Saturday, November 04, 2017

How do we know Mexicans aren't too keen on being Americans? They tell us

The following table shows the percentages of respondents, by ethnicity (with sample sizes of at least 150), who "strongly agree" they would rather be citizens of the US than of any other country:


Does Vox Day's characterization of "Fake Americans" apply to those who don't much pretend to want to be Americans in the first place?

This is another thing for future historians writing about the decline and fall of the American empire to include in the chapters discussing precipitating factors.

GSS variables used: AMCITIZN(1), ETHNIC(1,8,11,14,15,17,30)

25 comments:

IHTG said...

This is why they often don't naturalize and don't vote much when they do, so count your blessings I guess

Audacious Epigone said...

IHTG,

Indeed, until the country they're loyal to urges them to rip part of the foreign country they're living in away and deliver it to their true country!

Yeah, I know they may well be too apathetic to do that.

mark auld said...

The end of America started when I was young,and I couldn't quite believe it would continue to happen. ...I don't understand how people give up on the best world man has yet created. Maybe I'm not so smart after all...or I truly believed in the goodness of most people.

mark auld said...

That post sounds self serving. ..I meant to acknowledge that the younger guys here have a big battle looming, and a different perspective than I grew up with.

DissidentRight said...

I find hispanic gibsmedats far more irritating than black ones, especially since they can barely get a sentence out before reminding us, 'you don't own the country because you stole it'.

Random Dude on the Internet said...

> That post sounds self serving. ..I meant to acknowledge that the younger guys here have a big battle looming, and a different perspective than I grew up with.

We're definitely at a crossroads and many argue that we're well past that point. It's going to be next to impossible to undo 50 years of demographic damage and $20 trillion of wasted spending that went to social programs. The best thing that we can do is salvage what we have and hope that this will be enough to bring back a Silver Age for America. It's going to take a lot of willpower and a lot of people screaming and crying about how we're all evil racists for wanting to prioritize the country over diversity. If we don't have the willpower to do so then South Africa is our future.

I think the best days are behind the United States unless we do develop the willpower to start deporting our "new Americans" en masse. I'm very skeptical, even with Based Generation Zyklon at the helm.

Anonymous said...

Not saying it's not a problem. But given the fact that most people of Mexican ancestry in the US are immigrants or the children of immigrants versus the other categories, I'd wonder if the samples were normalised on that basis what the results would be.

Again, not saying it's not a problem, just that it might not be so much to do with being Mexican as being recent immigrants.

The irony of the Irish and Italians having a deeper attachment (Read, they no longer have connections with their ancestors homelands and are disproportionately urban working class and thus more overtly nationalistic as is the trend in all countries for this demographic, assuming they are similar enough to identify with the new country.) than the Anglos is amusing but likely the result of socio-economic factors. One sees the same phenomena in Britain with the 20th century Irish diaspora. (Morrisey didn't write 'English Heart, Irish Blood' to just refer to himself but a very real urban working class community in Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham, London etc.)

As Steve Sailer has noted, citizenship, being a part of the nation is one of the most valuable assets a lot of urban working class have.

Anonymous said...

Considering how debased the USA is, it is surprising how many strongly prefer US citizenship.

It used to be a land where the average person had more freedom then elsewhere.
As a result of that freedom people could better their lot with work and self-investment.
Individuals bettering their lot made a rich and powerful nation.
Freedom led to social mobility, innovation in thought and action, fewer class barriers.

Now a days the USA is another social welfare state, where all policy is debated and directed by an elite who have the ability to shape your life to their (benevolent?) goals. Should taxes be lower? not because it would increase economic freedom of citizens but only if it causes more jobs and less global warming.

The last time I heard the word "freedom" from a politician was St. Ronald.

JayMan said...

For the record, this is one of those instances when the results from White Americans ethnics don't mean much (at least with respect to each other) thanks to the unreliability of self-reported ethnicity.

Otherwise good post.

Audacious Epigone said...

Mark Auld,

In hindsight, it's easy to identify mistakes silents and boomers made in thinking that everyone, everywhere was just a Woodstock away from discovering their true inner-WEIRDOs and becoming indistinguishable from themselves. There are undoubtedly mistakes we will make that will seem obvious in hindsight as well but that don't necessarily seem so obvious now--in addition to those that do seem quite obvious!

DissidentRight,

Yep. Africans have a claim that Mexicans do not.

Random Dude,

There are outcomes that seem more likely than others, but we don't know for certain how it'll all shake out. And even if we did, what else would we do but fight the good fight anyway? Hector knew what his fate was going to be and he faced it with dignity and strength. We should, too.

Anon,

Astute observation. Among those of Mexican descent born in the US, the percentage goes up to 55, but it goes up a few points among Africans and a couple of points among the various European ethnicities, too, so the gap is still stark between Mexicans and everyone else.

Anon,

There's a lot of ruin in--and residual love for--a nation.

JayMan,

Right, and the differences are modest anyway.

'Reality' Doug said...

@mark auld, I love your first comment. Your second shows a lack of confidence IMO. I love your first comment because that was exactly what I thought growing up, which fundamentally made me the old loser I am today. So it let's me know that I am not crazy to think and feel what I do. It is very important to understand that subconsciously most so-called ppl want the decline because they primarily want to 'score' in the shallow sense of animals. The only thing holding you back, if we are similar, is your assumption of ballpark equality and the presumed good of unqualified, unearned cooperation. I'm no Xian, and that's not a Xian perspective, so I doubt these words will help you, but I press on. Your IQ is likely more than one SD above the mean. IQ is not your deficiency. ZFG is the emotional freedom to love one's self rather than love 'ppl' to the exclusion of oneself. Natural playerz gonna play, always. Life in decline is NOT an intellectual puzzle. The common parasites could never win to create decline if it were an intellectual contest. Your heart is the garden of your enemy. Tough lesson to learn, assuming you don't believe long suffering in this life is the sure path to heaven. Who knows what Christianity is from Xian to Xian? But Jesus did say sell everything if you sincerely wish to follow. If that is your master idea, then you are the big winner already. What ticks me off is capable men like yourself clearing the way for inferiors to cause us pain. I can do nothing to alter the system. I don't see fulsome humility as a virtue. It feeds the system.

mark auld said...

Well said Sir,though I'm not quite the despairing hand wringer I may have sounded like. Actually, I'm locked and loaded, I just didn't see this end coming as soon as I should have.

Feryl said...

"In hindsight, it's easy to identify mistakes silents and boomers made in thinking that everyone, everywhere was just a Woodstock away from discovering their true inner-WEIRDOs"

Some months ago Agnostic did a post about ideology being a veneer over economics. The economic prosperity of the 1950's and 60's enabled social and cultural experimentation of a breadth and depth not seen before, or since. When the economy cratered in the 70's, many people grew disillusioned and uncertain as the decade went on. The economic booms of the 80's enabled greater growth of PC and immigration amnesties; true, there was a backlash towards drugs and criminals by this point, but on the issue that matters most (ethnic identity) most Americans in the 80's had very liberal views.

As the privileged/striver class have pushed more and more weird crap over the last 25 years, the working and even much of the Middle Class has been under too much economic siege to be show any kind of enthusiasm for "progress". What motivates crap like Tranny bathrooms? People who are so comfortable and out of touch that they don't realize that we have much better things to be doing with our time.

And notice the disdain for populism; since the early 90's there clearly has been a growing disconnect between the concerns of elites and proles. The policies pushed in the 50's-80's generally had popular support among the middle class if not always some of the working class.

Feryl said...

As for alienation, the declining opportunities afforded by the supposed economic booms which have occurred over the last 25 years explain a lot of the attitude of X-ers and Millennials. Silents and Boomers had a say, in so far as they generally got what they wanted from both a cultural and economic standpoint.

Feryl said...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/12/08/yes-millennials-really-are-surprisingly-approving-of-dictators/?utm_term=.c74178523815

Later born people are much more accepting of "strong leaders". The biggest change is seen with 70's births; those born at the beginning of the decade are quite resistant but those born in the late 70's are much more accepting.

It looks like Boomers, who were much more active parents than Silents and later born G.I.s, raised a generation that has no time for libertarianism or civil rights. Boomers and early X-ers had fairly detached parents; these generations had to go it alone, essentially, creating a life-long sense of autonomy and disinterest in joining and strengthening teams and institutions. They believe in low taxes, weak unions, "victimless" crimes, a "free agent" mentality, and other such things that promote a culture of the strong individual and the weak institution/community.

Most people born from the late 70's-1990's have at least one if not two Boomer parents, who insisted on being involved in their children's lives (often well into and even past adolescence) and providing a great deal of guidance. Basically, their kids have been primed to accept strong authority figures.

The other thing worth noting is that the hedonistic me-first culture that appeared in the 50's and 60's, peaked in the 70's, and then slowly faded away in the 80's, seems to have imprinted strongly on Silents, Boomers, and early Gen X-ers. These were generations who personally chafed at the idea of reviving the anti-me first culture of the 1930's and 40's. The individual making his mark on the world, and not being played for a fool by corrupt/incompetent/annoying leaders and team-mates, was something encouraged by the economic booms and experimentation of the 50's-70's. People began having second thoughts about this approach in the 80's, and Boomers who raised kids in the 80's-2000's were careful to not tell their kids to live life to it's "fullest". They've asked their kids to have a mentality that the Boomers themselves are not capable of having (which is: checking your ego and self-indulgence for the greater good of everyone).

Audacious Epigone said...

Reality Doug,

Northwestern Europeans are the most outbred people on the planet, and so consequently we are the most universalistic--or put in another way, the most pathologically altruistic. It's a personality trait that is beneficial in some circumstances, but has rapidly become deleterious in many others. And it will continue to be more and more harmful as WEIRDO numbers are reduced. It's something we have to actively guard against. Indulging in it will lead to our destruction.

Mark Auld,

Good. Now spread that message to others. WEIRDOs are also the most individualistic people on the planet. But we need some collectivism now. Survive together or hang separately.

Feryl,

There is a subset of millennials who have decided to substitute a material success they know they won't attain with a virtue-signaling replacement where they earn cheap grace for cheerleading for what has happened. They are the shock troops of the privileged/striver class.

mark auld said...

The altruism of NW Europeans and their progeny (us) is a part of our nature, and so is the rugged individualism of the Trail blazers and settlers that turned this continent into the country known as America. It ain't over till the white lady sings.

dc.sunsets said...

Feryl, do you notice that the boom of the last 36 years was built entirely on borrowed money (both credit debasement and pulling forward demand) such that "prosperity" became increasingly uneven & laden with illusory trinkets like iGadgets?

Consumption only occurs in Real Time; it is impossible to consume that which has yet to be produced. This means that debt-enabled consumption must, by definition, be consuming something unseen.

This period is the largest net consumption of capital in recorded history, a frenzy of consuming the "seed corn," hidden in plain sight by one one-off gaming of the system after another.

Such cyclicality cannot be escaped. Nothing sets up failure like success.

chris said...

"Northwestern Europeans are the most outbred people on the planet, and so consequently we are the most universalistic--or put in another way, the most pathologically altruistic. "

I have never really understood this line of reasoning. It was a mere 70 years ago that Northwestern Europeans were producing Nazis. And Jim Crow laws. And segregation. And race laws. That does not sound very pathologically altruistic to me.

I think the current zeitgeist amongst Northwestern Europeans is environmental, not genetic. (Hell, a lot of the grandparents of millennials were actually alive when Hitler was storming through Europe. That surely is not enough time for genetic change to occur.) And I think the current zeitgeist is specifically a result of the power and influence that a hostile foreign elite has garnered in our institutions that generate our culture, namely the media and the universities/schools, as well as in banking which bankrolls all these institutions (and their competitors.) The changes in Northwestern European's cultures align with the growing influence and capturing of these institutions by that hostile elite.

chris said...

"Consumption only occurs in Real Time; it is impossible to consume that which has yet to be produced. This means that debt-enabled consumption must, by definition, be consuming something unseen.

This period is the largest net consumption of capital in recorded history, a frenzy of consuming the "seed corn," hidden in plain sight by one one-off gaming of the system after another. "

It is consuming the West's children/offspring. That is the seed corn people are eating so they can have a feast now. iPhones instead of babies.

Audacious Epigone said...

Chris,

Good point.

I don't think it's an inevitability, just something outbred populations are more susceptible to. Appeals to universal notions of fairness are what ended those things. Would they have done the same in non-Northwestern Euro-descended populations?

German nationalism (really more expansive than that, to Aryan pan-nationalism) is closer to universalism than the inbred tribalism of sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East, central Asia, etc.

Duke Norfolk said...

I'm very puzzled by the English/Welsh number, and even the German one. Stunningly low. Just doesn't seem right. How many of those peoples are anything but many generations into American citizenship? Whom I can't see identifying as anything but American. But what do I know? (Decreasingly little today, it seems.)

The Irish/Italian on the other hand seems quite plausible. And the Mexican and African aren't surprising at all in today's world. Send them back.

Feryl said...

"Feryl, do you notice that the boom of the last 36 years was built entirely on borrowed money (both credit debasement and pulling forward demand) such that "prosperity" became increasingly uneven & laden with illusory trinkets like iGadgets?"

Yes, JH Kunstler in his books and blog posts has done as much anyone else to note that elite's conception of The Market and "recoveries" has gotten more and more warped. Of course, it's all predicated on an (increasingly tiny number of) elites lining their pockets at the expense of everyone else. Enough proles (seemingly) benefited from the 80's/90's/early 2000's that elites could mostly get away with such terrible policies, but in the late 2000's and this decade too many people, esp. X-ers and Millennials, never had much to fall back on in the first place and they sure as hell don't have a lot right now. Earlier generations benefited from the ability to get good jobs (e.g. good wages, benefits, and possibly pensions) at a time when our policies were as much about saving money as spending it. Over the last 40 years our policies have been more and more perverted; it gets harder and harder to find good work, and have a decent amount of money to spare, while there's little to be gained from saving money as are economy is now based entirely on spending and FIRE.

Not coincidentally, immigration into America saw a mild up-tick in the 60's and early 70's, went up further in the late 70's-mid 80s, and then soared in the late 80's and thereafter. Ur typical 65 year old is completely clueless about today's 20 and 30 somethings basically living in a completely different financial world than the world that early Boomers grew up in. BTW, the '65 immigration act isn't the problem; the problem is that measures to rein in the quantity and low quality of modern immigration have grown less popular due to striving elites. As I hinted above, immigration flat-lined in the 30's and 40's due to the depression and WW2 turning Americans away from welcoming foreigners. During the boom times of the 50's and 60's, immigration increased. In spite of the economic difficulties of the 70's, that's when immigration really began to rise because that's when elites began to turn away from populism.

dc.sunsets said...

Post-WW2 America was fabulously happy and comfortable compared to before. When the boom waned in the early 1960's, the citizenry didn't want the party to end, so they elected/appointed/consented-to those who changed the rules, for instance, taking the metal (silver) out of the money Americans used daily. In 1971, Nixon did the same for international exchange, and the US money supply (broadly speaking) was no longer subject to a consistent measuring stick. After a brief bout of CPI inflation during the last part of the secular bear market for bonds (the 1970's), a rally in bond values kicked off the largest mania in issuing IOU's in recorded history.

No one, including Kunstler, has connected the dots between Fiat money, the bull market for bonds, and (above all) the seeming repeal of Say's Law (which says, in order to consume you must first produce.) After 40 years of exporting industry, Americans don't really produce much, but we're the world's leaders in consuming, and the US Chamber of Commerce reaps the arbitrage between cheap (foreign) manufacturing and expensive domestic retailing. The more people in US stores, the more the C-of-C makes...hence support for open borders.

Flooding the country with Indian doctors and Mestizo gardeners, and moving women en masse into the labor market, kept the vast credit inflation of the last 40 years at near zero IN WAGES. The bond bull market drove interest rates to zero. So for all practical purposes, unprecedented credit inflation avoided places where people CALL it inflation and poured exclusively into places people call it "I'm Getting Rich!"

If the player who is also playing Banker for your game of Monopoly(tm) starts writing $500 on pieces of paper and uses it to purchase Boardwalk and Park Place and the Railroads from you, do you care? You won't, if everyone in the herd is conditioned to accept those new $500's for purchase of yachts, a nice house in East Hampton, or campaign donations for the congressmen who sit on a committee that will insert a nice little ditty in the middle of the night into an omnibus bill that gives you a million dollars of Treasury Loot for every $500 you donated. In fact, everyone got in on the issuing of IOU's, and as long as the mass mind was in Bull Market Mode, the quantity of debt issued simply DIDN'T MATTER. It still doesn't At This Moment.

It will be fascinating to see what happens when the value of the intangibles people came to think of as "wealth" begins to crater in earnest. It is my belief that the Leftist Lunacy of more recent times will be inextricably related in the public mind with the Bernie Madoff-like stupidity that took over the US (and world's) monetary/economic system(s).

The Left is characterized by a belief that any fashionable "ought" can be pounded into "what is" simply via the application of an ever-bigger hammer. If LGBT living OUGHT to be accepted, make it so it "IS" accepted by passing laws. If people of different races OUGHT to be equal in mean IQ and mean capacity to produce good societies and good communities and good economies, rewrite history books so that IS what they reflect, and pass laws forcing people to act in ways that will presumably bring out an outcome that IS equal.

A large part of this was based on the notion that unlimited borrowing enabled a world of unlimited resources, such that no "OUGHT" should be starved of funding to make it "IS."

When this adventure goes Full Poseidon (and I think it likely that a debt-fueled boom will invert seemingly overnight when the denouement arrives) I expect a similar inversion in the social Narrative across all of the Left's favorite catechisms.

Audacious Epigone said...

Duke Norfolk,

There is simply an "agree" option. The total population goes 67% for either "strongly agree" or "agree". Most people, including most people of Mexican descent, who live in the US at least nominally say they prefer citizenship here over anywhere else (while in practice they can have it here and somewhere else simultaneously because of our insane tolerance for dual citizenship).