Subprime governments?

but aus migration isnt just one group, its like 50, everyone talks about indian migration but theyre only slightly more numerous tahn the chinese every year

nzers also huge

i think there’ll definitely be some of this

i’m not saying there won’t be problems or it should happen

i just don’t think it’s going to turn australia into a third world country like white nationalists are claiming

Import the third world, become the third world. I

nah, this is too simple bc it just assumes 1) the third world is entirely the way it is bc of the people in it (partially true) 2) the people in the third world are all just the same, not varying populations with differential levels of traits between individuals (so migration from the third world doesnt necessarily “replicate” those societies in the places they move to). also assumes the ‘third world’ (outdated term) is this static, undynamic place; china was unequivocally what most would consider ‘third world’ decades ago, so was south korea, are they now?

doesnt mean itll be true (or as true) for other places of course, but economies are always changing, growing, accumulating capital and improving productivity etc, even with differential levels of natural human capital that complicate this process

even mismanaged basketcases like south africa and zimbabwe are wealthier than they used to be prior to black empowerment and rule, due to the endless and inexorable march of the accumulation of technocapital over time; and it will never ever get as bad as it in those places here, no matter what, bc we’re not overwhelmingly just not importing the representative citizen of those countries into australia in any meaningful quantity

argentina wasnt the 1st, it was about the 7th, and the reason it was relatively much wealthier back then was because it was an agriculture based economy back then when that actually mattered. what happened to argentina wasnt that it declined, it just didnt change because agriculture as share of economy became much less important relative to other economic factors, argentina was always going to fall behind the rest of the world when industry and services became more important relative to agriculture and argentina’s abundant agricultural advantages simply became unimportant. where did you get this claim (sounds nordicist to me) that argentina imported “low iq spaniards and sicilians” and that ruined it – argentina isnt even really that white a country because the people there have always been so mixed with its native population, i bet that was about as true in 1900 and true today. difference is back then it was less important because economies were less complex and much more based on primary resources and agriculture as % of economy and global economy, economies were simply less g-loaded in 1900 compared to 2025. 

argentinas population back then was also less than 5 million – agriculture is a relatively fixed output resource (though output per hectare has increased with technological inputs) so value of ag output / smaller number of people = higher relative GDP per capita all else equal 

note argentina is still a lot wealthier today in absolute terms – rather than relative terms – than it was in 1900 as well. see:

again, i keep asking someone to explain to me – what is the average IQ of the indians that come here, no one actually knows this and i want to know this because it is relevant to all of these future questions. and if its lower (which i believe it is likely to be) than the mean white australian IQ, how much of this is cancelled out by the other migrant groups that we bring here. these are the relevant questions i made this point before in my other post but nobody is addressing it, and its a very reasonable and important one:

“how does immigration affect the economic sensitive heritable psychological variables like IQ that they are fixated upon; if say indian migrants to aus have a lower genotypic IQ than white australians, how much does that just get cancelled out by all the other groups that migrate here like chinese (which probably have a higher av genotypic IQ than white australians), so you have to average them together to find out what the aggregate society wide impact would be on economy, society, etc as narrowly determined by iq alone all else equal.

this is what is happening in america, where lower iq immigration say from latin america is just being cancelled out by high skill higher human capital migration from asia etc. its why immigrant males to the u.s have lower (about 20-30%) crime rates than even ~~white american males~~, bc even though hispanics have higher crime rates statistically, asian males have lower, and that cancels it out, even with probable disparities in median age.

note for the record i don’t think australia should have **any immigration**, but thats somewhat of a seperate question to what i’m writing here.

also im starting to be convinced genetic engineering is going to be the future of demography, so im curious as to how much of this hbd stuff will even matter in a future of gene editing etc, but thats an entirely other and infinitely complex subject. could be the case that so-called hbd related issues become completely irrelevant in a future dominated by scale-economy delivered designer baby technology.

also i dont understand how they can have “assimilated” when most of them have been here for what like, 2 years at most. what does “assimilation” even mean

my theory is assimilation is ultimately genetic assimilation ie marrying outside your ethnic group