Pretty heated. You seem to care more what blood might mean for peoplehood than what it might mean for differences in ability (as we do). Do you have an opinion on Salter? I've been thinking about it. As of yet I have no opinion, as it involves unresolved issues.

There are three main citizenship policies based on decreasing dependence on "blood".

1. Exclusivity. A citizen has to be "pure", i.e., both his parents must belong to the citizen body.
2. Common Descent. The idea of common descent can be maintained also if one of the two parents belongs to the citizen body.
3. No dependence. The idea of common descent cannot be maintained. Citizenship is then conferred if one asks for it and a few legal criteria are met.

The link to Salter points to the main page of the journal. I think you are referring to the articule on "genetic interests". That is orthogonal to my point. In other words, a Bantu harms English genetic interests in Salter's framework, whereas in my framework, the children of an English citizen and a Bantu have English descent, and hence can become citizens.

On the other hand, I also believe that race should play a role in immigration policy. It's obvious that a society will function best when it takes in compatible immigrants. Compatibility can't boil down to IQ which is only a single dimension.

Hmm...open the link in a new window, it's opening the abstract for me. Indeed it is the genetic interest paper.

Compatibility can't boil down to IQ which is only a single dimension.

I agree, high IQ != democratic. A look at the world seems to show that the best and the brightest are often times Communist, despotic and radical (but most commonly just clueless and apathetic). I suggested in the comment box here that a commitment to and an understanding of liberal democratic values is of the highest worth. If education and professional status is a decent proxy for IQ, I am forced to wonder what the best one for this is then? Political activism?

On the other hand, I also believe that race should play a role in immigration policy. It's obvious that a society will function best when it takes in compatible immigrants.

Compatible in what way? Do you mean that race just functions as the most reliable proxy for distance of culture, or is it something more? (i.e. different looking people will form groups distinguishing themselves from the others)

>> Compatible in what way? Do you mean that race just functions as the most reliable proxy for distance of culture, or is it something more? (i.e. different looking people will form groups distinguishing themselves from the others)

Compatible in EVERY way. The real test of compatibility (at least in my view) is the ability to marry into the population, in other words to become part of the body of the nation in deed and not only in words. This is the only way in which a nation can continue existing as a single entity, and not fragment into multiple entities.

Race is an important factor for compatibility. But so is religion, political orientation, cognitive ability, beauty (!) to name but a few factors.

"Compatible in EVERY way. The real test of compatibility (at least in my view) is the ability to marry into the population, in other words to become part of the body of the nation in deed and not only in words. This is the only way in which a nation can continue existing as a single entity, and not fragment into multiple entities"

And herein lies the flaw of your approach or at least it leads to discrepancies.
Dienenkes do you realise that to this day in Australia, despite a head start in immigration, Greeks and Italians practice *less* intermarriage than East Asians? (I admit I don't have a link at the moment- read this a while ago but I think it still stands and if even it doesn't anymore because one would expect time to catch up with this gap, the fact that this arises despite the Greek and Italian headstart speaks volumes).
So if race to you is just a proxy for X and X is what matters and is as you describe, East Asians should be preferred over Greeks in Anglosphere Australian immigration policy.

>> Dienenkes do you realise that to this day in Australia, despite a head start in immigration, Greeks and Italians practice *less* intermarriage than East Asians?

I'd like to see some statistics about that. Both on number of various Mongoloid ethnic groups/Greeks/Italians and their outmarriage rates.

I know that in the US where the bulk of the Greek American population is about two generations older than in Australia there are very high outmarriage rates (about 70% according to the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese).

"compatible" should be genetically, phenotypically, and culturally compatible. As regards Salter, I have reviewed his work in AR, and that's on the LE website http://www.legioneuropa.org
under the title "ethnic genetic interests."

Ethnic genetic interests are real.
Now then, if citizenship is to be "ideological" and based on "IQ" and so forth, I have a suggestion. How about nations like China and India to show the way - show us poor benighted Euros how to go about doing this. Certainly, certainly, those two nations can take in "high IQ" Europeans and members of other nations. How about Chinese into India, and Indians into China?

No..no...

It is _only_ the "white man" who needs to be convinced that 'race doesn't matter' and that 'ethnic genetic interests' can be tossed out the window in preference to what Salter would call "aracial schemes."

I don't see how the point mxrienzi is making (he's making it a bit sarcastically, of course) can be assailed.

I should add I don't know anything about this man Salter or about the web-site mentioned, LegionEuropa.org. In calling mxrienzi's post unassailable I refer to what he says from the second paragraph on down ("Ethnic genetic interests are real. Now then, if citizenship is to be ... [etc.]")

Dienenkes do you realise that to this day in Australia, despite a head start in immigration, Greeks and Italians practice *less* intermarriage than East Asians?

Not sure if this happened in Australia too, but rates are certainly very comparable in Canada (from 1986 Census).

http://faculty.web.waseda.ac.jp/buda/texts/langshift.html

Of the 18 million people giving a single response to the 1986 census question on ethnic origins, 6,332,725 (35.1%) stated they were of British origin, and 6,093,160 (33.8%) said they were of French origin.

The other major single-response ethnic groups were: German (896,720), Italian (709,590), Ukranian (420,210), Chinese (360,320), Dutch (351,765), South Asian (266,800), Jewish (245,855), Polish (222,260), Portuguese (199,595), and Scandinavian (171,715).

Over 13 million respondents gave multiple answers to the same question, and a cross-tabulation of single and multiple answers affords an insight into the homogeneity of each ethnic group.

Groups with a significantly low ratio of multiple to single origin answers were the Korean (0.07), Bangladeshi (0.13), Cambodian (0.14), Filipino (0.15), Chinese (0.15), Laotian (0.16), Iranian (0.18), East Indian (0.18), and Vietnamese (0.19). The European group with the lowest ratio was the Portuguese (0.19), followed by the Greek (0.23), Croatian (0.26), French (0.33), and Italian (0.42).

The homogeneity of most of the above groups can be attributed to the relatively short time they have been in Canada, insufficient to allow for the birth and maturation of a second generation, and hence for a significant level of intermarriage with members of other ethnic groups.

The European groups listed above are, however, relatively mature communities (the French particularly so), and the low ratio of multiple answers points to a resistance to exogamy.

Conversely, groups with a high ratio of multiple to single origin answers were the Swedish (3.70), Norwegian (2.96), Icelandic (2.71), Russian (2.24), Swiss (2.15), Austrian (2.00), and Danish (1.98). It can be assumed from these figures that these groups have a proclivity to marriage outside their own community. The prominence of Scandinavian groups is highly significant. To place these figures in perspective, it should be noted that the non-European group with the highest ratio was the Malay (1.92), followed by the Indonesian (1.79) and Mexican (1.71).

Interesting, huh?

Now then, if citizenship is to be "ideological" and based on "IQ" and so forth, I have a suggestion. How about nations like China and India to show the way - show us poor benighted Euros how to go about doing this. Certainly, certainly, those two nations can take in "high IQ" Europeans and members of other nations. How about Chinese into India, and Indians into China?

They're doing exactly this in Singapore, a country of 4 million (larger than many Euro states) which has a GDP-per-capita higher than that of the UK, France, or Germany. They have an implicitly eugenic immigration policy:

Singapore adopts an open immigration policy with a strong belief in human resource as the most valuable and important tool in the country's economic growth. In recent months, the government has also spoken of the need to attract even more foreigners--whom the government calls "Foreign Talent". (The word "foreign" is not a pejorative in this part of the world. It is preferred over "alien".) Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew, no less, has put his full backing behind this policy.

However, there is some concern that less expensive and talented foreigners could displace equally talented but more expensive locals. As you will learn, when the Singapore government plans something, it puts its muscle behind it to ensure it gets done. There are therefore several initiatives to attract Foreign Talent (yes, it's even acquired the capital letters) to work, live and play in Singapore.

Ethnicity is no bar to citizenship. Singapore is multiracial and peaceful (Chinese 75%, Tamil, Malays, others comprise the rest - source). Furthermore, they've been successful in luring a number of biotech researchers from Europe and the States frustrated over shortsighted American bans on stem cells and Euro bans on GM crops. source

Pharmaceuticals giants such as GlaxoSmithKline and Merck, Sharp and Dohme opened new, Singapore-based facilities and work is under way to set up a unique cancer research resource called the Singapore Tissue Network ... Singapore's economic miracle has seen its GDP per capita rise from about US$400 at independence in 1965 to nearly US$21,000 now. The achievement is all the more impressive when you consider that the island has no natural resources. "The only resources we have are our people," says John Wong of the National University of Singapore (NUS). ... Alan Colman, formerly of PPL Therapeutics, the company that cloned Dolly the sheep, is another recent arrival as ES Cell International's chief scientific officer. "I know of no place in the world where the opportunities for career development are better at the moment," says Tom August, director of Johns Hopkins Singapore.

And because the government is thinking long-term, research programmes are generously funded too. "We don't have any financial worries, we just get on with research," says Edward Manser, head of the Institute for Molecular and Cellular Biology. Buss agrees. "Scientists here don't have to spend their life writing research grants," he says. But the government is still selective in the projects it funds and all grant applications are subject to international peer review.

Lots of Asian names in that article, but plenty of Anglos frustrated with regulations are moving there.

Singapore is multiracial and peaceful

In a few minutes on Google, I found this, this, this... there's probably lots more if you take the time to look.

Just because a multiracial society is "peaceful" doesn't mean that it will always be so or that it doesn't have other problems. You can have a peaceful multiracial society in a number of ways: if there's a caste system (e.g. India), if there's a majority that dominates the minority groups (e.g. ante bellum American South, perhaps Singapore), if there's a majority content to get screwed over while the minority groups benefit at its expense (e.g. modern European-derived countries), etc. I don't view any of these types of societies as being particularly desirable ones.

Here's an interesting snippet (bold added):

To date, Singapore has spent a fair amount of time self-diagnosing its attitudes and actions regarding ethnic relations (e.g., Fung, 1996). While only a fraction of the population can recall its race riots in the early 1960s, the various Singaporean cultures witness daily instances of misunderstandings, both rhetorically and according to varying customs.

Increasingly, though, the government has increased the country's "Chineseness"; for example, Mutalib (1992, p.81) cites these cases: "the intensification of the annual 'Speak Mandarin Campaign", the repeated call for Chinese to have more babies, the big budget for Chinese drama serials on television, the insistence that the Chinese proportion of the population must stay and may reach a maximum of 76%, a liberal immigration policy designed to bring in some 100,000 Hongkong Chinese to Singapore, the official patronage for Confucian studies, and the building of Chinese theme parks and entertainment centres by Honkong tycoons." As Latif (1996) has pointed out, "It is important to continue not to be complacent about the ethnic peace which Singapore enjoys."

How would Godless feel about whites in America enacting policies similar to those in bold above? ;-)

Oleg -

Rather than getting into the same debate over and over, let me take a different tack. First, here's a link to a history of immigration acts in the US.

This just makes no sense to me... unless you're a high IQ white who's scared of competition, such as that outlined in the other thread, where I showed that at elite institutions such as MIT, the Asian/Jewish 5% of the populations represents more than 50% (and rising) of the merit-based seats.

So please, Oleg, you're not a bad guy...but spare me the nonsense about how America doesn't "need" high IQ immigrants. In my opinion - and the opinion of plenty of entrepreneurs - this is just a way to mask damaging economic protectionism in an politically facile "concern" for one's virtually unrelated coracialists. This ideology of racial solidarity is just as paper-thin as the multicultists' antiracism. Just as they would never venture into Harlem after midnight, you would never associate with the approximately 50% of whites with two-digit IQs.

You can have a peaceful multiracial society in a number of ways

You left out the most important and most contemporary example: If there are different ethnic groups with high IQs and high rates of intermarriage, as seen in Hawaii, the (North)western United States, and the "high IQ archipelago" of research universities, think tanks, and high-tech industry...the Valley, Route 128, NC Research Triangle, etc.

>> Do you agree that intermarriage between European groups as genetically distant as Icelanders & Greeks or Spaniards & Finns was culturally stigmatized in Europe, until it was clear that it was harmless in the US?

Icelanders & Greeks or Spaniards & Finns had very little (if any) opportunity to intermarry. Various ethnic groups came to Greece during its history: e.g., Slavs, Albanians, Franks, Venetians, etc. and were absorbed into the population without a trace. Also, many Greeks dispersed into Europe during the Ottoman occupation and were absorbed into the population, in Russia, France, Italy, England, Spain, etc. Also, the Christian nations had ties of blood via intermarriage of the nobility as well.

The notion that they became more lenient towards intermarriage because of the US experience is unfounded. In the absence of war, Europeans intermarried to the extent that their much more static lifestyle allowed them to come into contact with each other.

>> Noting that HK, Singapore and Japan have higher GDP-per-capita than the UK, France, or Germany...and noting that Israel's GDP-per-capita in wartime is competitive with /greater than that of Southern European states in peacetime...would you also agree that the lowest common denominator of success today is high IQ, rather than race per se?

The common denominator here is the European technological complex (ETC). The Mongoloid nations that you refer to have been touched by the ETC. HK and Singapore were ex-British colonies in strategic locations. Japan achieved its high output because it opened itself to the West. On the other hand, most of the Mongoloid populations that were little touched by the ETC are not particularly advanced.

Economic freedom, length of contact with the ETC, resources/geopolitical status, absence of warfare/political stability are more than enough to predict economic prosperity around the world.

>> You left out the most important and most contemporary example: If there are different ethnic groups with high IQs and high rates of intermarriage

Do you have statistics that there are "high rates of intermarriage" in the "high IQ archipelago" ?

Icelanders & Greeks or Spaniards & Finns had very little (if any) opportunity to intermarry.

But this is my point. Yet it's not seen as a big deal if these groups intermarry. Even the most hardcore white nationalist wouldn't be against it, as "unnatural" as it is/was. Yet a Greek-Iraqi or a Russian-Kazakh union would have him up in arms, despite the fact that these pairs are often genetically/phenotypically closer to each other than to (say) Icelanders or Spaniards.

The common denominator here is the European technological complex (ETC).

More accurately, the Northwest European technological complex. As far as I know, the Scandinavians and Southern/Eastern Europeans did not play a very large role in the Industrial Revolution - I didn't get many corrections in this thread beyond the Northern Italians. So as far as I know, in fairness the "European technological complex" is not indigenous to Scandinavia nor Greece nor Russia. In fact, it's not really indigenous to Germany either...Britain and to a lesser extent France were the real pioneers in developing the scientific method, modern representative government, etc., and Germany was geographically close and an early beneficiary of the "ETC", who ended up contributing much to it.

My point: If we're taking "points" away from Japan, HK, and Singapore for imitating the ETC yet contributed little to its development, can we take points away from Northeast/Southeast/Southern European countries that contributed little to the development of the ETC, yet are imitating it today? :)

Economic freedom, length of contact with the ETC, resources/geopolitical status, absence of warfare/political stability are more than enough to predict economic prosperity around the world.

You need high IQ + capitalism to obtain prosperity. Resources don't matter much - look at Japan, Singapore, Israel, Taiwan, and of course Britain.

Do you have statistics that there are "high rates of intermarriage" in the "high IQ archipelago" ?

Well, here are stats on Jewish outmarriage rates: link

And here are stats from the Census on E/S Asian American outmarriage rates: link

And here is a representative illustration of Jewish and E/S Asian overrepresentation at elite universities: link.

I can try to find intermarriage stats at universities, but I sincerely doubt that college grads outmarry *less* than their ethnic group's average.

Here's more:

link

The group had heard anecdotal evidence about interracial marriage, especially Asian-Latino intermarriage, as being prevalent in the Bay Area, but there had never been an effort to study intermarriage in Silicon Valley, she says...the team, that includes community advisors and sociology, anthropology and history professors at Stanford and Sacramento State universities, has been doing research to support its theory, gathering evidence. They found statistics, confirmed by those from the 2000 U.S. Census, that Santa Clara County leads the way in intermarriage in the U.S., she says.

"Ethnic genetic interests are real. Now then, if citizenship is to be 'ideological' and based on 'IQ' and so forth, I have a suggestion. How about nations like China and India to show the way - show us poor benighted Euros how to go about doing this. Certainly, certainly, those two nations can take in 'high IQ' Europeans and members of other nations. How about Chinese into India, and Indians into China? No... no... It is _only_ the 'white man' who needs to be convinced that 'race doesn't matter' and that 'ethnic genetic interests' can be tossed out the window in preference to ... 'aracial schemes.' "

The question wasn't about what's or what's not happening in Singapore. It was about what's or what's not happening (and what's not ever going to be permitted to happen, make no mistake) in India and China.

May we have THOSE STATISTICS PLEASE? The ones for INDIA AND CHINA PLEASE?

We already know that the web-site "Gene Expression" is one of the web's major forces for the advocacy of white-race ethnolysis, due mainly to a particular blogger there who attempts to enforce the subordination of whites to browns and yellows. We already know that. That's nothing new. GnXp.com isn't the only site like that. There are tons of them that are pro-white-Euro ethnolysis while remaining coyly silent about the prospect of sauce for the goose being sauce for the gander -- coyly silent about the prospect of turnabout being fair play -- about their own ethnicities and ethno-cultures being totally, completely ethnolysed and replaced with something else - replaced with ... whites, for example.

Somehow we never get to hear advocacy for THAT outcome. Somehow these transformations can only go in one direction. (Or maybe they're shouting the opposite from the rooftops -- BEGGING for their own cultures and races to be ethnolysed, but I've missed it? maybe I need reading glasses? a hearing aide? Someone correct me if I'm wrong ...)

We're not talking about the created purely mercantile island-nation Singapore (which, as everyone knows, and as Oleg's posts have just pointed out for those in Rio Linda, is effectively Chinese anyway -- CHINESE -- NOT Malay, NOT Hindu, NOT white-Euro).

We're talking about North America, Europe, China, and the Subcontinent. Let's talk about what we're talking about.

>> But this is my point. Yet it's not seen as a big deal if these groups intermarry. Even the most hardcore white nationalist wouldn't be against it, as "unnatural" as it is/was.

As I've explained to you, it was never seen as "unnatural". It's just that Icelanders are RARE TO NON-EXISTENT in Greece. It's just that Icelanders and Greeks speak a DIFFERENT LANGUAGE and don't have the common language of English that immigrants in the US do.

Yet a Greek-Iraqi or a Russian-Kazakh union would have him up in arms, despite the fact that these pairs are often genetically/phenotypically closer to each other than to (say) Icelanders or Spaniards.

>> Yet a Greek-Iraqi or a Russian-Kazakh union would have him up in arms

What do "white nationalists" have to do with Greek/Russian attitudes towards intermarriage. These are elements mainly of US society, remember, we're discussing EUROPEAN attitudes.

BTW, Greeks can't marry Iraqis because they have a different RELIGION. And, of course, again, the opportunity of Greeks to marry Iraqis is zero.

>> More accurately, the Northwest European technological complex. As far as I know, the Scandinavians and Southern/Eastern Europeans did not play a very large role in the Industrial Revolution -

I'm not going to draw a map of the origins of the ETC in space and time. And, yes, it's true that this ETC spread inside Europe just as it spread outside Europe. It's also true that the ETC did not emerge ex nihilo but is the culmination of the 2,600-year-long rational phase of Western civilization.

>> My point: If we're taking "points" away from Japan, HK, and Singapore for imitating the ETC yet contributed little to its development, can we take points away from Northeast/Southeast/Southern European countries that contributed little to the development of the ETC, yet are imitating it today? :)

No one is "taking points" away from anyone. It's not a competition about who gets to be on top. It's just facts, that material prosperity in terms of GDP is heavily dependent on a number of factors (e.g., political stability/lack of war, resources, geopolitical significance, etc.) and one of the most important of these is the ETC.

>> You need high IQ + capitalism to obtain prosperity. Resources don't matter much - look at Japan, Singapore, Israel, Taiwan, and of course Britain.

Again, you are naming countries touched by the ETC. I could just as easily claim that it's the ETC that is making them prosperous. Increased GDP-related prosperity as the result of the spread of the ETC is a documented FACT. It's certainly not an easily quantifiable variable, but it's not to difficult to see that around the world, only countries touched by the ETC are prosperous.

>> I can try to find intermarriage stats at universities, but I sincerely doubt that college grads outmarry *less* than their ethnic group's average.

Ok, at present then, we must accept the hypothesis of increased interracial marriage among the elite as non-established.

Godless:

I'm kind of short on time so I can't go through your points one by one, but the main disagreement I have with you is that you're ignoring genetic distance. Groups like Germans, Poles, Swedes, etc. were able to blend in with the native population not only because they intermarried but because they were already very similar to the rest of the white American population to begin with, whereas East and South Asians are not. The notion that Asians will assimilate as easily as non-English European groups did is ridiculous.

Anyway, the bottom line is that I care about my "ethnic genetic interests". You may find that silly, but like Rienzi said, you aren't going to see the Chinese, Japanese, Indians, Israelis, etc. accepting large numbers of immigrants any time soon. It's only whites - the race of people with the most innovations to its credit no less - who are supposed to buy into this "we need immigrants" crap. Now answer me something: suppose that America had never accepted any Jewish or Asian immigrants. Would we be substantially behind where we are now, either technologically or militarily? And do you honestly believe that we'll fall behind the rest of the world technologically or militarily if we don't import lots more Jews and Asians to the US? I think the answer is obviously "no" to both of those questions, and if that's the case, then I fail to see why whites need more non-whites here in America. The benefits of having non-whites in America don't make up for the negatives. Jews have been an enormous pain in the ass for a long time, and although Asians haven't caused too many problems yet, largely due to their political apathy, there's no reason to assume that this will be the case in the future.

I can try to find intermarriage stats at universities, but I sincerely doubt that college grads outmarry *less* than their ethnic group's average.

That's funny - I remember reading on your blog just a couple weeks ago that more successful Jews are *less* likely to intermarry than less successful Jews. It wouldn't surprise me if the same is true for Asians.

I think the term "Asian" is much more problematic than the term "European" and in fact almost useless like the term "African".
Asia is a big continent with many differences and I would say that everybody should look at the specific case.
In my personal opinion not all race have the same value, but this doesnt mean that even in a worse race there couldnt be no good individuals, the opposite is obvious.
East Asians are as progressive and almost as attractive like Europeans and North-Indians are of the same caucasoid stock like the Europeans.

But as others pointed out, I care for my own kin-group, and I dont want the Europeans to eliminate from Earth through mixing up with an huge majority of other groups.

But at first, even before my own ethnic/racial/cultural group I think about mankind.
As long as the Western societies are as wealthy as they are and as long as there so low birth rates in this communities there will be immigration.
The question is, can they be integrated?
First western societies are much more stupid than they were some years ago, they dont even just allow immigration of non-europeans to some extend or dont do the right measures to stop it, but they also believe in a "civil society" which should (!!!) be multi-cultural.
The invading groups form a nucleus which will be if large enough an own factor of culture and policy in western countries.
So even if you say race is not so important, there is a cultural drift.
I think that this means in almost every case 2 things, first there is no longer a strong common sence in this fractious societies, and a la longue there will be major conflicts if there is no clear majority in these societies.
Even if you look at the US and compare there common sence to these of the european countries before the 2. WW its amazing!
They are just more egomanic individualists than the most europeans!
Only religion and patriotism hold this together, but was there a common sence from a european point of view?
I believe in a collective society, and its much more easier to make such an society with people which are intelligent AND have a common identity.

I just hope if the european nations fail to establish a new modell of an collectiv and progressive society, the asians will not!
Because as I'm concerned for mankind, one thing I dont want for sure, fractious societies of individualists who dont care about anything but themselves or a primitive mentality of religious and pseudo-religious people which would harm the progression of mankind much more than anything. (just look at Afghanisthan, Saudi-Arabia or Jemen)

I want the europeans to establish such a society which would definitely practive Eugenic and would try to organize its society utilitaristic (to the benefit of the majority) not for individuals which dont think beyond there own poor life.
The first society which establish such a system for a progressive society will own the world in one or the other way.
I would hope that Europeans would do it, but they are from the 60s just sick of the phrases which came from US.
They think more about economic than the long term future.
The most of you here do so too. Money isnt all, and in the end, these with progressive thoughts and rich of children will have all.
Today China moving fast in a better direction than the West.
So maybe they make it, and this would be better than nobody makes it, because that would mean that mankind has no future.

And all this high or low IQ debate and about Asians of high IQ, the most immigrants in Europe and even in US have no higher IQ than the European average and are from much more primitive cultures in the most cases.
So this debate dont reflect the actual situation, because I strongly believe that its better to have confuzian chinese than Muslim Negroes as immigrants, but thats not the case.

The main problem for Europeans is that the most intelligent of there own society got an absolute hedonistic and individualistic lifestyle and dont get children.
Thats the real problem!
Their own Elite is no longer as fertile as it should be.
To substitute them with foreigner even with high IQ is not in our interest, especially if these people have no better modell of living in their heads and for sure dont care about Europeans more than the own Elite. (Just look what Jews did, which sometimes dont identify themselves with their workers customers)

Conclusion: Asian high IQ immigrants are not the main problem of the western societies, but as long as they are just profiteurs of the Western prosperity and dont bring a better modell of living, they DONT solve the western problem, and make it even worse because there ideals and influence just make the societies more fractious.

Have you ever thought the Emmigrants? I mean the people which leave their home country. The most of them just live in the worst nightmare of individualism, they dont think much about community, but much more about money and career (not all but many)
So even if they are intelligent, they make capitalism and fractionism of western society not better.

Chris wrote,

"The main problem for Europeans is that the most intelligent of their own society have an absolutely hedonistic and [selfish] lifestyle and don't have children. That's the real problem!"

For sure, that's exactly one of the main problems besetting the West, and it affects not just "the most intelligent" among whites, but all social strata among whites. That's the bad news. The good news is, this problem is easily solved -- low white birth rates are easily reversed by means of government policy (and can even be fine-tuned to exactly the rate the government wants). But the news of course gets bad again -- government has no intention whatsoever of taking the steps that would reverse the decline in white birth rates.

So, government policy has driven down white birth rates and now is importing incompatible immigrants on a massive scale to make up the shortfall in population. Only moral criminals of the most sickening sort would do such a thing. Yet, that is exactly what is being done.

Hmm, I dont think that this birth rates can reversed easily. I'm especially concerned about the more intelligent whites, because as you read I support Eugenic in generell.

But back to the theme, and (in my opinion) some of the main reasons for the low birth rates:

1. Contraception and education:
Most women in the world dont have contraceptiva and the education to know enough about it.
In german it was "der Pillenknick" when the pill was coming on the market. I was at a demographic institute and you can really see it in the statistics. For Germany it was almost the same like the war.
Most male and females are used to it now in western societies.
2. Demographic chance and nuclear family, no strong genealogical tradition in western societies (beside the aristocrats).
Its really amazing that family (in a wider sence extendend family - Großfamilie) wasnt in common in western Europe for sure after christianization.
So from this time, it had no such a value like it has f.e. in the hindu or muslim societies.
Beside aristocrats there was no such a traditional need for many children.
Extended families existed in eastern europe for some time on, but nowadays, beside Albania almost all of europe adopted the nuclear family.
3. Maybe the most important part: Feminism and emancipation.
It is a fact that better educated women, trained to have (former male) career dont have much children. Thats why I said the more intelligent ones.
In all societies there is a first line of supporters of the current establishmend, and in our society, the "winners" are the better educated, more intelligent people. But these people fully adopt the new society values, and these mean they get less children.
Family and children were in Western Europe from christianization no such high values like in some other societies, but nowadays, it has almost no worth for the "Elite". Money and career is the main thing for many of them.
4. Look at the law, especially the laws for maintenance and dicorce.
This law is against man and against family. So even if there would be some men some years before they think today twice if they want a child or marriage.
This laws and the indoctrination in schools mean that family and children are no real value at all.
Its something to avoid for "career".
5. No political will really to change this things, because fertility a higher birthrate are no "real values". Maybe some conservatives want the old family modell, but they dont want that they have to spend more from the budget for children.

Conclusion: The main factor in the western societies for the low birthrate is for me not just that children are no longer a value on its own, but the main reason is definitely Feminism and Emancipation.
Women of today are to some extend in their thinking masculinized, that means the job and career are of no 1 interest.
Western males are in defensive, and see children often just as something which is expensive.

If we cant do a backroll of the most of these developments, there is no change in sight.
And the most women are so brainwashed that they think "career" even if they sit in the supermarket is more important than children. Not to speak of the intellectual Elite which is much more extrem.
If we cant establish new values and roll back to a usefull role modell, and, dont forget especially in the US, if the father, the pater familias cant pay the bills of the household, you cant have the role modell.
So in that sence its an economic problem too.
But thats not the main thing, the main thing are the aims of people today, and the new role modell for women in special.

Rienzi said: As regards Salter, I have reviewed his work in AR . . . Ethnic genetic interests are real.

Your review suggests to me that you aren't very interested in, skeptical of, or engaged with the material you are supporting. You are ready to cynically latch on to anything that supports these perceived interests of yours. There certainly is an "ethnic phenomenon", but the conclusions you are drawing from it are strained indeed.

Rienzi said: Now then, if citizenship is to be "ideological" and based on "IQ" and so forth, I have a suggestion. How about nations like China and India to show the way - show us poor benighted Euros how to go about doing this...It is _only_ the "white man" who needs to be convinced that 'race doesn't matter' and that 'ethnic genetic interests' can be tossed out the window in preference to what Salter would call "aracial schemes."

Unadorned strangely adds: I don't see how the point mxrienzi is making ... can be assailed.

Rienzi isn't making a point at all! He's just whining, which isn't really the same thing as an argument. I want immigration to be based on the value of the person, not the "group" he comes from, b/c the individual is what I personally value. Can someone please tell me what China's immigration policy has to do with my own values and political positions??

On the long term their strategy is much more logical and will be successful, thats why it should interest you if you want to do something for your own kin-group and for your heritage, but also for mankind.

What are groups? Nothing else than more than one individual!
So if a group has a lower average rating or is incompatible with your group to some extend, its useless to think to much about individuals.
F.e.: Even if one man of the pygmaes would be more intelligent, taller and more attractive than the average of his race, he has still the genetic material of his group inside of him, and in the worst case not only hes bringing alien material inside a group which was growing positively (as the Europeans proven through their success) but also his maybe just recessive negative features of his group will go on his children.
No advantage for Europeans and as I explained in III even for mankind.