anarchonomicon.com
4Chan's First Feature film is also the first Feature length AI Film.
The Conceit? Aside from a few Joke stills, none of the visual film is AI. It is a "Nature Documentary" Narrated by David Attenborough... It is also maybe the most disturbing film ever made, and possibly the most important/impactful film of the decades so far.
Reality is more terrifying than fiction.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
This is the only image you need to understand the 2 hr documentary and the 2000 word blog.
India is not western civilization. The west permanently conquered every civilization except India.
In the eyes of the west, there are only 3 major civilizations - Abrahamic, Chinese and Indian. African and Native American cultures get a lot of praise, but only because they are considered to be ideologically harmless. The west sees Chinese and Indian civilizations as threats.
China is wierd. First, China nuked its own civilization and replaced it wholesale with communism (an explicitly western construct). Second, China was isolated (hard to access information on internal suffering) and became successful (harder to critisize). Lastly, China became an enemy. There was no reason to use dirty methods for critisizing China, because you could now be aggressive over the table. "Every Chinese person is a spy. Ban their brands. Sanction them to death, etc. etc.". It helps that China's population is in steep decline, where they might self-own themselves into extinction anyway.
India on the other hand remains an intact competiting (well, not so successfully) civilization that isn't an enemy. It has preserved its civilizational values. And if you're American, the Indian diaspora appears to be ascendant. Indians here are rich and peaceful citizens. They are now becoming powerful. And worst of all, for the first time, they are getting portrayed as cool (Monkeyman, RRR, list goes on).
If you are a 4channer, it gets your blood boiling. The short, meek and unsexy Chinese and India kids from school are now doing better. You (the socially madadjusted western dude) are better than them and you know it. You gotta hate. China is easy. Your President has given you a free pass to hate on China. But, hate for Indians has to be packaged into something more 'underground'.
Now, you're in luck. Because as great as the Indian diaspora is doing, India SUCKS. It is poor, and has 1.6 billion people. It sucks as much as any country in its socioeconomic class. It is 1.6 billion people, in poverty, with an uncensored internet and decent handle on English. There is so much content. Every time you show India as worse, it makes you feel a little better about falling behind your local Indian diaspora.
The hatred has become even more prominent now that India is ascendent (from an admittedly low base). You don't beat someone while they're down. But if they're starting to do better and a little too unusually proud of if, they're ripe pickings.
India is the best country to be portrayed as the worst in the world. India is civilizationally distant (so ciriticisms aren't self-owns). India is ascendent (so it is a threat). Indians near you are rich (so it is okay to make fun of them). It has no consequences (unlike China or Muslims, where such a documentary would have implications) and there is an ounce of truth to it (India is still very poor).
My dream in life is to under-go a public cancellation. It means you are threating enough and your competition has ran out of ideas. They're pulling out every dirty weapon to bring you down, and if you make it out this. You're part of the ruling class for good. An inevitable 'rite of passage'. India seems to be facing (very very) early signs of something like this. If the Indian economy keeps growing, I predict this kind of hatred is about to get a LOT LOT worse before it gets better.
To every Indian, I have the same advice. Everything is a dick measuring contest. Grow a bigger (economic) penis. Your economic penis is the only thing that matters. Until then....sucks to be us.
PS:
The leading image would be confusing to an Indian. India's economic tumble began during the early mughal rule, and was decimated through colonial times. Post independence, India was left in the hand of west-sympathizers and socialists (Nehru's Congress). They systematically eliminated any sign of Hinduism from Indian governance and politics. To any Indian, India's 'hindu era' begins post 2014.
I exclusively blame the Nehru for India's urban decay. Nehru was a 20th century white cambridge professor in Indian skin. The worst part is, like most leftist educated white men in power, he was well meaning, of sound thought and well spoken. Makes it hard to hate on him. I wish he was more like a Trudeau or Rahul Gandhi. Lot easier to carricature.
/images/17126779366931112.webp
This comment made me think some about how I specifically see the civilizations/countries of the world.
I probably would say 1st world (anglosphere, rich europe), 2nd world (poor europe), developing, won't develop.
For many contexts thinking of the islamic countries as a group also occurs. I'd say to me China counts as the most important developing country (although with their current problems that economic position could easily backslide for the rest of my life) and india somewhere in the middle of the developing countries. Not a "can't develop" like most of SSA but not of special note. Something like indonesia.
More options
Context Copy link
[citation needed]
For start, in Poland difference between Chinese, Pakistan, India and Bangladesh would be considered much smaller than difference between Germany and USA. Or Russia and Mexico. Or Mexico and USA. Or Brazil and Saudi Arabia. Or Mexico and Poland.
No idea why you think that China and India are considered more distinct than any other countries. You may overestimate how much people from West care specifically about India (or China, though here people actually care a bit).
More options
Context Copy link
Indians consistently overestimate how much time we spend thinking about them.
At least in America, in terms of the groups that grab headlines and really dominate the political discourse, it's blacks, South Americans, Chinese because of the geopolitical tensions, Jews to some extent recently because of the Palestine conflict, Muslims too because of the same conflict although not as much as during the Bush years or even the peak ISIS years... Indians are honestly way down there, most Americans don't have much of an opinion on them outside of some vague stereotypes.
Americans as a whole are different from the typical 4channer.
I admit, Americans have little need to think about India. Don't see people talk about Brazil or Indonesia either. The average American is pretty self centered. I'd be surprised if they thought of any nation that is not of immediate concern to them.
Yes, just freshly seen on orange cat site: https://rdrama.net/post/260165/american-forgets-the-rest-of-the
I guess this is a privilege you get from being a citizen of the global hegemon, you end up forgetting even the mother country which birthed you.
More options
Context Copy link
And very often not even then: https://youtube.com/@JustinAwad/videos
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think your model how the west sees the world is wrong. Lumping Canada, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Russia, Afghanistan, and Columbia the category "Abrahamic" and contrasting it with China and India (with much of the rest of SE Asia and Africa missing) is not how I see the world.
The way I would lump together countries would be based on the block nomenclature originating in the cold war. The west (which is ironically a term you used, instead of saying "in the eyes of the Abrahamic countries") are countries which are somewhat capitalistic, prosperous, and typically liberal democraties. This includes NATO, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and so on. (Turkey falls on the borderline, IMO.) The east are Putin's Russia and China, not necessarily in that order. The Muslim countries were kind of seen as a useful category after 9/11, even though they are inhomogeneous (Turkey, Qatar and Afghanistan are much more different from each other than Sweden and Taiwan, IMO.) The rest (which can include some or most Muslim countries) are the countries which are typically too poor to be a military threat to the established order and are sometimes useful to exploit for their cheap labor and natural resources. Some are kind of allied to the West (often in the 'their dictator is a SOB, but he is our SOB' way). If they are lucky, they enjoy some form of democracy and/or economic growth which will mean we will eventually count them among the west, if they are unlucky they are Somalia, Haiti or North Korea.
India is different from the rest of the 'rest' in that it is English-speaking, democratic, has some nukes (which they point at Pakistan, the west does not care either way) a huge population (which mostly won't by iPhones or European cars, though), a large land mass (which probably comes with some important natural resources) and (to my knowledge) a few excellent universities plus plenty of universities below the western standard.
There's a difference between "the world" and "civilisations".
I'm not sure I'd put India in the list, though; definitely there is "civilisation that traces back to the Ecumene" and "civilisation that traces back to China", but India doesn't seem especially separate from the Ecumene (in particular Persia acted as something of a bridge, and Sanskrit is Indo-European).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I disagree. I read the blog but didn't watch the movie (though if I understand correctly it is just a montage of the most degenerate extremes of India)
Neither of them are really about litigating pros/cons of British/Mughal rule - they focus solely on the present state of the country, and make the claim that it's very bad.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but it seems like you actually mean this literally (in another comment you say "These [Japanese and Muslim] people have been squarely defeated." - if so I don't really see your logic:
Based on my (limited) understanding of Indian history, until the mid 1900s essentially the entirety of what would become "India" was under the control of the British. Independence was something the British voluntarily gave to India because a growing anti-colonial movement had made the Raj too inconvenient (notably - there wasn't a part where the proud Hindu forces teamed up to cast of the chains of their old masters and launch a counterattack on the UK)
Furthermore the original government, whilst Indian in blood, was clearly Western in thought and education (Nehru literally went to Cambridge!) and English continues to be the co-national language of India.
This doesn't really line up with what I hear from my Western friends, living in the West. I think for the most part, no one in the West (excluding Canada) thinks about India. I have never gotten the impression that Westerners are threatened by India.
On the isolation - yes this would have made collections such as this harder to obtain. But the problem is that a lot of these things (to take one specific horrific example: eating the cow dung) literally never happen elsewhere (maybe in SSA? But is that really an acceptable standard?), it's not that there just lots more examples in India vs China (or even a country with a similar GDP), there are literally none. Of course these are all the most extreme of extremes - a normal Indian person isn't this way - but if the worst of the racial stock behaves this way, it suggests the average is still very bad.
As for the bit about there being overt Chinese racism in the West, this is completely insane. Whilst it's true that the West has a hair-trigger for anti-Black sentiments, it would still be completely unacceptable to be genuinely racist to any non-White group (you may get away with a well-intentioned joke about e.g. Indian accents, EAs all looking the same, etc - but not an actual criticism of the race)
What "civilizational values" has India preserved that say China or Japan has lost? (To go back to a previous point - English is one of the two national languages and the entire government was modelled after the Westminster system)
So the rich and peaceful part is accurate (Indians appear to out-earn everyone-excluding-Jews by quite a margin, I cannot find any data on crime rates that doesn't just cover "Asians", but since they're high-earners I think this pattern holds for Indians in particular too)
As for becoming powerful, I have heard this said online sometimes, and it certainly seems possible in the future (the incomes/crime-rates suggest a good genetic stock) - currently they're just proportionally represented Again this is fairly impressive, but they're hardly at the level of Jews for instance.
Your point about movies feels unconvincing. I've never heard of Monkeyman, and I only heard of RRR because it was referenced on The Motte some time ago. As someone who probably watches too many US TV shows, without any numbers at hand, I would not say that there is any significant representation of Indians.
This feels completely off to me.
India has indeed been improving rapidly, but it still lies miles behind the West (On visiting India to see family basically everything was significantly worse than in the UK) - I really do not think that the West sees it as a threat (indeed I personally do not believe it is a threat, except in the big-picture sense that every non-White race is a threat because over centuries they could evolve and overtake Whites)
As I said previously, you can "make fun" of Indians (and Jews, Chinese, Hispanics, etc) in a way you cannot do so for Blacks. But anything even approaching this video/blog post in tone, content or intention would be completely out of the question for any non-White race in the West - it goes beyond being politically incorrect and into travel ban/jail time territory.
I don't understand what you mean by "consequences". This wasn't a piece of government approved propaganda, it was done by a twitter anon. What exactly do you think would happen if "Thames" had made a similarly hateful work on Chinese/Muslim people?
As for the "ounce of truth" - what precisely is the lie? Do you dispute that the events that occurred in the film actually happened? Or are you saying the conclusions regarding racial inferiority aren't legitimate? (If so - I would like to ask if you also think the cornucopia of Black crime videos on right-wing Twitter don't reflect anything about Blacks)
What "dirty weapon" has been used here though? Whilst Kulak and Thames obviously hate the Indian race, the images weren't doctored, and the events that transpired occurred without any foreign influence. You compare this to a (presumably unjust) cancellation, but this is not footage of rural Indians jumping over toll booths or wearing torn clothing. Do you honestly think that any of that stuff is acceptable, even for the most primitive elements of a race?
Also I disagree generally with your logic that hatred is only ever motivated by jealousy. Do you also think that DR Twitter is "jealous" of the state of the American Black when they post video #34839 of Black teenagers destroying a convenience store / harassing random White people?
This isn't to say I think this wasn't in poor taste. But if we're doing metaphors, this makes me feel upset in the way you would be if a stranger decided to make fun of your profoundly mentally retarded younger brother as he drives the family to bankruptcy and eats crayons: there actually is a serious problem, which necessitates drastic measures - but the stranger humiliating you about this is unhelpful (and quite aggravating!)
I strongly disagree here. I've only done some very cursory reading on HBD stuff, but I think genetics (especially IQ) is much more important (From what I found just now, IQ correlates with GDP at r=0.82, which is insane by social science standards)
I believe that (especially in the long-run), the most important thing to get done if you wish to be a serious Hindu nationalist is to improve the racial stock of the nation. In the past such measures have been attempted but never on a particularly large (by the standards of India) scale. Also alongside coercive sterilisation, there would have to be some kind of government program to encourage high-IQ couples to have a lot more children (as we can see, already several states are below replacement, and since low-IQ people tend to have more children, the situation is even worse than the diagram suggests)
If by "us" you just mean Indians in India who care about the future of their race, then yes. I think being an Indian in the UK (and more so in the US) is quite nice (assuming you're not too much of a racial identarian, but then of course it doesn't matter much where you are)
The image is meant to reflect Abrahamic perspectives on India, not the reality. India sucks, that's no surprise. Many other countries suck too. Why pick India as the target for a 2 hour 4chan doc (rant) ? Indians being 'hindu' is fundamental to how the world views it. The same squalor would be treated quite differently if this was a christian/muslim country.
The army had mutinied by the time the British left. Gandhi was a good excuse, but the British leaving was because they couldn't hold India by force anymore. Ofc, That was an era when holding colonies was already become politically untenable across the board.
Therefore my statement that India was not run by the 'Hindus' until at least 1991 (Narasimha Rao) with the date sometimes being pushed as late as 2014. (Modi)
It is not about 'if' they think about India, but 'how' they think about India.
eh, I'm not sure I buy this.
It's the little things that add up. The Indian Govt. and the Indian Citizen only interact for democratic and welfare purposes. The actual unit of governance is the extended family. India was ruled by outsiders for so long, that the top-level governance structure tells you almost nothing about the core civilizational values of your everyday Indian.
Monkeyman released this week. To be fair, my point was about change over a low base. The absolute number is still low.
There is nothing clean/diry or just/unjust about a cancellation. It is only dirty in-so-far that it is inelegant. And a side will always choose an elegant or simple solution when it knows its win is secure. If someone is bad at their job and an asshole, you don't cancel, you merely fire them. If they are competent and meek, you convince/coerce them. If they are incompetent and meek, you ignore them. If they are competent and an asshole, that's when you cancel them.
Take a decade of all the shitty things done by white americans, scale that by 8x.....and you'd be able to make a similarly disgusting movie about the US. I dispute how representative it is.
Agreed. So let's start with reducing malnutrition first. 35.5% of Indian children are malnourished. In the 90s (those who are now adults), it was above 50%. I'd bet that <5% of Indians have a sufficiently high protien intake for optimal brain development.
IQ scores in the Intellectual Disability range (< 70) were 9 times more prevalent in the previously malnourished group (OR=9.18; 95% CI=3.50-24.13). Group differences in IQ of approximately one standard deviation were stable from adolescence through mid-life
No progress has been made towards achieving the target of reducing anaemia among women of reproductive age, with 53.0% of women aged 15 to 49 years now affected.
In the coming decades, the bottom 80% is going to be completely irrelevant to the GDP of a country. There will be a huge internal services sector, and a small skilled sector which generates all the actual productivity. India needs a high enough average IQ to run an effective service sector and enough geniuses to run the 'high productivity' sector.
The 2 are not tightly coupled. A country with 5x the people doesn't need 5x the number of geniuses. You need about 100k competent new-grads to run everything in the country. Everyone else can be manned by an average base population. You just need high compliance.
I am an Indian in the US too. My selfish needs take priority over any allegiance, national or religious.
Okay I see what you're saying now. The motivation for this was already discussed in another chain - I think it was most likely done by a White Canadian. I think the internal motivation for this was just because, in the case of Canada, the Indian immigrant population is of poor quality (hence the natives would get angry - in the same way a lot of UK natives have come to dislike Islam/Pakistan)
This could be interpreted as further proving that it wasn't a proper "victory". It had become "politically untenable" because the West had personally decided it was unfair (this is how I see it, but of course you could argue that the morality stuff was just an excuse to save face)
In any case I don't think the means by which India gained independence matters. I was mainly responding to your comments about other countries being "conquered" but not India (every example you give of China, etc being conquered seem to be things that also apply equally or worse to India)
Within a given race*, most traits follow a bell-curve. In some cases we have extensively studied the trait, given it a name, a measuring standard, etc (e.g. IQ) - so we can just compare races by measuring the mean and variance (then the (non)-existence of extreme individuals follows by integrating the area under the curve)
The video shows examples of extremely "degenerate" (I don't like how vague that word is, but I honestly don't know how else to describe it) things that don't happen elsewhere (minus maybe Africa)
There is some trait(s) within the people in those videos that makes them act in this way (I think low IQ explains most of it) - they do not represent the average but the fact they exist tells us about the average (The small number of instances is still meaningful, because the normal distribution decays so rapidly at the tails)
*In the case of India it is slightly more complicated, since the castes are effectively separate races themselves with separate bell curves. So the videos don't actually directly tell us about Brahmins/Upper Castes (. The success of Indian immigrants in the West is evidence that there is human capital there. But it does raise the separate question, already talked about in this thread, of why these people are willing to allow all of this)
Well this is the entire point of the video - the argument is you can't make such a movie. The West has even more technology than India, and there's no censorship confounder like with China. Yet are there any instances of American Whites doing anything like what's shown in the video? (I don't need a movie, but I would like to see at least one single video of any of this stuff happening in the US by Whites, not just in nature but also degree)
It definitely isn't representative - but as I said above, it is reflective of something bad.
So from what I can find online, in the most severe cases (which I think reasonably applied to ~1/2 population in the past) malnutrition can lead to a loss of 15 IQ points.
So even in the most extreme case (where since most people will be malnourished to an extent, we count them as being severely malnourished) such a program would add 15 IQ point, raising the country to a little over 90 IQ.
I think this is still way too low (and this is already a generously high estimate) - the average IQ of US Blacks is 85 and they function poorly even with a 1st world country pre-built for them.
So I think some kind of eugenics program is still necessary (also unlike curing malnutrition, this would have a positive long term effect beyond the individual)
This sounds reasonable (in broad strokes, no idea if the 80% figure is too high/low)
But I don't see why this makes average IQ obsolete. Even for accountants, programmers, etc having a higher IQ will make them do their grunt work more efficiently (you say "high enough", but I disagree there is such a thing, things can always become even more efficient - and remember that China has a racially homogenous population with average IQ 104, so unless something is done our (optimistically) 90 IQ internal service sector is going to lag behind)
My previous point about average IQ still applies, but even more so. Again, no country "needs" any geniuses at all, but if you want to come to the top, you need to have more geniuses than everyone else: more innovations will be made by 500 geniuses than 100.
And when you remember the geniuses are arising as the top whatever quantile of a normal distribution (or in India's case, a few different normals), this means that if you're able to produce 500 instead of 100, the 500 will all be of higher average quality than the 100 (the probability density only gets more and more concentrated at the threshold as you move the threshold further to the right)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I don't really buy that image.
The mughals, as a matter of fact, never conquered the very south. So long as we are throwing out theories, can it be a coincidence that the worst parts of India are those with the most Mughal influence?
The image is meant to reflect Abrahamic perspectives on India, not the reality.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
No.
You cannot understand how much India sucks.
Maybe the next generation will. Or the one after that.
Wrong too, but expected.
I do. I spent my whole life there. Not just the big cities, but smaller places too.
I have friends from towns like Wasserpur, Prayagraj, Ranchi, Patna.....people who have seen the real underbelly of the country. I know someone who killed by dacoits by being tied to a tree. I've seen a dalit college friend start crying because he he stained the only good shirt his parents could afford. I knew when to start holding my breath as the public transportation traversed through the worst slums in the country. I have been stuffed in a train like sardines, and forced to smell the collective odor of a 1000 men at once. I had to learn to ignore female beggars with toddlers, and naked kids with distended bellies playing besides burning rubber tires. Victims of human trafficking can be seen in broad daylight. I grew up being threated by my mom that she'd sell me off to the 'lady under the bridge' if I didn't finish my homework.
I know.
This is the only place I used all caps. It was not an accident.
Can you elaborate ?
The specific way India sucks even among very low-income nations, as seen through Western eyes, has little to do with poverty (there are very poor places in the world indeed) – and everything with its spiritual pollution, the lack of taste and disgust that finds root in your religious iconography and fully generalizes to contemporary ideas and beliefs; the physical squalor you can buy your way out of, but the rest, you will happily elevate into prestige. You are blind to the non-materialist dimension of the suckiness. No, I will not elaborate.
You are wrong, so wrong.
Avoid low effort comments. "No, you're wrong" is not an argument.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Uh, no.
Elaborating is what separates an argument from unbridled booing. And the latter is against the rules.
More options
Context Copy link
I prefer @2rafa 's explanation of your viewpoint to your actual viewpoint, which I am not sure I even understand, mainly due to its vague word salad. I'm sure you have a point but I don't understand it yet beyond what seems to be a visceral disgust you have for India, and something to do with I presume Hinduism.
You want specifics? What I mean by the disgusting lack of taste is inability to notice how, say, stuff like this – the whole (acclaimed in India, allegedly) channel – is garish and, ideally, ought to not exist; how it differs not just from high Western culture, but from mass entertainment too. Its existence is downstream of the same cause as willingness to drink feces from the Ganges; most likely mediated by the same neurophysiological differences. From what I can tell, a typical Indian male sees no problem here, because he involuntarily acts out those same mannerisms and thought patterns, whether as a Western politician – more polished, of course, by virtue of high intelligence and class and usually caste – or a bitter troll on themotte who suffers from lack of success on Tinder; in lower castes, this is often so pronounced and cringeworthy that I physically cannot bear to watch for long. What is the point in explaining it, pointing out cringeworthy inflections and expressions of the body, tacky spice of exaggerated interests, sloppiness of thought? Humans cannot meaningfully debate deep intuitions of propriety and grace, and I do not care to force some mimicry even if it were possible to convince Indians of my "correctness". It's a comprehensive and, yes, visceral sensation of rejection. Another race, another civilization, is entitled to a different set of standards. Indians do not know cringe or disgust, and I suppose that's psychologically better for them. Superpower by 2030 anyway, and Americans, who are also rapidly forgetting what it is to feel cringe, will be friendly to India anyway – because English, because economics, because geopolitics.
P.S. The phrase «spiritual pollution» is something I've taken from an offhand comment, long lost, by a Brahmin, about reasons Brahmins historically and contemporarily tend to live with their own, even at substantial cost, and seek to distance themselves from other Indians: to not be infected, not learn to move, act, think like… this, to cling to what purity they have salvaged. He saw the same thing I see, and I guess this is part of why they insist on bringing casteism even to Silicon Valley. I sure would love if it worked the other way around, «pollution» of civility and taste spreading to all. But probably not.
So if I'm getting you, your view is that the kind of music video you've linked is, in your view, not just distasteful to you personally, but is in fact objectively bad--bad as an adjective here not quite capturing the really badness of it. It's an abomination to proper values and taste. Ruskin would be spinning in-his-grave-bad. And further, the fact that such a video is popular (or this is how we are proceeding, because probably it's popular) is symptomatic of the badness of those who like it or watch it, or for whom it was meant, its target audience. Those people (Indians) are bad, too. But not only do they have poor musical taste, they're actually Bad. I am not using other adjectives here because I don't want to put words in your mouth. (You used garish, tacky, bitter, and one of my most loathed words: cringey or cringeworthy). You further suggest that this is not just a cultural difference between you and them. It's a deep gulf, a difference in fundamental make-up, something neurophysiological that causes them to be that way, a way that to you is revolting. (I am using that word but you didn't. But I think it's a fair assessment of what you are expressing--revulsion.) This same quality (if we can even use that word, maybe condition or state) in these repulsive beings is what also compels some of them to behave in unhygienic and woefully ill-mannered ways. It's just who they are, it's what they are.
If all of this is an accurate, perhaps less lyrical but more succinct crystallization of your views, I think I've got you. I disagree entirely. I also think sideswiping other users of the Motte to make a point is something we might do without and not be the less for it.
I don't think I'm going to convince you of anything and unless you invite that dialogue I won't even try. Please do however correct me if I've misconstrued your intent.
That's all essentially correct (plus their ridiculous nationalism and self-esteem in spite of all that, and clannishness, and opportunistic toadyism, and…) with one minor detail. I accept values relativism just like I accept relativism of tastes. This video (again, this whole channel, and pretty much every Indian entertainment channel) and everything it stands for is objectively bad within my subjective perception and is offensive to my vision of beauty and propriety; just like I find Subcontinental spices deteriorating my food. But it's not illegitimate in some ground truth sense of Cosmic Justice, the way Anglos thought of Indian caste structure or the tradition of immolation of widows. It is simply incompatible with me and people like me. I don't want to «fix» those people to make them more like myself and mine. I just don't want to partake in their unhygienic, high-pitched, gimmicky, r-selected dance of life. When I say that their society sucks in a way they are blind to, in a way going beyond backwardness, and this drives negative perceptions that they optimistically chalk up to their poverty, I speak for more than myself (eg I speak for white girls on Tinder who are too nice to say it out loud but not nice enough for a right sweep), but I do not speak for God. God must smile on them more than on me, if he smiles at all.
There's one more detail. I genuinely respect Indians for a few things, even as those things are tied to the offensive Weltanschauung. Their optimism is pretty enviable, their willingness to share and teach is noble, and their recognition of being imperfect – though vague and not very compatible with my own idea of their specific imperfections – makes them the most enthusiastic thanshumanists on the planet. Solar, hopeful Nietzscheanism comes easier to them than to the annoying and sanctimonious but also imperfect Hajnal line goodbots. If only it could help them develop good taste.
I don't recognize your right to disagree, by the way – it makes little sense, and you have made no argument as to why my evaluation is wrong, only not-so-subtly expressed your condemnation of my immorality, evidently driven by some equally subjective sentimentality.
Edit: I had not watched the video nor read Kulak's essay prior to engaging in this thread. Having checked it out now, I find the gleeful and self-righteous dehumanization appalling. My gut feelings about events showed there are obviously directionally similar, but I do not think indulging in such reactions to feel better about oneself and worse about Indians is appropriate. I am not a Westerner beholden to "one race the human race" creed or anything like that, it's just ugly to gratuitously mock humans who are in no condition to help themselves, about as ugly as the object level content of the video. It's also obviously counterproductive if you want to sway the immigration discussion (even bringing up Koko the gorilla etc. – incidentally, no, Koko didn't have the IQ of 75 or any other figure, she was just an ape), and this angle is a cope to cover up base meanness and engagement baiting.
Thank you for your response. It's true, I've made no argument, but I gave a reason why I felt to do so would be pointless. There's no reasoning one's way forward in this. You're dug in.
Still, I respect that you own up to a subjective viewpoint and stand by it resolutely. Few do.
I also admit to sentimentality, and a staunch view that Kulak rejects in his blogpost (or whatever we are calling substack posts), namely I think that we are all God's creatures, that we have value inherently as humans. And I believe this is true even when I personally find any particular person irredeemable. To me it the dismissal of an entire race, or large group, is outside my ability to sympathize. I just don't get it. Is not individual interaction relevant? Do you have no (Indian) friends or acquaintances whose benevolence (or whatever) gives you pause in your wholesale rejection? Is it so easy to categorize people into groups and be done with it?
I have lived since around the age of 21 in cultures not my own (a country in Africa, Japan) but I somehow assume you, as well, have had firsthand experiences on the ground, as it were, with, possibly, Indians, that have allowed you to form this worldview, or Weltanschauung as you say (though you use that to describe the other, not yourself.)
What do you have against a good curry, by the way? That seems an odd point to fixate on. What are you views on cilantro (not Indian, but disliked by many, particularly in Japan)?
I ask these questions but you've earlier expressed a desire to avoid elaboration or extended discussion on this topic, so if you don't want to say anymore, fine. Also if this response also doesn't pass muster, well. I'll try again, but a bit occupied at the moment.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
@2rafa wasn't describing the same viewpoint though - her explanation was still couched in entirely materialist terms. Having "taste", as I understand it, would entail being able to appreciate how even something that is perfectly sufficient on a physical level can be insufficient on an ethical/spiritual level.
It's not the first time he's levied this accusation, for what it's worth.
No, she was much more clear and readable, for one, and made reasonable points that could be supported. I appreciate that link, by the way, it was an interesting read. Am I correct that DLtD is formerly Ilforte? I remember that name from the reddit days, but I really need to start a notebook where I keep track of who is who and what post has made me remember them.
That is correct.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Lol, I just followed that link and saw the following:
The idea that Indians have no taste seems so silly to me as a fan of Indian music that I'm not sure where even to start here.
Not only that, but even a cursory glance at Indians' extensive history of writing and arguing about what constitutes good taste shows that, far from having no notion of taste and considering it to be arbitrary, they are in fact probably one of the ethnic groups that believes most heavily in taste being something that follows lawful intuition. Indeed, they perhaps follow this idea excessively, hence the numerous attempts in Indian writing to argue things such as why one performer's rendition of a raga follows the raga's essence more closely than another's, or why some given language adheres more closely to a Platonic ideal of grammar than another language does.
Who "they"?
Indians.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
You make my point for me. It is 2 civilizations looking past each other. We can find peace, but we won't find understanding.
More options
Context Copy link
Derivatives of Indian culture in the form of Western Buddhism and other enlightenment-oriented philosophies are actually quite popular in the West, so I don't know where you are getting this idea that Westerners think of India as being spiritually polluted. Maybe in the 19th century the majority of Westerners did, but that has not been the case for a long time now. Likewise, the average Westerner who has any awareness of Indian art generally does not consider it to be spiritually polluted. I mean, the most popular and influential rock band in history was made up of Indophiles.
Your idea that Indian religious iconography is characterized by lack of taste and disgust does not resonate with me whatsoever. Sure, there is much in it that strikes most Westerners as weird, such as the elephant God. But it just seems weird to me, it does not seem to me like it lacks taste and it certainly does not arouse any disgust in me. And, not that this has any bearing on your argument about what the typical Westerner believes, but to me personally, when I think about it objectively, the crucified Jesus seems at least as bizarre as anything I've seen in Indian iconography. It is only familiarity that makes the crucified Jesus seem un-weird. And as for European paganism, with its various sacrifice rituals and stories about divine rape, I wouldn't say that it is objectively any less strange than Indian paganism.
If anything, it is the guru-learner relationship which is common in Indian religion that arouses some disgust in me, because of its authoritarian style, not Indian religious iconography.
I am not convinced the 19th century Westerners were any better – there was Theosophy (and eventually Jiddu Krishnamurti) after all. You do like to project your abstract sentimentalities on sleazy Indian grift, see what isn't there based on advertisement, just as you like giving money to horny, filthily materialist gurus with harems, who in turn spin their depravity into a sign of some higher Enlightenment with a few easy turns of the tongue. Even your idea of what might be disgusting to me has already been sanitized: Ganesh, rather than lingams and yonis and Kali and the repetitive psychedelic excess of temple architecture.
But I don't really care if modern Westerners, whether average or Indophilic ones, have the capacity or interest to notice the difference between the actual Indian – personality, art, taste, ethics – and the one imaginable based on some handpicked artifacts and a ton of charity and mind-projection.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Affluent and educated Indians simply have no retort to the core criticism of many people on the DR about India, which is that it is the only place in the world in which the rich are so permanently content with public squalor.
You cannot simply appeal to ‘socioeconomic development levels’. No. African countries with small fractions of India’s median income have much cleaner capitals. I was in Central Africa again last week. Kinshasa is much cleaner than Mumbai or New Delhi. I work, on occasion, with senior African officials across many sub-Saharan countries. One of the first things they’ll do, even the most corrupt ones, as they increase state capacity and collect more tax money, is beautify public spaces, hire people to clean the park opposite the national parliament, that kind of thing. I have walked through shanty-town level African neighborhoods where the working class is and you will see boys picking up litter, sweeping streets and so on. Of course, sheer poverty means these places are still squalid by first-world standards.
But they are much cleaner than even middle class neighborhoods of Indian cities. Even wealthy ones. If you are a wealthy Indian you have probably been to Soho House in Mumbai (a few years ago at least it was one of the places the wealthy younger people hung out, probably less fashionable now). Even there, the street outside was dirty, garbage everywhere, unswept, sandy. Street cleaning has been solved, we have machines for it now, India can afford them (many other cities with much lower median income than Mumbai manage it). This squalor is a choice.
India fills me with a certain horror that the rest of the developing world does not. You see, I can go to Singapore and see what a Chinese civilization that is rich looks like. It may not be to everyone’s taste, but it is pleasant enough, competently managed and a high-quality place to live. Even the Arabs, when they have money, create a passable or moderately livable society. There are good parts of South and even Central America. Africa is very poor, but as I said, I am encouraged. Only in India are the rich content with public squalor. I cannot understand why. I don’t think even you know, exactly, I’ve engaged on this issue with the many intelligent Indians here and I get the sense that it’s not something they really think about, even though to me it is obviously, by very very far the biggest issue with their country.
I don’t condone the ridiculous racism of the 4chan troll, Indians are by and large decent immigrants to the West. But the question of India’s squalor looms over every stamped visa.
When I get the "oh, you spent a month in India? How was that?" small talk, scenes like this, and a hundred others flash through my mind before I politely lie: "it was fine", and change the subject. The pristine western retail stores with literal rubble half-blocking the entrances.. The designated landfill streets.. The street curs gnawing at their severed paws in the middle of the road.. The absolute state of the power infrastructure (live? wires pulled down to street level and woven into clothesline). The constant smell of rot and pollution and feces. I could go on.
It's not so much the squalor. It's the squalor plus dressing up in shirt and tie, working in an air conditioned office and pretending there's no problem at all.
The truthful* novel set in 1970s India, written by a Midwest US writer who visited Calcutta in 1970s notes that western world used to have pretty horrible slums too before Victorians got disgusted with them and bulldozed them all & built sewers...
*half of the horror is basically just the things noted in this thread ..
We have (very early) photographs and sketches of what rich parts of Victorian London looked like, though. Sure, horse manure on the streets was a fact of life, but even then sidewalks were a lot cleaner and better kept than they are in major Indian cities today. Nobody is complaining that slums are dumps; this is a universal fact of life. The mystery is why the nice parts of Indian cities where average residents make US-middle-class salaries are such.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
We have no way of measuring a person’s aesthetic or (full) ethical value through educational and visa selection processes. This is the problem underlying immigration where immigration looks good on paper. Are Indians smart, hardworking, and nonviolent? Yes. But this is only part of the value of a human being. We must also care that a human has a high ingrained sense of empathy without the threat of punishment, and that a person can sense visual beauty and the invisible value of beauty. These are almost terminal values: an ideal world must consist of empathetic humans who love beauty, because these qualities are necessary for an optimal world according to Western values (love-filled people in a beautiful world).
When I look at videos of India there does appear to be people whose eyes never rest momentarily to notice the ugliness and poverty surrounding them. They do not seem to feel the pain of guilt when they rip off tourists (an eternal complaint about gypsies, whose extraction is Indian). It is as if their inner life is too locked in to the ratrace of personal interest. Cognitive science has begun to understand the role that eye movement plays in a person’s inner life, and the way that some Indians stare at people sets off a threat detection alarm to Westerners.
I do not know the best way to measure the full ethical dimension of a person for the purposes of immigration but looking at how they live is certainty better than ignoring the question altogether. And maybe better then this would be looking at what happens in their brain when confronted with suffering strangers, or scenes of ugliness, and looking at infant behavior for AI-determined signs of empathy.
Indians appreciate public beauty so long as the cost of maintaining such beauty is borne by others. It is the tragedy of the commons writ visibly large on a societal scale.
The irony of course is that indians are actually perfectly happy, and even proud, to live in clean public spaces. The Indian elites in quaint English cottages are hardly violaters of personal space and public cleanliness like travelers or junkies; Indians do not lower property values by their presence.
No, the observable difference is in civic consciousness: Indians make no attempt to clean up their public spaces in India, because such huge costs are immediately wasted when the tide of humanity washes its excreta upon the shores of civilization to bleach in the sun with each passing day. Is it a fundamental moral deficiency, or a total collapse of state structures? A convincing case can be made for both, but when considering how much elite (and frankly non elite as well) Indians are net acretive outside of India, there must be something uniquely terrible about Indias structure that ruins the country so.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
While criticizing Islam might be more controversial, westerners generally regard Islam as a distinctive civilization, and I’m also wondering why the criticism doesn’t apply to Japan.
Japan is rich. It’s safe. Most of its problems are attributable to low birth rates, but they’re more lower end of average than exceptionally low the way Taiwan’s or South Korea’s are. It’s distinctly not-western culturally.
Because America bombed the ever living shit out of Japan and "Islam" in its recent history. These people have been squarely defeated.
The Japanese went from suicidal bombers capable of the worst massacres on planet earth (rape of Nanjiang) to the most docile in 1 generation.
Islam.... well, some times you don't have to critisize something if you feel like there is an existing concensus opinion that already agrees with you. Google's gemini refuses to shit on Islam and only Islam. This means that someone had to come in and say, "Hey, people love to shit on Islam more so that other religions, and we have to preemitivaly make that harder".
You don't get it, do you?
Japanese aren't docile. They're still the same people.
They're just not at war.
I am going to join the others in disagreement and point out that it definitely seems like the Japanese have been pretty anti-war since 1945. Now, sure, attitudes can change, the Japanese aren't ignorant of the rising tensions and potential threats of the current age, and there isn't exactly a political monoculture, but one needs only to look at the freaking cartoons they make to see that the population seems pretty inoculated against the more warlike tendencies they had in ages past.
And wait a few short generations, and we start getting shit like this. It's still relegated to the sketcher and trashier side of fiction for now, but generational memory is pretty short.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Care to elaborate?
That given a few years of the right propaganda and a state of war, they'd do the same stuff all over again.
People have a switch in their mind that allows them to wage war and to be at peace. For most people, tripping it takes a lot of social pressure , combat and deaths of friends etc.
True, the Imperial Army was extremely brutal but you don't need brutality to cause someone to be brutal.
Waffen SS had for the era rather humane training methods, and ones that were largely copied by western militaries, yet people who are barely criminal in real life were pretty good at being war criminals.
All that matters is that you have young men, lack of accountability and a hated enemy. That said young men are from a population that isn't fond of random acts of senseless violence doesn't really matter. In war, the stress ensures someone will snap.
Interesting. I was under the impression from the finality of your earlier post (and its abrupt "You don't get it" rhetorical move) that you were suggesting insight into Japanese national character specifically. It seems you're just generalizing on the brutality of man during wartime, and suggesting in a deterministic way that we are all William Calley (or whoever) under the wrong circumstances. Correct me if I've misunderstood.
Yeah, pretty much. Although Calley was just stupid. Terror tactics can't be used in the age of TV when the domestic population isn't a blood frenzy like today Israelis are.
And even then, they're of dubious use as even if the terror successfully intimidates Arabs, the loss of support due to the disgust and horror of Israeli's naive foreign allies might outweigh the benefit.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
People were talking recently about how Germans tended to obsessively follow laws. Eichmann in Jerusalem points out that, in the 3rd Reich, the Fuhrer's word was law, above any of the written laws. And the result followed logically from those two things.
I can believe that about Germans, it also spills into the electronics and machines they develop. I've seen overwrought designs with double and triple redundancy with security and safety interlocks so overcomplicated that the final product can't even perform its intended function properly. That is until you go in and remove half the safety interlocks and defeat some of the redundancy to get a workable solution that will work non stop for years.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I was reading recently that contrary to common narratives the Kamikaze bombers weren't that thrilled to sacrifice their life (under those terms) but this was in 1944 and they knew Japan was in a desperate situation. In other words, their perspective on the matter was not as alien as we might imagine. They weren't eager to be suicide bombers.
And from what I've read at least some of the 9/11 hijackers were at least somewhat conflicted. There was that hijacker who called his girlfriend before boarding the plane and just kept repeating "I love you".
More options
Context Copy link
No its because Google doesn't want literal heads rolling.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link