At what point does all this feminine power come with any responsibility? In my experience, the main reason for keeping it all covert and un-acknowledged is so that you may avoid all responsibility for it.
As a non-western woman, I hear the loudest and ugliest of shrieks when I say that I feel responsible for something. People constantly strive to convince me that I could never be responsible for anything at all. See? It all just happens to me and I am either the poor victim or the triumphant underdog in every situation. It could never be otherwise.
I am not prone to feeling guilty, and I certainly don’t think I have caused any of the problems I often talk about, but I feel responsible for changing what I can. It is so tiresome that that is just not an acceptable option, even when a self-avowed dissident contrarian is making an argument, that women are just these “cute” and helpless little beings to you, unaware of their own power and unable to wield it correctly. Do you really think we don’t see right through the little tricks that you have suggested to your fellow men?
The real trick, ironically enough, is to finally openly acknowledge that women have this power and must therefore act responsibly in wielding it. But I won’t hold my breath, it seems an absolute impossibility that most people will ever get it.
I think women will often see through these tricks, but will mostly see it as endearing that men are trying to engage with them on a higher level.
I feel like becoming aware of how the world works in a conscious way is something that a very small proportion of women achieve, and it's usually women who are more autistic. In my experience when women get "redpilled" they take it MUCH worse than men, because for them the natural inequalities of the world sting a lot more harshly. That is why women hate incels so much--they can't bare being made aware of these truths, and I don't blame them for that. A lot of the things incels talk about aren't things people are supposed to know as explicit truths.
The problem with telling women to act responsibly is that so much of female agency is "embodied" through social maintenance done more or less automatically. Women don't think of the world in terms of "true" and "false" like men do--they think in terms of social repercussion. Autistic women are an exception to this of course, they think like neurotypical men.
It’s not very nice of you to call me autistic like that, and to do it twice! I’m almost offended lol
You are mostly correct on all your observations about women, but I don’t think you quite understood what I was getting at. You don’t need to shove it in their face and tell or force them to act responsibly. In any case, holding someone responsible when they don’t accept it themselves never works out for the best anyway. All anyone needs to do is to stop enabling and encouraging irresponsible behavior. The self respecting adults in the room, so to speak, should be glad of the opportunity and the spoilt kids will out themselves. And I don’t think it is primarily up to men to do that either, quite the contrary.
You make a lot of good points here, but I disagree with the underlying assumption that we need to pander to the female mind. Objective reality in the end is the main force. Perceived reality can affect objective reality (Like taking a BB gun to the airport, not a real gun, but people think it is, and all the associated trouble that comes with it), but it is better to understand how things really work first, and then work on the social side of the equation. The obsession with narrative explains a huge amount about why the American Empire is in decline, because it made decisions that felt good, or sounded good instead of being *actually* good decisions. Yeah, you are right, the mainstream right often has shit social intelligence, but there are times where dudes just need to find the balls to say "shut up, bitch". But then again, knowing when and how to play that card requires discretion, and for various reasons higher IQ people tend towards the left, so you are right we have a worse deck of cards to play here.
As regards art, my view is you need to tell a story first, and then the themes will be emergent out of that. A lot of films with over the top leftist messages are also flops or cringe.
Leftists appear to have ruined Hollywood with wokeshit in recent years. There are also some notable examples of woke video games that failed hilariously (most recently the Suicide Squad game). I'm sure more general examples of this are all over the place if you look for them in our post-Floyd era.
To the extent that it's true that the libs are good at making art, that only seems to be true when they don't lean too hard into being total libshits, and/or when they're actually the counter-culture and not the dominant religion.
Anyways. "Shut up, bitch" tends to fail in the modern context because Women's Tears (see Hanania's article on this) are way too strong when we are operating under the (false) assumption that men and women are the same, should be treated the same, should do all of the same things in life, etc. As with race, the underlying equity delusion has to be undermined first. Telling a woman to shut up about politics will only work if everyone understands that women are ill-suited for politics to begin with. If not you just come across as a big mean bully.
If just swallowing the stigma and bullying the woman actually worked, okay maybe, but part of my point is that I don't think it does. The woman doesn't actually have to shut up and anyone watching is likely to see her as the victim and you as the aggressor, so you're not changing any of their minds either.
At some point the nature of the interaction has to be changed such that telling liberal women to shut up about politics no longer has a stigma in the first place, and rather the stigma attaches to women for expressing liberal political opinions. At least, if we continue with the premise that liberal women are a problem who need to be solved.
I found this quite thought provoking, and I've sent it to one of my conservative friends so that him and I can wrestle over it a bit. I have some doubts about the art section because I feel that we've been so inundated with preachy progressive "art" or formless nonsense which people will scoff at you for saying is not art (to you). That said, it's obvious that higher openness to experience — which is itself likely tied to a higher risk tolerance — and a high enough IQ to make sense of and utilize narratives tends to help when making art, so I don't outright object to what you argued and just need to think about it more. It was just a bit jarring to see low time preference and liberal paired together.
Anyway, I've been really enjoying this foray into the dissident and new right because it's not the same old facile nonsense that you'd hear being touted on a college campus. While I have my disagreements with what I read, that's often an indicator that what I'm reading is challenging my assumptions and helping me to hone my view of how the world is and the difficulties in getting the world to where I would like it to be. For reference, I'm a gay (but masculine) Hindu ancap who came of age in Kentucky but studied math and physics in Boston, so I personally understand the — at times — competing values of community/family and individualism/excellence. Obviously there aren't too many gay guys on the right, but it's very natural for me because I'm very comfortable with hierarchy and sensitive to beauty. Perhaps this is my own naivete, but I think it is actually good to unmask the white lies and niceties which constitute our social undercurrent because the lies ultimately pile up. That said, I'd like to see a more robust contingent of elites on the right (perhaps be one someday) since I'm elitist by disposition and find Cofnas compelling — which it can be hard not to be once you're exposed to true excellence, though many blind themselves to it through their progressive values and guilt. Now I've just got to find a guy who's high quality but also doesn't find my beliefs abhorrent...
I'd be really interested in picking your brain about the current position of Indian-Americans in American society. It seems to me Indians have basically become the new Jews in terms of influence/wealth but nobody has really acknowledged this yet.
Do you feel like Indian-Americans are going to be more ethnically activated in the coming years? Will Trump's close ties to Modi or the influence of Vivek make them more right wing / prone to allying with whites? Will the dynamic chance once the Taiwan thing dies down and America and India start to become rivals? I think this is going to be the really interesting story of the 21st century.
I only know so much about Indian politics in India, but what I do know is that they are westernizing with respect to gender roles and how much debauchery they permit, so in a sense they are like America but a few decades behind. The caste system is also relaxing, and I'm very curious what that will entail because one of the consequences of having such a rigid caste system for so long is that, despite living in the same geographic area, there was effectively a parapatric speciation — which likely piled up positive traits related to creativity, contemplativeness, and IQ towards the top. I'm from the Kshatriya caste, which historically were the kings and warriors, though they were expected to learn from the priests (Brahmin caste) as part of their early enculturation, so it is not surprising that I have some of the attributes that I do. I would highly recommend checking out WhatIfAltHist's 2 YT videos on India for some more historical context on the region.
It is worth noting the north/south Indian divide. Most Indians in America are north Indians, and Indian cuisine in the west is dominated by north Indians on account of their higher entrepreneurial spirit and in-group networking. They are predominantly the Indians you'd find owning/running a restaurant, gas station, or hotel. The south Indians (of which I am one) on the other hand are predominantly the ones you'd find working as doctors, lawyers, professors, or in IT. Instead of staking out on our own, we tend to excel in ascending to high prestige positions within existing institutions, which is helped by our relative docility. That's why so many of the Indians you'd meet in academe are progressives; that's the culture they're surrounded by and end up identifying with as a result. The cuisine is very spicy and focuses a lot on pickles and fermented foods, unfortunately not very well represented in the west. My guess at an evolutionary explanation is the large role of seasonal agriculture in the south Indian economy made group cooperation highly lucrative, which would also explain the hyper-democratic bordering on socialist tendencies of that population. As Amy Wax asked about Indian immigrants when calling for a reduction in Indian immigration: "Does the spirit of liberty beat in their breast?"
Being the largest democracy and proud of it, India is unlikely to full out become a rival to America, but I can't predict how America's foreign policy would affect the region. Modi is quite Hindu-nationalist, which entails opposition to Muslims northwest of India, but Hindus and Christians usually get along pretty well. I know that I do. I could definitely see the south Indians being allied with the left and north Indians being allied with the populist right, much to my chagrin since I think the right is broadly better for high achievers. If I'm right that India is like America but a few decades behind, then the "coming apart" we experienced (cf. Charles Murray) is likely in its infancy at the moment for India. Most Indians see themselves as part of the Indian nation, which is helped by the ethnic homogeneity, but with the proliferation of more advanced jobs, I could see the caste division widen. The internal turmoil could be intense.
I work in an industry that isn't tech but is broadly adjacent to tech, and as such I have worked with a lot of both Indian immigrant and Indian-American programmers. I am noticing that in many tech companies they are starting to get the same level of dominance that Jews had in media and finance in the 20th century, and that does worry me.
A lot of departments have become almost entirely Indian, and it is common opinion among white and NE Asian tech workers that Indian tech leads will engage in extreme ethnic nepotism filling roles. I don't know how true this, but I'm sure it happens to at least some degree. And surely H1Bs are driving down salaries somewhat as well.
In my opinion this has the potential to make Indians the main rival of racially conscious white people in the coming decades, and the opposition will be lot more organized since it's high IQ whites being crowded out instead of proles.
Personally I am divided on the issue because I do really like the Indians I've worked with and I notice they basically "think like whites". There isn't that huge gap in worldview you get with Chinese etc. coworkers and it feels like we can become close friends easily. North Indians have a pretty similar way of acting to Irish Americans so I get along with them especially. I definitely notice them lying/BSing at work all the time tho; the South Indians are much more competent and trustworthy.
On the other hand I feel they have become so wealthy so rapidly that it is going to cause social unrest if we don't close the gates for a while. We need to assimilate them more and get enough of them marrying white people and NE Asians (probably more common after 2nd gen) that they start to blend into the general pop.
I like Indians, but if we let an enormous pool of 120+ IQ brahmins with distinct names and rituals exist as a distinct and insular cohort it could get kind of messy in 20 years down the line and won't be good for any of us.
Hmm, I hadn't thought of it turning out that way, but it certainly sounds feasible given the dynamics you suggest. The primary retardant on that in my mind would be the progressive mindset of the "high IQ whites," but ultimately ideology is not blind to material and social conditions. As you point out, Indians are like Jews but within different industries because we tend to have quite high mathematical/spatial IQs (forgot to mention engineering earlier) whereas Jews have only slightly lower mathematical/spatial IQs but ludicrously high verbal IQ — excellent for law, journalism, media, and much of academia.
Considering that my mom basically detached us from the local Indian community on account of their gossipy and status-seeking nature, leaving us to interact with whites since they were more or less who was left, I tend to agree with your characterization of north vs. south Indians based on your personal experiences. I know I've long had a stringent moral compass that would at times invite consternation from my mom because she was trying to show me that things aren't as black and white as truth good and lies bad in all contexts, very much in line with the piece you wrote, so I have no reason to object to your characterization of south Indians as trustworthy.
Also, I definitely know that north Indians stick among themselves whenever possible, but I honestly don't know how prevalent it is among south Indians. Obviously Indians will take note of other Indians and inquire about your background and what language you speak (I unfortunately only speak English), but that is pretty ubiquitous among racial minorities in any given nation. When talking to my progressive friends, community aid/preference is actually a strategy that I cite as effective for improving the status of a group when they are doing poorly. Although I obviously have my disagreements with the overarching leftist bent of the black panthers, I respected their approach of mutual aid, self-defense training, and in-group preference. But as we saw with the LA riots (and the history of the Jews), being too successful in this strategy as a minority group invites suspicion and resentment.
David Beito has an excellent book "From Mutual Aid to the Welfare State," and Hans Hermann Hoppe's most popular book is "Democracy: The God That Failed." I think you'd find them both insightful.
Very good post. The overwhelming power of female tears is something few people talk about. It’s pretty much always a game winner for them. They can literally get men they barely know to put down what they are doing, and stop, and do whatever the woman asks them to do. It’s ridiculous. Young men need to be trained about the reality of this female superpower, so that they can at least mitigate its effects. The idea that it is women who enforce of social norms is a helpful way to think about it. Your elaboration of the various methods they employ to do this is nicely done. One of your best posts so far.
I remember Stephen Merchant quickly interjecting something like, “I don’t think so, I'm a racist”, when Karl and Ricky talked about how it would be interesting to meet Nelson Mandela.
Obviously meant as a joke, but I wonder if something like this would reduce the tension, in a Shane Gillis way. Leftists would see this as self-deprecating and too disturbing to be true so it has to be a joke. Of course, the most important thing about a joke is who tells it and how.
Was riding with libtard relatives and we saw a bumper sticker that suggested owner believed in Big Foot. My wife asked if anyone really believes such things and libtard relative said with contemptuous tone, “Of course they do”, which implied dumb whites of course (blacks don’t believe such things b/c “Muh coalition!”). But I missed my chance to retort that I once saw a man who had become a woman running in the woods. Not sure how well that would have gone over.
One strategy for dealing with "mean girl" social shaming is to simply not have any meaningful social connections with progressives. If everyone you care about agrees with you on politics, some shitlib pointing out that you are transgressing liberal political values won't bother you. It's only a threat with any power if there are other liberals listening in who can hurt you in some way, like if you have a bunch of liberal friends who might cut you off for committing wrongthink.
Fortunately, I think this is becoming more and more of the norm as people continue to sort based on ideology, and the liberal tendency to cut off wrongthinkers has almost certainly accelerated it. I believe this is one reason you see a really big political divide between the genders in Gen Z. In previous generations young women and men interacted together a lot more, meaning that if you said something the girls didn't like, they were there to hear it and gossip about it and lower your social status and whatever. But today young men just sit at home in private Discords posting racist memes and playing video games. If your interactions with women are completely siloed off in a separate "dating scene" through Hinge or whatever, or non-existent to begin with, then women have little or no opportunity to try and police your political opinions.
idk, Trump's instinctive reaction to conflict is running off to his hugbox and talking shit. Biden's reaction is to totter over to the source of irritation and yell "I'm going to push up you in the face!" Biden is a bully, which is the norm in recent American politics( Clinton, W Bush, Lord knows McCain). Trump is a mean girl. A crude, slovenly, Roseanne mean girl, but a mean girl.
I found this article very satisfying; yet, I am skeptical that playing head games with liberals will move the needle much if we don’t get elites on board—unless you see this as some kind of “grassroots” approach that will push liberal elites in the right direction from below. That seems dubious. Also, Jung strikes me as a quack (just like his mentor Freud)—his views don’t comport with evolution.
It's not a program for depolarizing women or changing communicative norms so much as living a more satisfying and authentic life individually. I don't know how much you can really take a larger scale approach to the woman question in the short term.
As for Jung you shouldn't see him as a scientist so much as a philosopher. His heuristics for understanding human behavior are great, but even today psychology isn't really a "science". Psychologists who treat it as a branch of philosophy are IMO a lot more rigorous.
Maybe I did miss the point. I agree that you offer some good strategies for navigating the liberal social milieu but I am very fixated on routing the woke so I can speak my mind in public without reprisal. This leads me to despise woke men as wimps even though I am not super masculine; nevertheless, I am fairly good at debating in a similar style to what you suggest. I am skeptical of your claim that conservatives tend to be better at math. Hanania & Cofnas think liberals are smarter. Is it really just verbal intelligence? My immediate family are all liberal Ivy-League grads and smart all round. Jung sounds like a woo-woo philosopher to me (see link).
I would disagree that the MAGA movement is dominated by masculine chuds. In 2016 Trump had a speaking style that was considerably more feminine than any other candidate that had run recently, male or female. He is much more likely to focus on appeals to emotion over policy. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/10/trump-feminine-speaking-style-214391/ The MAGA movement is heavily driven by victim narratives about trade, immigration elites etc, so the line “This isn’t an easy task for conservatives, especially conservative men, because we don’t like feeling like “victims”.” doesn’t really resonate with me.
Wow, what’s deep dive. I went in curious to read about contrarian liberals creating honest art challenging liberal premises, but found the list on “handling yourself” in a world of feminist rhetoric astutely socially aware and wanted to respond to it.
I liked how you put “integrate your anima” first. I think there’s a lot of resistance AND difficulty in doing this, both among liberal and conservative men. You mention sadism, but on the left there’s something like a masochistic way of integrating (or falsely integrating) the anima. Something like that… and on the right… a phobia towards integrating this. Call it homophobia, transphobia, gynophobia, whatever the phobia of the day is. Have you found this difficult? I guess this is an eternally difficult quest, navigating anima integration. Integrating the shadow has been trendy, but integrating the anima still seems unfashionable and hard to do… at least on the right, maybe because it seems inimical to masculinity. (And in the left, problematic, maybe masochistic?) Maybe there’s right and wrong, healthy and unhealthy ways, or at least, optimal and suboptimal, authentic and inauthentic ways to do it.
And on “exploring and exploiting your victim narrative”… I was just reading a Jeannie Oullette substack essay (August 2, “Of Heat & Need & What it Takes”) and was moved by the essay she shared here: https://thesunmagazine.org/articles/584-athens-revised that evocatively does this, exploring and exploiting—or at least revising and public ally sharing—a narrative of victimhood—confronting a painful story. The author revises it to find her own truth. Anyway, again, this illustrates how hard this, too, is. I guess my point is, I like your list. It can be quite hard to do these things, even when our intentions are the best.
Most of the good to great TV shows and movies recently have a very legitimate reactionary reading, even if their showrunner is a leftist. Donald Glover is a complete shitlib, and Atlanta has a ton of shitlib stuff in it, but most of the scenes where only black people are on screen are a pretty honest depiction of black life and culture. Same with the Wire. Season 4 could easily be titled "no amount of money is going to fix this problem."
“It is probably best for society to keep praising the emperor’s clothes, both for this guy’s sake and for the sake of women, even if it annoys spergs like me.”
Thatcher was right that there is no such thing as “society” (not in the literal sense but in the sense that there is no single acting organism). I don’t think we need to stop telling the truth because to not do so can often be disastrous.
“And it’s also just healthier for the political order—men need to have some illusion of equality or they will become unproductive or violent.”
Men need no illusion of equality and they have none. But men do need respect. That’s why humiliating black men was one of the worst aspects about segregation.
At what point does all this feminine power come with any responsibility? In my experience, the main reason for keeping it all covert and un-acknowledged is so that you may avoid all responsibility for it.
As a non-western woman, I hear the loudest and ugliest of shrieks when I say that I feel responsible for something. People constantly strive to convince me that I could never be responsible for anything at all. See? It all just happens to me and I am either the poor victim or the triumphant underdog in every situation. It could never be otherwise.
I am not prone to feeling guilty, and I certainly don’t think I have caused any of the problems I often talk about, but I feel responsible for changing what I can. It is so tiresome that that is just not an acceptable option, even when a self-avowed dissident contrarian is making an argument, that women are just these “cute” and helpless little beings to you, unaware of their own power and unable to wield it correctly. Do you really think we don’t see right through the little tricks that you have suggested to your fellow men?
The real trick, ironically enough, is to finally openly acknowledge that women have this power and must therefore act responsibly in wielding it. But I won’t hold my breath, it seems an absolute impossibility that most people will ever get it.
Great comment!
I think women will often see through these tricks, but will mostly see it as endearing that men are trying to engage with them on a higher level.
I feel like becoming aware of how the world works in a conscious way is something that a very small proportion of women achieve, and it's usually women who are more autistic. In my experience when women get "redpilled" they take it MUCH worse than men, because for them the natural inequalities of the world sting a lot more harshly. That is why women hate incels so much--they can't bare being made aware of these truths, and I don't blame them for that. A lot of the things incels talk about aren't things people are supposed to know as explicit truths.
The problem with telling women to act responsibly is that so much of female agency is "embodied" through social maintenance done more or less automatically. Women don't think of the world in terms of "true" and "false" like men do--they think in terms of social repercussion. Autistic women are an exception to this of course, they think like neurotypical men.
It’s not very nice of you to call me autistic like that, and to do it twice! I’m almost offended lol
You are mostly correct on all your observations about women, but I don’t think you quite understood what I was getting at. You don’t need to shove it in their face and tell or force them to act responsibly. In any case, holding someone responsible when they don’t accept it themselves never works out for the best anyway. All anyone needs to do is to stop enabling and encouraging irresponsible behavior. The self respecting adults in the room, so to speak, should be glad of the opportunity and the spoilt kids will out themselves. And I don’t think it is primarily up to men to do that either, quite the contrary.
You make a lot of good points here, but I disagree with the underlying assumption that we need to pander to the female mind. Objective reality in the end is the main force. Perceived reality can affect objective reality (Like taking a BB gun to the airport, not a real gun, but people think it is, and all the associated trouble that comes with it), but it is better to understand how things really work first, and then work on the social side of the equation. The obsession with narrative explains a huge amount about why the American Empire is in decline, because it made decisions that felt good, or sounded good instead of being *actually* good decisions. Yeah, you are right, the mainstream right often has shit social intelligence, but there are times where dudes just need to find the balls to say "shut up, bitch". But then again, knowing when and how to play that card requires discretion, and for various reasons higher IQ people tend towards the left, so you are right we have a worse deck of cards to play here.
As regards art, my view is you need to tell a story first, and then the themes will be emergent out of that. A lot of films with over the top leftist messages are also flops or cringe.
Still, good piece overall.
>>I disagree with the underlying assumption that we need to pander to the female mind
You wanna get laid or be right / "right"?
Leftists appear to have ruined Hollywood with wokeshit in recent years. There are also some notable examples of woke video games that failed hilariously (most recently the Suicide Squad game). I'm sure more general examples of this are all over the place if you look for them in our post-Floyd era.
To the extent that it's true that the libs are good at making art, that only seems to be true when they don't lean too hard into being total libshits, and/or when they're actually the counter-culture and not the dominant religion.
Anyways. "Shut up, bitch" tends to fail in the modern context because Women's Tears (see Hanania's article on this) are way too strong when we are operating under the (false) assumption that men and women are the same, should be treated the same, should do all of the same things in life, etc. As with race, the underlying equity delusion has to be undermined first. Telling a woman to shut up about politics will only work if everyone understands that women are ill-suited for politics to begin with. If not you just come across as a big mean bully.
Sometimes, you have to swallow the stigma that comes with being seen as a bully, if it's really something important. Pick your battles of course.
If just swallowing the stigma and bullying the woman actually worked, okay maybe, but part of my point is that I don't think it does. The woman doesn't actually have to shut up and anyone watching is likely to see her as the victim and you as the aggressor, so you're not changing any of their minds either.
At some point the nature of the interaction has to be changed such that telling liberal women to shut up about politics no longer has a stigma in the first place, and rather the stigma attaches to women for expressing liberal political opinions. At least, if we continue with the premise that liberal women are a problem who need to be solved.
*Beliefs about* objective reality are the real main force.
*Beliefs about* objective reality are the real main force.
I found this quite thought provoking, and I've sent it to one of my conservative friends so that him and I can wrestle over it a bit. I have some doubts about the art section because I feel that we've been so inundated with preachy progressive "art" or formless nonsense which people will scoff at you for saying is not art (to you). That said, it's obvious that higher openness to experience — which is itself likely tied to a higher risk tolerance — and a high enough IQ to make sense of and utilize narratives tends to help when making art, so I don't outright object to what you argued and just need to think about it more. It was just a bit jarring to see low time preference and liberal paired together.
Anyway, I've been really enjoying this foray into the dissident and new right because it's not the same old facile nonsense that you'd hear being touted on a college campus. While I have my disagreements with what I read, that's often an indicator that what I'm reading is challenging my assumptions and helping me to hone my view of how the world is and the difficulties in getting the world to where I would like it to be. For reference, I'm a gay (but masculine) Hindu ancap who came of age in Kentucky but studied math and physics in Boston, so I personally understand the — at times — competing values of community/family and individualism/excellence. Obviously there aren't too many gay guys on the right, but it's very natural for me because I'm very comfortable with hierarchy and sensitive to beauty. Perhaps this is my own naivete, but I think it is actually good to unmask the white lies and niceties which constitute our social undercurrent because the lies ultimately pile up. That said, I'd like to see a more robust contingent of elites on the right (perhaps be one someday) since I'm elitist by disposition and find Cofnas compelling — which it can be hard not to be once you're exposed to true excellence, though many blind themselves to it through their progressive values and guilt. Now I've just got to find a guy who's high quality but also doesn't find my beliefs abhorrent...
I'd be really interested in picking your brain about the current position of Indian-Americans in American society. It seems to me Indians have basically become the new Jews in terms of influence/wealth but nobody has really acknowledged this yet.
Do you feel like Indian-Americans are going to be more ethnically activated in the coming years? Will Trump's close ties to Modi or the influence of Vivek make them more right wing / prone to allying with whites? Will the dynamic chance once the Taiwan thing dies down and America and India start to become rivals? I think this is going to be the really interesting story of the 21st century.
I only know so much about Indian politics in India, but what I do know is that they are westernizing with respect to gender roles and how much debauchery they permit, so in a sense they are like America but a few decades behind. The caste system is also relaxing, and I'm very curious what that will entail because one of the consequences of having such a rigid caste system for so long is that, despite living in the same geographic area, there was effectively a parapatric speciation — which likely piled up positive traits related to creativity, contemplativeness, and IQ towards the top. I'm from the Kshatriya caste, which historically were the kings and warriors, though they were expected to learn from the priests (Brahmin caste) as part of their early enculturation, so it is not surprising that I have some of the attributes that I do. I would highly recommend checking out WhatIfAltHist's 2 YT videos on India for some more historical context on the region.
It is worth noting the north/south Indian divide. Most Indians in America are north Indians, and Indian cuisine in the west is dominated by north Indians on account of their higher entrepreneurial spirit and in-group networking. They are predominantly the Indians you'd find owning/running a restaurant, gas station, or hotel. The south Indians (of which I am one) on the other hand are predominantly the ones you'd find working as doctors, lawyers, professors, or in IT. Instead of staking out on our own, we tend to excel in ascending to high prestige positions within existing institutions, which is helped by our relative docility. That's why so many of the Indians you'd meet in academe are progressives; that's the culture they're surrounded by and end up identifying with as a result. The cuisine is very spicy and focuses a lot on pickles and fermented foods, unfortunately not very well represented in the west. My guess at an evolutionary explanation is the large role of seasonal agriculture in the south Indian economy made group cooperation highly lucrative, which would also explain the hyper-democratic bordering on socialist tendencies of that population. As Amy Wax asked about Indian immigrants when calling for a reduction in Indian immigration: "Does the spirit of liberty beat in their breast?"
Being the largest democracy and proud of it, India is unlikely to full out become a rival to America, but I can't predict how America's foreign policy would affect the region. Modi is quite Hindu-nationalist, which entails opposition to Muslims northwest of India, but Hindus and Christians usually get along pretty well. I know that I do. I could definitely see the south Indians being allied with the left and north Indians being allied with the populist right, much to my chagrin since I think the right is broadly better for high achievers. If I'm right that India is like America but a few decades behind, then the "coming apart" we experienced (cf. Charles Murray) is likely in its infancy at the moment for India. Most Indians see themselves as part of the Indian nation, which is helped by the ethnic homogeneity, but with the proliferation of more advanced jobs, I could see the caste division widen. The internal turmoil could be intense.
Fantastic comment, thank you for the insight.
I work in an industry that isn't tech but is broadly adjacent to tech, and as such I have worked with a lot of both Indian immigrant and Indian-American programmers. I am noticing that in many tech companies they are starting to get the same level of dominance that Jews had in media and finance in the 20th century, and that does worry me.
A lot of departments have become almost entirely Indian, and it is common opinion among white and NE Asian tech workers that Indian tech leads will engage in extreme ethnic nepotism filling roles. I don't know how true this, but I'm sure it happens to at least some degree. And surely H1Bs are driving down salaries somewhat as well.
In my opinion this has the potential to make Indians the main rival of racially conscious white people in the coming decades, and the opposition will be lot more organized since it's high IQ whites being crowded out instead of proles.
Personally I am divided on the issue because I do really like the Indians I've worked with and I notice they basically "think like whites". There isn't that huge gap in worldview you get with Chinese etc. coworkers and it feels like we can become close friends easily. North Indians have a pretty similar way of acting to Irish Americans so I get along with them especially. I definitely notice them lying/BSing at work all the time tho; the South Indians are much more competent and trustworthy.
On the other hand I feel they have become so wealthy so rapidly that it is going to cause social unrest if we don't close the gates for a while. We need to assimilate them more and get enough of them marrying white people and NE Asians (probably more common after 2nd gen) that they start to blend into the general pop.
I like Indians, but if we let an enormous pool of 120+ IQ brahmins with distinct names and rituals exist as a distinct and insular cohort it could get kind of messy in 20 years down the line and won't be good for any of us.
Hmm, I hadn't thought of it turning out that way, but it certainly sounds feasible given the dynamics you suggest. The primary retardant on that in my mind would be the progressive mindset of the "high IQ whites," but ultimately ideology is not blind to material and social conditions. As you point out, Indians are like Jews but within different industries because we tend to have quite high mathematical/spatial IQs (forgot to mention engineering earlier) whereas Jews have only slightly lower mathematical/spatial IQs but ludicrously high verbal IQ — excellent for law, journalism, media, and much of academia.
Considering that my mom basically detached us from the local Indian community on account of their gossipy and status-seeking nature, leaving us to interact with whites since they were more or less who was left, I tend to agree with your characterization of north vs. south Indians based on your personal experiences. I know I've long had a stringent moral compass that would at times invite consternation from my mom because she was trying to show me that things aren't as black and white as truth good and lies bad in all contexts, very much in line with the piece you wrote, so I have no reason to object to your characterization of south Indians as trustworthy.
Also, I definitely know that north Indians stick among themselves whenever possible, but I honestly don't know how prevalent it is among south Indians. Obviously Indians will take note of other Indians and inquire about your background and what language you speak (I unfortunately only speak English), but that is pretty ubiquitous among racial minorities in any given nation. When talking to my progressive friends, community aid/preference is actually a strategy that I cite as effective for improving the status of a group when they are doing poorly. Although I obviously have my disagreements with the overarching leftist bent of the black panthers, I respected their approach of mutual aid, self-defense training, and in-group preference. But as we saw with the LA riots (and the history of the Jews), being too successful in this strategy as a minority group invites suspicion and resentment.
David Beito has an excellent book "From Mutual Aid to the Welfare State," and Hans Hermann Hoppe's most popular book is "Democracy: The God That Failed." I think you'd find them both insightful.
Thought you might like to know that I copy and paste my favourite articles into a Google Drive archive, and this one made the cut.
Very good post. The overwhelming power of female tears is something few people talk about. It’s pretty much always a game winner for them. They can literally get men they barely know to put down what they are doing, and stop, and do whatever the woman asks them to do. It’s ridiculous. Young men need to be trained about the reality of this female superpower, so that they can at least mitigate its effects. The idea that it is women who enforce of social norms is a helpful way to think about it. Your elaboration of the various methods they employ to do this is nicely done. One of your best posts so far.
I remember Stephen Merchant quickly interjecting something like, “I don’t think so, I'm a racist”, when Karl and Ricky talked about how it would be interesting to meet Nelson Mandela.
Obviously meant as a joke, but I wonder if something like this would reduce the tension, in a Shane Gillis way. Leftists would see this as self-deprecating and too disturbing to be true so it has to be a joke. Of course, the most important thing about a joke is who tells it and how.
Oh I say that kind of shit all the time around my gf's libtard friends and they find it funny, you just need to have the right vibe lol
Was riding with libtard relatives and we saw a bumper sticker that suggested owner believed in Big Foot. My wife asked if anyone really believes such things and libtard relative said with contemptuous tone, “Of course they do”, which implied dumb whites of course (blacks don’t believe such things b/c “Muh coalition!”). But I missed my chance to retort that I once saw a man who had become a woman running in the woods. Not sure how well that would have gone over.
One strategy for dealing with "mean girl" social shaming is to simply not have any meaningful social connections with progressives. If everyone you care about agrees with you on politics, some shitlib pointing out that you are transgressing liberal political values won't bother you. It's only a threat with any power if there are other liberals listening in who can hurt you in some way, like if you have a bunch of liberal friends who might cut you off for committing wrongthink.
Fortunately, I think this is becoming more and more of the norm as people continue to sort based on ideology, and the liberal tendency to cut off wrongthinkers has almost certainly accelerated it. I believe this is one reason you see a really big political divide between the genders in Gen Z. In previous generations young women and men interacted together a lot more, meaning that if you said something the girls didn't like, they were there to hear it and gossip about it and lower your social status and whatever. But today young men just sit at home in private Discords posting racist memes and playing video games. If your interactions with women are completely siloed off in a separate "dating scene" through Hinge or whatever, or non-existent to begin with, then women have little or no opportunity to try and police your political opinions.
idk, Trump's instinctive reaction to conflict is running off to his hugbox and talking shit. Biden's reaction is to totter over to the source of irritation and yell "I'm going to push up you in the face!" Biden is a bully, which is the norm in recent American politics( Clinton, W Bush, Lord knows McCain). Trump is a mean girl. A crude, slovenly, Roseanne mean girl, but a mean girl.
I found this article very satisfying; yet, I am skeptical that playing head games with liberals will move the needle much if we don’t get elites on board—unless you see this as some kind of “grassroots” approach that will push liberal elites in the right direction from below. That seems dubious. Also, Jung strikes me as a quack (just like his mentor Freud)—his views don’t comport with evolution.
It's not a program for depolarizing women or changing communicative norms so much as living a more satisfying and authentic life individually. I don't know how much you can really take a larger scale approach to the woman question in the short term.
As for Jung you shouldn't see him as a scientist so much as a philosopher. His heuristics for understanding human behavior are great, but even today psychology isn't really a "science". Psychologists who treat it as a branch of philosophy are IMO a lot more rigorous.
Maybe I did miss the point. I agree that you offer some good strategies for navigating the liberal social milieu but I am very fixated on routing the woke so I can speak my mind in public without reprisal. This leads me to despise woke men as wimps even though I am not super masculine; nevertheless, I am fairly good at debating in a similar style to what you suggest. I am skeptical of your claim that conservatives tend to be better at math. Hanania & Cofnas think liberals are smarter. Is it really just verbal intelligence? My immediate family are all liberal Ivy-League grads and smart all round. Jung sounds like a woo-woo philosopher to me (see link).
https://philarchive.org/rec/PERIJT
I would disagree that the MAGA movement is dominated by masculine chuds. In 2016 Trump had a speaking style that was considerably more feminine than any other candidate that had run recently, male or female. He is much more likely to focus on appeals to emotion over policy. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/10/trump-feminine-speaking-style-214391/ The MAGA movement is heavily driven by victim narratives about trade, immigration elites etc, so the line “This isn’t an easy task for conservatives, especially conservative men, because we don’t like feeling like “victims”.” doesn’t really resonate with me.
On the money 10/10
Wow, what’s deep dive. I went in curious to read about contrarian liberals creating honest art challenging liberal premises, but found the list on “handling yourself” in a world of feminist rhetoric astutely socially aware and wanted to respond to it.
I liked how you put “integrate your anima” first. I think there’s a lot of resistance AND difficulty in doing this, both among liberal and conservative men. You mention sadism, but on the left there’s something like a masochistic way of integrating (or falsely integrating) the anima. Something like that… and on the right… a phobia towards integrating this. Call it homophobia, transphobia, gynophobia, whatever the phobia of the day is. Have you found this difficult? I guess this is an eternally difficult quest, navigating anima integration. Integrating the shadow has been trendy, but integrating the anima still seems unfashionable and hard to do… at least on the right, maybe because it seems inimical to masculinity. (And in the left, problematic, maybe masochistic?) Maybe there’s right and wrong, healthy and unhealthy ways, or at least, optimal and suboptimal, authentic and inauthentic ways to do it.
And on “exploring and exploiting your victim narrative”… I was just reading a Jeannie Oullette substack essay (August 2, “Of Heat & Need & What it Takes”) and was moved by the essay she shared here: https://thesunmagazine.org/articles/584-athens-revised that evocatively does this, exploring and exploiting—or at least revising and public ally sharing—a narrative of victimhood—confronting a painful story. The author revises it to find her own truth. Anyway, again, this illustrates how hard this, too, is. I guess my point is, I like your list. It can be quite hard to do these things, even when our intentions are the best.
“This means conservatives are terrible at making art.”
You should hyperlink your essay on that topic here *wink wink nudge nudge*
Where did you pick up the concept of anima that you used in your essay? Any recommended sources?
Ross Douthat argues vigorously for a reactionary reading of Lena Dunham's show "Girls"
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/05/opinion/sunday/ross-douthat-i-love-lena.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/19/opinion/a-requiem-for-girls.html
Yes that partially inspired me to write this haha
How pathetic is it that Lena Dunham created some of the best conservative art of the past few decades?
This is an enormous problem and I want to dedicate all of my energies to fixing this.
Most of the good to great TV shows and movies recently have a very legitimate reactionary reading, even if their showrunner is a leftist. Donald Glover is a complete shitlib, and Atlanta has a ton of shitlib stuff in it, but most of the scenes where only black people are on screen are a pretty honest depiction of black life and culture. Same with the Wire. Season 4 could easily be titled "no amount of money is going to fix this problem."
“It is probably best for society to keep praising the emperor’s clothes, both for this guy’s sake and for the sake of women, even if it annoys spergs like me.”
Thatcher was right that there is no such thing as “society” (not in the literal sense but in the sense that there is no single acting organism). I don’t think we need to stop telling the truth because to not do so can often be disastrous.
“And it’s also just healthier for the political order—men need to have some illusion of equality or they will become unproductive or violent.”
Men need no illusion of equality and they have none. But men do need respect. That’s why humiliating black men was one of the worst aspects about segregation.