It’s silly to fixate on the CERD. The CERD is just part and parcel of Koreans deciding they don’t have to take any crap. CERD comes with the ICCPR, which is your real problem.

The Cheju massacre, US puppet ruler Syngman Rhee, US operational authority over the armed forces until 1949, the Northwest Youth League death squads, the Park Chung-hee coup, the US-owned National Youth League under famous US toady Bum Suk Lee, the Cherokee cables, Clinton golfing on the killing fields – the ICCPR puts the kibosh on all that.

The Americanization Frost frets about is going to take care of itself once the ROK stops being a US colony terrorized by puppets. Already hot young Asians are attracted to a newly free country, as evinced by the quote from hilariously obvious repressed homosexual makemykimchi: “Vietnamese and Tagalog guys and girls yelling and screaming either in drunken stupor or just flirtatious exuberance.”

You haven’t seen anything yet. Just wait till they reunify with the North.

[…] and multiculturalism —a radical departure from the mono-ethnic face it once had”—The Changing Face of Gangnam, UNZ.org, February 14, 2016. Gangnam is an exclusive district in the capital city of […]

Well said! Every nation and its people should have the right of self-determination.

And an almost-Chinee [sic] province, like Tibet. And would have become one if Japan hadn’t wrested it from China in 1895.

This is just wrong. Korea for most of its feudal history was a suzerainty of China’s, but it was always internally autonomous and its population endogamous. The Chinese didn’t change that, the Mongols didn’t change that, the Jurchens didn’t change that, the Japanese didn’t change that. But unfortunately it would appear, the Koreans themselves are now wilfully destroying their greatest source of strength.

S Korea’s problems stem from christian conversion.

Koreans are a pain in the ass for all their neighbors. And for all their brains, they have no real achievements of their own in thousands of years. China and Japan will be more than happy if it devolves into a mongrelized brothel of soap operas and short-skirted pop singers.

Where do you get this stuff?

No, the opposite is true. The pain in the ass were Japan and the northern barbarians. Korea has a long list of innovations and inventions (unlike Japan).

For most of the last millennium Korea was much less advanced across all fields – public administration, architecture, technology, agriculture, crafts and commercial development – than Japan or China, and in many case than Vietnam, Thailand, or Burma.

No, the opposite was true.

In NE Asia, Japan was the laggard until recently.

I think that the potential for backlash to immigrants in the East lies in how utterly unattractive Asian men are, even to women of their own race.

You seem to believe the status quo is fixed?

You see no correlation between economics, pop culture, the media, and perceived levels of attractiveness?

Linguistically, Korean language is distantly related to Finnish and therefore Hungarian. Go figure. Wonder how that occurred?

Uh, Japan is roughly 98% ethnically and racially Japanese. Japan and Korea are ancient enemies, or rivals is the modern politically correct term. There is very little direct reason to believe that this rivalry will change anytime soon, and perhaps it shouldn’t.

If Korea is having some problems with multiculturalism and lessening or weakening their own culture of thousands of yrs, then why should Japan follow after their example to weaken their own culture in turn? Especially if it was initiated by Korea, of which Japan does not owe a thing to.

But also keep in mind that the US military is still on the DMZ line, is it not? They have been there since the end of the Korean War. Cannot the South Korean military defend its own nation without US assistance? One would tend to think that by now it certainly would be more than able to do so.

Also, the US for some twenty years after WW2 was the military keeper in the Far East. Several nations there, including Korea, were prohibited from defending their own interests and increasing military spending. Glad to see that they are starting to do so now, at least in Korea.

By why exactly is the US military still on the DMZ line remains a complete and total mystery. South Korea does not belong to the United States. Let them defend their own border by themselves.

Also, perhaps another part of the US largesse referenced is that US markets have been more open and receptive to Korean made goods for about the last two and a half decades when before it was not.

So, actually, the affects post-Korean War have been largely beneficial to South Korea, at least in helping to develop it into a first rate economic power.

“Americanization is much more advanced in Korea than elsewhere in east-asia.”

Is it a coincidence that christianity by adherents is also much more advanced than elsewhere in properous parts of east-asia? (Philippines is not prosperous).

The world is totally nuts.

Get a load of this:

Korea to go extinct by 2750:

http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2014/08/25/2014082500859.html

Spain urged to ‘learn from Korea’:

http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2015/03/04/2015030401361.html

So, is Spain gonna go in 2800?

“That is, Japanese women see Korean men as more masculine than their own…”

What do you expect from a bunch of guys weaned on cartoons and video games?

The Pew Research Twitter feed contrasted the liberalisation of adultery with strong public opinion very much against.

https://t.co/QcedPl2HEw

Obviously this is no more the will of Korean people than it is of Korean traditional values.
Paradise being lost?
Thanks to western NGOs?

I therefore suggest today’s Korean’s willingness to outmarriage reflect a dissatisfaction with one’s own culture and idealisation of the ‘other’ rather than directly encouraged/imposed from above. That is, Japanese women see Korean men as more masculine than their own, even as Korean women find their men unsatisfactory on the same grounds. The grass becomes greener across the border if someone hasn’t crossed the border.

The Japanese borrow the word ‘anomie’ to describe this complex of disatisfaction reflected in things such as low socialisation by atomisation (hikikomori phenomenon), low birthrate, increases of suicide and elective abortion, high rates of depression, stress and other socially induced mental health problems etc.

All these issues affect the west to varying degrees and sites such as Chateau Heartiste and Return of Kings reflect a preference for idealised foreign women like Eastern Europeans, rooted in anomie about the gender norms on these guy’s own doorsteps. Anti-feminism sets out to cure this, but if the same trends are epidemic in East Asia (low feminism), the problem must be disrupted post-industrial gender roles of which feminist thought is merely a legitimisation.

South Korea has just legalised adultery Hundreds of people were sent to prison for it just ten years ago. South Korea is proof, if proof were needed, that globalising capitalism has no more to do with freedom or the people wellbeing than aggressive war does. Park Chung-hee put economic growth over all else.

When he came to power in 1961, South Korea’s per capita income was only US$72.00. North Korea was the greater economic and military power on the peninsula due to the North’s legacy of high industrialization such as the power and chemical plants, and also the large amounts of economic, technical and financial aid it received from other communist bloc countries such as the Soviet Union, East Germany and China. South Korean industry saw remarkable development under Park’s leadership.

That makes me think that south Korea’s elite had a state-centric motive of state survival. Maybe all state policy aims at that.

[…] http://www.unz.com/pfrost/the-changing-face-of-gangnam/ […]

“And an almost-Chinee province, like Tibet. And would have become one if Japan hadn’t wrested it from China in 1895. Please get off your high horse. The extinction of the Korean language would have had little more significance than the extinction of any of the other languages that once existed in the ancient kingdoms that now comprise China today. The language you speak today is merely the language of your most recent conqueror.”

Fate of Tibet is a sad one. It is being swallowed up by Han Chinese. Of course, Chinese invoke ‘multi-culturalism’ as a form of neo-imperialism. They claim to ‘celebrate diversity’ and inundate Tibet with massive Han-Chinese immigration/migration. I suppose there are benefits to the Tibetans in terms of economics and development. But it seems Tibet will be lost forever due to demographic and economic domination of the Chinese. This is the dark side of ‘multi-culturalism’. It doesn’t work out evenly. If Tibetans made up 90% of China in demographics and territory and if Han Chinese made up only 2 million out of 1.3 billion people, then it’s likely that Tibetans would be swallowing up the Chinese. But because there are many more Chinese than Tibetans, ‘multi-culturalism’ in China means Chinese taking over Tibetans. Chinese culture and identity will remain, but Tibetan identity is iffy for the future. If you mix a gallon of milk with a spoonful of orange juice, it will not be half milk and half orange juice. It will overwhelmingly be milk.
This is why Chinese are for multi-culturalism in China. It favors Han Chinese domination over smaller groups in the NW and SW territories that were conquered by the Han Chinese. It’s why Russians are for multiculturalism. It can be invoked to claim Russian domination over Siberia where non-Russians live.

But there’s one crucial difference between Tibet and Korea. Though racially and culturally, the Koreans are closer to the Chinese than the Chinese are to Tibetans, Korea has long been recognized as an independent state by China. As was Vietnam by China despite all the troubles between them.
The understanding was that Korea should recognize the Chinese Empire as the Middle Kingdom, and in turn, China would recognize the Kingdom of Korea as a tributary state with its independent political, social, cultural, and economic sovereignty. For most of Chinese history, China didn’t see Korea as part of China, and Koreans maintained their independence.

The war in 1895 with Japan wasn’t about ownership but influence over Korea. Likewise, China entered the Korean War for influence, not ownership. US did too, in Korea and Vietnam. US wasn’t trying to take national possession of Korea and Vietnam–as they did with Hawaii–but merely trying to defend their geopolitical influence there.
Initially, Japan was vying for influence too, but their imperial designs eventually decided to annex Korea and use it as a launching pad for the conquest of northern China, especially Manchuria.

Chinese didn’t see Korea as a part of China. As Tibetans and Muslims in the Northwest provinces were low in population and stretched across vast territories, Chinese felt they should own those lands and govern those relatively backward peoples. But Chinese regarded Koreans(and Vietnamese)as people of reasonably advanced civilizations in densely populated kingdoms who had a stake in the governance of their own kingdoms/nations.

Even when China bailed out Korea in the Japanese invasion of the late 16th century, it didn’t try to take ownership of Korea.

Chiang Kai-Shek of KMT never regarded Korea as part of China. He wanted Manchuria and Taiwan back from the Japanese, but he never thought to regain Korea from Japan.
And when Mao came to power, he pressed Stalin for Mongolia but was perfectly content with Korea as an independent state. As Stalin had installed a puppet regime in Mongolia, Mao had to swallow his pride and accept Mongolia as an ‘independent state’ and Soviet satellite. Had it not been for the Soviet entry into North Asia in the final stages of WWII, Mongolia would likely have been a part of China. But Chinese never thought to include Korea as part of China. Mongolia was a vast territory back then with a population of 1 million. China could have easily ruled over them. But as China always found out with the Vietnamese, it’s much tougher to rule over a more advanced people in a densely populated nation.

As for the Korean language, it doesn’t mean anything to the world or to the Chinese. But I assume it means everything to the Koreans themselves. Every language is distinct, and as the Korean language has been the language of Koreans for 1000s of yrs, why should Koreans not preserve it?
If Jews brought back Hebrew in Israel after it nearly died out–and it’s certainly culturally and historically significant to Jews–, why shouldn’t Koreans not carry on with Korean? Isn’t it the duty of any people to preserve their identity, history, culture, and language?

After all, even after 100os of years and even after the Ottoman occupation, Greeks still speak Greek. Well, good for them.
A people should preserve their language and culture because such things mean everything to themselves. Never mind what such things might mean to the world. I don’t know much about Armenian culture and language, but I hope Armenians do everything to preserve them.
The difference between animals and humans is animals have no history, no memory(prior to their own existence), no culture, and no language. But humans do have memory, culture, identity, and language. True, globalist pop-culture tries to reduce everyone to a hedonistic beast addicted to junk culture, porn, amnesia, and fashions, but fads and trends are not long-lasting. What really lasts is race, culture, and historical memory.
And I don’t see why Koreans shouldn’t preserve what they have and indeed had for possibly over 200o yrs in that corner of the world.

Even if all cultures are artificial, some cultures have a longer history and pedigree than others. If a culture is primitive and without historical memory–except for vague oral culture–, it is understandably difficult to preserve in the face of modernity. But some cultures are old and ancient and they’ve developed a long historical memory and identity.

Consider the Irish. True, the British forced English on the Irish and Gaelic became a relic. Even so, Irish identity remained and the Irish pressed for independence and got it after many centuries.
The Vietnamese lived under French imperialism for over a century, but they too struggled to preserve and defend what is unique to their nation and culture.

So, its’ not true that a people simply submit to their conquerors. Chinese and Russians were conquered by the Mongols, but they eventually re-emerged as Russians with Russian identity/culture and Chinese with Chinese identity/culture. Spain was under Moorish occupation for a long spell, but it re-emerged as a Christian European nation.

A proud people, even under conquest, maintain their identity and culture, and they re-emerge to take control of their own destiny. Jews had been conquered by all sorts of people, but they outlasted them all. Should they have simply surrendered to their conquerors and become other groups or peoples? Well, if that’s what they’d wanted, I guess that’s what would have happened, and the Jewish people and culture would have been lost to history. But Jews maintained their identity and culture, and so they are still around. Foolish? Wise? Who’s to say, but I’ll bet Jews are glad that they had survived as a people and a culture.

Btw, arguing that a nation should maintain its culture is not being on a high horse. High horse would be telling everyone to get with the globalist program.

Ted Kennedy was probably motivated by resentment related to anti-Catholic agitation. The act was not a response to a sudden increase in Mexican immigration.

The Korean language and culture is less distinctive that the HBD characteristics of the Koreans themselves. And those characteristics are going.

All their products are copies off USA technology, their economy grew because of USA favoritism and trade favored status.
Look at their cars, nothing but copies of Japan, German models.
Theirs is a complete lack of creativity; so maybe with an injection of new blood, they can boost their creativity and imagination a bit.

The US has the same trade policies with Korea as it does with Zambia, Egypt, Thailand and the Philippines. Why aren’t these countries making automobiles that are copies of Japanese and German models? Korean scribes were writing down their history on bamboo strips thousands of years ago when the English were running around in animal skins. The wheel of history turns in cycles, at least for those with the cognitive ability to seize their moment.

But ‘Korean’ isn’t just some political-social construct imposed by foreign power. It is organic, historical, racial, and cultural.

And an almost-Chinee province, like Tibet. And would have become one if Japan hadn’t wrested it from China in 1895. Please get off your high horse. The extinction of the Korean language would have had little more significance than the extinction of any of the other languages that once existed in the ancient kingdoms that now comprise China today. The language you speak today is merely the language of your most recent conqueror. Unless you are personally related to the royals, there’s no need to get all het up about that language, or their cultural baggage, especially considering they might, in antiquity, have slaughtered some of your distant relatives while massacring their way to the top. Funny how rabid nationalists like to gloss over that bit. Want to be a traditionalist? Start keeping score all the way back.

It doesn’t matter that the 1965 Act imposed a limit on Mexican immigration because nobody cared to enforce it.

Even if the act hadn’t occurred, the macro trends would have been the same:
– increasing population in Mexico
– demand for cheap labor
– liberals wanting to erase borders

The 1965 Act was a historical contingency that resulted from the macro trends, not the other way around.

without a major acceleration in the 1960s

Shouldn’t there have been a major deceleration (or an absolute) reduction is 1965 if the act was restricting a largely unrestricted border?

I don’t think the constant increase without a major acceleration is evidence there was effectively an open border with Mexico until 1965. Immigration leads to diasporas and that lowers the cost of immigration, thereby causing a massive acceleration in immigration. In regard to Mexican immigration there are demographic confounds, and the legal position seems to have been out of line with the practice, but the main point at issue is whether the act was a watershed in increasing total non-European immigration. Anyway there can be no argument that the 1965 act was not presented as a close the Mexican border measure, so even if it was, it seems absolutely no-one released .

[…] Given the risk, that we do not know which groups will integrate and succeed and prove a worthwhile investment (and its is a significant financial investment on our part) and which groups will continue bleeding the natives, why on earth take such a gamble? Lately developed Asian countries like Korea are making the same mistake as the West and letting in just about anyone to rubbish results. […]

“After 100,000 angry Internet articles and blog posts have been published denouncing the 1965 Act, I tend to doubt the mistake can ever be corrected.”

I came to the same conclusion when I looked at the historical number of Hispanics in the U.S.. Despite periodic efforts like Operation Wetback, it was a smooth rate of increase from 1850 onward, without a major acceleration in the 1960s.

Various historical contingencies fed into it, like WW2 and the competition with the Soviets to win non-European hearts and minds, but these are a distraction from the macro-trends involved.

The fact that Ford and other individuals who had been involved in the legislation didn’t say anything publicly towards the ends of their lives is not evidence that they foresaw or willed all its consequences that insidiously played themselves out over decades.

Chin’s article addresses the claim that the legislators did not expect that Asian immigration would increase relative to pre-1965 levels, a claim I’ve never heard anyone make. Chin refutes the claim by quoting people who had been involved in the legislation decades before saying that they did indeed expect Asian immigration to increase relative to pre-1965 levels. Some of these people also said that while they expected Asian immigration to increase, they didn’t expect it to icnrease to the levels that it did. Chin’s article does not support the idea that Congress as a whole or all these legislators completely foresaw and willed the long-term consequences of the legislation.

Before WWII the US had a population of about 150 million, while Mexico had 20 million and Guatemala 2 million, just as Ron remarked. The Latino “invasion” that so excites the minds of many today, was then unimaginable. Mexican singers and actors had an exotic appeal and were very popular in the States.

What only illuminates the issue of South Korean demographics, which most commenters find rather obscure.

And if one sees this very same outlook active as far back as 300 years ago despite being unable yet to express itself in population replacement, then all the more reason not to treat it as an isolated phenomena

I think t think it is increasingly believed by academic historians that the 13 colonies rose against what they saw as a papist plot: religious liberty for Catholics under the Quebec act. Fanatical Catholic hater Benedict Arnold (an early hero of the revolution) switched sides because some ‘Patriots’ attended a Catholic service for French allies. George Washington had to forbid his officers and men from regularly burning the pope in effigy. In the late 19 century James G. Blaine, a Representative and a Senator (from Maine of the French Canadian Catholics Ron Unz mentioned) caused anti Catholic education amendments to be passed in most states. That is where private schooling in the US came from, long before the racial integration of public schools (which BTW was quite often most drastic in ethnic Catholic areas).
Senator Ted Kennedy told the Senate during a civil rights debate that he saw ” No Irish Need Apply” signs when growing up. That cannot possibly be true but he said it.

Fascinating about the population boom and that surely explains the changing attitude of the Mexican government. I have read that many children went back with their parents. It is true that there was no real enforcement but paradoxically that made people less willing to go through the procedures and so maybe 5 – 13 percent of the immigrants from Mexico didn’t get the papers, or had simply lost them (difficult to imagine anyone losing that documentation today).

The 1965 Act may not have been causal, but it was indicative of what was at the very least an insouciant attitude to immigration and population replacement.

According to Chin’s article, the legislators expected an increase in Asian immigration. Most of the legislators are long dead or retired. It’s only relatively recently that Asian immigration has been significantly altering the demographic composition of the country. Until relatively recently, the demographic composition of the country was significantly altered primarily by Hispanic immigration.

If the ethnic mix of the country was being upset following the legislation while its legislators were still alive or active in public life primarily by a demographic unrelated to the legislation, I’m not sure why the legislators would speak out. Not to mention that it was a process that insidiously played out over decades.

Chin’s paper simply doesn’t show what you suggest it does.

“Actually, it’s exactly the other way round: The 1965 Immigration Act didn’t *open* America’s borders, it *closed* America’s borders, for the first time putting a legal limit on Latin American immigration.”

It opened the borders to the entire world other than Mexico.

As for Mexico, the new law didn’t do much good since the borders were so porous and since illegals were allowed to stay.

So, Mexicans kept on crossing the borders and the rest of the world came streaming in too.

Ron Unz is completely right about the 1965 immigration bill. It actually put a cap on Latin American immigration.

Peter – selfish businessmen exist in every community. I am quite sure there exist selfish Japanese businessmen who would love to enrich themselves with cheap labor. But the Japanese nation as a whole had other priorities and organized the economy accordingly. In fact the Japanese deliberately sacrifice economic efficiency for employment and market share in a variety of ways as a reflection of national priorities. Consumers suffer, but greater job security and social stability, as well as the long-term viability of key industries, strike the Japanese as worth more than short-term profits and enormous wealth for the few.

The American situation reflects the priorities of the elite, not just the business imperatives of a few billionaires focused on short term profits and massive personal enrichment at the expense of everyone else.

What strikes me is the narrowness of outlook common in discussions about population replacement. If population replacement was an isolated phenomena unrelated to whats going on in other areas of our national life, it would make sense to treat as a special case. But the outlook reflected in population replacement is seen across the entirety of our national life – at that point, one must understand it as but one expression of an underlying impulse that is active across the entire field of our national life. And if one sees this very same outlook active as far back as 300 years ago despite being unable yet to express itself in population replacement, then all the more reason not to treat it as an isolated phenomena.

The only way to describe such a situation is that the legislators were uncomprehending or deceitful.

Well then we’re back to my original question.

If it’s the case that the legislators were either ignorant or deceitful, then it’s no longer the case that Congress as a whole or some unspecified “they” implemented the bill with the specific aim of effecting the actual consequences that the bill ended up having. The question then becomes, who exactly knew what exactly, and when did they know it?

Like I said, I read the article. Other readers here should read the article for themselves, specifically Part 2 of the article, rather than just take our words for it. It can be skimmed pretty quickly. What they’ll find is that it doesn’t support the notion that many proponents of the bill fully knew its long term consequences. It just shows that the claim that the proponents of the bill did not believe that Asian immigration would increase at all is incorrect by citing some proponents claiming that they did indeed believe Asian immigration would increase as a result of the bill. Some of these proponents are cited as saying that while they expected an increase in Asian immigration, in some cases “substantially” so, they didn’t anticipate as large an increase as actually resulted.

Yes, non-Hispanic immigration, such as Asian immigration, is now beginning to have a significant impact on the demographic composition of the country. But until relatively recently, the major impact on the demographic composition of the country resulted from Hispanic immigration, which is regarded as a long term consequence of the 1965 legislation. However, Hispanic immigration isn’t addressed at all in Chin’s paper.

I just read Chin’s article. It doesn’t indicate at all what you claim it does: that many proponents of the bill fully knew its long term consequences

Rather it argues against the claim that the proponents of the bill did not believe that Asian immigration would increase at all as a result of the bill. It cites some proponents claiming that they did believe Asian immigration would increase as a result of the bill, with some proponents claiming they expected a “substantial” increase and some that expected a large increase but not as large as what actually followed after the bill.

The article primarily discusses Asian immigration, and there’s no discussion of Hispanic immigration. It’s only relatively recently that Asian immigration has been significantly altering the demographic composition of the country. After the passing of the 1965 immigration legislation, it was primarily Hispanic immigration that significantly altered the demographic composition of the country.

What a ridiculous analysis.
For those with low IQ and lack of critical thinking skill, think about this:
For this to be a proper comparison, you have to test the IQ of the parents of “mixed unions” and the IQ of “Korean” parents. Then for comparable IQ groups, you compare their children and their academic performance, cognitive ability, with the caveat that academic performance in Korea is dependent on after school tutoring. They spend enormous sums on tutoring for their children to the point of making their children no more than little test takers. Do these children from “mixed unions” have the means for such tutoring or do they go to the fields after school as most of them live in rural area?
It’s so obvious that only the worse, poorest, least desirable Korean men would go out of their country to find wives, who similarly in their native countries would also be the least desirable. So what you have is the least desirable marrying least desirable, producing mediocre children. What’s new?
The same thing happens in Europe, USA, or any where else where poor people go to find better economic opportunities. What’s new?
And the much touted Korean people, which was responsible for their economic prowess, can be viewed as nothing more than as a vassal for USA. All their products are copies off USA technology, their economy grew because of USA favoritism and trade favored status.
Look at their cars, nothing but copies of Japan, German models.
Theirs is a complete lack of creativity; so maybe with an injection of new blood, they can boost their creativity and imagination a bit.

Maybe there were legal Open Borders. for those willing to pay and put up with a rigmarole, but there was apparently resistance within the Mexican immigrant community to taking up US citizenship. The vast majority (5-13%) did not have papers. Mexican Repatriation “The State of California passed an “Apology Act” that estimated 2 million people were forced to relocate to Mexico and an estimated 1.2 million were US citizens.”

ULTIMATELY, the program (Operation Wetback) came as a result of pressure from the Mexican government to stop illegal entry of Mexican laborers in the United States based largely on the Bracero Program”

It is not just about what the US government was doing.

The Mormon classification varies from people who are essentially completely separated from advanced industrial society, such as polygamous fundamentalist Mormon sects in isolated communities in rural Utah, Nevada, Arizona, Colorado, etc., to people who are lapsed or only nominally Mormon and are completely embedded in advanced industrial society, and everything in-between.

I don’t doubt the possibility that Ted Kennedy may have lied or misled other regarding the ramifications of the bill. But it’s not that clear from your citations. It also seems entirely possible that Kennedy sincerely believed that the bill wouldn’t have the major effects that it ended up having, if only because he wasn’t bright enough to conceive that this was a significant possibility of the bill. He wasn’t regarded the sharpest tool in the shed….

At any rate, if it’s the case that Kennedy either lied and misled others or didn’t recognize the consequences of the bill himself, then it makes no sense to claim that Congress as a whole or some unspecified “they” implemented the bill with the specific aim of effecting the actual consequences that the bill ended up having. If an individual or group does something as a result of being deceived or of being ignorant of the consequences of that thing, then it can’t be said that the individual or group did that thing in order to effect those consequences.

So the question becomes, as I said, who knew what, and when did they know it?

Contemporary low birthrates are in the context of advanced industrial societies. The kind of groups who tend to high birthrates in this context likely wouldn’t have advanced industrial societies in the first place.

I understand your point, but I think that might be a bit too deterministic. Mormons in the US, for example, are well above replacement level, showing the importance of ideology. I think if governments prioritized healthy breeding to the same extent that they prioritized GDP growth, things would be a lot better. But I think Asian countries are aping western norms, and adopting their ideas about how a state should behave.

I suppose the question is, who knew what, and when did they know it?

Ted Kennedy said in Congress in 1965, during a debate about the bill, that,

“First, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually…Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset.”

He was interviewed by NPR in 2006 and was asked about this prediction. He suggested that it wasn’t foreseen, at least by him:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5393857

Q: What’s striking about the debate in 1965 is how so many people did not expect a huge increase in immigration, or a change in the demographics of the nation. You told Congress that immigration levels would remain “substantially the same,” and that “the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset.” Why weren’t these changes foreseen?

…

Q: But the level of even legal immigration has increased dramatically since 1965, even though many supporters of the legislation then said it would not.

KENNEDY: Everybody obviously wants to come, because this is the land of opportunity, but we’ve seen a rather dramatic shift as well in terms of the birthrate here. That was not really foreseen.

You’re having now the leveling off of the birthrate here among a number of families. You certainly saw that in terms of Europe and Western Europe, where there is an actual decline. I don’t think we foresaw that so much at the time, 40 years ago. But that is a fact, and that sends all kinds of messages.

How much “rougher” are the Cambodians relative to Koreans? Are they rougher than the rougher elements of Western men? This article by a Western expat in Cambodia suggests that the rougher elements of Western men, obviously not representative of Western men in general, and African men are rougher than the Cambodian norm:

http://www.khmer440.com/k/2013/12/7-ways-cambodia-can-solve-its-foreign-dude-problem/

Aaron wrote,

“Why do these absurd sexual politics always pop up in threads about Asians?

As anyone who knows anything about the Asian woman/white male thing knows very well, it consist almost entirely of ugly Asian women getting with less desirable white males. Its a stock joke among both groups. …

This is well known by all parties concerned except those who wish to delude themselves for obvious reasons.”

Thank you for pointing this out to the deluded folks on this thread.

I wouldn’t even argue against the idea that some Asian women’s dislike for their male compatriots and attempts to snare a foreign (usually White) male may have something to do with sex or sexuality. I just wish people would wisen up and realize that, in most cases, it is probably not relevant in the way that you have imagined it to be.

Silence is golden, so I will just leave it at that.

I meant the variation between different groups being heritable, rather than a specific absolute birthrate being heritable.

Contemporary low birthrates are in the context of advanced industrial societies. The kind of groups who tend to high birthrates in this context likely wouldn’t have advanced industrial societies in the first place.

The Obamas have two kids, the Bushes have two, the Clintons have one. What does it have anything to do with heritage trait? It is a personal choice based on income, life style, career ambition, and religious belief more than anything else. It was not unusual for a Chinese married couple to have five or six children in the 50’s. 1.2 billion Chinese didn’t come out of nowhere, you know. But time have changed. Most of the Chinese middle class families living in big cities can’t afford or have the time to raise two kids even if the one child policy is not enforced. People who have more than two kids are usually rich or live in the countryside.

Take Care of My Cat is an informative movie about modern day Korea. Not sure if it’s representative but it’s persuasive.

Regarding the 1965 immigration legislation, its sponsors claimed that it would not have a major demographic impact in terms of absolute numbers or ethnic composition.

“Yes, and looking at the birthrates in Korea, Japan, and Taiwan, a lot of Asian women would rather be single than be with an Asian man. And that’s a tragedy, to be honest. Except for enthnomasochism, the diseases of modernity seem to hit Asians even worse than whites.”

That could be part of the reason. But keep in mind European birthrates and white American birthrates have plunged too.

I think in the case of Japan, Taiwan, and Korea, it has something to do with less family pressure than in the past. Also, in the past, many marriages were either arranged or made through match-makers. Those practices have died out, so individuals must find their own mates. It could be Asians are not very good at this, not least because so many Asian males and females spent their younger yrs hitting the books than working on their social skills. It could also be that East Asians are innately less expressive and sociable.

Also, as Asians have been having fewer kids, it could be parents are more supportive of their precious kids and want them to marry someone ideal or find happiness(than cave into obligation). If you have lots of kids, you might just want to get rid of them by pressuring them to marry. But if you have just one or two children, you might pour so much attention on them that they grow up thinking that the world should revolve around them.

Another factor is status-mania. When Asia was poorer, people just had to make do what they had. As Asia got richer, many more people feel that the dream of a good life is in their grasp. So, anything less than good is seen as bad or unworthy. So, people want the good job, the good life, the good spouse, the good everything. Anything less is seen as insulting to their sense of pride.

Also, Asian women now work more and so have own means of income. They don’t have to marry. Also, Asian men have a reputation of being male-chauvinist. In the past, when women depended on men, they had to put up with bad male behavior. But today, women don’t have to put up with bad male behavior. So, if Asian males are still behaving like male chauvinist pigs, women will shun them because they are reminded of their own pig-like fathers.

Yes, there’s a heritability angle to it, but any group naturally inclined to a 1.2 TFR wouldn’t have evolved in the first place. Something is very wrong with the assumptions underlying modern society.

Birthrates are probably a heritable trait like anything else and thus likely vary among people and population groups. “Modernity” probably plays a role but likely isn’t the whole story.

I don’t know how reliable J.P. Rushton’s very simple model is, but if I remember correctly, he claimed that in general Negroids tended to have the highest birthrates and Mongoloids the lowest, with Caucasoids in an intermediate position.

The key point is I don’t believe that population replacement can be considered in isolation. It can only be understood as one expression of the many ways the west has turned against itself. There is a clear logic that connects attitudes like the promotion of Soviet interests over western ones, which nearly all western intellectuals did not so long ago, and population replacement. Nor can population replacement be considered without reference to the historical record. There is a clear logic connecting population replacement with the self-hate of western writers in the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries.

Population replacement can be best understood as the latest – and perhaps final – development of a historical trend that began in the 18th century and continued in a clear logical progression. In that sense it has more than a precedent – it has propulsive force.

Self-hate does not affect the masses but is confined to western intellectuals, who from the period of the industrial revolution on began to be afflicted with a peculiar condition barely known in other cultures – alienation. Clearly, turning against the west is seen as offering some kind of salvation from this predicament.

I cannot see how individualism has anything to do with it.

The key feature of the modern west is to outlaw self-interest for whites, either collectively or as individuals, yet individualism merely re-focuses self-interest away from the group and towards the individual. Individualists should have no problem vigorously pursuing their own self-interest. Individualism is not hostile to self-interest yet the distinguishing feature of modern western morality is the illegitimacy of self-interest for whites – very much even on the individual level as whites are asked to give up scarce places at elite colleges, etc, etc.

Nor can I detect any universal morality as essential to modern western ethics is that whites are treated in an exceptional manner – quite different standards are applied to them.

Universal morality merely means the same standards are applied to all, but says nothing about the specific content of these standards, which differ by culture. Why did the west evolve a specific morality hostile to the principle of self-interest (not just collective but individual)? And why did it then apply these standards only to itself, while not just giving everyone else an exemption but actively working to realize the self-interest of others at its own expense?

This is very true. In Asia, Asian women generally have no choice but to marry Asian men.

Yes, and looking at the birthrates in Korea, Japan, and Taiwan, a lot of Asian women would rather be single than be with an Asian man. And that’s a tragedy, to be honest. Except for enthnomasochism, the diseases of modernity seem to hit Asians even worse than whites.

REPORTS about South Korean men taking brides from Cambodia (and other South-East Asian countries) by means of human-trafficking rings—which essentially had enslaved the women they styled as wives—prompted the government to ban foreign marriages temporarily in 2008. Last year that ban was reinstated, though only as it applies to South Korean men.

A pure race is by definition a species. It should be ‘clear’ that Peter does not believe that Koreans are a different species.

You may consider such concerns trifling, but some people would consider them very important, even existential.

Clearly you are one of those people who are obsessed with racial purity. What exactly is the big deal with that?

mean IQ is high in East Asia (China, Korea, Japan), being in the range of 100 to 105

It’s more like 105 to 108 for East Asia. While Europe ranges from 89 to 101 with the average around 96-97.

Source: http://www.ttu.ee/public/m/mart-murdvee/EconPsy/2/Lynn_Meisenberg_2010_National_IQs_calculated_and_validated_for_108_nations.pdf

One thing that distinguishes South Korea culturally from the rest of Asia, is that it has by far the highest percentage of Christians (about 50%)

Nonsense. South Korea is at most 30% christian and North Korea is less than 2% christian. Of the 75 million population of the korean peninsula over 60 million are non-christian. The most christian nations in Asia are the Phillipines and East Timor. Phillipines has 90 million christians or 90% of the population.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Korea#Religion

Btw, the most advanced asian nation, Japan, is also one of the least christian…

East Asia as a region is the least contaminated by the middle-eastern religions (christianity, islam and judaism). Big advantage over the rest of the world…

Which isn’t the case at all. Eurasian men are very popular among Asian women. Eurasian men without any acting talent at all and who can’t even speak the language become celebrities in Asia simply because Asian women find them appealing:

Yeah, Eurasians can do fine. Lots of Central Asian peoples are essentially Eurasian tribes (e.g. Uyghurs), and they don’t seem to have an identity crisis. Having known a number of Eurasians growing up, I’d say they’re probably a bit more attractive on average than their unmixed peers, but that might be the “exotic” effect (fair skin and black hair are a pleasant and somewhat rare combination). Some of them are certainly stunning.

My best friend is Eurasian, and married to a white woman. He doesn’t seem to have suffered much from it, probably because his parents were both rather unique intellectuals with a natural affinity for each other (a professor and a psychiatrist).

I do think in the US white female/Asian male pairings might be a bit more stable than the more standard white male/Asian female. I wouldn’t recommend a white guy marry an Asian woman unless he really knows what he’s getting into, and it’s based on more than just desire (of course that applies to all marriages, but more so for these pairings). Interracial marriage is a challenge, despite what people say these days. And of course it does have an effect on the kids.

In order to make it work, parents should choose one culture or the other, and stick to it. The split identity is more of a problem than the features and skin tone. These people who try to accommodate both just complicate things for the kids.

As for me, I took the easy way and had a few northern European kids. We can sit around on Martin Luther King Day having milk and cookies while watching old school American movies and cartoons and not worry about a thing.

Surely that is more to do with allowing immigration to begin with? I will use Britain as an example because I know it well.

Britain always had plenty of unemployed people from the 70s onwards. If immigration were strict and controlled, wages for the kind of jobs you illustrate would have been filled by the unemployed natives of the time.

The other factor would be the welfare system of Britain. If welfare is more generous than the job offers then the unemployed will avoid taking them. This has been referred to as the poverty trap as loss of welfare from taking low wage jobs can make one poorer than being unemployed. But if immigration were prohibited then the businesses requiring the labour would be forced to pay more and thus the country could have had lower numbers on welfare and thus could have lowered taxes or increased the tax free allowance to make the lower pay jobs more desirable.

However, by allowing basically open border immigration, it has kept downward pressure on wages by increasing labour supply, and at the same time there has been upward pressure on welfare payments by the natives not finding desirable enough employment. The current attempt to solve the problem is Universal Credit whereby the poverty trap is supposed to be avoided by allowing welfare payments at a lesser level to be paid when entering employment.

But the fact is, if immigration were prohibited then wages would have simply had to rise to fill the positions businesses found necessary.

There is even a small minority of white women who have a special fetish for Asian men. Look it up its all over the web. While in Asia I have met one such woman – and she was far from unattractive.

There’s a minority for everything.

Why do these absurd sexual politics always pop up in threads about Asians?

As anyone who knows anything about the Asian woman/white male thing knows very well, it consist almost entirely of ugly Asian women getting with less desirable white males. Its a stock joke among both groups. Its as rare for a desirable white male to prefer an Asian women as it is for a pretty Asian girl to prefer a white male. If you are a white male with an Asian girl you are almost by definition a loser, and if you are a pretty Asian woman with a white male its almost certain that for some reason or other you aren’t wanted by desirable Asian males. As in all things there are exceptions but they are few.

This is well known by all parties concerned except those who wish to delude themselves for obvious reasons.

Nearly everyone prefers mates of their own race simply because you grew up with them are, are familiar with them, fantasized about them first, formed your sexual preferences based on their features, and probably had your first sexual experiences with them, if for no other reason.

As for the risible comments about black men, there is no reason to expect Asian women will react to them any differently than white women have – in other words the vast majority will dislike or be indifferent to them, and a small minority – far from all of them ugly or “trash” as some wish to believe – will have a special interest in them.

I for one simply can’t believe this represents a serious shift in Korean policies.

There simply is no precedent for any Asian country to turn against itself, and the question of immigration in the west cannot be separated from the general western turn against itself – indeed it can only be understood as one of its many expressions.

By contrast, the west has a rich 300 year old tradition of turning against itself – self-hatred, if you will – first among philosophers, then artists, writers, adventurers, and exiles, and finally after 1945, in the economic and political sphere as well.

Whatever the sources of this western tradition it is entirely absent in Asia.

Allowing foreigners to overrun your country cannot be understood as a passive measure, as many seem to wish to understand it – it must be actively willed as part of a general turn against the instruments of national power and the forms of national expression. The same people who opposed any use of western power against the Soviet Union or anyone else or any other kind of western self-assertion are the ones now promoting immigration.

Not only have Asians never developed or sustained such a tradition, but they lack the experience of overwhelming success in all fields against all comers which underlies and sustains western guilt.

Whatever the full explanation for western guilt, it depends on the near total dominance the west has enjoyed for a very long time and that is only now showing signs of eroding.

I cannot see Korea changing in a very large way that goes beyond the merely cosmetic.

RAMZPAUL is an activist type. He’s not exactly interested in the most objective understanding of the facts here.

Apparently he’s alarmed by some not very representative data from some dating site where the white men rated Asian women more highly than white women and thinks that this somehow means that most white men now want to marry Asian women or something. So he tries to suggest that Asian women don’t like Eurasian men, presumably to suggest to all these white men out there who supposedly want to marry Asian women that Asian women won’t like their sons or something.

Which isn’t the case at all. Eurasian men are very popular among Asian women. Eurasian men without any acting talent at all and who can’t even speak the language become celebrities in Asia simply because Asian women find them appealing:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Henney

The plastic surgery East Asians get seem to be designed to produce a Eurasianized appearance.

If he wants to be factually accurate, he should just stick to saying that white women don’t like Eurasian men, because at least that’s plausible. But presumably he thinks that that will be less effective since white men marrying Asian women likely care less about what white women are going to think.

I imagine Eurasian men would be more appealing to white women than Asian men are.

“This ‘eurasian male community’ is one of the only groups who believe in human biological diversity but have nothing to do with explicit hbd related content. Simply because the evidence they face is too strong.”

They are sort of like mestizo males, right? Mestizos, being of European and Meso-American(of Asiatic origin) descent, are EuroIndian if not exactly Eurasian.

It seems Mexican mestizo-males and the like are not very popular on the dating market. But I think they are more successful than Eurasian males in getting girls for one simple reason. They don’t aim very high. If you’re a short stocky mestizo male in Texas, you might be happy marrying some low-class ‘white trash’ or some poor Mexican chick.

But since Eurasian males tend to come from more affluent families and are better educated, they have higher aims and want high-class white chicks. But it aint happening so easily. But they might still have a better chance with Asian chicks than pure-blooded Asian males might. I think your average Asian chick will favor someone like John Lone(who I think is Eurasian)over Bobby Lee or Eddie Huang or who’s that American Idol singer who looks like a tard?

Mestizo males don’t aim too high:

http://www.anyclip.com/movies/the-wild-bunch/angels-woman/#!info/

And they are more into machismo.

You make a good point that Korea’s situation in the early modern period was at least partly self-imposed for ideological reasons.

However, while a number of East Asian countries made an official commitment to autarky and exclusion of foreign trade and influences in the early modern period (Tokugawa Japan, large periods of the Ming and Qing dynasties) Korea is distinctive for its much lower levels of literacy, urbanization, sophisticated commerce, improvements in agriculture, and civil society (guilds, scholarly associations) even among its peers.

I think it is also an open question whether the isolationist and anti-commercial policies of the Chosen period were done to maintain the integrity of the Korean people and their culture or to make the Korea a model for rigorous enforcement of neo-Confucian principles. I have not read enough of Korean scholars in the period to see whether they linked their commitment to “correct” philosophy with the preservation of a Korean ethnic and cultural identity. I do know they looked down on the Ming Chinese for letting heterodox philosophy “pollute” classic neo-Confucianism and on the Japanese for letting military lords have a leading role in society, however. Do not want to divert the conversation too much into early modern Confucianism however!

I agree with to your points about the challenge the Korea has brought on itself with an ill-thought out embrace of multiculturalism in a society which had no history of it. If anything, recognizing the newness of Korean prosperity makes looking at the impact of a sudden switch to a multi-ethic nation more relevant.

@ whyem whyempty whyempathy

those poor guys. This is an interesting niche in the internet, which has merged some 5-10 years ago. This “eurasian male community” is one of the only groups who believe in human biological diversity but have nothing to do with explicit hbd related content. Simply because the evidence they face is too strong

Just curious, where is the evidence that Korea was more backward across all fields compared to other Asian countries for the past 1,000 years? Confucist ideology suppressed commercial development during the Chosun dynasty, so maybe you have a point there. However public administration during that era was heavily influence by the Chinese system. I doubt that it was more backward than Japan to any significant extent.

The Dopamine D4 receptor gene shows a gender-sensitive association with cognitive empathy: Evidence from two independent samples

low-growth state, much like the West

That depends what part of the West you are talking about.

For most of the last millennium Korea was much less advanced across all fields

Korea has a solid manufacturing base businesses employing highly skilled indigenous labour. Samsung is the world’s largest maker of televisions, smartphones and memory chips by market share, The domestic refrigerator market is cutthroat in Korea

Apple is under attack by Korea (ideologically and competitively). Korea has the adaptations for co-operative enterprises, so their currently successful model will be much more vulnerable to replacement immigration.

“South Korea is prosperous because it has … Koreans. ”

“Not really true over the long term.”

I think you’re missing the point. Many Jews were poor for long stretches of history too. And Chinese were poor under Mao.

Obviously, you need rule of law, property laws, opportunities, modern educational structures, and etc.
But all things being equal, Koreans are likely to excel more than lower-IQ people in some other nations.

If both Koreans and Cambodians practice democratic capitalism, Koreans will do better.
But if Koreans live under Stalinism while Cambodians practice capitalist-democracy, Cambodians will do better.

So, being Korean isn’t enough. Just like being German isn’t enough. At the end of the Cold War, many East Asians were doing better than East Germans since East Germany hadn’t allowed much in the way of economic growth and innovation.

“South Korea is prosperous because it has … Koreans. ”

Not really true over the long term. Until the Japanese took over, Korea was consistently the poorest and most backward of any of the major Asian countries (excluding Laos, Cambodia, and probably the Philippines)

For most of the last millennium Korea was much less advanced across all fields – public administration, architecture, technology, agriculture, crafts and commercial development – than Japan or China, and in many case than Vietnam, Thailand, or Burma.

The prosperity of modern Korea vis a vis Vietnam or China reflects a unique mix of influences from Japanese rule, its position as a front-line ally of the US during the cold war with all its benefits of international exchange, training, and money, and probably the spread of Christianity. But it really is quite a recent development in Asian history.

Dude, that’s a GREAT link you put up. You should read the sub-links…

https://longingfordeath.wordpress.com/2014/11/12/the-best-thing-a-eurasian-child-can-be-is-a-failure/

https://longingfordeath.wordpress.com/2015/02/05/eurasian-mental-illness-in-motion-example-number-1/

Interesting stats:

http://www.ramzpaul.com/2015/02/why-dont-white-men-like-white-women.html

The Korean economy is now going through a transition into a low-growth state, much like the West and Japan. We’ll see if the Korean Elites can afford to continue the current immigration policy in the face of stagnating income growth and under-employment.

Also, Asians in Asia are different from Asian-Americans. Don’t project too much of what you see of Asian-Americans into East Asia. People tend to behave differently in different social circumstances, especially when they are the majority instead of being an afterthought.

“Why did a shift in multicultural policy happen relatively fast in Korea?”

It’s probably not a “multicultural policy.” It’s really a labor supply and labor cost control policy. Who is going to clean Korean restrooms–Koreans? It’s the same reason for Pakistanis in Britain, Algerians in France and Mexicans (formerly Italians, Poles, et al) in the US. Yes, left-liberal diversity fetishists like it and may (as with the 1965 Immigration Act) push it, but labor supply for non-tradable service sector jobs–construction, sanitation, agriculture, food processing, retail and hospitality is the real issue.

I remember the night of that Seattle massacre (2/18-19/1983). I was a 1L at the UW School of Law, and I was on a date with a 2L, who became my longtime girlfriend. We were on the couch in her living room, in her apartment, kitty-corner from the (then) law-school building, getting to know each other better, when those poor people were gunned down, a few miles away. It has always served to remind me of the nature of life– as in the famous painting of Icarus’ fatal plunge into the sea, while others carry on with their own daily tasks, unaware of his fate.

“I think that the potential for backlash to immigrants in the East lies in how utterly unattractive Asian men are, even to women of their own race.”

This is very true. In Asia, Asian women generally have no choice but to marry Asian men. But once Asians come to America, a huge number of Asian women will marry outside the race because they don’t want to marry anyone who looks like their fathers. Asian women find Asian men to be too short, nerdy, unattractive, awkward. This may or may not be truer among Korean-American women. They have a reputation for being impulsive, status-conscious, and materialistic. Therefore, they are more likely to follow their passions.
The very idea of having a child with a Korean man might disgust an Korean-American woman. Why do so many Korean women have plastic surgeries? They want to look more white. In America, I think many Asian-American women want to have what might be called womb-plastic-surgeries so that their own children will look less Asian and more white. If they reject Asian seed and take white seed in their wombs, their children will look half-white and will have undergone genetic plastic surgery. Just like Japanese want to see white-looking anime characters, it could be Korean-American women want to hold and nurture white-looking babies than ‘ugly’ Asian-looking ones.

Though Asian-American women may be officially politically correct and speak the usual cliches about racial equality and all that, they probably prefer babies that are deemed ‘racially superior’ by having white or Eurasian features. They might respect or love their fathers as parents but they don’t respect them as ‘men’. They want to receive the seed of men of what is deemed as the ‘superior’ race that usually happens to be white but it may also change to black as so many Asian-Americans are into hip hop culture.

I am not sure that Asian chicks are all that attracted to blacks, especially given the response by the rest of the family. White guys are desirable if they are good looking. An average white guy to a hot Asian chick probably has no more pull than another Asian guy.

In December, about 20 Cambodian workers engaged in a bloody group fight inside a bar in Gimhae, South Gyeongsang Province.

The incident is belatedly becoming the talk of town after surveillance camera footage showing their brutal fight was aired on TV Wednesday.

Some of the Cambodian men, who all work in factories in Gimhae or Busan on temporary visas, sustained deep stab wounds and bone fractures that will require months of hospital treatment, police say.

That’s nothing. One night, when I was spending a blissful evening with a half-Korean girl at her place in the local slum, the sound of heavy, sustained gunfire interrupted our youthful commingling. It was the early 90s on Rainier Avenue, so it wasn’t entirely out of place, but sirens wailed for some 45 minutes following the spasm of violence. Whatever it was, we thought, it must be pretty serious.

Turns out some SE Asian gangsters had invaded a nearby disco and slaughtered five people with assault rifles, wounding a number of others. A real bloodbath.

And then of course there was the Wah Mee Massacre, which my dad helped solve thanks to his frequent patronage of subterranean drinking and gambling establishments in Chinatown (a family tradition that goes back to my Norwegian businesswoman great grandmother, apparently), back in the early 80s. Vietnamese gunmen invaded a Chinese illegal gambling den and stole the purse, executing a dozen or so people in the process before fleeing to Toronto.

Years later, I ended up teaching ESL to one of the victims’ daughters, who had suffered a great deal from the loss in terms of social status and options in life. She was a very good, hardworking woman, but never had the opportunity to move on after the tragedy. This shows the true, hidden impact of these crimes. They linger for generations.

That “mongolized brothel”, called Korea, just surpassed Japan in per capita GDP converted based upon purchasing power, to be second in the OECD. Its ranking has improved over the time frame that it has allowed immigration. Correlation isn’t causation, but correlations always have causes.

South Korea will be done in by the country’s low birth rate, not by its immigration policy.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
A new population simulation by South Korea’s National Assembly Research Service has observers worried about the country’s long-term future.

According to the research service’s projections, South Korea’s population will become completely extinct by 2750 if the country’s birth rate of 1.19 children per woman continues. The country currently has one of the lowest fertility rates in the world, leading only Hong Kong, Taiwan, Macau and Singapore.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/could-south-koreas-low-birth-rate-really-mean-extinction-n190151

One thing that distinguishes South Korea culturally from the rest of Asia, is that it has by far the highest percentage of Christians (about 50%), in part, due to the important role played by Christian organizations (among them, of all things, the YMCA) in resisting Japanese occupation.

While Korean Christianity is its own special flavor (I attended a Korean Christian church for about a year) – with both missionary Evangelical leanings relative to the nominal denominations, and a Confucian substrate ideology that influences the content of sermons, it is hardly the straight up, universally respected and consensus Confucianism of Japan, for example.

The process of this mass religious transformation has given Korean culture more opportunity to innovate with relative freedom from local tradition than many Asian cultures.

South Korea is prosperous because it has … Koreans. Replacing them with immigrants will destroy its competitive advantage. We see this in the poor performance of second-generation immigrants, which is only partly due to social or linguistic handicaps. There is also a cognitive deficiency that persists even when these handicaps are greatly reduced.

The far more plausible interpretation is that international marriages in Korea involve Korean fathers who are at the bottom of the barrel socio-economically within Korean society, and that women who seek to marry them from abroad are likewise not socio-economically elite in their home countries.

It should hardly be surprising that children of the least academically able people in Korea and spouses who weren’t that hot academically themselves, don’t do well in school.

Realistically, the international brides, following the “fit immigrant” hypothesis, are probably smarter than their husbands, on average, although at a linguistic and social skills disadvantage in Korean society.

A more appropriate comparison would be to compare the academic performance of children of international marriage to the academic peformances of their fathers and mothers respectively.

“‘I’m afraid of migrant workers’

Bloody group fight of 20 Cambodian workers frighten Gimhae residents”

http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2015/02/116_173603.html

In December, about 20 Cambodian workers engaged in a bloody group fight inside a bar in Gimhae, South Gyeongsang Province.

The incident is belatedly becoming the talk of town after surveillance camera footage showing their brutal fight was aired on TV Wednesday.

Some of the Cambodian men, who all work in factories in Gimhae or Busan on temporary visas, sustained deep stab wounds and bone fractures that will require months of hospital treatment, police said.

During the fight, they smashed bottles of beer and soju, and threw dozens of chairs at each other, breaking dishes and glasses. The owner of the bar said he was lucky that they only cost him his tables and dishes, not his life.

“There were a lot of blood stains. I could have been hit by any of the bottles they threw,” he said.

Residents in Gimhae were frightened by the videos of the incident.

“I thought of foreign factory workers as being docile, hardworking and somewhat naïve. But this likely breaks that stereotype. They could be violent and dangerous, too. I’m afraid of them,” a resident said.