Free first forty-five minutes, SUBSCRIBE for full one hour and a half show and all past shows!

I am on X at https://x.com/bronzeagemantis

Read more

Free first fifty minutes, SUBSCRIBE for full one hour fifty minute show and all past shows!

I am on X at https://x.com/bronzeagemantis

Read more

Next part coming soon on Soviet Union in the 1980’s the end of communism and the brief time of wild freedom anarchy in Russia of early 1990’s.

Free first hour, SUBSCRIBE for full one hour fifty minute show and all past shows!

I am on X at https://x.com/bronzeagemantis

Read more

Free first hour, SUBSCRIBE for full two hour show and all past shows!

Read more

Free first hour, SUBSCRIBE for full one and a half hour show and all past shows!

Read more

Free first hour, SUBSCRIBE for full three hour show and all past shows!

Read more

Free first 45 minutes, SUBSCRIBE for full one hour and forty minute show and all past shows!

Read more

Free first hour twenty minutes, SUBSCRIBE for full two hour and fifteen minute show and all past shows!

Gildhelm substaq:

Wandervogel

Publishing high-quality essays on nature, philosophy, and religion.

By Gildhelm

Read more

Free first hour, SUBSCRIBE for full one and a half hour show and all past shows!

Read more

The case I made here being true deserves to be repeated, and updated in light of events since 2023. Some smart friends maintain that October 7, 2023 was a far more important event for American social and political life than even the pandemic. I haven’t thought through if this is true, but it’s certainly driven a larger portion of the American media, government, cultural and otherwise “elites” more nutty than the pandemic did.

The matters of Israel, Palestine and associated concepts like “antisemitism” seem to be far more important for the so-called “elite” than for the American people. Polls show that Israel-Palestine were not at all high-priority matters in the most recent 2024 election, falling far behind matters of the economy and immigration; although in the year leading up to it, many pundits and “influencers” on both left and right were insisting this was the most important matter of our time and of the election. (It’s also interesting that the transsexualism controversy, though so important for “opinion-makers” in legacy media and online, hardly registers as at all a priority for American voters.)

Very young people won’t remember, and oldtroons have every reason to obfuscate on this point, but the Israel-Palestine hysteria of our day (among, again, chiefly “elites”) is not at all new. It repeats on every intifada cycle. The last time, around 2004-5 there was a similar wave of hysteria in media, protests, etc. Whether this current iteration is actually more significant because of its actual “content,” or whether it’s simply internet-amplified hysteria, I don’t know. Social media and online life has largely replaced real life after 2020 anyway. That’s an interesting matter for someone else to look into.

In the 2019 article on Israel linked above I made the point that there isn’t just one Israel in the same way that there isn’t just one Jewish people. The idea of a unified Jewry is a rabbinic fiction both in Israel and outside. But regardless of identity and group formation questions, on the purely political front, the hysterical polarization on the matter of Israel makes it possible for bad actors to pretend that there are no internal divisions within both Israel and the non-Israeli Jewish press and lobbies (which includes the Evangelical lobby) at large. This of course would mean that there are no exploitable internal divisions and fracture lines in those broad camps, which for some is very convenient. Both the Zionists and the antiZionists vehemently agree on this point and with the greatest emotion object to anyone who points out that the political unity either of Israel or of Jews is a fiction. (It’s part of what allows, e.g., Biden or Newsom, who are themselves Zionists of a different hue, to be cynically portrayed in press sometimes as brave critics of “Israel.”) Although almost never directly addressed, the pretense of an identity between Israel and the Jews also allows polemicists on both sides to play bait-and-switch on many fronts, and in my opinion significantly weakens any reasonable critic of posture toward the Middle East over the last few decades.

As I indicated in my 2019 article, my opposition to Israel is mostly the same as my friend Menaquinone4’s, who reminded me of this point—my opposition isn’t motivated by the plight of the Palestinians. The image I painted in my 2019 article of a peppy ethnonationalist Ashkenazi state de-shtetling the Jewish people, wanting to become a European outpost, and building orange groves was charming I think. It charmed some of the English too. Israel won the 1967 war with French, not American weapons, versus Soviet weapons, and collaborated with the French and English in the Suez Crisis when America intervened to “stop European colonialism.” But that state is long gone now. Under the domination of piledriving bearded old rabbis in dirty robes, Israel has become very much a “multiethnic religious nationalist” state where the original Ashkenazi population is now down to 35%; its secular nationalist and military ethos is all but swamped and suffocated by the same tedious and contrived religiosity that is embraced elsewhere, including by Christian nationalists in the United States, and Muslims and Hindu nationalists as well. In the United States the Tucker-Fuentes-Owens neo-pundit branch makes copious use of this same kind of religious signaling. The reasons why are obvious: religiosity is a group identity and moral bludgeon that anyone can claim and whose veracity nobody can disprove. Anyone who does claim it can therefore be assumed to have an otherwise weak or empty position. It’s the perfect tool of the new “elites” that seek to replace the exhaustion of the old liberals with a more thorough-going bankrupt assertiveness of their own.

But it’s unclear from the point of view of the nationalist or racialist right, however defined, how “taking” any side in the Israeli-Palestinian matter is profitable. Let me even be more precise: if, as I do, you value the idea of specifically European, meaning white civilization, with at least Europe and the Anglosphere included as self-confident as majority-white countries (defined racially) as an ideal and ultimate aim, then I don’t see why or how taking a side in this conflict is of any use.

Aside from the problems internally with Israel and the change of face it’s experienced over the last few decades which makes it a now distasteful place, there’s the obvious problems of who the “pro-Israel” pundits are in America. Cheering for Israel because it is a “nationalist healthy state” doesn’t have a winning aspect to it, for reasons I said in my article from 2019, and beyond. It’s not just any nationalist state, it is one that increasingly understands itself as opposed to the history of Western (broadly, west Europe and the Anglosphere) civilization. Yoram Hazony understands Israel and Jewry as something inherently against the Roman Empire, the British Empire, and the thrust of Western identity which is indeed explicitly universalist and imperial (nationalism, especially Hazony’s kind, is also universalist, but just mendaciously so). Mark Levin, Bari Weiss, the American Zionist Organization and any number of such individuals and groups others will be glad to list, aren’t actually allies of European or American nationalists and provide nothing in return for theoretical cheering.

Sociologically many of the pro-Israel propagandists are from families that migrated directly from the Pale to the United States with no intervening period of European assimilation or aspiration. They seem to me uniformly hostile to the things I care about, and they’ve worked over the years relentlessly in various ways to sabotage even the small access to an audience I and my friends have had. They try to modulate, lie about and otherwise silence and smear our general complex of ideas. From my point of view as a mere humorist and popularizer of the true understanding of Nietzsche that was suppressed after 1950, I see them as hostile to this especially, without exception. In much of this they aren’t motivated necessarily specifically by their Jewish or pro-Israel orientation, but as part of being part of the highly compromised world of the conservative punditry which is the same in its “Christian” or nonJewish specimens like George Will, Robert P. George, etc.; it’s unclear what there is to gain from making common cause with the “pro-Israel commentariat,” who ultimately see me and my friends with more hostility and revulsion than they do the left.

Regardless, the pro-Israel people in the United States support deleterious policies in the West and seem under no urgency to change course even now after October 7. But in the few cases where some do, it’s irrelevant. They are frankly powerless to help “the right” or Western nationalists in any concrete way. Many of the positions they take now they do because they also have to, because of the libtarded general establishment morality that would brand them racists if they were “consistent nationalists” and advocated for the West what they advocate for Israel. A trial in this direction was ventured recently by the odious transJew Laura Loomer, who under conditions most favorable to her cause, still lost her election by a large margin. Libtarded morality gives them license to some extent to advocate these things for Israel and not be considered racist or fascist, but would absolutely ostracize and marginalize them if they did the same for Europeans, Americans, etc.; one can come up with a not trivial list of pro-Zionist commentators who “crossed the line” and tried to advocate also for pro-American identitarian positions and were then canceled. So actually they’re unable to help even if they wanted to. The more important question here would be why the dominant liberal morality in America makes this exception for not only Israel, but for any number of other designated minorities that are encouraged even to be cartoonishly nationalist when it comes to “they own people.” That’s a much bigger question.

I find it also on a personal level impossible to make common cause with people like Ben Shapiro or Bari Weiss or similar, whether or not you could claim they are actually influential in American life. Even aside from the numerous personal issues, such as their repeated attempts to dox and deplatform me and my friends (at times through their fake “antisemitic” “far right” proxies, mass reporting, passing on information to Antifa, etc.), just on the merits of their own content and arguments, they are the utmost in vulgarity and mediocrity. It’s pure “Hillel community center advocacy” with zero historical knowledge, wit, or content beyond opinion spouting. American conservative public opinion seems determined by Hillel community center types, after-school Church social types, and prayer breakfast types. It’s intolerable to have anything to do with this biome of pious piledrivers. They owe their positions entirely to politically-motivated patronage and artificial corporate appointments, not any organic audience interest or any original intellectual stimulation or ideas.

Whatever the ultimate causes of the pro-Israel pundit’s hypocrisy may be, in the end they are so very loose with principle that they can only be seen as temporary and conditional fellow travelers by any American nationalist. And there’s the senselessness of the argument here in the end. For the online right to start advocating for Israel there would have to be some sort of understanding with these types that in return, and to escape the charge of hypocrisy, they would become advocates for white American interests, or at the very least for some type of race-based immigration restriction (under whatever polite pretense). I don’t see them being able to do that for any number of reasons. Nothing is stopping them from doing this now...they’re not, and I don’t see what can plausibly change that. It’s been ten years since 2015-6; if they haven’t changed on these orientations by now, I don’t see what hope there is of shifting them.

So I don’t see why talking about Israel in this direction or advocating for its interests is profitable or a benefit. There is also an “optics” issue here: Trump ran as the opposite of Bush-era GOP. In 2016 he even if I remember right criticized the Adelsons by name. By now in Trump’s second term there has already been a strike on Iran and it feels this week like there’s build-up or threats for more escalation. No matter how successful and professional that first strike was, this is all a symbolic disrespect to Trump’s original supporters. Trump wasn’t elected either in 2016 or 2024 to attack Iran, but quite the opposite. Americans are tired of entanglements in that region generally.

On the other hand to take an anti-Israel position also brings no benefit to the right. First consider the “undue force” question around which all anti-Israel sentiment has centered since October 7. The settlers in the West Bank believe the Netanyahu response to October 7 has been too restrained. If indeed the purpose is to root out Hamas as an “Islamofascist” terrorist government, you’d have to inflict World War II-level pain to induce surrender. The fact that Netanyahu has been unwilling to do this is the problem from the Israeli point of view. The settlers and hardliners in Israel have called Netanyahu a cuck from the beginning of this conflict. He was apparently unwilling to do even things like flooding the tunnels in Gaza, let alone inflict the type of scorched-earth pain that would drive their enemies to unconditional surrender. I’m not a war correspondent so I can’t comment on the details of military operations, just what the Israeli “far right” actually wanted. Certainly Israeli soldiers didn’t engage at close quarters, nor were willing to sustain casualties in their aims.

From the point of view of the West as I defined above, let’s say again the Anglosphere plus Europe, the problem is the unwillingness to do even what Netanyahu did to the Palestinians to its own black-brown-beige Third World minorities—let alone what Netanyahu should be doing. The problem in other words is the very opposite of what all this hysteria is about. From a “right wing” point of view, the ideal case would be where e.g. France responds to the Bataclan massacre by means of a mass state-supported pogrom or state-led operation against its browns (not just Muslims, but using the Muslim threat as a pretext), followed maybe by mass deportations. One could counter that the political aim of remigration doesn’t and won’t require such measures. There’s room for argument here. I think the only scenario in which it wouldn’t require such measures is one in which the opponent believes you capable of them. If in a game of chicken they know you’ll swerve first due to “humanitarian commitments,” remigration is a nonstarter, as leadership of migrant communities can simply escalate and resist at every turn. Remigration can actually be entirely peaceful in my opinion, and a gradual and civilized process over a generation or two. But, again, that’s only possible if migrant “communities” (meaning their leaders and ethnic entrepreneurs) know you won’t blink.

For sake of argument let’s say I exaggerate and that no great and spectacular force, nor the threat of it, will be necessary to remove migrant populations from the West. Still, you are seeing in two recent developments the bad effects of the particular form that anti-Israel hysteria took on the cause of the right in the United States. When you’ve spent months or years declaiming against excessive Zionist state force against brown protesters, “occupation tactics,” and the whole host of humanitarian-centered concern for Palestinian suffering or “genocide,” it’s very hard not to take the next step and condemn Trump and ICE (and potentially any other Western government) of using what look to be similar tactics against migrants and their defenders. You’re seeing this unfold now in the crisis regarding Minnesota and who knows where else next. People, especially Americans, don’t like to feel hypocritical so if they’ve been primed on that moral path, they’ll want to be or appear consistent. So they’ll condemn the ICE raids, which is what we’re seeing now from the vast majority of the Israel-Palestine-obsessed “new right.” They’ll also condemn the Venezuela venture on similar grounds: it looks again too much like Ziobullies oppressing virtuous brown people for no reason. This is morally consistent, and the agitators on “Palestinian genocide” who sided with keffiyeh-sporting chimping about excessive force and exploitation on that conflict can in fact be justly asked why they don’t also oppose the ICE raids. The two situations aren’t the same in crucial ways, but from the point of view of humanitarian morality, which was the main thrust foolishly taken on the Gaza war, they mostly are. And so those whose life has been humanitarian morality now are either stuck with that, or have to explain why it’s a concern in Gaza but not in Minnesota, California, Paris, etc.. The effect as we are seeing from major voices like Tucker and others is to strive to be morally consistent. Therefore a large portion of the “new American right” is now functionally pro-migrant, all thanks to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Adjacent to this “humanitarian hysteria” is the upcoming “climate crisis” or “disease crisis” that in my opinion is only a matter of time now. Millions or tens of millions of Africans and others will face starvation or worse and the calls on all sides will be to let them in. Populist theories about secret cabals or the dark specters of Capital or Neoliberalism profiting cynically from mass migration will at that point be revealed as entirely impotent. The claim will be that if you don’t let them in you’re as heartless as the Israeli Zionist vampires. Then heartlessness and (“passive”) “genocide” will be necessary, or else being flooded. It’s important to note that even now these theories are just inadequate: by such tactics some hope to convince native populations who believe in welcoming refugees for moral reasons that they’re being tricked by mysterious forces and therefore have false consciousness. But I’ve spoken to antifa who knew the big financial interests had their own reasons for welcoming migrants, and were just OK with that. In the face of “climate catastrophe” such arguments will truly be irrelevant: only the supremacy of the morality of the heartlessness of genocide and exploitation will matter.

The “right wing” task would then be to have the West have the confidence and willingness to do what Israel is doing, and in fact much more. So I don’t see what the winning rhetorical or political move here is in condemning Israel and its exploitation or genocidal cruelty toward the Palestinians. For sure Bari Weiss, Ben Shapiro and many others like them are hypocrites and inconsistent in their double standard where they become ferocious ethnonationalists for Israel, often with exterminationist rhetoric, but claim that any equivalent policies, words or feelings even for the American people are racist and retrograde (I prefer the simple “American people” instead of the foolish “Heritage Americans” or even “white people,” because as an immigrant to America I’ve always known real Americans look and act like Robert Redford and not like others; Weiss and Shapiro are guests and should behave). But I don’t see why it would be good for them to be “consistent” and not hypocritical in the direction of condemning all nationalism, including Israeli, as Glenn Greenwald, Norman Finkelstein, or others of the Jewish left do. These people, and not those like Ben Shapiro, are the principal pushers of mass migration and “civil rights” antiwhite agitation in America for decades. The Jewish right is a kind of rump phenomenon and mere conduit for funding conferences (it’s all that Bill Kristol and now Yoram Hazony ever were), while the Jewish left is extraordinarily influential. But I don’t understand why “white genocide with antiZionist flavor” is good merely because it’s morally “consistent.”

There’s in general confusion on the right among those who believe there’s benefit in making common cause with the antiZionist left or associated ethnic lobbies. If questioned, there’s sometimes a claim that the worldwide open borders agenda is somehow run out of Israel, coordinated from there, or wouldn’t exist without crucial Israeli aid. There’s never any evidence presented for this, beyond a couple of newspaper editorials from Israeli press, which are then assumed to be also the voice of the Israeli government or policy as such. Contrary copious evidence, such as the fact that all firmly left wing antiZionist parties in Europe and factions in the USA are also the most pro-migrant and pro-refugee advocates, is ignored. Even so it’s unclear what the solution offered here is: as I’m not aware of anyone arguing these things who believes Israel will be destroyed or has thought through what the effects of that would be (migration of six million Israeli Jews to America and west Europe, to begin with….) In fact most seem to advocate for somehow “restraining” Israel, that is, the policy of perhaps the Bush 1 or Obama administrations, in different flavors. It’s not clear in that case why or how the “Israeli” coordination of mass migration would stop.

An associated argument is that Israel is “causing” mass migration because of its wars. Some migration because of war is plausible. But what are the numbers on this? This is an extension of the leftist excuse for mass migration, the false claim that migrants come to Europe because of war in their home countries. Leaving alone the fact that this would mean that Israel’s Middle East activities are also causing migration from subsaharan Africa or India, it’s also simply untrue: migrants come to Europe because of the economic benefits they are offered, and most come from countries with no wars whatsoever. Arab newspapers regularly publish lists of economic and welfare benefits available in the EU to migrants. Migrants to Scandinavia from supposedly war-torn countries will pass through 6-7 intervening countries with no war to arrive there. According to the EU’s own figures, 70% of the migrants recorded come due to economic incentives, and nothing to do with the political or war situation of the home country. Of the remaining 30% I don’t think that’s constituted by “war” either—some portion is arguably from war, and a portion of that from wars in the Middle East. Even in that case, the solution, rather than permanent peacekeeping a la Bosnia, would seem to be some form of understanding with both Israel and the Arab countries that refugees not spill over into Europe or the United States. But the entire species of argument that focuses primarily on conditions in the home countries in fact is gravely mistaken, because even if there are no wars, and even if the birth rate in the Third World falls (and it is falling), the supply of potential migrants is functionally infinite because of the living standard differential between even second-tier Europe and most other parts of the world.

In any case, from the point of view of the right the aim would be to extend to other nations in the civilized world (and specifically to greater European civilization) Israel’s exception under the “postwar international order.” It is this “exception to Nuremberg” that allows Israel a unique position among civilized countries to practice a form of ethnic, racial, or religious nationalism (define it how you will) that others are not morally or politically entitled to, because of its supposedly unique historical sufferings. A species of this would be to get rid of the framework of the “postwar order” and the entire “genocide” morality entirely (and who was it who came up with the modern concept of “genocide” by the way?) I don’t understand how it would be a win to go in the other direction and also have it be applicable in the case of Israel while keeping it in place for every other civilized country…unless your aim isn’t strictly political, but to feel emotional satisfaction at “just desserts.”

Of course the question of how to change this moral orientation is well beyond almost any “pundit” of our time, and as far as I know, I’m one of the three or four writers to seriously address it at all. Most wouldn’t even know where to start, so….

The Palestinians indeed have largely replaced the Jews as the object of current-day “Judaine,” to use a Nietzschean coinage: the preferred victim group exhibiting utmost suffering, on behalf of which all “exploitation” and in fact all sovereignty, and even eminence are supposed to be condemned. Thus “Israel killed six gorrilion in Gaza” is supposed to replace the “six Gorillion at Auschwitz-Golgotha,” with a variation that maybe it is King Leopold who ate six gorrilion black livers in the Congo. How aligning with the campus keffiyeh-sporting Palestinian-worshiping left, many of who are themselves Jews like Greenwald or Chomsky, is supposed to help the right achieve its aims is again never made clear.

There’s a lot of bizarre self-flattery in all this, where some on the right assume they’re either already dictators or else big city party bosses in a position to “make alliances,” as if they lead a faction or political bloc. You can certainly cheer on Amy Schlickowitz of the Union for Palestinian Rights because as a virtuous (and morally consistent!) Jewess she is cheering on the Palestinian cause, but it’s unclear what you’re getting in return from Amy …or for that matter from Glenn. One would think critics of the fake American-Israeli “alliance” would be sensitive to the fact that real alliances are supposed to be beneficial to both sides. I ask again, what does the “right” get? Do you have a single case of convincing these leftists and their ethnic auxiliaries to support border restrictions, or even to stop hating white people as such? Everyone knows they only hate Israel because they consider it a white colonial state, not because they hate Jews, whatever the objective virtues of that position. But again, I ask, what do they give the right?

As I hinted in my 2019 article it would have been fruitful for the online right to cause dissension and strife within the various factions of the Jewish press and Zionist world on this point, and to egg on an “establishment civil war.” It was the only move that ever made any sense: we are tiny and powerless, while those others, in their many manifestations, have a near-dominant position. To publicly declaim and align with their already-caricatured far leftist and ethnic opponents a la David Duke never had any plausible winning path. It’s a move entirely motivated by emotional indulgence of the feeling of indignation and for public display of it, which is why stupid facefag influencers always go for it. But the only tactic that would have made sense is the one I said in the original article and which was the special talent of the frogs: create false sock accounts (impersonating both the Jewish left and associated leftist ethnic lobbies, and also on the other hand the Jewish and Christian “conservative” Zionists) to introduce confusion, trolling on both sides of this staid debate, and destabilize it in spirit of humor and buffa. (But…people who could have done this were banned starting in 2017 and following Elon’s takeover of X, the actually radical and creative right I’ve called the Animejugend was utterly eliminated on the “free speech platform.” What was left was the angry coalers you see now, promoted by mass media as the face of the right because they are strident and stupid caricatures.)

Otherwise, the only plausibly effective position is again what I argued in my article from 2019, that both of these sides suck and that total disengagement from the Middle East should be pursued on common sense and national-interest justifications. These are the types of justifications—and not humanitarian sentimentalism, solidarity with the Palestinians and “indigenous brown people against colonialism”—that could maybe appeal to a moderate and reasonable center of American public opinion. It is most interesting to ask which of the current “sides” in this debate support or competently argue for actual disengagement. Most of this debate isn’t in fact about American policy, but about self-positioning against perceived rivals in political intrigue or “media market share.” I don’t know what either Tucker or Shapiro for example advocate other than to act as conduits for various factions in the American government that in my opinion are equally ineffectual. Neither of them will determine USA policy anyway, which will swing between support for either the Likud branch or the leftist branches of Israeli government, representing different patronage networks. The maximal Israel-skeptical position American government seems to be capable of is James Baker III, which was hardly the end of the “special relationship.” Disengagement and cutting Israel as well as that entire wretched region loose was and is obviously the way to go. But the hysteria over Palestinian baby BBQ makes this a tedious position to argue now.

There’s also the fact that I’m a contrarian and will never join in mob hysteria. I’ve heard stories of men who entirely didn’t care about this conflict who had drinks thrown in their faces in New York arthoe bars when they merely said this after being pressed… “I don’t care.” So basically I’m supposed to now join in “with my own critique” cheerleading the campus left that’s really the dominant view of libtards and leftist media both in the USA and Europe, but is pretending to be edgy or Dissident because Zion Don and a few Evangelicals or Chabadniks supposedly are extraordinarily powerful ZOG bullies. Anyone who’s attended university in America or has lived in liberal society knows that antiZionism is a mainstream position in those quarters and carries no cost in that world. The cost for criticizing Israel, such as it may be, is real only if you ascend to the level of my 2019 article and imply Israel is a quasi-National Socialist state while you aspire to be part of mainstream discourse in the sense of wanting to be an anchor on the main TV networks, a congressman, etc.. In those cases being a critic of the “special relationship” can carry costs. The existence of things like the Canary Mission dox industry to target critics of Israel has in my opinion a very dubious justification in a genuinely free society. That said, the consequences are not remotely comparable to being suspected of holding racist or racialist views for example, or, in academia, even admitting you were an admirer of Ernst Junger or Celine—well before 2015 by the way. To accept the pretense that Noam Chomsky or the sclerotics of the Jewish communist left, who are all quite vocal and even hysterical anti-Zionists and are firmly placed in American academia and various institutions, are edgy rebels is to be a tool for the same leftist establishment that has implied through Hollywood for decades that shadowy rightist WASP mafias and Big Tobacco controls the United States in smoke-filled rooms.

Piledriving dinosaurs like Finkelstein or Greenwald can then pretend to be “edgy” only to the ignorant on X (with a heavy presence of users from the Filipines or Bangladesh) while in fact never incurring any cost in their lives over their opinions on this matter. To participate in this farce with the pretense that you’re a brave truth-teller because it offends GOP orthodoxy and other kinds of fossils and dinosaurs like Lindsay Graham, is one of the slimiest shtetlbilly tactics I’ve yet seen, no matter who employs it. This is a repetition of entirely boomer debates from 2003-7.

My own solution has been to ignore this matter. I can show you articles from well before October 2023 by people I assume were Bari Weiss’ friends insisting that everyone must talk about the Jews and Israel. Actually in all this they’re making a play that I think will pay off for them, which is that if you center discussion on the Jews and Israel and force people to take sides primarily on this, that things will tip their way in an American context. I happen to think they’re right, at least insofar as the GOP is concerned. In other words the GOP actual base (as opposed to what you see on X, or TikTok, which is something else entirely) is philosemitic and loves Israel or rather hates Palestinians. If you force this discussion the effects will be to exile the MAGA and anti-interventionist or anti-neocon faction as pro-Palestinian “leftist” kooks, etc., which is largely already a done deal in my opinion. Any “pro-Israel” sentiment in America that isn’t Evangelical comes from “redblooded” American men who will never align with the Palestinian keffiyeh screaming thing, as they find it odious not just politically but personally. To persuade these it would have been necessary above all to avoid looking like a campus leftist whining about “genocide,” and sounding like the Brown University Latinx studies department. This just hasn’t yet been tested in an election, but once it is, this question, which is ultimately a question of fact, will be clarified (so far the antiZionist candidate in Florida, Fishback—oddly enough last year a promoter of Bari Weiss, which raises not an eyebrow among “investigative journalists,” who seem also not interested in Nicholas Fuentes’ or Richard Spencer’s long-running relationships with Hannah Gais of the SPLC or Ezra Levant, nor how Candace Owens actually began her career as an escort on an Israeli-owned talent site, nor prominent “““antisemite””” Lucas Gage’s actual recent past—is polling at 1-2%, which is less than the 3% I assumed such a campaign would get).

The only solution here would have been to entirely avoid this discussion, because it’s not winnable. The French right tried this already if you look up the Soral-Dieudonne fiasco (which I will cover in another article soon) and this ended in disaster for them under conditions much more favorable than in America. France has no evangelicals, never really liked Jews, doesn’t like Israel, etc., but this still ended in electoral disaster…I mean the whole David Duke 2.0 Tucker/Candace/Fuentes “we are all Palestinians now” multiracial antisemitic alliance thing. The solution would have been to remain calm and argue based on non-religious, non-emotional, non-Palestinian-aligned grounds that disengagement from the Middle East generally is good for America—”good wishes both to Israel and the Arabs, but they must have their own history now.”

If this matter is not soon resolved, it’s very possible that China will use this as a vehicle to delegitimize the Western world order. There are obviously bad things about this order, and especially its current elites that have bungled on migration and a few other things. But if this delegitimization is externally forced by China and leads, e.g. to a loss of the West’s dominance of financial markets, the “reform” we all seek will look a lot more like inexorable decline, degradation, and finally the West’s own “century of humiliation.” It’s therefore important to extract oneself from the Middle East very soon and in a profitable way…further involvement with either Israel or the Arabs is not possible given the current moral and political configurations within America. Some time apart is necessary. It’s not worth it to worry about China or Russia “moving in”—let them try, and bleed there themselves for a while. Russia tried it already in the Cold War…it didn’t work out so well.

There’s nothing much exciting or of interest in the Israeli project for men of taste anymore, as it becomes another Mediterranean hive of hairy greasers howling about their superstitions. A new West can wash its hands off that whole region clean and fret and worry instead about looking to the stars and the development of the oceans.

Free first hour, SUBSCRIBE for full two hour show and all past shows!

Read more

Read more

Free first 45 minutes, SUBSCRIBE for full one and a half hour show and all past shows!

Read more

Free first 45 minutes, SUBSCRIBE for full one and a half hour show and all past shows!

Read more

Free first 45 minutes, SUBSCRIBE for full one and a half hour show and all past shows!

Read more

Cervantes writing Don Quixote in jail…

This is short blog entry regarding much-discussed article exposing the discrimination against young white males in various industries:

It’s very good this is getting massive attention. The article is full of numbers that make the fact of racist-sexist discrimination against younger white men both undeniable and indefensible. Others who’ve written about this before should be happy it gets the attention it deserves regardless of who gets credit for it. I also disagree with critics of this article when they say that the writer is a liberal and that he places undue blame on older white men in this process as opposed to supposedly the young women and minorities who agitated for these changes and benefited from them. As others have said, it’s good he’s a liberal because it makes discussion of all this more palatable to liberals; second, I actually agree with the writer that the primary blame should lie with Gen X and boomer white men because in most cases they were the ones doing the hiring. Unqualified young women and minorities didn’t hire themselves and weren’t generally in a position to discriminate against others (though now and soon they will be). The problem of the article isn’t that it’s not “based” or right-wing “coded” (stupid phrase) enough.

I have very different problems with this article. I agree with this anon poster I quote:

In all questions of modern political commentary I’ve tried to keep my focus on the inadequacy of the so-called contemporary “elites.” They are manifestly dumb and unworthy of rule or position and it is entirely within the liberal intellectual universe and biome of values to criticize them on these terms. The focus of this article is instead on the evidence of discrimination or marginalization of a certain demographic from certain professions. This risks becoming a story of victimization and charity-solicitation, which, besides being inherently insulting to accept for yourself, is also generally ineffective. I think those who claim that stories of grievance and victimization were central to the leftist causes are somewhat misled on this point. It’s true they were central but two other components were initially even more emphasized by the left and their allies: the particular virtues or excellences of the aggrieved or victimized groups. The leftist narrative wasn’t wholly a sob story in its hour of ascendance. The example of Feynman being denied entry into his university of choice was also convincing: “here is a genius you possibly denied an hour in the sun.” It was for Jews as well as for blacks not just a narrative of victimization, but a case of “these people have particular excellences that you are unjustly suppressing and marginalizing.” It was in any case quite ambiguous as to some extent both Jews and blacks have always held a certain fascination for Americans and it was possible to paint opponents of their integration as “retrograde irrational bigots.” Even now American philosemitism and philonegrism isn’t primarily founded on sympathy for their victimization stories, and more so on the popularity many from these peoples enjoy in entertainment and athletics. (as I’ve argued elsewhere, antisemites underestimate the extent to which the Seinfeld “Jewish comedian” type was an enormous PR for the Jews, and outweighed or made look absurd possibly legitimate criticisms of “Jewish Hollywood”).

A closely related story of leftist success on this front was a ridiculing of the establishment elites of the time. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the ascendance of the new left as well as the successful promotion of the integration of Jews and blacks took place in the late 1960’s and 1970’s as a result of the liberal WASP establishment’s self-discrediting in the disaster of Vietnam. This is a longer story though of how American establishment personae were ridiculed and in part discredited starting with a 1950’s counterculture that wasn’t by the way altogether leftist or altogether wrong. Unfortunately many American rightists are all too eager to still embody the leftist archetypes not only of “stolid stuffy out of touch elite,” but also of Nurse Ratched or Archie Bunker.

Without these components the leftist story of victimization wouldn’t have been successful. When the left and its ethnic ally modules did switch to a pure story of victimization following 2009 or so, it discredited itself to a large degree in the American consciousness. The left is currently in a vague and transitional position because of all this. It didn’t “win” on stories of identity grievance decoupled from the other elements, it very much lost.

The Jacob Savage DEI article has this other problem too: the story it tells isn’t that new among “liberal elites,” it’s also a persistent dominant interpretation already among establishment liberals and even many “dissident’ intellectuals of the Trump phenomenon actually. The facts about the decline of white working class communities and the terrible condition that white working class men find themselves in is generally accepted and undisputed since at least 2016. Trump’s campaign and victory (and to some extent Bernie’s as well) was interpreted for a long time by this same liberal audience as a “cry for help” of those “left behind” by globalization. This narrative is false by the way: it is a story comfortable both for liberals and for insecure “right wing” intellectuals. Torbert Fahey covers this well here:

J’accuse

Doonesbury and the Status Hallucination

The popular accounts on X, and bloggers whose sites I don’t remember like to paint an image of their leftist opponents as cunning and ruthless status-strivers. The generosity of the analysis varies, …

Read more

2 years ago · 48 likes · 5 comments · J’accuse

The general acceptance of the “plight of the left behind” and “cry for help” narrative by the liberal establishment did nothing at all to endear this demographic to them. It served as a condemnation (and even cause for contempt) of Trump himself. Their “solution” was further social welfare proposals or the absurd Andrew Yang campaign, offering some form of universal basic income opiates for the poor “left behind.” The unspoken and sometimes explicit response to all this was “the world’s smallest violin.” It is part of the attempt on the part of leftist media to continually discredit white males in the United States. Dumb “dissident” intellectuals are themselves willing to embrace this narrative and present themselves as faces (facefags) of this “discontent,” by which means they are then rewarded by the leftist media with attention for embodying this minstrel show. That’s par for the course for American media MO. It’s just not an effective position to take even if you think it’s true. It shifts blame from the manifest failures of the fake occupational class to, in this case, an impersonal historical or economic process of globalization. It’s true that in the case of this DEI article the blame is shifted to the particular vague class of “older white men,” who by the way I agree are craven. Nevertheless, that too is simply a culprit too-broadly defined to mean anything: it includes everyone from craven bad actors to men who likely had no real decision-making authority, to people whose only other option would have been to step down from their jobs themselves. Regardless, my point here is that this narrative did nothing to inspire sympathy for the white working class, nor any proposals that would actually help them. I think it would be a much stronger case if all such articles focused on the compounding mediocrity of all life under the decisions and activities of the “new elite.” As it now gets amplified, this article will be understood as a victimization and a sentimental begging for sympathy instead of as a just condemnation of corrupt and clumsy power.

I have though a bigger problem with the story Savage tells. I remember what it was like before 2012 and it wasn’t much better, particularly in the fields he focuses on: journalism, academia, and Hollywood or media. I know weirdly nostalgic right wingers are fond of edits showing the 2000’s or 1990’s as a great time, but I don’t remember it that way.

Usually when people face discrimination at the level described in this article they leave the country. I did in fact gradually leave the USA starting even before 2015, but certainly by 2016. Whether my own normal-life career was held back by racial and other discrimination—I assume we all were held back, but let me not talk about myself. I say that discrimination very badly affected the careers even and especially actually apparently successful exemplars, which is something left out of this story. I know genius-level white men in the hard sciences, with concrete very impressive achievements—the solving of decades-long open problems in their fields—who from the looks of it have “secure” positions in academia now. But under conditions of real meritocracy they wouldn’t have had to struggle for many years, retarding their own personal success and also I think more important, the general condition of the sciences in America. So left out of the story told in this article is that programs and grants for academic research well before 2010 privileged completely frivolous projects: look at the % of funds given to stupid and inconsequential proposals favoring pet causes like “HIV/AIDS” versus more exciting and real matters, all of which was done on purely political grounds. A legitimate question might be, why does it matter if the person receiving funding for a frivolous 1000th “HIV/AIDS” project is a dummy who is a female, a minority, or a white male. It’s still going to be a dummy and not anyone deserving of that funding, which is then denied to worthier projects.

This is the main reason I left America: I left in disgust at having to be around the people the author describes as having possibly liked to work around. What is left out of the article is that the fields Savage actually focuses on: the % white males in journalism, academia, and Hollywood….the types of white males that were in those even before 2010 were not good at all from all points of view. I don’t mean even mainly regarding political orientation “oh they were leftist.” But that’s easiest to quantify: look up the percentage of conservative or Republican professors, etc., at top schools before 2010. They were excluded entirely, at staggering percentages. There were all of two “conservative” professors on the whole Harvard faculty: Harvey Mansfield and Hankins (and Mansfield himself I think quite justly rejected always the label of “conservative”—it didn’t matter). As far as I know neither one managed to get a successor, so now I think there are none. Delusional leftist and some “dissidents” like to speak of a vast “Straussian” conspiracy, but for the most part the Straussians had been kicked out of all top universities before 2016—count the number of professors they had left even at their stronghold of the University of Chicago. I don’t know what Savage is like in person, but the character he plays in this article…liberals like Savage were just fine with excluding those. But, more important, that’s a proxy for something else: it wasn’t just “conservatives”…everyone of any unusual thoughts or bold ideas was also excluded. It was conformist company men only. It’s why culture broadly speaking sucked before 2010 as well.

This is why I find the article unpersuasive, because it’s not clear actually that journalism, academia, or Hollywood have gotten that much worse. They were terrible before 2010 as well, and it was because guys like Savage (again I don’t know him personally, but the types he is appealing to in this article I mean) and his friends were writing there. Even his concluding “emotional image” example is regret at not having worked on some ridiculous show about time machines. So now others get to write that crappy show, but not him. Again the legitimate question, which leftists are already asking, is why does this matter. If it’s going to be Netflix garbage and the 1260th HIV-AIDS grant, what matters the ethnicity of the person who gets it?

Because these fields are different: it is not finance, accounting, law, or other such—the article would have been stronger if it had focused on those. But at the level of cultural production, the final end-product is public and can be seen and should be judged not at an ordinary level, but at the level of the exception. The exceptional was thoroughly excluded even before 2012. I don’t know anyone who managed to get jobs in any of those fields before 2012 that I would even want to meet for a drink. Or maybe I would, but they would have had to practice an extreme form of taqqiya that I have long advocated for friends at the same time that I’ve admitted that I’m totally unsuitable for it myself.

This is similar to Asian complaints about being discriminated against at Ivies in student admissions. This is true: colleges did discriminate against them, because they only use those degrees to become an ophthalmologist in upstate NY. To some extent this was always the case with everyone, but with Asians there are almost no exceptions. It’s not clear from the point of view of an Ivy school why they should invest in that, especially when Asians don’t donate. For dolts: this is by way of analogy. It’s just that Savage doesn’t make the case for what he or the excluded might have done differently than what people in Hollywood & etc. are doing now.

But I can ask…and this is quite personal to me and friends I’ve known online. If these men who were excluded had a burning ambition to make movies, why didn’t they...there were cheap high quality digital cameras and Youtube around. David Lynch shot Inland Empire in 2006 on digital camera. Some people did, I would think: some even did well, and that’s good. Pewdiepie is an example, and you might say that’s just one guy, but there were many others smaller than him too. But here’s the thing…I wonder whether Pewdiepie was ever approached with an offer by anyone, including by important people now wringing their hands over the material in this article. They should have been, and should be given funding for projects—as far as I know, no projects were before this year even amenable to be pitched. There were frogtwitter 20 year old guys in 2015-6 making stuff these billionaires were enjoying to my knowledge, and they never offered them any support for projects; never met or talked to them for encouragement. In many cases those guys had to stop doing what they were doing and get jobs in finance, etc., and in other cases went into difficult situations and turned out badly. These were people who, unlike the author of this piece, chose to try to do things on their own, at least anonymously. They received zero support. Instead now we’re all supposed to seal clap for the tragedy of people who didn’t try to do anything on their own but are complaining they didn’t get jobs working in TV. I’ll grant you TV is nearly unwatchable now, but it was almost that way before as well. Why am I supposed to care about the demographic composition of those who write garbage and who were and would have been company men even before 2010, and who excluded relentlessly anyone who wasn’t a company man?

I think readers then are confusing the article’s actual focus with the things he mentions in passing that are much more important: the percentage straight white males in the student body at Ivies and top schools e.g., which I’ve commented on before, and then similar practices affecting medicine, law, etc. But these percentages were largely already established before 2015 at least regarding the student bodies--I don’t think the author corrects for percentage of gays, legacies, athletes, Jews. If you correct for those categories, it was maybe 3% straight white American men even before 2015. Please read that figure again: I stand by it. It was ethnic cleansing before 2012. I don’t see why it’s not within entirely the possibility of liberal sentiments and values to address. To fail to address that is in my view not a “strategic sugarcoating for liberals,” but a form of obfuscation:

The author mentions Yale after 2014. I know what happened there even well before: there was a witch hunt against the sole demographic that was straight white guys in the undergrad body (fraternity members and athletes) who dared to speak out against the suffocating campus culture. I don’t remember but I think that was before 2010 or maybe before 2012 for sure. As far as I know zero of “conservative” faculty anywhere supported them—let alone liberals (the famous hissyfit chimpout at Yale in 2015 surrounding Christakis supinely suggesting that students shouldn’t be attacked for their Halloween costumes, which led to weeks of Maoist Red Guard agitation was in my opinion an entirely inevitable development of the earlier targeting of white male undergrads, during which tenured professors dared offer not a word of objection). What followed after was, as the article documents, much worse for indisputably liberal males, but those who fell under any suspicion even before then had already been ruthlessly targeted. This included as I’m now saying even sometimes entirely liberal white men who fell under suspicion because they were part of a team or a fraternity at an Ivy. Again this isn’t to nitpick…it’s a substantial obfuscation of this article, whether it’s intentional or not. I’m all willing to call myself a loser who due to my own disagreeableness or as some would claim, psychosis, was justly excluded from polite society even before 2012, but I’m talking now about indisputably high-quality and perfectly “socialized” individuals who were in mass excluded also. There was in fact “ethnic cleansing” in America’s top institutions well before 2014, and at rates and %’s similar to those discussed in this article.

I remember meeting an undergraduate student once at the gym who had very much a “Jersey shore” affect. He was an American of Italian ancestry who behaved like Tony Soprano. From an external point of view he had little to complain about as he was finishing a degree at a top school, was handsome and seemed popular with girls, etc.; but he told me that his “manner”—which meant not speaking in a lilting voice and such—was considered by his peers as “coming on too strong.” He was conservative, he was from Long Island if I remember, but seemed perfectly capable of being apolitical. I take this tangent to remind you that even people who didn’t conform to a certain manner felt already targeted well before 2012 and were being excluded from creative positions in the fields Savage discusses in this article long before then. Maybe you think this doesn’t matter because you’re not a Jersey shore or Long Island gruff Italian, but it’s a proxy: if you are somewhat “spergy” that includes you. No jobs for spergs or eccentrics or anyone boldly creative in Hollywood before 2012 either.

The fundamental character of seats of American cultural production (at the career, not the student or apprentice level) was utterly loathsome going back well before 2010. Pointing to exceptions like a handful of movies by men like David Lynch or Whit Stillman (who themselves, despite documented high success, had enormous difficulty often finding funding, and indeed after 2010 seemed not to be able to mostly) doesn’t disprove the rule. If you think Savage is talking about white men “like you”...it’s possible. I know he’s not talking about me or anyone I was friends with. He’s talking about himself and his friends--who I personally would rather have slaved at University of Manila as a foreign professor (possible, but much harder workload than in the USA) than have had to endure being around.

If the article gets liberals acknowledging antiwhite racism in general...I suppose, good. If the purpose or the effect is to reestablish the status quo ante 2010 in journalism, academia, Hollywood...I don’t see why anyone who cares about writing, literature, movies or the arts has a stake in that.

Free first 45 minutes, SUBSCRIBE for full one and a half hour show and all past shows!

Read more

Free first fifty minutes, SUBSCRIBE for full one and a half hour show and all past shows!

Read more

Free first hour, SUBSCRIBE for full two hour show and all past shows!

Read more

I mean this short blog entry as a moderate and centrist appeal to reasonable Indians and to liberals to show them the argument against Indian migration isn’t motivated by bigotry or racism, but is based on common sense. It’s bad both for the host countries but also for India and Indians, as well as for general cultural exchange. Please first consider this article:

The Visa Files

Indians Are Waging a War on America and Nobody is Doing Anything About It

In the past few years, India hatred has gone mainstream. You’ve seen the videos, you know the stereotypes. Indians are smelly. They’re cheap. They’re rude. They drink cow urine. They defecate on the street. They’re scammers. They’re rapey. And to top it all off, they’re aggressively nationalistic, lack self-awareness, and if you criticize them publicly…

Read more

6 months ago · 29 likes · 8 comments · Matt Forney

Forney’s article reveals a bad and shocking thing: the replacement of American workers wholesale from entire industries and businesses by Indian imported workers or by outsourcing. This is a betrayal in the United States by adults of young people who they encouraged to go to university, take on debt, be responsible, study STEM. But no one who graduates now can find a job, especially in STEM. Even people with good jobs aren’t able to have options to change job or career. The arrogance of employers is accordingly very great and they feel enabled to abuse American employees. But yes there are no jobs to get in the first place for people just starting out: partly as a result of Trump’s badly-thought-out tariffs that introduced uncertainty for companies and an unwillingness to invest and to hire, partly because of the importation of (now mainly Indian) workers, and partly because of other problems in labor market regulations. Whatever hiring does exist for American citizens is in healthcare or education: 85% of new jobs in the “good” month of June 2025 were only in these two fields…in other words mostly for young women. Intelligent and enterprising young men who have done everything that was asked of them simply can’t find good jobs in 2025 or only with great difficulty. This includes graduates from elite universities.

The importation of Indian workers to replace Americans results in mediocrity and nothing working well. Forney’s article documents this, but it’s backed up by numerous other studies. American-born engineers are simply better than foreign ones, and the labor demographic replacement can only be explained by the short-term desire of employers to pay less, by employers’ desire for power over employees, and very much so also by ethnic nepotism in hiring. Indian upper or middle management will often only hire other Indians. This last is a very well documented phenomenon (see Forney’s article), which would be prosecuted if white Americans tried to do the same. In this connection, the selective enforcement of discrimination law as well as special government handouts for “disadvantaged minorities” (which includes Asians) when it comes e.g. to small business loans also explains this new situation. It is not, in other words, the free market at work. If Americans of English or French extraction, for example, tried to do what the Patel clan did in cornering the small hotel market, they would go to jail and be put out of business. When I mentioned that the government discriminates against white Americans for small business loans and preferentially gives them to Asians, many conservative and libertarian commentators refused to believe.

The mention of the Patel clan’s domination of motels is significant also because it’s one of the few publicized cases of Indian corruption in American social and economic life. But the reason for the unique publicity here is even worse: the Patels are from Gujarat, and Gujaratis are widely resented by Indians from other parts of India as a mercantile caste. That you (may) know about the Patel fraud as opposed to other fraud in other parts of the economy associated with Indians is also because the Patels are especially singled out by other Indians out of old-world clan and ethnic rivalries that have been imported to America. In this connection liberal Jews should also be aware of the great resentment that Indians often have for them as potential “high verbal IQ” competitors. I am reliably informed that Indian and Pakistani executives from the tech world were endlessly sharing explicitly antisemitic content in certain chats in the lead-up to the 2024 election. The reasons why should be obvious.

My concerns here aren’t motivated by bigotry, which I hope to show you now if you are a liberal or an Indian. Very often this is the go-to of migration proponents and their allies: to accuse those who object to mass immigration of bigotry and irrational racism. I am the opposite of a bigot when it comes to India. I love Indian culture and history, but even so I second everything Forney writes in that article: recent changes in outsourcing to India as well as arrival of new masses of Indian immigrants to America, Europe and Japan are having swift and catastrophic results both for these countries and for India. In what follows the reader should remember that Enoch Powell was also a lover of Indian culture, but didn’t therefore believe that mass migration of Indians to England was appropriate. But I want to show you for a moment that my love of Indian things is sincere.

I’ve spoken out against rampant anti-Indian bigotry by that name. But consider for a moment the reasons why I did so. I was offended that it now carries no cost and is being openly used by people who I have contempt for and consider cowardly. These are sometimes people who would never dare speak out truly dangerous-truth telling, who have no records of ability to stand up to the doxies of the liberal establishment, and who otherwise would wilt at being called “racist.” But the fact is that even lukewarm GOP and centrist grandmothers are willing openly to put their name on, yes, lurid anti-Indian bigotry, knowing it will carry no cost. That I only spoke out about it because it stopped being unsafe and is now everyday and boring is something that should concern you as an Indian or a liberal most of all.

Now about the very high regard in which I hold India and, yes, Indians…I will now prove to you that I am no enemy of India. First, you can check my record going back many years on Twitter/X. Here are examples from X:

I pointed out recently on my show what anyone in professional American culture knows, that many of the more disgusting images and stereotypes spread online now have little to do with the experience of actually working especially with South Indian elites. They are often not only professional but pleasant to interact with, and also more often than not innovative and a benefit to their companies. I’d be willing to stand by all of this and will continue to even when others criticize me, and many of my friends criticized me for saying this.

One of the frequent rebuttals Indian nationalists and ethnic self-regard overhavers make against me is that I supposedly only like India because I admire the ancient Aryan invaders and their ancient Vedic religion. They say that in reality I have only hostility or racial bigotry for anything that came after that, including especially modern Indians. This isn’t true at all. While I do have a special admiration for the texts of the Vedas (one feels almost that if you go back just a few generations from the language of the Vedas, it would be nearly the same as that of the Archaic Greeks going back a few; and the common use of the same poetic formulas is very interesting to me, yes…) I also admire things about subsequent and yes, modern Indian culture. I love Indian food and will continue to, no matter what, with special love for south Indian coconut curries and many such spice things Malabar. I love Indian music and share the 1960’s Hippies’ admiration for Ravi Shankar and the like…I’ve used this kind of trance otherworldly music on my show and I’ll continue to. I don’t need to repeat my admiration of Indian philosophy and religion. In this I am merely following one of my idols, Arthur Schopenhauer.

I ask also my friends on the right to pay attention to what I will now quote from Schopenhauer. Let me use this brief article as an opportunity to show you an amazing passage. Keep in mind that these views are by no means unique to Schopenhauer, but were shared by generations of scholars, travelers, colonial administrators, and thinkers of his time, and well into the 20th Century. German Indophiles 1900-1940 were also very much a thing. Although Schopenhauer says that modern India is much degraded compared to ancient (and who, even among Indians who are honest can deny this?), nevertheless here is Schopenhauer praising not just ancient India, but the India of his time as well, and citing the experiences of Europeans serving the East India Company living there; so, a very colorful passage from Schopenhauer:

But whoever wishes to enjoy the pleasure of seeing how an English officer forty-one years ago boldly and emphatically opposed the absurd and shameless pretensions of those gentlemen [the clerics and missionaries], should read the Vindication of the Hindoos from the aspersions of the Reverend Claudius Buchanan, with a refutation of his arguments in favour of an ecclesiastical establishment in British India: the whole tending to evince the excellence of the moral system of the Hindoos; by a Bengal officer, London, 1808. With rare frankness and candour the author discusses the advantages of the Indian doctrines over the European. The short work that would run to about eighty pages would be worth translating even now; for it expounds better and more openly than any other work known to me the very beneficial and practical influence of Brahmanism, its effect in life and on the people—a report quite different from those that emanate from clerical pens which, precisely as such, deserve little credit. It agrees with what I had heard from English officers who had spent half their lives in India. For to know how jealous of, and angry with, Brahmanism is the Anglican Church, which is always so nervous on account of its livings and benefices, we ought to be familiar, for example, with the loud yelping that was raised some years ago in Parliament by the bishops, and was carried on for many months. Since the East India authorities, as always on such occasions, showed themselves exceedingly stubborn, the bishops began their barking again and again merely because the English authorities, as was reasonable in India, showed some external marks of respect for the ancient and venerable religion of the country. For example, when the procession with the images of the gods passed by, the guard and its officer turned out and saluted with drums. Then there was the furnishing of a red cloth to cover the Car of Juggernaut, and so on. This was discontinued, as also were the pilgrim-dues raised in this connection; and such steps were really taken to please those gentlemen. Meanwhile, we have the incessant fulminations of those self-styled right-reverend holders of livings and wearers of full-bottomed wigs at such things; the really medieval way in which they express themselves on the original religion of our race, but which today should be called crude and vulgar; likewise the grave offence given to them, when in 1845 Lord Ellenborough brought back to Bengal in a triumphal procession and handed over to the Brahmans the gate of the pagoda of Sumenaut which had been destroyed in 1022 by that execrable Mahmud of Ghaznavi. I say that all this leads one to surmise that to them it was not unknown how much the majority of Europeans living many years in India were at heart in favour of Brahmanism, and how they simply shrugged their shoulders at both the religious and social prejudices of Europe. ‘All this falls off like scales, whenever one has lived only two years in India’, such a man once said to me. Even a Frenchman, that very courteous and cultured gentleman, who some ten years ago in Europe accompanied the Devadassi (vulgo Bayaderes), at once exclaimed with fiery enthusiasm, when I came to speak to him about the religion of the country: Monsieur, c’est la vraie religion!’

If we go to the root of the matter, even the fantastic and sometimes strange Indian mythology, still constituting today as it did thousands of years ago the religion of the people, is only the teaching of the Upanishads which is symbolized, in other words, clad in images and thus personified and mythicized with due regard to the people’s powers of comprehension. According to his powers and education, every Hindu traces, feels, surmises, or clearly sees through it and behind it; whereas in his monomania the crude and narrow-minded English parson ridicules and blasphemes by calling it idolatry, fondly imagining that he alone is on the right side of the fence. The purpose of the Buddha Sakya Muni, on the other band, was to separate the kernel from the shell, to free the exalted teaching itself from all admixture with images and gods, and to make its pure intrinsic worth accessible and intelligible even to the people. In this he was marvellously successful and his religion is, therefore, the most excellent on earth and is represented by the greatest number of followers. With Sophocles he can say:

Even the man who is nothing is capable of gaining strength when in alliance with the gods; but I venture to gain this glory even without them.

Ajax, 767-9

On the other hand, incidentally it is extremely droll to see the cool smile of self-complacency with which some servile German philosophasters and also many precise and literal orientalists look down on Brahmanism and Buddhism from the heights of their rationalistic Judaism. To such little men I would really like to suggest a contract with the comedy of apes at the Frankfurt Fair, that is, if the descendants of Hanuman would tolerate these amongst them.

The favorable impression given by modern Indian life, and the high value placed on Indian religion in helping Europeans shed off Jewish mythology is not unique to Schopenhauer, it was something emphasized throughout the early 20th Century as well. It is present arguably at least as far back as Voltaire, who was trying to use China as an example for this same reason. The attempt to escape the fraudulence of Biblical “history” and genealogy, and in general to use the religions of the Orient to aid European men not maybe open to philosophy, but open instead to art and spirituality, to aid them in escaping the mendacious and malicious traditions of Judaean and Judaine theology (which includes modern Judaism as well as Christianity) …this is a frequent and potent vein in the thought of the European progressive and atheist right wing, of which I consider myself a descendant.

As an aside for those who would say, “look at modern India to see the results of Hinduism, versus Europe to see the results of Christianity,” I answer that a lot of other parts of the world that are Christian, even for centuries, look pretty much like India does, or worse. It’s possible both that modern India would be a lot worse were it not for Hinduism, and also that modern Europe is worse than it would have been if it had simply continued the religious traditions of Hellenism and the philosophical secularism of late antiquity instead of trying to be the “New Israel.” It’s even possible that “it is to be regarded generally as a great misfortune that the people whose former culture was to serve mainly as the basis of our own were not, say, the Indians or the Greeks, or even the Romans, but just these Jews…” as, again, Schopenhauer elsewhere says.

So I write this as a friend to India and Indians, and not colored by any bigotry against you but even the opposite. In fact you must remember that as Indians you come actually pre-branded in the West with a lot of cultural sympathy. Many of the things I’ve just talked about from 19th century German culture were, like nudism, “laundered” or filtered through the beginnings of the youth movements in California and the West in the 1950’s and 1960’s. India and Indian spirituality enjoyed a huge cultural advantage, almost as big as Japan has now, or arguably bigger. It’s not just Ravi Shankar, tikka masala, chai, yoga, as well as pilgrimages by American and European youth to India and Dharamsala…but also much of drug culture, which is for better or worse part of modern American and European pop culture…this was very heavily permeated by (popularized) Indian symbols, words, and ideas.

And yet I say everything I’ve just said to ask you this: “How is it possible to have such high good will and high regard, and yet fall off so fast and so completely?” Because although I will continue to like the things I like and will speak out about them, I nevertheless completely agree with that article by Matt Forney, and maybe even think he understates it. The Patel hotel clan in America is now your image, and it’s wiped out everything else that I said that was positive about India in people’s minds. The vehemence of public opinion is already too great to be suppressed by any measures you might foolishly hope for from government. I don’t live in America but I can confirm the most unpleasant experiences by far I’ve had in the last couple of years have been on the phone with Indian customer service for American companies. It was hell for me, and I can’t imagine what people who do live in America, and who have to deal with similar behavior in physical life or from their coworkers and bosses at their jobs. You—whether you in American government, or India—have to realize that you are putting people through pure hell. It is the hell many elite Indians have struggled I assume to escape when they leave their own country, reflecting as it does antiquity with its juxtaposition of the highest next to the lowest, and the refined next to the most debased and most mercenary. But now what you tried to get away from is being imposed on the rest of the world.

Globalism in the form of exchange of ideas, culture, foods, travel, and even trade is a great thing, but in the forms of mass immigration and of outsourcing it is, for me as a mere idler, a very bad thing because it has such bad effects on nations and peoples that it destroys the friendship and cultural cross-germination that can exist between different cultures. It is thus that a certain kind of globalism is actually the vehicle for the nastiest types of parochialism and regression to ethnic tribalism. At the risk of making online rayciss chimp, I also admire certain Polynesian and African tribes for different reasons, but I think it would be similarly misguided and even catastrophic to import them in mass numbers to the West (or for that matter, Japan or South Korea, etc.) and would have terrible effects both on host and immigrant. But the Indian case seems unique in producing the worst effects on all sides, and I think it’s not possible to reverse this. This isn’t the early 20th Century where America had the ability to digest large masses of newcomers in even the best case, and feelings are now too embittered on all sides.

The case of Indian and Chinese migration to America and Europe is arguably even worse than it would be from e.g., Sudan or Ghana, because here you are importing a replacement for the professional classes, which affects national life much more than the importing of an underclass. However bad importing an underclass is, the “model minority” immigration model is even worse, for reasons I explained in these threads here and here and especially here where I went into how “model minority” immigration actually destroys the basis of meritocracy.

The case against “model minority” mass migration is made also by Canada as a live experiment, where this was attempted, but the economy suffered instead of improving. Recently Canadian officials have had to admit the results of their efforts: a possible decrease in standards of living. England had a similar experience, with Indian and Pakistani migration contributing to its economic decline. Even were it economically beneficial in the short run, it’s potentially catastrophic to import a new “semi-professional” and middle-manager class, from cultures that are very different in regards to mores, social behavior, corruption and ethnic self-interest at a time when the West has next to zero ability to process and assimilate immigrants and these have next to zero incentive to assimilate. The costs of the strife, even in the unlikely case of economic benefits (that have yet to materialize anywhere this was tried) would be too great. On top of this is added another element I’ve mentioned before and which few others will touch: the fact that East Asian and Indian males are generally not competitive in an American or European sexual or dating market, which fuels further rage and resentment as well as the will to revenge, because it is about the ultimate in all of the average man’s considerations.

Provoking ethnic and replacement tensions in the people or the working classes is bad and usually pointless. But a society can weather their riots and jacqueries: the Yellow Vest protests in France didn’t change too much as far as I can tell. But this is not only the working classes: you are disenfranchising a large portion of your own potential professional class, in other words the incubator of all past revolutions. No supposed year-end advantage in inflation management, or whatever else you have in mind, can be worth the consequences of the types of changes you are making. You are unprepared to exercise the most tyrannical measures that would be required to do the things you are trying to do. And for my Indian friends I would say, no real benefit can come to you by encouraging further Indian immigration: I say this as a proven friendly, that the too-big presence already of your compatriots in America and probably in Europe and Japan as well is putting you in an unmanageable situation.