I'm certainly more of a nationalist when it comes to immigration to Europe, especially both Muslim and African immigration. But for the US, I'm willing to accept a lot of low average IQ Latin American immigration on humanitarian grounds if we will also continue aggressively recruiting global cognitive elites.
I don’t see the US being in such bad shape, actually. It still attracts global cognitive elites and could attract many, many more of them if we will open our doors much wider to them.
I want a better society, but I would prefer to do it through voluntary eugenics, not through more restrictive immigration policies. Well, here in the US, at least. In continental Western Europe, it would likely be different.
If only boosting up the US’s average fertility (or that of its whites) by 1 was that easy to do. If Russia, for instance, could do this for its own people, then there would be no pressing “need” on Russia’s part to invade Ukraine.
I don’t see whites being wiped out in the US. The US still has plenty of pleasant areas for white people to live in, after all.
Interestingly enough, 1920s immigration restrictions actually did argue that low native US fertility was caused by immigrants and their descendants. They mostly shut down immigration in 1921 and 1924 but fertility did not improve at all during the prosperous 1920s and only really significantly improved in the post-WWII period, which was long-lasting but still temporary.
The impression that I got is that East Asia is relatively poor relative to their average IQ because their productivity was low, in part due to them wasting manpower on unnecessary things.
They work a lot, but sometimes they do redundant jobs. I think that @Anatoly Karlin or someone previously showed the number of people who were working in, I think, a Japanese gas station. It was many more that were working in an American gas station of a comparable size.
If you insist on doing things purely based on merit rather than on any sense of noblesse oblige towards the less privileged, then fine, but also expect natives to make some sacrifices for the sake of improved institutional quality, such as making Norplant/Contraline/Vasalgel a requirement for welfare access in order to combat dysgenics.
I would let in anyone who is a supporter of American Renaissance, though. Such people the US could certainly use more of.
I'm certainly more of a nationalist when it comes to immigration to Europe, especially both Muslim and African immigration. But for the US, I'm willing to accept a lot of low average IQ Latin American immigration on humanitarian grounds if we will also continue aggressively recruiting global cognitive elites.
I don’t see the US being in such bad shape, actually. It still attracts global cognitive elites and could attract many, many more of them if we will open our doors much wider to them.
Are you for or against the EU, BTW?
Do you want Russia itself to join the EU?
If you want an autonomous EU, then you might as well secure Ukraine’s human capital for it.
Well, long-term, either AI will make all of this irrelevant or we’re going to use large-scale voluntary eugenics to uplift all of us. Or both.
I care most of all that the US will remain an attractive destination country for global cognitive elites, once who can improve our own country.
I want a better society, but I would prefer to do it through voluntary eugenics, not through more restrictive immigration policies. Well, here in the US, at least. In continental Western Europe, it would likely be different.
If only boosting up the US’s average fertility (or that of its whites) by 1 was that easy to do. If Russia, for instance, could do this for its own people, then there would be no pressing “need” on Russia’s part to invade Ukraine.
I don’t see whites being wiped out in the US. The US still has plenty of pleasant areas for white people to live in, after all.
Interestingly enough, 1920s immigration restrictions actually did argue that low native US fertility was caused by immigrants and their descendants. They mostly shut down immigration in 1921 and 1924 but fertility did not improve at all during the prosperous 1920s and only really significantly improved in the post-WWII period, which was long-lasting but still temporary.
The impression that I got is that East Asia is relatively poor relative to their average IQ because their productivity was low, in part due to them wasting manpower on unnecessary things.
They work a lot, but sometimes they do redundant jobs. I think that @Anatoly Karlin or someone previously showed the number of people who were working in, I think, a Japanese gas station. It was many more that were working in an American gas station of a comparable size.
Don’t Hispanics in the US live as well as, say, Brits do?
If you insist on doing things purely based on merit rather than on any sense of noblesse oblige towards the less privileged, then fine, but also expect natives to make some sacrifices for the sake of improved institutional quality, such as making Norplant/Contraline/Vasalgel a requirement for welfare access in order to combat dysgenics.
I would let in anyone who is a supporter of American Renaissance, though. Such people the US could certainly use more of.
The frog is in a slow cooker.