One severely underdiscussed aspect of woke is its disastrous effect on our ability to integrate talent.
What I mean specifically is the problem with our highest quality immigrants. Mass migration is a separate issue. America has imported big waves of immigrants over the years, some good, some bad, some disastrous. I'm not talking about any of those, or generic "assimilation". I'm talking about the top tier.
For the last quarter millenium the United States has done far better than any other country on earth at attracting talent--not bugmetric "highest scoring" but the most courageous, agentic, risk tolerant, frontier-minded men on Earth who want to try their luck in Thunderdome America. And then developing them to their highest and most ambitious form.
This is our specialty.
Look at Operation Paperclip. We took these brilliant men who were at the farthest edge of capability. We sent von Braun and his men to Alabama, and eventually gave them our best 24yo cornfield engineers, a deepwater port, an insane goal and a budget equal to 1% of our GDP.
But first, we demanded and received their loyalty. When he was finally permitted to naturalize in 1955, von Braun said: "This is the happiest and most significant day in my life. I must say we all became American citizens in our hearts long ago."
We saw this mechanic work thru the 20th century and into the 2000s, through men like Elon Musk and Jensen Huang.
So what do we have today?
A country that demands and receives nothing in particular.
A country whose civic religion has metastasized into a form of self-hatred.
So we get high-caliber unamericans. The most crass examples I know of are all born post 2000... here are two:
Look at Eileen Gu. Born in the US to an American father and Chinese-immigrant mother, grew up in the nicest part of SF, went to Stanford. She is a talented skiier, trains at Lake Tahoe, competes. Eventually she wins Olympic Gold... playing for China. Is it a coincidence that she went to high school and college during peak woke?
Or an Indian acquaintance. High IQ. Went to a west coast university circa 2020. Disgust in his voice talking about his first tech internship... all the race-based "interest groups", the rest-and-vesters, people leaving at 5pm. Hilariously he thought it a bad sign that Rishi Sunak was the PM of the UK, and so many American tech cos run by Indians... "bad if you can't find leadership in your own people". So true, king.
We have a problem. America still disproportionately imports the world's most capable, but: - They will not magically show loyalty when none is demanded. - They feel natural resentment seeing gibs and sinecures flow to the undeserving. - Woke encourages a lopsided ethnonarcissism (which dumber immigrants sometimes participate in uncritically) but which has a special effect on the best--they recognize it for what it is, find it repugnant and weak, sometimes cynically participate if to their advantage. - They will not respect a people who don't respect themselves.
Ultimately this is another hard-to-fake indicator of civilizational health. Are our own smart young people trying to leave? (Fortunately we are not at this stage yet. If we get there we are the new USSR and it's truly over.) When smart young people from elsewhere come here, do they find something worth their permanent loyalty, or just an opportunity to milk?
> A country that demands and receives nothing in particular.
I should add, this is not quite true. The problem is that what we demand and receive is purely economic.
The IRS demands your absolute and unquestioning loyalty, even as a noncitizen green card holder. It demands an open book to all of your income and assets worldwide in perpetuity.
But if you want to run for office as a dual citizen "Eritrian-American" you can go right ahead.
Here, judge for yourself. The challenge is that true loyalty is something only these men's close friends know; public statements are easy to falsify. Even so, some patterns:
- Narrative violation: it's actually the euro and anglo immigrants who are most likely to have foreign or dual citizenship. - Asians like to talk about "immigrant experience" - South Asians are the most vocally pro-immigration. See eg. Deedy Das in the last Hamilton debate. - Overall as a group, STEM leaders are notably conflict avoidant and apolitical, optionality-oriented. Thiel's NZ citizenship bugout bunker bullshit is a good example.
The only person on this list--out of 25!--with an actually inspiring take is Elon, who's overtly patriotic, sole US citizen, says he'll "live and die in America".
On the whole it supports my original point: we need to demand far more loyalty from our immigrants. And conversely, we need to demand far better from schools and colleges. Withhold federal funding for the ones that are anti-American intellectual monocultures, crack down on student visa farming, whatever it takes.
I am skeptical of analyses that trace problems back to a specific campus discourse in the 2010s. I'll say something about that.
I think the comparison with the Soviet Union is useful. Did anybody want to leave the Soviet Union because of some ideological failure? Did the Soviet Union not command loyalty? Maybe. The failure of the Soviet Union seems more complicated. Smart young people found their talents wasted under bureaucratic totalitarianism. Institutions broke down, or young people were not invited to participate in them.
I could say the same thing about the "going abroad fever" of 1980s China... The young people that flooded out of China then did not do so because they believed China was unworthy of their devotion. If they were swayed by campus discourse, it was a temporary phase. They were a generation wasted—elite urban students sent down to the countryside in the primes of their lives, or forced to sit out university because the entrance exams were cancelled. There was no way to integrate all of them back into normal life in the 1980s. So, the solution for some was crime and vagrancy (several million ended up in reform-through-labor camps), or getting a visa.
The Chinese figured things out, if only temporarily. The Soviet Union collapsed.
This is why I think it's short-sighted to attribute much to a specific flavor of post-Obama-or-thereabout campus radicalism: the end of association came first, and generational warfare came first, and the destruction of vital institutions came first, and so on. The connective tissue of American capitalism was scorched away. There were always college radicals, but, with the right incentives and the right structures, they invent clever things or ideas, get married, found companies, and have a lot of kids.
Anyway, that's what I have to say about campus discourse.
The United States is in a much queerer situation than either the Soviet Union or China.
It fails to convince its most of its own native-born young people. But collapse or reform can be put on hold. The Third World refugee is adapted for an economy run by criminals, speculators, and tyrannical bureaucrats.
If you still believe it's worthwhile to hunt for the Gujarati von Braun or, failing that, the Somali Jensen Huang, some investment and coordination is required by the state and other structures to dissuade them from getting rich off the various scams that power the economy.
In other words, this is a material, as well as a spiritual, problem.
Maybe Eileen Gu hated America. Maybe she had brainwashed by some sort of campus radicalism. But it's pretty hard to say no to the promise of productive use of her talents and a boatload of cash up front. If I got the same call, I might hear them out.
> I am skeptical of analyses that trace problems back to a specific campus discourse in the 2010s
Fair. I meant "woke" in a more general sense that predates the 2010s. In the 90s it was called "PC". There's a general phenomenon dating back to the 60s, but which got substantially worse recently, where: 1. We ingest global smart people into top US universities. (We also ingest a larger number of not-so-smart people into visa mills, due to retarded policy, but that's a separate issue.) 2. We force these people--the absolute elite of their home countries, the skimmed top of human capital---to take humanities requirements from Chomskyite shitheads who believe that the West is evil, that the Global South is underdeveloped because of white oppreshun, etc. 3. We put them in dorms alongside homegrown American leftists who believe the same 4. ???
It's a recipe for disloyal mercenaries who enjoy America for its economic opportunities, and succeed on that basis, and might even spend the rest of their lives here, but never really believe in it.
Mid-tier immigrants end up believing the bullshit directly (they think that their home country is poor because it is heckin oppressed). The top tier understand that it's bullshit, and correctly perceive a spiritual sickness in America.
They end up being less loyal than they otherwise would be.
--
> If you still believe it's worthwhile to hunt for the Gujarati von Braun or, failing that, the Somali Jensen Huang,
Did you read my other post?
I said we should prioritize Western immigrants.
That said, a race knower should understand which ethnicities have a competent right tail. There are in fact a handful of "Gujarati" von Neumann types--Ramanujan, Chandrasekar, etc. There are exactly zero Somalis as far as I can tell.
Inb4 another round of poos log in to accuse me of being Indian.
On universities and disloyalty, we're at the risk of talking past each other, since I don't think your basic description is wrong...
I think the solution is to recognize and uphold the importance of the humanities as a way of passing on crucial cultural knowledge, etc. I think the successful state is willing to fund and control the universities, their humanities departments, their presses, and studies in art and history. The ruins were taken over by radical feminists, diversity hire Mbembe scholars, and the worst of the aging progressive activists. Chase them out. Their politics are revolting, but they're usually also terrible scholars, terrible teachers. It's good to offer lectures in history and literature; it's bad to let a lesbian rant at undergrads about gender. And restore and maintain the institutions that require the participation of young graduates in productive ways. And rebuild the economic structures that will dissuade a great number of young people from attending college in the first place. And, yes, prioritize Western immigrants, which means the same to me as deprioritizing immigration!
My position on this goes back to: if you have a functioning society and rational economy, a lot of left-wing radicalism—separate perhaps from the pure nihilism and brain rot promoted on American campuses, perhaps—can be tolerated. Build a nation on productive labor, instead of speculation.
Burning the books and burying the scholars is always an option, too, if you reach that point...
I appreciate the effortpoast, but there really isn't much constructive to say about this topic. We just have to end non-white immigration.
We aren't ever going to be able to construct some kind of sociological Rube Goldberg Machine that successfully integrates talented non-whites. They're just different than us. That's the way it is. Nothing is ever changing that.
If they really are genuinely talented, then they should stay in their societies of origin and do the good things that talented people do. If genuinely talented Indians actually existed, for example, they would improve American lives way more by making India a non-shithole than they would by coming here. A non-shithole India would be way better for Americans than our own GDP increasing by 0.0001% due to "talented Indian" immigration.
And I hate this genre of "we JUST have to <thing that 100% will not happen>", it's demoralization propaganda. Yes we just need a continent of above-replacement-fertility 130IQ anglos, nobody else allowed, hold my beer. Once this is done everything will be easy mode.
Immigration overhaul targets: - End birthright citizenship - Severely restrict "family unification" - Replace H1B/O1 with a new, better designed selective recruiting channel. There should be absolutely no lotteries, only auctions. We have a beautiful capitalist economy that produces high-information price signals; these are vastly more accurate and less gameable than any bureaucratic application process. If there is someone in the Taiwan whose market value in the US is $450k/year TC, they come. - Reimpose pre-Hart-Celler nationality targets to prioritize Western immigration in all channels beyond the most selective.
We do this, and we maximize our globally unique capability to attract talent. We will still be a substantially "diverse" nation--even if we turn immigration to 0 and deport every last illegal--it's baked into the pie from the foundation.
We are not some kind of hermetically sealed "China for white people". Doesn't exist. Closest thing, maybe you can move to Poland, anon.
> Poland has a population of approximately 38 million, characterized by a steadily declining, rapidly aging, and highly homogenous population (over 98% ethnic Polish)
It's a nice place. Safe and quiet. I hear the Christmas markets are wonderful. Certainly better than clown immigration policy countries like Sweden; it's not that ethnostates are without advantage.
It's just not America, and never will be. We win by pressing our unique advantages, not by hoping/coping/seething about what we are not.
>>5012 This is why I said there's nothing constructive or interesting to say on the topic. The state of things is that any reduction in non-white immigration is good. Beyond that, the details are just not interesting or useful to me as a regular citizen.
All your proposals are good, because they all would result in a decrease of non-white immigration. I "support" them, as a random citizen, for what it's worth (nothing). I don't see any difference between me saying "we just have to end non-white immigration" and you listing a bunch of hypothetical policies that would reduce non-white immigration. Neither of us are in any position to enact these policies. And everyone who is in that position is already well aware of all these avenues. It's not a question of people in government not having any ideas about how to reduce non-white immigration. It's a question of power and political will.
It's honestly more useful, not to mention more entertaining, to post humorous racist memes online than it is to Seriously Discuss this stuff. Circle jerking about this stuff doesn't do anything. Spreading racism does, slowly but surely, bit by bit, mind by mind.
> The state of things is that any reduction in non-white immigration is good
Disagree. If we shut down the O1 program tomorrow it would slightly reduce "non-white immigration" but it would be a big loss to the United States.
A lot of you don't understand the power law.
> I don't see any difference between me saying <meme what will never happen> and you listing a bunch of <specific policy changes that could occur this year, some of which the administration/SCOTUS are actively working on>
OK
> And everyone who is in that position is already well aware of all these avenues
The concept of replacing the lottery with an auction is surprisingly underdiscussed. Closest thing I know to a fix everything easily switch for skilled immigration. I am not convinced that our friends in & around gov't have engaged with it seriously.
>>5019 Replacing the h1b lottery with an auction is a strict improvement and I'd love to see it happen. But this is because lotteries are completely retarded, not because auctions are some brilliant wonderpolicy with no downsides. A person has many traits which determine whether they'd make a good countryman. Their salary is one of them, and is correlated with some others, but it's far from the whole story. There are plenty of highly paid people with bad character who abuse the public trust, who put loyalty to ethno-nepotistic clan schemes above good citizenship, and who have no intention to assimilate to a new country's ways. We don't want them no matter how skilled they are. This isn't a reason to stick with the lottery—it's not like that's filtering them out any better—but an auction is not a "fix everything easily switch".
Replacing H1B with an auction at current limits would set the minimum bar high enough that it would filter out almost all "ethno-nepotistic clan schemes". You'd need probably over $300k TC. No Somalis, no Indian body shops, no Romanian credit card scammers are getting in at that level.
I agree that there should be additional requirements. All immigrants should have to explicitly affirm loyalty to United States. All immigrants, with narrow exceptions, should have to demonstrate a command of written and spoken English. And obviously, all immigrants should be subject to a background check to search for evidence of good or bad character.
We are not going to be able to read what is in their hearts perfectly. There is no reliable test for "intention to assimilate". But the reality is, this is a numbers game with power-law outcomes. We can take these basic steps to ensure that the world's very limited supply of outlier excellent immigrants end up in America rather than anywhere else--this is competitive recruiting, we play to win--and we can ensure that the overall mix is tilted in the correct direction. The auction is the key ingredient.
Another aspect of it is marital status. Are these people bringing their wives and kids with them, or are they coming in as young single people. The latter is much more amenable for assimilation.
They imported a bunch of people who can't get good jobs, who can't support themselves, often can't speak the language, and otherwise can't successfully integrate even if they wanted to. That's not comparable to people who speak the language fluently, are smart, and have good jobs. The latter demographic is more assimilatable.
>>5019 Shutting down the O-1 program would absolutely not be a "big loss" to the "United States." This is completely false.
Again, this is why these kinds of discussions are just...not constructive. Someone who is *still* advocating for *any* kind of non-white immigration to the West after all that has happened in the past ~150 years is just not ever going to 'Get It'
I want to explain why I was one of the votes to hide this. There's been discussion about use of the vote buttons.
I don't mind spirited disagreement, that's what a forum is for. But you have to make an actual argument. "NUH UH" and "YOU'LL NEVER GET IT" are not arguments.
>>5068 The Actual Argument is 'The Past 150 Years Of History.' There's nothing useful or interesting or constructive to "say" or "discuss" about this topic anymore. There's nothing to "figure out" anymore. All of the evidence for "Does any form of non-white immigration benefit white societies? Do non-whites actually assimilate?" is completely out in the open, for everyone to see. No Words or Abstract Arguments are necessary to interpret the very real, very observable consequences of this immigration policy that have played out In Real Life.
>>5001 This comment is a good example of 'Not Getting It.' Obviously, the more biologically distant from white genetics a given individual is, the worse they're going to be at assimilating in a white society. How is this self-evident observation even worth posting in 2026? Why did it receive 7.4 updoots? Who on earth is on sofiechan dot com and is scratching their chin and thinking to themselves, "Huh, that's craaaazy that random subcontinentals who look like a totally different hominid species consider themselves to be Less American than a British immigrant. This could be big....need to let The Top Minds Online know about this asap...." Lol the whole thing is just funny and bizarre. I halfway feel like I'm being trolled here
If you're wondering about why I'm bothering to post anything at all about a topic that I think is so played out, it's because I admit to finding it mildly annoying that people are *still,* somehow, shilling for "multi-racial societies" in the Current Year of 2026. As someone who has actually traveled the world and who has lived as an expat in multiple countries that are *very* different from my own kind, for years at a time: "multi-racial society" is not a real thing. It doesn't work. No one ever assimilates. And everyone knows this too, including non-white people who immigrate to the west. They're just lying when they pretend otherwise. What other choice do they have?! Are they going to tell us the truth and be like, "yeah, we're way different than you, obviously we're never going to be compatible together in a society." Obviously not.
Here's an exercise you might find amusing: ask every single non-white friend, co-worker, colleague, family member, etc if they're rooting for "America" or for their home country in the Olympics. (Spoilers: they're all rooting for their real country, the one that has people who are all like them). There's no amount of "money" or "prestige" or "buy-in" that will secure these people's loyalty to "us" over their own kind. And if you actually think about it for like 30 seconds, the notion that there ever could be is truly fucking insane, and sort of deranged and even "evil" to consider. One might even say that it is "racist" to think so lowly of someone that you'd believe that they'd be capable of something like that.
> Someone who is *still* advocating for *any* kind of non-white immigration to the West
Do you think that if we thanos snapped Jensen Huang, Lisa Su, Satya, Demis Hassabis, and Andrew Ng out of existence, that America would be better? How about if we NBA player-traded them to China in exchange for five random white guys living over there as English teachers?
I obviously agree that we've let in a lot of bad, low human capital and spiritually unamerican immigrants. But on the top end, we have people who've proven critical to America's leadership in the world. A good chunk of those are not white.
> Here's an exercise you might find amusing: ask every single non-white friend, co-worker, colleague, family member, etc if they're rooting for "America" or for their home country in the Olympics.
I'll start with just my coworker. He is Canadian, Chinese descent, most definitely rooting for Canada.
Do you think Shaq is going to the Olympics and rooting for Cote d'Ivoire or something? Don't be dense.
Allow me to state my case clearly.
1. The idea that only a white person can be a real American is retarded. The founders rejected that idea. It is equal and opposite to the Blank Slate notion that it's rayciss that black people are underrepresented as air traffic controllers.
2. The reality is that humans are a diverse species. We differ in intelligence, in conscientiousness, in predispositions, in our sense of humor, in a hundred other things all of which are substantially heritable. And sure, for both cultural and genetic reasons, there are not many Somalis that would make a good American.
3. We live in a accelerating world defined by the power law. There are a few thousand load-bearing live players in the United States. Spoiler, they are not all white. Also, a surprising fraction of them are recent immigrants.
I'll go one step further on #1. If you believe that there's no such thing as a good nonwhite immigrant, then you are spiritually not American yourself. You are a migroid of the soul in the sense that you live in a country you don't really believe in and whose core principles you reject.
>>5074 >1. The idea that only a white person can be a real American is retarded. The founders rejected that idea. It is equal and opposite to the Blank Slate notion that it's rayciss that black people are underrepresented as air traffic controllers.
Bro, cmon. The founding fathers of America thought that non-whites could be Americans...? Really? In the Current Heckin Year of 2026? Cmon man. Can you hit up chat gpt dot com for 30 seconds before posting this stuff? Are you even American? Do you even live in America?!
This is why I say that these conversations are never constructive. You get into it with someone who appears to be earnestly interested in making your society a better place, then all of a sudden this "fellow American" is telling you that the American Founding Fathers wanted the US to be a multi-racial society (look up the Naturalization Act of 1790).
Also, the "live player" thing is completely retarded and cringe. People have gotta stop with that goofy meme. It isn't even true and it doesn't help you model the world more accurately. Some 80 IQ borderline illiterate midwestern blonde waitress is more of a "live player" than random nons airdropped into California to "vibe code" microtransaction fart apps. She's the whole reason why they want to come here in the first place, of course.
> If they are good workmen, they may be of Asia, Africa, or Europe. They may be Mahometans, Jews or Christian of an Sect, or they may be Athiests. I would however prefer middle aged, to young men, and those who have good countenances and good characters on ship board, to others who have neither of these to recommend them, although, after all, the proof of the pudding must be in the eating.
George Washington, 1784, lol.
But yes, I overstated my case re: the founders. Many of them did explicitly prefer white immigration. Important context is that at the time, the US was a specifically *biracial* country. We all know the 13%. Well in 1800, it was 20%. If the only two races you encounter daily are northern European and subsaharan, it's an understandable reaction.
But lets not lose the meat of our argument.
1. The idea that only a white person can be a real American is retarded. ^ still true
2. The reality is that humans are a diverse species. ^ obviously true, and why we need to continue recruiting the best
And look I like cute waitresses from Iowa too but the idea that one of them is more important to the country than the guy who built Nvidia is slightly retarded.
The idea of a certain unity amongst white european peoples and that they are suitable for Americanness is also anachronistic. The founding generation certainly didn't think of the south european, the eastern european, the irish, the balkanoid, the jewish and the nordic races to be one united people.
In any case, it is retarded to be dogmatically attached to the past. We know a lot more about HBD. And for better or for worse live in a multi-racial country. We can and in my opinion should try to create a more eugenic immigration policy and we should also demand assimilation and cultural compatibility.
But the pursuit of white nationalism seems like other past obsessed worldviews. Lets start working at a ford factory at 18, marry at 22 and go to church every sunday. Make america great again. Long live 1960.
>>5076 Dude, George Washington is talking about purchasing indentured servant labor for his own estate in that quote. He is not talking about the kind of people who he thinks should be American citizens. Again, you could have spent 30 seconds with an LLM to confirm this, if you were actually trying to be honest and constructive about it. Completely separate from the substance of this topic: it is crazy that people still try to brazenly lie like this in the LLM era, when anyone can copy paste anything and ask an LLM about it.
This is no longer a good faith discussion, if it ever was. But hey, it's reassuring and good to know that my "fellow Americans" are still out there Fighting The Good Fight (unpaid shilling for more non-white immigration to the West)
> Dude, George Washington is talking about purchasing indentured servant labor for his own estate in that quote
He would've loved H1B.
>>5077 > In any case, it is retarded to be dogmatically attached to the past. We know a lot more about HBD. And for better or for worse live in a multi-racial country. We can and in my opinion should try to create a more eugenic immigration policy and we should also demand assimilation and cultural compatibility.
Exactly. This is a good summary of my argument too.
The only thing I'd add is that I view high-end immigration as HEADHUNTING. Like there are a few thousand outlier men who will make China a materially more potent threat; our job is to poach them. There are outliers stuck in the infinite hall-of-mirrors longhouse of Europe, unfree to express the most banal opinions; we should liberate them. There are 140IQ Russians and Persians; we should exfiltrate them. Our job is to inspire all of these men to higher and greater ambition than they would ever conceive of in their birth country.
>>5079 I think part of the failure to approach consensus on this thread is down to a disagreement about what goals are being pursued through immigration. But nobody will articulate those goals... What is the project that's being undertaken? It's good to be honest about that. It sounds like: "We need better software companies!" "We need our nominally American multinational firms to compete on the global stage!" In that case, sure, of course, it makes sense to bring in disaffected geniuses from around the world.
I don't know if everyone posting here agrees that staging competition between immigrant groups to select for entrepreneurial guile is the reason that the American nation must go on. But plenty do! Maybe George Washington did! And you say you'll deprioritize Africans? Well.
If that's the case, I think it leads back to the beginning... To what should those new immigrants swear loyalty? What have you got for them?
Well... I'm an old fool. I think "Iowa waitress" is worth ten Jewish-Ukrainian businessmen or disaffected graduates of East Shijiazhuang Aeronautics University.
We have not one, but two other threads on the home page discussing that already. What is the American Dream in 2026? What is our story over the next decade or two as we are shot off the carrier of human thought into cambrian machine explosion?
I don't know the answer, but I know who for sure does not have the answer: the decel right. The Norman Rockwell Thomas Kinkade CHUNGUS right, which has a lot in common with the European Greta left. They both love to poo technological progress. Why do we need "software companies". Why do we need "nominally American multinationals". Why do we need da billionaires. The euros are more honest here: they'll come right out and say "why do we need growth"? Then you get these hilarious x threads about how an assistant manager at Buc-ees makes more than a eurocel surgeon.
Maybe it's for the best for them. In a world being dissolved by the acid of technocapital, a quiet high-trust Swiss town that refuses technology and growth is a seductive place. It's comfortable, but it's also a very supine position. A good place to vacation or retire.
America is just not like this at all. Our telos is the thunderdome frontier, the arena of maximally productive competition and exploration. This is going to involve recruiting high agency, high capability immigrants. You can shake your fist at gnon.
The mandate of gnon is to maximize American competitiveness. Some kind of mass gaokaoization of our universities obviously does not accomplish that.
It's an important distinction that I see people skip all the time.
1. Cherry-picking the truly gifted, good. Critical. 2. Mass "skilled immigration" in form of H1B, universities chasing those sweet international student bux at scale, etc. Bad. Especially because of the problem I started this thread to discuss: our universities not only fail to teach these people to be proper Americans, they actively brainpoison them not to be.
We've already discussed H1B/O1 reform. For colleges there is an even simpler fix: tie federal funding to the % of students that are American. There is zero sense showering public money on a institution full of foreigners.
Let me try to articulate the problem with high skilled immigration from my perspective.
But before that let me take a step back and talk about Carroll Quigley's framework for institutional reform. He argues that organizations have social functions to fulfill. And they are instruments insofar as they are effective in accomplishing those. But every instrument due to organizational entropy decays over time, and becomes an institution. This creates a tension that can be resolved in 3 ways: reform, circumvention, decay.
High skilled immigration is a circumvention mechanism given the decline in American institutions' ability to select for and cultivate talent. H1B/O1 programs are frankly much less important compared to the total internationalization of graduate student programs in elite American STEM programs.
In my cohort at a Cal PhD program, I was the only American (and I'm a dual citizen who grew up overseas so I dont fully count) The reason these graduate programs are disproportionately composed of international students is because the stipend is a pittance. I ended up dropping out to get a SWE job. But the international students who are uniformly brilliant know that this is the pathway to immigrate & get a good job upon graduation. This research system funded by federal grants ensures that STEM talent is disproportionately composed of immigrants willing to tolerate low stipends.
The question really is to what extent >130 or >145 IQ Americans are utilized to the full extent of their human potential by the institutions, and to what extent they fall through the cracks because American institutions for the purposes of DEI do a poor job of selecting and cultivating talent.
The SAT is so easy that it can't distinguish between outlier talent. Universities likewise discriminate against white and asian men. Obviously SAT can be made to be more g-loaded, less rewarding towards grinding, and be more discriminative. But that is racist ofc. There are incredibly talented and smart PhDs graduating from top programs every year though. And the companies can hire them instead.
>>5019 >Disagree. If we shut down the O1 program tomorrow it would slightly reduce "non-white immigration" but it would be a big loss to the United States. The O1 program is a corrupt dumpster fire. Silicon valley, for example, advanced mainly when it was interminably, unabashedly White. Virtually all the founders of the legendary companies were White. More reasons you are retarded: It's not really foolishness when you realize that hereditarian bioessentialism can easily give a litany of reasons why the intellectual "elite" of premodern regions are undesirable. Unity of values, tradition, and assumptions are obviously valuable, especially so when you are speaking of the most capable stratum. These things as they existed before mass immigration were based on inherited dispositions and traditions unique to the societies of northwestern Europe and their progeny. Obviously, the backwards hellholes which are South Asia, Africa, or the Middle East are perpetually impoverished and tumultuous in part because their "elites" are worthless, nebbish invalids who prefer self-satisfied rent-seeking to progress. There are no signs of this having changed, or ever changing in the future.
Really, you don't even need a bioessentialist argument to point out that there is no observable mechanism by which assimilation can possibly function when millions of foreigners enter the country annually. They are placed under no real obligation to cease their mother tongue, to reject the clannish and backwards ways of their homeland, to affirm the historical maxims of any possible American value, or really do anything except make money - this they do unscrupulously and invidiously, as can be seen in the various Lebanese, Armenian, Jewish, Turkish, South Asian, Kurdish, or (topically) Somalian ways of living which are probably responsible for a supermajority of white collar crime, corruption, and vice in America. The worst of these can't even comprehend what free labor or markets, or why you would not hire every single one of your cousins, or why they should care about your insipid, weak, short-sighted idiocy in imagining that America is anything but a vehicle for self-gain and grift to them.
The exception to this is East Asia, with other possible critiques such as "Why would you trust Chinese men to remain loyal to you when at any moment he can rejoin his confident, competent motherland and be heavily rewarded for defection." >>5086 >The question really is to what extent >130 or >145 IQ Americans are utilized to the full extent of their human potential by the institutions, and to what extent they fall through the cracks because American institutions for the purposes of DEI do a poor job of selecting and cultivating talent. If one were to try to predict White American heartlander representation in the Ivy League by purely meritocratic standards, he would expect to find them making up about 60-70% of every one. Harvard is ~35% White. Stanford is ~25% White. Generalities aside, BAP once said that if you excluded "white" hispanics, jews, LGBTs, and women from enrollment percentages, the true percentage of White men in the ivy league would be around ~5%, and I believe that is more accurate than not. There is your answer, in case it wasn't extremely fucking obvious to anyone with an ounce of reasoning.
It could be improved (the way I described, by replacing it with an auction), but half the frontier labs are O1s. It's a critical channel.
Do you know what your own chart means? It shows that asian men are the most likely to build a unicorn by a substantial margin. Your data makes my case.
> Silicon valley, for example, advanced mainly when it was interminably, unabashedly White
Is this a "muh golden age" reference to Fairchild Semiconductor, the Traitorous Eight, etc?
Silicon Valley has always been at the leading edge of poaching talent, and certainly this is reflected in both the last crop of highly successful companies (Nvidia, Apple, Google, etc) and in the current race to machine intelligence.
>>5094 > It shows that asian men are the most likely to build a unicorn by a substantial margin. Your data makes my case. So your case is that we need more Indians and Chinese? Well, at least you say so frankly. I will admit it's difficult for me to prove this atm for lack of data (making it sound somewhat copey), but it must be mentioned that it's entirely arguable that "unicorn startups" shifted from genuine innovation to status-seeking trivialities around the same time that Asians made broad inroads in Silicon Valley. Everyone knows that many startups nowadays produce worthless garbage which only survives by courting VCs, something which of course always occurred, but at the current rate? You also forget that Asians are highly concentrated within the areas closest geographically to unicorn startup hotspots - such as the Bay Area, for example, where Asians are ~30% of the population. Representation is not so impressive, taking that into account. Even the glowing studies praising Asians for their success will outright state that Asians were not all that overrepresented in 1999 and they got large helping hands from... "ethnic networks". Admirable! Surely this is entirely meritocratic and not at all nepotistic! Then it goes on to say these immigrants often "circulate" back to their home countries... what a desirable thing for your cutting edge engineers to do! Can you explain to me the benefit of supposed innovation at the hands of immigrants if it is quickly handed over to foreign nations? https://web.archive.org/web/20150626134040/http://wee.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_699ASR.pdf > Is this a "muh golden age" reference to Fairchild Semiconductor, the Traitorous Eight, etc? No, basically every company of worth up until the late 2000s/2010s. One thing that struck me reading Elon Musk's biography is that virtually every single man (and a woman) of note mentioned as a contributor to the founding of SpaceX or Tesla was White. The same was true for most of the valuable and recognizable companies from the West coast. Also, are you seriously mocking Fairchild Semiconductor and/or implying it could never have existed without immigrant talent? Utterly sickening. If that's what you intended to say, fuck you, and this conversation is done, because you obviously do not have America's best interests in mind whatsoever.
I also can't help but notice you had exactly zero comment on my assertion of inherited disposition, the observable utter lack of accomplishment and admirable qualities in the places many of these immigrants come from (especially South Asia), and the assumable connection between these elites, their traits, and the shithole status of their homelands. You also did not comment on the severe underrepresentation of white men in elite institutions according to widely accepted population statistics on IQ. Why?
> So your case is that we need more Indians and Chinese?
No. Once more, for immigration at any kind of scale, we should prioritize Westerners. An Indian/Chinese mass-immigration project, like the one Canada undertook over the past 10 years, would be a disaster.
Maybe this is too subtle to process, but here is the truth: 1. Mass non-Western immigration bad 2. Cherry-picking genuine outlier talent regardless of race good 3. We must demand loyalty from our immigrants. We used to do this just fine, and we forgot how, and we should re-learn. That's what this thread is about.
#2, done right, is low-volume and has negligible impact on our demographics. The bulk demographics game is entirely about fertility and immigration enforcement/remigration. That is where the tens of millions come or go, not in selective channels.
> Everyone knows that many startups nowadays produce worthless garbage > You also forget that Asians are highly concentrated within the areas closest geographically
Utter cope.
Of course many startups produce nothing. In fact most die and disappear. You need to learn the power law--it is the biggest thing between you and a more accurate understanding of the world. Taken in total, West Coast entrepreneurship is the primary engine--by far--producing any economic growth at all, in the entire Western world.
Look at Europe's GDP in 2008 to present. Growth rate rounds to zero. Now look at the American economy ex-tech... it looks European.
Technology is critical to the West. Is it "diverse"? Not in the way that the wokes want. Low-human-capital populations don't help. But it is diverse in precisely the sense of that Starship photo I posted.
This has not because they happened to be "closest geographically"... ask yourself WHY Jensen Huang is the Bay Area and not in Nebraska. He didn't spawn here. We effectively drafted him in some USA Draft round pick 40 years ago and put him to work.
> You also did not comment on the severe underrepresentation of white men in elite institutions
Effectively all universities are reliant on Federal funding. This can and should be used to prevent discrimination against native men in favor of DEI clients &/or tuition-revenue-maximizing international student populations.
> No, basically every company of worth up until the late 2000s/2010s
Wrong. For example, by far the most successful companies in Silicon Valley making actual silicon today are Nvidia, Broadcom, Micron, AMD. All four date from the 70s-90s. #1 and #4 were founded by Taiwanese immigrant Americans, #2 and #3 by white Americans. That kind of distribution is representative.
>>5104 > Yes I did, see >>5085 (you) Fair enough, I'll admit I didn't check which of the prior posts were specifically yours. That's an inarguable mistake on my part. > Maybe this is too subtle to process I understood the point of contention quite well. I would not retract any of my statements on that front, and I don't appreciate the condescending implication otherwise. That aside, I'll go through what we agree on, then, having done so in a less confrontational mood. > Mass non-Western immigration bad Cool, yes. > for immigration at any kind of scale, we should prioritize Westerners Absolutely, although there is a growing Western-unification strain in the RW which would render the point mostly moot, if successful. > Effectively all universities are reliant on Federal funding. This can and should be used to prevent discrimination against native men in favor of DEI clients &/or tuition-revenue-maximizing international student populations. We agree on the aims, but not the means. Universities should be semi-nationalized, purged of parasites and regressives, standardized (they are not, to a surprising extent if you actually look into it), and only then properly made meritocratic through manipulation of tests or admissions. This is quite radical, but entirely necessary, even if few understand it yet. I don't think any argument which does not involve forcible takeover, wide-reaching purges, and revolutionized standards is a serious one, given the mortifying degradation of competency & alignment in this system. Frankly, this kind of "sensible technocratic reform" reeks of either naivety or cowardice. It will inevitably, utterly fail against the machinations of so many mistakenly educated enemies. It's excusable for boomers and xennials who are stuck in a pre-aughts mindset from when "civic institutions" still meant something, but not for anyone in this forum. > You need to learn the power law--it is the biggest thing between you and a more accurate understanding of the world. Taken in total, West Coast entrepreneurship is the primary engine--by far--producing any economic growth at all, in the entire Western world. Yes, I understand that. I do not understand why you seem to believe foreign immigration was crucial for this. > Technology is critical to the West. Is it "diverse"? Not in the way that the wokes want. Low-human-capital populations don't help. But it is diverse in precisely the sense of that Starship photo I posted. This photo is roughly ~77% White, give or take from the racially ambiguous ones there. You seem particularly fixated on East Asians, which we make no argument against on the grounds of competence, but rather the desire to preserve our own racial characteristics and to lower the risk of dual loyalty (of high concern now that China is not a post-Mao shithole and in fact a rival beacon of civilization which can perfectly well make adequate counteroffers to any potential defectors), and the miniscule minority of outlier gigaIQs from our former colonies, countries with millennia-long rap sheets of which any "elite" can be supposed to have had its own share in the process. I don't think continually importing these people is either necessary or desirable at this point in time, it's fair more likely that returns have already diminished past the point of benefit. >>5004 here, for example, you post an image which, with the data you have provided, proves a picture of majority White innovation/production, a sizable East Asian minority, and a smattering of other assorted races. > Wrong. We have successfully integrated plenty. And utterly failed to assimilate orders of magnitude more.
>>5110 (you) (you) >>5104 > And I hate this genre of "we JUST have to <thing that 100% will not happen>", it's demoralization propaganda. Yes we just need a continent of above-replacement-fertility 130IQ anglos, nobody else allowed, hold my beer. Once this is done everything will be easy mode. Your proposal is even more fantastical. You make no gestures towards DIRECTLY purging the tens of millions of undesirable foreigners who became citizens or tens of millions of leftist enemies within our own people who encourage and exacerbate their subterfuge. You have a similar mental image of sensible technocrats simply sitting on the immigration restriction button for 50 years until we win (lol). Did you forget that this has demonstrably failed to maintain even in something as simple as local politics in San Francisco? > We will still be a substantially "diverse" nation it's baked into the pie from the foundation. We are not some kind of hermetically sealed "China for white people". Doesn't exist. Closest thing, maybe you can move to Poland, anon. What the fuck are you talking about? The nation which was UNIFORMLY European-descended and centered for centuries until perhaps a little over one generation ago? The same one, right? (Africans were not contributors in any meaningful sense, every institution of note was monoracial.) > If we shut down the O1 program tomorrow it would slightly reduce "non-white immigration" but it would be a big loss to the United States. I argue you are biased and blinded by a handful of nonwhite friends. A "big loss"? We conquered the world, have already brain drained millions to sift through, and you think there is still some magical reserve of Sudanese or Tegalan geniuses we NEED? So much so that you are willing to rebuke every restrictionist in the thread to INSIST we just NEED these stupid fucking Asians and we NEED to make sure there are carveouts for them? Combined with your lowkey derision for White Americans and their achievements (what else would you call that snot-nosed comment about Fairchild), this is fundamentally what I take issue with. We don't NEED them. We never did. You don't want to do what is necessary, framing our further marginalization in favor of rentier foreigners in terms of national interest in the same way every suit and tie faggot has framed it for the last 50 years. Do you think I am some retard who prefers a violent felon over a polymath if the former happens to be White? No, many of the people I speak to and completely agree with about what needs to be done are Asian. I don't essentially take issue with meritocratic carveouts for nonwhites. However, you are downplaying White capability and achievement with every word and emphasizing the importance of foreigners as though that is what needs to be emphasized. It shows your fundamental lack of alignment with us. In a country with tens of millions too many foreigners, in a thread talking about foreigners in America, the choice you make is to continually argue in favor of even more. What has happened to White America and its talent in the last generation seems like an issue of little importance to you compared to the tiresome insistence that foreigners can be Americans.
Here, go read this. This is the immigration policy of Restore Britain, the most strident deportation party in the Western world today & written by a man who actually wants to win.
A lot of nice stuff about deporting all of the illegals, and then:
> We will take a small number of ultra high-skilled migrants - on one condition. It benefits the British people.
Even Restore Britain wants a carveout for what I referred to as headhunting: importing power-law immigrants. And of course, the United States has a history of using this strategy far more successfully than Britain or any other country. If this exception applies in Rupert Lowe's UK, then it certainly applies to us.
> Someone who is *still* advocating for *any* kind of non-white immigration to the West
Fundamentally this is about whether you want to win. The chance that we're going to have a whites-only immigration policy in the US is exactly 0%.
Rupert Lowe wants to win. The Mission Party wants to win (they refer to themselves as pardos, lol). Do you want to win elections? Do you want growth in the West? Do you want to beat China? Stop the seethe and focus.
The purpose of this thread is integration of top-tier immigrants. This applies to our headhunting strategy in general, white people included. An Italian kid wins IMO. He gets recruited to MIT on a full ride. Three months later, he is sitting thru an intro class about Decolonization. This kind of thing is retarded and makes America somewhat mediocre at the thing we used to be world class at, which is siphoning the world's best, inspiring them, earning their allegiance, inducting them into the American project and in exchange demanding their loyalty.
>>5118 > Do you want to win elections? Do you want growth in the West? Do you want to beat China? Stop the seethe and focus. I am telling you that you do not understand how bad it is. Your idea of "winning" does not do what needs to be done. You are still thinking about nonsense like "beating China" when every institution we have is a shrunken, etiolated husk inundated with utterly hostile regressive nonwhites. You are still talking about how we need to be "realistic" when the actual realistic outcome of your "sensible technocratic reform" - completely out of touch with reality - will be so hamstrung by compromise and obstruction that they will come out to almost nothing of value. You are still talking about "deporting illegals" as though this is an afterthought, when in fact it is somewhat tenuously situated, not even halfway accomplished, and will be quickly reversed if we ever lose a presidential election again. You do not understand that this are the incipient conditions of civil war and revolution, narrowly backstopped by pure chance. You think we are already in a secure position when the difference of an inch in a bullet path two years ago separated us from something like Nikki Haley losing to Kamala. > Fundamentally this is about whether you want to win. The chance that we're going to have a whites-only immigration policy in the US is exactly 0%. This is not "winning" for me, and I don't even think your plan will accomplish what it sets out to do, so it won't be winning for you either. Your prescriptions are so feeble. Your acknowledgement of the forces against us are almost nonexistent. You continue to think of this in terms of some kind of neglected genius reserve somewhere in Hyderabad or Mianyang that offers no problems, only genius. You don't properly consider problems of dual loyalty or premodern behavior patterns, or... Most importantly, you seem to think somehow "top tier immigrants" can be isolated from their racial and cultural origins and reliably brought in to serve as loyal genius technocrats for America. What you don't seem to realize is the same power law you keep emphasizing guarantees a disproportionate amplification of negative effects as well. What will you do when they turn out to look more like the Gupta family or Abdul Khan? > The purpose of this thread is integration of top-tier immigrants. The treatment of the White Americans systematically removed and discriminated against by the millions for the last 20 years is apparently just whatever in comparison to this supremely important goal. https://www.compactmag.com/article/the-lost-generation/ "Since 2020, nearly two-thirds of The Atlantic's hires have been women, along with nearly 50 percent people of color. In 2024, The Atlantic announced that three-quarters of editorial hires in the past year had been women and 69 percent people of color." "White men fell from 39 percent of tenure-track positions in the humanities at Harvard in 2014 to 18 percent in 2023." "At Berkeley, as recently as 2015, white male hires were 52.7 percent of new tenure-track faculty; in 2023, they were 21.5 percent. UC Irvine has hired 64 tenure-track assistant professors in the humanities and social sciences since 2020. Just three (4.7 percent) are white men. Of the 59 Assistant Professors in Arts, Humanities and Social Science appointed at UC Santa Cruz between 2020-2024, only two were white men (3 percent)." "The Disney Writing Program, which prides itself on placing nearly all its fellows as staff writers, has awarded 107 writing fellowships and 17 directing fellowships over the past decade—none to white men." "In 2011... white men were around 60 percent of TV writers; by 2025, according to the WGA’s own diversity statistics, they accounted for just 11.9 percent of lower-level writers; women of color made up 34.6 percent. White men directed 69 percent of TV episodes in 2014, and just 34 percent by 2021." Fuck off with your BS about top tier immigrants.
You are tilting at windmills. We're here to discuss integration of key-hire drivers of scientific and technological progress, and you say look! The fucking Atlantic and academic humanities departments are pozzed. I agree with this novel and nonobvious observation.
The way to fix this is to go to war with them in the manner of Rufo by 1. enforcing the Civil Rights Act against them, because they are discriminating on the basis of race, and 2. by making federal funding contingent on alignment with national priorities.
> the actual realistic outcome of your "sensible technocratic reform" - completely out of touch with reality
Do you think Restore Britain is "sensible technocratic reform"?
Whatever it is, I'll take it over impotent seething.
>>5120 This kind of ignorant, dismissive arrogance is intolerable. > Whatever it is, I'll take it over impotent seething. You have fun with that. We are not allies.
Yes I agree and this gets to the heart of it. There’s a contingent on the right that wants to make the tent retardedly small.
It’s obvious that we need some kind of muscular renewal or revival in the West. This connects to the original point >>5008 (you) - no one is going to believe in a nation that doesn’t believe in itself.
The thing is, WHITES ONLY-maxxing will not accomplish this, especially not in America.
Framing it as an issue of excellence, loyalty, and law like all the examples I gave above is more effective and more correct.
>>'It's a very good thing that there are yellow French people, black French people and brown French people. It's a sign that France is open to all races and that it has a universal vocation. But on condition they stay a minority. If not, France wouldn't be France anymore. After all, we are an European people from white race, Greek and Latin culture, and Christian religion. Try to mix oil and vinegar together. Shake the bottle. After a while, they get separated again. The Arabs are the Arabs, the French are the French. Do you believe that the French nation is able to integrate ten million Muslims who shall be twenty million tomorrow and forty million the day after? If we integrated them, if all the Arabs and Berbers were considered French, how could we prevent them from moving to our home country where the standard of living is so much higher? My village wouldn't be named Colombey-les-Deux-Églises (Colombey of the Two Churches) anymore, but Colombey-les-Deux-Mosquées (Colombey of the Two Mosques)!"
Its one thing to say mass third world migration is bad, its another to say that no non-white person can ever assimilate or can ever contribute. The latter I'm sorry is just close-minded and is wrong.
>>5119 >>5125 This entire thread is a perfect example of why we need better specifications of the goals of the right-wing project. What does it mean for America to succeed or to fail? What concrete steps need to be taken? What are the political obstacles, the logistical obstacles, the economic obstacles, the geopolitical obstacles?
I agree with anon_qono broadly, but we're not going to get anywhere close to consensus until we dig into the meat of the matter of American success. Sure, we all agree that white anglo-saxon protestants are great, and the demographics of colonial Massachusetts were awesome. We probably also agree that the woke left at the universities have gone insane. Crime is bad, inner cities need to be pacified, etc.
But, looking to the immigration question, we need to think about how immigration at various levels of skill and visa regime contributes to demographic change, crime, economic growth in labor, in startups, in capital flows, how immigrants effect national culture in the media, as producers of culture, as consumers, etc. Anyone can make vague gestures at "useless B2B SAAS startups," but how much use is the startup economy really? What does Nvidia do for America? How important is the American stock market/financial system for American success? Could we maintain the same quality of life for Americans in meaningful non-GDP metrics without any immigrants? Without high-skill immigrants? Without low-skill immigrants?
I think the recent Hamilton debate was a great example of thoughtful debate on these tractable questions, but sadly I was absolutely blasted for most of it so my takeaways were few. But in general, I'd like anons here to up the calibre of their posts and tackle the real questions, not just the broad abstractions (eg. American PhD. program stipends are a concrete data point!).
>>5080 We do have to tackle the questions of 1) are outliers that we can attract durably loyal to the US, and how much of a potential cost is disloyalty, and 2) is the fact that we (justifiably) look down on foreigners an issue in relations with high-skill immigrants?
I think some of these questions are red herrings. The pursuit of unconditional loyalty from high-skilled immigrants isn't all important. Dissidents will tend to be more loyal vs purely economic migrants. But assimilation is a process. If they marry an American and have kids raised as Americans, then that'll be sufficient for the most part. Its worse if they stick to their own ethnic enclave. And for select roles there are background checks/ITAR requirements.
In places where high skilled immigrants live, the population tends to be very cosmopolitan and they don't look down on foreigners. Sure a short indian nerd may find it difficult to date but that's not because they are foreigners living in big American cities, but because of their physical attributes.
Likewise trying to define a singular coherent objective for America is somewhat misguided. America is a diverse country with diverse objectives. Even amongst 'heritage Americans' there isn't likely to be consensus on what America is supposed to be. Hell, there were major disagreements even amongst the founding fathers. The wealth that comes from the stock market, technological dominance, America's self-conception as the land of opportunity and as the birthplace of modern innovations are all as far as I'm concerned non-negotiable. The electorate doesn't want to give up the former in any case, and the intellectual class the latter.
I think there is a certain decadence in posing the question: do we need Nvidia? We're not a nation of yeoman farmers. Its the most valuable company in the world, and is absolutely central the AI revolution that will define the 21st century. Ofc we need & benefit from Nvidia. Honestly, some of the people here should touch grass.
>I think there is a certain decadence in posing the question: do we need Nvidia? We're not a nation of yeoman farmers. Its the most valuable company in the world, and is absolutely central the AI revolution that will define the 21st century. Ofc we need & benefit from Nvidia. Honestly, some of the people here should touch grass.
I disagree. The role of the elite/intellectual class should be making a positive vision of what the country is for, how we go about pursuing a good life, what it means to be an American, etc. The current sectarian warfare on the right is in no small part because elites don't even bother answering the question of what Nvidia means for the US.
>The wealth that comes from the stock market, technological dominance, America's self-conception as the land of opportunity and as the birthplace of modern innovations are all as far as I'm concerned non-negotiable.
You don't understand, those ARE negotiable, whether you like it or not. If the technocratic/industrialist side doesn't make a case for its version of American prosperity, and how that vision fits into core American national, spiritual, and racial values, then the MAGA populists and the Mandami socialists will fucking destroy your society for kicks. In New York and California this is already so progressed on the left-wing side that we're basically fighting a rearguard action.
But the "it makes GDP go up!" instinctive response just doesn't cut it anymore, neither on the left nor on the right. I personally believe that GDP going up is pretty essential for national success, but I don't make the mistake of acting like this argument is tautologically true. You'll never convince >>5119 or the Deneen types or really anyone undecided with "muh gdp," it's not 1991 anymore.
Like, as one of the "AI is a big fucking deal" guys I think our role on the right is to make the case that AI is a strategic area that the right-wing needs to wake up to, rather than just assert that AGI is coming.
Americans like to make money, drive SUVs/trucks and have good jobs. There won't be virtue through poverty in this country. Prosperity is an end itself, even though it's not the only thing that matters.
We can discuss how to reduce rent-seeking behavior, and to curtail monopolies where appropriate. We can question sports gambling companies. We can discuss increasing the housing supply to make it easy for young people to get a home, even if that means housing prices could go down. We can discuss reforming the healthcare system etc.
But why would we ever question the utility of actually innovative and productive companies? What does Nvidia mean for the US? It means prosperity. They are participating in the re-shoring of cutting edge semiconductor construction putting in orders to buy from the TSMC Arizona fab as well as from INTC's new 14A fab. And the AI boom is responsible for half the gdp growth. And the datacenter build out is the biggest re-industrialization effort in the last half century. And, Nvidia chips give leverage to us over China. And the AI trade has led to the retirement accounts of every saver to increase by >10%. This is just 1 (power-law) company. Ofc ideally we'd have another dozen Nvidia/SpaceX like companies across even more industries. These benefits seem self-evident to me.
I'll also add that such power law outcome companies lead to supply chains / ecosystems to be built around them. They train up a workforce, some of whom leave to start their own companies, and others become the early employees of startups. They counterfactually buy more from their country than they would have otherwise. Their early investors re-cycle profits to investing in other companies etc.
One could argue that there ought to be better industrial policy that ensures ecosystems are fully built out here and not outsourced. One could also argue that these companies ought to do a better job of training up the domestic workforce. One could argue that if South Bay had better urbanism, the prosperity would be less captured by homeowners. But all else equal you'd rather have Nvidia be American rather than Korean or Chinese.
Lastly, what I care about the most are the prospects of young smart men in America. And I think they're better off with the opportunities in the tech/finance sector. Its the housing and healthcare that are the problems, not the tech industry. What the Chinese admire about America, reportedly, are Software/Financial/Petroleum engineering. (https://x.com/MattZeitlin/status/2018006156170400148?s=20) Its not a coincidence that they also pay well and are relatively more meritocratic.
You are assuming still assuming loyalty is the problem when the important question in the long run is self-preservation. Are you happy today with an America that professes to be the same as the 1950s, with the same flag and name, but the behavior and the meaning of words are completely different?
"Democracy and freedom" are code-words for specific populations in the US to do what they want; it is liberty and justice that was sought in the Pledge. You can try to guess my race from the way I type, and if you pay close attention you will see I am likely not the same as you. Would you be happy typing like me, much less speaking like me? Language is the underlying representation of the race, not the other way around. No matter how loyal or what words are used you cannot change this interiority.
I'm also not necessarily speaking as a proponent of your perspective, as I don't try to look down on others. They are who they are. The problem with (2) is that it creates dissidents who understand your society and perceive you better than perhaps you ever come to awareness of them and their nature. You are gravely underestimating the danger your race faces (and I speak from a position of kindness having grown up in the West).
A colored America isn't a European/white society, it would be mixed more like the brown areas of the Middle East/Central Asia/Turkey. If Islamists mix with Europeans as does America pursue heterogeneity the West as made by its founding stock ceases to exist.
Replying to whoever said about marrying an American: The underlying temperament and communication between races is different, and miscegenation (mixing of genuses) (different from mongrelization) is like mixing two different colored marbles together rather than creating a soup. There is little cohesive unity in these individuals if you pay close attention to them.
>>5125 > There’s a contingent on the right that wants to make the tent retardedly small. Yes, it's not because you ignored all my most pertinent criticisms or anything, talking down your nose at me about how I need to accede to all of your demands and you, none of mine.
> WHITES ONLY-maxxing will not accomplish this, especially not in America. >>5131 > its another to say that no non-white person can ever assimilate or can ever contribute. >>5135 > I think there is a certain decadence in posing the question: do we need Nvidia? >>5138 > why would we ever question the utility of actually innovative and productive companies? Putting words in my mouth.
>>5135 > If they marry an American and have kids raised as Americans, then that'll be sufficient for the most part. As I said before, I'm not inherently opposed to the idea of outlier immigrants. However, can you name even a single great mongrel elite group of history? Is there any lasting example which was not selectively bred in isolation for millennia? Your suppositions sound like breeding Pugs and Border Collies together, and expecting all of their offspring to be perfect herding dogs. You need to be steeped deeper in HBD, and have a better understanding of how selective breeding works. In my personal opinion, stringent eugenic policy is necessary to make this workable and craft a unified people quickly out of so many disparite components, but I understand most aren't quite there yet. >>5144 You understand the opposing bioessentialist view, but I think the two views can be reconciled through eugenics.
>>5139 > what I care about the most are the prospects of young smart men in America. And I think they're better off with the opportunities in the tech/finance sector. Seeing as I am in tech myself, this comes with no small deal of hypocrisy, but the nation should not be a hypercompetitive rat race for such segmented, eunuch-like industries. Young men should be martially competent and valorous in the sense that all the great Western breeds have been - not necessarily engaged in warfare, but able if this situation arises. They should be able to enter these fields at their leisure and interest after/while being properly steeped in the joys of physical exertion, brotherhood, virtue, and martial power. This is the teaching of BAP and the vital component to Western greatness that so many silicon valley faggots do not understand.
>> Putting words in my mouth. Some of it was in response to other posters, even though I didnt properly tag it.
>> You need to be steeped deeper in HBD
Serious question: do you have recommended readings on interracial breeding?
>> but the nation should not be a hypercompetitive rat race for such segmented, eunuch-like industries
Fair, but I would disagree with the view (not ur argument) that this is crowding out more virtuous lifestyles/industries. Some people argue that but for HFT, physicists would go on to do greater things. And I think that kind of thinking is wrong. The bottleneck is not talent but a lack of institutions that can properly mobilize and utilize it. My argument is just that we should have more avenues for meritocracy and/or for possibility of greatness. And but for Silicon Valley and Wall Street we'd be worse off as a group. We should aspire to expand the opportunity set for young men not shrink it.
>>5144 You might be right from a strictly racial-scientific point of view, but in general I don't see huge issues with small numbers of elite immigrants. But how can you tell given all the confounding cultural and economic variables? Assessing impact in these questions is very difficult
>>5139 I agree completely, look at the Pearl River Delta for confirmation
>Lastly, what I care about the most are the prospects of young smart men in America. And I think they're better off with the opportunities in the tech/finance sector. Its the housing and healthcare that are the problems, not the tech industry.
I agree, but it's a shame that these industries and the collegiate tracks into them are enormously effected by DEI
>>5147 > Serious question: do you have recommended readings on interracial breeding? When I first became interested, I found this website and started reading down the list: https://archive.ph/D9pu7. Another fairly decent compilation is https://jaymans.wordpress.com/jaymans-race-inheritance-and-iq-f-a-q-f-r-b/ But I understand that beyond the top books and studies, this isn't feasible for most people timewise. Beyond that, I recommend looking into animal breeding. Practitioners are often quite frank about innate dispositions and capacity, something which is obviously applicable to humanity as well. Even if you deny the existence of races, hereditarian conclusions and the possibilities of selective breeding are pretty much inarguable. This of course applies to interracial relationships, which by definition merges two families of wildly different adaptation. There is a reason that "half breed" and "mongrel" are negative terms, because it is often the case that the product of two separate lineages of thoroughbred is a product no good at anything in particular. Anyway, I know even mentioned the words "race" and "eugenics" is broadly unpopular, even if it is obviously true... so I won't push farther. I can almost feel the skeptical glances through my screen. It's ridiculous, but it is what it is.
> The bottleneck is not talent but a lack of institutions that can properly mobilize and utilize it We're not really disagreeing, I am basically saying exactly this. The institutions which support everything outside of tech and finance are riddled with metastasized rot, and it's not exactly as though the former are free and clear either. This is what I've been saying this entire thread: focusing on "high tier immigrants" is a sign of completely inane, unfocused priorities. Clean up the mess before you set the table again. Repair and reinforce the girders before you put more demands and burdens on it. Is this not basic common sense? Continuing with this myopic demand at this point in time is the height of either naivety or maliciousness.
>>5152 Beyond this, I broadly agree with what you >>5147 said in >>5086>>5135>>5139 , so please forgive if I seem confrontational. I'm simply against talking about this when there are bigger issues to deal with. Let's go down the list: - As mentioned many times and broadly agreed upon here, basically every fundamental structure underlying American society - from the university/education system to the judicial/legal/litigationa to the corrupt political networks - is utterly broken and irrepairable from within, rife and rotten with parasites threatening to backslide America towards a stagnant premodernity. They parasitize the productive and reward the rentier. Terms such as the "market" and "fair law" fall by the wayside in favor of particularist, sectarian feudalism. Tech and finance are being eaten as we speak by the same source, which is why we're even having this conversation. - Progressive enfranchisement was a mistake. Most people, men and women alike, are not capable of voicing a proper political opinion. There is no permanent solution without an intentional marginalization of the masses, bringing America back towards the meritocratic status quo of Western history. - Following this, leftism must be aggressively targeted and purged by any means necessary. Productive national maintenance is impossible with tens of millions of regressive, reactionary militants. There are no soft solutions for this. - Mass immigration must be reversed on the appropriate scale of around 50-100 million. Citizenship cannot be a guard, too many were mistakenly given it. I'm not against O1 reform for the few worth bringing in, but a mass purge of foreign subversives must occur FIRST for it to become workable. - The pressure of the gerontocrats and welfare state must be relieved. Trillions go to feeding, clothing, housing, and otherwise providing for the means of the worthless. This is arguably the majority share in the federal budget.
Do you see now why I am so skeptical of talk of "high tier immigrants" and "sensible technocratic reform"? You talk about the AI industry as though it is not one of the last bastions of productivity in a sea of regression. You have bigger problems to worry about. The solutions to them will require a titanic will and power of reform rivalling Meiji Japan or Napoleonic France - and that's if you even succeed at all!
