site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   24419 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 14, 2026

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

2
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Love it or leave it, but woke.

This weekend, The University of Texas played The Ohio State University in Austin, TX. A screen shot went viral on Twitter showing a crowd of Indian students celebrating the victory.

"Heritage Americans", the dissident right, the Woke Reich, or whatever you want to call them went crazy, pointing out the massive demographic changes in Texas that are happening. This is true. Anyone who has been to Texas knows whites are a minority here in any medium sized and larger city. The changes have been stunning and within 30 years, it is unrecognizable.

Critics rightfully pointed out that they were pretty much just being racist. You talk about integration, and here are immigrants and children of immigrants celebrating a victory in football wearing cowboy hats. What is more American than that? You clearly just don't like Indian people.

An Indian politician said that this is what Texas is. If you don't like it, LEAVE! There is some truth to this. This is what Texas is now, but historically the South Asian population has been tiny. This is a very recent development. Is 20 years all it takes for Texas to become something new? If you are 30 and above, you probably grew up with almost no Indians. Now this is what Texas is and you have to leave if you don't like the changes?

This reminds me of the UK. Pre-Windrush, the UK was 99.9% white. As recently as 1991, it was 95% white. Now though, if you complain, you are going against British values. For thousands of years, the UK was essentially 100% white. Within a few generations, it is a multi-cultural country and if you don't like that, LEAVE! We are not a white society, and actually never were. I could go on and on, but with the exception of Reform, that is the general consensus now.

Back to Texas. It's crazy how quickly this can happen. Mass migration can happen and within one generation, this is seen as the new default and any complaints about this are seen as against the new values. Of course, the biggest gatekeepers of this isn't the left. They really have no control over their outgroup other than canceling people and social pressure, but if you don't care what they think, what can they really do? The center-right has also rushed to condemn people criticizing the massive demographic replacement in Texas. People like Dan Crenshaw rushed to condemn the racism and call out this anti-Indian racism and essentially sided with the left, who hates them. They have essentially said the same thing as the left and that these aren't Texas values to be racist. So basically, love it or leave it, but woke. If you don't like the new Texas, leave.

But where will they go? You basically have to live in a state like Texas for access to the best jobs. schools, dating, etc. It's insane to me how fast we can accept something new that is unprecedented as the new normal without considering the consequences. Only weirdos and disagreeable people point this out, and by the time people start to see the consequences, it will be too late (assuming there are negative consequences, which should be obvious is my POV).

A personal anecdote that lines up with the timing.

As part of a contract I'm on, I had to do some interviews with various CEOs of small / mid-size businesses. Several were Indian-American and one was very much an Indian-Who-Now-Lives-In-America.

The Indian-American CEOs were very much like all of the other CEOs (largely white, a few asian-americans, none block, one mixed white-hispanic. Probably 70/30 male-female).

The Indian-Who-Now-Lives-In-America CEO was repeatedly lying about all of his financials. I know this because as part of this contract, we get to review the financials of all these companies. That's how fucking strange this experience was. We're not at the beginning of the engagement. We've been around for a little more than a month. The NDAs and statements of work were signed, sealed, delivered way before all of that. This CEO - all of the CEOs - know that we've been reviewing financials and other docs and now it's interviews.

And he would just make shit up.

"Yes, that client will deliver us between $350,000 and $500,000 this year"

Billed services thus far in 2026: $64k

"We've got a 100% renewal rate on contracts. No cancellations."

25% annual customer churn. It's a problem

"[Redacted large corp] Is a client. Yes"

Fucking NOPE.

We confronted him about this, gently, during the interview process. We'd point to printouts and highlight that what he was saying didn't match their documented (and audited) numbers.

"Yes, well, I think maybe these are outdated reports"

Just a constant denial of reality.

The company is a little shaky, but is making real money. Like, somehow, this CEO was doing more or less ok. *

This is "Izzat." The Motte had a discussion about it a while ago and there's a bunch of online discourse about it. This CEO was going to say whatever he needed to say in the moment to "win" the interview. Presenting your company as amazingly awesome is the whole point, the facts be damned.

And this is what, I think, the online racists Heritage Americans are reacting to so viscerally. It's not the skin tone or melanin content, but the signaling of a culture (not the whole culture, of course) that is so incompatible with western judeo-christian social ethics. You don't see the same hate (or, do you?) for Asians in, say, the Bay Area because those ancient Confucian-influenced ethics line up a lot better with western ones.

It's not "the thing" that's being despised, but the the other thing that "the thing" points to. Hyderbad, Texas isn't bad because Texas should be only be white, it's bad because Hyderabad is awful because of these cultural specifics.

  • Note: The actual exchange was, admittedly, far more nuanced. I didn't want to write it all out to risk losing the illustrative point. The actual fabrications were much more sly and he could - and did - "save face" by throwing together some shaky psuedo-logic on why the numbers weren't matching, but, the point remains. Interestingly, he asked us, randomly, for an "all in" valuation of his company so he could "test the markets appetite for a buy" (by which I think he meant acquisition). That was, in many ways, the craziest thing he said because it revealed he had zero understanding of what we're doing and why.

What are you even trying to say here? You don’t have some sort of divine right not to see brown people. Also btw the word “woke” means so many different things to different people that at some point it becomes meaningless

I am reminded of this time I was in Milk Beach with my buddies (mostly 20-something white guys). We ran into a couple of dudes, one Indian and one Chinese, clearly international students, role playing some shonen anime battle. They looked fun, we invited them for drinks, had a genuinely memorable night, traded socials, and went our separate ways. Now I really dislike our universities treating international students as a revenue strategy while soft pedaling the difference between temporary study and permanent immigration. I also dislike what large scale, rapid demographic change has done to the character of cities like Melbourne over the last fifteen years. That being said, yes, those two can stay and I hope they do. But I suspect Bo French and his fans would expect the sight of them to horrify and disgust us instead.

See, every so often a clip or a headline goes viral and lights up the ethnonationalist corners of the right. Usually an immigrant crime story. This time it is a group of Indians at a football game, maybe a dozen young men who look like one friend group cheering for their college football team. Odds are most of them were born and raised there, international students are not exactly known for caring about American football.

There is a coherent standard for assimilation that even white liberals would be willing to defend. People who come here, or whose parents did, must leave behind third world honour culture practices and obey the local law. Chuck your arranged marriage bullshit, lose the caste system, and do not bring sharia law. A reasonable standard that actually tracks social trust and compatibility.

But then the bar takes a rather arbitrary turn. It becomes “don’t speak Hindi in public,” then “don’t worship your monkey god too visibly,” then “don’t cluster in the same majors”. Now it's "don't hang out in ethnic circles, stop existing as a noticeably Indian social presence at all, but of course I have zero intentions of actually including you".

The problem though is that the average "Heritage American" will never support this White America project. Even Republicans have been calling out Bo French’s tweet, which is a useful pulse on how far outside the actual Overton window the maximally groyper right winger sits. There is a hard limit on what can be achieved through ordinary democratic politics. The people who talk as if American-born citizens from disfavoured groups are essentially foreign are not describing the median of the coalition they claim to represent. They are describing a vanguard preference that most of their putative ingroup will never actually enforce. No amount of shrieking "these people are not Americans" will move the needle in that direction.

Mass migration can happen and within one generation, this is seen as the new default and any complaints about this are seen as against the new values.

Isn't Asian American TFR, which includes South Asians in America, the lowest of all races? H1b is a pipedream now, fewer new arrivals and you can safely expect the demographics to self-correct in another generation or two.

Bo French is also much much more moderate than the online groyper right, and he's still way to the hardline right end of the republican party.

There are genetic differences between the White Texan and the Indian. There are differences in 5-HTTLPR S-allele frequency which influences in-group proclivity and clanishness. India is, of course, a comically clannish land with like 20,000 sub-castes and a majority who report being highly against intermarriage between castes (per Pew). S-allele holders are more implicitly racist and prejudicial, more likely to accept unfair distributions, are worse in responsibility and self-control (in one study, are less likely to help others and less favorable of altruistic punishment. There is even a study that found "the 5-HTTLPR S-allele prevalence [is] a critical moderator for the linkage between democracy and social trust. Although democracy tends to be conducive to social trust, this positive relationship exists only in societies with a lower level of the 5-HTTLPR S-allele prevalence".

Some parts of India have as high as 60% SS expression while the Anglo-Saxon has 20% SS expression. Because of social contagion of norms this has an effect on society at large. There are also differences in the "pioneering" and "explorer" genes that make the Texan a Texan. Anglo-Saxons have 20% or higher DRD4 7R; this is completely absent in some Indian populations. And some differences in OXTR rs53576 AA expression.

If it turns out you allowed people in who are genetically inclined to be clannish, you’re pretty screwed, because there’s going to be a constant implicit bias against your own group in education, employment, democracy, etc. What makes this sad is that the Anglo-Saxon Texan is genetically inclined to not form accurate stereotypes about their out-group, which is a very good gene conducive to civilization until you share a nation with people from the opposite propensity, and then you’re on the losing end of Popper’s paradox of tolerance. Gujarat is the single highest region of origin for Indians in Texas, I think, and more than half report having to pay a bribe to get something done, which is insane. I have never heard of anyone in America having to pay a bribe and I’m from the Sopranos state.

There’s a William James quote about social trust:

Turn now from these wide questions of good to a certain class of·narrower· questions of fact, questions concerning personal relations, states of mind between one man and another. For example. do you like me or not? Whether you do or don’t depends in countless cases on whether I meet you half-way, assuming that you must like me, and showing you trust and expectation. In such cases what makes your liking come is my previous faith that your liking for me exists. But if I stand aloof, and refuse to budge an inch until I have objective evidence·of your liking me·, until you have done something that is apt, as the absolutists say, ad extorquendum assensum meum [= ’to compel my assent’], ten to one you won’t ever like me. How many women’s hearts are vanquished by the mere optimistic insistence of some man that they must love him! He won’t consent to the hypothesis that they can’t. ·In these cases· the desire for a certain kind of truth brings about that truth’s existence; and so it is in innumerable cases of other sorts. The only one who gains promotions, gifts, appointments is the man in whose life they are seen to play the part of live hypotheses, who. . . .sacrifices other things for their sake before they have come, and takes risks for them in advance. His faith acts on the powers above him as a claim, and creates its own verification. A social organism of any sort, large or small, is what it is because each member does his duty with a trust that the other members will do theirs. Wherever a desired result is achieved by the co-operation of many independent persons, its existence as a fact is a pure consequence of the faith in one another of those who are immediately concerned. A government, an army, a commercial system, a ship, a college, an athletic team, all exist on this condition, without which nothing is achieved—indeed, nothing is even attempted.

Hence it is important for a civilization to have the high-trust, risk-taking, optimistic pioneer who does not quickly form generalizations against an outgroup. This is not the Indian, but it is the Texan.

Some mistakes in here.

Some parts of India have as high as 60% SS expression while the Anglo-Saxon has 20% SS expression.

I bet that explains 0.1% of clannishness variance. It's almost never about a gene, it's almost always about all the genes. For you computer people, it's like weights in an LLM.

Because of social contagion of norms

Non-clannish people can't catch clannishness like you imagine. Yes, there are social transfer effects, but they are dwarfed by heritability. The more important impact will be quality of life / economic. This is plain and simple upper middle class replacement migration and clannishness means a white man can't get a job at an Indian firm, and Asian striver attitude means a brilliant white kid looks relatively more mediocre on paper than actually more mediocre Asians, inducing a deleterious effect onto that white kid.

If it turns out you allowed people in who are genetically inclined to be clannish, you’re pretty screwed, because there’s going to be a constant implicit bias against your own group in education, employment, democracy, etc.

Clannishness is cool actually and white people are largely experiencing the consequence of not having enough of it. If they could catch it from immigrants they'd kick out all of the immigrants.

As @porkpiehat points out, this picture is hardly representative of Texas demographics as a whole, nor do I think it represents some canary-in-the-coal-mine for mass immigration into the state. It is far more indicative of the fact that the University of Texas has become a good school. It has a competitive admissions rate that is only getting more competitive and recent rankings indicate it is well-within the top 50 colleges in the United States.

What does this have to do with Indians? I'm sure you can guess where I'm going with this. Indian immigrants to America tend to be wealthy and predominantly come from the upper castes of Indian society. They, much like other Asian groups, tend to perform better than comparable white students, and as far as I can tell, there is a strong cultural emphasis on academic and material success among recent Indian immigrants, resulting in them being more likely to travel out of state for college. All this amounts to the fact that they will be drawn to a strong academic program like UT. UT, in turn, wanting to have the strongest academic class, will admit relatively more Asian students, as most colleges these days tend to for the aforementioned performance reasons. Thus, more Indians at the University of Texas - estimates on U.S. News suggest 25% of the student body is Asian. I doubt most of these students remain in Texas, though perhaps they stick around Austin for a time for their first jobs. Hardly some mass migration ploy. These are skilled and intelligent students who are assimilating as best they can, seemingly successfully if they're at a football game having a great time.

Let's look at the University of Alabama for comparison. Alabama is a similar flagship state university, but it lacks the academic pedigree of UT. To no surprise, its demographic profile is more akin to the rest of the country: 67% White, 1.5% Asian, which is actually lower than Alabama's 1.8% Asian population.

A huge chunk of these students are employed in Dallas or Houston- Texas is not a few oil rigs with cattle wandering between them, after all, it has a huge white collar services sector that employs more college grads than it can produce.

UT Austin admissions are also, like most state flagship schools, non-meritocratic in a non-racialized direction- substantial preference for in-state applicants. This manifests itself, in the specific local case, as autoadmit for top six percent of the class at all Texas public schools, surely a much more dot Indian group than the state as a whole(also much whiter and more asian). The losers from that policy are mostly hispanics, who are underrepresented among top six percent students(blacks also don't benefit from that policy, but 'wholistic admissions' benefits them in practice, so this is probably made up for with non-autoadmit spots, at least partially). And indeed, we see lower ranked UT schools with very very hispanic campuses.

The argument in favor of the "top ten six five percent" rule was that high schools were heavily segregated in practice --- barely now within living memory, by fiat, but now mostly by school zoning area demographics. Ideally the winners are supposed to be poor schools in the Rio Grande Valley and historically-Black communities getting to send graduates from poorly-ranked high schools to top-tier UT Austin, but I've definitely read anecdotes of parents of means, uh, venue shopping come senior year of high school. I can't speak to how common that is, though.

Lol, the winners are strivers at semirural schools. The innercity kids and valley tejanos fail out their first year and get replaced with Catholic school alums that transfer from commuter schools with a specific program for this.

Going crazy on Twitter? That plus a dollar will buy you a Costco hot dog.

This is a very recent development. Is 20 years all it takes for Texas to become something new?

No, it’s still Texas. The presence of nonwhite people has not changed the character, traditions, even the political landscape of the area. Sometimes unfortunately.

If you are 30 and above, you probably grew up with almost no Indians.

Not in my experience, but what do I know? I’m sure the Brits understand better.

Now this is what Texas is and you have to leave if you don't like the changes?

Only for a sufficiently strong value of “don’t like.” You know, like anything else. Taxes too high? Can’t own a gun? Tired of hippies? Maybe you should leave those states.

But no, that’s quitter talk. Real Anglo-Saxon cowboys gather their posse and run the degenerates out of town. Anything else would be unacceptable value drift. If you don’t shoot the tax collector you’re basically allowing white genocide.

Mass migration can happen and within one generation, this is seen as the new default and any complaints about this are seen as against the new values.

No, they’re the old values. Sometimes values apply even to people you don’t like. Cultural replacement can happen but it’s not magic. Getting a bunch of Indian students to come absorb your rituals is how it’s supposed to work.

They really have no control over their outgroup other than canceling people and social pressure

The enemy must be both strong and weak, huh?

But where will they go? You basically have to live in a state like Texas for access to the best jobs. schools, dating, etc.

Where, indeed? Why is it that the places with freedom of movement and speech have all the good stuff? How come the nonwhite people get to enjoy it? If you just pushed them all out, maybe you could enjoy that magic soil for yourself.

Only weirdos and disagreeable people point this out

You said it, not me. I wish you’d go for longer before bringing up your hobbyhorse. You got some good questions out of this account.

Twitter delenda est.

You got some good questions out of this account.

Who's he an alt of?

Why is it that the places with freedom of movement and speech have all the good stuff?

We had all the good stuff before freedom of movement, and freedom of movement is killing freedom of speech.

[Largest free speech platform] delenda est.

As here.

P.S.

Cultural replacement can happen but it’s not magic. Getting a bunch of Indian students to come absorb your rituals is how it’s supposed to work.

So is it absorption or replacement?

I think Twitter, as a medium, is bad for us in various ways. I think we’d be happier and more effective if we didn’t have the intelligentsia tapped into a high-frequency feedback loop. I wish it wasn’t popular.

This is not the same as wishing it was suppressed, or that the government destroyed it. I don’t have any plausible route to making it unappealing. It’s a shame, in my opinion.

I used an unclear article. What I meant to say was

Cultural replacement can happen but it isn’t inherent. Getting a bunch of Indian students to come absorb your rituals is more like assimilation.

The OP started from the (British?) assumption that Indians can only replace Texan culture. I think Texas has done a pretty good job assimilating them so far.

The OP started from the (British?) assumption that Indians can only replace Texan culture. I think Texas has done a pretty good job assimilating them so far.

This waters down culture into hand-egg and 10 gallon hats. That approaches offensive if read by someone with an existing idea of deep culture. That is like saying 10 million weeaboos in Japan are Japanese if they watch anime and like sushi.

All right, fair enough. I get.. very irked... at the line of thought that seems to say, "The West is currently rich. Because it's rich, lots of people want to come here. Because the number of people coming here has historically been greater than literal zero, the West is rich because of freedom of movement. Therefore, accept replacement. The destruction of your culture is your culture, see?".

I was probably a bit pissy in respect to your particular message but you do seem to have a very triumphalist view of freedom of movement that I do think is genuinely running roughshod over people's desire to preserve their home, and I have very little sympathy for it.

I think Texas has done a pretty good job assimilating them so far.

I think this is optimistic. Britain thought we'd done a good job of assimilating the 5% immigrant population we had 20 years ago, and didn't account for the fact that:

a) having an immigrant in every conversation about immigration makes it very hard to raise issues about immigration

b) immigrant cultures start flexing a lot more muscle as their numbers increase

All right, fair enough. I get.. very irked... at the line of thought that seems to say, "The West is currently rich. Because it's rich, lots of people want to come here. Because the number of people coming here has historically been greater than literal zero, the West is rich because of freedom of movement. Therefore, accept replacement. The destruction of your culture is your culture, see?".

Exactly. Argentina used to be an absolute Immigration powerhouse back when it was a great economy, then the second any meaningful turbulence hit that stopped very quickly. It's easy for the tail to wag the dog on immigration and the correlation/causation stuff to go awry.

Weren’t the immigrants to Argentina either the same as the founding stock or hypothetically better? My understanding is it was founded by the Spanish. At some point they decided they need more people and wrote a constitution that promoted European migration with I think a preference for Northern Europeans. What they got was a lot of Spanish and Italian immigrants with the Italians being mostly northern Italians. Northern Italians are largely considered at worse the low tier of the good Europeans. Definitely above the Spanish. The golden age of Argentina was post massive northern Italian immigrants. The richest Argentinians still tend to be Northern Italian blood.

One can still argue Argentina failed because it was filled with Catholics predisposed to socialism light but it’s not like the Spanish weren’t Catholics. It was never an Anglo country.

What they got was a lot of Spanish and Italian immigrants with the Italians being mostly northern Italian

Also Welsh. It doesn't change the fact that the northern Italians were the highest quality European stock heading out there on a permanent basis. (A few Englishmen and Scots went out temporarily to make money, and left both football codes behind to our long-term inconvenience).

Argentina isn't literally the poorest white-majority country (Belarus recently overtook them in GDP per capita, but Albania and Moldova are still well below them) but it is close, and they are poorer than countries like Greece with fewer natural resources and worse human capital. It really does come down to policy choices.

I think I misread him and thought he meant immigration ruined Argentina and stopped growth but instead he meant immigration ended when the economy slowed.

More comments

Understood. I’m a lot more sympathetic to your points. I saw OP getting away with a (what I consider) pretty sloppy version of the argument and I let myself respond pretty carelessly/indignantly.

Then we are in furious agreement :)

Fairly simple - people from countries perceived as shithole ones are also perceived as shithole people until proven otherwise.

You represent your country and your country represents you. This is why no one cares about Koreans, Japanese, Chinese, Thai or Vietnamese people anymore. In the mind of the westerner they learned how to human - so it is not a big deal if some of them move over here.

Whereas India is represented by humorous TikTok videos about how they prepare street food there and the fact that their holy river has suffers from "severe contamination, primarily caused by billions of liters of untreated sewage, industrial runoff, agricultural chemicals". The H1B system abuse is also not winning hearts and minds.

Until India develops properly and has somewhat sane HDI and Gini, Indians won't be seen as equal peers, no matter their personal qualities.

Is it racist, unfair, bigoted and biased - yes. Is this humanity default mode of operation - also yes. It matters where you were born and raised and how you look like.

There is developed country origin privilege - people from the whole of the world give you some credit of goodwill that people from the underdeveloped areas are not afforded.

...their holy river has suffers from "severe contamination, primarily caused by billions of liters of untreated sewage, industrial runoff, agricultural chemicals".

...which might bear a nanogram of relevance if nothing like that had ever happened in the United States....

a) The Cuyahoga is not the most sacred river in America. b) It's been cleaned up. When the same can be said of the Ganges, I'll grant Indians the same grace I grant Ohioans.

Or, they should take a page out of their neighbour's playbook and build their own Great Firewall, block off all the cringe from the global net. Maybe stop issuing tourist visas as well while they're at it.

Anyway, somewhat tangentially I raised similar points in the last round of HBD discussion.

EDIT: I thought about it a bit more. I still think you're broadly correct, but every so often you get stuff like this as well. To be fair, it's not the same kind of racism. They like Asian culture cuz no 3rd worlders and they fetishise Asian women, but still believe in a racial hierarchy where white people should be on the top.

But where will they go? You basically have to live in a state like Texas for access to the best jobs. schools, dating, etc.

I live in the middle of nowhere, and I've lived in dozens of deeply rural towns. It's not bad. Sure, I might not have access to the "best" jobs, but I have a good job in an area with a low cost of living. I went to "shitty" schools, but I got a degree and managed to learn things that have served me well for the rest of my life. Dating might be harder, but I still met a woman who I love with a burning intensity that has never faded as the years have gone by.

Maybe I've been wasting my life, but it still seems pretty nice out here. Maybe you should give it a try.

Anyone who has been to Texas knows whites are a minority here in any medium sized and larger city.

What are you defining as medium-sized? On a very lazy Wikipedia check, College Station, Abilene, Amarillo, McKinney, are all majority white, although Wikipedia's numbers are a bit old so that may no longer be the case.

And (obviously) most "non-white" Texans are Hispanics, who are hardly an alien culture in the Southwest.

McKinney is not a standalone city, although like most wealthy suburbs it is much whiter than the metro as a whole.

A screen shot went viral on Twitter showing a crowd of Indian students celebrating the victory.

To be clear: it wasn't a crowd of Indian students. It was a group of like a dozen Indian students in the foreground, but the wider shot shows a crowd of mostly white/hispanic students (which is what you'd expect for UT's student demographics). The students in question are themselves almost certainly American.

The actual problem here is the division between people who view America as a white nation for white people (and who thus see any non-white people as a threat to the integrity of the nation) and people who view America as defined primarily by values. You can still be xenophobic and still cleave to the latter view on assimilationist grounds, but it's hard to sustain particular objections in the face of clear evidence of assimilation. However, if you're just a white supremacist, no amount of assimilation matters.

The center-right has also rushed to condemn people criticizing the massive demographic replacement in Texas.

Where are all the white Texan refugees who have been expelled from their land? Did the non-whites kill them all? Is the mainstream media covering it up?

Mass migration can happen and within one generation, this is seen as the new default and any complaints about this are seen as against the new values.

Having racial preferences in this manner has been seen as pretty sketchy for at least half a century. As alluded to above, even most racist people are not racial supremacists. While it's been long understood that the white supremacists didn't evaporate into thin air after the civil rights movement, it was the sort of thing you usually kept to yourself.

Where are all the white Texan refugees who have been expelled from their land? Did the non-whites kill them all? Is the mainstream media covering it up?

They expelled themselves through not having kids and importing other people from other areas of the world. The mainstream media, and people on message boards, are quick to jump on anyone noticing that demographic change or the trends that are highly suggestive of it.

While it's been long understood that the white supremacists didn't evaporate into thin air after the civil rights movement, it was the sort of thing you usually kept to yourself.

That is until it became extremely popular to blame whitey for all of non-whitey's problems. Seems that when your institutions start talking about and emphasizing race, people suddenly start talking about and emphasizing race.

They expelled themselves through not having kids and importing other people from other areas of the world. The mainstream media, and people on message boards, are quick to jump on anyone noticing that demographic change or the trends that are highly suggestive of it.

Yes, that's my point. "Demographic replacement" is a motte-and-bailey where people equivocate between ethnic cleansing and declining TFR + immigration. Sometimes there's a desultory effort to blame declining TFR on immigration, but these arguments aren't very compelling. You get "jumped on" for "noticing demographic change" because said "noticing" primarily takes the form of undisguised, conscious racism, as in the case OP brings up. Even your garden variety racist isn't ideologically racist, and explicit racial preference doesn't square with the idea that you're just worried about assimilation or whatever.

That is until it became extremely popular to blame whitey for all of non-whitey's problems.

This is the popular excuse, but, again, not very compelling. The causation cuts both ways here - right-wingers have spent decades pushing a narrow and exclusionary vision of American identity that elevates Christian, rural/suburban, and preferentially white Americans above the rest and are shocked when the rest decide to give them the middle finger. The white supremacists have always been looking for a way back to respectability (or at least ways to implement their policies without getting slapped down by civil rights law) and the main foot-in-the-door to re-mainstream ideological white supremacism has been nativism, not counter-organizing against particularist minority activism (not the least because many right-wingers think any minority activism is particularist).

You get "jumped on" for "noticing demographic change" because said "noticing" primarily takes the form of undisguised, conscious racism, as in the case OP brings up. Even your garden variety racist isn't ideologically racist, and explicit racial preference doesn't square with the idea that you're just worried about assimilation or whatever.

There is literally no acceptable way to voice concerns about demographic change in the mainstream that will be positively absorbed by any socially left-leaning, or even most of the middle leaning populace. Even some percentage of hardcore Republicans shun the concern. It cannot be done. You can't not be racist and make a comment like that in public and it have a positive reception. You could probably find some veiled comments from Rubio or Vance that touch on the subject, but even then those comments are more about ideology and culture than demographics.

This is the popular excuse, but, again, not very compelling. The causation cuts both ways here - right-wingers have spent decades pushing a narrow and exclusionary vision of American identity that elevates Christian, rural/suburban, and preferentially white Americans above the rest and are shocked when the rest decide to give them the middle finger.

People often times are not compelled by facts or reality. They're either too banal or too painful to absorb. Note that you specified the type of white person when mentioning which group spent decades pushing a narrow and exclusionary vision of American identity. That's a group defined by religion, geography, and ideology, with race as one input among several. I'm sure you've seen this and this before. You bring up motte-and-bailey, and then present your own motte-and-bailey:

The white supremacists have always been looking for a way back to respectability (or at least ways to implement their policies without getting slapped down by civil rights law) and the main foot-in-the-door to re-mainstream ideological white supremacism has been nativism, not counter-organizing against particularist minority activism (not the least because many right-wingers think any minority activism is particularist).

The motte being the white supremacists, the bailey being the those "noticing" and expressing concern about demographic change.

We know, with a high degree of certainty, that entire countries have similar feelings to "white supremacists" here in America. Japan being a prime example. China and South Korea do too. Naturalization in the Gulf states is effectively closed. Malaysia has ethnic preferences in its constitution. Recently Russia has made their own ethnonationalistic considerations. There are all kinds of "supremacists" all over the world. Jus sanguinis is the global rule, not the exception. We are the exception, and for people who "notice" it, that exception has been abused beyond what any country should tolerate.

So…the literal definition of an own goal.

Yeah, big time.

If the Indians comprise 0.1% of the crowd but they just so happen to all be concentrated in one corner of the stadium, then this by itself is proof positive that they are unassimilated. What "assimilation" looks like is for each subgroup to be evenly spread throughout the population in proportion to its numbers, which is evidently not what's happening here.

I'm not saying that this even dispersal is what causes assimilation; rather, someone who is culturally assimilated will naturally find that their circle of acquaintances (such as the people they go to football games with) is representative of the population.

(I rather doubt that anyone on Twitter is making this argument. The interpretation that the whole crowd is 90% Indian is more provocative and thus more likely to go viral.)

It seems worth mentioning that that was one part of a stadium holding 100k people- not in itself evidence of an Indian majority crowd- and that challengers to the racial harmony and integration ideal in Texas focus on the (noticeable but small)population of dot Indians rather than the very large Hispanic population. There aren’t objectively very many Indians, but they’re far and away thé most controversial minority group in the state.

I suppose this is this week's race discussion thread; could someone actually steelman the "white supremacy" takes, for lack of a better way to put it after a minute's thought, that seem all the rage on the Motte lately? For example, this post from last week's thread, and the OP.

I can quite well understand the theory of mind of people who complain about mass immigration, or even immigration in general.

I can also understand the theory of mind of the HBD realists and the scientific racists who go on about the Hajinal line or Ashkenazi selection pressures or whatever. If you're actually a WASP nativist or something then alright, at least you have something cohesive going on there.

Yet when people start going on about whiteness it just seems really silly to me. Just in the last hundred years Greeks, Italians, Slavs, Irishmen went from distinctly "other" to "white" to all but the most dedicated haters. Likely in another hundred years assimilated Hispanics, Indians and East Asians will probably be considered "white" for all intents and purposes.

If "white" is just a Schelling point for the things you actually care about (culture, immigration, governance, whatever) then complaining about some dudes wearing cowboy hats just makes you sound like a base racist that misses the point entirely.

Not what you asked but white peopke currently made the best societies - you can dispute this but I’ve never even been close to having my mind even slightly altered. Not because I’m an asshole white supremacist, but because I can look around and see every great society is a white one. Or Japanese … or South Korean.

These are the most prosperous and safest places on earth. Sure, some of South America is fine … but there’s no great societies.

It’s very clear to me white people are a very small global minority but make literally everything great / prosperous / safe … you take that away and we’re back to the Stone Age.

And I don’t think we can assimilate the world the way we have been trying.

Just in the last hundred years Greeks, Italians, Slavs, Irishmen went from distinctly "other" to "white" to all but the most dedicated haters.

I wasn't alive a hundred years ago, so their categorisations mean nothing to me. I'm not inheriting their ideology, I'm not defining myself by their beliefs. That their beliefs bear superficial resemblance to mine doesn't matter at all to me.

What I am looking at is the reality of keeping these pet minorities around. The culture they bring with them, the habits they cling to, the enclaves they form to avoid dispensing with any of those things. The relapses their subsequent generations have when they "rediscover" their roots and reabsorb all the worst parts of their ancestral cultures. I look at these things and I see no benefit to myself or the people I care about, so I want them gone.

I don't want Indian hygiene culture in my nation. I don't want the Indian work culture of just lying about things. I don't want interethnic rivalries on my streets. I don't want to hear word one about Israel or Palestine or Pakistan or Somalia or any of those; nobody here should even be able to point to those places on a map. And I equally don't want minorities wearing my culture like a skinsuit, partaking in my traditions as if they're their own, I don't want to see ethnics morris dancing while the media propagandises to me about how they're the new face of Britain, just as British as me, these people who washed ashore five years ago, while I can show you my family name on war monuments and in town hall records and point out buildings my grandparents helped build. It is gross, debasing propaganda intended to humiliate.

It is simply not my problem that their forefathers weren't capable of building countries worth a shit; that doesn't entitle them to mine.

We can eliminate racism by simply removing the other races.

Britishness is a tricky subject, though. I do agree that it's conferred far too easily, but I'm personally Anglo/Irish stock and have a UK passport through heritage despite being born and spending the majority of my life in Australia. I'm currently in London on business for a couple days, haven't stepped foot into the UK since I was a teenager and did the perfunctory 2-week tour of London and family oop noorth. I consider myself part of the Anglosphere tradition and racially English, but when I'm wandering aimlessly around London in present it's hard to feel particularly 'British' or 'Yookayish'.

On the other hand, my dad's gotten massively into genealogy since retiring and I've got all the same heritage aspects in terms of Christening records and 'here's a photo of my great-grandfather on a fishing trawler'

The steelman is that assimilation is not guaranteed. There are many instances of countries where assimilation hasn’t occurred over thousands of years. In America ADOS have not fully assimilated and right now we have zero signs assimilation will ever occur. India itself is not an assimilated country. Castes still exists. Brazil is an example of a country that is not assimilated. You end up with a result where different tribes in your society vote for group interests and not society interests. If assimilation fails then your end result is permanently worse politics.

This is bad for a lot of reason. High performers in unassimilated countries are less productive. Brazil had a lot of Italian and German immigrants and they are poorer and less productive than the groups that immigrated to America.

Once you have permanent groups that are not assimilating you can not unring that bell and will be stuck with poorer governance forever.

Also it seems weird to me to say that Hispanics will likely assimilate. Most Latin countries are not assimilated. And certainly to a far lesser extent than America had a dominant uniculture when I was a kid.

The steelman is that assimilation is not guaranteed. There are many instances of countries where assimilation hasn’t occurred over thousands of years. In America ADOS have not fully assimilated and right now we have zero signs assimilation will ever occur. India itself is not an assimilated country. Castes still exists. Brazil is an example of a country that is not assimilated. You end up with a result where different tribes in your society vote for group interests and not society interests. If assimilation fails then your end result is permanently worse politics.

Assimilation basically only happens by interbreeding that that obviously means the results thereof is a mixture not entirely like its sources.

How do you define assimilation? I can’t think of a single LatAm country that has the European mass conformity into a single mold model. Beyond that, almost all of Latin America has an assumption of patron-client relations rather than atomized citizens unified only by the state.

That's the point, right? LatAm politics is characterised by a heavy understanding that We Are (Not) All In It Together.

That’s a different thing than assimilation, though. A failure of assimilation is failing to join the society. In LatAm, all of those groups are part of society; their society just has a lot of people in different roles.

It’s the same with AADoS in the US; they have always been a part of US society. The question has always been their place in it, not if they were an alien presence in it.

The problem with words is they can have different relatively similar meanings.

Most of Latam accepts a shared culture. The elites, middle class, and lower class all have an acceptance of what is Mexican Food or Music and they have the same understanding that a taco is Mexican and Sushi is not Mexican. But there is a bigger assimilation of seeing yourself as truly one people. They likely mostly lack that. The English of the European countries bonded a few people together but today I think they mostly view themselves as “one people”. You can still at times notice physical traits and faces from the prior population groups. That I consider a stronger form of assimilation.

Most of the new world has the looser form of assimilation. Pre-mass migration the US for most of its population developed the stronger form of assimilation. I would say in 1980 Italians probably being the last large migration had nearly fully accomplished the strong form of assimilation.

That makes sense. The ideal of a nation as being “A commonwealth for the benefit of its people. Its people being equal citizens operating as individuals, rather than corporate entities like guilds or villages. And the citizens being culturally uniform.” Is the culmination of the 19th century liberal project, and really only stuck in northwest Europe and Anglo America. Latin America, despite the dreams of some of its people, never really got there. It was never “individual <-> state/nation”. You always had some form of clientelism or corporate identity in between.

I don't think that's what I would call assimilation; I would call it more Balkanisation-In-One-Country.

Assimilation is (in my opinion) about feeling genuine companionship with strangers, trusting strangers, feeling cultural unity with strangers. Being willing to plant trees for some random guy's kids to sit under. It's the opposite of ethnic politics, gibs, "communities". If you can talk about "the X community" then the Xs haven't assimilated.

There is a historical portrait on the wall nearby me. No idea who it's of. But one of the reasons that the ethnic composition of immigration into the UK concerns me is that any non-white immigrant can look at it and know that they have no relationship to this person.

The National Citizenship model where you had the nation essentially be an extended family of homogenized citizens with the state/commonwealth representing them and citizens being equal under the law and socially, while never fully realized, was/is a real thing. Britain and France are the classic examples. This was the end goal of the 18th/19th century liberal/progressive project, and they got most of what they wanted in northwest Europe. This is being undone, partly but not entirely by immigration, and you are right to notice that.

My point is more that LatAm never had that. Individual liberals wanted it as an ideal, and some nations like Argentina arguably got closer than others, but you never had anywhere near the social cohesion and unification Europe had. LatAm always had clientelism, corporate privileges for Indios, or integration into the state via corporatism or parties in the 20th century.

Talking about the breaking of the liberal nationalist societies you see in Europe and/or assimilation in a LatAm context is a category error.

And Argentina was more like the US in that the Native American population was small and they only did a small amount slavery. And then did some things like putting their ADOS in the front lines during war and Indian war to limit their population.

AADOS are assimilated fully. Not to the stratum you would like them to be, sûre, but they have nothing in common, culturally, with west Africans, and a lot in common, culturally, with poor southerners writ large. You don’t have to like that to note that it’s assimilation.

a key component of assimilation is the group being assimilated identifies with and becomes apart of the group they're assimilating to so there are no longer different groups with different interests who view themselves differently

there are no longer Scots-Irish, and English, and German, and Welsh, and Scottish, and others; there are simply Americans and they simply identify as Americans and see each other as the same group

American Blacks do not identify with or think of themselves as the same group as White Southerners or poor Southerners. In fact, for hundreds of years, they've explicitly and violently set themselves apart from White Southerners, poor or otherwise. They do this in every part of the country they go.

In such a context, claiming they've "assimilated fully," let alone assimilated meaningfully is just ridiculous. I really struggle to believe you would take more than a second to correctly identify which is which and so we're just left to speculate why you continue to smudge things enough and hope others squint enough they cannot also easily tell the difference and see them as different.

perhaps in the future when Americans have been so deracinated and so deconstructed and displaced by foreigners that no one has any identity outside of the most base forms of consumerism , you can claim everyone "assimilated"

but that's not assimilation, that is just the displacement and destruction of the old and creation of something new, except somehow more hollow and fake

but they have nothing in common, culturally, with west Africans

What?

You would be using a definition of assimilation that is borderline meaningless. Sure we have some shared memes. But for the most part the communities are segregated. Wildly different income, crime, life expectancy, and voting records. Far different polling on in-group biases.

Both sides do have a sense of being American. But we have polling on things like juries and ADOS show significant bias towards other ADOS. If tribal loyalties exists then assimilation has at best been partial.

Once you have permanent groups that are not assimilating you can not unring that bell and will be stuck with poorer governance forever.

The question is, didn't this already happen 100+ years ago with the aforementioned "Greeks, Italians, Slavs, Irishmen"? The Jeffersonian ideal gave way to Tammany Hall, the Mafia, union politics, etc. - so we see that that assimilation project was not successful either. Perhaps, the immigrants assimilated America to themselves, and not the other way around.

We used to insist on assimilation. That was why Greeks are now okay. I don’t know about the race angle, I don’t put much stock in that, but we have absolutely stopped even trying to assimilate all of these immigrants into Amerikaner culture. In 1900, leaving your homeland meant to give up all of that and become American. To give up dress and language and hygiene standards and traditions and to eventually absorb American culture— our language, culture, food, religion, sports, games, music, and so on. Now, it’s actually seen as a bad thing that a third generation Chinese or Nigerian kid acts mostly like an American. That they no longer speak the language or play the games or listen to the music. In fact, fashionable Americans were often insistent on practicing and celebrating those other cultures. They race to bring up pagan Hindu holidays, or Muslim holidays, or Indian, Korean or Japanese music. It’s partly that technology allows this. In 1950, you could not get those kinds of things in America.

We used to insist on assimilation.

Rep Peter King (IRA-NY) was fundraising, based on Old World ethnic grudges, for a private war against a US treaty ally on the streets of New York, and nobody in state or local politics had a problem with this until 9-11 - even after the Irish ambassador boycotted the St Patrick's Day parade over the issue.

I think people are misunderstanding my point. It's not clear to me that the 19th-century European immigrants ever did assimilate, at least in the way that matters. @Opt-out says we "will be stuck with poorer governance forever" - I consider the possibility that this has already happened, that we have been stuck with poorer governance for this whole time, and that it's far too late to do anything about it. The only reason why people assume that the Irish/Italians/etc. did successfully assimilate is because nobody alive today remembers a time before they showed up. Those of us who live in big cities have just come to accept a constant background noise of graft, corruption, and gangsterism which (I believe) would never have been accepted in a supermajority-Anglo society.

a constant background noise of graft, corruption, and gangsterism which (I believe) would never have been accepted in a supermajority-Anglo society

The problem I have with this (among many) is that if you know anything about English society in the 18th and 19th century, you'd know that it was already riddled with corruption and gangsterism, and governance in the American colonies (and subsequently the United States) had many of the same pathologies (not necessarily as bad, probably in large part due to the more expansive franchise). The idea that non-Anglo immigrants were introducing corruption into a basically honest Anglo-American political culture is highly questionable.

I think most people would agree with this as potentially the votes for FDR and The Great Society and the creation of the welfare state. Where this would break down is Europe and Canada do more of this. The ‘80s Revolution still occurred in America. Now perhaps the push back would have been bigger without the Catholic influence on culture.

We used to insist on assimilation

The claim that immigrants have stopped assimilating is not really in evidence. Language acquisition, intermarriage rates, even religious adoption to a not-insignificant degree all point to assimilation proceeding apace. Insofar as there is substance to this point, it seems to be a complaint that immigrants are assimilating to the "wrong" American subcultures (e.g. East/South Asian immigrants mostly assimilating into urban white liberal culture), but even that is pretty mixed. There was never as much daylight between Latino and Southern American culture as nativists pretend, and Latinos have been assimilating pretty well.

Conversely, the period of "insistence" on assimilation yielded a number of distinct white-ethnic subcultures (e.g. Irish, Italian, Polish) over the course of the 19th and early 20th century. Most are still present to this day in attenuated forms. The big standout in both its presence at the time and lack of presence now is German American culture, which didn't survive the world wars.

we have absolutely stopped even trying to assimilate all of these immigrants into Amerikaner culture.

What is "Amerikaner culture"? The only thing I can find is a group promoting white SA immigration to the US, but I'm guessing that's not what you're talking about.

There was never as much daylight between Latino and Southern American culture as nativists pretend, and Latinos have been assimilating pretty well.

Latinos however show no signs of stopping their support for government redistribution, speech restrictions or ending their apathy towards gun rights.

Conversely, the period of "insistence" on assimilation yielded a number of distinct white-ethnic subcultures (e.g. Irish, Italian, Polish) over the course of the 19th and early 20th century. Most are still present to this day in attenuated forms. The big standout in both its presence at the time and lack of presence now is German American culture, which didn't survive the world wars.

The surface attributes of these groups were annihilated or absorbed, true, but all of these and the other big European heritage groups show significant opinion differences on pretty foundational value questions to this day. In the GSS, it is an extremely consistent result that Anglo-Germanic-Americans tend towards small government, libertarian or classical liberal answers on political and cultural questions, whereas Ellis Islander prefer social democracy, redistribution and speech restriction. And of course, these inter-European differences are dwarfed by the distances newer migrant groups and African-Americans sit at relative to the European cluster.

Deep assimilation of socio-political sentiments never happened, despite the success in making immigrants speak English. One of the few examples I can think of is Asian-Americans loving meritocracy more than white Americans, but they're otherwise still fairly different in their attitudes on most other things and that particular preference is obviously not the result of American cultural influence. If your concern is football matches and the consumption of burgers, sure, migrants are assimilating perfectly well, if it's the long-term cultural and political trajectory of the nation in a holistic sense, it's not. And if you happen to be a libertarian or love low taxes etc., it's an absolute disaster.

We need a better word for Latinos. Or no word and revert to Indian, Black, White. With some obvious complexity.

Florida Latinos have higher educational achievement and far lower support for welfare. They are a completely different population group than Texas/California Latinos. And Texas Latinos do seem sometimes very similar and some times very different than Cali Latinos.

A better demographic classification system would improve people’s models of society and immigration a lot.

For what it's worth, I reran the GSS query split by US census regions (state-level detail needs a permit, a 6-month waiting time and a cool 1.5k dollars) and the consistent tendency is that Hispanics in the West (goes as far east as Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico) lean quite a bit more towards classic Republican policy positions than those elsewhere, but even they support the welfare state at much greater rates than North Eastern whites, who you'd expect to be the bluest of the blue (North Eastern Hispanics are also the most social democrat/leftist Hispanics).

The only area where Hispanics of any region get particularly close to whites is in their shared love of social security, which is the part of the welfare state that does by far the best in the "do you like the amount of spending" questions across all groups and ancestries. Otherwise, Hispanics fairly uniformly and with little apparent regional variation would like to see more social spending, more money spent on black people, less money on space, more on unemployment (here Hispanics from the West are a significant outlier, this is the only welfare-related question where they actually give a more right-leaning answer than whites nationwide, and they beat North Eastern whites by a significant margin) and higher taxes on the rich. EDIT: perhaps the best example of this: in the GSS Cubans are by far the most Republican non-European group, comparable in their party loyalty to Dutch- or Scottish-Americans, yet their attitudes on classical liberalism or the welfare state are more or less the same (and generally even more leftist!) as those of Mexicans or Puerto Ricans.

I suppose you’d think of it as midwestern evangelical Christian culture. Country culture, the kind of thing you’d find if you visited a small midwestern or southern town of about 20K people.

I feel obliged to point out that Midwestern and Southern culture are not particularly alike within the broader context of American culture and neither is or has been the dominant/"standard" form of American culture, inasmuch as such a thing even makes sense. This is a standard that would marginalize: New Englanders, Texans, Northwesterners, Californians, Appalachians... in short, most Americans.

(Midwestern culture is, itself, significantly product of post-independence immigration, particularly German, Scandinavian, and Irish immigration, whereas Southern culture is mostly derivative of Anglo-Scots heritage with some significant West African influences.)

Some would likely consider the ‘90s Affirmative Action push and some other programs as a strong attempt at getting full ADOS assimilation. When affirmative action failed then woke started since no interventions achieved the stated goal it must be that the other 85% have biases that holding back assimilation.

But now we are post-woke and genetic arguments are rising since the woke intervention also seems to have failed.

So maybe we actually have been trying assimilation and failed?

We aren’t trying. We don’t insist that immigrants learn English or anything at all about American culture. We don’t insist that they adapt to WASP ideals. For example, if we were to insist on Muslim assimilation, we would ban the hijab and other forms of Muslim dress. We would not allow for Muslim prayer times or build foot washes in public places to assist Muslims in praying. If we were insisting on Hispanic assimilation, then there wouldn’t be barios where several generations of Latinos have lived and barely any of them understand English.

I don’t disagree on those groups, but I do think 1990’s-2020’s we collectively did make a push to try and figure out how to assimilate ADOS more fully. That is partly why we elected Obama. Why we did affirmative action. Why we probably did things like have silly Air Traffic controller test for ADOS partly on some kind of reasoning if we just get them into whitish collar middle class seats that they will excel in the seat and assimilation occurs.

I think you could call it a priming the pump strategy of creating an ADOS middle class.

Perhaps, the immigrants assimilated America to themselves, and not the other way around.

I think that's a fair assessment. The gravity of each group pulls itself towards the other.

What people often get wrong about Italian immigration is the presumption that nothing was done about it and it all worked out in the end. That's not true at all. People were extremely upset about it and that's why we passed the National Origins Act in 1924 which all but banned further Italian immigration. We shut the border for 40 years. By 1970, the foreign born population of the US had fallen below 5% and most of the earlier groups were finally assimilated.

Even in 1965, when we opened the border again, it wasn't because people wanted more immigration. It was just assumed that is was no big deal and the overall composition of the immigrants wouldn't change much. And wow were they wrong about that.

Immigration advocates want to skip the step where we struggled for decades and move right to the part where everyone is assimilated. That's not going to happen with continuous waves of new migration.

This is if you have a good outcome. A slow painful assimilation. India has the highest genetic distance of its people. The solution they had to a lot of diversity was to create the caste system and just have the different groups legally and by custom live separately. The west seems like it might go down the path of India.

It's also a lot easier to keep a balkanized social fabric and cultural landscape in today's smartphone era. I can continue using my language and speaking to my friends and family essentially anywhere on Earth now

I think it isn’t white supremacist per se but a belief that culture and attitudes are in part inherited (probably both via nature and nurture).

Thus, white people writ large and Western Europeans more specifically may want to keep their culture because (1) it is familiar and (2) it has on the whole been one of the better cultures.

Now that doesn’t mean that aren’t other good cultures. For example, Japan and China have achieved a lot. I wouldn’t want to live in such cultures but it isn’t obvious they are overall worse and in some ways (but not all) are clearly better.

But some cultures are seemingly objectively inferior and/or some cultures have a hard timing blending. Indian culture seems to prioritize clannish behavior that prioritizes Indians at the cost of whites.

I know this is all generalities and I’m sure if we dug in at each premise there would be objections etc. But this is, in broad strokes, why I think reversing immigration is generally good while at the same time preserving some degree of immigration from populations with cultures that are on par with the western cultures and can blend well if numbers are small enough.

Japan is an odd example here because general claims of "Japanese success" happened mostly after a dramatic period in their history in which Western culture was aggressively adopted by (local!) top-down fiat.

I'd be remiss if I suggested that Western ideals were the only reason for this success, but it certainly complicates the example. China has also had its own run-ins and adaptations from Western ideas too (literally Communism! Although that's not the only one).

In Japan's case they had a period of self-imposed isolation, which was forcefully ended by the U.S. demonstrating how much they fucked themselves over militarily by refusing trade and technological advancement, and them scrambling to catch up.

Korea later similarly scrambled to catch up, but Japan had the lead and took over Korea in the run-up to WW2.

'We are all the same brotherhood of man, we should let everybody in and kumbaya'-ism is an incredibly cheap value to hold when you're from a country that's essentially never going to be asked to actually let anybody else in. And the majority of countries that mass-immigration advocates are hailing from are actually super restrictive on naturalization with a very strong implied understanding of 'what a person from here is'. Sure, not every white sub-race is equally good and there'd be a bunch of arguments to be made regarding 'Would you rather have Japanese immigrants or Albanians' but the people who managed to build the nice things that outside groups are now trying to forcibly socialized should be able to say 'No, go build your own' without mass wailing and gnashing of teeth.

'We are all the same brotherhood of man, we should let everybody in and kumbaya'-ism is an incredibly cheap value to hold when you're from a country that's essentially never going to be asked to actually let anybody else in.

Okay, but this is the opposite of what we see. The most rabidly xenophobic nations are generally the ones people are least interested in migrating to, while the people most likely to embrace the brotherhood of man are the people most likely to be getting immigrants.

The most rabidly xenophobic nations are generally the ones people are least interested in migrating to, while the people most likely to embrace the brotherhood of man are the people most likely to be getting immigrants.

When a man's material health is taken care of, only then does he care for his spiritual health.

People have the luxury of virtue signalling when their lives are comfortable. It's a form of guilt amelioration.

Massive alienation from the means of production also has lead to a lot of modern urbanites just kind of assuming a lot of money/affluency is hand-wavey and will just pop into existence with good enough vibes. When you believe in your heart that modern Western Democracy is the default state of humanity and not something fragile that's taken millennia to build, you're open to doing a lot of stupid things.

The most rabidly xenophobic nations are generally the ones people are least interested in migrating to

This partly depends on your definition of xenophobia. I've known no shortage of weebs dismayed that Japanese immigration laws are basically "no". I'm sure there are KPop stans that have similar situations.

Japan Immigration Laws really aren't that bad by Asian standards, even if they're starting to tighten them somewhat. The main issue is that there's two streams of Western Japanese Migrants who are either very rich and choosing Japanese for vibes (who are typically fine but they're starting to push the language requirements a bit harder) or people who are essentially committing economic suicide out of pure passion for Weebery (since Japan wages aren't high even if Purchasing Power Parity means it's not toooo bad) and then complain all day on socials. The Japanese government have placed minimum lifetime pension contribution requirements for PR which require you to be a 70th percentile Japanese earner and also pushed the language requirement.

Also slow decline and death of English teaching roles across Asia has contributed to a lot of the endless complaining online.

Yeah but the immigrants from those super xenophobic countries instantly turn on a dime the second it aligns with their interests.

Just in the last hundred years Greeks, Italians, Slavs, Irishmen went from distinctly "other" to "white" to all but the most dedicated haters.

This is just not true. They were always considered white, and anything saying otherwise is just misinformation. A lot of people have been fed this lie, so I don't blame you for believing it, but it is objectively not true.

https://web.archive.org/web/20200612063842/https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/03/22/sorry-but-the-irish-were-always-white-and-so-were-the-italians-jews-and-so-on/

Maybe in the US, where Black in general has been its own distinct category. But in Europe, southern Europeans were seen as darker skinned, more temperamental, and just overall different from those in the north or west. People specifically started worrying about black people once we saw immigration from the middle east and Africa.

So this may simply be a cultural issue, where an American places different meanings on "Black" and "White" than Europeans do.

Yes, they were seen like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpine_race#/media/File:Passing_of_the_Great_Race_-_Map_4.jpg

But they were never seen as black. They were always seen as Europeans, just lesser white Europeans. It's also anachronistic to think about current racial categories in the "Irish became white" meme way because Europe was essentially 100% white during this time period and full of different white ethnic groups that saw each other as distinct. Winston Churchill for example talked about the Anglo-Saxon race.

What's crazy is that Texas really isn't like this. Only 2.7% of people in Texas are South Asian. It's similar to the Somali thing in a lot of ways. It's a very small absolute number, but it's concentrated, so the changes seem huge.

It's basically this quote, but for ethnic spoil systems:

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has.

Now obviously its unfair to compare these Texas fans to Somalians. They are probably, individually, quite lovely people. And, when voting, they are going to fall somewhere between Dennis Kucinich and Mao.

Almost all recent immigrant groups have voting patterns which are far to the left of longtime populations. It doesn't matter how "good" Indian and Chinese immigrants are if they vote for open borders. Our institutions won't save us. Even low single digit numbers can tip the scales. If Texas goes blue, the Republic will fall.

Only 2.7% of people in Texas are South Asian.

Texas is a big state and there are generational differences that are going to concentrate the effect at universities. The 20-year difference in DFW schools is... interesting.

And, when voting, they are going to fall somewhere between Dennis Kucinich and Mao.

Almost all recent immigrant groups have voting patterns which are far to the left of longtime populations.

Canada's different in this regard, or at least Ontario is (was?). IIRC, Indian immigrants were a big reason why Ford won again, voting for reasons that would be very legible to conservative voters.

That does raise the question of why Chinese and Indians are so far left in the United States. Naively, we might expect the opposite. India and China are far-right places. They are so far right they could fairly be called fascist or theocratic by western standards. I'll propose a couple possibilities.

  1. Indians and Chinese assimilate well and correctly recognize that leftism is the high-status choice in the US

  2. Indians and Chinese care more about racial solidarity than about other things like abortion, taxes, and crime

Perhaps it's because being far-right in China or India is the only way to achieve bare-minimum outcomes of civilization, kind of the way European governments tightened during both world wars. Those who managed to escape the bottom of the barrel wish to get what the Americans are getting in terms of social freedoms.
If they are able to be successful back home, and are well-adapted to the social expectations, there isn't really a reason to move. Servants are cheaper, the upper-crust are probably doing relatively well compared to other countries.

Without tight control of the population, these places literally start blowing up, trains derailing left and right, etc, then they just start eating each other by the thousands. Orgies and writing snarky articles about the government are not worth that risk.

In the US, the elites have been turning the dial on moral decay for decades for the fun of it, perhaps as a flex on other countries' elites as well, and yet, aside from a few hotspots of degeneracy and crime, there is a remarkable resilience of the economy, public safety...

India and China are far-right places.

What? China is a communist nation and India was explicitly ruled by socialists for most of it's modern history.

Gay representation in media is illegal in China.

  • Films with gay characters are banned and don't play in Chinese theaters.

  • Phone app games can't have characters with ambiguous genders, or effeminate men or anyone gay.

  • China has illegal gay romance stories published on websites. This is hypothetically illegal but the laws weren't enforced. Then they were. The women who write these gay romances were arrested and held in prison for long periods of time awaiting trial.

Us Americans are culture waring about trans women in combat sports. China is on a completely different level.

Their leaders are billionaires. They're whatever form of communism is rule by billionaires.

They are nationalists in the way I wish Americans were. We have a tragic deficit of nationalism. It might be terminal.

I once saw a homeless beggar in China. Two Chinese cops were standing in front of him and very kindly asking him to go away. My main complaint about American urban decay is forbidden in China. They have the will to ban it and enforce the ban.

It is hard to shoehorn everything into a simple left-right dichotomy. They like abortion and dislike economic liberalism. They aren't "right wing" in that sense. They are culturally conservative in a way some Americans would consider far right. If Republicans endorsed a fraction of Chinese state policy, it would be loudly denounced as far-right extremism.

Gay representation in media is illegal in China.

It was a problem in the USSR, too. It will probably become a problem in the West if actual leftists ever acquire real power.

I don't know if it is true, but supposedly gay Germans are very disproportionately supporters of AfD. The point being Western culture is fine with them being gay. Some other cultures not so much.

Alice Weidel is cringing thinking about what would happen to her and her domestic partner if Islamists ruled Europe. She wants her gay family to thrive. She's of course portrayed as a crazed right winger and a nazi for doing so.

This overrates the degree to which gays predict islamization. Most, as far as I know, are bog-standard mainstream progressives.

More comments

China is a quasi-fascist state. They practice state capitalism, not communism. They put Uyghurs into camps and prevent them from spreading their culture to the next generation. They are a Han ethnostate that bans nearly all immigration. Speaking on certain topics is forbidden. They execute political prisoners and harvest their organs. Need we go on?

India is a patchwork of different tribal, ethnic, and religious groups with a variety of practices that are entirely foreign to westerners including honor killings. Women are generally required to dress modestly but still face harassment when traveling alone (as any woman who has ever been to India can attest). Women are raped as punishment for the transgressions of their kin. Widows are stigmatized. Caste discrimination is rampant. People are murdered for rumored offenses against cows.

Note: this is far from a complete picture of either country, don't @ me.

The government China is far to the right of any western government.

The people of India are culturally far to the right of any western culture.

They put Uyghurs into camps and prevent them from spreading their culture to the next generation. They are a Han ethnostate that bans nearly all immigration. Speaking on certain topics is forbidden. They execute political prisoners and harvest their organs. Need we go on?

All of which is perfectly within the bounds of the far-left.

India is a patchwork of different tribal, ethnic, and religious groups with a variety of practices that are entirely foreign to westerners including honor killings. Women are generally required to dress modestly but still face harassment when traveling alone (as any woman who has ever been to India can attest). Women are raped as punishment for the transgressions of their kin. Widows are stigmatized. Caste discrimination is rampant. People are murdered for rumored offenses against cows.

India was straight up governed by socialists for something like 70 years post independence. They still have an intense and smothering web of racial carve-outs that would match to "DEI" in the West.

Calling National Ethno-Communists and the most racist socialists in the world "far-right" is terminology that is actively obfuscatory. Either group has far, far more in common with the Western far-left than the Western far-right.

All of which is perfectly within the bounds of the far-left.

Horseshoe theory, a banger meme with the added advantage of being true!

Red China is not on the western left-right axis - particularly in the current year where the western left-right axis is defined by somewhat parochial culture-war concerns and everyone from Bernie to Vance supports some form of state capitalism. In so far as it matters, China is neutral on white vs black skin, in favour of legal abortion, and mildly against public displays of sexual deviance.

China is neutral on white vs black skin

Eh, they place themselves at the top. Perhaps it's genre-specific, but the Chinese fantasy novels sometimes randomly drop levels of anti-black racism that would make Nathan Bedford Forrest wince.

Indians and Chinese do seem to broadly believe in abortion and progressive tax rates, and have little to none of the cultural grievances that thé contemporary right uses to avoid talking about economics. India is a deeply socially conservative place, yes, but in a very different way from what a westerner would recognize.

Yeah, a lot of their culture doesn't map into a traditional left-right axis which places primacy on ideas and not on identity.

For example, in the West, a leftist might support redistribution from the rich to the poor. A rightist might be against redistribution. But there's another perfectly legible viewpoint which is to support redistribution from you to me, regardless of who is poor or rich. I think a lot of Indians land here.

The idea of couching policies in terms of universalism is WEIRD. "Why must a policy benefit all of society?", the Third Worldist asks. "I vote so the government will give me money"

Indians and Chinese are mostly non-Christian in a group where the right-wing party's support base and agenda continues to correlate relatively heavily with Evangelical Christianity.

I think this us the weakest political argument I still regularly see. Trump is the first openly non-religious president. The infkuence of Christianity in America is totally crippled. Even nominal Christians are basically never practicing anymore. It's not 1990.

Agreed. I'd put that in bucket #2, I think. Identity >> policy.

The actual history of minority groups in America is to tend to become voters for the most moderate democrats available eventually.

The ethnic enclave in the stadium is scary. But overall they looked assimilated. I’ve repeatedly said prior generations of Indians some times do seem to assimilate very well to the point no one even notices they are Indian anymore.

The scary thing to me is if Texas could do a full Californication process. Despite California’s wealth it seems like it’s much more third worldification than elsewhere in America. I think the data is fairly clear that the State doesn’t work for the middle class anymore which is witnessed by population leaving every year. I tend to think demographic change has greatly influenced California’s political culture which is something we do not want to spread. I guess California has always been to the left of Texas but it was cowboy land too at one point. How do we maintain an Anglo form of government as demographics change? It doesn’t seem local level California governance has dealt with this well. By Anglo governance it feels to me like California has a lot more class/tribe politics than Texas.

Despite California’s wealth it seems like it’s much more third worldification than elsewhere in America.

Prop 13 deserves most, though not all, of the blame for California's high taxes on everything else, as well as contributing to municipal dysfunction by breaking the link between local tax bases and local government funding, was done by white conservatives. CEQA is ground zero of California NIMBYism and was bipartisan (signed by Governor Reagan), and predated the browning of the state. Local NIMBYism seems to be a bipartisan old white people thing much more than a third world immigrant thing.

So it looks like California was wrecked by Boomerism, not Third Worldification. The Asian-American vote is a powerful pro-sanity force in California politics, though mostly an isolated one.

Those policies can be viewed as pro-segregation/anti-immigration mitigation. Who does prop-13 = older and long time residents. Who does it hurt new residents. If I wanted to keep new people out of my community what would I do? I would invent higher taxes for immigrants. Which prop-13 essentially did.

Part of the argument that immigration ruins governance is that groups pass tribalistic policies. If the new residents to California trying to buy a home were just the old residents kids then you would see these policies being changed back or developing policies that would help their kids buy housing.

NIMBY policy is well within a framework of things caused by diversity because it creates voting blocks opposed to increased density because voters do not want other people living around them.

I am also not just referring to housing policy but other social dysfunction. You response reminds me of why I “Why Nations Fail” and Acemoglu getting a Nobel Prize. I believe his book basically concludes Third World Nations suck because they have bad governance/institutions …..and if we just had better governance/institutions then Africa be rich. Which sounds nice to a liberal because that sounds like you can help Africa by just importing a technology like giving them the US constitution. My view is the institutions will always be poor because you have Africans running the government.

You will always be able to point out 1 bad policy and explain why the policy is bad. Good institutions with good demographics fix bad policies. My argument would be that California sucks now because politicians have to sell to third world voters and people largely want NIMBY policies to mitigate living in a diverse society.

Yeah, it's a big concern. California was a solid red state until the early 1990s. For a long time is was the Republican state. If you were to poll white people born in California before 1960 and their descendants, it's likely they'd still break strongly Republican, meaning the political changes in the state are not people becoming more liberal, its just demographic replacement and evaporative cooling.

Despite everything, there are still more Republican voters in California than in every other state, even Texas.

Err, not really. The California State Assembly has been controlled by the Democrats since 1970, barring '94-96, and the same has been true of the California State Senate without interruption since 1973. The GOP was competitive in California in a way that it wasn't in much of the US at the time, but I'd hardly have called it a "solid red state".

You basically have to live in a state like Texas for access to the best jobs. schools, dating, etc.

Only tangentially related to your overall point, but what I've noticed is that a large portion of people essentially desire to be passive contributors to a community. They want to a community that fits their exacting standards but they don't actually want to contribute anything more than passively paying taxes and maybe if they are feeling generous, show up to events other people organize. Unfortunately that doesn't work. Communities need active participants, people willing to get their hands dirty, run for local office, organize the social events, run third spaces. Is it any shock that the community is transformed by people who do want to participate? These larger areas have access to better things because there are just more people participating. in large part because there are more people.

The other point is that you need to decide what is important to you. If you want all the best amenities then you are going to have to compromise, that or build your own Texas-but-whites-only with blackjack and hookers. I have a conservative friend, in our largely progressive city. He constantly complains that his dating options are basically zero because all the women here are progs. He, like plenty of my other conservative friends, could move more out to the country where it is just generally more conservative. But then he'd have to give up his FAANG job, his FAANG salary, all the great amenities he can buy with this FAANG salary etc. He is obviously against that. He wants our area to just become more conservative, through the power of wishes. God forbid he actually become an active participant. He wants to eat his cake and have it too. People making this complaint about Texas and it being Non-White central have a similar vibe.

I am unsympathetic to that line of argumentation.

I don't know how your friend's tastes lie, but, are all the local women insufferably progressive or mostly just the white ones and the ones who went to American universities for undergrad? Try Mexicans and Asians. Some are as woke as any college educated white woman. Mostly from going to college in America if my personal experience is correct. But many are not. The other guys at his FAANG company will accept and understand that his girlfriend or wife isn't white.

He's personally fucked in my opinion because it goes beyond conservatism. He's also a militant vegan + Atheist. He pretty much wants to find another vegan, atheist, conservative. He's started to compromise on the atheist part but considers the veganism + conservatism to be deal breakers that he will not relax on. I don't think the all local women are insufferably progressive. My girlfriend is maybe slightly left of center but is very openminded to conservative beliefs. I've met other women like that here. Just none of them are also vegan.

I = dead.

In an age where many young men are struggling to find just a thin girlfriend whose bodycount isn’t large enough to field a full court basketball game, bro is out there playing on nightmare difficulty in holding out for his mythical conservative atheist vegan waifu. I admire the resolve in a way.

You should invite him on here. He sounds like a character.

Lmao I've tried in the past, to no avail. I'd try again but I actually want to get sleep tonight and if I text him now, we'll be up till 3am debating shit. It's like fucking foreplay to him (and me)

There are whole portions of Williamson County that used to be deep read that are now majority South Asian. Those people moved out to the country to get away from Austin libs and they just followed them there (plus immigrants). Now it us diverse urban sprawl. What could he have possibly done to change this at the local level? These decisions are made in big cities by powerful people, not in bum fuck nowhere by conservatives trying to organize locally. They have to just accept those decisions. There's nowhere to go now unless you want to move to like Maine or North Dakota, and even those have large non-white populations. There's tons of African refugees in Fargo, ND. I've seen it myself.

Not sure this was your intent, but it reads like you are framing this as "white people less likely to actively build community" when data suggests the opposite is the case.

Domestic migration patterns in particular bear this out. People of all ethnicities constantly move towards white areas and away from non-white ones.

One of the recurring arguments of Steve Sailer is that it's actually the Latinos that are generally reluctant to build community, do civic engagement, run for office, get involved in politics etc. They are generally indifferent towards society as a whole and limit their social life to their wider family which they do strongly care about.

"Domestic migration is net-negative in places where foreign migration is net-positive" is an inevitable result of the pigeonhole principle in a world where everywhere is at least somewhat NIMBY. It doesn't imply preferences for anything other than not being homeless.

No. The race-based data is much more robust than that.

Cities like Detroit and St. Louis are not hubs of international migration. Nor are they expensive. White people leave these areas and move to much more expensive suburbs. Then black people follow them and white people move even further away. You can watch the center of population of these areas move over time, always towards the whitest areas.

Cool real estate investing hack, by the way.

"white people less likely to actively build community"

Absolutely not. White people build plenty of community in America. However it feels like a large section of modern American citizens are essentially coasting through life on everything. Resting on the laurels of their ancestors, be they white, brown, yellow, grey, green, purple, idk. A large cross section of people have lost the desire to put in active efforts. On my own hobby horse, the tree of liberty is dying, many people who benefit from it, have decided that actively fighting for it is just too much work, requires too much sacrifice, so are content to make it someone else's problem. They still complain about it dying, but they are unwilling to put any effort into it.

Can you blame them? The government is not receptive to the changes people want. People can have some local control, but they are unable to turn back the tides of the decisions made in Washington:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_California_Proposition_187

Anything they try to do will be shot down. We have 0 control over our government and the apathy is a rational response. If you want to make serious change, you will have to make great sacrifices and dedicate your life to it. Most people just want to go along to get along, and it has always been that way.

If you want to make serious change, you will have to make great sacrifices and dedicate your life to it.

YES!!! And people have always had to do so. It has never been the case otherwise. People now want great change without having to make serious effort.

The government is not receptive to the changes people want. People can have some local control, but they are unable to turn back the tides of the decisions made in Washington

It takes time, it takes a continual effort. Your legs have atrophied because you refuse to get up off the couch, pretending its time to run a marathon is fantastical. People have rested on the efforts of their forefathers for too long.

Most people just want to go along to get along, and it has always been that way.

Yes and if you just want to passively exist your way through life then you are at the mercy of those who are active. Call it a variation of: "The strong do what they will, the weak suffer what they must"

I agree with Yarvin on this one. For the most part, the steering wheel has been disconnected for most of my adult life. It’s not a question of being not receptive, the data rarely makes it to the wheels. In fact, I can point to half a dozen issues from abortion to trans issues to data center construction (locally) in which I know of literally no one of the government’s side, yet year over year, we move in the progressive direction. Cthulhu swims left, and there’s no way to actually get what you want.

I almost don’t see the point in trying. Like I know the outcome, why bother to spend the effort knowing that no matter who I vote for, the girls in my community will be showering in the same locker room as any young man who says he feels like a woman? Or that despite Festus voting down a data center, recalling the members of the city council in favor of the data center, and showing up in force to oppose the data center, to the point that people are being arrested at the city council meetings, the center is still being approved and there’s nothing to be done about it. Why should I bother?

Building datacenters is conservative coded in America, even if it's not super popular among either party. Conservatives are also racking up wins on gun rights.

Conservatives are also racking up wins on gun rights.

Only fake ones, like pot users getting to buy guns in states where others can. This year another state (Washington) moves to a permit-to-purchase system, and the states which didn't issue carry permits before are now issuing carry permits which don't let you carry. The AR-15 and the Glock are being subject to bans in blue states across the country.

More comments

Moving to the middle of nowhere to build a conservative community accomplishes the opposite of what you are encouraging people to do. It's just running away, and is actually more self destructive. You are doing nothing and lying to yourself that you are doing something. A conservative SWE at Google has more power to affect change than a whole town of conservatives in Nebraska. Your strategy is literally they worst strategy possible. The only way to make changes is to get into the most elite institutions or build alternative ones. Anything else is a waste of time.

The only way to make changes is to get into the most elite institutions or build alternative ones

That would require him to be an active participant. I think my two suggested solutions were: either move, or be the change. You are just agreeing that "being the change" is a better strategy. "being the change" might be more effective but it can also be more lonely. The pragmatic answer is "do you want to be happy now" or "make it so others like you can be happy in the future"

I think there's also a certain trend where 'white people are capable of building genuinely egalitarian communities, which minority groups working together can then somewhat exploit due to clannishness that white brain isn't really designed to counteract'

white brain isn't really designed to counteract

It's more that white people have bought the tabula rasa arguments a bit too much, not realizing that western people are WEIRD and that clannishness is actually the norm, and it needs to be defended against.

True. Also the stupid modern situation where most of the attempted filtering for clannishness ('Chauvinism' and 'white supremacy') isn't actually really hitting that much clannish behavior whilst Western norms make it impossible to poke fingers into Islamic or Ethnic-preferential issues that are actually somewhat policed in their countries of origin.

Situations like the UK having multiple Islamic groups that are literally banned in most of the Middle East for extremism and potential violence, since nobody in the UK can really wield the power of government to enforce moderate Islam

Moving out to the country does not prevent women from having internet or accessing dating sites. Attractive girls don't often stay in their small towns either. Especially now that they can have infinity dating options that they can access through the tips of their fingers.

Your conservative friend is correct, and your comment implicitly says as much. You can have a conservative girl, just abandon everything in your life that makes it materially better, and hope that there is a diamond in the rough that hasn't been warped by modern day society. For most average Joes, you cannot be materially comfortable and in a spiritually comfortable relationship and live in a highly populated area. You can have the material goods with your decent job, but you are still competing against the field when it comes to attractive women your age. The alternative, which you present, is that you can move just out to the country and find that diamond in the rough. That is mostly false though.

Moving out to the country does not prevent women from having internet or accessing dating sites.

Funny I have plenty of conservative friends in the country with conservative spouses. Turns out conservative women are not liberal women, and actually have conservative values... So rampant materialism, consumerism, progressive values, striver culture, has not really "infected" them.

abandon everything in your life that makes it materially better, and hope that there is a diamond in the rough

Or you can just move to some mid sized midwest city or large town and it will be fine. It's not like its the sticks. Yeah there isn't a FAANG job paying 400k, you'll have to settle for a decent midwest software engineering salary of 60-90k. No SWE is an average joe either, in many ways they are below average in some areas but above average in intelligence. Which is why the Bay (Mecca of SWEs) places such an autistically high emphasis on intelligence as its metric of grading.

but you are still competing against the field when it comes to attractive women your age.

Turns out urban areas optimizer for more strivers. One would expect strivers in one area to often be strivers in other areas. Meaning they want the best. Complaining that you are super competitive in one area but lackluster in relationship/sexual/looks/social areas is you wanting to reap the benefits of being a capitalist where you are strong but a communist where you are weak.

Attractive girls

This is hard to really quantify in a way that is productive. If you want some mega hottie, LA-10 then unfortunately you are trying to optimize, you are going to have to compete with the rest of the optimizers. I personally don't think my friends wives are all that attractive, but they are not-fat. They look like normal women, for normal men. If having kids and starting a family is important as many of the more urban conservative men I know state, then they need to get their head out of fantasy land. Look for compatible conservative values, of which, more will exist in conservative value ecologies. Which are not large urban areas.

I know plenty of women are not 5'4''. That is, however, the average height of a woman in the US. Point being, your examples don't counter broader statistical trends.

You comment comes off like advice, and if it is I appreciate the words of encouragement. To clarify though, I am married to a non-leftist blonde woman, I live in a moderate to large-size city that is trending leftward, and (at least to my eye) she is attractive. I am a lucky man in this regard. On an individual basis, it's not hopeless to find a woman like mine, it's just that the general trends have undeniably gone in the other direction.

The incentive structures are such that you must often choose between a materially comfortable life or a wife and children, and the potential wife pool (especially for normal and attractive ones) is slim pickens. It's achievable, but you have to really want a wife and kids and be willing to sacrifice those other, material (and sometimes spiritual) comforts to get it. Again, on a societal level this is just not happening.

Worse still is that to whatever extent this is true for modern men, it is even more true for modern women and their incentives. Dating for them is like shooting fish in a barrel. Online dating and career advancement has led them to not value their potential male partners and it has made men in general too expendable in their eyes, except of course for that top 10 or 15% of men that are killing it. This is the setting young, average Joes are up against right now.

What you are saying isn't wholly false, it's just generally untrue for the masses now, and that has major societal implications.

It's more of a royal you. I don't know enough about your situations exactly it really feel qualified to offer advice. But I have heard to arguments, and to some extent I've even made them before. I guess this is me communing lessons learned to the folks out there stuck in the blackpill-doomerist feedback loop.

Point being, your examples don't counter broader statistical trends.

Yes, but as I think people are pointing out in other areas, broad statistical metrics aren't actually that good of indicators of what is really happening. Off the top of my head, most dating statistics about "percentage of the population with xyz trait" essentially smooth out cofounding factors to such an extreme degree as to be useless. Sub-populations of attributes are neither independent nor evenly distributed. For example 0.8% of the 18+ population in the US identifies as trans. Many people on here talk about having never met a trans person irl. I have met probably 6-7 in 100 people because I live in a prog-ish area and have hobbies that are more nerdy. I have an 8.75 times higher than the base stat. Broad trends are of course broad trends, but when folks date, they aren't dating broad trends. If that makes sense.

really want a wife and kids and be willing to sacrifice those other, material (and sometimes spiritual) comforts to get it

I think this is really true for everything. It's possible, but rare that you are going to get everything you ever want in life in all the perfect amounts. You need to order your priorities and then make sacrifices to get there. Personal example, I really wanted to do AGI research as a younger lad, + top-tier pay (At the time AGI research was not high paying), not have to grind the rat race, work life balance, to live in a city with a good gender ratio, a nerdy wife, to own a house, several more extremist political goals etc. In my 20s I realized I had to choose, I couldn't get all of those, several were contradictory with each other on first order basis, others were contradictory on 2nd and 3rd order basses. Others competed for the same free-time. I think you always have to choose, make compromises and find the minimally viable configuration that makes yourself happy. One needs to be pragmatic about it all. However whenever I hear people complain about this, they explicitly don't want to have to choose. Idk if its because our culture raised a generation so rich in material wealth that it coddled them, made them believe in a fantasy, or is this just a lesson that never got passed down.

Dating for them is like shooting fish in a barrel

I know enough single women to say that this is a fairly biased stance. Young, single, women suffer mirrored difficulties to young, single, men. Much like young men, they want it all, in unrealistic proportions, with contradictory factors. They deal with a different side of the matching problem, a ton of signal but also a ton of noise and a lack of social and cultural infrastructure to filter a signal from that noise. Part of this feels like an urban/rural divide as well. I hopefully have already conveyed that urban areas seem to attract far more "optimizers" for a lack of a better word.

This is the setting young, average Joes are up against

Young average Joes need to digest and learn that trying to standout in a generalist stance is probably a fools errand. Find a niche, a community, a hobby, a sub-culture, etc. and stand out in that. Hypergamy is a thing but its also not the only factor. Assortative mating is the name of the game. Hypergamy can occur in that localized niche, and in-person interactions are far more real than online ones to anyone but the most brainrotted of doomscrollers (do you really want to date them??)

Yes, but as I think people are pointing out in other areas, broad statistical metrics aren't actually that good of indicators of what is really happening.

They are good indicators of what is happening broadly. Individually, no, they cannot predict what will happen between your conservative friend and his next date. If we look at 10,000 conservative males, or even males of all political affiliations, and we collect data on their relationship statuses over the course of a decade, and we apply variables like where they live, we can get a pretty good idea of what generally happens relationship-wise within that group.

I think this is really true for everything. It's possible, but rare that you are going to get everything you ever want in life in all the perfect amounts.

Yes, but what you must sacrifice now compared to what people had to sacrifice in the past has changed. It's not that young males are materially worse off than their fathers or grandfathers. It's that young males are materially worse off in comparison to their female peers today. That makes it more difficult for guys to appeal to girls in their group.

I know enough single women to say that this is a fairly biased stance. Young, single, women suffer mirrored difficulties to young, single, men. Much like young men, they want it all, in unrealistic proportions, with contradictory factors.

Your comments keep coming from anecdotal experience, and you're using those anecdotes to argue against what I am claiming is happening at scale. You're right that women face their own set of issues, and I'd agree that they're unhappy in a lot of ways. I don't imagine it is particularly satisfying to swipe left 500 times just to find one guy to swipe right on that's attractive enough to match with, only to get annoyed at his second reply and start all over again. It seems deeply unsatisfying. This is how we've set things up for them though, and we've done it at the expense of their male peers. It's not their fault. Society has placed a major emphasis on their freedoms and rights, and they're just responding to what has been made available to them.

I have to travel for work to rural red areas all the time. There are not a lot of attractive, conservative white women there that are young, intelligent, and fit. This is shown in statistics too. This just isn't a reasonable option.

Regardless, doing this is admitting defeat. You will basically just see the changes maybe one generation later. Every single city in the US is diverse now or will be soon. All these areas in Texas were areas white people moved to to get away from the changes in CA, NYC, etc. 30-40 years later, it's just the same. The future is already here, it's just not evenly distributed.

young, intelligent, and fit

Pick two or something. I think commonly intelligence means that you move to an urban area to get a better paying job.

This is shown in statistics too

Idk without straight up doxing my friends wives, I'm not sure what there is to say. I think 3 of them met their wives on dating apps, it was their first date (both wife and husband) they liked each other any just started dating.

Regardless, doing this is admitting defeat.

Who cares, people should focus on achieving a level of happiness with their own life first.

All these areas in Texas were areas white people moved to to get away from the changes in CA, NYC, etc. 30-40 years later, it's just the same.

In my experience, living near a city that has a massive dump of NYC-ers. They bring about the changes when they move here. They want it to be the "good parts" of NYC without the "bad parts" but the bad parts often follow from the same policies as the good parts. They are like a fungus. They create the environment that causes them to spread in the first place. In the NYC-er's case they bring their shitty pizza with them too.

Instead of a conservative girl, how about one that doesn't make politics the front-and-center of her personality?

Most of the time the political preference is more of a shit-test thing where outwardly stating your Conservative views on a dating app profile means you're too socially retarded to realize you're not supposed to do that. If you're actually dating the girl, dripfeed it a bit and don't go too hard on directly opposing the slogans most are pretty malleable.

Every woman I know like this is also semi-conservative when you discuss "vibes" or "feelings of behavior" to the point that I think political chillness is a conservative-ish value in a colloquial sense.

The best kind of girl there is. Although, I don't see that being avoided in a general sense when the gravitational pull of leftist politics in urban areas is so strong.

What sort of negative consequences do you expect?

Ethnic spoils system (which of course only whites can't participate in) and a divided society that is basically just an economic zone. We are arguably already there.

Not OP, but there is a perception that Indian-run companies discriminate against non-Indians. If they are doing this despite being a tiny minority, imagine what a country with an Indian majority will look like for white people. Canada might find out, lol.

If this were an alternate reality where everybody else was trying to get into the dominant economy of the earth, India, I have zero doubts that they'd be treating foreigners substantially worse than foreigners have treated Indians attempting to leave their sphere.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats