The Indian problem

The Indians have invaded the Anglo-speaking internet and are taking over the UK and America. Indians are much more politically savvy than the Chinese and accustomed to competing in electoral politics. They have infiltrated Silicon Valley, become CEOs of important companies, and are currently the wealthiest minority in America. Indians know how to fake it to look "based" and gain space in right-wing platforms. This is not only the case for British conservatives like Sunak or Vivek Ramaswamy in the Republicans; they are even given a voice in some otherwise respectable publications of the dissident right.

Today at NatCon in Washington, a representative of the Indian government threatened the West to ally with India because "a billion Indians" could be with you – that conference btw was also infiltrated by lots of Indian speakers as part of the "Conservative Right."

The problem with the Indians is that despite faking opposition to immigration, they are still contributing to the dissolution of the West and the demographic substitution.

Lord Miles proposed that the West needs a "Great Firewall" to protect its internet from the Indian avalanche, and I think that is a good starting point.

You're not wrong but where are you going with this?

Are Indians actually faking being based?

From what I can tell, many of them genuinely have respect for European civilization, unlike other formerly colonized peoples. I think this is also nurtured by their own nationalist memes that assert their identity as "aryans," the usage of the swastika as a symbol, and their religion being directly related to pre-Christian European religions, and adversity toward Islam above all else. Their phenotype might also play a part in this as well, as they don't really look as distinct from Europeans as Africans or East Asians do. Indians look more dissimilar to Europeans than Middle Easterners do, but Islam's particularly adversarial relationship to Western civilization seems to significantly reduce the Middle Eastern assimilation rates (that being said, many Arabs who moved to the Americas (including Latin America) do just see themselves as "White").

The internet aside, Indians seem to be playing a similar role as the Italians or Irish in the US of the 1920s. They seem to want to be accepted but a large part of the population just hates them for pretty irrational reasons (they are stinky and have weak grip strength! or something lol). Maybe it's just me but irl almost every Indian I have met has been pretty normal and I just don't really understand the adversity toward them.

Despite my sympathy toward the Indians as people, I do think you are right about the issue being that there are 1.5 billion of them and they speak English. They could inherit and dominate most of the institutions built by Anglo civilization. Having institutions overwhelmed by one foreign group like that is never positive.

Probably some kind of Great Firewall of some kind makes sense at this point.

Btw all of these issues will probably get worse by the end of the century, when it isn't Indians but (largely Anglophone) Sub-Saharan Africans who make up 30% of the global population.

>>2064
>The internet aside, Indians seem to be playing a similar role as the Italians or Irish in the US of the 1920s. They seem to want to be accepted but a large part of the population just hates them for pretty irrational reasons (they are stinky and have weak grip strength! or something lol). Maybe it's just me but irl almost every Indian I have met has been pretty normal and I just don't really understand the adversity toward them.

Yeah. Considering their overrepresentation as businessmen and successor CEOs of established megacorporations, I'd say the Jews of the 1920s are an even closer match. It's not identical, I don't expect a corresponding Indian overrepresentation among Nobel winners or Hollywood moguls and writers, but it seems like a closer parallel than Irish dockworkers and cops and party bosses.

>>2064
>Are Indians actually faking being based?
I don't think it's faking, per se, but different heritage means different political interests. Anyone who thinks a "based" indian is politically equivalent to a "based" westerner hasn't talked much to either. "Based" doesn't really mean anything anyways. It's used for everyone from silicon valley yimbys to hardcore national socialists.

The "Aryan" thing is a red herring. Indians are about as distantly removed from the vedas as modern Europeans, or more. They often insist that the Aryans weren't just corded-ware Europeans, but indigenous to India. They identify their Dravidian mixture culturally and genetically as being way more Aryan than it actually is. Common interests can occasionally be found but I would caution against expecting political common ground.

>a large part of the population just hates them for pretty irrational reasons
This isn't my experience. People hate them for corrupt behavior in the workplace, and for being a political threat. Not all Indians are the same, and we're all still learning how to tell which ones are the civilized ones. But there are too many stories of fraud, smarmy flattery, resume fraud, chain-hiring masses of cousins and caste subordinates until whole departments might as well suburbs of mumbai, and general grifter behavior to be just made up. Anyways the single most robust finding in social psychology is that stereotypes are basically true. The political threat is that they are a highly ethnocentric (seriously, just read their forums) institutionally savvy foreign group that receives special treatment within the retarded inverse caste system of western institutions. Jews vs Indians is going to be an interesting fight.

>Having institutions overwhelmed by one foreign group like that is never positive.
In fact it's always fully fatal to a civilization. It would be a bigger problem if our civilization wasn't already dead.

I've had experiences with all sides of the spectrum: from blatant cousin-maxxers that aimed to take over the org as quickly as possible (as noted by Moldbugman in his famous thread) to talented peers whom I'd (cautiously) call friends.
They were all extremely politically savvy. That plus their sheer numbers means problems.

Regarding the "basedness", I'd concur that "based Indian" is not the same as "based European", and blood is thicker than water. Ethnic favoritism will always come out on top, and in fact most conflicts in history have been among "based" ethnic groups. Because the non-based got outcompeted. So it would probably be better for Westerners if Indians were not in fact Based, but soft socialist types.

A case in point: the recently-very-famous Ludic https://ludic.mataroa.blog/. I've really enjoyed most of his writing, but recently he's been veering deeper and deeper into anti-white-man rhetoric, with some transphilia on the side. And lo and behold, of course he's an Indian. A "based" and talented Indian, but again, blood is thicker than water. I really lost a lot of sympathy for him after the Nth anti-wide, anti-"cis" (ugh) aside.

>>2064

>From what I can tell, many of them genuinely have respect for European civilization

There's something tangled up here that others have alluded to, and that many have observed elsewhere, which is that tied up with their caste system and self-beliefs is a sort of wannabe Europeanism or Aryanism. They see lighter skin as better -- skin lightening products are popular in India, Bollywood stars have much lighter skin than the masses, and there is a rough but imperfect correlation between being low caste and being dark-skinned. Marrying a white person is seen as "marrying up", according to many people I know in white-Indian mixed-race marriages. And in my direct personal experience, also seen in a lot of social media posts, Indian men lust particularly aggressively after white girls, especially blonde haired, blue eyed ones. This latter fact is what I particularly dislike about them. Gives me the ick.

From hearing some of these "based" ones talk, it seems like they fantasize they can save whites by LARPing as white, marrying into the white gene pool, and taking over white society. At the same time, I've seen otherwise very rational, "rightwing", "pro-white" Indians completely lose their shit when exposed to anti-Indian racism by whites; clearly it wounds their pride in a unique way. In short, it looks like a sort of homegrown inferiority complex due to their own cultural memes (though the leftwing ones will, as usual, blame "the system of white supremacy" or "colonialism" for these feelings), combined toxically with the fact that many of these ones really are very smart and successful and so really aren't, and shouldn't feel, inferior to the majority of whites. They are clearly capable of their own civilization. They should be proud to be and do their own thing, and I would be the last to suggest they _should_ feel inferior, but much evidence suggests that many _do_ feel this way at least on some subterranean level.

>a large part of the population just hates them for pretty irrational reasons

I agree with the refutations of >>2068 which explains why there are many very rational reasons to dislike them, but one reason these rational reasons are "invisible" to some people is that for a long time, the West, particularly the US, got overwhelmingly the best, smartest, cream-of-the-crop Indian immigrants, who went to highly competitive universities and are clearly extremely intelligent and very capable of assimilation into upperclass Western society. I myself count many such Indians among my friends. Moreover, the more upperclass you are, the more likely you would have only been exposed to this top-tier fraction of the Indian population. However, the average IQ of the Indian population is _much_ lower than the average Western IQ. As more of the 1.4 B Indians pour into the West, people are getting exposed to these lower IQ masses. I've even heard it said that the higher quality Indian immigrants to places like Canada who arrived earlier on are now complaining about the large numbers of their backwards co-ethnics who are now arriving and literally shitting up the place. Of course much has been written about the violence, filth, and social dysfunction of India itself, but that's a different story, and it seems like things may be improving there.

To address the OP, since Westerner's capacity for positive collective action is zero, there is no hope of some Great Firewall. The best we few can do is to firewall ourselves, our own families, and our own social circles, and not let ourselves been infiltrated, submerged, or assimilated into the brave new world dominated by foreigners. We have to be in it, but we don't have to be of it.

Then there's this angle: https://www.anarchonomicon.com/p/film-review-india-the-worst-country

>To address the OP, since Westerner's capacity for positive collective action is zero, there is no hope of some Great Firewall. The best we few can do is to firewall ourselves, our own families, and our own social circles

If you mean that the current regime will not be solving any of these problems, you are right. But don't despair and claim they can't be solved. Things can turn very fast, at a scale larger than you might expect. We live in a time of high variance. Maybe the GAE will somehow go on for another thousand years, or maybe it will evaporate overnight like the USSR. It's certainly fraying at the edges, and increasingly challenged by cynicism and lack of belief in its core state-forming populations.

But yes, the best we can do is construct whatever firewalls are needed for our own friends and social circles *broadly construed*, and do so in a manner that makes it enticing and possible to do so at even larger scales.

I am glad that the Indian infiltration gets called out. It is extremely cringe to see Indians larping as defenders of "our values" and "against immigration". Sunak was supposed to be part of the most nationalist and anti-immigration wing of the Tories, and during his term, the UK received more immigration than ever. That should be a cautionary story for other Indians infiltrating the dissident right.

I really don't buy the good Indians – "high-caste" are "high-IQ" argument. The fact that Indians have been able to position themselves so well in the Western tech scene, says more about the stay of decay of the West than the supposed quality of the Indians. Most of them aren't even "good workers" like the Chinese or Koreans, but just political animals that know to talk the talk and poss as white frat boys while they benefit from diversity laws.

> To address the OP, since Westerner's capacity for positive collective action is zero, there is no hope of some Great Firewall. The best we few can do is to firewall ourselves, our own families, and our own social circles, and not let ourselves been infiltrated, submerged, or assimilated into the brave new world dominated by foreigners. We have to be in it, but we don't have to be of it.

That should be the baseline action, but I don't know if everyone understand that.

This thread is good confirmation that even among an intelligent commentariat, racism is intellectually and strategically retarded.

It is one thing to wish for immigration restrictions or hate managerialism. But instead of reflecting on your total fecklessness on such issues ("Westerner's capacity for positive collective action is zero"), you spend your energy on taking out your frustrations on random foreigners you don't understand nearly as well as you think. Plus some white man's kanging re: muh noble Aryans vs their ignoble Dravidians.

Where your logorrhea is, there your heart is also. A group that had any actual aspiration towards relevance would meditate on the humiliation of their own inability to exert power, work towards building strength and the fight against their actual domestic enemies, and build alliances where possible among a people you have no hope of expelling before you win. A bunch of complainers with no hope of actual action will palliate themselves by backbiting about foreigners.

This combination of self-defeating spite and impotence is somehow more disgusting than either the spite or the impotence alone.

* * *

[Patriotism] is the noblest of all natural affections, exactly so long as it consists of saying, “May I be worthy of England.” It is the beginning of one of the blindest forms of Pharisaism when the patriot is content to say, “I am an Englishman.”

-GK Chesterton

>>2078

In this thread I don’t see any backbiting (which implies slander, which implies falsehoods), but rather, honest discussion of reasonably objective and truthful, if tabooed, reality. To the extent that Westerners lack “the capacity for positive collective action”, it’s precisely because of sentimentality like yours which precludes straightforward discussion of impolite truths because it’s “racism” — a mind-killing concept that is a source of great power to our “actual domestic enemies” and that will be thoroughly discredited in any good future regime. I would also note that no other group, ethnic or otherwise, has such scruples against thinking rude thoughts about out-groups. The first step towards being able to build strength is being able to think the truth and discuss with trusted friends. None of that precludes strategic alliances, in fact one cannot build savvy alliances without clear-eyed self-interest, only dupe themselves or be duped by comforting fantasies of ethnic chivalry.

Setting aside the emotional insults (“retarded, complainers”, “disgusting”, etc.), I really don’t see what you think is self-defeating about any of this, or what meditation on supposed humiliation is supposed to do (the only embarrassing thing to me here is you tut-tutting racism and quoting Chesterton). I never understood people — always the same conservative types too — who get on Internet forums or social media and accuse anons who are sharing taboo ideas of complaining impotently. Discourse is actually very powerful — more powerful than you are for some reason willing to admit. But it’s an anon discussion forum, what more, beyond anon discussion, do you expect to see here specifically?

>>2078
fair points, anon. reminds me of moldbug's classic on why ethno-nationalism is strategically barren:

https://www.unqualified-reservations.org/2007/11/why-i-am-not-white-nationalist/

>This is the trouble with white nationalism. It is strategically barren. It offers no effective political program. You can be as smart as you want and think about white nationalism forever, and you will not come up with any productive strategy for collective action, white or otherwise.

but america is fucked right now by the total lack of honesty on these matters. nobody trusts anybody, no bad behavior gets called out, and no coalitions of the civilized can be built because everyone is stuck in your comfy anti-racist vibe where we all pretend not to see bad ethnic behavior

for example take the news out of oakland for the past few weeks. an absolute shitshow of ethnic corruption and violence, but the chinese can't even name the issue when black gangs are savagely beating up old chinese ladies in targeted racial attacks. and of course no calls out that the corruption involving the mayor is linked to some chinese maoist gang. that would be racist, and we're all far too serious and politically savvy for that in america.

so i think you're wrong. this isn't about white people being feckless, it's about american racial discourse being fucked in general and covering for all manner of ethnic corruption. sure, seething in public is no path to success, but far better to get all the seethe on the table so at least we can discuss the real situation. your conspiracy of silence isn't working.

i appreciate the counterpoint to ethnic groupthink, though

>>2080
While I don’t think that pointing out Indian nepotism and other bad behavior is necessarily the same as advocating for white nationalism, it’s a good idea to call out this link, since it’s natural to think that white nationalism is the implied solution, and maybe even is the solution some here are thinking of. Is there a way to de-link these in the minds of everyone who hears them? Moldbug points out not all states were nation-states — how would a modern-day Ottoman or Habsburg Empire handle this situation? (To the extent one could even imagine such a situation arising — maybe the whole premise is incoherent.) How do you get from here to there? Is it possible to have any racial discourse in America right now that doesn’t seem like a debate between status quo versus white nationalism? It seem like perhaps a focus on enabling greater ethnic autonomy versus particular ethnic grievances might have been more in the style of past multiethnic empires, but the status quo seems just as allergic to that, for now.

I think >>2078 is piling on rhetorical tricks to make us look low-status. "Retarded", "feckless", "logorrhea", etc. Cheap reddit-tier name-calling. I'm not American and have zero input into your internal politics. I'm just calling things like I see them.

Mass ethnocentric favoritism and subversion, followed by ethnic strife and subsequent formation of new political entities is the end-game of all "Ottoman or Habsburg Empires", which in today's time is the US. and E.U. I don't think we should aim to emulate them, but I fear nature will take its course either way.

It's only when white people dare to ponder whether they should also defect from their genteel "always cooperate" default mode, they get browbeaten by the 2078s of this world with "you did a low-status racismerino, my dude smh". I'm old enough to remember the Yugoslav wars (among remnants of *both* the Habsburg and Ottoman empires), and no one gave a damn about getting called a heckin racisterino. By that time defect-defect was firmly set in place among all participants. You gain nothing by being the last one cooperating when everyone is defecting.

>>2080
Yes, to be clear there's nothing wrong with wanting immigration restrictions, noticing group differences and preferring some over others, or calling out the ethnic angle of corruption. There are real problems here, and goring the cape wouldn't be so exhilarating if the cape were not, in fact, red and shiny.

What I see in this thread is that this sort of talk is what a Catholic might call an "occasion of sin" - not wrong in itself, but a temptation to strategic retardation so strong that a wise man would avoid it except in wiser company than here.

Moldbug's post that you linked is a classic diagnosis of this error. The excitement of heaping abuse on the other leads to the delusional belief that this is a race war and holding the line against the swarthies is victory. When in fact the true enemy - the one that defends the structures causing all the bad behavior you see - is in fact also white, and has been kicking your ass badly in domestic politics for decades.

Someone serious about building power and seeing how weak their position is would at minimum leave the door open to alliances of convenience with people they have no choice but to live with for now, rather than indulge in immoderate and ill-informed rhetoric guaranteed to create enemies where none need exist.

I generally dislike the pat diagnosis of right-wing psychology of blaming external enemies for internal failure, but there are cases where it simply fits all too well.

A case of the same dynamic in more mainstream Republican politics: Marco Rubio's threat to deport immigrants who are insufficiently supportive of Israel. His party was totally unable, while in power, to either limit immigration or dismantle the academic power structure that is the center of gravity of Palestinian grievance politics. Instead of trying to fix these failures, he finds some irrelevant brown people that makes him feel better to rhetorically kick around.

The Indian Problem looks, here, like the Jewish Question recast: how do we stop these outsiders from leveraging tribal networks to dominate honest, patriotic white men in business and the bureaucracy? It looks like the panic over Koreans in Japan, where, if you have not heard, they use pachinko to drain the vitality of the natives and fund their own motherland, drive down wages by importing foreign labor, and isolate themselves from any blowback. The Chinese occupy a similar position across Southeast Asia—an ethnically different internal enemy with allegiance only to their tribe and nation.

The problem, unfortunately, always has to be traced deeper into the machinery. In other words, you can burn out the Hokkienese and rape their daughters, but your grandchildren will still be born to the slum. You can go loot a Zenith and some Jordans to get one back for Latasha Harlins, but your neighborhood is about to be wiped out, anyway. You can shout slogans outside the Koreans schools in Shin-okubo, but it will only distract you from the Liberal Democratic Party and the Japan Business Federation working together to import a few hundred thousand more Nepalese and Vietnamese "students."

The Indian, at least where I come from, is quick-burning fuel for an economic engine that is intended only to maximize profits. Short-termist logic rules. The Indian, even if he rises in industry or the bureaucracy, is bound by the same rules. Whether he's a CEO, a slum lord, a bureaucrat, or the money behind a diploma mill, he imports his poorer cousins only to keep the machine running. Nobody can be "based."

In other words, I am repeating that tired line of the left: "fight the real enemy." I am, like Bernie Sanders, saying that open borders is a Koch brothers proposal. That doesn't need to be an anti-racist position. Reforming the economic system so that it doesn't run on mindless speculation and mafia tactics is precisely how you stop them from coming. Economic reform is more effective than bombing the boats.

I wonder if the appeal of degrowth thinking in Japan is not only because it rationalizes thirty lost years but also because it's the only solution to the Indian Problem (or Vietnamese Problem, or Chinese Problem, with the problem compounded by a weak economy and pathetic currency making it possible only to attract the dullest or wickedest immigrant): if a speculative economy inflated through real estate and finance is abandoned, there is no need to import the Third World.

I mostly agree with the following:
>>2068
>>2071
>>2070
>>2076
on the points that Jews are:
-foreign on political issues and do not hold any of the same internal definitions despite speaking the same language
-extremely nepotistic and are sympathetic to a concrete stratification of society, a trait so utterly at odds with the West's ideals and practices that it makes any possibility of coexistence laughable alone
-predisposed to naked flattery, mendacity, and boorish chip-on-shoulder pride
-entering at levels now that make any assimilation totally sterile, and there's no will or ability now to even attempt enforcement of American norms
-they totally lack many of the traits we prize as they are a much more overcivilized, oriental people comfortable living like locusts and engaging with a crab-bucket nightmare favela.

and >>2065 is rather prescient, especially since when you consider the outsized, definitively foreign, debatably negative influence Jews had on American society, you immediately become EXTREMELY suspicious of massive influx of another group which are even more foreign in nature, are even more of a caricature in the traits Jews are known for, and have an observable deep interest in usurping white nations for their own devices.

IMO the worst thing of all is these people actually think they can take up the mantle of European civilization, but are utterly incapable of it and completely ignorant of this fact. Another thing untouched on so far, I believe, is that the highly skilled and intelligent Indians are actually far more dangerous than the retards in gas stations. They are forming a new, self-interested, highly connected elite much like the Chinese, Ashk and Ost Jewish, Homosexuals, and Italians.

>>2078 >>2091
This Indian is obviously implicitly hostile to the interests of white men and seems more interested in insults than understanding, similar to the account in picrel. You see what I mean about being even more of a caricature than Jews in their own defining traits, Indians take "chutzpah" to the next level. An arrogance, audacity, and disdain for others which is truly unbelievable. It'll backfire gloriously, I think - unlike Jews, it's very, very easy to identify Indians.
> I generally dislike the pat diagnosis of right-wing psychology of blaming external enemies for internal failure, but there are cases where it simply fits all too well.
I suppose I'm in more self-aware online spaces, but I've seen no shortage of analysis targeted at the right's seeming helplessness against leftist dismantling and brown intrusion. I believe this is a vestige of conservaboomer sensibilities and the necessary action, which is much more radical, will come closer to the realm of possibility.