Posted by Jean Depression on Fri, 01 Jun 2007 20:07 | #

James, the following are a collection of quotes (from only one gnxp thread!) from your “good friend” “Godless Capitalist” on subjects related to your post.  Note the total absence of any consideration whatsoever for ultimate interests……

“Economically/genetically speaking, I think that skilled immigrants help to ward off dysgenic effects in IQ trends, as mentioned in the Wade article and numerous places besides.
Agreed, except the self interest question runs both ways - because high IQ natives don’t want competition from outsiders. Unlike the unskilled case, skilled immigrants are a net benefit to the economy and don’t cause the externality problems (crime, bilingual ed, etc.). As documented ad nauseum here and elsewhere, they start businesses, do research, pay taxes, don’t commit crimes, and their children have high intermarriage rates.

I do believe that many of the signature successes of America in the postwar era - from the atomic bomb to Silicon Valley - would not have existed without the work of skilled immigrants, who comprise a huge fraction of the students at research universities and the workers at tech companies.

Well, let me put it like this: I will accept no definition of an American that leaves me on the outside, as I’m a patriotic citizen through and through. I will also accept no definition that excludes African Americans, or Japanese Americans, or Jewish Americans, or Muslim Americans, or Mexican Americans, or *any* person who is an American citizen willing to pledge allegiance to the flag.

Thing is…being opposed to crime, high taxes, and affirmative action is one thing, but being scared of honest competition (when it is not accompanied by crime/etc.) strikes me as wimpy and un-American. Meritocracy and individualism is what made this country great.

Economically speaking, it’s pretty clear from Borjas’ work (and others) that skilled immigrants are a net plus for the US economy. Singapore & Canada also have skilled immigration policies, and while I could dig up stats, I’d bet dollars to doughnuts that educated immigrants are a net plus for them as well.

In my view, racial and cultural issues only have mass appeal if they’re coupled to a decrease in the standard of living (which includes higher crime rates). After all, people are more than willing to sacrifice thousand-year-old cultural traditions on the altar of progress if their material situation improves in the process. That is the story of the industrial revolution and of America.

As long as the US retains a high average IQ, and as long as American ethnic groups intermarry enough that they don’t see others as “other”, America will be fine.

You’re misconstruing me - my fault, perhaps. Many/most high IQ natives DO like high IQ immigrants. But the brand of opposition that Rhodie/Oleg/Philips et. al. have to the immigration of high IQ people is inherently rooted in self interest. My only point was that an assault on motives works both ways.

Another way to put it: No one who’s hired Asians or been hired *by* Asians is against high IQ Asian immigration. Only those who’re bitter about the loss of a job/scholarship seat are against it, and that resentment becomes masked as “racio-cultural” protection. This loss can’t be blamed on affirmative action, of course - it’s fair & square competition (with an important exception: overly restrictive H1B contracts).

(in reference to the desire for racial separatism):
Which means civil war, probably nuclear civil war. It’s total fantasy

Posted by Jean Depression on Fri, 01 Jun 2007 20:20 | #

Also, the idea that Asians do not benefit from affirmative action is a lie:
http://www.ezcertify.com/certificationfacts/8afact6.asp

Which, of course, ignores two larger advantages owned by Asians:
1. ethnic nepotism; some will even openly admit to hiring their own, confident they have nothing to fear from the EEOC.  After all, they are “socially disadvantaged”

2. The desire of certain whites not to appear “racist” and thus to give de facto preferences to Asiatics, as well as the stereotype of the “hard working immigrant”, a stereotype which often reveals its falseness after the fact.

This in particular:
“Another way to put it: No one who’s hired Asians or been hired *by* Asians is against high IQ Asian immigration”

is laughable.  Does he really think that every employee loves and is “grateful” to their employer, does he think that every employer loves, and is satisfied with their employee?

I’m sure that among the miniscule number of white Americans who somehow slip by the ethnic nepotism guardpost and are employed by an Asian are some who despise their employer and, yes, for racial and cultural reasons as part of it… and while I’m sure that many whites think they are getting a “great deal” hiring Asian “coolie” labor, I’m sure there are some among them who secretly despise their employees and would certainly never wish to socially mix with them.

I think there is a lot of wishful thinking behind the idea that economic necessity equals acceptance of the alien other.

Posted by Jean Depression on Fri, 01 Jun 2007 20:33 | #

And, of course, when James Bowery attempted to participate, in a civil and thoughtful manner, in a gnxp thread, he got treated in the manner described here:
http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/evidence_that_godless_capitalist_is_lower_caste/P0/

James, I would like you, if you do not mind, to put forth your justification for not respecting the property rights claimed by “Godless Capitalist.”  In reference to the current post, I think it would be an enlightening statement.

Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 01 Jun 2007 20:34 | #

I should probably write up an article about the relationship between my net asset tax proposal and my support for ideological (as opposed to biological) ethnic nepotism.

Long story short:

Immigrants have exploited the fact that the prior elites had constructed a rather robust system of economic rents that protected their position in the US society, and then lost sight of the fact that this rent stream wasn’t really reflective of their merit.  The immigrants are simply better at rent seeking than the prior elites—and that’s pretty much the size of it.  All other advantages such as quasi-affirmative action, etc. are primarily results of superior rent seeking combined with the self-deception of white elites that they weren’t rent collectors.

“Economic rent” as defined by Ricardo is woefully inadequate—and is probably better defined as “the sum of all externalities”, which can, within the environment of a parasitic Federal Reserve Banking system, best be estimated by what neoclassical economists talk of as “modern portfolio theory” and its “risk free interest rate” usually approximated by short term Treasury instruments, although public choice theory has a lot to offer in this regard as well (indeed it subsumes the Fed).

Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 01 Jun 2007 20:42 | #

As for why I don’t respect the property rights of those who have betrayed/exploited the pioneer Americans:

Its pretty much a matter of carrying capacity creation as legitimization of land occupation. 

This goes beyond the preamble to the US Constitution to the heart of the Malthusian conflict between high fertility, high racism races and highly creative, low fertility, highly individualistic races.  Unconsciously sociopathic hypocrites like GC et al are worse than guys like Banerjee—who is at least a little conscious of his bias.

Posted by Jean Depression on Fri, 01 Jun 2007 21:10 | #

I’d like to make one further point.  Note how GC attempts to turn around the accusation of “self-interest” against the “WNs.”  Something about it doesn’t “smell right”, and with a moments thought it becomes obvious.

When some make the accusation of self -interest against GC and Razib, it is usually (and on this blog virtually always) in the context of those two indviduals promoting their ultimate interests, which of course includes group interests as well as personal.  Personal proximate concerns are mentioned only secondarily, if at all.

GC of course does not want the issue of ultimate interests to come to the fore in an honest manner, for obvious reasons.  Thus, the counter-accusation of “self-interest” is that the “WNs” are concerned primarily, or even solely, with their personal, private proximate concerns - and ultimate interests, if mentioned at all, are presented by GC as a “facade” behind which critics of Asian immigration hide their petty and selfish proximate concerns.

A thought experiment for all here against Asian immigration.  Please answer this to yourself honestly.  Imagine that tomorrow you win the lottery and become extremely wealthy.  All your personal proximate concerns are dealt with - you haven’t a private care in the world.

Now - be honest - would this make you any less opposed to Asian immigration than you are today?

I would think that any sincere “nationalist” (so defined) would, in all private honesty to themselves, be able to look in the mirror and _know_ that their opposition to non-white immigration would not be altered even if they became as wealthy as Bill Gates.  If this is so, and I believe it is for those who are sincere in their beliefs, then obviously GC is full of it.

Likewise, it is quite hard to believe that Salter wrote “On Genetic Interests” because he is “afraid of the Asian competition.”  It is not “fear of Asian competition” that results in the numerical loss of child equivalents with Asian immigration.  Those are the data from human genetic variation and realities of carrying capacity.

One person’s ultimate interests cannot be conflated with another person’s proximate interests - nor can an interest in the ultimate be hand-waived away by assertions that it is a cover for the proximate.

Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 01 Jun 2007 22:04 | #

The GC libel is, like almost all media libel against white heterosexual males, predicated on a state that protects him from single combat to the death not just preemptively, but remedially via a jury system rigged with indoctrinated “antiracists”.  This is yet another way these guys avoid having their heads handed to them and its an old game played by Hollywood Jews to the hilt in their archetypical casting of “blond bad guys”.

Reliance on these structures of civilization is a major reason why its collapse under the weight of things like XDR TB not to mention vicious hypocrisy of the elites is good.

I can hardly wait to hand these guys’ heads to them on a platter without looking over my shoulder at the theocracy’s police and jury of “peers” licking their chops at getting another “racist behind bars” because he won a fair fight against someone with darker skin.

Posted by gongstar on Fri, 01 Jun 2007 22:32 | #

I will accept no definition of an American that leaves me on the outside, as I’m a patriotic citizen through and through.

He’s not patriotic, he’s parasitic: whites build a country, his kind come in to reap the benefits and then take it upon themsleves to tell whites what rules should govern the place. The arrogance of GC and Razib would astonish me if I hadn’t seen it over and over again in the UK.

I will also accept no definition that excludes African Americans, or Japanese Americans, or Jewish Americans, or Muslim Americans, or Mexican Americans, or *any* person who is an American citizen willing to pledge allegiance to the flag.

And this is his “patriotism”: anyone who mouths a formula can join the feast.

Posted by Al Ross on Fri, 01 Jun 2007 23:47 | #

Banerjee received his first degree from one of the seven Indian Institutes of Technology. Whites (US, Germany and Russia) made a rod for their own backs when they provided both the financial assistance and technical expertise without which the establishment of these colleges would have been impossible.

Now that India is an IT power, is the Indian government providing financial assistance and technical expertise to future competitors? No, I didnt think so. Indians, unlike Whites dont possess the racial suicide gene.

Ironically, Banerjee’s post-graduate degrees were obtained form the same university location (Univ. of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign) which served as the base for that late, great American racialist patriot, Prof Revilo Oliver, who is no doubt whirling like the proverbial Dervish in his grave at the defacement of his academic home.

Posted by EC on Sat, 02 Jun 2007 00:33 | #

Now that India is an IT power, is the Indian government providing financial assistance and technical expertise to future competitors? No, I didnt think so. Indians, unlike Whites dont possess the racial suicide gene.

LOL

That was extremely funny, Al.  Indians behaving anti-nepotistically and against their ultimate interests.  I surmise we’ll colonize the sun before a f*cking Indian behaves in an idealistic and altruistic fashion.

Posted by EC on Sat, 02 Jun 2007 00:37 | #

I may be in US, but my heart is in India

How touching.  Why doesn’t this Brown go back to India?  Seems to me like the most logical question begging to be asked.

Posted by ben tillman on Sat, 02 Jun 2007 01:35 | #

James, I would like you, if you do not mind, to put forth your justification for not respecting the property rights claimed by “Godless Capitalist.”

A fundamental principle of morality is that rights must be reciprocal.  GC does not acknowledge that we have any property rights; ergo, he has none that we must acknowledge.

As whites, we are inclined to universalistic moral systems, but even such systems remain governed by the requirement of reciprocity.  No matter how universalistic one would like our moral community to be, GC has defined himself out of it. 

In other words, he’s an outlaw.

Posted by Jean Depression on Sat, 02 Jun 2007 13:56 | #

More Asian “cognitive elitism” and “fair competition”:
http://news.aol.com/topnews/articles/_a/throw-away-chinese-toothpaste-fda-warns/20070601213209990001

Let’s see.  Flooding the market with cheap, poisonous, shoddy products, often produced with slave labor; rampant ethnic nepotism and de facto discrimination against more qualified white applicants in the workforce; undercutting of wages; affirmative action advantages for being “socially disadvantaged”; one way immigration flows…yes, sir, that is certainly “fair competition” and we shouldn’t be so “wimpy” and “unAmerican” as to oppose any of that!

Hey, if Joe Chinaman can produce pet food or toothpaste cheaper and more efficiently than outdated and expensive whitey, then Joe wins the “fair competition.” If Fido - or you - drop dead because devious orientals produce posioned products, don’t complain.  After all, you wouldn’t want to be characterized as an “unAmerican wimp.”  Brush ‘dem teeth with antifreeze…and enjoy it!

Posted by Matra on Sat, 02 Jun 2007 17:54 | #

“Joe Chinaman” not only wants to export shoddy products to us. He also wants to export workers:

A Chinese-backed company pursuing a coal project in northeastern British Columbia wants to have a mine up and running by 2009 — and proposes to bring as many as 400 workers from China to build it.

Canadian Dehua International Mines Group Inc., a Vancouver-based company whose shareholders include a Chinese steel manufacturer, has filed a project description with the B.C. government that says its proposed Gething project “will require approximately 400 employees with specific skills in underground coal mining.”

You see whitey just isn’t skilled enough.

Dehua’s project description says immigration of up to 400 employees into small communities will have “cultural and social ramifications,” but that the company would work with local governments and community representatives to “alleviate potential impacts.”

No doubt the Chinese company will put anti-racism and history lessons about past “oppression” of Chinese workers in British Columbia at the forefront of such efforts.

B.C. is not the first coal-producing region to look at importing workers to ease a labour crunch.

When Kentucky’s coal sector was facing a severe labour crunch about three years ago, one major operator suggested bringing in workers from Mexico, said Bill Caylor, president of the Kentucky Coal Association.

“And the poop hit the fan,” Mr. Caylor said. “We’re going to get to that point, maybe in 15 or 20 years, when we are a more bilingual state. But we aren’t ready for it right now. And there was a lot of public outcry and opposition.”

The idea died — in part, Mr. Caylor said — because of a state requirement that certified miners must be able to speak and read English.

Since then the state’s mining labour crunch has eased, he added, as a result of state and federal training programs, aggressive recruitment campaigns by mining companies and, more recently, a decline in coal prices…

“All the states have had the worker crunch. But I guarantee you, common sense means you would have the same knee-jerk reaction to foreign workers. I know if this came up in West Virginia, [the reaction] would be worse than in Kentucky.”

http://tinyurl.com/ywfoec

In Canada and the US business groups are allies of the activist left and ethnocentric minority organisations. Business interests may be more effective at lobbying for more immigrants as they have the ears of all political parties at all levels and the millions of investors worried about the bottom line. These business interests are, in effect, a part of a China lobby. Naturally the Chinese don’t have to worry about a North American lobby within their own population.

Posted by Jean Depression on Sat, 02 Jun 2007 18:03 | #

“These business interests are, in effect, a part of a China lobby. Naturally the Chinese don’t have to worry about a North American lobby within their own population.”

Come now, Matra, that’s just “fair competition.”  Similarly, if a Chinese professional in a leadership position hires other Chinese, over objectively more qualified whites, that is “fair competition” as well.

After all, fair competition is defined by any and all circumstances in which Asians outcompete whites.  The very possibility of whites outcompeting Asians is prima facie evidence of unfair competition.  And, if whites have the temerity to engage in the same ethnocentric practices as Asians, well, then that’s “separatist hate”, and we must mobilize for civil war to destroy that destructive fantasy.

Posted by gongstar on Sat, 02 Jun 2007 22:44 | #

China fears brain drain as its overseas students stay put

China suffers the worst brain drain in the world, according to a new study that found seven out of every 10 students who enrol in an overseas university never return to live in their homeland. Despite the booming economy and government incentives to return, an increasing number of the country’s brightest minds are relocating to wealthier nations, where they can usually benefit from higher living standards, brighter career opportunities and the freedom to have as many children as they wish.

[...] “I am slightly hesitant because China is developing very fast and by 2030, its GDP will probably surpass the USA. But I am concerned that I might not get a good job if I return. America may suit me more because they judge you according to your ability, whereas in China your background and connections are more important.”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/china/story/0,,2093739,00.html

Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 02 Jun 2007 23:00 | #

One of the things about this “brain drain” situation is that not only does it threaten to steal the carrying capacity created by Europeans, but it makes it less likely that carrying capacity will be created by the populations that need it most—thereby driving them to emigrate. I have maintained a collegial attitude toward people in India and China who are creating additional carrying capacity there.  This is one reason I’ve been focusing on technologies that can provide reduced-ecological-footprint developed-nation standards of living using algae grown in desert areas and ocean water—not because it will benefit my ethnic genetic interests directly but because these are technologies that are likely to reduce pressures from carrying capacity limits on Asians living in Asia, hence reduce immigration to our carrying capacity here.

Posted by Jean Depression on Sun, 03 Jun 2007 12:16 | #

Some time ago, Asian supremacist “Godless Capitalist” wrote:
“Do you have any peer reviewed evidence of “Caucasoid genes” (or haplotypes, rather) in China?”

Hmmm:

http://www.journals.royalsoc.ac.uk/content/f72136w63154m126/

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/05/070524-china-dna.html

Wrong again, alien outlaw.