The ineluctable racial incompatibilies that are bringing us to destruction, unless we radically reverse course

Karl D. writes:

One thing I have been keenly aware of for years now regarding both blacks and Hispanics is their utter lack of interest in anything of historical importance that does not directly affect them as a racial group. The Daily Mail has a pictorial of the space shuttle flyby that took place in Manhattan today, and almost every civilian witness to the event who made the pictorial is white. It reminded me of the time I went to Gettysburg several years ago. Not one black person did I see. A sprinkling of Asians and Indians but it was dominated by whites. The same thing in Yellowstone Park, and at Mount Rushmore. The large museums in New York City are devoid of blacks and Hispanics unless they are on some sort of mandatory school trip.

The arts are largely devoid of blacks. There is an all-black revival on Broadway of A Streetcar Named Desire with Blair Underwood as Stanley Kowalski that is supposed to be awful. The push to get blacks to come see the show has apparently succeeded, but backfired from what I hear. The audience talks back throughout the show, laughs at serious lines and yells “Stella” during the famous line.

As to Blair Underwood in the main role? I have always liked him, as he seems a decent, solid family man. He revealed recently that not only had he never read Streetcar before being cast, but had never seen the film. How can one call himself an actor and never have read the works of Tennessee Williams, or seen Marlon Brando’s magnetic performance as Stanley? As I said before, there is virtually no interest in anything unrelated to the “Black Experience.”

LA replies:

Anyone who doubts the truth of Karl’s observations should experiment with turning on C-Span frequently and seeing what happens as soon as a broadcast with a mainly black panel comes on. Within five seconds (more likely within two or three seconds), you will hear one of the participants say the word “black.” The panel will be on a “black” subject. Blacks have no interest in anything that is not about blacks, blacks’ well-being, and blacks’ problems. Science, art, history—indeed any larger subject—has no appeal to them, because it’s not about blacks and how they’re doing. The idea of caring about a subject for its own sake, a subject that does not immediately affect their personal or group interests, is foreign to them.

As for the absence of nonwhites at any historical location or event, this is a deeply significant phenomenon the meaning of which no mainstream conservative wants to consider. Nonwhites do not relate to American history, not because they are discriminated against, but because they feel themselves to be different from Americans. They know they don’t fit. They do not experience themselves as part of this country. Yes, they have lives, families, and careers in this country. But they do not identify with this country, its history, and its historical people and culture. And this is why, the more numerous, successful, and conspicuous nonwhites are in America, the more they will feel their non-belongingness in America, and so the more, not less, resentful they will become toward America and whites. They will be forever divided within themselves, and resentful of an Americanness in which they can never truly partake—indeed, in which they have no desire to partake. The only way they will be able to work out these feelings will be by tearing down whatever remains of America, to turn America into a different country where they can feel fully at home.

And this is why the mass nonwhite immigration we have had since 1965 is, ineluctably, the path to national suicide.

How can this seemingly unstoppable process be turned around? If the historic white majority began to assert themselves as the historic majority; if they said, we don’t intend to be turned into a powerless and despised minority in our own land; if they stopped mass non-Western immigration; if they dismantled all laws and practices that give nonwhites special privileges and special recognition; if they rejected the entire ideology that treats whites as racists for the inadequacies and discontents of others—if whites began doing these things, the entire direction would shift. Nonwhites, instead of looking at America as an empty space for them to move into and occupy, would see it as an active entity that is pushing back at them. Many of the nonwhites who are here would start to return to their native or ancestral lands, as is already happening with some groups. Chinese would want to be in a Chinese country, Muslims in a Muslim country, Hispanics in a Hispanic country. The turnaround would be gradual, at least at first, but the key thing is that, with the cessation of mass nonwhite immigration and the voluntary departure of increasing numbers of nonwhites, America would have ceased becoming steadily more nonwhite. The direction toward national suicide will have been reversed, and this will change everything.

Of course, whites are not about to do any of these things. But if they did do them, America could be saved.

- end of initial entry -

Karl D. writes:

Here is a commenter remarking about the all-black production of Streetcar from the New York Times review:

“as a former casting professional, I hate to say this because of the way it’s going to sound, but I ran into the same kind of audience when I saw the all-black version of “Cat on a Hot Tin Roof” with Terence Howard. Granted, the production was a snooze, but the busloads of clearly inexperienced, urban, Broadway theatergoers imported from the outer boroughs and beyond, sassy-talked back to the actors and laughed at inappropriate times throughout the entire play. and then there was all the eating during the show. It was a most unpleasant experience and one I’m not eager to repeat anytime soon.”

— Jacquie, NYC

Mark Jaws writes:

Not only do blacks not resonate with anything outside their label and experience, our clever, witty humor is usually outside their realm of comprehension. I have stopped telling black guys my customary jokes because more often than not they don’t get it. And when in those rare moments when I am in the company of only blacks, I resort to my junior high school repertoire of jokes - and draw big laughs.

James P., writes:

An important reason that blacks and Hispanics lack interest in anything of historical importance that does not directly affect them as a racial group is, of course, that they have been taught that their racial interests (and white encroachment on those interests) are central to their existence. History, as taught to them, consists solely of “black studies” and “Latino studies” nonsense presented from the Leftist, racial grievance-mongering perspective. One can hardly expect a group that is constantly indoctrinated in its racial interests to be interested in anything for its own sake.

April 30

Max P. writes:

In reading Karl D.’s comment about blacks and Hispanics showing no interest in anything that does not involve their group, he said: “It reminded me of the time I went to Gettysburg several years ago. Not one black person did I see.”

That jogged my memory of the controversy that arose in 2003, when conservative George Bush allowed the Park Service to alter the Gettysburg battlefield memorial due in part to the lack of blacks attending the park. Pat Buchanan wrote a very good column about this in January 2003. Link:

He wrote,

Now the story of the heroes in Blue and Gray is to be replaced with propaganda. The 1.8 million annual visitors to Gettysburg are to be indoctrinated in the politically correct history of the war.

“Gettysburg to Tell Story of Slavery During War,” was the headline the Washington Times put on its story about how the National Park Service “has embarked on an effort to change its interpretive materials at major Civil War battlefields to get rid of a Southern bias and emphasize the horrors of slavery.” A $95 million visitors center and museum is going up to recast the battle in a new light.

“For the past 100 years,” says Gettysburg Park Superintendent John Latschar, “we’ve been presenting this battlefield as the high watermark of the Confederacy and focusing on the personal valor of the soldiers who fought here. … We want to get away from the traditional descriptions of who shot whom, where and into discussions of why they were shooting one another.”

Why the change? Unhappy that so many visitors to Gettysburg are white males, and so few are African-Americans, Latschar called in three historians to study how the Park Service was presenting the battle. The three wise men decided that the interpretive programs at Gettysburg had a “pervasive Southern sympathy.” (How one can hear of 15,000 men and boys walking across a mile of open field into cannon and musket fire, in the name of God, country and Gen. Lee, without being put in awe and admiration, escapes me.)

Now I have not been to Gettysburg, and have no first hand knowledge if these changes were indeed put into effect. But I find it odd that blacks had little interest in viewing the battlefield that sealed the South’s fate. If they weren’t attending before, I see little reason for them to attend after those proposed changes. It’s unfortunate that true Civil War buffs will have to have their experiences degraded in the name of catering to ingrates.

LA replies:

Blacks have zero interest in the Civil War—it was a war between white men. Yes, blacks played an increasingly important role as the war dragged on, but it remained in essence a war between the whites of the North and the whites of the South. Assuming the changes in the battlefield interpretative and historic material were installed, I’m sure there are as few blacks at Gettysburg as ever.

In the same way, all the mighty efforts of arts companies, ballet companies, museums, etc. in recent decades to attract blacks by increasing the diversity of their performers or making their content more black-oriented have led to nothing.

The only way to bring in blacks to some museum or performance is to make it completely black. As in the all-black revival of a Tennessee Williams play that was described.

Karl D. writes:

Regarding black attendance at Gettysburg:

There is a preacher in Harlem, the Rev. James Manning, who organized a trip of blacks to attend and pay respects to the dead of Gettysburg several years ago. He is quite the exception though. He is sort of the Anti-Sharpton and a black race realist. He has many videos on youtube which besides being an absolute hoot are shocking to hear from a black man, and even more shocking is the fact that he has parishioners! Some of his clips are: “What every white person should know,” “Black women, marry a white man,” “Al (nappy headed hoe) Sharpton,” “The black man. The greatest problem in the world,” and many others. Here is the one on Gettysburg. Tune in at about two minutes. And listen to this one about South Africa. It will blow your socks off.

Daniel F. writes:

I think blacks’ lack of interest in the Civil War, and American history other than it directly concerns their ancestors (or, in the case of the current POTUS, his wife’s ancestors), is understandable. Black people were not really made full partners in the American experiment until the civil rights legislation of the 60s. The Civil War, even after it became a war to end slavery, was never a war to establish racial equality (in any sense). No one wants to feel that his ancestors were helpless, passive figures in their own lives. Asking black Americans to feel fully invested in American history is sort of like asking a Jew whose ancestors lived in Poland or Lithuania (both virulently anti-Semitic countries back when Jews actually lived there, before the Holocaust) to identify with Polish or Lithuanian national history.

What I find objectionable is that, at some point in the last half century or so, it became the project of the American ruling class to make the negative black perspective on the country’s history the official version of that history, and to impose that perspective on the entire population.

LA replies:

Well, a society cannot have two histories, it can only have one. With the Civil Rights movement, the pre-Civil Rights, white America became bad. And black-oriented history replaced it.

There was only one way this catastrophe could have been avoided—by the white majority maintaining the idea of America as a basically white country, and refusing to adopt the notion that racial equality is the main thing about America. Once America did the latter (i.e., once it made liberalism its highest principle), it was doomed. It is a straight line from the 1964 Civil Rights Act to today’s Black-Run America.

I repeat that Paul Kersey’s pungent phrase obviously does not describe everything about America. It does largely describe relations between blacks and whites. Blacks assault and murder whites in ongoing racial attacks across this country, and the media systematically cover up this fact. That’s Black-Run America. A Hispanic man shoots a black teenager in evident self-defense, and the powers that be turn it into proof that blacks are endangered by violently racist whites. That’s Black-Run America. Blacks lack the abilities to be hired as firemen, and it’s turned into white racism which must be “fixed” by hiring unqualified blacks. That’s Black-Run America.

Daniel F. replies:

I would just point out that the idea of American whites constituting one people is itself a deliberately constructed idea. Before the Civil War, it was not unusual for Protestants to object to Irish Catholics, among others, as unassimilable foreigners.

I’m not so sure I agree with you that eliminating racial inequality under the law necessarily entailed making the black perspective on our history the official one. But I agree with you that this what has happened, and this perspective on America is now taught to new generations and to immigrants.

LA replies:

Well, they (meaning mainly the neoconservatives) are always calling America an “experiment,” right? So, we’ve had the experiment. The results are in. They can’t keep calling it an experiment and then refuse to see the results of the experiment.

The main question was not whether or not racial inequality under the law was eliminated. The main question was: would America remain a culturally particularist country which had liberal components within it, or would America adopt liberalism as its highest principle? It did the latter, and that doomed us.

In the last paragraph of my 2005 article, “How the 1964 Civil Rights Act made racial group entitlements inevitable,” I wrote:

What is needed, in short, is a balance between our traditional American culture and a liberal legal system operating within the parameters of that culture—a legal system that supports the culture and its values rather than, as at present, seeking to undermine and destroy them. The liberal equality of individuals under the law is part of the essence of America. But it must not be America’s primary value. Liberal values—the belief in free inquiry, the treatment of all citizens according to the same rules—have an indispensable place in our heritage. But liberalism, the ideology that makes the pursuit of equality the most important thing, spells the death of our heritage. If our nation is to survive, it must have ideals and goals higher than the liberal project of treating all people equally, and the leftist project of making all people substantively equal. Liberalism and leftism are unable to supply those ideals, which come from cultural, constitutional, and transcendent sources.

Jeff W. writes:

Those who are trying to attract an “urban audience” should remember that they like to eat while watching entertainment.

Magic Johnson noted their insatiable appetite for hot dogs. “When he opened his first movie theater, Johnson questioned whether the concession stand had enough hot dogs. Relax, he was told, there are enough for the next month. They sold out of hot dogs that night.”

Johnson said, “While a suburbanite may go to dinner and a movie, the urban movie-goer on a more limited budget combines the two by eating dinner at the theater, hence the need for more hot dogs.”

If the Gettysburg visitor center would show a movie about the battle featuring an all-black cast and offer free hot dogs, they might have better luck.

LA replies:

Right. If they want to attract blacks to Gettysburg, they’ve go to turn it into Black-Run Gettysburg.

Mark Jaws writes:

This is a topic I relish discussing because I have seen first hand how even among BLACK SOLDIERS there is little interest in the forces which shape a battlefield. Right before I retired from the military, I organized a field trip to the Yorktown Battlefield. As we walked those historic grounds and were briefed by the tour guide, anyone could see the black troops had virtually no interest in what was being discussed, as they broke down into their little groups and chatted and joked about who-knows-what. This was at the same time The Bell Curve came out, and thus it later became apparent to me that the vast majority of blacks simply lacked the intellect to understand the factors which go into winning battles. Contrary to what many a die hard liberal activist may think, war is among the most cognitively demanding endeavors humans can undertake, and victory usually goes to the commander who knows himself, his forces, his capabilities compared to those of his adversary, and who can use the terrain and the weather to his advantage. Given blacks’ average IQ of 85, a study of any battle above a schoolyard fight is beyond their comprehension.

LA replies:

Yes, it’s not just a lack of interest in “white” American history or the “white” Civil War; it’s a lack of interest in battlefield strategy, in the drama of a battle. The people who visit Gettysburg and other Civil War battlefields generally take a keen interest in the history of the battle itself, the lay of the land and of the forces, the ebb and flow of the two sides, the crucial moments that could have gone either way, how Dan Sickles moved his corps too far forward from the left side of the Union line, and this opened an opportunity for the Confederates to attack, the question of what was going on in Lee’s head when he ordered Pickett’s Charge, and so on. White men and boys get absorbed in this kind of thing. How many blacks would be interested in it?

Mark Jaws replies:

The vast majority of blacks are not interested in studying battles because it above their level of comprehension. To visualize a development on the battlefield requires intellect. To plot courses of actions requires intellect. Even in my officer development classes with black officers, they had more interest in branding Robert E Lee a traitor than discussing his military genius.

May 1

CO writes:

My in-laws immigrated to the U.S. from Nepal. For the past 20 years, I’ve known a great many South Asian immigrants. I am closer to them than I am to Americans.

They are the most decent, upright, pleasant, and courteous people you could ever hope to meet. Exactly the kind of people you enjoy having as friends, coworkers, neighbors. They work hard, and they are always successful. They do well in school. They start businesses. They raise beautifully well-mannered kids. They are devoutly religious, devoted to family, conservative in every way.

They are completely indifferent to American history, American folklore or American culture. They think they learned everything about America before they got here, by watching television. As long as they have a good job and a nice house, they think they know everything they need to know.

They are primarily interested in one thing—shopping. They couldn’t care less about American monuments or museums or parks. They don’t even stop to admire things like a beautiful sunset. If America were paved over from coast to coast with parking lots and strip malls, they’d be fine with that.

They love America the way you’d love it if you struck oil in your backyard. You’d enjoy the status and wealth and prestige it brings. You wouldn’t admire the black smelly substance itself.

Since I know a lot of them personally and have some influence, I have tried desperately over the years to get them to take an interest in America—begged, cried even. I’ve discussed with them events like the battle of Gettysburg. They aren’t interested. I’ve taken them to places like Yosemite. They get bored after 20 minutes.

They do visit famous attractions of course—primarily to take pictures of each other. Next time you spot a bunch of Asian tourists, check and see if they aren’t paying more attention to the camera than they are to the scenery.

The most horrifying part is watching the invisible hand of political correctness start sliding over their mouths once they get here. They believe everything they hear on the mainstream media like it’s the word of God. On 9/11/01, they were the ones standing in front of the TV set going, “See? This is what you can expect from Muslims.” Since then, they got the memo that you’re not supposed to criticize Muslims, so they don’t do that anymore.

There’s this perception, especially among conservatives, that everything will be fine as long as we only import the “good” immigrants. Nothing could be further from the truth. Defending American traditionalism is up to us. No one else is going to do it. The concept doesn’t even register with them.

LA replies:

Thank you for this very insightful, very well written comment. What you have said here is at the center of what I have been saying about our mass non-Western immigration since 1990. That the problem is a matter of identity, of identification. Nonwhites in significant numbers (meaning more than just an individual here and there, who can blend in) will not identify with our country, our people, our history, our culture. By their very presence here, even if they cause no social problems at all, they change us into something else, because they don’t identify with us, and also because we don’t identify with them. Their very difference from us makes us feel (“us” including the most PC liberals) that our country has already changed so much that it must, in order to include these new populations, change its whole identity, into either a multicultural society (the left view) or a society based on nothing but universal democracy and shopping (the neocon view).

As I said, this has been at the center of my thinking and writing since I began writing about this subject. I feel that very few people on the cultural right have picked up on this dimension of the immigration problem. That you have stated the problem so well, and from the point of view of one who has personal and family relations with the “good” immigrants, is very helpful.

May 3

Buck writes:

CO nails it. My best friend is married to a Japanese woman, who will never take his name. They met in Japan when he was stationed there as a U.S. Marine. They’ve been together for 25 years.

Just yesterday I spoke to my friend on the phone. He called from the hospital where his 32 year old daughter, from his first marriage, is within weeks of dying from cancer. He’s obviously distraught and is dealing with a growing angst due to the fact that there is no one but him to care for his two granddaughters, ages nine and ten. He’s long retired from the Marines and was never home to raise his own daughter. He told me that his fear, his near certainty, is that his wife will leave him and go home to Japan if his granddaughters end up living in their home. This is how the Japanese view things. They don’t believe that it is honorable to care for even their own blood. If these were her own grandchildren, in Japan they would be placed in an orphanage.

She will leave. She is perhaps the most disciplined person that I know. She rises very early every day to perform a two-hour ritual in preparation for work. She has been given multiple awards for never missing a day of work, or for even being late, over a decade. She exercises and executes all of her routine daily rituals religiously. At times she does not seem human. Though she is tiny and sweet when she speaks, she has a steel will.

I’ve tried for fifteen years to reach her, and I’m the closest male friend in her life. Her only real friends are two other Japanese women.

I realize that this is anecdotal and that there are lots of better assimilated Asians. But, of the several that I know well, their Nippon nationalism never dies. They enjoy what is offered to them here, but many can never think of it as home.

Every year, for the fifteen years that I have known her, my friends wife has only endured each eleven month wait in each of those years, until she can make her annual one-month return to her real home, in Iwakuni, Japan.

I traveled to Iwakuni and spent a month with my friend, her and her family. I was treated like an honored guest and was embarrassed more than once by the attention, within the family and their gatherings. Yet, as a gaijin about town, I was shunned and prohibited from being seated in several restaurants. That’s a whole other story, but it gives me some idea of how they view us or any non-Japanese, even while they live here among us.

LA replies:

The fact that many non-Western immigrants do not really feel at home here but just look on America opportunistically (which we have encouraged them to feel) makes possible my impossible-sounding idea of reversing the de-Europeanization of America. They have come here because we opened our doors and redefined America as nothing but an empty space of freedom for everyone in the world to move into. If we reverse our belief system and our message, and once again define America as a particular nation, a step involving the policy changes I’ve mentioned earlier in this thread, many of the people who have come here without feeling any connection with America will start to feel more strongly their connection to their homeland and want to return there.

Leonard D. writes:

I disagree with the idea that Asian immigrants are a “disaster” or anything like that for America. (By “Asian,” I mean (East) Asians, that is, the people formerly known as “Orientals” in the bad old days before political correctness: Japanese, Chinese, Vietnamese, etc.)

I do not doubt what your correspondent CO and probably others are saying, that is, that first and perhaps second generation Asian immigrants show no attachment to the nation. This is a reason why we should not allow a large mass of such immigrants in at one time, whereas we can handle essentially any number of Anglosphere-origin white people.

But there is a fundamental difference between Asians versus other Third World immigrants: the Asians have the conscientiousness and intelligence of Westerners (higher IQs, actually, although perhaps lacking creativity). A culture—any culture—cannot be loved without being understood; but understanding is a function of the traits found in the population, and strong among those, intelligence. More intelligent people create cultures that require intelligence to appreciate (think here of classical music), whereas less intelligent people create culture requiring less intelligence (i.e. rap music). Consider the idea of caring about battles remote in time, fought for similarly remote reasons with weapons, tactics, and strategy that no longer exist: to do that is an intellectual feat. Perhaps not a great one, but if it requires IQ 100, half of white people or Asians can make it, whereas only 1/6 or so of blacks can.

In short, my argument is that culture is IQ-gated. The reason Hispanics and blacks have not assimilated to white America is that they cannot: they lack the intelligence to appreciate and love many aspects of our culture. But Asians have the intelligence, so there is no fundamental block to them assimilating, and I see lots of evidence that many of them are. In the longer, Asian Americans can and will take up our culture and become patriotic Americans. They will gravitate towards white norms, not black or Hispanic norms, in all things. They will intermarry, in actual marriages, and merge into our gene-pool.

Lydia McGrew writes:

It seems to me that the discussion about Asian immigrants who have no interest in American history, American patriotism, and American freedoms has moved to an area where white immigrants are as likely to be a problem as Asian immigrants. For example, I know of a Russian immigrant who apparently thinks America is to blame for the problems Russia has experienced since the fall of the Soviet Union and dislikes America accordingly. There is a particular kind of Russian anti-Americanism that I’m quite sure we don’t want to import. Or consider the soft-socialist totalitarianism of a country like Sweden. I think I’d rather have CO’s shopping Asian relatives than a bunch of earnest white Swedes or Germans who, as soon as they get naturalized citizenship and are allowed to vote, will start working hard to curtail the freedom to homeschool in America—a freedom that shocks their pro-regulation European mindset. The liberal ideology current in Europe is even worse than that in America and hardly something we want to import. [LA replies: Yes, but very few Swedes or Germans are immigrating to the U.S.]

Naturally we want immigrants who identify with America and, especially, whose children will learn to do so. A big problem there is that our public schools don’t teach anyone to identify with America’s constitutional freedoms and America’s real history. This makes large-scale immigration a bad idea from anywhere. [LA replies: Of course I agree. But let me add this. Trying to avoid the racial issue by saying we should simply reduce all immigration to a very low number does not work, because liberals and nonwhites will instantly grasp that drastically reducing all immigration will mainly reduce nonwhite immigration, since over 90 percent of current immigration is nonwhite. They will see any such “non-racial” immigration-reduction proposal as nakedly racist. Therefore there is no way for restrictionists to avoid confronting the racial issue.]

But I’m skeptical about any proposition to the effect that Nepalese or Vietnamese immigrants who come to America circa 2012 are less likely to identify with America than white European immigrants of the same era. [LA replies: I disagree, for the reasons stated earlier, and particularly this: the very presence in America of such vast numbers of Asians makes it impossible—has already made it impossible—to think of Americans as a concrete historic people. Once a country loses its concrete identity, it inevitably moves in an ever-more multiculturalist or universalist direction.]

Johan Happolati writes:

In Canada we haven’t had all that strong a sense of national identity for some time, but many East Asians here have still come to identify strongly with—or certainly embrace—certain elements of Western or Anglo culture. (I can’t really speak to South Asians.)

They play, and love, classical music—Western, never Chinese—far more than do Caucasians, and that passion often extends to other arts. They become Christians in large numbers and read C.S. Lewis. (Many university campus fellowships would barely exist without Asians.) They volunteer and embrace social causes. Paul K. is right that they hike and bicycle and go camping as well. Asian women in particular go out of their way to avoid being isolated from the broader cultural currents.

A lot of East Asians also identify strongly with their ancestral lands. But that’s not so bad, especially when you realize that many of them will go back with missionary intent.

Daniel M. writes:

Commenter CO makes this comment:

“The way we traditionalists treasure our country, our people, our history, and our culture is not only unique and irreplaceable, it is something that cannot be taught.”

I want to know how a man who forsakes his bloodline to intermarry with racial aliens can lay any claim to “tradition”? He has abdicated from the West, and for all intents and purposes may as well be Asian himself.

But I’ve noticed for a long time that these pro-Asian immigration “whites” well often make excuses for the endless problems that Asians bring with them. Commenter Paul K. does it in the very next post:

“The town I live in contains a beautiful state park with excellent hiking trails. I hike there and regularly see Asian hikers in addition to whites. I can’t recall ever having seen a black or Hispanic on the trails though my town has large populations of them.”

But are they going for the beauty of the hiking trails, or are they using it a location for exercise (not that one couldn’t do both)? I have a feeling it is the latter. The furthest I have seen Asians “Westernized” is when they become entwined with commercialized “American” culture, and this include the SWPL fondness for gyms/exercise.

I’ve probably been too rough for you to post this comment, but over the years I’ve become impatient with these race traitors.

CO writes:

Paul K., you are right. In general, Asians appreciate and cultivate aspects of Western culture more than any other non-white group. My Indian friends went to British schools and they read all the same books I did growing up, even American authors like Louisa May Alcott and Nathaniel Hawthorne. I listen to a classical music station daily and most of the hot young classical artists these days are Chinese.

But in the time I spent abroad, among other things, I became convinced that the idea of adoring nature is a product of the West. Before Edmund Hillary made his summit of Mt. Everest and made the Himalayas into a world-class destination for mountaineers, Nepali and Tibetan ethnic people did not go mountain-climbing. They regard it as dangerous and foolhardy. They only do it nowadays days if they are working for the tourist industry. They make magnificent trekking guides. They will risk their lives for you. But trekking is never something they would do for recreation.

If you get stranded high on a mountain and you’re a foreign tourist, they’ll send a helicopter rescue for you. If you’re Nepali, they’ll leave you up there; you were supposed to have sense enough not to go there in the first place.

The majority of trekkers who visit Nepal come from the United States, Europe, and Australia, with a small percentage from Japan. White people of Northern European extraction have a solid reputation for being the only people who would spend big bucks on a vacation where you will most certainly get dysentery, pick leeches off you, and possibly even get killed.

I’ve trekked in remote areas of the Himalayas, which is as close as you can get to outer space without leaving the planet. The ethnic people there are very suspicious of foreigners. Unless you’re a scientist or a missionary, they can’t make sense of why you’re there. Why would anyone go out of their way just to look at beautiful scenery? My brother-in-law once made a cross-country road trip and drove 100 miles out of his way to visit the Grand Canyon. Afterwards he said, “What’s the big deal? It’s just a big hole in the ground.”

Most definitely all Asians are not like him. But I used to think that being awestruck by nature was something hardwired into human beings. Now, I think of it as primarily a feature of white people and my experience has consistently borne that out.

Max P. writes:

CO’s comments about the well-adjusted Nepali, and other Asians in general, got to me. I believe he is correct in his assessment that most people in the world only care about their economic well being. If the economy is running, it matters little whether the government is a benign dictatorship, aristocracy or democracy.

Most revolutions are the result of economic hardship. The French Revolution, the 1917 Russian Revolution, and Hitler’s ascent to power only occurred because the populace faced economic hardships. But the American colonists did not face such hardships. Life in the colonies at that time offered more economic opportunity to the majority of people than what they could have expected in the Old World. Sure the colonists complained about taxes, but these were by and large wealthy men who risked their lives and fortunes for liberty. Had those colonists not fought a revolution, they would have been consigned to the fate of Canada and Australia, which doesn’t seem all that bad. Has anything like the American Revolution occurred before or since, namely a well-off people risking it all for the right to live and let live?

Liberals and neo-conservatives believe that our civilization is universal, and therefore the people in it are replaceable. So long as the newcomers state that they support “All men are created equal,” demographics does not matter. I seriously believe they think today’s immigrants are coming to the West for political and personal freedom. They believe that affinity for Western civilization is such that if people of European race were to disappear tomorrow, non-whites would sit around discussing the virtues of Thomas Jefferson while listening to the Waltz of the Flowers.

In reality non-whites care little about our culture. The only reason they are coming here is for the economic benefits of living in a first world state with a modern infrastructure and a social safety net, period. They might say they want freedom, but I believe they think of freedom in terms like FDR’s four freedoms. So long as they are free from hunger, everything is OK. Europeans in general, and Anglo Saxons specifically, envisioned freedom in a different way. The Pilgrims and other settlers came here with no guaranteed freedom from hunger. The only thing they knew they were getting was the ability to sink or swim on their accord. Is that what is drawing millions of Mexicans, Haitians and Somalis to America in 2012?

As soon as America and the West fail to provide economic gain to non-Europeans, they will drop any pretenses of affection for Western civilization and adopt something else. Even with economic opportunity we see many non-white immigrants clinging to the cultural norms of their native lands, e.g. the Muslims in the UK.

May 5

James Wilson writes:

It should be obvious that there is a close relationship between the attitudes of immigrants, and the aggressive degradation of native standards and patriotism since 1965. If anything, immigrants who are certain to remain alien are more welcolme than others.

LA replies:

This is in agreement with my idea that the liberal system requires unassimilable immigrants

Mark S. writes:

Just a few comments on the comments of others:

“But I used to think that being awestruck by nature was something hardwired into human beings. Now, I think of it as primarily a feature of white people and my experience has consistently borne that out.”

I’d hardly think so. Anyone with even a remote knowledge of Chinese nature poetry or landscape painting could see that an adoration for nature is not something unique to whites.

In fact, nature has played more of a role in East Asian art, in particular Chinese art, than perhaps any other cultural tradition.

Third worlders probably are probably about as keen on recreational hiking as early Italian, Hungarian, and Jewish migrants were—which was not a lot.

However I would agree that there does seem to be some correlation between North Western Europeans and adventure sports, or adventure for adventure’s sake. I put it down to perhaps, a generally calm demeanour and an individualistic spirit perhaps lacking in other peoples. Also cultures with a strong emphasis on family and from places lacking in social welfare, would not be exactly encouraging of risky behaviour. Some say that social welfare and individualism are incompatible. I believe the opposite is true. Societies, such as the Scandinavian ones, with excellent social security safety nets, encourage risk taking and individual autonomy. Whereas part of the reason why Asians are so family oriented, is the absence of a social security net.

“They are completely indifferent to American history, American folklore or American culture.”

Well of course they are. They simply lack the cultural context and perhaps the education to appreciate these things. An adult human beings brain is sort of ‘hard wired’. However this ‘hard wiring’ is the result of genetics and cultural conditioning. I hardly think it is a genetic thing that these Nepalese cannot appreciate American culture in the way a native born American can. My guess is ta late 19th century, early 20th century European migrant would probably be similarly disinterested—and would also have seen America primarily as an economic opportunity.

In the same way that very few foreigners can master english to the level of a native speaker, and feel comfortable in using it, the same goes for appreciating the other aspects of a different culture. But is it all to do with genetics? A non-white born and brought up in the West can speak english as well as any white person, and feel just as comfortable in using it as any white person. And often have great difficulty in the language of their parents or grandparents. Indeed I have known second or third generation Chinese who know not a word of Mandarin, and found learning its basic elements more difficult than I did.

Surely if most aspects of culture were genetic, it would stand to reason that a genetically Chinese person, separated from Chinese culture for many generations, would have some genetic advantage in learning Chinese over a non-Chinese person, given that the centre-piece of any culture is its language. But I highly doubt that this would be the case.

Certainly there are group differences in IQ, and even in personality, and the evidence for this is overwhelming. But it is unwise, I think to automatically attribute any group differences in behaviour and achievement to race and genetics. That would be as erroneous as completely denying any racial or genetic explanation for group differences, as liberals do.

Kidist Paulos Asrat writes:

I don’t know how I missed your post on Asians, because quite frankly, I’ve been waiting for you to write on this group of people who are getting more “visible” and influential over the years.

I had an Asian friend (in graduate school) from Korea, who went back to her country right after she finished her degree. It was a good friendship, we had many things in common, the least of which really was our degree. But she had traveled in Europe and knew France, we watched many “foreign” films, we ate in exotic restaurants (I had a research assistantship’s salary, and paid no boarding fees, so I was a “rich” student for a while, and she had rich parents in Korea), we participated in cultural events, etc. But it was a strenuous friendship. For one, her idea of a degree was to get things done as quickly as possible and go back to Korea. And she kept telling me to finish fast. In fact, our conversations revolved around her bitterness at the field she had chosen, her anger at the professors, and her desire to leave as soon as she could. She had a silent contempt for white people, and would quietly make fun of our professors, white colleagues, and of course America. I could never understand her animosity.

I didn’t listen to her “advice” despite my respect for her. I am proud of the small research I eventually did. I traveled all the way to Mexico (I was at the University of Connecticut then) for almost a year to conduct it. I stayed in Atlanta and Los Angeles to work on state-of-the-art equipment for the data analysis. The research findings are published in a couple of prestigious scientific journals, and I have confidently recommended them to others in health and medical fields.

My friend decided to work on the end part of a giant, ambitious research project in Mexico. She tagged on to the initial project, whereas I designed my own research from the results of the project. What I mean by that is that she got off (or took it) easy. The project basically got inconclusive results (published articles admit the inconclusiveness of these results, but they try to wring out some useful information, despite the horrendous cost the project, which was close to 1/2 a million dollars in grants). Her Ph.D. dissertation was to do the data analysis of a section of the findings, and to analyse what those results meant. She was splitting hairs to find something meaningful (actually, statistics help a lot with splitting hairs, and she got really good at a couple of data analysis/statistics computer programs).

I lost touch with her at the end our programs. I came to Canada, she went back to Korea. But, I recently tried to find out what she was doing, and even called her (found her number through an operator). I never heard from her after that conversation. Looking for the work she was doing/had done, I found that she had replicated the same “Mexico” study, but on Koreans, from her post as Professor of Nutritional Sciences in one of the universities in Korea. She knew very well that such a huge, ambitious project didn’t work in Mexico, with huge resources and funds from an American university. How can she even imagine that this would work in Korea? Some people praised the cleverness of her dissertation. But, I found it to be lacking, although I never had the language or the temerity to criticize it (it was hard enough doing my own research).

This is anecdotal, and long, I know. But it informed me to be better prepared when next to Asians, despite the high IQ attention they are getting. I am sorry to say that every time I have closely associated with Asians, I get this same result, where they seem smart and interesting at the beginning, but their subtle inadequacies begin to surface as time goes on.

I changed my field completely when I came to Canada, and went to film and photography school, before landing on textile design. The textile design school had a Korean who ran the textile department. I caught her once blatantly copying the work of a contemporary, not very well-known, American designer (I went to one of this instructor’s shows, and happened to know of the American designer). In class, she also tried hard to avoid teaching us about this designer, once even removing books that included this designer from the shelves. She knew I knew, since I talked about the designer and about her work, trying to see if she would admit to “influences.” Even as a student, I found her designs odd, as though she couldn’t quite come up with particular forms, shapes and images (a flat moon was one of her motifs, for example), and I sincerely asked her once how she came about her shapes and forms, and I was relegated to her bad books from then on.

I can go on with my personal experiences (a Japanese woman who sang in a choir with me, Chinese students whom I taught English, a Taiwanese music student I played the piano with, etc.), but I realize that it takes more than anecdotes or personal experiences to understand a group of people, but that surely is the beginning of the understanding.

I don’t want to sound dramatic, but there is a danger in glorifying Asians, Asian intelligence, and Asian contributions to the West, as is happening now. I think they are dangerous as a group, in that they can undermine and undervalue our culture through their easy entry into so many areas, from science to the arts (mostly design and fashion design these days) to engineering, and as musicians in orchestras, etc. I think they are good to a certain point, but somehow reach a plateau which is lower than what we (or their champions) would expect. They are also loyal to their background. When I was doing my design and film studies, ALL the Asians worked on Asian themes and projects. I was the only foolish one (in their eyes, I’m sure) who didn’t work on some ethnic project. There is of course the Asian/white intermarriage, which produces the half-Asian offspring, whose true contributions are still unknown, but why should they be that much better than their Asian parent? And even these “half” Asians have their loyalties fixed on thier Asian background, as I found out on numerous occasions.

So, in conclusion to this long email, which I’ve been meaning to send for a while, I think we have to be careful of this Asian presence, which is growing through incoming Asians (immigrants), their offspring, and this half/Asian group that may be small but which I think is influential. There are many ways the Western culture is vulnerable these days, Islam, aggressive blacks, political systems which favor non-whites and immigrants, and this growing but powerful (and smart) Asian group which has now found it has enough demographic clout to influence society.

People either find me racist, or hypocritical (as in “you are not white, what do you think YOU are doing?), so I don’t yet know how to discuss this (at my blog, for example) in a coherent and convincing manner.

Sorry for the length!

Matthew H. writes:

Assimilating Asian immigrants would be less of a challenge were it not for two factors:

First there is the fact that our nation is being flooded with low-IQ/high-public dependency Mexicans and South Americans.

Second there are the millions of legacy Blacks who are an even greater burden.

Imagine the same number of Asian (Chinese, Korean, Vietnamese, etc.) immigrants but without the pressure to accommodate the failings of the other two groups. Imagine that we could demand of immigrants that they live up to American standards (that is, our former standards) as we once did with every other group. Those who liked it would stay and assimilate. Those who did not would feel pressure to leave, just as in the old days.

That no immigrants today are held to any standards at all (not even the most basic standards of public health) is not the fault of the immigrants. It is the fault of our treacherous and craven “elites” who have sold their souls to anti-Chirst materialism and love failure because they get power by catering to it.

I grew up in what would now be called the “lily-white” suburbs. Even then, however, there was a family near us with a Japanese dad and a white mom. Aside from their unique ethnic makeup, the son and daughter were just normal high-functioning kids. But their family was established prior to 1965, before the cultural revolution that has now nearly destroyed this nation.

CO writes:

To Daniel M: If it’s any comfort to you, I’ve been heaped with scorn over the years for marrying outside of my race. Labels like “race traitor” being the least of it. If there’s one thing people all over the world have in common, it’s that they dislike interracial marriage. They do not think an interracial marriage can be real. My husband and I will step up to the ticket counter at the movies, and they will sell him a ticket because they automatically assume we are not together. That’s one reason I enjoy visiting this blog so much. The people who post here have never done anything regrettable. It must be great to know you are flawless. But I’ve come to like being the person who doesn’t fit in anywhere. You learn so much. I second Tallulah Bankhead, who said, “If I had my life to do over, I’d make all the same mistakes, only sooner.”

I know I’m supposed to stay in the corner and cower in shame for my transgressive choice of spouses. I’ve spent years listening to hot debates about celebrating diversity and whether or not immigrants can assimilate. But I rarely hear anyone speak about it from firsthand experience, so I finally decided to do that, knowing that people like Daniel M think I should properly keep my mouth shut. He’d fit in great in Nepal, where you’re not supposed to talk back to your moral betters.

I also realize my personal experience is limited and there is only so much you can extrapolate from it. But I’m not talking in general about Asian cab drivers or software engineers or restauranteurs. I’m talking about people I have known extremely well over the past two decades. Nepalis are people American conservatives would probably admire and feel very comfortable with—most everyone does. But that does not make them like us. They will never be like us. A person isn’t born into this world a blank slate. Your ancestry, your genes, the history of your people, are indelible parts of why you are the way you are.

I predict that Asian immigrants will not support us in the resistance against gun control laws or same-sex marriage, regardless of how they feel about those issues privately. Top-down government is something they adapt to exceedingly well. Right up until the mid-90s, Nepalis worshiped their king as a god. Then the Maoists took over, quite easily, and 4,000 years’ worth of hidebound Nepalese culture folded like a house of cards. The Maoist-controlled media has started putting out infomercials, telling viewers that it’s okay to have one child, one child only. Now, everyone has decided it’s better to have only one child. That’s how easy it is to persuade people to extinct themselves; just put it on TV. I would not, therefore, count on them to stand up with us and take a beating from liberalism to defend America.

May 8

Paul C. writes:

I’m a longtime reader who has not commented in a couple of years. But I felt the need to reply to your post about Asian immigrants and the assertion that all they are interested in is shopping. Be aware that this has little to do with America. Even in Asia, all Asians care about is shopping. I moved to Thailand to take a job a couple of years ago. I am married to a Thai-Chinese. They run the country. Without them, Thailand would look like Laos. But all anybody in this country is interested in is “shopping.” Consumerism is a bigger god than Buddha in Thailand. That said,with all the strife,conflict, and jealousy that permeates Thailand, it is far more peaceful and, yes, inventive, place than is today’s America. I left America with no intent to return several years ago, and I have not changed my mind since. I work in Thailand and enjoy a standard of living I could never match in the USA. My biggest fear is being killed in an auto accident. There are no feral blacks, and Thais are proud of their country and way of life in a manner that Americans were some 60-80 years ago. Still, they are consumer oriented. The future is indeed in Asia, as America has allowed its minority populations to drag it down to the point that people discuss little else but racial “justice.” I’m happy to be out. When I look back, I don’t see how things can continue much longer. Frankly, you need all the East Asians you can get to counterbalance African and Afro-Caribbean immigration. Not to mention the people that are moving like a solid mass from the south to the north.

Roland D. (who, like Paul C., lives in Asia) writes:

Your expat correspondent in Thailand is dead wrong.

As he is married to one of the Sino-Thai elite, he has a very restricted view into Thais in general, and into Southeast Asians, generally.

His comments about there being little violence in Thailand and in Southeast Asia in general are a joke. All Southeast Asian societies have a constant susurrus of violence beneath their public facade, and Thailand is no different. [LA replies: susurrus is a word I didn’t know. Its two definitions are: the indistinct sound of people whispering, and a light noise, like the noise of silk clothing or leaves blowing in the wind.] If you want, I can give you a lot of links to stories of Thai-on-foreigner violence and Thai-on-Thai violence; also, do remember the Thai military action in 2010 which officially resulted in the deaths of 91 Thais armed with nothing more sophisticated than slingshots and a few flare pistols.

Even amongst the Sino-Thai elite, there are contract murders and beatings resulting from business disputes, perceived loss of “face,” etc. And the children of the Sino-Thai elite literally get away with murder—five years later, the son of one of the Sino-Thai elite has still not been prosecuted for murdering a police officer in front of multiple witnesses, a Sino-Thai girl who killed five people in a van with her reckless driving still has not been prosecuted six months later, etc., ad nauseam.

The Sino-Thai elite all have a conspiracy-minded view of the world—as do all Asians, irrespective of income and educational level—and they all have superstitious beliefs regarding “black magic” and so forth. [LA replies: Whoops, another word soon to be banned.] They are the kind of people who would consume the pills made from the flesh of dead babies which were highlighted in a story I sent you a few days ago. And note that the elites of all Asian countries, with the exception of Japan and the Republic of Korea, are ethnic Chinese; it is they who run the governments and own the businesses.

Asian politics are focused around the use of power to obtain money, and the use of money to obtain power. Yes, his Sino-Thai wife and the junior generation are focused on shopping—whilst the older males who run their families/tribes/clans are all constantly jockeying for position in the civil and business realms in what they all view as a zero-sum game.

The USA absolutely does not need any more Asians of any stripe. Their worldview is a Hobbesian war of all against all, shaped by Confucian hyper-nepotism. They are uninterested in any sort of equitable civil polity—indeed, they are hostile to it, as they each wish their family/tribe/clan/region/racial sub-group/national/racial macro-group to dominate, in descending order of priority.

May 10

LA writes:

This entry has reached maximum size. Paul C. replies to Roland D. in a new entry.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at April 28, 2012 11:01 AM | Send

Email entry

Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):