Exclusionism is an Absolutely Indispensable Prerequisite of Civilization

In order to advance or maintain civilization, an attitude of systematically excluding what is below the standard necessary for such maintenance, is required. Freedom-for-aggression is especially to be excluded. Brotherhood with all humanity, such that savages and enemies of civilization are treated as worthy of inclusion, has to be excluded.

The Pro-Diversity Choose Their Issues so as to Maximize the Opportunity for Smearing Any Opposition

It has long been the custom for those on the left, and even the moderate right, to choose issues so as to position themselves to smear opponents, especially as for racial hatred against some commonly despised minority. This game has been going on so long now, that even a political operative not known for idealism or education, such as Karl Rove, would try to get amnesty for millions of perfectly undesirable illegal aliens, by saying: 'you just don't want brown people to get anything'. This way, one never has to offer a decent argument for one's proposal. Only one response may well be encouraged: opponents must go on the counteroffensive immediately, saying: smears are used in the place where a rational argument was rightly to be expected. Is this because no rational argument can ever be found for what is proposed. Then and only then, should one dispute the smears themselves. You are not smear-term a or b, well, fine, but first you must righteously punish the use of that smear approach, turning it against the smearer as stated above.

Valuing Openness to Populations in Proportion as They Do Not Spontaneously Cooperate Beyond the Level of Extended Family- Indicates What Objectives?

That is, what goals should be suspected when such values are urged on hitherto successful societies, specifically regarding success in cooperating on the largest scales found in the world?
In this regard, does it not also cause intense chagrin for many, that their favored groups are wretchedly lacking in the ability to spontaneously cooperate on any larger scales? What would an egalitarian do?
Added from: Sunday, August 3, 2008

What Sort Would Want Hugely More Of Those Who Don't Spontaneously Cooperate Without Despotic Compulsion
The power-greedy have the most powerful incentives to bring in as many as can be got away with of that kind, who do not spontaneously cooperate beyond the level of extended family, unless despotic measures are used to ensure that everyone contributes more or less fairly. The good and desirable societies are those where the power-greedy have not yet succeeded in substituting power for spontaneous cooperation. Most of the world would move and free-ride on the populations which can trust each other to work fairly together in larger organizations than extended family ones. Since ruinous free-riding can mushroom through mass immigration, crushing the freedom of those societies, and the power-greedy excitedly glimpse this chance at winning greater power, the explanation is likely to be genetic in large part. As the benefit of the cooperation is lost, and indeed would go sharply negative with enough free-riding accumulated through immigration, this means it can be invaded by non-cooperators and that group strategy would die. Unless that is, it is a parasite manipulation, which gets its carriers to treat other carriers as more closely related than they are, while not tending to do that for non-carriers, and even pushing for them to be shunned.

Smearing From the Left: The Slippery Slope and the Malicious Confounding of Two Very Different Kinds of Ideals

Slippery slope fallacies start and end with attempted smearing, and commonly include equivocation, false dilemma, and misconception of ideals; and all of this often deliberately. Sometimes even all of this is contained or implied in a one-word exclamation.
Ideals can be of two kinds: one in which you can never have too much of the valued item (e.g. health), and the second; which involves an ideal range, neither too much nor too little, with evils lying on either side of the range (e.g. hydration/dehydration).
The slippery slope equivocation confounds these two kinds of ideals, in order to smear, by dishonestly generating a false dilemma (e.g. capital punishment inexorably leads to death camps).
The left has to use this smear approach because there are no rational arguments as to why they should have more power...[continued in comments section below]

More Pro-diversity Means More Nihilism

The more a society tries to value increased diversity of cultures and human population genetics, the more it must try to value discontinuity, and this yields increase of nihilism. It is necessarily that way, since avoidance of nihilism requires, at the very minimum, that we value continuity sufficiently to work towards the future...[continued in comments section]

Pro-Minority Enthusiasm Can Cover for an Anti-Democratic Wish for Tyranny

When factions wish for political changes which have no hope of majority support, doctrines such as pro-diversity, and valuing openness to diversity, can become all the more attractive. Pro-minority, anti-majority, pro-diversity and radical, despotic attitudes are all commonly found together. Even an open racial hatred against the majority can express a greed for power, which is frustrated by the difficulty of moving the majority politically.

A Metric for 'Diversity' of the Sort Which is Dishonestly Presented as Value-in-Itself

This measure could be: units of distance between even quite small populations, as a percentage of the 'miles' of genetic distance between them. Leaving out of account the specifically anti-Caucasian
aspect of the pro-diversity of officialdom and its professoriate, the distance units can be the same for each group compared. When two groups with maximum genetic distance between them are at minimum spatial separation, we have the greater part of that 'diversity' which we're asked to celebrate as somehow creating value in itself. Adding distance of points of average IQ between the two groups compared (notional miles consisting of a percentage of the maximum IQ difference between groups), there may then be a close-to-universal measure of what that diversity is, which is presented as value in the above way...[continued in comments section below]

IQ Differentials Between Groups are Long-Term World-Historical Causal Forces Capable of being Exploited for Power-Seeking Ambitions- for Generations

Steve Sailer poses the relevant thought experiment:
"If a gap between two groups suddenly disappeared in all the babies being born tomorrow for some magic reason, the gap among the workforce wouldn't begin to shrink until 2025 and wouldn't disappear until 2072."

isteve.blogspot.com/2007/07/iq-for-economists-after-trying-hard-for.html

We're not dealing with some problem which an environmental quick-fix could greatly attenuate.
The power-greedy can with complete confidence, build their careers on the basis that the lower group will, for at least six decades, resent the higher-IQ group, and have incentive to push status competition towards ruthless violence, where they have an edge. This will be the tendency, and the incentives for violence are greater for each point of IQ differential between the two groups. Valuing openness to this sort of diversity can serve demagogic power-greed, but little else.

The Anti-Discrimination Regime Vs. Advancement of Civilization: A Case of Forcing Openness to Diversity of Ever-Lower Quality

Civilization advances by assembling people of higher quality, through discrimination and further increments thereof. Anti-discrimination asks for, or compels, decrements of discrimination.
It does this especially through trying to force a disregarding of quality of population, as that of recruitment cohorts of almost any kind. Therefore anti-discrimination works against the advancement of civilization, and that is an injustice and an immoral course. No one is better by being just diverse from what a more developed merit system would recruit, and the forcing of openness to more and more such diversity must bring standards continually down, eventually destroying almost all the population, unless a turnaround, involving rejection of the anti-discrimination and the openness to such diversity, shall have come about first.

Defining American Liberalism and Nationhood: A Parallelism with Auster of VFR in Critique of Openness-Valorization

Here is the relevant quote:"... right-liberalism, the belief that what forms America is adherence to a universal idea about human nature, turns insensibly into left-liberalism, the belief that America consists simply of unqualified openness to other humans, regardless of who those other humans are and what they believe, and thus that America has no substance of its own and no permanence. Yet left-liberals somehow expect that even though America must keep changing, as a result of the peoples and cultures and religions (including Islam) that keep entering it, the freedom and equality and openness that define America will not change. Liberals are vicious parasites who take the actual existence of their country for granted, even as they give all their loyalty to an ideal of openness that must destroy their country." Indeed, openness to violent pursuers of unfreedom will tend to destroy our freedom-from-aggression, while favoring their freedom-for-aggression here. This will occur the more easily, the more open we are to such enemies. Likewise, openness to inequality from within and without, can be expected with perfect assurance, to take away from what good equalities there are, which subsist here. Openness to closedness is what they preach, to paraphrase Allan Bloom; but in a most self-contradictory manner.
So much so, that one may well conclude that the liberal ideals as stated above, are not sincerely believed-in, but used, indeed parasitically, to do damage, and win power by smearing opponents. That is, not that all such liberals are insincere, but those least capable of being fooled and led into folly, can hardly be sincere. It pleases me that others are thinking and writing along these lines, similarly to my own criticism of openness-valuing.
P.S. Our constitution does not assume that there can be no lasting enemies among human groups; the definition of treason it contains, mentions enemies. The above-mentioned sort of 'openness-liberalism' pretends that America is definable, and even defensible, in terms of assuming that there can be no lasting enemies. An outright contradiction-in-terms follows where we can reduce that to: there are no (lasting) enemies except those who say that there are(lasting) enemies.
P.P.S. The 'No Enemies' doctrine matches the (now-universalized) Brotherhood, of the Jacobin
Liberty, Equality and Fraternity trio, but those are foreign statements of priorities of political ideals, not such as may be used to define America. America does not stand for freedom-for-aggression, nor for equality of results, nor can it mean a claim that all people are American citizens, or might be, regardless of how hostile they are inclined to be.

Link for the VFR post://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/008308.html

For Each Point of IQ Differential Between Two Groups The Lower One Has Greater Incentive to Shift Status Competition Towards One of Ruthless Violence

For Each Point of IQ Differential Between Two Groups The Lower One Has Greater Incentive to Shift Status Competition Towards One of Ruthless Violence
Part II- The lower one has greater incentive, the further they are below another in conceptual ability, to try to shift competition away from those correlated positively with IQ. The more strongly positive the correlation with IQ, the greater the incentive for the lower-down to attempt to shift status contests away from those indicators. Where the lower-down have greatest relative advantage, their incentive will be greatest to shift the contest towards that competition. Ruthless violence on the street level, is where the low-IQ have greatest relative advantage. Certain sports are best in this way for them as well. Even though it is contrary to their own long-term best interests, and obviously so, the lower-down, even the further they are below some others, will find gratification in shifting contest for status towards those in which they can come out higher. But why is this... more to follow in the next part.

Added later:
For Each Point of IQ that an Elite Stratum is Above Average, It May be that They Will Feel Less Threatened by Mass Immigration of Low Quality
Their grandchildren will not grow up in some wretched barrio, or are less likely to, the higher their stratum is in terms of the heritable portion of IQ. Assortative mating for IQ is more than high enough to ensure that the barrio possibility for their family is very unlikely. These strata, as they go higher in terms of intelligence, should, however care more about the effects on the larger society and how that affects their family, and be better able to project the future and the alternatives. Instead we see a nihilistic unconcern, alternating with bursts of enthusiasm, for the degradation of quality of population and all the horrors that go with it.

Anti-Discrimination as an Ideal above Loyalty to Civilization and Citizenry, While Mass Infiltration by Hostiles is Underway

If anti-discrimination can be a valid ideal, both for individuals and society,
and such that each further increment of it is an improvement, openness to infiltration by hostiles, in catastrophic degree, would follow or not? An unspeakable contradiction-in-terms follows from the above considerations: increasing anti-discriminatory openness to mass immigration of those who would do damage to civilization, and even to the furtherance of anti-discrimination itself, would still be rated an improvement of civilization, and a move towards the fulfillment of the anti-discrimination ideal. Therefore anti-discrimination as an ideal in the above sense, is contradictory, damaging, self-damaging, self-liquidating and worthless. Other values, such as loyalty to the continuity of civilization, and to the citizenry over others, such as those foreigners who increase the level of aggression within the borders of a nation, must be rated higher than anti-discrimination. When aggression is used by officials to get more anti-discrimination in society, that is clearly not a move towards any valid ideal, but downwards towards savagery.
Added 5-30-08
When one is told that race doesn't exist, or is not important, or should not be an object of consciousness, it is very much against the current rules of what may be published on high, to reply that racial disparities then wouldn't exist, or wouldn't matter, or would not need to be noted, even privately. No one to your left will allow that race disparities might be willed away by special blindness.
There are some on the right though, who get into a contradictory fuss, about how it is so important to believe race to be unimportant. If it so important that it be thought unimportant, and if disparities of race are to be stressedly left out of observation, there can't really be also nothing important there, at the same time as we would have so much riding on getting the majority to believe that there is really nothing there. From all this, one comes to know that it's really about how to smear opponents, as a last-ditch method for political moves which have no convincing arguments in their favor.

Colorblindness, Creed-Blindness & Nationality-Blindness are not known to be ideal in every way,
especially insofar as they would blind one to the cover, for increase of aggression, that they can provide. That increase of aggression is facilitated by contradictory policies, of one-sidedly regarding as illegitimate, the use of non-blindness by the majority towards minorities. The one-sidedness is found to be used to condemn populations insofar as they've been resistant to despotism for whatever reason. The point of the advocacy of such one-sided blindnesses, making them out to be ideal, regardless of war or peace, is then noted to be one of hostility to that which successfully resists total power.

Openness to Low Quality and Large Quantity of Immigration can Slow or Catastrophically Reverse Growth of Productivity

That the advancement of civilization can be thrown into reverse via mass immigration, is admitted, in a roundabout way, in the below quote, where the effect of such restrictionism is noted to be one of "inducing labor-saving innovations": " The primary policy pursued by every rich country is to prevent unskilled labor from moving into their countries. And because unskilled labor is the primary asset of the poor world, it is hard to even imagine a policy more directly inimical to a poverty reduction agenda or to “pro-poor growth” than one limiting the demand for unskilled labor (and inducing labor-saving innovations)." quoted from Lant Pritchett via Econlog:http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2007/05/lets_increase_p.html

There is a grave difficulty for power-greedy elites in speaking rationally
on the subject of the desirability of mass immigration of undesirables.
If they were to do so, they would forfeit the chance to try to smear and 'diagnose'
all opponents of their openness-valuing position. Ref.:Parapundit 6-24

To be American means: to be non-American?

It can't be our identity to have no identity.
It can't be our tradition to have no tradition.
It can't be our heritage to have no heritage.
It can't be our loyalty to have no loyalty.
There being no arguments for mass immigration of hostiles,
which do not involve contradictions like the above,
and with such high hopes of power riding on transmission of conflict,
more such contradictory assertions will be put out.
It is our continuity to have no continuity?
It is our loyalty to citizens to have no loyalty to citizens?
It is our patriotism to have no patriotism?
It is our community of values to have no community of values?
It is our common culture to have no common culture?
Properly interpreted, 'nation of immigrants'
and multiculturalism, pro-diversity, and more,
imply all the above contradictions-in-terms. It is also an exaggeration to say that for example, German immigrants assimilated and became more like Anglo-Saxons, notably more than they changed America, to resemble their characters.
There is indeed a founding culture which is not on a level with immigrant importations, but occupies a sovereign and superior position.
A non-sequitir is involved where one additional increment of population is
implied to have no different effect than an earlier increment.
No argument has ever been given which could demonstrate that there are no thresholds beyond which historical experiences such as assimilation, cannot be expected to continue as before.
Basically what we're given is a set-up for a smear:
claim that assimilation is to be expected to be always the same regardless
of which populations are being compared, when this is doubted or denied,
say that only racial hatred can motivate disbelief in the equation
of hugely divergent populations. It is necessary to use the smears only, since no rational arguments are available for traitorous openness.

Diversity-Valorization and Vicarious Power-Greed: A Rare Description of a Grave Threat to Civilization

Here is an intriguing comment by 'American Cassandra ', with many points of similarity to my own thoughts such as are posted or linked on this site:
"Diversity doesn't lead to good things, diversity is a good thing. Doesn't it ever occur to liberals that diversity does not lead to unity? This couldn't possibly be an accident. I don't think liberalism just mistakenly aims for impossible things, I think it deliberately aims for impossible things. If it aimed for the possible, there would no longer be an excuse for totalitarianism and infinite social engineering. I understand why liberals in power love liberalism. It gives them such an excuse for more and more power. I've never understood why ordinary people, students in the universities, school teachers, etc, are so seduced by it. They don't have any power, why does it thrill them so to give the state power over them? I suppose it must be that they are enjoying it vicariously." http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/008224.html
Another conclusion might be that what they enjoy, is the prospect
of great power for themselves, validated by the enhancement of others' power or chances of increased power. How could that apply to those who cannot get themselves to believe that they do have such chances of power, though? Alternatively, there could be a psychological condition like what's sometimes called 'identifying with the aggressor', and that would be either within or outside the range of normal psychology. For this discussion no such conclusion as to normal or abnormal will be drawn. That would take us into psychology proper, which is not covered here.
Added 7-2-08 from : Monday, June 30, 2008

Disempowerment Of The Undeserving, Power-Greedy
...is what might well motivate one. Openness to the empowerment of others, even insofar as they are different from oneself, is not what may reasonably be valued. It reduces to a contradiction-in-terms, however you approach it. Are they more and further different culturally, by having different values? Then you're asked to value the aggrandizement of what goes against your values; a contradiction-in-terms.
Posted by John S. Bolton
added 7-4-08 from: Tuesday, July 1, 2008

Explaining The Strange Vicarious Power-Greed
...in terms of a specific hatred. There is such a hatred aginst others' freedom-from-aggression, which shows in the desire to force a broadly distributed freedom-for-aggression, on others. Even if one has no hope of obtaining power for oneself, that special hatred will cause a sympathy with the aggressor. The aggression itself will be felt as falling on others. The power will be seen as if it were one's own, and the wish for the enhancement of that power, is the vicarious power-greed.
Posted by John S. Bolton

Openness to Low Quality of Immigration Vastly Increases the Level of Aggression on the Net Taxpayer of Our Citizenry, To Whom Loyalty is Owed

IN SPITE OF OFFICIAL ATTEMPTS TO OBSCURE IT, THE FACTS ARE THAT LOW-INCOME IMMIGRANTS
ARE OVERWHELMINGLY A CHARGE ON THE NET TAXPAYER, as the below quote indicates:

"Robert Rector, Real Clear Politics, June 27, 2007

Monday’s column from the Administration’s Karl Zinsmeister and Edward Lazear (“Lead Weight or Gold Mine: What are the True Costs of Immigration?” June 25, RCP) is a study in misdirection and misstatement. Since they devote much of their piece to attacking my research, I’d like to set the record straight.[...]

* Low-skill individuals (i.e., those without a high school degree) receive far more in benefits and services than they pay in taxes.

* The net fiscal cost of the families headed by low-skill immigrants is not markedly different from the cost of families headed by low-skill non-immigrants.

* Low-skill immigrants receive, on average, three dollars in government benefits for each dollar of taxes paid. This imbalance generates a net cost of $89 billion per year on U.S. taxpayers. Over a lifetime the typical low-skill immigrant household costs taxpayers $1.2 million dollars.

* Immigrants are disproportionately low-skilled. One-third of all immigrants and more than half (50 to 60 percent) of illegal immigrants lack a high school degree."
[Rector, however, does not include
the cost of interest on the net public subsidy
of immigrants, which, among other omitted charges
attributable to them, would add greatly on to his estimates.]
Speaking of immigration, so that "...the issue is framed--as a matter of equal rights and the blessings of diversity on one side, versus "racism" on the other--tends to cut off all rational discourse on the subject." -View From the Right. Is it done rhetorically this way, because no rational argument can be adduced for such degrees of openness?

Openness to Inaccuracy of Reproduction as an Ersatz Ideal

The attempted idealization of inaccuracy of reproduction, reduces to a contradiction-in-terms.
As the genetic differences between the parents grow larger, each must reproduce less accurately.
Reproduction is of like unto like, not of dissimilars to further dissimilars. Therefore, propaganda making out each additional increment, of genetic distance between the parents, sound like an improvement
in itself, is contrary to the accuracy of reproduction, and to reproduction in a more general way.
Similarly, a false dilemma is set up, when one is asked to choose between extremes of inbreeding and further and further degrees of outbreeding, as if there were not a best level much closer to the threshold of literal inbreeding, which is best for accuracy and excellence of reproduction.
If there were rational arguments for trying to idealize further and further degrees of outbreeding, it would not be necessary to try to smear the other side as being for cloning, inbreeding, fascism, racism and so on. They would just prove their case, if they could without using the smears.
Now what would it mean, then, if insofar as a population has been resistant to despotism, they are asked to value this push towards inaccuracy of reproduction; unless those promoting such
further outbreeding, believe that the resistance to dictatorship has a significant genetic influence to it?
Additionally, from a posting of August 31st, 2007:
Slighting the Concern for Accuracy of Reproduction Involves the Use of Unreason Where Rational Arguments Were to be Expected
If there were rational arguments for trying to idealize further and further degrees of outbreeding, it would not be necessary to try to smear the other side as being for cloning, inbreeding, fascism, racism and so on. They would just prove their case, if they could without using the smears.It would not be necessary to set up false dilemmas, such as marriage of first cousins versus having a preference for something like random breeding. It would not be necessary to pretend that a slippery slope exists such that we either idealize random breeding on a global scale, or slide inevitably towards compulsory close breeding. As with body temperature, salinity or any number of other measures, the ideal can be an intermediate range, and the false reasoning that would say that to reject, for example, high body temperature as an ideal, must result in idealizing low body temperature, is just obviously deceitful.
Added 7-4-08 from: Pro-Diversity's Over-Extended Analogy to 'New Blood',
If the 'new blood' or 'new ideas' are evaluated as a positive, regardless of whether they are really better or less likely to generate unfitness than the old, that is attempted non-evaluative evaluation, a contradiction-in-terms. Yes, it involves trying to be evaluative and non-evaluative at the same time and in the same respect: what is new is evaluated as being better just for being new somewhere, while at the same time and in the same respect, NOT being evaluated as to whether its 'new' contribution is a real improvement or not. Last year, I denounced the sort of motivations driving an embrace of the above contradiction in this way: Smear-Mongering And Analogies To Incestuous Inbreeding As Support For Valuing Openness To Diversity
If openness to diversity is to be regarded as a value, and as one, of which, one can never have too much, while the analogy originally was to a genetic openness to diversity just sufficient to ward off inbreeding depression, isn't that analogy strained enormously far beyond what it can bear?
It being thus broken, oughtn't one to conclude that the inbreeding analogy in the service of that pro-diversity rhetoric, was really just the preliminary to a smear, such as: Prove you're not an advocate of inbreeding and incest! It has long been used in exactly this way, in the wretchedly routine New Left-ish pattern: smearing, false dilemma, equivocation, slippery-slopes and misconception of ideals. Accept diversity value, or we'll call you incestuous and inbred! The false dilemma is extreme outbreeding or extreme inbreeding as ideals, with the vast middle ground of real possibilities excluded, as if only to facilitate smearing. Such an obviously fictitious dilemma between ideals, is a misconception of ideals as well. Slippery-slope is implicated, since those who would not make a drive on mass random breeding for the whole world their ideal, are implied to be on an inexorable slide towards inbreeding and incest. If not, then why the smears of 'inbred' this and 'incestuous' that? The term inbreeding gets equivocated with extreme inbreeding and with incestuous breeding, all to facilitate the smear job. If valuing openness to diversity were being presented honestly, in a moderate way asking for little or nothing beyond what people have always done, there would be no need for the smears, equivocations and other fallacies. There is no rational argument for valuing openness to diversity in the above-described way, as something beyond the practices of mankind for ages before now; that is why the smear approach must be used instead .
Added 7-4-08 from: Wednesday, November 21, 2007

Stunning Contradiction For The Pro-Diversity: Valuing More Openness To Immigrant Diversity Can Cause Defects From Inbreeding To Steeply Rise
From UK Telegraph of 16th Nov.,07: "By Marco Giannangeli[...]The report, commissioned by Ann Cryer, revealed that the Pakistani community accounted for 30 per cent of all births with recessive disorders, despite representing 3.4 per cent of the birth rate nationwide.[...]It is estimated that more than 55 per cent of British Pakistanis are married to first cousins, resulting in an increasing rate of genetic defects and high rates of infant mortality. [...] Royal Infirmary Hospital [Bradford, UK] has identified more than 140 different recessive disorders among local children, compared with the usual 20-30." JB Comments: The pro-diversity, arguing also for valuing openness to diversity, on an analogy to inbreeding depression being lessened through increase of diversity, have, at the same time and in the same respect, managed to be both for and against the increase of inbreeding in a population of tens of millions. The contradiction is insuperable; valuing openness to diversity includes placing positive value sign on the openness to immigration which hugely increases the prevalence of defects from inbreeding.
Added 8-9-08 from: Thursday, August 7, 2008

Randomization Damage To Associations Of Alleles In Populations
such as races, which have persisted for thousands and tens of thousands of years, co-evolving as associations of alleles in long-isolated populations; may do untold damage. Unlike doomed species of no honest interest to man, the randomization/destruction of this human genetic information is sure to degrade that which we ought to value both as individuals and at every other level. Instead, though, the anti-culture of the government schools, bids us value openness to diversity. As anti-arts were set out to destroy the information contained in the (true) fine arts, so the emphasis on valuing openness to genetic diversity from as far afield as possible, attempts the ruin of real values. Of note is the need for government funding of such propaganda offensives, as what is pushed is highly contra natura. As bad as it sounds, it is a fleeting moment in the scheme of things, though, since this line counseling openness to diversity is to be abandoned once ultimate power is won. Meanwhile, it is used to provoke and then try to smear those who oppose the pro-diversity talk. Make them prove they're not racist, rather than your having to prove why you should have more power, is how it works.
Added 8-28-08: Mental health of biracial Asian Americans :
"biracial Asian Americans are twice as likely as monoracial Asian Americans to be diagnosed with a psychological disorder." -34 vs. 17% according to the linked study