Mr. Auster’s response to his friend nails the crux of the matter to the floor: the basic inseparability of race and culture. If immigrants are assimilated in small enough numbers and at a slow enough rate to be fully culturally assimilated, their “dillution” of the racial gene pool will have no effect on the “color” of the populace. If you are changing the color of a polity you are also eliminating its native culture, since the two are strongly correlated in ways not subject to technical manipulation. There is no magic wand that can be waved which will make it possible to assimilate immigrants culturally at a high enough rate to allow major racial changes without also creating major cultural change. Racial ideology utterly trumps any consideration of the preservation of culture: culture as such is itself inherently racist, and therefore it must die.

Thanks to Matt for clarifying what I was trying to get at. Yes, a “shade” of difference in physical appearance implies a relatively small change in the ethnic and racial make-up of a population, which would suggest that the newcomers would be more or less assimilated, and thus the culture would not change that much. But in the world of reality we’re not dealing with just a change of “shade,” but with whole races coming in and displacing the native race, and a racial change of that magnitude MUST transform the culture as well.

I think the more “diplomatic” term regarding race and civilization is one that both Peter Brimelow and Lawrence Harrison refer to as the “ethno-cultural” component of a nation or civilization. With or without the euphemism, it gets to the same frame of reference. Most, I think, are willing to acknowledge that the races differ, on average, biologically (just as the genders differ from one another biologically). Many will acknowledge that these average group racial differences extend in to areas like intelligence and temperament. So, just as sex differences have a “sociobiological” impact on the culture (and not the other way around, as the feminists would have it) — the average group differences among the races also has an important impact in shaping cultures and nations. “Ah,” someone will say, “But the West is unique. We can assimilate anyone, unlike other racially-based nations and civilizations. I cannot go to Japan and be fully assimilated in to Japanese culture, but a Japanese person can come here and be fully assimilated.” That may be true, as far as it goes, but I would submit that at a certain date the sheer number of non-European immigrants will create a “tipping point” in terms of the altering the culture and nation’s of the West. Unless a more candid acknowledgment of race, civilization, and immigration is allowed for that “tipping point” will become unavoidable.

I agree with Mr. Vandervoort that “ethnoculture” is an approximate, and more diplomatic and nuanced, equivalent for race. Of course they’re not exactly the same. Race means just the physicality. An ethnic group will have a core common racial element, but the racial element is not necessarily co-extensive with the group because people from other backgrounds can become assimilated into the ethnic group. At the same time, if the racial differences and the numbers of people to be included are too large, then such assimilation becomes impossible.

Here is a quote from Jim Kalb which illuminates the interrelationships between culture, ethnicity and race, from his article, “Anti-Racism” :

“The seedbed for culture is the complex of pre-rational connections a people develops through long common history—in other words, ethnicity. While ethnicity and race are not the same, they cannot be altogether separated because both are consequences of a people’s long life in common. Since all actual cultures are tied to ethnicity, and therefore at least somewhat to race, to give culture free play is to permit race to have significance.

“Ethnic culture cannot survive without preference for one’s own people and their ways, or without settings in which a particular ethnic people sets the tone.”

Every word in the above two readers’ comments by Mr. Vandervoort and Mr. Auster is true. But the ideas they represent are very hard for people to see — even highly educated people, for some reason. Part of the stumbling block is the fear that any acceptance by society of inborn differences is certain to lead, as night follows day, to one group of people being treated inhumanely by another group of people. That, of course, is not true.

I agree with Mr Vandervoort that race has a sociobiological impact on culture. Essentially the closer races are genetically, culture becomes the more important distinguishing factor, (Russians vs. English). Races that are genetically more distant, like English and black Africans, race is the more important distinguishing factor and their different cultures largely reflect this genetic reality. With blacks it is largely a racial problem, blacks (as a group) can never be assimilated, and their presence must increase crime, threat economic cost, and constitute a genetic and social to whites. With Hispanics, the problem is racial with the prior mentioned consequences, and cultural which is largely a reflection of the former, worsened by the size of the influx, and irredentist threat.

Mr. Auster is almost right in saying if the racial difference is too large then assimilation is impossible. However absolute genetic distance is perhaps not so important as the type of difference. While far more genetically distant than Arabs to Anglo-Saxons, East Asians are nevertheless more suitable to assimilating into the white population. The genetic distinction of the Oriental is in many ways favorable: a high average IQ (around 106 compared to the white 100), along with low testosterone so less likely to convict criminal offenses even at the same IQ level as other races. In comparison, Arabs who are more genetically similar to whites, present a cultural and racial threat that is being realized across the western world, especially in Europe: with an average IQ under 90 they will remain a highly fertile underclass as well as diluting the white genetic material. Culturally and religiously Arabs are hostile towards the West, unlike mercantile Orientals.

Of course even if Orientals are objectively better immigrants they dilute the cultural homogeneity of the nation, not sharing in its prior history or culture. In that sense I also oppose East Asian immigration to Australia. Nevertheless anecdotally it seems that East Asians in Australians are assimilating not much differently to earlier waves of Greeks and Italians, (who were slower still than the German, Dutch and Scandanavians) and probably faster than other groups like the Lebanese, who are cognitively, culturally, and religiously (for many) divided from the mainstream. In this sense a 5 per cent Chinese community in a white State would not pose the same threat that a 5 per cent Hispanic, Arab let alone black population. To this extent Australia is better off than US or Europe. To the degree there is miscegenation, an East Asian minority would only change the absolute genetic character not dilute the gentetic capability of future generations as would Hispanic and especially black miscegenation.

Dan, you make some good points. Implicit in your letter, however, seems to be acceptance of the inevitability of significant immigration, the only question being which groups bring about the least disruption to the traditional folk and culture comprising the nation which is already here and settled. However, there’s no reason why a policy similar to Japan’s, China’s, and India’s — where NO significant incompatible immigration is permitted — cannot be adopted for the United States. (I haven’t checked, but I’d bet this sort of immigration policy is the world norm, apart from the Western countries and the Anglosphere, which are expected for some reason to commit suicide.) The government of Mexico, which thinks nothing of flooding us with their tens of millions of peasants — and then calling on us to accept even MORE of them — allows only the tiniest trickle of extremely tightly controlled immigration into their own country, and that includes immigration of folk who are completely COMPATIBLE in language, race, religion, and culture with their own (folk from other Latin-American countries). Israel, small but not smaller in population than Denmark and Norway, wisely adopts a policy of allowing only Jews to come in.

Rather than discussing incompatible immigration at all, the Anglosphere and Europe should first remove their own foolish and unjust government-imposed barriers — and there are plenty of these — to their own inhabitants’ having more babies. Many Americans and Europeans, for example, would like to have babies, or have more of them, but are limited by financial constraints and don’t wish to go on welfare, where can be found many incompatible immigrant couples WHOSE BABIES ARE PAID FOR BY CONFISCATION THROUGH EXORBITANT TAX RATES OF THE MONEY THE WHITE INDIGENOUS COUPLES WOULD HAVE USED TO HAVE MORE OF THEIR OWN BABIES. Anyone who can’t see the grave injustice in this need to have his head examined.

Unadorned, I absolutely agree with you that the there is no reason why a policy of no incompatible immigration should and could be implemented in Western countries. The problem is even if we do this, the West, unlike Japan and Mexico, have a large population of minorities, who (except for East-Asians) have a high, often much higher fertility rate.

The question remains what should we do? Options could be nothing, segregation, partition, deportation, or eugenics. If the choice is nothing, there will be as there has been already de facto segregation with whites fleeing to the suburbs and private schools. However as the numbers of blacks, Hispanics and Arabs increase this will become increasingly harder, though still possible, a less extreme version of how white South Africans live today. It means however, forfeiting a nation, treachery to our ancestors who developed our country and descendents who will suffer the consequences. Segregation, separate but equal did work: before the 1960s black crime and literacy rates were similar to whites now. However there would have to be a massive cultural shift back to yesterday’s values for this to occur, and there would still be the problem of differential fertility and only lessen to degree crime. For the US, partition might be the best option, a Hispanic, black, and white states, and a multicultural one with where people want to live together. Deportation might have to be the solution for Muslim immigrants. However it is morally problematic to deport a well adapted and assimilated black, Hispanic or Muslim: but so was the expulsion, and murder of many Germans from Sudetenland and Poland following WWII, but there is no German problem there now.

Whatever solution I think will have to integrate eugenics of some kind. It is necessary to stop the fertility differential that exists and stop the decline in white fertility. its not just the welfare system if the education system, feminism so many factors that are causing white low fertility. Alot of whites don’t want more children - they think a career is more important. Eugenics encouraging white, and higher IQ fertility could be done by positive or negative eugenics, through the tax system, as well as other methods. Furthermore, as I have before on this forum, it might well be possible even in the next decade to use embryonic selection to increase IQ rates by 15 points per generation. Such a policy need not devalue transcendental or conservative values or cede power to the state. It would revert the dysgenic trend that is causing an overall decline in intelligence, a widening gap between the top and bottom, and between whites and minority non-East Asians. Of course there will be still different ethnic groups with different cultural affinities regardless of IQ, but a far more sophisticated society would evolve, and as long as the demographics were stable, with equal fertility rate and no incompatible immigration, the present ethnic mix could be maintained, and with everyone with IQs 140-200 there would be very little violence and a highly sophisticated polity. Democracy might even work!

BTW, while Israel only accepts Jews, by defining this as a religion not a race, they have imported a burgeoning underclass, with high fertility rate, crime and HIV levels when they initially let in over 30000 (now nearly 100000) Ethiopian Jews in the 1980s. Apparently some members of the Israeli government were reluctant to allow the Ethiopians in but in a democracy where parameters of public debate are defined by the cultural-Marxist media establishment, Israel was forced to admit a racially foreign minority cognitively incapable of assimilation. Where difference in result can only be attributed to discrimination, who can blame the Ethiopians if they treat their generous hosts with hostility and violence.

Dan, I want to comment on some of your new points but haven’t enough time right at the moment. I’ll try to do so tomorrow.

Dan, although it’s not a good thing that the better educated, higher IQ classes aren’t reproducing themselves too well, I don’t think this is connected with our current political problems. After all, it is precisely the white intellectual class which has been most active in deconstructing Western society (Coleridge saw the threat of this as far back as the early 1800s!). The problem is not the disappearance of the intellectual class, but the kind of worldview that they have been acting upon: in other words, it’s a software not a hardware problem.

Mark, you’re quite right that it is the intellectual class that has been most active in deconstructing society, and in that sense there seems to be almost a negative correlation between political sense and IQ, at least in last two centuries. However there was once a conservative part of the intelligentsia, the Old Right, associated with the landed interest in England although this it almost extinct today, this forum one of the notable exceptions.

The decline of intelligence will not be positive because it supposedly reduces the rank of the intelligentsia. The dysgenic cycle (decline of intelligence) is logically irrefutable, as it rests on two empirically verifiable facts: the substantial heritability of intelligence, and the differential fertility that has been occurring in the Western world and began as early as 1850. Ever since then, because of contraception, then feminism, and economic and educational pressures, the less intelligence have been having far more children than those at top of society. Average intrinsic IQ may have dropped six points since then, although it is partially masked by the environmental causes of the Flynn effect.

In the US, amongst blacks and Hispanics the phenomena is even more pronounced - educated black women have fewer children than whites of the same category but black welfare mothers proliferate greatly - which leads to an increased gap in intelligence between whites and blacks and whites and Hispanics, as well as a white and overall drop in intelligence. In addition, because of assorted mating - similar people having children – at the top level, the numbers of very IQ rates may actually increase. So at the top the most intelligent are having very few children but of more intelligence, while at the bottom there are more and dull people being born.

It is precisely in the interest of the political elite to have a burgeoning lumpenproletariat, largely on welfare, who will vote for the Left-wing, is incapable of understanding the philosophical basis of their society, and will assist in the breakdown of tradition values through crime and immorality. Similarly it is in their interest to increase immigration to provide a left-wing constituency that will be permanent underclass and increase through high fertility rates partially caused by welfare.

It does not follow that the decline in intelligence will result in fewer smart people and therefore a less powerful intelligentsia. As the “Bell Curve” explains well in 1900 the intelligent were spread more across society, the supply of high intelligence far outwayed the demand in the few professional jobs. Today with so many new technical jobs, the smartest are siphoned off into elite colleges and professional jobs. The laws of supply and demand will only and have only increased their power, and money. And there will be actually more very intelligent people at the highest levels. The elite of the cultural left do not need to be numerous; their strength is in their dominance in the means of communication like the media. With advances in technology it does not take many people to run a newspaper or TV station, and they need only to control the key positions. The raw numbers lie in their foot soldiers who go to protest rallies and are not at all bright. Immigration does not threaten the cultural elite either, as immigrants are either cognitively deficient, or in the case of high caste Indians and East Asians, have a high visuospatial IQ, and do not present a challenge to the high verbal IQ cultural intelligentsia.

Many people who have discovered the biological underpinnings of race, most consequential in IQ differences, ultimately become supporters of Eugenics. Unfortunately both the Left and Right have a distorted view of eugenics, clouded by the erroneous linkage to Nazi Germany. Up until WWII eugenics was supported by many of the finest minds across the world, including many traditional conservatives like Churchill, all realizing that it was the only way to prevent a perilous decline in human capability caused by humans preventing and indeed reversing the process of natural selection.

Dan, there’s much that I can agree with in your post. I think you’re spot on to date the decline of upper and middle class family life from about the 1850s. I think you’re right also that there was once a more traditionalist intelligentsia associated with the English landed interest (the support between Wordsworth and the Earl of Lonsdale being an obvious example.) I’m not sure about Churchill being a traditionalist conservative though. In the early 1900s Churchill led the campaign to retain an open borders immigration policy, and he also oversaw the beginnings of mass Caribbean immigration into Britain in the early 50s (despite opposition from within the Cabinet). He seems to have been like the Australian PM of the time, Robert Menzies: at best a mainstream conservative who had some personal preferences or “sentiments” toward the traditional but who did not think these applicable to public policy, where “progress” and the autonomous individual were enshrined.

As to the eugenics issue, I agree that the decline of a white intelligentsia won’t be politically positive. We need to convert a sufficient portion of this intelligentsia (it needn’t be a majority) to a more traditionalist world view, to provide a leadership for the rank and file. It can’t really be done through self-interest; we have to break some of the more idealistic and fully natured ones free from the limited perspective of choosing between left liberal & right liberal philosophies (at the moment the younger rebellious intellectuals see only left liberalism as a political home, whilst those rejecting left liberalism see only some variety of right liberalism as an alternative).

Mark, its funny I was thinking today that I may have made a mistake describing Churchill as a conservative – although he is that in part, and my general point about the Old Right supporting eugenics, like the Pioneer Foundation today, is still valid. Churchill, like Menzies was also a Liberal Party member at times. I think Salisbury is a better example of a true conservative, and there has been few in Western politics since, with Liberalism the universal consensus. In terms of converting the intelligentsia, we either need to have views like what is expressed in VFR in conservative magazines like Quadrant or in mainstream newspapers by people like Janet Albrechtsen in Australia. Perhaps we might have to infiltrate the media like the Gramscian Left has done. It would be great if some conservative millionaire out there could be the benefactor for a rival conservative newspaper or TV channel.

With regard to Dan’s Jan. 26th (11:36) posting, it is morally more than “problematic” not only to deport “well adapted and assimilated” minorities but anyone at all, once they have been granted citizenship rights, i.e. once they have been promised the equal protection of the law. This protection might have to be dispensed with after a civil war that was the fault of the unadapted minority. Expulsion carried out merely as a preventive measure would justify the waging of war on white society by the minority. The morality here is on a completely different plane from putting restrictions on further immigration.

The description of black segregation before the 1960s as “separate but equal” also seems to indicate some kind of moral blindness.

I understand Ian your repellence to some of the measures I suggested as possible considerations, but at some point, and sooner the better, tough decisions will have to be made. I was just putting some of the options on the table. Even many opponents of unrestricted immigration don’t seem to appreciate the demographic issue: even if we stopped immigration in the US or Western Europe, higher fertility rates amongst Hispanics, Muslims and Blacks will ensure they will continue to increase in proportion until they become a majority and we will loose our country. It is not just a small difference in fertility. I am talking about in the case of Hispanics in the US close to twice the white rate and Muslims in Western Europe in cases 3 or 4 times higher. High fertility and lack of integration will not change greatly as it is a result of economic, cultural, biological and cognitive factors. Do you have a solution? Sometimes it is the case of choosing the less unpleasant option.

Regarding deportation, I did not say that I necessarily supported it in a non-war situation; indeed I was thinking of some horrific terrorist attack, like a nuclear bomb on New York, if assisted by Muslims in the US, then there might be a case, and strong public feeling for mass Muslim deportation. Of course the deportees should receive very generous financial compensation. Deportation in peacetime is at the very least morally problematic, but with the deportees well financially compensated it may be necessary if the alternative is loss of nationhood. Nevertheless the moral and practical difficulties of deportation led me to suggest another solution, an evential partition of America into white, black, Hispanic and multicultural states. Although it was English whites that built America’s institutions, and the political nation is still overwhelmingly white, the presence of large numbers of blacks and Hispanics is not the fault of the minorities themselves but shortsighted liberals and capitalists, so it may be proper that whites cede a good part of their country as a consequence of their myopia. However, I think adoption of eugenic policies would ultimately address crime, education, and demographic issues and so forestall the need for deportation or partition.

I don’t think there is anything inherently wrong with segregation in principle. It is natural for people to want to live with people like themselves. Is it okay for black sociologists like Leslie Innis and Doris Wilkinson to now condemn integration as an “absolute, abysmal failure” but not whites?

My “separate but equal” comment was unclear and perhaps misleading: I meant segregation does not have to mean supremacy, but can be separate but equal although it wasn’t always like this in the South and even more in South Africa. Like many here I think the evils of segregation have been greatly exaggerated, but this does not mean that there were no cases of injustice, or that it was always “separate but equal”. However segregation need not have any element of supremacy. Despite communist propaganda, Rhodesia was in no way a white supremacy, merely paternal, and had one of the safest crime rates in the world, a franchise that allowed educated intelligent blacks to become members of parliament, and excellent health and education standards. Indeed only a few areas were segregated like toilets and schooling. Look at Zimbabwe now.

With no segregation, the overwhelming number of blacks in the US and elsewhere (and poor whites not elites) are now worse off. Illegitimacy rates and crime has skyrocketed, the poor are locked in welfare, and education standards have plummeted. One need not support segregation to consider the present malaise worse.

Mr. Auster’s blog entry is an extremely impressive example of the sort of simple yet potentially revolutionary truthtelling whose diffusion and influence are beginning to accelerate in the world of thinking people thanks partly to the inability of the left to control the blogosphere. 

Forces other than the left who dream of standing in the way of truthtelling on these matters include, of course, Big Business and Wall Street, who loathe any discussion that threatens the astronomical profits assured by the massive, unfettered importation-at-will of docile, non-unionized, slave-wage (though ethnically and culturally totally incompatible) foreign peasant-workers from far-flung alien places like Somalia and Chiappas, whose almost free labor translates — for CEOs and the “winter-in-Gstaad” crowd — into yearly incomes in the millions, tens of millions, and hundreds of millions in salaries, bonuses, stock options, and dividends, as these people cash in without a thought in the world about what the societal implications might be of these unprecedented ethno-cultural transformations caused by their policies.

Mmmmmm ….. where have we seen this before?  Yes … we saw it in the establishment and ongoing entrenchment of the institution of slavery during the 1600s, 1700s, and 1800s and the importation of slaves until the trade (though not the institution) was finally outlawed: Dixie’s wealthy class doing something strictly for their own short-sighted enrichment-of-the-moment without a thought in the world as to what their actions would portend for the future of their country (let alone its morality toward the Negroes they enslaved, which is an entirely different question, of course).

What the Bob Bartley/Bill Buckley class of wealthy fools and moral criminals are doing now, in vigorously pushing the replacement of non-docile whites in this country by a docile (temporarily docile, at any rate) non-white peasant class whom they are importing by the millions as fast as they can (they know they must do it fast in order that before any resistance can be organized it will be too late) is fraught with the same seeds of evil for the future as was the establishment of “The Peculiar Institution” during the 1600s by Bartley’s and Buckley’s spiritual and moral forebears. (By the way, has anyone ever seen a moral transformation so unanticipated and disgraceful as that undergone by Bill Buckley? It ranks as one of the mysteries of the 20th century. A man before, he is, Kafka-like, become an insect now.)

The first four readers’ comments (by Matt, Mr. Auster, and Bob Vandervoort) help greatly to flesh out the notions under discussion, mainly the crucial one of the influence of ethnicity on culture, something the mainstream refuses to discuss in any medium be it ink, online, or broadcast, or in any forum, be it the university campus, party platform, or whatever. The middle and working classes of this country are under genocidal attack by forces who don’t care whether ethnicity influences culture or about any related question, possessing eyes able only to see how their obscene Wall Street profits may be maximized.

Let us, the middle and working classes, wake up and fight back. We’ll be fighting alone — our own élites have not merely abandoned us, but have actually joined the vanguard attacking us. But what is our alternative?

Bring it on!  

“[A]bsolute genetic distance is perhaps not so important as the type of difference. While far more genetically distant than Arabs to Anglo-Saxons, East Asians are nevertheless more suitable to assimilating into the white population.” — Dan

That sounds true. But let’s limit ourselves to ASSIMILATING (a reasonably modest quantity of) Orientals — or living alongside them without assimilating them, in the case where they may not wish assimilation — rather than BEING REPLACED BY THEM. One can respect and love Orientals and Oriental races and cultures, and still not wish to see one’s country turned into China, Korea, or Japan through the physical replacement of us by them via wrong immigration policy.

“The genetic distinction of the Oriental is in many ways favorable: a high average IQ (around 106 compared to the white 100), along with low testosterone so less likely to convict criminal offenses even at the same IQ level as other races.” — Dan

What you say here is important, in that it touches on the undoubted truth that there are inborn genetic factors OTHER THAN JUST IQ — and very likely tons of such non-IQ inborn factors — which influence the social behavior of ethnic groups the world over and the kinds of societies they create.

“[W]hat should we do [about the fact that — immigration aside — incompatible populations already here have higher birthrates]? … Eugenics encouraging white and higher-IQ fertility could be done … through the tax system, as well as by other methods.” — Dan

When you say “eugenics” (eugenics is based on the opposite of Christianity and I consider it an abomination on a par with such things as partial-birth abortion and the euthanising of the mentally retarded or the elderly) one gets the impression that what is contemplated is “race improvement” imposed from the top down by some bunch of bureaucrats. There is no such thing as “race improvement.” (The very idea is unholy and unclean.) There is only the morality and common sense that we’re supposed to live by, and whatever comes of that will be the most improved race possible — complete with all its feeble-minded and all its Nobel Prize winners. What you are talking about when you imagine the benefits that would accrue from eugenics is simply the way things would be if government got its dirty rotten filthy stinking hands for once off the factors which directly and indirectly influence the having of babies by all concerned. If government did that, all would go immediately and naturally in the direction of the maximum good for all concerned — races and individuals alike. No race, ethnic group, culture, nation, or religion is “better” than any other. Every race, ethnic group, culture, nation, and religion has the right not to be erased against its wish by means of gas chambers, excessive incompatible immigration, tax laws and social policy favoring the birth-rates of some ethnicities at the expense of others, etc. — even if those attempting to do the erasing are the intended victim-group’s own élites. I don’t want to force white people to reproduce themselves if they don’t want to. If truly they don’t want to, then bye-bye white people and, frankly, good riddance to bad rubbish — good riddance to any ethnic group which lacks the genes for self-love and the desire to reproduce itself. What I object to is government-planned-and-coerced erasure of targeted groups — exactly what Bush and Rove are up to right now in this country (and three guesses who Bush and Rove’s targeted group is).

“One can respect and love Orientals and Oriental races and cultures, and still not wish to see one’s country turned into China, Korea, or Japan through the physical replacement of us by them via wrong immigration policy.”

This is the single most important insight that anyone can have on the immigration issue. To the extent that white people grasp what Unadorned is talking about here, they will be able, in good conscience, to get a realistic handle on the immigration problem. But to the extent that they remain unable to grasp it, they will continue to regard any Western cultural defense as a denial of the equal humanity of non-Western groups, and as a result any serious immigration reform will remain, for whites, a moral and practical impossibility.

While I’m usually a spectator in these discussions, I felt it was pertinent contribute given the direction the discussion has taken. What follows is an exchange between myself and a conservative friend who proposed a merit-based immigration policy based on intelligence.

>>>I’m not really concerned whether we are allowing in people of color, I’m concerned that all too many of our immigrants are poor, unskilled, uneducated, lazy, and frankly not too bright. Also we are simply allowing in too many people-the number of immigrants is too big. We can’t afford to bring in 1,000,000 legal immigrants and 300,000+ illegal aliens every year indefinately.

As I said before, I think we need to eliminate illegal immigration as much as possible (to a few thousand a year or less, and zero illegals from the mideast). With legal immigration, a quota of 300,000 or so would be appropriate. We also need a merit-based system that will bring in brighter (in IQ, not skin color…), more educated, harder-working people (which is what this high-tech economy needs). Under such a plan, 50-60% or more of admitted immigrants would still probably be nonwhite, with probably around 3-5% Latinos.<<<

My response:

I’m in partial agreement with you, as unskilled, illiterate third-worlders with room-temperature IQs are prone to jump on every available form of welfare - subsidized housing, SSI, medicare, medicaid, and food stamps - once they arrive in the US, which subsidizes their breeding habits, prolongs their stay and increases the existing burdon on the white taxpayer to extend obligations normally reserved for his immediate family to total strangers. We part company, however, on the issue of race. Why shouldn’t race be an important part of a nation’s immigration policy, especially if that nation was created by Europeans, and still remains (for the time being) culturally and linguistically European? You seem to be implying that all non-white immigrants bring with them when they emigrate to the US is a different hue of skin and IQ, low or otherwise. They also bring their folkways, traditions, ethnic loyalties, memories and customs along with them when they emigrate to the US. In essence, they transplant replicas of the cultures from their nation of origin to their new home.

Now, if the merit-based immigration policy you desire replaced America’s existing policy tommorrow, Koreans and assorted East Asians would probably take the place of Mexicans as America’s chief immigrant group. I can understand why you’d regard East Asians as a more desirable group to house than Mexicans - they don’t destroy public schools with their dismal academic performance, they’re less prone to suck off the welfare state, they’re less prone to commit violent crimes and consequently fill up federal prisons, they don’t have annoying personal habits (like shouting at each other and gesticulating wildly in crowded public areas) and they don’t import some stupid culture that the media tries to dress up to make it look “equal” to the host culture. But the culture the East Asians bring is nontheless alien to America’s host culture, which is European.

In Vancouver, British Columbia, the Chinese immigrants who poured in en mass over the years have supplanted the Anglo-Saxon population in that city and created a virtual replica of Hong Kong. The Korean immigrants in southern California have done the same thing —
create ethnic enclaves. The merit-based immigration policy you would like to see, while a vast improvement over our existing policy, would nevertheless put European America on the same road to ruin the existing policy is taking us down.