1,858 words
America’s inevitable future, according to civic nationalists.
East Asians who migrate to America have been seen historically as the “model minority,” so much so that Asians – and the country of Singapore – are both commonly cited as examples of civic nationalism “working.” It occurred to me that if there was ever a group of people who could be considered “naturally conservative,” that title would most certainly apply to Asians, long before it would apply to Hispanics.
The Disaspora Question
Asians in the United States do indeed appear to be model citizens at first glance. Asians use welfare at a slightly lower rate compared to whites (21.8% and 23.1%, respectively), have a lower rate of single-parent families, a higher rate of obtaining college degrees, and higher average incomes. Asians also boast the highest level of entrepreneurship in the United States, with the highest ratio of businesses to population size.[1]
Over the past twenty-five years, however, there has been a trend of Asians in America becoming increasingly liberal. This, along with issues of social cohesion among groups that seem to have assimilated well, leads us to what I call the “Diaspora Question.”
In 1992, 55% of Asian citizens were Republican voters. By 2012, 73% were voting Democrat. In the 2016 presidential race, Clinton garnered 65% of the Asian vote. The cause of the majority of Asian voters swinging so wildly to the Left appears to be the issue of immigration becoming prominent. Data and election results show that Asians vote against candidates with anti-immigration platforms, even if all other issues are in line with their interests. Although Asians currently make up only 4% of the US population, they are now the fastest-growing population segment. With that, we are seeing a heightened level of ethnic activism and the accompanying behaviors of a diaspora population, not only in regards to open borders but other, more liberal attitudes as well, such as 75% of Asians saying that gun control is more important than protecting the right to bear arms, compared to 40% of whites with the same sentiments. The majority of Asian citizens now say they would prefer a larger government with more services, as opposed to the opposite. This view is shared by the majority of blacks and Hispanics as well; only whites support smaller government. In Asian nations, they are faithful adherents of nationalism, tradition, and cultural preservation; in our nation, they support the erosion of our nation, our traditions, and our culture.
The fact that Asian citizens have begun to favor open-borders candidates now that immigration has become a high-profile issue once again is extremely subversive and duplicitous behavior. East Asian nations tend to be among the most traditionalist, xenophobic, nationalist, protectionist, and closed to immigration of anywhere on Earth. The Chinese, Koreans, and Japanese all have ethnically-defined homelands that do not accept hordes of outsiders, whether economic migrants, refugees, or any other type. Asians, like Jews, have the advantage of an ethnic homeland, yet as a diaspora population, they vote and advocate for open borders in their host nations.
One such example of this diaspora dynamic is Cecillia Wang, an ACLU legal director who has made a career of fighting to keep America’s borders open and to protect criminal aliens. One wonders why Wang does not fight to open China up to the world’s indigent. Surely the Han Chinese, who make up over 90% of China’s population, could use some “enrichment” from Somalis, Afghans, and Algerians. Shanghai deserves their Halal carts, too, do they not?
Korean migrant Sarah Jeong is another example of the Diaspora Question in action. Jeong, a recent hire to the New York Times (NYT) editorial board, has written many things about her host population. Among them: “Dumbass fucking white people marking up the internet with their opinions like dogs pissing on fire hydrants,” and “oh man it’s kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men.” Eli Rosenberg of The Washington Post and Zach Beauchamp of Vox, among others, both rushed to write apologias for Jeong, replete with sophistry and fiat definitions in pathetic attempts to indemnify her. Senator Brian Schatz (D-HI) also expressed his support on Twitter for the anti-white NYT editor, writing “I’m with @sarahjeong. Enjoy your weekend.” Schatz, Rosenberg, and Beauchamp circled the wagons around the Korean migrant as if she were one of their own. I found it fascinating that there was such a similarity in behavior and immediate kinship between these two diaspora groups. They came to a nation that was created and made great without the help of any of their ancestors, then claim victim status and manipulate words to explain away their anti-white vitriol, all while being as antagonistically ungracious as possible.
What people like Wang and the majority of the Asian population in America clearly want is to retain their ancestral and ethnically-defined homelands while simultaneously benefiting from every possible privilege in the nations we built for ourselves. Asians who have absolutely zero connection to our nation can come and are then granted instant “minority” status, along with all the educational, governmental, and corporate benefits this entails. This is irrefutable proof that the benefits granted to the members of so-called minority groups in the US is not about redressing historical grievances but instead is about creating hostile, anti-white situations.
When we hear the daft trope that Hispanics or Asians are “natural conservatives,” in a very nuanced way it is indeed correct. The nuance is that “conservatism” is entirely context-dependent. Two groups may both be trying to conserve something, but that something may be at odds. When people say Hispanics or Asians are naturally conservative, what they are naturally conserving is their own homeland, their own identity, their own culture – not ours. The only cultures the Mexicans or the Japanese can conserve is Mexican and Japanese culture. As a diaspora in our homeland, they continue to try to conserve what is in their own ethnic interests. That very often happens to include open borders, which is antithetical to what we are trying to conserve. We cannot conserve our heritage, identity, culture, people, or nation with the demographics of Mexico or China or India. This is the crux of the Diaspora Question and one of the unavoidable fatuities of civic nationalism.
The final, and perhaps most difficult, component of the Diaspora Question is the notion of the theoretical “perfect” non-white migrant. Let us assume that Asians never shifted so strongly to the Left due to their desire to keep our borders open, and that they continued to own small businesses, support free speech, favor closed borders, and all the other typically conservative American ideals. Would civic nationalism work in that case? Not at all. We will still run into the inevitable issue of seeing our social cohesion destroyed and social capital diminished due to the disparate nature of our cultures. Even if identical civic values were adopted by the diaspora populations among us, all available data undeniably shows that the mere existence of racial diversity leads to enormously negative outcomes: lower trust in government, in each other, and in the media; social isolation; lower levels of happiness; and deracination are the results of racial diversity. The complete and total breakdown of a meaningful civilization is the end result of civic nationalism. It is an ideology destined for failure from its inception.
There was always another nagging issue I had with civic nationalism. This brand of “nationalism,” one that is defined by a people being assimilated to ideals, has never had a solution for dealing with those who do not assimilate. If we take civic nationalism at face value, and if we were to agree that our nation is one of ideals and not of blood, shouldn’t we have a system in place for dealing with those who do not abide by those ideals? If the whole premise of becoming “American” is predicated upon some parchment and a flag, why do we not revoke the citizenship of those who – for example – advocate for hate-speech laws, censorship, and/or gun control? What of those who do not value hard work and industriousness? There is no recourse for the host population to rid itself of newcomers who show an abject disregard for our supposedly sacred American ideals. If the only thing that binds a nation together are its civic ideals, then those who reject them should be removed from the nation — otherwise, civic nationalism has no way to sustain or protect itself. Indeed, that total lack of any kind of immune system might be civic nationalism’s ultimate folly.
Civic nationalism does not work in practice; worse, it does not work even in theory. It is a notion that fails both a priori and a posteriori. A nation cannot be based upon ideals, economic growth, humanitarianism, or any other contrived value. It can only be based upon a common people, with a common heritage, common values, and a common culture. And it can only continue to exist if all of those things are protected and revered in perpetuity.
The Singaporean Question
In a headline-making speech, Dutch Foreign Minister Stef Blok recently proclaimed that peaceful multicultural societies do not exist. His comments were met with harsh criticism and opposition, and Singapore was offered as a counter-example to his claim. The late Anthony Bourdain once mentioned the “Singaporean model” as the solution to discrimination and Right-wing views. He said this in a conversation about migrants in Cologne who had gone on a New Year’s Eve mass spree of sexual assault. The “solution” Bourdain came up with was the extinction of the white race, a world where everyone is “cappuccino colored”:
It’s our only hope is to fuck our way out of this. It’s going to take some time, but it’s really the only way the sort of Singaporean model where everybody is so mixed up that you really don’t know who to hate because everybody is so hopelessly intertwined. But we’re a long way from that.
Curious, I decided to look and see just how diverse and intertwined Singapore actually is. Singapore is a small island with a population of 5.61 million – in other words, a smaller population than either New York City, London, or Paris alone. And as for the vast and rich “diversity” of Singapore? 76% of the population is Chinese, 15% are Malay, and 7% are Indian (all Asians, and thus coming from similar ethnic and cultural backgrounds, one notes). Singapore is less diverse than the United States, London, Paris, Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, and dozens of other Western cities that rival the size of Singapore itself. In fact, Singapore is a de facto Chinese colony, with two smaller ethnicities living among what is essentially a second Hong Kong. In other words, the nation that is frequently lauded as a pristine example of multiculturalism is in reality made up of a Chinese supermajority.
Far from being an example of a peaceful multicultural society, Singapore is nothing less than a glaring example of the fact that societies function far better not while being “hopelessly intertwined,” but when the vast majority of people share common ancestry, values, and culture.
Note
[1] Michael McManus, “Minority Business Ownership: Data from the 2012 Survey of Business Owners,” U.S. Small Business Administration Office of Advocacy, no. 12 (September 14, 2016).
16 Comments
I live in a place filled with Asians and various large Asian neighborhoods. They are filthy, rude, and disorderly when grouped together. They are some of the nastiest, most selfish, and most arrogant people I have ever met. That New York Times creature came as no surprise to me at all.
Most people’s positive experience with Asians comes from working with them in a white dominated environment. People who have lived in Asian dominated environments see them differently.
I have. I dislike Asians (obviously there are exceptions).
It really is pretty simple. We all hate the ones we are flooded with. I’m Australian, I feel pretty positively towards hispanics, negatively towards Asians, neutral to Africans etc
What I don’t do is tell Americans that they need to like hispanics. Americans need to stop pedestalising Asians.
Good article.
The idea of Singapore as a successful multicultural country is an illusion. Just as in Malaysia, the Malays resent the wealth and business success of the Chinese, and the Chinese look down on the Malays. Both look down on the Indians. If Singapore works to some degree, it’s not because most of its citizens are ‘Asian’. I’d suggest that it’s because Singapore has emphasised STEM education and maintained a relatively illiberal form of government – with laws that most Westerners would find punitive and that’d put libertarians into apoplexy. Taken together these policies have delivered an educated and disciplined work force.
The same policies would not work for Australia, for example (as even Lee Kuan Yew admitted) because Western culture is less disciplined but more creative and adventurous than Asian cultures.
Our ethno-cultural differences lend us different strengths and call for different policies to bring out the best in our peoples. But let’s not entertain the idea that Singapore is functional because it’s multicultural.
.
I tend to get a long with them well too, but when of the most telling things that I have ever had happen, was when I had two rich, Chinese-American students (who had family who owned property in Beijing) told me that I was priviliged I was because I was white. These two kids were anchor babies of Asia’s rich elite. I know this is just an anecdote, but this kind of nonsense bears out with China’s global behavior.. Then they are the Chinese nationalists who will actually gloat about how the Chinese are taking advantage of western society. Not to mention, Chinese in particularly have completely raped the housing market in Canada causing the property prices to skyrocket.
A thing to keep in mind, face matters alot among east Asians and it is very difficult to tell and almost impossible to tell how they feel unless you are really close so your positive interactions might have not been so positive from their perspective.
Sorry, for the messy comment grammatically, typing on my phone.
My point was -at least regarding the Chinese-they will be in priviliged positions, busy taking advantage of western countries and while they are they scream racism and talking points of the left. This was seen in Canada especially while they have been displacing native Canadians en mass.
In regards to judging people, at least for myself when it comes to east Asians, I don’t think we know them as well as we think we do and face culture is something that most foreigners really don’t get. I am not saying you are a bad judge, but I think as a group they really should not be underestimated on how well they can manipulate their reactions.
I could be wrong, but I believe Singapore also strictly maintains its ethnic balance. Something the USA used to do up until 1965.
I am referring to citizenship. Not the numerous foreign workers that Singapore let’s in every year.
Singapore is a Chinese city state with a somewhat sizable minority population of Malays and Indians. Again, I am referring to citizens.
That is my reaction and I would debate there isn’t major hostility. There is definitely a neo imperialist sentiment coming out of both India and China. They are practically foaming at the mouth over the thought of regulating whites to the status of negroes and mestizos.
Two points:
1.Singapore may appear peaceful but there are draconian laws against any anti-social behavior
2. Sometimes Australia is held up as a ideal multikult model as it is quite diverse by now and has until recent times been relatively peaceful. Post WW2 Australia imported many central and eastern Europeans who found it difficult enough to fit in with Anglo-Australia despite being the same race with only different ethnicities/languages. After 1966 opened the gates many Vietnamese were let in after the war, since the 90s more Asians (mostly Chinese) and middle easterners, since the noughties Afghans, Indians and Africans.
By and large Asians are probably the best of the lot as they are generally law abiding (higher IQ?)and don’t actively seek to impose their ways on others. Indians are either arrogant professionals or peasants who work 20 hours a day for peanuts.
However, since we imported Afghani/middle eastern muslims, all bets are off. These people want to take over and they are a scourge on the country.
And to keep the lid on this vibrant little paradise there is state funded TV/radio/media “Special Broadcasting Services which has run 24/7 for the last 30 years, nudging opinions in favour of the multi-kult.
And despite that in 1966 we were promised that the demographic make-up would not be significantly altered, I just walked around the Adelaide CBD (3.00pm) and it was 70% non-white. Mind you at lunch hour all the white people who keep the country running emerge and it is more like 70% white.
Thankfully the suburbs are still pretty white but I agree that there is an emerging new breed of aggressive young liberally brain-washed Asian. Quite what they’re angry about is a mystery as they were never oppressed by white people, and if they were, too bad – it’s because we won.
What you get wrong is ascribing a group mentality to individuals.
These Asians or Hispanics have very little connection to their homelands, look down on their own cultural traditions beyond food or dress & are fully American.
Whether you want to admit it or not, America is founded as a liberal nation & even the idea of a White American ie the product of various European ethnicities absorbed into the English Protestant paradigm is something the old world finds disgusting.
China is cracking down on diaspora liberals & conservatives back home hate westernized libtards who adopt the worst aspects of the western culture.
To be quite honest even a century ago you anglo cucks were complaining about how Patriarchal Poles & Italians immigrating here were.
These cancer ridden Asians & Hispanics are your problem & we don’t want them back.
If anything let them sink your Zog infested hell hole of a nation that just sells sodomy & race mixing as the only way to avoid regular famine.
They have perfectly adopted the culture of Jew York and Hollywood. They express group solidarity only when told to. Like “the problem of the lack of asian actors in movies.”
I didn’t know about China cracking down on these liberals though and given how nepotistic Indians are in tech positions same thing with their Chinese counterparts so I think they still have their ethnocentricity just no nationalism.
And you are wrong about them being individualist. They have adopted the culture of the Jewish diaspora or at the very least something resembling that
Also, not to be too antagonistic, but India and China deserve their westernized libtards back. Both of those countries send their people here to colonize and displace white people. It is their own fault it partially bites them in the ass.
Rest assured, civic nationalists. Your prayers will one day be answered. Non-whites in America WILL one day become socially conservative. But only once they’ve dispossessed whites, and the non-white culture becomes the thing they wish to conserve.
I had a conversation with my grandfather in India today and it went something like this:
He’s not very fluent in international politics to the extent they don’t touch India and has neither read nor has any interest in ever reading about nationalist movements in the West, though in a brief few minutes very plainly suggested several core themes of the European nationalist cause, which I found interesting.
I think the case of East and Hindu Asians is different, in that the latter would feel at home if they were deported whereas the former would feel alien in the homeland of their grandparents. In terms of voting bloc patterns, some 65 percent of Hindu Americans voted for Trump (but voted for Obama over McCain and I believe Romney) — which may diverge from estimates of Indian American voting since polls of the latter include many non-Hindus, and have an urban bias (e.g. don’t capture much more inward-looking doctors in the middle of the country that are both richer and much less cosmopolitan).
None of this makes Indians a “model immigrant” — they probably most egregiously abuse immigrant and visa control systems, and like all other hyphenated Americans are encouraged to stick out for their own, when they participate in politics at all, to the detriment of the original culture. That all said, I don’t think your premises entail the conclusion that what you call civic nationalism *cannot* work. If a certain class of Indians, or just as well (maybe even better, I don’t know) Japanese, were the only sizable minority population in an otherwise European America, I don’t think this movement would exist since even if all that you’re saying may have value in theory, there would be too few practical concerns to motivate political organization thereof. But when you throw in a bunch of other immigrants, former slaves, into the mix and sprinkle in a national culture that encourages hatred towards the host, things like this start to matter.
P.S. In Singapore, the Chinese and Indians seem to look down a lot on the Malays (something I gather both from reading online and chatting casually with students at NUS). The government is actively worried about the fact that Malays have a very high fertility rate, and Lee Kuan Yew constantly discussed the extent to which draconian levels of social engineering were instituted only to force the various cultures to get along, by which he really means the Malays. Nothing more needs to be said on that than the analogy of a Western leader actively promoting the fertility of Whites and implicitly discouraging that of foreigners.
OTOH, the Chinese and Malay are much “closer” from an ancestral point than the Indians, even though the Indians and Chinese could probably get along very easily within the context of Singapore, just like Indians and Asians may likely get along better in Western societies than Hispanics, even though many of these share much more recent and more material shared ancestry, culture, and history with Europeans.
Agree with your grandfather. With how Anti Hindu & Pro Muslim the Indian state is we’d have had a revolution without all these immigration pressure valves.
This is a terrific essay towards making sense of the #AngryAsians phenomenon… as a sort of ‘Diasporic Exploitation of Civic Nationalism 2.0’.
The NYT-led cultural Left seems hell-bent on fostering (and then leveraging) a grievance culture/mindset among Asians in the U.S.
Asians suck balls. I used to think they were polite, and decent and not hostile towards whites. However that is all changing thanks to them going to school and getting Frankfurt school bullshit and listening to the J media.
I sit next to a Vietnamese guy at work. He is always talking about how white people are awful. I asked him if we are so bad why isn’t he still living in Vietnam. Of course she has no decent come back for that.
All Jews and nonwhites need to be kept out of the west. They will push their ethnic and tribal interests in front of our interests. this will inevitably lead to conflict. There is almost nothing to gain, and much, much more to lose.