First of all, LOL at the category of “Asian.”
“Asians” are really racist, but like “Hispanics” they tend to be more racist against each other than racist against us. When two Asian groups are racist against each other, which side are we supposed to take to not be racist?
I know you have to side with Mexicans against Cubans because Cubans are White-Adjacent and no one minded when Ricky married Lucy. But I get confused about the Indigenous guy in Bolivia because for some reason Amy Goodman said he was against women’s rights so “they” had to replace him with a lighter-skinned Spanish guy, but that isn’t colonialist because the Indigenous actually are pretty bad about women’s rights and they are pretty homophobic. But weirdly they are ok with transgenders. So just tell me which micro-faction of a foreign culture we are supposed to side with to be property sensitive to diversity and inclusion.
Also, if the Brahmin Hindu at work is being racist against the lower-caste H1-B’s, are we supposed to report that to HR? I don’t speak Hindi but I’m pretty sure he was being racially insensitive. And don’t even get me started on the Israelis and the Lebanese.
Don’t worry I’m sure we can figure it all out.
Hail To You said:
People are talking about several different things on this Asian Displacement question. Possibly four different things. The confusion is because of lack precise terminology and are unwilling to be too direct. It ends up with conflating different ideas and people misunderstanding each other.
The important conceptual categories are: (a.) technocratic elite, (b.) political class, (c.) broad elite, (d.) narrow elite or “overclass.”
Agenda-setting for society occurs in (d.), (c.), and (b.), generally working together. Of course the narrow elite is most important but it has to balance and keep loyal the (much larger) broad elite and (larger still) political class, all of which have some kind of power in principle to move against the narrow elite. Then there are non-elites, those shut out of discourse for the most part except for sometimes successfully setting off political brushfires in the provinces, sometimes a nuisance, sometimes genuinely worrying.
On “Asians” entering the scene, an ongoing process. We have four (implied) questions, which I think get conflated. They are:
(1) Will there be many more “Asians” in the technocratic elite, but little bearing on the political class or broad elite, and especially not on the narrow elite?
(2) Will there be many more “Asians” active in the technocratic elite AND also in the political class and broad elite, BUT they fundamentally accept the established elite-coalition and willingly assimilate into it? Showing no signs of staying together as a coherent ethnopolitical class of their own.
(3) Will “Asians” make a concerted power-bid as a self-conscious ethnopolitical bloc to displace or outmaneuver other elements of the established political class and broad elite? But not attempt to replace the narrow-elite, rather becoming a major power-sharing group over whatever decades’ worth of fumes the USA has left.
(4) Will “Asians” make a concerted power-bid as a self-conscious ethnopolitical bloc to DISplace and REplace the broad elite and narrow-elite “overclass”? A hostile takeover directly at the top, and a conscious one, like a slow-moving ethnopolitical coup d’etat.
On scenario (2): See, e.g., EastAsian-ChannukahPeople intermarriages. Amy Chua is an example. She displays a lot of traits characteristic of a foreign-hostile-elite. She even wrote a scholarly book about how great such groups are (the book had “market-dominant minorities,” in the title and was a veiled a paean to her Overseas Chinese ancestors in the Philippines). BUT her daughters, who are half-Jewish, show no signs of conflicting loyalties, and both seem much more Jewish in identity, and certainly not in conflict with the established Big Blue elite writ large. At least one of the daughters embraces an aggressive Zionist identity and (at least in her early twenties) defended the IDF and things like that. But in general both the daughters, born with the silver spoon of Elitedom, show little interest in their Chinese ancestry.
Actually it seems to me the Chua daughters are pretty much perfect putty to mold into broad-elite members in good standing in the world they emerged into, in the 2010s and now 2020s. I even think they better fit in even than perfectly regime-loyal, eight-WhiteChristian-great-grandparents-having people with otherwise-indistinguishable resumes and views. The Chua girls afaict show NO conflict of interest or feelings of dual-loyalty vis-a-vis the established elite vs. their Chinese ancestry as some kind of rival. I think this is the most common thing you see in “Asians” in America who roughly fit their pattern, including monoethnic ones. Such is scenario (2).
On scenarios (3) and (4): These two have been the “Overseas Chinese” strategy in Asia itself, in effect, operating together to some degree. These strategies always seem to emerge in time wherever the Overseas Chinese went. And other groups too, the principle is the same. They’ve so often succeeded because the weakness of their opponents, but also often ended up with occasional pogroms against them. The human capital they Overseas Chinese would face when trying a hostile-takeover maneuver against a European-Christian population in principle would make it much harder than in SE Asia somewhere. In normal times. They have done really well so far in part because the general strategy they at least appear to embrace is (2), showing total willingness to serve as an auxiliary to the established elite, as a force-multiplier against White-Christian Middle America.
The whole conversation on Asian Elite Displacement I think ends up with people talking about four, or possibly even more, things at once. It’s hard to tell what Amy Wax meant from the snippets she is quoted, and people often say things off the cuff not quite what they’d mean if they could write it out and therefore be precise. Taking her absolutely literally, it seems she meant (4), a straight-on Overclass replacement, displacing the established elite.
The wrinkle in all this talk is that the established elite in our time, — in the last quarter of the 20th century and the first quarter of this century (third quarter of the 20th century was transitionary), — is already separate from the basic ethnocultural founding core stock of the nation. There are founding-stock people in the political class, broad elite, and narrow elite, but they’re secondary players, weaker even than their numbers judged by number of faces would suggest because they lack identity as a collective, and are morally pretty hobbled by the broad domestic enemy class being their own kindred and cousins (the Bad Whites).
It would be one thing if these scenarios were playing out against a pre-1975 USA in which it could be plausibly argued the established elite was drawn from the/a founding core ethnocultural stock. The other wrinkle is that Amy Wax herself is not of founding stock, but a number of people say she is unusually pro-WhiteChristian for someone of her background.
I think Amy Wax may have been doing a broad scatter-shot and meant ALL four scenarios in one, but her wording makes it sound like she meant (3) or (4), with her “overclass” line. Amy Wax does seem to think they would change the game, and not agree to be a forever-auxiliary to the established elite coalition as we know it.