding up in hospital in critical condition. The Abos in these areas have called on the Australian government to do something about the violence of the Tonga Islander immigrants, it seems. 40
Posted by Andrew L on Tue, 24 May 2005 02:35 | # Not only Tongans Fred, Sudanese Black moslems refugee’s to, but because it is a racial riot, and white folk are not present, then it goes un reported. A large portion of Aboriginals are like us, had enough, but a minority and those that get large sums of money to maintain the missery, well, maintain the missery, Not just Tonga, PNG is a bascet case, all Pacific Islands are a bascet case, these and the rest of the shit comming in, we are doomed, and when the government goes broke , and it will. Australia is not the place it use to be, although a few years behind most western countries, we are catching up fasts. 41
Posted by Andrew L on Tue, 24 May 2005 02:51 | # I ought to have said to Fred, there is a trend now to bash elderly people, 60 years and up, usualy to death for their hand bag or wallet. Just yesterday a 63 lady was stabbed in the back when she resisted a robber , to protect her grand son in a pram and her hand bag, now she is in hospital with a severd spinal chord. THIS IS NORMAL NOW. 42
Posted by Effra on Tue, 24 May 2005 04:38 | # Not only blacks, Jews and Latinos remain overwhelmingly pro-Democrat (or pro-RINO, as in Arnie’s win in CA) but even those model minorities the Asians lean heavily towards big-government statism when they vote—according to Steve Sailer’s latest psephological study on http://www.VDARE.com. Republican efforts to woo affluent Jews, family-minded Hispanics and self-reliant Asiatics to the red side of the single warfare/welfare party have failed, while the racial pandering required has annoyed the GOP’s bedrock white-male constituency. ‘Reagan Democrats’, the disillusioned blue-collar guys whose detachment from the Dems kept the Gipper in power, are ignored while the Republicans frantically try to prove how multiculti they can be. Emperor Chimpoleon continues to mouth platitudes in Spanish, keep those immigration floodgates wide open and grease up to every non-white ‘community leader’ who will give him the time of day. The mayoralty of LA has just been won by an out-and-out La Raza caudillo type. Is Bush II still working for America, or has he transferred his allegiance completely to the New World Order? 43
Posted by seelow heights on Tue, 24 May 2005 23:34 | # Many posts prior to this someone stated that Asians do not benefit from “Affirmative Action”. Actually this is true only with respect to education. Asians are eligible for AA when it comes to federal contracts and SBA loans and count as “brownie points” in employee diversity headcounts. I provided links verifying all this at GNXP before I was chastized by the estimable Razib and I decided that site was a place where truth was no defense where the interests of South Asians were concerned. 44
Posted by Phil Peterson on Wed, 25 May 2005 04:34 | # Seelow, Thanks for pointing that out. Do you still have the links with you? 45
Posted by seelow heights on Wed, 25 May 2005 12:11 | # I guess I have been rendered a “non-person” at gnxp (all my posts seem to have been expunged), but I was able to locate some similar material I posted at amren. http://www.gerstco.com/glossary/index.asp 46
Posted by seelow heights on Wed, 25 May 2005 12:17 | # Here is something else I just found while surfing. “The stake in the Michigan cases is actually beyond education,” she says. “Asian-Americans feel that there is a glass ceiling that is holding them back.” 47
Posted by john rackell on Wed, 25 May 2005 13:44 | # An interesting article by James Fulford at VDARE on how the competition with our virtuously superiorly industriously and thrify immigrants is being subsidized by the POM’s (Plain Ol’Majority). http://www.vdare.com/fulford/subsidies.htm “Why Not Just Give Them A Roomful Of Gold? Or: Immigration - Just Another Government Program” But what about the much-publicized virtuous immigrants - who get jobs, start businesses, own homes etc. etc.? Well, it turns out that the government is subsidizing them too. Recently, I found an email in my inbox saying that the reason so many small motels are owned by Indian immigrants named Patel (click here for a PDF report on the business drawbacks of this form of immigrant enterprise) was because the US government was financing them. I didn’t believe it. I cynically assumed it was some kind of legend, made up by people who don’t like immigrants. I should have been more careful where I pointed my cynicism. I should have kept it aimed at the US Government, where it belongs. Paul Craig Roberts recently reported here that Few Americans know it, but many immigrant businesses originate in preferential financing or loan set-asides from the Small Business Administration. In a 1995 Forbes story about Hospitality Franchise Systems, Joel Millman wrote: Nor were the immigrants shy about cashing in on U.S. affirmative action programs. Though in no sense disadvantaged, Patels qualified as a “minority” and tapped below-prime financing offered by the Small Business Administration. [Emphasis added] 48
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 25 May 2005 15:25 | # Given that affirmative action was originally instituted as a means of giving U.S. Negroes an advantage in order to make up for damage wrought by slavery, the federal government’s extending of affirmative-action benefits to newly-arriving immigrants is just outrageous beyond words. Here’s an example of how atrocious a president George Bush is, because he could probably eliminate this disgusgting injustice with the stroke of a pen—as he could the morally-corrosive and militarily-insane policy of placing female “soldiers” in or near ground combat and other intolerable policies D.C. forces down our throats. Bush will never remedy any of this stuff because he’s a leftist, as leftist as the Clintons and Kennedys. 49
Posted by seelow heights on Wed, 25 May 2005 16:01 | # The striking thing is that noone in government is speaking out about such outrages. Do you think maybe Tom Tancredo doesn’t even know about them? I think he does know but simply calling for an end to illegal immigration is risky enough in our current perverse moral climate without venturing even further into the territory of the “racist” and “mean spirited”. 50
Posted by john rackell on Wed, 25 May 2005 16:21 | # But the inherent unfairness of it is a good wedge issue to get people starting to think about immigration. A lot of immigration rhetoric seems to divide male vs female but it’s interesting to note that eg the Michigan Law School case before the Supreme Court was brought by women (I think my facts are straight there). The bottom line is that when it’s one’s own ox being gored people start taking a more critical interest. Can you picture billboards in Arizona with the message that McCain’s illegal amnesty will put 20 million beneficiaries and their descendants ahead of you for every government job, student loan or subsidized mortgage. Not even McCain’s war record would shield him. The billboard was a great tactic used by one of the patriot groups, very effective. Post a comment:
Next entry: Missing 8-year-old girl found alive in trash bin
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA Nations
|
Posted by JW Holliday on Mon, 23 May 2005 05:46 | #
The following from Sailer’s website is of interest, a reader’s comment (#2) followed by Sailer’s:
“2. Relate to this, even Hindu Indians felt targeted by the 9/11 backlash. With most Americans hazy on the difference between Hinduism and Islam, someone who looked vaguely Middle Eastern was viewed with suspicion by many folks. I think this developed a racial consciousness that most upper-middle class Indian-Americans had never had before. Again, racially conscious minorities vote for Democrats. What was that statistic, in 2000 the only minorities that voted for Bush were Eskimos, Arabs and Cubans. At least Bush still has the extreme Northwest and Southeast corners of his coalition nailed down.
I suspect Hindus become more race-conscious the more time they are in America. They come over here obsessed with caste and regionality, and soon find out that Americans don’t know anything or care at all about either.”
JW’s “take”: Indeed. Then these racially aware South Asians go to Sepia Mutiny ... and even to GNXP where they and their extended phenotypes “get even” with these “racist whites” by promoting aracial policies and working against white identity.
Of course, if we had neither South Asians nor the 9/11 hijacker types in the USA, neither would be so easily mistaken for each other. Something else to consider is that the very dark Dravidian types are such that even the most isolated “Red State” white GOP types would probably not mistake them for Arabs. However, some of the relatively lighter high-caste South Asian types - exactly the ones who may be obsessed with race and caste - these are the ones who probably draw the attention after 9/11. They go from being at “the top of the heap” in their homelands to being considered another potential terrorist in America. No wonder they are bitter and drift leftward. Nothing for them to worry, though. On race Bush is as far left, if not more, than any Democrat.