Civic Nationalism and the Diaspora Question: Asians plug into non-White coalition of the aggrieved

East Asians who migrate to America have been historically seen as the “model minority” — so much so that Asians and the country of Singapore are both commonly-used examples of civic nationalism “working.” It occurred to me that if there was ever a group of people who could be considered “naturally conservative,” that title would most certainly apply to Asians, long before it would apply to Hispanics.

Asians in the United States do indeed appear to be model citizens at first glance. Asians use welfare at a slightly lower rate compared to Whites (21.8% and 23.1%, respectively), have a lower rate of single-parent families, higher rate of obtaining college degrees, and higher average incomes. Asians also boast the highest level of entrepreneurship in the U.S., with the highest ratio of businesses to population size.[1]

The recent trend of Asians becoming increasingly liberal/Democrat-leaning over the past twenty-five years, along with issues of social cohesion among groups that seem to have assimilated well, leads us to what I call the “Diaspora Question.”

In 1992, 55% of Asian citizens were Republican voters. By 2012, 73% were Democrat. In the 2016 presidential race, Clinton garnered 65% of the Asian vote. The cause of the majority of Asian voters swinging so wildly to the left appears to be the issue of immigration becoming prominent. Data and election results show that Asians vote against candidates with anti-immigration platforms, even if all other issues are in-line. Although Asians currently make up 4% of the U.S. population, they are now the fastest growing population segment. With that, we are seeing a heightened level of ethnic activism and the behaviors of a diaspora population.

The fact that Asian citizens have begun to favor open-borders candidates once immigration became a high priority is extremely subversive and duplicitous behavior. East Asian nations tend to be among the most traditionalist, xenophobic, nationalist, protectionist, and closed-border of anywhere on Earth. The Chinese, Koreans, and Japanese all have ethnically-defined homelands that do not accept hordes of outsiders — whether economic migrants, refugees, or any other type. Asians, like Jews, have the advantage of an ethnic homeland, yet as a diaspora population, they vote and advocate for open borders in their host nation.

One such example of this diaspora dynamic is Cecillia Wang, an ACLU legal director who has made a career of fighting to keep America’s borders open and to protect criminal aliens. One wonders why Wang does not fight to open China up to the world’s indignant. Surely the Han Chinese, who make up over 90% of China, could use some “enrichment” from Somalis, Afghans, and Algerians. Shanghai deserves their Halal carts too, do they not?

Korean migrant Sarah Jeong is another example of the Diaspora Question in action. Jeong, a recent hire to the New York Times editorial board, has written many things about her host population. Among them: “Dumbass fucking white people marking up the internet with their opinions like dogs pissing on fire hydrants,” and “oh man it’s kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men.” Eli Rosenberg of The Washington Post and Zach Beauchamp of Vox, among others, both rushed to write apologias for Jeong, replete with sophistry and fiat definitions in pathetic attempts to indemnify her. Senator Brian Schatz (D-HI) also expressed his support on Twitter for the anti-White NYT editor, writing “I’m with @sarahjeong. Enjoy your weekend.” Schatz, Rosenberg, and Beauchamp circled the wagons around the Korean migrant as if she was one of their own. I found it fascinating that there was such a similarity in behavior and immediate kinship between these two diaspora groups. They come to a nation that was already created and made great without the help of any of their ancestors, then claim victim status and manipulate words to explain away their anti-White vitriol, all while being as antagonistically ungracious as possible.

What people like Wang and the majority of the Asian population in the U.S. clearly want is to retain their ancestral and ethnically defined homelands, while simultaneously having the privilege of every possible benefit in the nations we built for ourselves. Asians who have absolutely zero connection to our nation can come from nations where there are literally more than a billion of them and be granted instant “minority” status, along with all the educational, governmental, and corporate benefits they entail. This is irrefutable proof that being a so-called minority in the U.S. is not about redressing some kind of historical grievance, but instead is about creating hostile, anti-White pogroms.

When we hear the daft trope that Hispanics or Asians are “natural conservatives,” in a very nuanced way it is correct. The nuance is that “conservatism” is entirely context-dependent. Two groups may both be trying to conserve something, but that something may be at odds. When people say Hispanics or Asians are naturally conservative, what they are naturally conserving is their own homeland, their own identity, their own culture — not ours. The only cultures the Mexicans or the Japanese can conserve is Mexican and Japanese culture. As a diaspora in our homeland, they continue to try to conserve what is in their own ethnic interests. That very often happens to be open borders, which is antithetical to what we are trying to conserve. We cannot conserve our heritage, identity, culture, people, or nation with the demographics of Mexico or China or India. This is the crux of the Diaspora Question and one of the unavoidable fatuities of civic nationalism.

The final, and perhaps most difficult, component of the Diaspora Question is the notion of the theoretical “perfect” non-White migrant. Let us assume that Asians never shifted heavily left-wing due to their desire to keep our borders open, and that they continued to own small businesses, support free-speech, closed-borders, and all other typical American ideals. Would civic nationalism work in that case? Not at all. We will still run into the inevitable issue of destroyed social cohesion and diminished social capital due to the disparate nature of our cultures. Even if identical civic values were adopted by the diaspora populations among us, all available data undeniably shows that the mere existence of racial diversity leads to enormously negative outcomes. Lower trust in governments, in each other, in the media, social isolation, fewer friends, lower levels of happiness, and more time spent entirely alone and deracinated are the results of racial diversity. The complete and total breakdown of a meaningful civilization is the end result of civic nationalism. It is an ideology destined for failure from its inception.

There was always another nagging issue I had with civic nationalism. This brand of “nationalism,” one that is defined by people being assimilated to ideals, never had a solution to dealing with those who did not assimilate. If we take civic nationalism at face value, and if we were to agree that our nation is one of ideas and not of blood, shouldn’t we have a system in place for dealing with those who do not abide by our ideas? If the whole premise of becoming “American” is predicated upon some parchment and a flag, why do we not revoke the citizenship of those who, for example, advocate for hate speech laws, censorship, and/or gun control? What of those who do not value hard work and industriousness? There is no recourse for the host population for ridding itself of newcomers who show an abject disregard for our supposedly sacred American ideas.

If the only thing that binds a nation is some civic ideas, then those who reject them should be removed from the nation — otherwise, civic nationalism has no way to sustain or protect itself. Indeed, that total lack of any kind of immune system might be civic nationalism’s ultimate folly.

Civic nationalism does not work in practice; worse, it does not work even in theory. It is a notion that fails both a priori and a posteriori. A nation cannot be based upon ideals, economic growth, humanitarianism, or any other contrived value. A nation can only be based upon a common people, with a common heritage, common values, and a common culture. And it can only continue to exist if all of those things are protected and revered in perpetuity.

*   *   *

The Singaporean Question

In a headline-making speech, Dutch Foreign Minister Blok proclaimed that peaceful multicultural societies do not exist. His comments were met with harsh criticism and opposition, to Blok’s observation, Singapore was offered as a counter-example to his claim. The late Anthony Bourdain once mentioned the “Singaporean model” as the solution to discrimination and right-wing views. The following quote comes from a conversation about migrants in Cologne who on New Year’s Eve went on sprees of mass sexual assault and rape. The “solution” they came up with was the extinction of the White race, a world where we are all “cappuccino colored.”

It’s our only hope is to fuck our way out of this. It’s going to take some time, but it’s really the only way the sort of Singaporean model where everybody is so mixed up that you really don’t know who to hate because everybody is so hopelessly intertwined. But we’re a long way from that.

Curious, I decided to look just how diverse and intertwined Singapore actually is, to see a multicultural society that works. Singapore is a small island with a population of 5.61 million. A population smaller than NYC, London, and Paris agglomeration. As for the vast and rich “diversity” of Singapore? 76% of the population is Chinese, 15% are Malay, and 7% Indian. Singapore is less diverse than the United States, London, Paris, Chicago, NYC, LA, and dozens of other Western cities that rival the size of Singapore itself. Singapore is a de facto Chinese colony, with two smaller ethnicities living among what is essentially a second Hong Kong. The nation that is frequently lauded as a pristine example of multiculturalism in practice is in reality made up of a Chinese super-majority. Far from being an example of a peaceful multicultural society, Singapore is nothing less than a glaring example of the fact that societies function far better not while being “hopelessly intertwined” but when they are made up of a majority of people sharing common ancestry, values, and culture.

[1] Michael McManus. “Minority Business Ownership: Data from the 2012 Survey of Business Owners.” U.S. Small Business Administration Office of Advocacy, no. 12 (September 14, 2016).

29 replies
  1. Polynik3s
    Polynik3s says:

    I have experience among the Vietnamese Americans. There is the good and the bad. As far as them retaining their culture, the adults love their tradional food, but the adults are obsessed with cash. They work six and seven days a week, yet ignore their children and civic-mindedness. The children are left to video games and modern American junk food. Sports and Boy Scouts? What are those? The Vietnamese are like a freshman class on a high school campus. So many times, they are just doing it wrong. Brushing teeth before breakfast and not brushing again. The Vietnamese are easily manipulated by advertising, not as bad as Africans. But the Vietnamese love their over-priced sunglasses and shoes and Lexus. Many Vietnamese are Christian too. I don’t know as much about other Asians, but the Vietnamese Americans are losing identity very rapidly. Both parents working six days a week in pursuit of economic status trinkets while ignoring their children is the main reason. I told of group of Vietnamese men that lots of white people died to get the 5 day work week and that they need to observe it and raise their children. The concept was lost on them.

  2. RUR
    RUR says:

    Actually, it was long time Singaporean prime minister Lee Kuan Yew who clearly saw and spelled out the problems of multicultural/racialism: “In multiracial societies, you don’t vote in accordance with your economic interests and social interests, you vote in accordance with race and religion.”

  3. Franklin Ryckaert
    Franklin Ryckaert says:

    There exists an illusion among some white nationalists that other ethnic groups might be our “allies”. Thus some mention Jews (because we will offer support for their ethnic state Israel in exchange for their support for ours), or on the contrary Muslims (because we both are enemies of the Jews), or East Asians (because we have similar “K-strategy” cultures), or Indians (because we have kindred “Aryan cultures”) etc. These are all illusions. All those ethnic groups mentioned are only after their own ethnic interests when immigrating into our lands, and they readily will join the “anti-White coalition” if seen in their interest. And even in the theoretical case of loyalty toward us, they still are racial aliens and thus a demographic threat to us. Like it or not, but Whites are alone in this struggle.

    • Jatt
      Jatt says:

      Destroying your anti white pro afro Islamic states is the biggest favor to the planet.

      Everyone should be a leftist & get this thing over with.

      Just hide your weapons well first

  4. Conrad C Gaarder
    Conrad C Gaarder says:

    And as long-time Singapore Prime Minister Lee Kwan Yew observed: “In a multiracial democracy, every problem becomes a racial problem.”

  5. Hans Oberfeldt
    Hans Oberfeldt says:

    It’s not surprising that the east asians that have assimilated into the American milieu see how well that the jews have manipulated the system for their own interests and want to do the same to benefit themselves. It’s also not surprising that jews are cozying up to them as they did to blacks 70 years ago in a false alliance “against the man”. I am sure that there are some asians that see through this but the advantages of dallying with jews are just too good financially and socially to pass up. The more observant and wise asians can sit back and view the whole situation and see how the jews have taken over European society and undermined it, must be able to see that jews have not contributed anything of any value to it and how the jewish relationship to western society is one of a parasite. These same astute asian observers must see that their society is next to be brought down by the jews.

  6. Curmudgeon
    Curmudgeon says:

    “What people like Wang and the majority of the Asian population in the U.S. clearly want is to retain their ancestral and ethnically defined homelands, while simultaneously having the privilege of every possible benefit in the nations we built for ourselves.”
    I’m afraid I have to disagree. What Asians want is to colonize North America, and they are using the long game to achieve that goal. For example, about 7-8 years ago, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (I’ll use it’s proper title rather than one on many derogatory ones) mistakenly did a news story on the massive immigration to BC’s lower mainland, and Vancouver (Hongcouver) in particular. It was supposed to be a positive story promoting the benefits of multiculturalism. Many Chinese interviewed spoke in Chinese, so subtitles were quick and frequent. One female interviewee was asked about the Chinese viewed Christmas – a new experience . The subtitles were blunt. What it boiled down to was: Christmas is not our holiday; we lose business because we have to close on statutory holidays; and we should be exempt from these laws.
    The Indians are no better. It is not uncommon to see news stories about Indians bringing over someone to work for them, including relatives, in a small business, and essentially enslaving the person, literally locking them in a room in the business. How many “honour” killings have their been for daughters refusing arranged marriages? I’m not referring to Muslims, I’m referring to Hindus, Jains, and Sikhs.

    The political whores who promote our demise know this is happening. It is part and parcel of disarming the public to prevent an uprising. They will not stop until the “rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf” become rough men ready to do violence against them.

  7. John King
    John King says:

    I remember listening to a very rabble-rousing leftist Singaporean, a member of the opposition party and an academic in cultural studies. After his speech, extolling the virtues of the leftist and workerist opposition, I said, tentatively, that I knew that Singapore was a multicultural nation, and how that sometimes that could create difficulties, but were there many non-Chinese in leadership positions in the opposition party. (Or were both parties dominated by the Han Chinese, being my implication) In obvious embarrassment, he told me that there were not enough but they were “working on it”. Some old story.

  8. Right man for the job
    Right man for the job says:

    Bourdain credibly could believe in a racial stock all mixed up because he was a hybrid, a mischling…French father and Jewish mother. He practiced no particular religious faith. His shows and comments were always with high shock value, quite different than the sanguine, non-confrontational, sane and stable personality (Jew) Burt Wolf .

    The quote by Bourdain which Houck provides indicates a confused mind whose answer to racial identity is to inter-cohabit becoming ‘so mixed up that you really don’t know who to hate because everybody is so hopelessly intertwined.’ Note his morose emphasis is on HATE, not LOVE. Is suicide such a surprise with this kind of personality and brain?

    There should be little amazement that Asians tend to vote Democratic. In their own original ethno-states (historically) one sees only highly structured, dictator-like regimes, in effect ethno-socialism; do what the king and emperor order or be garroted. Punctum!

    The faux democracies of the Far East, especially East Asia, have parliaments because THAT was what was imposed upon them by their colonial masters or by those who vanquished them. There were no emerging “democracies,” a self-governmental organization with primitive forms of legislative/judicial behavior. The ancient German tribal councils in Teutonic lands evolved into the Anglo-Saxon Witangemot and eventually into our own Constitutional Republic. And there was a sexual differentiation also. There were no Boudiccas, Cartimadullas or Joans of Arc. Many Asian countries have women in the military only in recent times.

    The Asians, perhaps with the possible exception of the more sensible Filipinos, are racial groups stuck in a socialist, dictatorial, ethno- quagmire…perfect patsies for left-wing Democrats!

    Could this have ever developed in Tokyo, Beijing, Lhasa, Luang-Prabang or Singapore????

    • Polynik3s
      Polynik3s says:

      Left Man,
      Your Bourdain assessment rings true. As for Asians loving authority, there may be a few factors for that. Confucianism is a very society-based religion. Buddism emphasizes honoring the family elders. The languages of Japan and Vietnam are dependant upon heirarchy. For example, in Vietnamese, I refer to myself in the third person as above or below another. Heirarchy has its place and I would like to see it implemented tribally again.
      As for women fighting, that is Cultural Marxism and comic books. You should know better. Trolls should do their own fighting. : )

  9. BlackedOut
    BlackedOut says:

    Singapore is also an authoritarian country, listed as “partly free”. Multicultural states usually require a authoritarian government typically dominated by a single race/ethnicity/religion. Otherwise, it becomes anarchic. Examples include Yugoslavia, China, USSR and the old Austro-Hungarian empire.

    The exceptions which prove the rule are Canada with its French and Anglo provinces and Switzerland which its French, German and Italian Cantons. In these cases, power is substantially decentralized and the populations are (at this time) predominately composed of european/Christians.

    The multicultural empires of antiquity certainly did not give their conquered inhabitants much say in how they were governed. They were allowed to live pretty much as they wanted as long as they paid taxes and supplied soldiers. There was no forced integration or any effort to make them like each other.

  10. Johnny Rottenborough
    Johnny Rottenborough says:

    In order to remain ‘a peaceful multicultural society’, Singapore places severe restrictions on freedom of speech. For example, ‘the Sedition Act bans the public discussion of most matters of race, religion, or sexuality, as well as direct and vocal criticism of the government.’

    Lee Kuan Yew, former Prime Minister of Singapore, said in 2011 that ‘multiculturalism will destroy America.’

    To be more precise, multiculturalism will destroy America’s free speech.

  11. HK Wills
    HK Wills says:

    The foundations of a natural, cohesive, enduring and potentially prosperous nation are shared genes, culture, male dominance and a gender based division of labor. Ah but they have that in Somalia you say; one more element needed: relatively high average IQ. Ah but we once had all that you say; one final element: a healthy dose of hard wired tribalism.

  12. Bennis Mardens
    Bennis Mardens says:

    Sad to say the Asians are horrible, just like all of the other non-whites in the Rainbow Coalition. They hate whitey just as bad as the rest. Look at that moronic Ted Lieu. He’s off the charts crazy anti-white anti-Trump. Crazy Sarah Jeong at the NYT.
    You might think their higher IQ would translate into more rational conservative beliefs, but it’s not working out that way.
    I had a Korean friend, one of the most ethnocentric people I have ever met, yet he would blab about white “racism.” The Asians virtue signal like crazy, listen to NPR, and basically imitate Jews.
    They are not our friends.
    Of course, all non-whites have Jewbrain and they are taught to hate whitey, so Asians are no different than blacks and hispanics.

    • James O'Meara
      James O'Meara says:

      “Asians virtue signal like crazy, listen to NPR, and basically imitate Jews.”

      They are conformists first of all, and they clearly see how to assimilate to the ruling ideology.

      • Troll King
        Troll King says:

        Precisely, well put. This is why we see no Asian with dissident ideas, unless it’s about getting into Harvard, lol, that seems to get their blood up.

        I read about this episode during the Opium War, where the British soldiers, relatively few in number, trapped the Chinese infantry in a cul de sac and were annihilating them. Masses of Chinese peasants stood above on either side and…just watched. The British soldiers couldn’t believe they stood and did nothing. They said brits would have jumped into the fighting to relieve their countrymen. The Chinese are far along on the curve to nietzsches last man endpoint, as I see it.

  13. Jatt
    Jatt says:

    American culture is Leftism with even European immigrants voting more democrat.

    Why are you mad or surprised that they’re integrating to the point where they also look down on their cousins in the homeland the way Goblim Americans do?

  14. Curtis Mouser I
    Curtis Mouser I says:

    Sarah Being looks like a Down’s kid left alone with yellow paint.

    Only thing more retarded is the (((BBC))) – yeah right, Soyim, your typical astronomer is an obese, black female. Blacks are smarter than Whites, which is why Whites are trying to cross the Med!!!

  15. tadzio
    tadzio says:

    Civic nationalism has many weaknesses. Among them are the instability of its base. Ideas change. Definitions change. Discord follows when when this occurs because of the cognitive discord inherent in language changes. Philosophy has to divide in such an environment.

    Another weakness is that a civic nationalism is by its nature authoritarian. A nation based on blood and soil is held together by those. Dissenting opinions can be tolerated. A thousand flowers can bloom. The Other, be it ethnicity or territory, can demand loyalty and punish those disloyal to that which the nation is. But if a nation is ideas then opposing ideas cannot be allowed. To do so dissolves the ties that hold society together. To think differently is treason, a crime against the nation. It has to be to hold the entity together. That is the exact opposite of Liberty which is incompatible thereby with civic nationalism. He who promotes civic nationalism takes an ax to the Tree Of Liberty.

    • DMG
      DMG says:

      Tadzio, how could you bring up a point I find myself in serious agreement with, but which I hadn’t already heard so clearly stated by the big names of alternative conservatism? Mr. Hauck take note. In one fell sentence the concept of ‘civic nationalism’ is exploded for the oxymoron it is (unless one thinks free speech is bad).

  16. buckle
    buckle says:

    Singapore will be the model of post-Brexit Britain. What appeals to the oligarchs is the high Indian constituency. More and more Indians will be brought into the UK in the years to come. The perception being that they work longer hours for less money and no pension. The left will turn a ‘blind eye’ hoping to turn them into voters. This is Brexit and explains why Nick Griffin wants to emigrate to Eastern Europe. The “right” remain an incoherent joke.

  17. Mark Hunter
    Mark Hunter says:

    Houk mentions that in the 2016 presidential election Clinton got 65% of the Asian vote. The socialist trend among Asians has been going on for years. In the 2008 election Obama got 62% of the Asian vote. In 2012 he got 73%, a bit higher than among Hispanics (71%).

    Statistically every three Asian immigrants negates two white voters.

  18. Mari
    Mari says:

    Ted Lieu is my Congress critter. District is 75% White 13% Asian Its heavily Jewish. I didn’t vote for him.

  19. Peter
    Peter says:

    I’m a little surprised the author doesn’t mention that Singapore broke away from Malaysia and became an independent country because multi-culturalism failed, this according to Singapore’s first Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew (and in the position for several decades) who made the country into a first class powerhouse nation from a “shithole”. This website had an article on Lee Kuan Yew a while back and he spoke of the differences between different people’s abilities, perhaps without explicitly mentioning Malays (but I think it was obvious who he was talking about), he spoke of the drive of people that developed from harsh conditions (colder) as opposed to the laid back Malays that woke up to a warm day every day and were surrounded by coconut trees and other sources of food. Yew’s achievement (only a few other countries did what he did), earns him the right to speak as an authority on the subject and not be questioned by liberals like Bourdain.

    The East Asian countries (four countries) are really the only peoples that after WW II turned their countries into first class, advanced countries (although Japan was already there) after centuries of backwardness, which strongly suggests to me it connected to their culture and perhaps innate intelligence.

    An interesting side note. About 30 years ago, when I moved to California, I was flying and sat next to Ramsay Clark, attorney general under LBJ. I thought it was him, but for several hours we said nothing to each other. When I said something, he opened up and couldn’t stop talking. It was a pleasant conversation, but I am at odds with him on certain things for sure. I asked him what he did and he explicitly mentioned Singapore and it’s leader and Clark was a human rights advocate for the country. Singapore and others have achieved greatness despite people like Clark and other liberals.

    Another interesting topic is the apparent decline of certain countries (not as a result of WW II). According to what I read once, Argentina had the 10th largest economy in the world in the late 1800’s but it has been in the news for its constant economic problems since at least the 1980’s. I think after WW II Mexico aspired to becoming a first class nation too. It hosted the Olympics in 1968 and several World Cups. It had a good reputation as a nice vacation spot. Places like Acapulco became internationally famous. Mexico has taken a huge fall and is a now a “shithole” in much of the country. What I wonder is if the Europeans that live in countries like Argentina and Mexico became a much smaller part of those countries populations because non-whites are reproducing at a faster rate. The looming disaster of Africa’s population explosion, combined with Europe’s negative population growth and “welcoming culture” put that thought in my head.

  20. Gnome Chompsky
    Gnome Chompsky says:

    To me, having spent some years in Lee’s Singapore, and many weeks of holidays in Malaysia. what is really surprising is that his rival, Mahathir, is back from the political dead, in his 90s, I think.

    Want to say much more to the point, on the topib but erased it, too incomplete, need to sleep, but Mahathir’s return is, to me, the biggest political surprise of the decade.Not saying if it is good or bad, but it is the one that most, after reading of it, really left me astonished (as opposed to, say, the results of various colour-coded ‘revolutions’ and bombing campaigns, generally predictable, planted ruler, pure mayhem, or backfire).

Comments are closed.