What about immigration

After a fierce round of polemic on Mangan’s blog about immigration issues in the US (which I was hysterically attacked for exerting honest and reasonable views for reading the comments through my two slitty eyes), I decided to write something as well about immigration issues, from my small slitty eyes.

Now immigration is never something new to human civilization. Humans are always moving from places to places since pre-historical era. Immigration only becomes a aware issue when people start to build their own community, cities, nations, and develop a sense of identity that mark the difference from outsiders. Hence, the word “immigrant” got created and used ever since.  And how did/does immigration affect our daily life? To answer this question, I will briefly discuss with immigration with four different cases.

Wu Hu Rioting in China

The first example, of course, is about where I am from, China.  Let’s stretch back 2000 years, back to the good old classic China that I am proud of. Through the glorious power of Han dynasty (206 BC– 220 AD) (the name Han Chinese derived from that dynasty), Chinese were able to open up the silk road to the West and sent envoy missions to Central Asia, Parthia, and even Roman empire. Han had hundreds of years effective control over the Northern steppe and Western oases. It was a golden age, a mighty empire ruling from the southern jungle to the northern steppe, from the western desert to the eastern ocean. However, just like many mighty empires in the history, the problems accumulate long before the empire fell for its demise. One of the them, was indeed the immigration issue. Exactly because Han over ruled vast regions, including Mongolic, Turkic, Tungusic and even Scythian/Tocharian steppe riders, the rich and fertile land of China proper (esp the North) becomes a strong magnet that start to attract those people for immigration. This was further encouraged by the Han government, as they perceived those steppe riders as a potential threat to the security of Chinese border and the control of the silk road (thus the government deliberately assisted reallocate them into China proper to live with the Chinese). Of course this wasn’t really a problem when the empire was strong and powerful. So over hundreds of years, more and more immigrants came from the steppe and desert. I guess the integration process was slow and painful, small frictions always broke out between the Chinese and other nomad immigrants in Northern China. Finally, when Chinese were exhausted in dealing with internal revolt and consistent civil wars (the Yellow Turban Rebellion, then the Three KingdomPeriod, over 100 years of civil chaos), the hidden bomb started to burst into Chinese history in AD304, When the first immigrant nomad groups started the riot, publicly defy Chinese rulers in Chengdu, and declared the independence of Kingdom of Cheng Han in Sichuan and the kingdom of Han Zhou in Shanxi, both China proper. This historical event marked the  beginning of the infamous “五胡亂華 (Wu Hu Rioting Era)”, 130 years of total devastation of Northern China from the immigrants’ riot. Of course in the end China managed to digest those immigrants and eventually sinicize most of them over thousands of years, but the damage it caused is enormous: the massive loss of population in Northern China, the extinction of Old Chinese (spoken language of Classic Chinese), and the destruction of arable plantation in Northern China.

The Demise of Roman Empire

The second example I would like to discuss is about the Roman Empire, the most magnificent empire in every white people’s mind. Now I know there are a lot of theories about the demise of Roman Empire. One thing undeniable about the decline of Roman empire was that the invasion/immigration of Germanic tribes, including Vandals, Visigoths etc., which was driven by the oriental Huns from the East in early 400AD. Those groups of people are surely powerful warriors, but it shouldn’t break the empire that easily, as Rome was famous for and built on their military might. What happened? Here is what I think. Since probably as early as in 1st century BC when the great Cesar was sweeping the whole Mediterranean with his intimidatingly impressive Roman Legion, stretching from Britannia to Parthia; when Rome  started to build its momentum and confidence as the capital of all people from three continents with the accumulation of all the gold and luxurious goods from everywhere (including silk from China), all different groups of people, Jews, Germanic, Punic, Greeks etc., also flooded in all over the Roman empire, especially Rome (Roman empire was multi-ethnic all over of course). Those immigrants were driven either forcibly as slaves or voluntarily for seeking a better life, or hired by the Romans (like the Germanic tribes). Anyway, very similar story to the first example. Romans live on those immigrants for centuries, small frictions occurred from time to time (e.g. Kitos War being one of the most famous revolt). What happened next was that Romans got trapped into a vicious cycle that the empire heavily replies on immigrants for everything, there was evidence for a drastic shift of demographics within the whole empire from the name of gravestones over the time. So Romans were eventually replaced demographically by others. Economically it was a blast, but Romans indulged themselves into the luxurious and lusty lifestyle based on those immigrants all over the empire and lost the dominance and military superiority. Rome eventually became inundated in other races and the next thing you know was the break of the West/East Empire and then the fall of Western Roman Empire.

Of course you might argue nowadays it’s unlike to cause a war against immigrants and likewise immigrants are unlikely to start rioting and killing locals and replacing you (yet). Let’s see if how the contemporary situation differs from ancient history then.

US miracle (成也蕭何,敗也蕭何)


US is what I consider as the miracle of modern civilization. One has to give credit to what US has influenced all over the globe since the WWII. Simply no single great empires could match the same influence and glory of the United States of America in the 20th century, for its profound impact on almost every one living in this planet. And what is even more miraculous is the fact that such a wonderful empire was purely based on immigrants.

Unquestionably, US was founded on immigrants. Settled by the Puritans at first, the immigrants brought the modern technology and society directly from Europe, while avoiding all the old territorial/religious/feudalistic  constraints from the old continent. Of course the slave trade gave US a firm support in his agricultural production and the continuous arrival of European immigrants from Germany, Ireland, and other European countries gave the country a huge boost in its development of the whole country and especially the rapid industrialization process and technological advancement of America. The descendants of those European  immigrants latter became the majority of the US and magically assimilated into one single racial identity over the years (American White), which is beyond imagination to make it happen in Europe since the Roman time. Basically US’ glory results from the contribution of those immigrants. Those immigrants were seen as the owner of the country and indeed were on average more intelligent than other groups in North America. Did history make an exception this time about immigration and racial mix? Wait for it. While after WWII when Europe no longer produced any significant excessive population for the US, the immigration in US did not stop. Instead, the source of immigrants start to shift to the developing countries, especially from the Latino America (while US was exerting its invincible power at the hilltop). They brought endless cheap labor to the US, and also their Spanish and Latino culture. And what’s more is that on average Hispanics still remain in the lower economic condition compared to other groups in US (individual exception occurs of course, for I have known a lot of smart and successful American Hispanic  friends). Then there it goes, all the history comes back once again. Social conflicts, racial tensions, clashes were just as predicted as the massive budding in early spring. the old immigrants, now seen as the locals, were of course not happy to see other people speaking different languages and behaving differently, and most of all, stirring all the social issues in their own country. This is quite understandable. So after certain period of escalation of the momentum, white people can’t hold any more. That’s how the Arizona SB 1070 came from. However, sadly, modern western civilization is no longer as pragmatical as it used to, especially after WWII, holocaust, and de-colonization, modern liberalism/leftism prevail and redefine the moral code of white people that accusing minorities is wrong and majority should always protect minority, even if minority misbehaves or underperforms. Either way, then next thing you know that Arizona law was blocked by other White people, and the immigration cycle continues. What will eventually happen to US is a very interesting question, I have my theory and would very much like to observe its future. One thing for sure is, US got empowered by immigrants and at the same time, got dwarfed by immigrants as well. Though the term applies to different group of immigrants. The very nature of immigration didn’t change.

Post-WWII European stagnation

The last example, the post-WWII Europe as a whole, has way more to whine about immigrants than the US. Post-war Europe suffered from a direct labor shortage, which resulted in a massive scale of immigration from their former colony to Europe. Of course you also have the case of Turks in Germany, Moroccans in the Netherlands. But the idea is the same: Europe needs fresh labor to rebuild the old continent. But immigration continues even when European economy started to get saturated and recede. Simple economics, people in poor areas would very much like to seek job opportunities in developed region, and since Europe has a much much better social welfare system than the US, why on earth do those people wouldn’t want to migrate to Europe? So there it goes. Huge immigrant community in every major Western European countries, the number of immigrants (illegal/legal) is an urban myth in Europe (google it and I am sure you will find lots of info about it). All I could feel is that the continual arrival and utterly high fertility rate of those immigrants and the failed attempt of assimilation really scare the heck of the good old Europeans. Albeit being the birthplace of modern liberalism/leftism, Europe is very much doing real actions to openly discourage those unwanted immigration and immigrants (French ban on burqa, Swiss ban on Mosque minarets, Dutch ban on Halal etc.). This is pretty much what is happening right now. And with the rise of right-wing leaders all over Europe (which is going to happen pretty soon), I am sure those measures would see an effective impacts on immigrants in Europe. My view is, if Europe really gets rid of all the unwanted immigrants, it is unlikely that Europe would retrieve back its glory again. With its pathetic fertility rate, huge social welfare burden, and immense economic stress, Europe could at most experience major recession and get kicked into the infinite cycle of stasis, stagnation, whatever you name it…

So much for the illustration of the four cases (I am actually rather lost when I wrote at this point…2000words already!). All I am trying to show here is to prove that immigration is indeed a very tough problem that troubles every powerful country, and so far I haven’t seen a real real effective and harmless solution that could pay off in short term (China case being the best scenario, but it takes hundreds of years; or Europe stasis prediction). Struggling pain is a necessity. Great political entity attracts immigration by nature, and history confirms, so the prediction on the short term future? There’s no easy way out! One thing for sure, it’s important that smart people are ruling the country, a great country should always be smart-people majority, it is not really about certain races. Smart people always think alike and could integrate well.

Now I feel exhausted writing and would post it on right now. Revision is definitely needed, but later. What’s your view on it?


  1. I think the basic principle is correct. A nation requires a minimum level of unity to function properly and too much immigration of people who are too different from the natives over too short a time will end in disaster. This is especially true if those differences are dramatic and in genetic or cultural traits that really matter like religion or IQ or co-operativeness.

    1. what I would like to revise is that there’s a threshold level on which a country could culturally and genetically absorb a group of immigrants. For instance, it is much easier to integrate the Polish in Germany than the Turks in Germany, the former would probably merge into the German mainstream identity because of their cultural/IQ proximity, whereas the latter is way more antagonistic to mainstream German society and unlikely to well integrate by any means in short term

  2. Excellent analysis and some insight that I found interesting. As someone who spends quite a bit of time in Europe, your observations are right on. There is a huge backlash against the Turks in Germany because the Germans thought at first that the Turks partiarchal family structures would eventually fit in with German family values (Only around 44% of German women work and that is mostly part-time jobs). They didn’t take into account religion. They only saw the secular Turkish government as a guide to what an ordinary Turk might behave like after immigrating. Adding you to my blogrolls if you don’t mind.

  3. “… very tough problem that troubles every powerful country…”

    Like Japan, for instance?
    Or perhaps South Korea?
    Both are engaged successfully in economic and political nationalism.

    A good managerial elite preserves the cultural and racial integrity of a nation.
    If it does not, it ceases to be a nation and simply becomes a state.

    With closed borders, demographic trends can be reversed; open borders exacerbate
    the low birth rate of the native population due to downward pressure on wages and
    upward pressure on suitable housing (required for family formation, see Steve Sailer), among other factors.

    Japan has a (good) future; America does not.

    1. Japanese and Korean nationalism stem from Confucianism, it’s different from Western nationalism. Plus their demographic has long been homogeneous for hundreds of years. It’s easy to stimulate that when you have 99% of the population belonging to the majority ethnic group.

      Japan suffers decades of stasis in economy, stagnation in population, and ageing problem of the demographics. Japan has no good future (definitely not expansive). Its border basically not open to immigration (you need to switch to a Japanese name to become a citizen of Japan for instance), but its fertility rate ain’t coming back. But Japan is a unique case, can’t really extrapolate to other continental nations anyway. Korea is semi-Japan, not as cool as Japan, but good enough to sustain a strong economy (it also suffers low fertility rate, high living pressure, plus some additional pain-in-the-ass called Kim-Jong-Il).

      America? hmmm…. We’ll see.

      1. Thank you for your reply.

        We are likely to disagree on most points regarding Japan, so I will merely throw this one contrary perspective at you that goes against the mass media consensus.

        You wrote: “Japan suffers decades of stasis in economy…”

        There are those who argue otherwise.

        Eamonn Fingleton comes to mind:

        “Take the only significant statistic cited: Japan’s GDP in 2009 was supposedly the same as in 1991 — $5.7 trillion in both cases, allegedly. In reality, as a check of the World Bank’s website will immediately confirm, the correct number for 1991 was a mere $3.45 trillion — and the figure announced at the time by the Tokyo authorities was actually even lower. The Times seems to have overlooked the fact that the yen was worth a lot less in 1991 than it is now. It is actually up 65 percent against the dollar since 1991 and fully 69 percent since 1989.

        In its only reference to Japan’s trade performance, the Times states: “Its [Japan’s] once voracious manufacturers now seem prepared to surrender industry after industry to hungry South Korean and Chinese rivals.” The truth is that Japan multiplied its current account surplus more than three-fold between 1989 (the last year of the Japanese stock market boom) and 2008 (the last year before the present global slump). In the same period the US current account _deficit_ ballooned sixfold! Although its per-capita income is nearly ten times China’s, Japan is almost alone among major nations in running a surplus on its huge trade with China; by comparison America’s bilateral deficit with China was $166 billion last year (see the China page of the CIA Factbook).”


        And from another Fingleton post:

        “I endorse Baker’s comments, of course, and would add that, a bit like cholesterol, deflation comes in two varieties – good and bad. The bad is widely remembered from America’s Great Depression of the 1930s and it is this which the Times wrongly imagines it sees in Japan today. In reality Japanese deflation is good deflation similar to the now forgotten deflation in the United States in the 1880s and 1890s. Thanks to soaring productivity, the price of American steel fell by 90 percent in the late nineteenth century and this drove widespread price reductions across the industrial waterfront. Similarly in Japan in the last two decades soaring productivity in electronics has driven remarkable price reductions that have greatly improved Japanese consumer’s lot.”


        He writes at greater length about Japan’s so-called lost decade in his book, “In the Jaws of the Dragon: America’s Fate in the Coming Era of Chinese Dominance “, available at Amazon.


        Also, if still interested, please read the essay:
        Japan, Refutation of Neoliberalism by Robert Locke:

        “Are We Lied to About Japan?

        Contrary to popular opinion, Japan has been doing very well lately, despite the interests that wish to depict her as an economic mess.

        The illusion of her failure is used by globalists and other neoliberals to discourage Westerners, particularly Americans, from even caring about Japan’s economic policies, let alone learning from them. It has been encouraged by the Japanese government as a way to get foreigners to stop pressing for changes in its neo-mercantilist trade policies. It has been propagated by corporate interests who gain from free-trade extremism with respect to Japan. And it is promoted by ideologues committed to the delusion that only a laissez-faire economy can prosper. ”


  4. Peter Frost had an interesting theory about the fall of Rome.

    “This perspective is applied here to the Roman state, specifically its long-term effort to pacify the general population. By imperial times, this effort had succeeded so well that the Romans saw themselves as being inherently less violent than the “barbarians” beyond their borders. By creating a pacified and submissive population, the empire also became conducive to the spread of Christianity—a religion of peace and submission. In sum, the Roman state imposed a behavioral change that would over time alter the mix of genotypes, thus facilitating a subsequent ideological change…

    Did Christianity destroy Rome? Or did Rome destroy itself by pacifying its subjects
    while more and more unpacified barbarians pressed on its borders? The answer probably
    lies somewhere in-between…”


  5. The Slitty Eye :there’s a threshold level on which a country could culturally and genetically absorb a group of immigrants


    trouble ~ (how different * how many) / time

    to decrease trouble and maintain national unity you can reduce how different or how many or increase the time scale over which it happens

    to increase trouble and reduce national unity do the opposite

    1. Haha, very nice formula, very visual and quantifiable. In general I think you are right on that direction. immigration is a big headache for the more fortunate people, a curse from the inequity of the existence of the universe.

  6. To Slow Motion Fall,

    First I appreciate your lengthy and detailed comment. Now let me get to you the debate about Japan.

    I personally agreed with those economic analysis you provided about Japan. And I am not a believer of the mainstream Western tone about Japan. Please don’t associate me with those liberal/leftist denialists.

    I think to understand and analyze a country’s performance and its perspective, it is very important to know their customs, behavior, culture and mainstream mentality first, rather than simple economic models and numerical statistics. After all, a society is built on people.

    For the case of Japan, in general I think I am in a better position to understand the Japanese society due to the cultural proximity between China and Japan. But I was wrong and underestimated the differences. In my many years in Hong Kong I was able to get in touch with strong Japanese culture, fashion, and most importantly, the young and old Japanese people – their mentality and their social behaviors. After these years the more I know about Japan, the more weird Japan turns out to be and more different to China that I expected.

    Here is what I can tell you: you are right on the economic figure, especially on the domestic production and the large trade surplus with China. Japan has in recent years invested heavily in China and outsourced its low-valued low-tech production chain to China, but they are smart enough to keep the most sophisticated technology only in their little island. So the situation is a Japanese brand electronic device may be partially produced and assembled in China, but the core technology, the most expensive part of the device, mostly still Made in Japan. This is the main secret why Japan keeps a huge trade surplus and still strong in production, because it go upstream in the value chain for much more advanced technology and production technique. I am not expert in Economics, but I think Japan has done quite well in earning money from its production still (though it seems to be in big trouble with bank and real estate bubble things,which I am no expert to discuss anyway).

    But those economic parameters don’t contradict my prediction about Japan. I am not saying Japan is doomed. I am saying Japan is trapped in stagnation. And the main support behind my prediction is my understanding about the mentality of the younger generation and their mainstream culture. Here is what I know about Japan that don’t appear to economist: Japanese are very repressed people, they simply carry too much social norms and restrictions in their daily life. The whole country to me is like a big machine. What this impacts on the young people is that you see nowadays young people in Japan (which are getting fewer and fewer, its natural growth rate one of the lowest in the world), unlike their parents’generation who are seeking for hard-work and stability, develop this type of total “anti-social fashion”: boys rather go on internet, video-gaming, manga, even manga porn than real physical socializing; not to mention their weird unisexual sense of fashion… All of these twisted social phenomena I could find one explanation: that they are under two much social pressure as an individual beings. On one side those youth loses the Bushido spirit from their video-games and man-purses and more and more anti-social behaviors, on the other side they are highly stressed and organized and live in a still highly collective and hierarchical society. As much as I sympathize their lives, it is hard to convince me that Japan will revive its imperial might again. But I don’t think they are going much down either, it’s just a painless process of stagnation, with fast growing ageing population, fewer young people, and even fewer social young people, high dependency of resources import, Japan reached its peak and it’s going to shrink slightly but roughly maintain the status-quo for quite a while.

    It’s just a different angle of seeing things. My suggestion, go there and see yourself. Usually if a country is hopeful or not, you could easily observe with little detailed things on their city, people, and atmosphere.

  7. Thank you for your intelligent reply.

    I will touch on many points only briefly here since I am pressed for time.

    I assumed that the asexual-video-game-manga Japanese youth culture
    pertained to only a small subculture of young Japanese people. I am not disputing
    what you say, however, since I concede that I do not know much about Japanese culture.

    But what I do know something about is the civilizationally self-destructive
    meme called liberalism which has gnawed at the mind, self-respect, and common sense
    of Western man for several centuries now.

    Perhaps Japanese youth have had this meme/mind virus transmitted from western mass media via TV, film, books, etc. I know that most westerners have not been strong enough in character and self-respect to resist its many socially suicidal siren songs.

    When you used the word “weird” to describe their behavior I quickly thought of the socially dysfunctional (and dysgenic) patterns that currently reside in the West as well. As just one example, consider high-IQ women in the West (white, and perhaps East Asian as well?) who pursue their vacuous careers while bringing no children into the next generation.

    You wrote: “[…] it is hard to convince me that Japan will revive its imperial might again.”
    Perhaps you misconstrued my meaning: when I argued that Japan has a future I was not thinking for territorial expansion. I was thinking more in terms of: 50 years from now there will still be a Japanese people (not merely paper passport citizens, but a blood and bones people); but 50 years from now (if present demographic trends continue) will there still be a German people, a French people, etc?
    (For example, see Thilo Sazzarin’s Germany Abolishes Itself).

    Touching on each point ever so briefly, a discussion of imperialism cannot be complete without a mention of the U.S. As you may know, America’s manufacturing base is being hollowed out. If memory serves, they have lost 30% of their hard industry in the last ten years alone. Concurrently, the middle class is being eviscerated. The dogmatically free-trade and increasingly rootless cosmopolitan managerial elite do not seem to care. This is partly why I don’t see America as having a (good) future. Another part is the large influx of low-IQ groups which I won’t address in this section.

    What does this have to do with America’s future or with it’s velvet glove imperialism?
    Simply this. America’s last big war was WW2. Leaving the Soviet Union aside for this analysis, one of the main reasons they “won” was because they had a much greater industrial capacity than the Axis powers. Industrial capacity translates into more fighter jets and tanks. Now, if one is practically giving away one’s industrial base, circa 2011, how will one conduct one’s next big war? Boeing even now outsources most of its production.

    Admittedly, America is still the top dog militarily and this may hold true for at least another 25 years. But military strength is a lagging indicator. Long term, a poor economy will translate into a poor, third-rate military. If you are outsourcing your jets, tanks and other materiel then don’t be surprised if during wartime one of your overseas suppliers sells you a $1,000 a piece defective component that renders each of your multimillion dollar fighter jets inoperative.

    Don’t misunderstand: I care more about this sinking economy’s effects on the middle class than I do on the managerial elite’s ability to play global policeman. I just wanted to point out that it will end badly for them as well.

    If you doubt that America’s long term economy is on a downward trajectory then I can recommend the following books, all of which are geared to the layman:

    Ian Fletcher – Free Trade Doesn’t Work: What Should Replace It and Why


    Ha-Joon Chang – Bad Samaritans: The Myth of Free Trade and the Secret History of Capitalism


    Clyde Pretowitz – The Betrayal of American Prosperity: Free Market Delusions, America’s Decline, and How We Must Compete in the Post-Dollar Era


    There are other books that I can recommend certainly but I don’t want to inundate you.

    Briefly, on another topic.

    You wrote: “One thing for sure, it’s important that smart people are ruling the country, a great country should always be smart-people majority, it is not really about certain races. Smart people always think alike and could integrate well. “

    “Smart” sounds like a good word but a smart guy can line his pocket at the expense
    of a people for whom he has lost all emotional ties to. Let them eat cake! can easily be
    rationalized by a “smart” person at the top. Just look at all those “smart” people on Wall Street who care not at all that most middle-class jobs are being shipped overseas but cried like little children during the subprime mortgage crisis (see Cramer on CNBC at the time of the crisis for an archetypal example) for TARP money; bailouts for billionaire bankers yes, but free-trade evisceration for middle-class jobs.

    Most of the intellectuals in the 1930s and 40s, herd like, extolled the Soviet Union. They were all supposedly “smart”and, as you say, “Smart people always think alike […]. They don’t seem so smart in retrospect, do they?

    Mind you, I am not arguing in favor of “dumb” people running a country; I am arguing in favor of other positive attributes such as “loyalty to one’s country and people” added to the mix of who should run a country. Give me time and I’ll come up with other positive attributes. “Smartness” however defined, should not be the only criteria used in selecting a managerial elite.

    Leading question: the current managerial elite may be smart, but are they wise?

    Finally, You wrote: “ it is not really about certain races”. On one of your other blog posts, I think you approvingly mentioned HBD (human biodiversity) which is merely a euphemism for less politically correct terms such as sociobiology. Thus, presumably you understand the concept of “regression to the mean”? To be direct, black children from upper middle class black families perform less well on SAT scores than do white kids from lower income families. Similarly, a “genius” is more likely to have average kids than kids as smart as he is. Admittedly, I’m oversimplifying: if the “genius” has a smart wife than his kids may not be as smart as they are but they also are likely to be above 100 IQ. Your smart non-white, non East-Asian colleagues are more likely to have average kids (average for their aggregate, mind you) than you are as an East-Asian.

    So what, you say? Well, (smart) immigration policy should not be based on statistical outliers. Aggregates matter. Importing large numbers of a low-IQ group is not at all ameliorated by a few of its number rising to the top.

    Said differently, having children is playing with genetic dice, but if one is interested in having “smart” children then one has a better chance at a good roll of the genetic dice if one were to marry a lower-class, uneducated Han Chinese woman than one would if one married an upper class Non-Asian-Minority.

    No offense intended, just my thoughts.

    Cordially, Slow Motion Fall.

    1. asexual videogame manga are no long an underground subculture among the youth in Japan. Their sense of fashion has very much influenced Hong Kong when I was there, and it’s definitely no subculture (a big subculture in the West that’s for sure). By Japan’s expansion I refer to the constantly increasing trend of a Japanese prowess in economics, military, cultural influence, population etc. My original perception about Japan (and I still stand by my opinion) is that Japan could be trapped in a painless stasis, its overall strength would stay stagnated and even recede to less important role (though no doubt Japan will definitely remain a highly developed civilization) in the world (probably like Switzerland, or Nordic countries etc.).

      Liberalism/leftism is traditionally immune in East Asian sinosphere, largely due to the fact that the prevalence of Confucianism of thousands of years have significantly downplayed the role of religion, favored collectivisitic ethics over individual emancipation. Ideological pursuit is heavily discouraged in a Confucian state, which emphasizes on preaching the importance of well-beings that could best fit into the present society. This determines that pragmatism is much more acceptable than metaphysics among the population. Therefore since people don’t conceptualize and amplify compassion to an infinite level so that liberalism/leftism could be established based on denying the “ruthless reality”, there’s no moral boundaries that say competition is bad and the superior one must help the inferior ones. This well-established system has been well preserved and adapted in Japan and Korea to a lesser extend. E.g Japan’s hostile views against NGOs; Their harsh perception on immigrants in Japan etc.

      Having said that, this system has been gradually eroding, thanks to globalization. liberal/leftist Western influence has been constantly trying to infiltrate into this great cultural wall of east Asia for years (they usually make global accusation is they failed to gain recognition within the local population, e.g. anti-whaling). Of course for the young generation, a package that comes with liberalism/leftism and individualism at the same point seems much more appealing than the old-fashion sacrifice-small-self-for-the-bigger-selves collective culture. But the stagnation of Japan is not because of the erosion of western liberalism/leftism but the paramount social pressure that depress the younger generation to prosper and endeavor. In general, when the system is better than the people, this system would work well but at the same time little upgrade is expected. That’s the case with Japan.

      I largely agree on your views on the demise of the America. One point I want to add in your analysis is that the massive influx of unskilled lower IQ immigrants will accelerate the decline of America, and eventually, together with the loss of industrial capacity and technology advancement (I assume most of American talented ones go to financing banking numerical vanity, plus consumerism still prevails), I do think America is going to recede to a mere extension of Latin America, mostly Brazil’s mode, that whites regress to minority while still being the elite of the country, those the country could never be as strong as before.

      About my argument on smart and stupid people. Yes, I was over-simplifying the situation and that is what I have been re-thinking about these days. high level of smartness among its population should not be the sufficient condition for the prosperity of a nation, nevertheless it is definitely a necessary condition for a country to soar in modernity. There should definitely be more criteria as you said in selecting the managerial elite. Aside from the loyalty I would like to add being realistic and logic as the attributes of ideal elite class.

      For your view on immigration criteria, I have to say that I am not familiar with the concept of “regression to the mean” and I have been reading a few about it lately. However, I could only say I partially agree with you on this one. Aggregate does matter, but it doesn’t mean that statistical outliers of an on-average-stupider group should be excluded from a good immigration policy. I am not saying for example the US should open its border to Mexicans because there are 5% of them pretty smart and capable of modern civilization, I am saying that US should exactly revise its policy to exclusively attract that 5% of Mexicans but no one else (actually US being doing quite fine but only failed in its Latino immigration). I would like to focus on two theoretical concepts for my view: natural section and genetic drifting. By exclusively attracting those statistical outliers, such immigration policy would play the role of “nature” in “natural selection” of higher IQ outliers from the majority low IQ group. By exclusively deliberately adding these people into a much higher-average sampling pool, their offspring (assume they either reproduce with other high IQ outliers or local high-IQ majority) could have a much higher chance to preserve this genetic trait (high IQ). Such is the theory of natural selection and genetic drifting based on the selection process. In this sense, it is very important to incorporate those smart outliers as well in the immigration policy of an advance civilization.

      In worse case (with considerate amount of low-IQ influx), genetic dilution is also a feasible measure to offset the influx of low-IQ genes. The Australian case is a very good example (of course, provided that the quantity of low-IQ people is insignificant compared to high-IQ group).

  8. Thank you for another thoughtful reply.
    I read your paragraphs with great interest.
    I too have learned things from this exchange of views,
    especially regarding Confucianism and Japanese youth culture.

    I omitted mention of Brazil in my reply to you, but, yes, I agree
    that this seems to be the endpoint of the trajectory on which America
    currently finds itself.

    Regarding immigration, you are correct that if these statistical outliers marry someone
    from the higher average IQ host population than some of my concerns about regression to the mean could be allayed. However, this whole paragraph on immigration and outliers has merit only if a country’s borders are otherwise closed. If they are porous, as they are now, then all bets are off.

    That’s why it is essential that immigration numbers be restricted because
    assimilation into the majority culture is a much more compelling argument
    if the immigrants are small in number; if they are large in number, they have no
    compelling need to assimilate and will mate with some low-IQ member of their
    own group, ensuring genetic regression to the mean.

    Likewise, if the immigrants were large in number and *did* want to fully assimilate this would also be problematical because the host population’s IQ average would be diluted or diminished, because most of that large number of new immigrants would not be statistical outliers.

    So, in sum: immigrants, yes, but only high quality immigrants, and only a relatively small number of immigrants so that they can a) be absorbed into the majority culture and, b) not dilute the gene pool of the host population with too many “bad” genes.

    As you can tell from this discussion, I am not a WN (white nationalist) but someone the liberal zeitgeist considers even more outside “respectable society”, namely, a eugenicist!
    I hope that doesn’t scare you! Eugenics is the politically incorrect, say-it-like-it-is
    version of HBD. I will add in my defense, if this is required, that I consider most people
    to be eugenicists, now and in the past, although they would certainly not warmly embrace such a term because of the propaganda leveled at this term for the last century. Every woman looks to find a mate that is as good or better than she is. Every male does the same. They are all engaging in eugenics. They are all trying to “upgrade”. The only exception to this general pattern are white women who have children with thuggish black men.

    Wise societies should likewise, use their collective cerebral cortex and plan for a better future. They can start doing this by noticing what is obvious to anyone who is not a head-in-the-sand liberal: namely, certain racial aggregates are incarcerated in far larger numbers and have far larger unemployment rates than other groups. This is such a big drain on society. If a society could fix this than it would be far better for all of its future productive and law-abiding citizens.

    Said differently, I, like you, want to live in a society of only high IQ people. But for me IQ is an easy soundbite way of saying that a host of behaviors, usually correlated with IQ, are also very desirable. I don’t want high IQ sociopaths, high IQ kleptomaniacs, high IQ congenital liars, etc. I want a high IQ, low crime, society that is also a decent place to live by other metrics, such as a high trust or high social capital society. See Robert Putnam’s Bowling Alone. I want to live in a high IQ and high personal character society. To some degree, IQ and positive character traits are correlated. See Richard Lynn’s Dysgenics.

    This exchange with you has been enjoyable. You realize, however, of course, that neither you nor I can exert any impact on actual political and social policy. Thus it is disheartening to think that the current toxic trends are apt to continue. On the other hand, it gives one some hope or optimism simply to learn that there are other intelligent beings out there in the universe.

    Other than that, I’m not going to make another lengthy riposte here now,
    but I hope to return at some later juncture for another worthwhile exchange.

    If you do have something substantial to add to this thread, I will make a visit to your site and reply if a reply is warranted.

    Otherwise, thank you again for a worthwhile exchange.

    Best regards and bye for now.

    1. Thank you very much for your riposte, it’s been really enjoyable for me as well. I am also a firm support of eugenics. Exactly because it’s disheartening to see the current toxic trends are apt to continue, I would like to open this blog and cater the inconvenient truth are denied by the mainstream. The bottom line is, as long as we realize those issues, at least we could see it through and make our lives a little brighter…

      Would love to hear from your opinions in late junctures.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s