October 18, 2009

My new VDARE.com column on Asian voters

From my new column in VDARE.com, once again on last week's Asian voter theme:
I’m continuing to think about how the Republican Party—or, more accurately a generic patriotic party that reflects traditional American values—can win national elections if current immigration policy is not altered and the racial balance of the U.S. continues to be shifted by the federal government. ...

Overall, though, the trend toward East Asians voting Democrat stems largely from Democrats winning in the struggle to be chic among elite whites. East Asians tend to be rather conformist. They take quickly to mouthing a society’s dominant platitudes, which in America are increasingly liberal.

I’m reminded of something that surprised me in the late 1990s. My wife worked with a Korean immigrant lady named (unsurprisingly) Ms. Kim. The poor woman’s husband had died in a car crash a few years before, leaving her with two small children to raise.

I was startled to learn that Ms. Kim referred to herself as a "single mother" rather than as a "widow," which seemed to me to be the more accurate and more respectable term.

But that just showed what an out-of-date fuddy-duddy I was. As a relative newcomer to America in the Age of Oprah, Ms. Kim had noticed what I hadn’t: that it’s now uncool for modern American widows to attempt to distinguish themselves from unwed mothers. That would be insensitive and discriminatory.

This doesn’t mean that, in her heart, Ms. Kim agreed with contemporary American mores. After all she grew up in a culture that stigmatizes illegitimacy as strongly as any in the developed world. In 2007, only 1.6 percent of babies were born out of wedlock in South Korea, versus a staggering 39.7 percent in the U.S. (That’s 72 percent illegitimacy among blacks, 51 percent among Hispanics, 28 percent among whites, and 17 percent among Asians).

But East Asians are used to hypocrisy. If the rich and respectable in America demand certain pro forma declarations, well, that’s a small price to be paid to not be excluded from polite society.

Granted, American hypocrisy is bizarrely inverted—rather than pretending to be better than she is, fashionable Americans want the Widow Kim to pretend to be worse than she is. But if that’s what the socially-influential whites in America say they want to hear, well, lip service is cheap.

Hu’s Rule, invented by journalist Arthur Hu in the 1990s, is that Asians tend to be slightly more conservative than their white neighbors—but they tend to choose liberal white neighbors.

Read the whole thing here and comment upon it below.

My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer

126 comments:

Anonymous said...

Overall, though, I believe the trend to East Asians voting Democrat stems largely from Democrats winning in the struggle to be chic among elite whites. East Asians tend to be rather conformist. They take quickly to mouthing a society’s dominant platitudes, which in America are increasingly liberal...

My view: Asians will continue to hop on the anti-white bandwagon until such time as whites get up the backbone to tell them to stop. After that, whites and Asians should get along reasonably well.



Gee, those ideas sure sound familiar.

Umm... said...

I was startled to learn that Ms. Kim referred to herself as a "single mother" rather than as a "widow," which seemed to me to be the more accurate and more respectable term.

Couldn't this just be due to poor English skills?

Shawn said...

Mr. Sailer writes:

"If you take a simplistic model of partisanship, in which Democrats, as the tax-and-spend party, appeal more to those who get more out of government spending than they put in..."

If Obama keeps his pledge and taxes are only going to be raised on people who make over $200k, or families who make over $250, then wouldn't only a sliver of the population (less than 1%) be hurt by the new taxes?

I vote Republican because the Democrats have proven themselves to be more anti-White (especially White male) than than the Republicans.

Shawn said...

Yes, NAMs is a good word; good point!

Walsh said...

Forget it Steve. It's Chinatown.

Mark said...

Who'd want to call themselves a widow or widower? It makes you sound old. If you're widowed and still on the market, you'd want to go by anything but "widow."

As for Asians, since they're richer than whites any policy that takes from Europeans- takes and then some from Asians-, whether affirmative action, quotas, higher tax rates, etc. Eventually Asians will realize this and revolt. As it is Asian immigration will dry up sooner than you might think, and their percentage of the American population, thanks to their low birth rates and high intrermarriage rates, will decline pretty rapidly.

There are more opportunities to be found at home, the value of the dollar is falling, and tax rates will soon be climbing, while unemployment will stay in the double digits for a decade or more, the way it's been in Europe.

The old saying by Ben Stein's dad is appropriate - "if something can't go on forever, it won't." Immigration was making us poorer. Thanks to the credit/real estate bubble it took us longer to realize that than it should have, but we are now there.

Argent Paladin said...

As half of my family is Korean, I mostly agree with these observations. I think Koreans are mostly apolitical, more concerned with personal and familial success. East Asians are disproportionately represented in academia, medicine and science which are all fields that skew left to some degree. Asian culture is much more sensitive to social norms than Western and thus Asians tend to conform to whatever majority culture they are in.
The interesting thing, though, is that Korean-Americans are really, really Christian, mainly Evangelical Protestant. It seems to be the main way that Korean identity and culture is expressed.

anontoday said...

My first encounter with Asian radicalization in the university was at Cal in the early 90's with a Korean guy who had been a friend back home in So Cal. I hadn't seen him for a few years and it took a mere fifteen minutes of talking upon our meeting again for him to pronounce me a racist. He had said been describing his plans to visit Korea over the coming Christmas break, telling me how nice a place it was and suggesting that I consider a visit there myself. When I asked him if Christmas was celebrated in Korea - since the holiday would after all be happening during his trip - his answer was "oh my god, that is SO racist," and looked at me as if I had just told him I'd drugged and raped a 13-year-old. No joke. This had been an entirely normal, intelligent and decent guy when I had known him pre-Berkeley. He wasn't even an Asian Studies, or whatever, major. It was something like econ or business.

Ah... said...

So.

Sol Invictus said...

When I asked him if Christmas was celebrated in Korea - since the holiday would after all be happening during his trip - his answer was "oh my god, that is SO racist," and looked at me as if I had just told him I'd drugged and raped a 13-year-old.

Is this what qualifies as "radicalization" these days?

The response of your Korean acquaintance here, and the variations of it that are common these days, are interesting in that they hint at a kind of submission to contemporary Western/globalist hegemony. Implicitly, the message is something like, "just because I'm not white/Western doesn't mean I don't celebrate Christmas (or support women's rights, gay rights, etc.).

The exchange between you two reveals how 2 birds are killed with one stone in today's system. The native white Westerner is kept in check through threats of being called/perceived a "racist," while the non-white Westerner is led to follow/submit to Christmas, women's rights, gay rights, ideological hegemony, etc.

It clearly aspires to global domination, and this reveals one way that it seeks to implement it. Whether it will actually be successful in achieving total domination is yet to be seen.

Bob said...

"Republican states, wealthy white voters are more likely to be Republicans than downscale white voters. That’s not true in Democratic states"

Again you glide by a key issue killing republicans. Why is it that coastal rich whites don't vote for the GOP anymore?

Maybe because, as a previous comment noted, the GOP has become the party of Sarah Palin and Toby Keith. Of nutjob fag-bashing megachurch preachers. Of the birthers.

It's actually worse than that for the GOP. The children of the rich, even in whitest middle America, are also alienated from the party and voted strongly for Obama.

A few years ago you made the excellent point that the GOP turns off secular whites with its anti-environmentalism. That was a really good start.

More recently however your analysis degraded into juvenile SWPLblogging. At the same time, the GOP, which was once competitive everywhere in the USA, has now basically vanished from the Northeast and Pacific Coast, and has gone from dominating the interior West to at best breaking even.

anontoday said...

Is this what qualifies as "radicalization" these days?

You'd need to ask Derb, since he introduced the usage here, but I'd venture my friend easily fits within the population he described. I.e., studious but naive Asians who join or are recruited into the multicultural bog after entering university.

Bob said...

It is a lot easier to come up with a winning agenda for the GOP than it is to figure out how to get that person through a GOP primary.

Mitt Romney, running as a middle-of-the-road "adult" candidate beat a democrat for governor of Massachusetts. Rudy Guiliani won twice in NYC, which is about 5-1 Democrat. Pete Wilson and Arnold both won in California twice by large margins.

The winning formula for the GOP is clear: law and order is a top priority, and centrism on social and economic issues.

Is there really much doubt Romney/Giuliani wouldn't have beat Obama in 2008, in particular a Romney that didn't have to flip flop on a dozen issues to be viable in GOP primaries?

The reason this won't happen is the party is solidly in the hands of a few corporate interests, what Ike called the military-industrial complex, with as abused junior partners social conservative activists.

The people who run the party now are very keen on keeping control of it, even if it means losing most of the time. They have a lot of money, and I don't see any group capable of taking control of the party from them.

Again, your analysis here is very week. You accuse Asian democrats of "conformism" and high-income white Democrats of false-consciousness and say their heads are full of unrealistic ideas about race.

In fact, the Republican party is shocking and grotesque in both its platform and leaders. White Californians are well aware their interests do not coincide with NAMs. That's not the reason they vote for Democrats. It's that the Republican alternative is far far worse.

Where have you ever acknowledged that trashing the environment, trashing public institutions and finances, trashing the American tradition of public secularism and dragging the country into multiple bloody middle eastern wars is a far worse than, *God forbid it*, having a 15% minority set aside at elite colleges and road construction projects?

Andrea said...

Also, white liberals don't really like Asians because white liberals really want to keep the power to themselves so as to enjoy the privilege of doling out favors to the 'poor and noble' blacks and browns. Asians, unlike NAMs, challenge whites in their privileged positions. By succeeding as non-whites, Asians violate or undermine the whole white and Jewish liberal notion that US is a 'racist' nation where non-whites have no real chance of success unless Big Government helps them out. White liberals also dislike Asians in that China, Japan, and Korea are all example of homogeneous national power. Liberals, who've been telling us that diversity is the key to national progress and success, may have to explain why China and Japan have done better than Peru or Detroit. Also, many Asians--even liberal ones--have complained about affirmative action being used against Asians, especially in California. This makes liberals very very angry. (Oddly enough, though liberals encourage Asians to go against stereotype of the timid demure geekery, Asians are expected to blindly toe the liberal affirmative action line which shunts them aside in favor of blacks and Browns--and even whites).

In my highschool, Asian kids who got terrific test scores and grades weren't accepted into Ivy League schools whereas black kids who were only above-average got in. And though the top ten students were all Jewish, Asian, and white, the student voted as 'most intelligent' was a black girl who didn't even make the top 50. Now, you know why Obama won the Nobel.
So, I assume there is a good deal of anger in the Asian community. But, there's a problem. Asians know that whites don't feel guilt towards them as toward blacks and browns. With blacks, there's the obvious slavery factor. With Hispanics, it's more tricky. Spanish and Portuguese whites were imperialists and slave traders too, so why should they and their mixed blood descendants be seen as 'victims' of American whites? I suppose the very fact that many Mexicans and Puerto Ricans are poor is enough for them to claim 'victimhood'--like Appalachian whites are the perennial favorite among leftists. But, there is also the stuff about Latin America having been treated as 'backyard' of gringo/yankee imperialism since the Monroe Doctrine. And since US backed rightwing regimes against communist insurgency in the 20th century, many leftist intellectuals and academics have created the grand narrative where Latinos were prevented from creating progressive utopia because of the evil imperialistic meddling of Tio Sam.

Since victimhood is the name of the game, Asians figure they must play it too. The victimhood game isn't really about being real victims but about using symbolic or 'historical' victimhood to gain power and even to victimize others. (It's like Christians constantly rehashed the crucifixion of Jesus, the murder of Peter and Paul, and feeding of Christians to lions over and over and over to gain ever greater power and to morally justify that power. Even when Christians gained all the power and were killing non-Christians, Christians always posed as noble pure-hearted folks living in accordance to the victimization of Jesus and the saints. So, PC victim politics actually has roots in Christianity.) Just look at Jews today. They are richest, most powerful, and most privileged people in the US(and even in the world)yet they go still go on and on about the Holocaust and their victimhood. This is not because they are currently being victimized but because the victim card is their ACE in the game of power(if only to silence their critics). How amusing that Jews use the Holocaust card against Palestinians who had NOTHING do with the genocide and who've only committed violence against Jews becauseJews stole Palestinian land!!! And when blacks rioted and looted Jewish businesses in the 60s and Asian businesses in the 90s, they always used the victim card to justify their loot(and fun).

Andrea said...

The rise of the Chinese-American community is bound to upset the traditional Asian-American equilibrium. From 1949 to the early 80s, there was little immigration from mainland China in the grip of Maoism. As a result, Asian population in the US became evenly diverse. There was a mix of filipinos, Koreans, Indians, Vietnamese, Pakis, etc. Many of these people had friendly feelings toward the US. Filippino and US relations go way back. South Korea was saved and protected by the US. Vietnamese and Laotian refugees in the late 1970s were running from communism. They were bound to be more pro-American than most immigrants. (Though anti-communist Polish immigrants were also very pro-American). Also, this diversity among Asians meant there could be no united Asian bloc. But, for some time now, the dominant Asian immigration to the US has comprised the Chinese mainlanders. As Chinese economy becomes more integrated with rest of Asia, even overseas Chinese feel a strong nationalistic pride about China. Even Taiwanese-American scientists have been caught for spying for China. This does become worrisome because China may turn into a major rival for the US. If non-Chinese Asians in the US welcome American role in Asia as a counterweight to big bad China, many Chinese-Americans are likely to see US as standing in the way of China's right to become a superpower. If Chinese eventually become the dominant Asian group in the US, it might not be good for US nor for the Asian community as a whole. Similarly, it would have been better if the Hispanic community were more diverse than overwhelmingly Mexican. Suppose Mexicans made up only 10% of Hispanics in the US while the rest was made up of Peruvians, Chileans, Venezuelans. Argentinians, Cubans, etc. There would be a less united, aggresive, and concerted Hispanic(mostly Mexican) attempt to undermine the power of the white majority. La Raza or Razism is only possible because most Hispanics are Mexicans--a good number of them Illegal.

Perhaps, Asians can be an asset to the conservatives in this sense. Even if Asians are 60/40 Democratic/Republian, IF many Asians become prominent in intellectual positions, they could play an important role as public intellectuals for the Right. Liberal Asian intellectuals are less likely to play as important a role since the liberal intellectual spectrum is already crowded by Jews, wasps, women, blacks, browns, gays, etc. There is no shortage of intellectuals or BIG THINKERS on the left. Just look at the media and academia. But, the right has always been undermanned in the intellectual department, which is why Catholics and Neocons came to dominate. Protestant conservatives, especially them fellas down in the Soooouth, aren't too much into book learning. Maybe this non-intellectualism is a good thing in a way; after all, Americans have been known for their pragmatism and moderation, neither being a hallmark of modern intellectualism. But, the fact is intellectuals and scholars do play a crucial role in various professions, especially in politics, laws, economics, etc. Because of paucity of intellectualism among the protestant right, the Catholic Right--Buchanan, Michael Novack, Bob Novak(originally Jewish), various supreme court justices, Bill Buckley, and many others--has come to dominate much of conservative ideology, values, and thought. Heck, even Gingrich turned Catholic recently. Perhaps with the megamallization of most protestant churches, conservative intellectuals are drawn to the arch-traditionalism and timeless air of sanctity of the Catholic Faith--you can't do Mass to the music of U2.

Andrea said...

Anyway, perhaps Asian conservatives can play a major role as conservative intellectuals. The conservative intellectual field, unlike the liberal one, isn't crowded but wide open to any number of newcomers. So, even if there are fewer Asian conservative intellectuals than liberal ones, the former will face less competition and make more of a difference. Though many might consider John Yoo a poor example, the fact is an intelligent, articulate, and well-read scholar did join the conservative side of the argument on National Security. The right has a lot of pundits, talkers, yammerers, and personalities but not too many intellectuals. Ann Coulter writes books but it's more entertainment than real ideas. Dinesh D'Souza's END OF RACISM, however misconceived it may have been in parts, was a serious book on history and race, one that used genuine academic knowledge to counter some of the sacred cows of the Left. The rise of the Asian Conservative Intellectual may be an interesting development. The political debate will then be largely Radical Jewish/black/gay/feminist(on the left) vs Catholic/neocon Jewish/Asian(on the Right).

Finally, I wonder to what extent Asians might shy away from conservatism out of fear of being labeled as 'teacher's pet' or a 'twinkie'(Yellow on the outside, white on the inside). I've met some Asian liberals who detest Michelle Malkin as a 'teacher's pet' who betrayed her own kind because she is sooooooo desperate to be liked and petted by the white community. The fact that her pieces show up on Vdare is especially scandalous to Asian liberals who can't understand why any sane non-white person would contribute pieces to a site that says 'America ONLY for white people'(though Vdare isn't about that at all).

Bob said...

Andrea, you make the same mistake that Steve does.

Republicans nominate an blood-thirsty corporatist warmonger of little intelligence and an even duller and less articulate Pentecostal megachurch fundie who participated in exorcisms and doesn't read newspapers. A woman who was so blinded by religion she lacked the good sense to abort her downs syndrome fetus!

Democrats nominate a family man and Harvard Law School graduate who had the good sense to oppose the Iraq War and promise to end it.

Your (and Steve's conclusion): whites who voted for Obama because of guilt and racial egalitarianism! Also because Obama was "cool."

Anonymous said...

Asians in America are more likely than average to go to college, and are conscientious students rather than rebels, and therefore are more likely to soak up liberalism.

Shouting Thomas said...

Republicans nominate an blood-thirsty corporatist warmonger of little intelligence and an even duller and less articulate Pentecostal megachurch fundie who participated in exorcisms and doesn't read newspapers. A woman who was so blinded by religion she lacked the good sense to abort her downs syndrome fetus!

Ugh! This is not the rhetoric of a decent person. Unbearable pretension and self-congratulation.

You're a SWPL Democrat, Bob. You've got all the characteristics.

The mistake Republicans made was nominating a candidate that Democrats found likeable. Next time, I doubt that the Republican will repeat that mistake.

Sarah Palin will make a great candidate. What you hate about her, Bob, is that she will probably win. She's actually a Republican, unlike McCain.

keypusher said...

A South Asian friend of mine noted with surprise (and pleasure, since she is a leftist) how economically successful Asians had bought into the "persons of color" narrative, in which they were among the oppressed fighting the white oppressors.

It is no small thing that the only non-presidents the average high school student can identify as major figures in American history are people like Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King. Not that Parks and King don't deserve honor, but they are not the only ones.

David said...

I have a few "angry Asian" stories, if anyone wants to hear them.

Anonymous said...

Question is: how long conservative or moderate white voters will buy into the idea of America democratizing the world through military intervention, especially in the Mid East (a euphemism for knee jerk militant pro-Israel policy). Asians seem much more skeptical about that than whites. So long as white voters take their cue from the Pods and Kristols, Asians will gravitate elsewhere.

anony-mouse said...

These naturally conservative East Asians wouldn't be the same people who created the world's largest Communist dictatorship, another Communist dictatorship that beat the US in a war, another Communist dictatorship that killed a huge number of their own people, and another one that is trying to be a major nuclear power?

Mr. Anon said...

"Bob said...

Is there really much doubt Romney/Giuliani wouldn't have beat Obama in 2008, in particular a Romney that didn't have to flip flop on a dozen issues to be viable in GOP primaries?"

Doubt, no. Certainty, yes. Neither Romney nor Giuliani had the remotest chance of beating Obama. If Romney wants to be President, he should stop being a Mormon, and if Giuliani wants the job, he should stop the drag-queen act.

Moreover, G.W. Bush so discredited the Republican party that any Republican would have had a hard time winning.

Mr. Anon said...

The term "Asian Pacific Islander" connotes an alliance that doesn't really exist, does it? I don't percieve that Samoans and Koreans have much in common.

Rohan Swee said...

By succeeding as non-whites, Asians violate or undermine the whole white and Jewish liberal notion that US is a 'racist' nation where non-whites have no real chance of success unless Big Government helps them out.

Since when do lefties let facts interfere with a good oppression narrative? Hang out at any "progressive" forum and you can easily get yourself castigated for "promoting that model-minority bullshit" - that "model-minority bullshit" being the belief that the success and prosperity of Asians might indicate that they are not, in fact, being held down by the Man. No measure of aggregate success and power in a minority can ever count as evidence that whites are not oppressing them. Since, as a matter of course, some East and South Asians will fail or be of modest attainment, these individuals suffice to demonstrate pervasive white racism.

White liberals also dislike Asians in that China, Japan, and Korea are all example of homogeneous national power. Liberals, who've been telling us that diversity is the key to national progress and success, may have to explain why China and Japan have done better than Peru or Detroit.

Nonsense. White liberals have nothing against any non-whites protecting their own races and cultures. Oh, when pressed, they will pretend, say, to be appalled at how dreadfully racist those Japanese are, but they don't actually think about such things for more than two seconds, and if they did, I'm sure could come up with some delightful whoppers about why it's OK when non-whites do it. In fact, I'm sure I've come across a few who maintain that all nationalism, racism and xenophobia in non-whites is merely a defensive reaction to European imperialism and racism.

But often enough, "citizen of the world" diversitoids are often disturbingly provincial in their (lack of) understanding of other countries. It's amazing how some people can travel the world and not notice that the human world really is diverse diverse, not TV diverse. I wouldn't be surprised if a fair percentage of such types would just flat-out deny that, say, the Chinese are racist. "You just don't understand their culture".

...like Appalachian whites are the perennial favorite among leftists.

Really? I can remember a time when Appalachia was big amongst the proto-swipples, but I was under the impression the hillbillies had long been ditched in favor of Mexicans, Somalis, etc.

silly girl said...

"East Asians tend to be rather conformist. They take quickly to mouthing a society’s dominant platitudes, which in America are increasingly liberal."

Best place to target East Asians is taxes. Most actually make enough to pay taxes. Make the point that their taxes are going to support the bad habits of losers, literally taking it away from their own children. Best place to do this is at the state and local level. State politics is closer to home. School bonds, property taxes, state income tax, sales taxes etc.

silly girl said...

"Who'd want to call themselves a widow or widower? It makes you sound old. If you're widowed and still on the market, you'd want to go by anything but "widow."

No. Widow/widower signals to other widowed men and women who are potential high quality mates that you are not trashy. If I were widowed and wanted to remarry, I would look for a mate from the widowed pool not from the divorced. Divorced signals many undesirable character traits. Single mother does as well. East Asians probably just don't think about the term "single" as being lower status than widow(er).

Anonymous said...

Steve Sailer: Overall, though, the trend toward East Asians voting Democrat stems largely from Democrats winning in the struggle to be chic among elite whites. East Asians tend to be rather conformist. They take quickly to mouthing a society’s dominant platitudes, which in America are increasingly liberal.

Argent Paladin: Asian culture is much more sensitive to social norms than Western and thus Asians tend to conform to whatever majority culture they are in.

anontoday: ...a Korean guy who had been a friend back home in So Cal. I hadn't seen him for a few years and it took a mere fifteen minutes of talking upon our meeting again for him to pronounce me a racist...

In other words, Asians lack an internal moral compass - instead, they are compliant, pliable, malleable people who do what they're told to do - just like women.

Speaking of the Derb, this question of the extent to which our personalities are molded by our genes is both fascinating and quite terrifying.

I used to believe in all that universalist "created equal" nonsense which inspired our forefathers, but if you look at how quickly some folks abandon [what ought to be] their moral compass when they come into contact with nihilism, then you can't help but wonder whether there is indeed an innate moral compass in the first place, or whether the moral compass is an aspect of learned behavior, and must be taught and practiced and reinforced and re-learned throughout one's life.

Or maybe Calvin [via Darwin] was right - maybe some people are born with the gene for the moral compass, and others are not.

I don't know.

At the end of the day, if I never aspire to become anything more than merely an anti-nihilist, then I suppose I'll have to continue believing in the existence of the innate moral compass, but the ease with which nihilism consumes [and destroys] people like the East Asians is really, really depressing.

PS: A little off-topic, but I feel like maybe I should warn you that Komment Kontrol is doing a pretty efficient job of chasing off all the good people from this site, and, increasingly, all that remain are posters like what you've got in this thread - ecopagan, democidal conformists.

If that's your target audience, then why don't you drop the paleocon pretense and go work for Reason magazine?

Anonymous said...

Your (and Steve's conclusion): whites who voted for Obama because of guilt and racial egalitarianism! Also because Obama was "cool."


Young people fall for "cool". Older people know that "cool" people suck balls. They always get more from you than you do from them.

I am glad I listened to my parents on that one. Never fall for "cool". The "cool" people always want you to do their work for them because they are so "cool". Shiny, pretty, lazy, losers hogging attention, much of it unearned.

Anonymous said...


Granted, American hypocrisy is bizarrely inverted—rather than pretending to be better than she is, fashionable Americans want the Widow Kim to pretend to be worse than she is.


Steve, you don't understand Asians.

It is de rigeur in East Asian society to pretend that you are less worthy than you are. This just fits into the Asian model even though being an unmarried mother in East Asian countries is deeply shameful. They will not say that to their relatives in their own language (even here in America).

Dutch Boy said...

Dear Bob: The Giulianis and Romneys of the world will not get us out of the mess we're in (they're just "moderate" Democrats in Republican clothing). Problem is, the Palins and Keiths won't do it either. They're all invested in war and the alienation of the American economy.

Anonymous said...


Republicans nominate an blood-thirsty corporatist warmonger of little intelligence and an even duller and less articulate Pentecostal megachurch fundie who participated in exorcisms and doesn't read newspapers. A woman who was so blinded by religion she lacked the good sense to abort her downs syndrome fetus!


I see that Bob is blinded by Palin Derangement Syndrome ...

Probably not really that smart either, based on his other rhetoric.

Anonymous said...

Who'd want to call themselves a widow or widower? It makes you sound old. If you're widowed and still on the market, you'd want to go by anything but "widow."


You're simply describing the effect, not the cause for the effect. It used to be that being a young, rich widow made you the bomb socially, and being a widower was romantic.

kurt9 said...

I have a different explanation as to why Asians vote democrat. Most Asians are very ambivalent about our interventionist foreign policy. They are not comfortable with us manipulating other countries to our benefit (like much of the world) or outright invading them for essentially no reason at all (Iraq). Asian-Americans still identify with their country of origin or at least many people who live in those countries and, therefor, resent our meddling in their affairs. Since the Republicans have come to be viewed as the party of international interventionism, naturally the Asians are likely to vote for the party that believes in staying home and minding their own affairs. This, I believe, is the number one reason why Asian-Americans now vote mostly democrat.

The second reason, which is much less pronounced, but still significant, is that the Republicans have come to be associated with red-necked white Christian right culture. Even though most Asians are socially conservative, they do not identify with the Christian right at all because they think of it as being a form of white nationalism, which is something they have been on the receiving end of in the past. Even though Asians tend to look down on the non-Asian minorities, they are leery of any kind of white nationalism that could target all minorities, including them.

These are the two prominent reasons why Asian-Americans have come to vote democrat in recent years.

Anonymous said...

Asian voters are simply not aware that voting Democrat has costs. How cold they be? The Democrats haven't been in power for a whole generation (with a short exception around 1993.)

By the way, the same is true for most other voters under the age of 50 or so. Only the people who were adults in the USA in the 1970s have any real memory of Liberal rule. The rest of the voters vote Democrat because they wish to return to the Golden Age of the latter-day Clinton.

This applies to Asians especially, even more than the conformist factor. As the relatively recent newcomers the Asians simply don't know the context. But they are about to get educated.

Anonymous said...

Why doesn't the Republican Party push for proportional representation instead?

Anonymous said...

I've been thinking about your previous post on the Sailer Strategy which entailed establishing the Democrats as the "Black Party" in the minds of voters. I think something else the Republicans ought to do is establish the Democrats as the "Gay Party" in the minds of black voters. Proposition 8 passed in California thanks in part to black and Hispanic voters who otherwise voted Democratic down the line. SWPLers find blacks to be scandalously homophobic, so if we can sow dissension in the Democratic ranks along those lines, it should give the Republicans even more of a fighting chance.

not a hacker said...

Here's another story from Berkeley in the '90's. I park my car in front of a frat on Durant, leaving at least 2 feet clearance to the driveway. Asian guy comes out and starts complaining I'm blocking his car. The lack of obstruction was so obvious that I said, "open your eyes." He goes, "Oh, thanks, a racial slur!"

Andrea said...

"A woman who was so blinded by religion she lacked the good sense to abort her downs syndrome fetus!"

Is Bob a right-wing moby? Or is it true that to be considered liberal these days is to wish Sarah Palin had killed her imperfect child? I'm just checking -- it's so hard to keep up...

(I'm a different Andrea, by the way.)

alonzo portfolio said...

Bob, it is seriously naive to think that Prius dems voted for Obama because he made the war a minor plank of his campaign (recall the overall theme was "change"). First, they were not really against the war; they are just reflexively against any GOP-initiated policy. Don't forget, these people were also against Iraq sanctions long before invasion was even planned. By the way, you can easily test this. At the next ANSWER get-together, ask some gray ponytail in tie-dye to list any ReaganBush era policy he ever supported. Many of those who creamed for Obama also thought the Sandinistas were "land reformers" because they had good tans. And never forget that most dems think sophistication is about sex. They're still mad at Ed Meese for trying to outlaw porn.

Anonymous said...

Is there really much doubt Romney/Giuliani wouldn't have beat Obama in 2008, in particular a Romney that didn't have to flip flop on a dozen issues to be viable in GOP primaries?



Yes, there is considerable doubt. But since you seem intent on parroting the Daily Kos perspective I suppose it's futile to even get into this with you.


Where have you ever acknowledged that trashing the environment, trashing public institutions and finances, trashing the American tradition of public secularism and dragging the country into multiple bloody middle eastern wars is a far worse than, *God forbid it*, having a 15% minority set aside at elite colleges and road construction projects?




Have you paid even the slightest attention to the Obama budget deficits? He and the Dem Congress make Bush look like Ebenezer Scrooge.

America has no "tradition of public secularism".

The Democrats voted for the "multiple bloody middle eastern wars".

Is there a single topic on which you know what you are talking about?

Anonymous said...

"Republicans nominate an blood-thirsty corporatist warmonger of little intelligence and an even duller and less articulate Pentecostal megachurch fundie who participated in exorcisms and doesn't read newspapers. A woman who was so blinded by religion she lacked the good sense to abort her downs syndrome fetus!"

Bob,

call me a cynic but Republicans and Democrats pretty much have the same foreign policy objectives and methods. It is obvious to anyone who is at least semi-objective that foreign policy is mostly driven outside the republican/democrat divide. To declare one side as corporate warmogers and the other side as anti-war is just ridiculous. Who did wall street vote for? Hmmm.... But I guess we all need our little myths. We will see how much of a peacenik Obama is in four years. Not that it will prove anything to people like you anyway.

As for your other comments: I also don't read most newspapers because I think they are barely above the Soviet Pravda in their ideological slant. Does that disqualifying me from expressing my opinions and running for office? People like you seem to think so.

There are many of us who like Christianity and think it's a good thing even though we are not Christian extremists. Have you looked around lately? Who is going to carry this freakin civilization in the next 100 years and beyond? Who is going to be the sustaining majority? Whose neighborhoods are you going to want to live in? Your dismissal of Chistianity as soley an extremist phenomenon is primitive.

It's also amusing to me that you call the democrats a family ticket. Who do families vote for and why? Your stereo-typical, caricature descriptions of the political reality is not accurate.

"Your (and Steve's conclusion): whites who voted for Obama because of guilt and racial egalitarianism! Also because Obama was "cool.""

Aside from blacks, unions, gays, and other democratic voting blocks, people (mostly non-family) voted for Obama because they wanted to feel morally superior. Racial guilt also played a role in this process. Unfortunately the whole system is broken and it will take much more than 'hope' to fix it.

corvinus said...

Moreover, Asians strive energetically to be accepted to the most elite (and thus most dogmatically liberal) universities. But they tend to lack the intellectually ornery streak that helps students resist indoctrination. John Derbyshire, author of the scintillating new book We Are Doomed: Reclaiming Conservative Pessimism, whose father-in-law was a member of the Chinese Communist Party, told me:

"Asian American freshmen may be particularly susceptible to campus radicalization. Youngsters from Asian families often have parents with little connection with American political life. So Asian-American youngsters, who spent their high school careers accumulating stellar grades in math and science, come relatively innocent to the professional multicultural evangelists in the universities."

Part of this "intellectually ornery streak" among young whites, especially men but surprisingly among the women too, is the perception that fashionable liberalism does not do them any favors.

Perhaps related to this is the fact that it seems to me that Asian girls are more likely to date black men than whites are; at the mainly white campus I'm currently at, I've noticed a surprising number of black male/Asian female college couples, even more than with white girls.

Chief Seattle said...

I associate with a lot of first and second generation Asians, and I will add my anecdotal observations. These are intrinsically conservative people who value hard work and believe that people mostly get what they deserve - especially in America, the land of opportunity. Marriage, family, and education is very important to them. More than the average American, they're likely to respect a PhD or a college professor just for the credentials. They do not like the welfare handouts given to "minorities", and they're very conscious of the sob-story game that NAMs play to get resources from the taxpayer. These are natural fiscal Republicans. But the "Southern Strategy" certainly isn't winning any friends among the Asians. The religious fundamentalism scares them. And they don't have any more respect for uneducated whites - white trash - than they have for poverty-pimp NAMs. If the Republican party wants to regain this voting block, they need to be pro-science, pro-education (and educational standards) and pro-merit. Bush (and Sarah Palin) represented everything wrong about the Republican party for this group, and it will take a strong leader like Reagan to wipe away those bad memories.

Anonymous said...

When you are raising young children, you are a single mother. If you are not raising children and are old, you are a widow.

The reason people are trending Democratic, well..it's pretty embarassing for anyone that is educated to associate with what the GOP has embraced. You see the teabaggers, the birthers, the so called "extremists" carrying their mispelled signs protesting something but from the looks of it even they themselves aren't sure what they are actually protesting.

So where is the guilty white conservative when they blindly backed all the destructive policies put forth by the white affirmative action candidate in George W. Bush? Oh wait...

The Republican party ceased to be fiscally conservative a long time ago. Libertarians are idealistic but people know third parties are somewhat or a waste of time but you never know.

Gimme a friggin break said...

But this simplification of the application process would likely hurt Asian high schoolers because their parents are more likely than other students' parents to get them signed up in time to take all these superfluous tests.

This statement is duplicitous. If it were blacks who were "forgetting" to sign their kids up for "superfluous" college admission tests Steve would correlate this lack of planning and conscienceness to low-IQ.

The dropping of the SAT subject tests doesn't hurt CA Asians because their parents are the only ones who remember to sign up en masse. It's because these are tougher tests that more efficiently sort out the brighter students who are disproportionately Asian.

greenrivervalleyman said...

Bob,

I agree with you to an extent. 8 years of George W. Bush plus the candidacy of Sarah Palin are making the GOP anathema to the aspiring classes of white America (which just goes to show one should never underestimate the role of chance in shaping history, as had that proverbial South American butterfly flapped its wings a little differently at the start of 2008, McCain's brain-trust would have come up with a completely different type of running mate and so spared Republicans their typecasting as the party of downscale Red State voters).

The demographic shifts the country is undergoing have made it hard enough for the GOP to be a viable majority party, and in order to rack up the majorities (and soon, unfortunately, supermajorities) it will need among white voters to stay competitive it cannot afford to repel the college-educated, upwardly-mobile segments of white America who exert an influence and attraction far in excess of their raw numbers.

Thanks to George W. Bush the GOP and its brand of main-stream conservatism has pretty much lost its last shreds of intellectual credibility. From budget-busting tax cuts defended through allusions to "fuzzy math", to climate change and evo-biological obscurantism, to a foreign policy that justifies its errors of fact and logic by simply doubling-down and then claiming there is no choice but to stay the course ("Iraq is too big to fail"), main-stream conservatism has become intellectually indefensible. The fact that liberals could pull off identifying themselves as the "reality-based community" from 2001 - ???? says it all.


Where have you ever acknowledged that trashing the environment, trashing public institutions and finances, trashing the American tradition of public secularism and dragging the country into multiple bloody middle eastern wars is a far worse than, *God forbid it*, having a 15% minority set aside at elite colleges and road construction projects?


Did someone forget to mention home mortgage loans? Since 1992 the Democratic Party has successfully co-opted the center on law-and-order, fiscal policy, and foreign policy issues. Its biggest weaknesses, intellectually, are its racial egalitarianism and multi-culturalism, yet these weaknesses are filtered out by the media-academic-entertainment complex to such an extent that even after causing the near-wreckage of the global economy, most college-educated whites do not bat an eye at the effrontery of "reverse-redlining" lawsuits.

What most HBD quants do not appreciate, though, are the massive reserves of evasion and denial available to upwardly-mobile whites. Steve, to his credit, realizes this, and has pointed out that whites are too Romantic (in the intellectual-literary sense) to get down in the mud with the likes of Al Sharpton and wrestle over racial spoils. HDB quants think that by pointing out the empirical and logical errors of racial and ethnic egalitarianism they will eventually win over people without vested material interest in our current race racket. Yet the average person wants to feel that they are good, and will continue to do things that are against their own immediate interests if they consider those things a requirement of being a good person (or, in quant speak, they will persist in sub-optimal resource allocation systems in order to receive status validation). The challenge for 21st Century conservatism is to first teach people why the liberal framework of the equality of all humans and their desires is in fact NOT good, preferably before it wrecks the last vestiges of Western Civilization.

ben tillman said...

Again you glide by a key issue killing republicans. Why is it that coastal rich whites don't vote for the GOP anymore?

Maybe because, as a previous comment noted, the GOP has become the party of Sarah Palin and Toby Keith.


Or maybe not. More likely it's because the "coastal rich whites" live in an environment in which resources are largely controlled by an ethnic group that votes 80+% for Democrats. You have to go along to get along.

ben tillman said...

It's actually worse than that for the GOP. The children of the rich, even in whitest middle America, are also alienated from the party and voted strongly for Obama.

That's due to indoctrination in government schools.

RobertHume said...

"As it is Asian immigration will dry up sooner than you might think,"

I agree; one important reason is that there will cease to be good public schools in metropolitan areas. That's the main thing many of them come to the US for.

In fact, I expect many US Asians to move back to Asia for this reason. Unfortunately, whites have very few good places to go; so they will have to establish little micro-communities. The remaining Asians will try to be there also.

ben tillman said...

Democrats nominate a family man and Harvard Law School graduate who had the good sense to oppose the Iraq War and promise to end it.

Obama didn't oppose the invasion of Iraq.

Andrea said...

Bob, you think Obama would have been promoted as the Messiah if he were just a WHITE family man with Ivy League education who had opposed the Iraq War. It's true that 2008 was a good year for Democrats, but the amount of propaganda, adulation, and cult worship of Obama had much to do with the fact that he was black, more precisely a rare black guy who didn't come across as trashy as Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton. But, if the media really had done their job, they would have discovered Obama is not only just as scummy and slimy but much more dishonest than black demagogues.

Btw, Obama wouldn't have made into Ivy League if he weren't black. He wouldn't have been voted Harvard Law Review president if he weren't black. And, he wouldn't have been given prime time slot at Dem convention if he weren't a New kind of black guy. And heaven knows Michelle wouldn't have amounted to a plate of beans if she weren't black.

Andrea said...

http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?261171

Interesting article about Amartya Sen.

Perhaps, one could say Indian view of itself and the world is "post-colonialist" whereas the Chinese(or East Asian in general)view is "nationalist". Though both India and China came under Western aggression and domination, China was conquered only at the periphery than at the core. From the beginning, the Chinese people as a whole opposed and resisted Western and then Japanese imperialist incursions. So, there is a powerful theme of nationalism, national sovereignty, and national independence in the East Asian outlook. And though Japan lost the war and was occupied by the US, it didn't last long. Though US military has been stationed in Japan since the end of WWII, Japanese have pretty much ran everything themselves. Only in world affairs has Japan generally gone along with Washington. Perhaps it is this strong sense of pride and unity that makes East Asians more confident about who they are, thus less obsessed with the West in regards to their identity or destiny.

But, look at India and there was no united Indian resistance against the British imperialists until much later. For the various clans and tribes, the Brits were merely another line of overlords who usurped the power of the Moghuls, another bunch of foreigners. If the Aryan Invasion did indeed take place, whole of Indian history has been marked by foreigners arriving and ruling over the natives. (There were Mongol and Manchu conquests of China too, but as them fellas 'all look alike', they eventually melded into one). This has made Indian history far more complex and complicated, and may explain why Jews love India. The idea of a special caste of Brahmins(possibly of foreign origin) ruling over all others is something the Jewish elite may identify with. (In the Jewish dominated American order, white males are becoming the UNTOUCHABLES, forever polluted with the sin of holocaust and slavery.)

Brits were met with nationalist fervor from the Chinese from the beginning. Not so in India. It took a century and a half before the native elites of India began to believe in a 'nation' called India and it took more time for this idea to turn into a passion among the masses.
For this reason, Indian elite and intellectuals may feel both closer to the West and more resentful. Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans know they exist--and have always existed--as unique peoples in their own lands regardless of whatever Westerners might have done. Indians, on the other hand, cannot conceive of India without taking into consideration the role of the West. So, Asian Indians are both closer to us and pricklier. Jews are like this too in a way. Jewish history since Roman times is intricately linked with the West, but it has always been a love/hate relationship. As Christianity became dominant in the West, Western civilization is rooted in the Jewish tradition. As Jews settled and wandered all over Europe, they became part of the European cultural landscape--especially after emancipation in the 19th century.

Of course, Hindus have nothing comparable to the Holocaust to wave in the faces of whites. I guess Anglos were just more gentlemanly than the Teutonic Germans. But, watching Gandhi the movie, one gets the sense that he was a like a Jewish comic who used his wits and cleverness to defeat the British. He was trained as a lawyer after all. That may explain why Einstein admired him so. It may have not been so much about Gandhi being a saint but , wink wink, a clever rascal--a comic to the stiff upper lip British straight man.

Whiskey said...

Oh please Bob, that's about the dumbest thing I've heard. Military spending as a measure of GDP collapsed after Reagan from about 4-5% to about 2% now, under Clinton, continuing under Bush II, and now even cut back further under Obama. Military spending is a good deal for middle class White guys, which is precisely why elites hate spending money on submarines, Navy surface ships, and airplanes. That spending employs too many middle class White Engineers and skilled blue collar workers. As far as War goes, you may not be interested in it but it is interested in you -- technology's proliferation and spread gives even tribes with flags the ability to kill millions of Westerners and they certainly have the will. You'll abolish War right after you change human nature or create a brutal world-spanning government under one man forever.

Obama's provocative weakness only invites attack. See: Russia under Yeltsin.

Mitt Romney and Rudy and Arnold are part of the problem -- elitist to the core, basically more conservative Dems like Lieberman rather than conservative populists.

Politics in America is a version of the Ottoman Empire: a collection of urban, middle-man Elites like David Geffen or George Soros or Bill Gates or Warren Buffett, plus various coastal aspirational guys like Yosi Sergant or Shepherd Fairey (who apparently stole the image he used for Hope-and-Change Obama from the AP), allied with non-Whites, Gays, and Single Women. AGAINST middle class White guys and married White middle class families. It's about spoils politics -- who does what with whose money?

In fact a White SWPL guy (and especially gal) has the opposite interests and values of a middle class White guy, and the SAME interests as a NAM. The Malibu/West LA -- Compton/Watts dichotomy suits the young trendoids and tragically hip quite well, while family-friendly safe, non-NAM dominated schools and neighborhoods are anathema to the tragically hip. This is why the LA Weekly goes after the police, long prison terms for NAM violent offenders, and the like. You can't have a Bobo class to borrow from David Brooks while living in Irvine.

Dutch Boy said...

[Sarah Palin] A woman who was so blinded by religion she lacked the good sense to abort her downs syndrome fetus.

Hey Bob - don't you mean "lacked the depravity."

Anonymous said...

"Bob, you think Obama would have been promoted as the Messiah if he were just a WHITE family man with Ivy League education who had opposed the Iraq War."


he, he


Another example of how the

white average = top 2% of blacks


White guys, married, with 2 kids are "boring"

Black guys, married, with 2 kids are "cool" even "amazing"


Kind of like anything rare, draws gawkers and awe.

AMac said...

On John Stossel's blog (h/t Instapundit), this report of a study:

"Ivy League college applicants are not created equal, according to a study of seven elite private colleges by Princeton professor Thomas Espenshade... Affirmative action policies are responsible [for the disparities Espenshade found in 1997 admits to top colleges]:

* Whites were three times as likely to get fat envelopes as Asians.

* Hispanics were twice as likely to win admission as whites.

* African-Americans were at least five times as likely to be accepted as whites."

Anonymous said...

"The challenge for 21st Century conservatism is to first teach people why the liberal framework of the equality of all humans and their desires is in fact NOT good, preferably before it wrecks the last vestiges of Western Civilization."


That liberal framework also threatens prosperity for the people that liberals claim to care so much about.

A minimum wage job is a healthier alternative than welfare, food stamps and Section 8. At least there is the possibility of promotion when you have a job. No job means almost no prospect for improvement.

Peter A said...

white liberals don't really like Asians

That's crazy Andrea. They love East Asians. Asians pose no threat at all - white liberals assume they will interbreed with white liberals over time. And white liberals believe that Asians are culturally more in tune with white liberals than they are with white conservatives - which is probably true in terms of attitudes towards violence, abortion, military intervention, government/business cooperation, etc. Asian males also means more betas which is also something liberals like, as the beta is the liberal ideal. All the liberals I know love Chinese and Japanese culture, usually think it's superior to the West. So you're quite wrong on that count Andrea. The unspoken truth is that white liberals don't really like blacks very much. I noticed in college that conservative white athletes often had real friendships with blacks, white artsy types almost never did.

Kinism said...

In other words, Asians lack an internal moral compass - instead, they are compliant, pliable, malleable people who do what they're told to do - just like women.

The dynamics of East Asian neoteny, moral imprinting, evolution seems like an interesting issue.

but the ease with which nihilism consumes [and destroys] people like the East Asians is really, really depressing.

Could you explain what you mean here?

East Asians are often described as nihilists, but this seems to be due to the fact that they have historically been among the least monotheistic groups of the world. They've historically been ancestor worshippers and pagan nature/spirit worshippers, and these elements persist even today to varying degrees. Is this kind of spirituality nihilist? Were the pre-Christian Europeans and Indo-Europeans nihilists as well?

Franz said...

David,

I have a few "angry Asian" stories, if anyone wants to hear them.

Would be glad to hear them.

Pissed Off Chinaman said...

Steve, all I got from your essay is that you made a whole bunch of assumptions based on anecdotes and stereotypes about what Asian Americans are and what motivates us. This is a broad problem with the pathetic outreach from the political right. You try to pigeonhole non-whites into these boxes containing certain characteristics and then try to appeal to us based on that. That is condescending, patronizing, and pathetic. That along with the more hateful folks on your side (like many on this board, and I know you censor some of the harsher responses to my posts) means that most Asians will vote for the Dems even if we have to pay higher taxes. Plus even with affirmative action working against us, we still do pretty damn well. So taxes and affirmative action just are not major concerns for us.

Oh and Bob, you are completely correct about how most Asian Americans I know view Palin but you're wrong about how we view McCain.

P.S. I don't consider myself dumb or easily led or even necessarily that conformist...at least not beyond what I need to be in order to work in corporate law.

Anonymous said...

East Asians are often described as nihilists, but this seems to be due to the fact that they have historically been among the least monotheistic groups of the world. They've historically been ancestor worshippers and pagan nature/spirit worshippers, and these elements persist even today to varying degrees. Is this kind of spirituality nihilist?

No, it's a spirituality deeply rooted in reality. Western monotheism is political religion, fighting for a cause (the liberation of Jerusalem from the Romans) that has not been relevant for 2000 years. That is why western monotheism always needs enemies - new Romans - to keep its myths alive. And if it doesn;t have real enemies, it makes them.

Were the pre-Christian Europeans and Indo-Europeans nihilists as well?

No, but that won't stop a good many modern Christians from seeing them as such. Don't confuse a healthy hedonism and individualism with nihilism.

If anything, dedicating one's whole life (and death) to serving either Church or State is more a form of nihilism, than living for one's self.

Bigger picture said...

Most here speculate based on a few things that they observed. For example,

Asian men are bitter because all the Asian women are marrying white.

Asians are more conformist.

Speaking as a member of this group, I would have to say that while there is a grain of truth to all these points, you missed the biggest point which make Asians go democratic. In fact, it is the same reason why the Jews, despite being very economically successful, are voting heavily democratic, against their economic interest.

Most immegrants, white or otherwise, wanted acceptance and a sense of belonging.

East Asians have been the perennial outsiders in this country. At first it was because we have different culture, then later it was because we are the one identifiable group that was successful, leading some to cast their jealesies and project their failed lives onto someone to blame. The Jews did not have the problem with the different culture part, but have the similar problem of an identifiable group that is perceived to be successful and resented by some part of the population.

I think this is the biggest reason why some of us are democratic. The democrats have been branded thus far as a party for the down trodden. The republicans certainly have not rolled out their welcome mats for us here. Due to the significant presence of the Christian fundamentalist in the republican camp, I suspect that the Jews might also feel the same way.

You see, we do not live by bread alone. We want the samething that come before us wanted and we will go to the place that give us a sense of belonging.

Truth said...

"My view: Asians will continue to hop on the anti-white bandwagon until such time as whites get up the backbone to tell them to stop."

TELL them to stop or ASK them to stop? If it's the former, you may have the root of your problem.

"When I asked him if Christmas was celebrated in Korea..."

Christianity is the majority religion in South Korea now.

"White guys, married, with 2 kids are "boring"

Black guys, married, with 2 kids are "cool" even "amazing"

Yeah, but white guys unmarried (or married)with a bunch of girlfriends are you idols.

Similar black guys are "irresponsible."

"Aside from blacks, unions, gays, and other democratic voting blocks, people (mostly non-family) voted for Obama because they wanted to feel morally superior."

Or maybe for the same reason people always vote; they felt he was the better candidate.

greenrivervalleyman said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
TomV said...

Mr. Chinaman:

"You try to pigeonhole non-whites into these boxes containing certain characteristics... We... we... most Asians... us... we..."

Speak for yourself, you smug little brat with no sense of irony. This Asian finds Steve's analysis spot-on.

Everybody deals in group characteristics. Steve is insightful, fair, and honest about it. You're not.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Anon - I don't percieve that Samoans and Koreans have much in common.

Sticking it to whitey?

Mr. Anon said...

"silly girl said...

No. Widow/widower signals to other widowed men and women who are potential high quality mates that you are not trashy. If I were widowed and wanted to remarry, I would look for a mate from the widowed pool not from the divorced. Divorced signals many undesirable character traits. Single mother does as well. East Asians probably just don't think about the term "single" as being lower status than widow(er)."

"Divorcee" indicates lots of bad traits, whereas "widow" indicates that a woman at least went to the trouble to murder her husband.

Just being facetious - I actually like your postings.

Argent Paladin said...

Vietnamese and Cubans are hugely conservative, because they escaped to the US from oppressive Communist (atheist) regimes. That's where the GOP minority hopes should be pinned. And we have Rubio running in Florida for Governor and Cao who won election to Congress in Louisiana (!). The conformism goes both ways. Almost all of my Korean relatives are very conservative and they live in rural areas. They are also very religious.
I think Chinese and Japanese tend to be more assimilated into the elites and more anti-fundamentalist. But frankly most Asians I know are more worried about succeeding on a personal or familial basis, not really caring too much about their ethnic group or their country. Keep your head down, work hard, be successful but don't flaunt it.

Mr. Anon said...

"Bigger picture said...

I think this is the biggest reason why some of us are democratic. The democrats have been branded thus far as a party for the down trodden. The republicans certainly have not rolled out their welcome mats for us here. Due to the significant presence of the Christian fundamentalist in the republican camp, I suspect that the Jews might also feel the same way."

I agree with what you say - but some of these NNAMs (non-NAMS) may want to rethink that. Democrats are friendly to jews? I don't know - better ask Hillary "F**king Jew" Clinton, Jesse "Hymie Town" Jackson, or Franklin "What can you expect from a jew" Roosevelt. Friendly to Orientals? Roosevelt? Truman? Johnson?

Argent Paladin said...

One could ask why the Amish don't vote Republican? Don't they oppose the liberal agenda? Of course, but they don't care about the outside world, except that it leave them alone. Obviously, this is far less of a dynamic in Asian communities, but it explains why most don't vote, and those that do vote "fashionably" rather than according to their financial interests or personal values.
I am reminded of the large numbers of Asians (mainly Chinese) who came out to demonstrate against Prop 8, shocking much of San Francisco.

Bob said...

Whiskey, in addition to being a paranoid nut, you don't know the first thing about US military spending. You write:

"Military spending as a measure of GDP collapsed after Reagan from about 4-5% to about 2% now"

In fact, quoting from the well sourced wikipedia article "For FY 2009, Department of Defense spending amounts to 4.8% of GDP."

Including non DoD defense spending like DOE nuclear weapons programs and the present value of future VA obligations incurred this year, we are at well over 5%.

God you are just so damn stupid! Off by a factor of 150%!

Also, your figure under Reagan are wrong, they did not range between 4-5%, rather they ranged between 5 and 6%. So relative military spending is only slightly below the Reagan years. It did not "collapse."

Mitch said...

A couple comments:

Overall Asian voting records aren't much use. Filipino and Pacific Islanders are similar to URMs/NAMs. I want better data on East Asians and Indians before I buy that they are voting more than 60% Dem. (The liberal survey mentioned in 2005 is not credible).

A huge amount of highly educated, highly taxed Asians aren't citizens and therefore don't vote.

Second, Asians like to live among whites? Who are you kidding? East Asians and Indians come to a community and dominate it over a period of about 5 years.

Cupertino is now 50% Asian, and its schools are 80% Asian. Fremont went from 75% white to 65% Asian in less than a decade. Mission San Jose High School in Fremont is now a supremely high performing school and is 80% Asian.

Whitney High and Lowell High, the two "best" public high schools in California, are over 60% Asian.

The idea that white liberals are infecting Asian kids is a total non-starter. Korean and Indians kids go from one cocoon to another, from birth to high school and beyond. And for the most part, parents expect them to marry their own.

The East Asian and Indian "pattern" has changed so dramatically in the past 15 years that there's no way to know what the kids of this generation will do. No point in trying to predict. My sense--and I teach dozens of first generation Koreans, Chinese, Vietnamese, and Indian kids every year--is that they will be slightly less liberal. They know they are discriminated against, and they don't like it.

However, I agree that many of them may be heading back--it's shocking how loosely affiliated to this country many of these kids are. And yes, if schools don't stay a bargain, we'll have fewer of them to contend with.

I'm more than a bit fed up with Korean nationals gaming our free public schools. (Cf wild geese).

Bob said...

Green River:

I agree Democrats are doing well in part because they co-opted the best GOP issues by moving right on guns, crime, and welfare. All racially charged issues.

The obvious solution for the GOP: Keep on moving right! Dems will probably follow them leading to positive social change, but if they choose instead to side with NAM criminals then GOP rides into office.


NAM street crime is way down from the peaks, but still could be lower.

Aside from street crime, how about a program to have random insurance checkpoints and immediately inpound the vehicles not properly insured. Or if we want to be nice give them 10 days to provide proof of insurance.

What a wedge issue! On one side are republicans PLUS the insurance companies PLUS environmentalists PLUS the those of us with nice new beamers tired of driving behind 1983 Ford Rangers full of old coaches and lawn mowers going 42 MPH PLUS all the liberals concerned about getting hit by the uninsured illegals. On the other side: La Raza and that's about it.

Also, more welfare cuts! The big scam right now is not welfare itself, but the same lazy bums that were kicked off welfare going onto disability for supposed "bad backs" or "mental illness." Go to any ghetto and half the population is on the dole for fake or minor disabilities. I see birthers on TV all the time, I don't think I have EVER seen a republican change the subject to cracking down on disability fraud.

Asians like this even better because they are the least likely to have criminal/welfare family members and most likely to be crime victims.

Anonymous said...

Everything that anyone has ever believed in - and almost everything that anyone has ever practiced - amounts to one form of nihilism or another.

Which, by contrast, was what made America [and the people who founded Her] so special.

But maybe I better not say anything more than that for fear of angering Komment Kontrol.

Truth said...

"So relative military spending is only slightly below the Reagan years. It did not "collapse."

Indeed, and we now spend more on the military than every other nation on the planet COMBINED.

Hopefully we'll be ready for the attack from Mars.

Anonymous said...

Mitch wrote
--
Second, Asians like to live among whites? Who are you kidding? East Asians and Indians come to a community and dominate it over a period of about 5 years.

Cupertino is now 50% Asian, and its schools are 80% Asian
--

The reason that the Cupertino schools are 80% asian is that there is white flight, since white parents cant stand their kids underperform asians, as per Wall Street Journal article
One would have thought that white parents would appreciate high performing schools

As far as ghettos go, Parag Khanna, wrote that Chinese tend to form Chinatown ghettos, but Indians tend to live in white areas

It is also worthwhile to know how white flight happened from these communities
I doubt that it was due to NAM type criminal activity
Most likely the white residents sold their houses at a fat profit to high income Asians, and I dont see anything wrong with that

Anonymous said...

I live in an upper middle crust suburb of the bay area. Little by little asians are moving in. It is clear that they would much rather live around whites than wither blacks or hispanics.

Anonymous said...

Some excerpts on white flight
from Cupertino schools
--
A Nov. 29, 2005 Wall Street Journal report called the phenomenon a "new white flight," where, instead of fleeing districts that are failing academically, white parents are actually pulling their children out of schools because they are performing too well. The report found that many of these parents feel that the schools are too narrowly focused on academics, and on math and science in particular, at the expense of liberal arts and extracurricular activities.

"It does help to have a lower Asian population," Mary Anne Norling told the Wall Street Journal a year ago. Norling is president of the PTA for Homestead High School, a Cupertino high school whose white student body has held steady at around 50 percent of the total for the past 10 years. "I don't think our parents are as uptight as if my kids went to Monte Vista."

"But the cost of living has skyrocketed, and housing has become unaffordable for white people, Hispanics, and African Americans," she said. "Basically, you're left with Asian families, who tend to buy houses where schools perform well."

Academics have come to take center stage and athletic programs that were once strong now languish. He said that, as a result of there being a large Asian student body, "ancillary" sports like badminton flourish, while, one year, the football program had to be cancelled because of a lack of interest.

Most of all, he says that the culture of the school has changed because of students' parents, many of whom are recent immigrants from China and India. "Their parents come from a different cultural point of view, one which is still prevalent in mainland China," he said. "In this system, people are weeded out into elite colleges or vocational tracks based on early test scores. There's a great deal of emphasis on performance. These parents don't know of any other avenue."

Anonymous said...

http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/12/the_new_separate_but_equal.html

Rising test scores and higher academic standards in public schools are usually a cause for celebration among parents of school—age children. But in the liberal suburbs of the San Francisco Bay Area, this development is triggering panic among white parents who are increasingly choosing to send their children to private schools, or moving to more exclusive neighborhoods.

Despite living in safe and desirable areas where diversity and tolerance are preached as gospel, white parents in the Bay Area are apparently avoiding many high—performing public school systems for the simple reason that they have too many Asians. The slow but steady disappearance of white students from suburban public schools is an obvious but rarely—discussed demographic trend that recalls the 'white flight' from America's largest cities decades earlier.

The two schools, put another way that parents rarely articulate so bluntly, are too Asian

in a continuous arc of high—performing public school districts ringing San Francisco Bay, Asian student enrollments have climbed sharply over the past decade as white enrollments plummeted. These include middle—class neighborhoods in cities throughout the most liberal region in the United States

Among students, the view is that Asian—American parents are more academically demanding of their children, which has resulted in a greater overall competitiveness level in the public schools, particularly within these middle—class suburbs. In classrooms throughout the area, Asian—American school children dominate academically, and often take a disproportionate share of student awards and scholarships.

Anonymous said...

Above URL continued

For white parents, the most often—cited reasons for leaving their local public school system are a lack of diversity, intense competition and the "singlemindedness" of Asian students. A common complaint is that Asian students are not as 'well—rounded' as others, an often—used reference to the perception that Asians partake less frequently in extracurricular activities. Many cite Asian students' low participation rates in varsity sports such as football and basketball, and in activities such as pep rallies, drama and cheerleading. These white parents insist that they are not biased against Asians, and blame the media for injecting a racial component into a non—racial issue.

Meanwhile, in nearby school systems such as Palo Alto, Los Altos and Piedmont, white parents have few complaints about the high test scores resulting from a rigorous curriculum and high academic standards. But unlike their counterparts in Alameda or Fremont, these school districts are overwhelmingly white, and homes in these neighborhoods are beyond the means of most middle—class families.

White liberals argue that the statistics are misleading, and that the decrease in the numbers of white students is being driven primarily by the retirement of the baby—boomer generation, and the immigration of Asian engineers to the Silicon Valley. Assuming this is all true, how do we explain the disproportionately low numbers of white students enrolled in the public schools? In cities like Cupertino, whites make up half the overall population, but less than a third of the student body. At the top performing elementary school in all of California, Faria Academic Plus School of Cupertino—where admission is based on a lottery under which all elementary—age students within the district are eligible—Asian—Americans compose an astounding 94% of the student body.

Clearly, there exists a double—standard among white liberals who claim to be advocates of public schooling and defenders of diversity, yet cannot bring it on themselves to send their children to public schools where children from other racial groups dominate both academically and numerically. This apparent disregard for liberal principles results from whites being placed in a situation where they no longer exert control over a minority group they claim to champion. One white parent called this double—standard 'the secret that everyone knows, but no one wants to talk about', adding, 'You'll be called a bigot (or worse) if you mention it.'

According to parents and students of both races, what white parents fear most is their children being marginalized in the college admission process by the academic achievements of their Asian—American peers. This fear is perhaps best summarized by the patron saint of white liberals, Bill Clinton. In a 1995 interview with the Sacramento Bee, then—President Clinton stated that excessive reliance on academic qualifications in higher education could have dire consequences. His warning that "there are universities in California that could fill their entire freshman classes with nothing but Asians' echoes their concerns.

Stated bluntly, white liberals will object strenuously to school choice and racial segregation as long as their children are in the majority and among the top performers in school. However, when their children are fewer in number and relegated to the lower tiers of academic performance, they will happily embrace school choice and voluntarily segregate the public schools by moving to whiter school districts or sending their children to private schools.

Robbins said...

Wouldn't the return of anti-miscegenation laws benefit Asian males the most?

Perhaps this should be kept in mind for any future coalition building.

Anonymous said...

Democrats are friendly to jew?

80% of US Jews voted Democrat, they hold the purse strings of the party.

What do you know that they dont?

Anonymous said...

If the Republican party wants to regain this voting block, they need to be pro-science, pro-education (and educational standards) and pro-merit. Bush (and Sarah Palin) represented everything wrong about the Republican party for this group





Bush was pro-science, pro-education, and pro-merit.

We don't know enough about Plain to say for sure, but it seems she was the same way.

I expect readers of this site to not mindlessly repeat the MSM spin on things.


These are natural fiscal Republicans.


There is no such animal as a fiscal Republican. There are merely people who want different handouts from the government. The science community which you idealize is worse that the NAM's at soaking up government cash.

Anonymous said...

The democrats have been branded thus far as a party for the down trodden.



Whatever they have been "branded", the Democrats are the party of the super-rich. There is no excuse for any politically aware person not to know this.


The republicans certainly have not rolled out their welcome mats for us here.



Who is "us"? Us here are more supportive of the downtrodden than are either the Democrats or the Republicans.



Due to the significant presence of the Christian fundamentalist in the republican camp, I suspect that the Jews might also feel the same way."



Non sequitur. Jewish hatred of Christianity is stupid and irrational. But then, they are a stupid and irrational people with a long history of eagerly supporting their would-be (and actual) killers and shafting their would-be friends.

Anonymous said...

White liberals also dislike Asians in that China, Japan, and Korea are all example of homogeneous national power.



You must have missed Tom Friedmans recent ass-kissing of China.

White liberals hate white people and white nationalist sentiment. They approve of nationalist sentiment among non-white people.

White liberals, so-called, are actually devotees of the Frankfurt School. They are cultural communists who have swapped in "white people" in place of "capitalists" and "non-white people" in place of the working class.

What is called "liberalism" in the West these days is an explicitly racialist movement, one which detests white people.

Anonymous said...

The Jews did not have the problem with the different culture part, but have the similar problem of an identifiable group that is perceived to be successful and resented by some part of the population.




Jews are not a identifiable group, unless they chose to make a point of identifyng themselves. Which they do, very frequently and obnoxiously.

Josuah Lawrence Chamberlain said...

Steve

Why would you want to allow Asians in Ameica in the first place considering how much political clout they have and how they have used that clout to harm thousands of White American families? This is what really underlies your "only if Asians..." post.

So here is my question for you? How would White Americans have been made worse off if the Asians had never been allowed in the first place?

What would be wrong with a national origins immigration policy that excluded Asians?

Anonymous said...

The real key to the 21st century is whether China will become Christian or Muslim!!!!!

Truth said...

"Wouldn't the return of anti-miscegenation laws benefit Asian males the most?"

Maybe, but they'd get you murdered by white nationalists, most of "you" seem to have Japanese wives.

Anonymous said...

If the Republicans have to embrace AGW and environmentalism in general in order to become a majority party again, then the game isn't worth it, IMO.

I say let's not resist the Dems natural tendencies to want to pull out our troops from everywhere overseas and slash the military budget.

In the after math of a nuclear attack, then maybe we can regain control of the country -- what's left of it.

Anonymous said...

http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2005/11/new-white-flight.html

WSJ: CUPERTINO, Calif. -- By most measures, Monta Vista High here and Lynbrook High, in nearby San Jose, are among the nation's top public high schools. Both boast stellar test scores, an array of advanced-placement classes and a track record of sending graduates from the affluent suburbs of Silicon Valley to prestigious colleges.

But locally, they're also known for something else: white flight. Over the past 10 years, the proportion of white students at Lynbrook has fallen by nearly half, to 25% of the student body. At Monta Vista, white students make up less than one-third of the population, down from 45% -- this in a town that's half white. Some white Cupertino parents are instead sending their children to private schools or moving them to other, whiter public schools. More commonly, young white families in Silicon Valley say they are avoiding Cupertino altogether.

Whites aren't quitting the schools because the schools are failing academically. Quite the contrary: Many white parents say they're leaving because the schools are too academically driven and too narrowly invested in subjects such as math and science at the expense of liberal arts and extracurriculars like sports and other personal interests.

...In the 1960s, the term "white flight" emerged to describe the rapid exodus of whites from big cities into the suburbs, a process that often resulted in the economic degradation of the remaining community. Back then, the phenomenon was mostly believed to be sparked by the growth in the population of African-Americans, and to a lesser degree Hispanics, in some major cities.

But this modern incarnation is different. Across the country, Asian-Americans have by and large been successful and accepted into middle- and upper-class communities. Silicon Valley has kept Cupertino's economy stable, and the town is almost indistinguishable from many of the suburbs around it. The shrinking number of white students hasn't hurt the academic standards of Cupertino's schools -- in fact the opposite is true.

...white students represented 20% of [Monta Vista's] 29 National Merit Semifinalists this year. [whites are *underrepresented* among the top students ;-)]

...At Cupertino's top schools, administrators, parents and students say white students end up in the stereotyped role often applied to other minority groups: the underachievers. In one 9th-grade algebra class, Lynbrook's lowest-level math class, the students are an eclectic mix of whites, Asians and other racial and ethnic groups.

"Take a good look," whispered Steve Rowley, superintendent of the Fremont Union High School District, which covers the city of Cupertino as well as portions of other neighboring cities. "This doesn't look like the other classes we're going to."

On the second floor, in advanced-placement chemistry, only a couple of the 32 students are white and the rest are Asian. Some white parents, and even some students, say they suspect teachers don't take white kids as seriously as Asians.

Mark said...

Speaking of Asians, the Wall Stret Urinal has this today on the growing financial scandal involving Sri Lankan billionaire (and Tamil terrorist supporter) Raj Rajaratnam:

The relatively small immigrant group [of South Asians] has formed a power elite in the U.S., from positions in corporate boardrooms to the governor's mansion. An estimated 2.5 million Indians live in the U.S., less than 1% of the total population. Yet their median income is a whopping 80% higher than the average American's.

Gee, do you think that an immigration policy that favored the immigration of the best educated from a country of 1.2 billion people just might possibly result in that? If you selected the best smartest 1/4 of 1% of Americans they'd all be millionaires with doctorates and masters degrees, too. But to hear a lot of South Asians talk you'd think it'd have something to with ethnic superiority.

The prosecutor in the case, Mr. Bharara, earned degrees from Harvard and Columbia Law School. He was born in Ferozepur, India, and arrived in the U.S. as an infant...

The accused's chances of acquittal just quintupled...

Honored by the North American South Asian Bar Association in 2007, Mr. Bharara invoked his heritage—and those of his fellow desi lawyers. "We should remember that in each of those acts of migration—repeated hundreds of thousands of time—lies a quantum of courage and will and daring that few of us will ever have to summon."

My last vacation involved a plane ride, too - all the way across the continent! I had no idea it was an act of such courage and daring! Really, is there any courage and daring involved in moving, via airplane, no less, from a poor country to a rich one? Any at all?

Through the dot-com heydays of the late 1990s into the present, organizations like the Indus Entrepreneurs, better known as TiE, have drawn venture capitalists, private equity and hedge funds looking for the next big idea. Indian immigrants became known for their innovations, said TiE Silicon Valley president Vish Mishra. The personal and professional blurred as the meetings offered talk and tastes of home...

Any wagers on how long a venture group that named itself, say, the WASP Entrepeneurs would be allowed to survive before getting sued for discrimination?

There've been so many scandals. This is one of several hundred," added Vivek Wadhwa, co-author of the Duke study and also a Harvard researcher who has examined immigrant education and networks. "All it shows that Indians are coming of age," he said. "We have our bad apples too."

Indians have their bad apples, too? Gee, never woulda guessed!

Mitch said...

The reason that the Cupertino schools are 80% asian is that there is white flight, since white parents cant stand their kids underperform asians, as per Wall Street Journal article

First--duh. I didn't think it was necessary to point out that many people think the problem is white flight. They're wrong. It's just another pretend trend.

Note the lack of actual data on whites living in Cupertino taking their kids to private schools, or moving from Cupertino to Los Altos to reduce the amount of Asians in their community.

It's simply not true. I work with students from every elite school in the district, dozens of kids every year. There is no "trend" of white parents pulling their kids from schools. The private schools in the area are extremely difficult to get into, and the Catholic schools are extraordinarily tough. I can think of only two or three private schools that are only reasonably difficult (St. Francis, Pinewood come to mind), and they haven't recorded a mass influx of whites in the past few years.

Never mind the fact that this has nothing to do with my point--Asians don't select areas with white liberals. They have entirely taken over Fremont, and Fremont was never white liberal territory, but rather one of the closest places the Bay Area had to white working class. In quite a few areas, they have single-handedly raised the performance of the school, which led to another cocoon forming.

Anonymous said...

“In other words, Asians lack an internal moral compass - instead, they are compliant, pliable, malleable people who do what they're told to do - just like women.”


This is totally ridiculous. East Asians tend to categorise the world in three groups in a hierarchal ranking system.
1]their own ethnic group
2] other east Asians and Whites
3] and finally the other dark races.

I doubt any other race has a similar worldview.

The fact is among all the races of humans East Asians have been the least dominated by Whites. Indeed they were the one people who have been militarily the most successful against Europeans in history. Remember the Mongols, Magyars, Bulgars etc… The knights who sent the Saracens running from France were clueless when facing the Mongol hordes. The East Asian Japanese were the first non-White nation to challenge the West in the post industrial age and even after WW2 are along with the Koreans and Taiwanese the only non White first world countries (I ignore the oil rich Arab nations like the U.A.E and Kuwait). The greatest defeat in the long military history of the British was the surrender of Singapore to the Japanese Empire. During the age when the European empires and the Americans ran the whole world, the Far East was probably the hardest place to dominate by White people. China never became a colony like India even though an armada of powers like France, Russia, Great Britain, Portugal, Netherlands, Germany and the Japanese tried to make it one. The only one among them to truly come close to conquering China were the fellow Asiatics, the Japanese. Indeed China was never been conquered and held by non Asiatics (Mongols, Manchus, Japanese were the only conquerors). Japan was never colonised and Korea was a colony of the fellow Asian Japanese. Thailand too was never colonised. Thus compared to the non-White world it is the people of North East Asia who can look towards Whites will supreme self confidence.

Europeans and Western civilization in general is worthy of high regard because they are responsible for inventing the entire modern world, of conquering the entire world, of developing a unique sophisticated civilization. East Asians respect White people and European/ Western civilization because of their achievements in the last five to six centuries and due to the fact that nearly all Western/ White nations are successful while nearly all brown/ black societies are disasters. Besides Europe like the Far East has a very aesthetically pleasing and sophisticated culture which many East Asians instinctively find attractive. You must also realise that both North East Asians and Europeans have evolved in the same cold conditions in the past and thus share some traits (extremely high IQ for example) which they do not share with other races.
......continued

Anonymous said...

......continued


This explains the respect and attraction for Whites and Euro/Western civilization found in general among East Asians. Other races such as South Asians, Middle Easterners, Hispanics and blacks cannot come to accept the achievements of the White race as they unlike East Asians have an inferiority complex with respect to Whites and Western civilization in general. They do not have the greater self confidence that East Asians have to accept the achievements of Euros without feelings of inferiority. One reason why black people reject White culture because of their anger and resentment of their inferior situation both at present and in the past compared to the White race. Besides as they have evolved in a different environment than Whites, traditional White culture championing delay gratification, family values etc… is instinctively alien to them. In the past blacks were forced to live like Whites when White people (in the South) had more culturally confidence. But in the last some decades they have been let loose and are back to behaving like their African ancestors as White people have lost their confidence in imposing European norms on blacks. East Asian values are naturally closer to traditional White culture compared to the black way of life. Left loose they would never behave like black people.

Thus East Asians easily integrate in White societies but do not compulsorily do so when they are among non-Whites (for whom they do not have a very high regard anyways). Chinese communities in South East Asian and the Japanese community in South America remain aloof from the non-White, non-East Asian majorities around them. There is a China Town in the Indian city of Calcutta but after several centuries have not integrated one bit with the Indians. East Asians tend to only integrate with Whites and in Western civilization. Since they hold Western society in high regard, they are in danger in adopting every virtue (European classical music) and vice (western liberalism) which emerges in the west. After all if the West is so successful and powerful it cannot ever be wrong. This is similar to the case of the Germanics at the time fall of Rome who adopted Christianity as Rome was Christian. After all if the Great Romans (the Germanics did have some awe for their Roman enemies) who built those great buildings and aqueducts worshiped Christ, then surely his philosophy is worthy. But they never realised that Christianity had nothing to do with the rise of Rome. This is the same with the East Asians and modern western liberalism. They believe that the ‘cool’ liberal culture is one of the reasons why America and Europe are so successful. They do not realise that it is this liberal culture which will bring about the demise of the west.

Anonymous said...

Chinatown ghettos?

I wonder if there is any info on that. I've read a few anecdotal news items about how Chinatowns are starting to fade away just as the European ethnic neighborhoods of the last century did. I'm curious about whether there's any hard data on this, broken down both for socioeconomic income and the time period in which the immigrants arrived. My guess is that there would be more tendency towards living in a ghetto (meaning a predominantly monoethnic neighborhood) among lesser educated immigrants than more educated immigrants. Among other things, there's a lot more chance nowadays of new arrivals having a conversational to fluent grasp of English.

Jack-O said...

Rohan Swee has a point. NAM is a DOA because it's instantly recognized as "promoting that model-minority bullshit".

Besides, I'm not a fan of these Orwellian word games.

Marc B said...

"I vote Republican because the Democrats have proven themselves to be more anti-White (especially White male) than than the Republicans."

I do it as a knee-jerk reaction against SWPL and their pets. The platforms and legislation of the Democratic party since the Clinton era have become so doctrinaire PC that I have trouble understanding how any white male could ever vote for a Democrat, particularly for president. Not that the Republican party is anything to be proud of or even pretends to represent our interests, but at least you know they haven't completely abdicated their birthright and supported every position that goes against the self-interest of white, heterosexual males.

Anonymous said...

"This apparent disregard for liberal principles results from whites being placed in a situation where they no longer exert control over a minority group they claim to champion. One white parent called this double—standard 'the secret that everyone knows, but no one wants to talk about', adding, 'You'll be called a bigot (or worse) if you mention it.'"

The collapse of Western civilization can be traced and reflected in a single statement like this. Yet what exists on the analysis of the topic is extremely weak.

White liberals should know that their new neighbours don't just want their land and resources - they want them to admit full defeat and yet they still won't be satisfied! It's just human nature - the same human nature liberals deny.

Anonymous said...

The real key to the 21st century is whether China will become Christian or Muslim!!!!!

China is too smart for that.

Anonymous said...

Whites aren't quitting the schools because the schools are failing academically. Quite the contrary: Many white parents say they're leaving because the schools are too academically driven and too narrowly invested in subjects such as math and science at the expense of liberal arts and extracurriculars like sports and other personal interests.

Sounds more like Jock Flight than White Flight.

Richter said...

This post by the blogger "Angry Asian Male" (an excellent example of the type of "radicalized" Asian mentioned in this thread) provides some insight into the mindset of the, well, "angry Asian male":

"Ballon boy's subservient Asian mom"

AAM expresses disgust and is critical of the Asian wife for being "the stereotype of a docile, subservient Asian wife" and for "doing everything to back up her husband, even to her own detriment." And he denigrates the white husband and says that he's the typical domineering, predatory white man that shacks up with Asian women.

A major reason for this attitude of course, whether AAM admits it or not, is the much greater success of white men with Asian women relative to Asian men and non-Asian women.

This kind of attitude and criticism is also common among progressive white women, who see Asian women as possibly potential competitors and use it as status markers (i.e. lower status/more beta white males pair with Asian females.)

While AAM adopts this attitude and critical stance partly (perhaps mostly) in order to protect and ensure his access to women, it's possible and even likely that more independent, less subservient Asian women would be more likely to seek non-Asian male partners as they seek more Alpha mates in light of being independent and more assertive without the need for beta provider types. Wonder if they're aware of this though.

Boulder said...

Maybe, but they'd get you murdered by white nationalists, most of "you" seem to have Japanese wives.

Truth,

Looks like you and White Nationalists have something in common. You guys both think of us and accuse us "HBDers" of all being Orientophiles with Japanese wives.

Truth said...

Come on Boulder admit it; when you, your Irish plumber and your Italian mechanic went to see Charlie's Angels together, they were lusting after Cameron Diaz and Drew Barrymore, and you wore a locket with Lucy Liu in it.

Anonymous said...

The only person I know with a Japanese wife is....Japanese.

Speaking here as someone sympathetic to WN.

Anonymous said...

Mitch wrote

In quite a few areas, they have single-handedly raised the performance of the school, which led to another cocoon forming.

--

Good or bad ?

Anonymous said...

Mitch wrote
--
Korean and Indians kids go from one cocoon to another, from birth to high school and beyond. And for the most part, parents expect them to marry their own.
--

Good or bad?
The cocoon prevents unwed mothers
from forming
I would expect white nationalists to be against miscegenation

Anonymous said...

Raj Rajaretnam is accused of ties with the terrorist LTTE which killed over 1200 Indian soldiers, mostly Punjabi and assasinated Indian PM Rajiv Gandhi

Most Indians detest LTTE

Next the prosecutor is Punjabi and the accused is Sri Lankan
who have nothing in common

I would expect the prosecutor to try his best, to improve his resume

As I have pointed out earlier
most South Asians detest each other

Regarding TiE
it is the brainchild of Kanwal Rekhi and considered a dumb move by Indian Americans
Rekhi got ethnic cleansed out of Pakistan in 1947, and yet he opened TiE to Pakistanis too

I oppose TiE and its ilk
but the context in which this started was because Indian entreprenuers did not have access to the country clubs that white businessmen do

Anonymous said...

Did the "......continued" guy ever finish his post?

Anonymous said...

If high acheiving asians so successfully insulate themselves educationally and by where they live. That rather begs the question as to why they have to be here at all. One more bit of cocooning and they could be safely insulated from dreadful white racists by virtue of being in Korea or China etc.

Anonymous said...

“In other words, Asians lack an internal moral compass - instead, they are compliant, pliable, malleable people who do what they're told to do - just like women.”

This is totally ridiculous.

......continued

......continued

Since they hold Western society in high regard, they are in danger in adopting every virtue (European classical music) and vice (western liberalism) which emerges in the west.


I'm curious: How does being in danger of adopting both virtues and vices differ from lacking a moral compass and being compliant, pliable, malleable people?

Anonymous said...

Anon wrote

If high acheiving asians so successfully insulate themselves educationally and by where they live. That rather begs the question as to why they have to be here at all. One more bit of cocooning and they could be safely insulated from dreadful white racists by virtue of being in Korea or China etc.

--

I bet you wish whites could learn to cocoon themselves from NAMs

Anonymous said...

"I'm curious: How does being in danger of adopting both virtues and vices differ from lacking a moral compass and being compliant, pliable, malleable people?"

"I'm curious: How does being in danger of adopting both virtues and vices differ from lacking a moral compass and being compliant, pliable, malleable people?"

They are malleable only when place in a Western civilization setting. They hold the West and Europeans in such high regard that most things that emerge in the West finds easier acceptance among East Asians. They are very stubborn in retaining their moral values and culture when placed in a non White, non-East Asian setting. If you see the Chinese community in Calcutta who stubbornly stick to their culture and remain aloof from the Bengali masses around them, you would never describe them lacking a moral compass and being compliant, pliable, malleable people. It is only when placed in a Western setting that they seem so. Blacks regularly charge Asians for trying to act White. They do not realise that Asians do not see any reason to rebel against such a successful civilization culturally. And most of all East Asians do not understand why any civilized human (especially White people) would ever want to 'act black'.

general torpor said...

Bob says, "Maybe because, as a previous comment noted, the GOP has become the party of Sarah Palin and Toby Keith. Of nutjob fag-bashing megachurch preachers. Of the birthers."

I am an Independant, Democrat in a previous existence. I never voted Republican except in the last election, because I knew BO was a far bigger fraud than JMcC.
Since my mind was made up regardless of the VP selections, I never bothered to listen to Palin, so I can't honestly give an opinion about her mentality, she was invited to given an address to the annual CSSL meeting in Hong Kong, http://www.asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2068&Itemid=173,
and it seems unlikely they would have invited a total dunce just for the name. However, I just may never vote again, now that I see how controlled the whole process is, except perhaps at the local level.
The '08 campaign was like some sort of surreal nightmare where so many pod people were falling for this creepy voiced styrofoam, pod-person, "person of color" just because he was a "person of color" who could read other people's writings from a teleprompter, while appearing to channel Mussolini. Maybe he is. What the bleep do we really know about him? How about those 400 people who never met him at Colombia? Anyway, I digress...
The fact that you cleverly insert "birther" at the end of your comment shows yours truly where you're coming from.
There's plenty of reasons the "birthers" are on to something and the best way to squelch questions is to frame them with ridicule. Pelosi had good reason for not pressing the point in her 'vetting' of the Democratic candidate way back. Nothing was going to get in the way of her ambitions.
Framing questions with ridicule has protected various perpetrators of assassinations and coups for many decades and seems to be something Americans are particularly afraid of. Human psychology is the weapon of choice for those in "power." They only use WMDs as a last resort.

Anonymous said...

They are malleable only when place in a Western civilization setting...

If you see the Chinese community in Calcutta who stubbornly stick to their culture and remain aloof from the Bengali masses around them, you would never describe them lacking a moral compass and being compliant, pliable, malleable people. It is only when placed in a Western setting that they seem so...


So are they malleable or are they not malleable?

Trying to have it both ways is called "cheating".

Anonymous said...

in Calcutta who stubbornly stick to their culture and remain aloof from the Bengali masses around them, you would never describe them lacking a moral compass
--

In Calcutta, they do leather trading and are hence classified as untouchables and they have also converted enmasse to xtianity and have no social contacts with the surrounding caste bengali masses

Anonymous said...

Mark wrote
--

Gee, do you think that an immigration policy that favored the immigration of the best educated from a country of 1.2 billion people just might possibly result in that? If you selected the best smartest 1/4 of 1% of Americans they'd all be millionaires with doctorates and masters degrees, too. But to hear a lot of South Asians talk you'd think it'd have something to with ethnic superiority.

--

Since 1965 the immigration law has been the same for all nationalities

So where are the missing top performers of other nationalities?

There are a billion blacks a billion hispanics and a billion and a half muslims too

These are missing in the top performers

Anonymous said...

Some bloggers here made nasty insinuations on Preet Bahara, the prosecutor in the Sri lankan insider trading case

As usual, it is knee jerk racism
without looking at the facts

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/02/11/the-likely-next-us-attorney-for-nys-southern-district-preet-bharara/

Has a picture of him, with grey eyes, could pass for middle eastern caucasoid

--

Bharara, 40, has served as Schumer’s chief counsel on the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee since 2005. He oversaw the congressional investigation into the Bush administration’s firings of eight U.S. attorneys in 2006, which led to the resignation of U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Prior to that, Bharara was an assistant U.S. attorney in Manhattan for five years, where he brought criminal cases against Italian-American mobsters and Asian gangs in New York City.

--

So has a solid track record against Asian criminals too

Andrea said...

"white liberals don't really like Asians"

"That's crazy Andrea. They love East Asians. Asians pose no threat at all - white liberals assume they will interbreed with white liberals over time. And white liberals believe that Asians are culturally more in tune with white liberals than they are with white conservatives - which is probably true in terms of attitudes towards violence, abortion, military intervention, government/business cooperation, etc. Asian males also means more betas which is also something liberals like, as the beta is the liberal ideal. All the liberals I know love Chinese and Japanese culture, usually think it's superior to the West. So you're quite wrong on that count Andrea. The unspoken truth is that white liberals don't really like blacks very much. I noticed in college that conservative white athletes often had real friendships with blacks, white artsy types almost never did."

-------------

You're both right and wrong. White liberals like Asians in the sense that Asians are less threatening in terms of crime. Most white liberals would rather have Asians than blacks moving into their neighborhood. But, some white collar people--liberal or conservative--do fear Asian competition for quality jobs both in the US and through outsourcing to places like India.

Ideologically, the more radical elements of the liberal community do have a problem with Asians because Asians undermine the the leftist dogma that US is too 'racist' and oppressive for non-whites to succeed in. The Left believes that the ONLY way people-of-color can make progress is through agitation and political organization--like NAACP or La Raza--, but Asian success disproves PC convictions.

Also, white liberals are fond of certain Asian things like meditation and Buddhism(and anime and videogames), but the Asian stuff appeals more to the 'lamer' side of whiteness whereas the black stuff--jazz, rap, and pro sports--appeal to the 'cooler', 'sexier', and 'tougher' side. So, white liberals may favor Asians on the neighborhood block but prefer blacks on TV and stereo. Even most Asians listen to hiphop than to their own traditional music. I think the premier scholar on hiphop is some Sino-Am guy named Jeff Chang.

Anonymous said...

"In Calcutta, they do leather trading and are hence classified as untouchables and they have also converted enmasse to xtianity and have no social contacts with the surrounding caste bengali masses
"

I am a Bengali Brahmin myself and let me assure you that the Chinese do not fall within the caste system as they are non-Hindus. As far as being Christians, Indian Christians mix easily with Hindus. I am Brahmin but my Dad’s best friend is a South Indian Christian and our families are very close. The Chinese themselves avoid deep contact with the Bengali/ Bihari masses around them and stick to their own way of life. They do not seem interested in adopting any aspect of Indian culture.
Except this guy who is an exception
Meiyang Chang is an Indian of Chinese ancestry who became big on Indian idol (Indian version of American idol). He sings in flawless Hindi and is very popular with the ladies in India.
http://www.jeetegakaun.in/indianidol/meiyang_chang/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_bJHaxPu-A

Anonymous said...

"So are they malleable or are they not malleable?"
The universe is not black and white. Malleable only in the right conditions. Malleable only when faced with Western civilization for which they have a higher regard compared to the non-White, non-East Asian societies. I only eat pizza at Pizza Hut but never eat at Dominos. So does it mean I hate pizza or I love pizza?

Anonymous said...

All the liberals I know love Chinese and Japanese culture, usually think it's superior to the West.

There was a time in the early 1980s, where American conservatives loved Chinese and Japanese culture, its efficiency and attention to detail (and its rejection of liberal values), far more that that of "decadent" Europe.

n44x said...

The Asian immigrants will not vote Republican because the Republican base would slaughter them all if they could. Higher taxes are a small price to pay for survival.