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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* * *

The Singaporean Question

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

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

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

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