Are Indians a model minority?
Aditya B. writes:
I hope this helps your fascinating discussion on Jewish and Indian intelligence.
An Indian living in the West is absolutely right about the insufferable attitude of Indians regarding their superiority. Indians in the West (and even in India) are absolutely convinced that they are superior to the historic majority in every manner, shape, and form. Indian children imbibe contempt for whites with their mothers’ milk. [LA replies: this is too broad and denigrating a statement to make without evidence to back it up.]
Their complete lack of love for this land is evidenced by the near absence of quality Indian hospitals (à la Cedars Sinai—which saved my life), Indian educational academies à la Yeshiva University) or even participation in the military. When they do donate money, it’s for the construction in the West of monstrous temples. Usually, they build large homes, buy fancy cars, and donate money to their favorite temples in India.
I don’t know enough about Freudianism to analyze this, but a few group traits of these miserable people could be illuminating:
1. Indians are obsessed with fair skin. A cosmetic called “Fair & Lovely” is the most popular cosmetic in India. This is a skin bleach and promised to lighten its user rendering them more desirable to just about everyone.
2. Whilst they are strictly endogamous, and almost militant about marrying within their caste, all rules go out the window when their precious child wants to marry a white. As with blacks, marrying a white is the ultimate Indian status symbol, especially when it’s a white girl.
3a. The Babu was looked down as little more than a clerk. [LA replies: what is a babu?] A man who could do paperwork (in triplicate) and not much else. That is mostly accurate. The Indian is unable to absorb complex abstract principles and apply them to concrete situations. They are experts at learning by rote and regurgitating. And that is all that is rewarded. Most Indians are only smart enough to sign their own papers. The most reliable studies on Indian IQ seems to suggest a mean IQ of 85.
3b. Independent thought is discouraged. Nothing like transgressive Jewish literature and social sciences exists in India. All “independent thinkers” in India are slaves to defunct Frankfurt school thinkers, Fabianists and Marxist-Leninists. Independent thought in India is ruthlessly put down with the active assistance of the population. There is no room for dissent. And, again, when you’re dealing with dolts, any dissent is regarded as a personal affront and can lead to grievous bodily harm.
3c. There is a complete lack of curiosity about the world and anything beyond their mental horizons. Hindus believe that their ancestors discovered everything worth knowing. Some of the more lunatic ones believe that they even invented flying machines and nuclear weapons, but discarded the same, as they considered these trifles unworthy of their attention. Most Indian homes don’t even possess a library. Reading is regarded as a waste of time, and, again, an act of transgression which is discouraged. I don’t know why this is so. I think it could have something to do with the fact that they worship flying monkeys. Such idiotic practices like the barbaric practices of Islam could be retarding their intellectual development.
3d. Indians succeed in school in the U.S. because education has been drastically watered down. They are masters of rote which enables them to do well in tests. But in the real world, they are unable to rise beyond middle management, as they simply lack the tools that require inventive and aggressive thinking. Further, they are miserable at crisis management, as their minds are so regimented that any deviation from the script throws them off-balance. This was on shameful display when Bombay was attacked in a most unconventional manner by jihadist murderers in November 2008.
4a. The Indian boast of stratospheric intellect is belied by the demonstrable lack of classically trained Indian musicians. While there are numerous musicians in Hindustani and Carnatic music, there is no one excepting Zubin Mehta who has made a mark in the more challenging endeavor of classical music.
4b. The boast of superior Indian intellect is also belied by the under-representation on the Noble Prize list (the real hard sciences list) of the smartest people G-d ever created. Only four.
5. Indian success in the U.S. is largely attributable to exploiting an open system in active connivance with a leftist establishment. They operate businesses in rough neighborhoods, employ slave labor, cheat on their taxes, and utilize that money to open a string of businesses which results in great and small fortunes. Essentially, they regard Americans as patsies who allow them to get away with practices that would land them in a torture cell in India. Most Indians are Tony Montana types who view America as “juicy p***y waiting to be f****d.” ()
6. That being said, there are bright Indian individuals, and bright Indian groups; notably Tamilian Brahmins and Bengali Brahmins. But they pale in comparison (and I’m sure they wish they did, literally) to the Ashkenazim.
In conclusion, the myth of Indian intelligence is an insidious lie perpetuated by the Establishment in order to maintain a steady flow of cheap labor. Please note that no vital operations are outsourced to India. They only perform back office work. And companies are having second thoughts about that owing to less than stellar work ethics (Indians like to ask for month long vacations to celebrate their second cousin’s uncle’s daughter’s wedding). [LA replies: I have written about the customer support people I’ve dealt with in India and described them as the stupidest people I’ve ever dealt with. I said that the quality of the customer support people in India was damaging India’s image.]
Broadly speaking, Indians are arrogant, clannish, and lack any affection for America. A woman called Sandhya Kumar even forced the Fairfax County in Virginia to include her version of Indian history. Though I doubt if her children know anything about Thomas Jefferson of Virginia or about the Civil War.
Indians, like the Chinese, are not “model minorities,” as they do not and cannot identify with the US. This is land formed by the blood, sweat, toil and tears of the Western European man. They share nothing in common with them. Additionally, with leftism as our new religion, they are able to act out their frustrations and figuratively humiliate the historic majority—the people who created all they enjoy, and all they could never create—for the crime of letting them settle in their land and affording them the opportunity to amass fabulous wealth and enjoy a standard of living undreamed of in their native land.
When push comes to shove, these model minorities will jam-pack the airports gouging each others eyes out to get out here as the world comes crashing down. Such are the vibrant, diverse “citizens” of the Republic.
But I am not worried about them. They are the enemy in the sense that they are easily identifiable and will self deport when this house of cards comes crashing down. The real danger are white liberals. They can’t go anywhere and nobody wants them. Nor will any white man deport or exile his people which means we’re stuck with them.
We can handle the Hindus and the Chinese. May G-d save us from our “friends!”
- end of initial entry -
Aditya B. replies to LA:
The generalization regarding Indians imbibing hatred of whites with their mothers’ milk is overbroad, and I confess I have no evidence other than this article which indicates an overwhelming support for a man who represented the antithesis of traditional America. All I have is anecdotal evidence, but the fact that this community supports a man (who they, in all likelihood, despise racially) is indicative of the deep seated resentment for traditional America and its historic majority.
A “Babu” in the British Raj context was a native clerk. Lately, it is used as a mark of respect for any educated man. The British couldn’t stand the Babus because of racial antagonism (it went both ways) and due to the Babus’ blinkered, by-the-book approach. That approach hasn’t changed. The Indian bureaucracy remains as rigid as ever and is completely incapable of any action that is not clearly spelled out in triplicate with seven different secretaries approving it.
In a word, the Babu is the ideal bureaucrat. A completely unimaginative man who knows nothing other than regulations, rules, by-rules and such.
- end of initial entry -
An Indian living in the West writes:
The lack of dissent and the inability to handle dissent is a unique Indian problem (though it is even worse among the Chinese). I remember a hilarious episode when I was discussing the famous, and utterly worthless, Indian economist Amartya Sen who had been rewarded with a Nobel Prize in Economics. I was telling my Bengali Brahmin friend that Sen’s theories are a pile of manure that truly reflect how worthless modern economists have become (a point that is validated by the Nobel Prizes awarded to Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Krugman).
This friend reacted with such fury at my comment! He thought that Indians ought to be proud of the fact that Amartya Sen won the Nobel Prize rather than run him down. In his mind, what Sen wrote was irrelevant. The fact that he won it (and won adulation from the West) was sufficient for all Indians to start singing his praises regardless of whether he had ever written anything of value. If anything, to me it reflected a deep seated insecurity about “our intellectual superiority.” If “we” are really that good, why do “we” need the West to endorse everything “we” do?
The crushing of dissent has some tragic consequences. There have been instances when some truly brilliant scientists in Indian laboratories have had their lives destroyed because they have questioned the conventional wisdom of their bureaucratic superiors. I remember reading about one such tragic case that resulted in the scientist committing suicide. Years after his death, some Western scientists discovered his writings and were amazed at his brilliance. His ideas then led to new research in medicine previously never explored. I will try to find this story and will send it to you.
Aditya B is right. Indians are no match for Ashkenazi Jews. There are no more than 14 million Jews on earth. The Jewish population has probably never exceeded 22 million as far as I am aware (even if one looks as pre-Holocaust numbers). And yet one only has to look at the percentage of Nobel Prizes in the natural sciences awarded to Jews to appreciate what we are talking about. The fact that no more than four Indians have won the Nobel Prize in the natural sciences means that Indians ought to be a little more humble about their supposed capabilities.
Ian M. writes:
Every time I read a comment from Aditya, I end up feeling that there is no way that what he says could possibly be true: he writes with such a tone as to make it sound as if everything he says is a gross exaggeration, which causes me to impulsively discount all of it. (Mind you, this is simply my initial gut reaction; I’m sure there is much truth to what he writes).
The other thing about his writing is that it exudes a contempt for his own people. He mocks and belittles his own people’s ancient beliefs, traditions, and culture. I’m not saying that there isn’t room for much criticism of Hindu beliefs (for one, they are false), but surely, there is something amiss about how he goes about this criticism. It would be as if I were to mock my own mother for having false beliefs. There seems to be a difference in kind between when you, Larry Auster, criticize your own people and their beliefs and when Aditya criticizes his own people and their beliefs. Your writing does not evince contempt, whereas his does. In this way, Aditya’s writing reminds me of a white liberal who hates and mocks his own people for their past colonialism, racism, patriarchy, etc.
With respect to the subject at hand, there is a disproportionate number of Indians in top-level PhD engineering programs, which suggests to me some level of curiosity about the world. However, from my experience in engineering, I do agree that their level of innovative thinking is not as high as that of top white engineers. On the other hand, my experience is that Indians have a higher capacity than whites for solving high-level mathematical analytical problems, which is more than rote learning and does require the ability to absorb complex abstract principles. However, I think this type of intelligence is not quite the same as the kind that leads to innovative thinking. (Incidentally, I find that Iranian engineers are very innovative, although my sample size is small).
June 22
Aditya B. writes:
Ian M. makes a somewhat apt analogy between myself and white liberals. But there is a very real difference which he either ignores or fails to see: white liberals despise white strength; I have contempt for Hindu weakness.
I grew up in a land consumed by superstition, fanaticism, ignorance, and an Everest-sized chip on its shoulder. I did not like these people and I still don’t.
Just as one’s country must be lovely for one to love it, one’s people must be lovely for one to love them. Neither India nor its people are lovely and I love neither India nor its people.
And Indians return the favor. All my life I was called a “Macaulayputra” (Macaulay’s Child). “The English left, but left him behind,” they taunted. I was mocked in college and even in court (when I made a few appearances). Most Indians despise men such as myself, fluent in English with Western sensibilities, and unable to join them in their ludicrous flag-wagging or their primitive and risible religious rituals.
Also, unlike liberals, I have put my money where my mouth is and I have left ‘em all behind. Even if I’d remained in India, I would have lived in Bombay with other Macaulay’s Children and would deal the the general public peripherally.
Obtaining a Ph.D. is test of endurance more than anything else. Indians are good at cramming and test taking. They have yet to produce a single innovation in the arts or the sciences that would amaze the world and benefit humanity.
Also, the Iranians are even dumber than Indians. The Indians managed to conduct two nuclear tests—under the burden of enormous sanctions—in the 1960s and in 1998. The Iranians can’t even figure out an 70 year old technology. Guess they’re too busy shopping for Gucci sunglasses and Armani shirts.
LA writes:
I understand you even better now as a result of this comment.
Gintas writes:
Solzhenitsyn told the truth, it was clear he loved his people and his land even as they wallowed in the depths of Soviet depravity. Also, he always pointed the way back to good health. Perhaps I make Solzhenitsyn out to be a saint; but he was a Christian, and he knew Russia had once been Christian and could become that again. Aditya’s comments about India are rancorous, whatever their truth.
LA replies:
I’m undecided about this. On one hand, Aditya is speaking from his heart and his experience, and a person has a right to his experience. On the other hand, I feel the force of the argument that there is something objectionable about harboring a strong animus against one’s own people.
An Indian living in the West writes:
I wanted a add a bit more about my own views on Indians as I think I stand somewhere between the extremes of Aditya B. and the India lovers.
When I was younger, I was a nationalist. Now, I think I would describe myself as a “realist” with some attachment to India but those are not as strong as they used to be. At the same time, I do not have contempt for Indians, as Aditya describes his own views. Every country is different. India has had a unique history and modern India (warts and all) is a product of that chaotic history. The religion that Aditya mocks is partly what makes India what it is today, take it or leave it. I do not hate it although there is much that I would criticise freely.
I admire Aditya for his honesty in saying that he has divorced himself from the country completely and from its past. I haven’t. I think blood is thicker than water and, ultimately, the ties that bind do not dissolve so easily. The ties of family and community endure through thick and thin. I have lived away from India for many years but I still spend a lot of time in India regularly. Much of what Aditya says about Indians is true but there are also notable exceptions. At one extreme there is a general level of dishonesty in India that I have not encountered anywhere in the West. And yet, even in such an environment, there are people who can only be described as gems. There are people who have done much good and who are a credit to humanity. Some of those people have shown acts of kindness, loyalty, faith and devotion that have only taught me over time to cut individuals some slack. Yes one exercises caution based on generalities and then one lets individuals prove generalisations wrong. The Indians that have proved the generalisations wrong are a non-trivial number (exceeding the number of black nuclear physicists, as an analogy).
The tendencies that Aditya describes among Indians in the West (principally the resentment of whites that seems brewing under the surface) is common to many non-white immigrant groups, and, as I have said before, was often characteristic of many Eastern and Southern European immigrants in America a few generations ago. You can read Maldwyn Jones’ book Destination America. The most interesting aspect of that book, for me, was the contempt that many German immigrants had for the Anglo-Americans in the mid-19th century. Some even described the Anglo Americans as “varnished over barbarians, scratch the surface and the Sioux Indian stands exposed.” [LA replies: I’ve never heard this before, that German immigrants disliked and looked down on Anglo-Saxon Americans.] This was meant to be a re-phrasing of Napoleon’s views on the Russians as “varnished over barbarians.” The Germans had great philosophers and great music. What great “culture” did the Anglo Americans possess? It is telling, however, that despite all the high culture Germany undoubtedly had, the German immigrants that came to America voted with their feet. Their actions spoke louder than their words.
So, with Indians, I think some balance is in order.
Aditya B. writes:
Again, with your permission, a little clarification:
Comparing me with Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn is almost blasphemous. But since we’re talking about Solzhenitsyn and his hopes and dreams for Russia, let us consider his people:
Russia has gone from bad to worse. Nearly everyone agrees they are in the middle of a terrible demographic crisis. Russians haven’t turned to the faith of their forefathers, they have turned to drugs, alcohol, and violence.
Russia is in the process of committing slow suicide. I think Solzhenitsyn romanticized the Russian people as his predecessors romanticized the muzhak. There is no indication that Russia will ever become a First-World, Western European-type nation, nor was there ever any evidence to support that proposition. It was, and remains, nothing more than a idle hope.
And while I do harbor an animus against “Indians,” I would like to submit that there is nothing called an “Indian.” “India” is shorthand for a land populated by a number of maddeningly diverse tribes and sub-tribes and sub-sub-tribes. Applying European nation-state definitions to India is absurd. That’s why Churchill snorted that “India was no more a country than the Equator.”
The only “Indians” are people such as myself who have imbibed Western notions of governance, politics, law, property, individualism and so on. And I usually get along with such people, subject to ordinary and mundane conflicts that affect all human interaction. In a word, my India is the India of urban and urbane populations, mostly Hindu, Parsee, and Catholic with a smatttering of Muslims.
The people I don’t get along constitute about 90 per cent of the country. I really don’t have anything in common with them. I have more in common with my white friends than I do with a peasant from Orissa or a textile-merchant from Benares. Again, I am not even racially related to 80 per cent of the country so I don’t even have that to bind me to the people.
Therefore, most of the people I hold in contempt are not “my people” in any meaningful sense. It is not a form of self-loathing, as I get along fine with Macaulay’s Children.
Again, based on the general IQ of the nation as well as its prevailing structure of taboos, I see no hope for deliverance from the ignorance, corruption, fanaticism, superstition, and barbarism that holds them captive. Mass democracy has ensured that Indian rulers are drawn from the masses. Thus, there will be no attempt to lift up these people into a higher form of existence as there was in the past with the Raj. Instead, the lowest common denominator is now the norm. There is no evidence warranting optimism.
And therefore India and I have parted ways. Should I return, I will be with my own kind, a sliver of the population that has more in common with VFR commenters than with their own neighbors. Such is paradox that is Hindustan. G-d does have an elegant sense of humour.
LA to Aditya:
This is fascinating. I understand what you’re saying.
Your native country is British India, or rather British-made India.
Aditya replies:
Thank you, Lawrence.
Once you realize the true nature of India, a lot of things become clearer. For instance, the military in both India and Pakistan is dominated by Punjabis. Essentially, the India Pakistan conflict is Muslim Punjabis fighting Hindu and Sikh Punjabis! They all have more in common with each other than they have with me and my kin (Gujaratis).
The oldest tribe in India are the Dravids who speak Tamil. The Dravids hate the Punjabis and the Northern establishment and prefer English over Hindi. Rickshaw drivers in Madras speak fluent (albeit heavily accented) English as they refuse to speak a word of Hindi.
It goes without saying that there are tons of decent people in India but that is so obvious that I didn’t feel the need to say that. My point is that India, as a whole, is a barbaric, Third World nation that lacks the potential to be anything else. It’s the country of the future and will always remain the country of the future.
That being said, it is a better place than any Islamic nation and any Latin American or sub-Saharan nation. The people are more tolerant than Muslims and not as violent as Arabs, Russians, or Latin Americans. That is why it is possible to lead a decent life in India with a good deal of freedom, which is virtually impossible in Pakistan, the Muslim Middle East, or sub-Saharan Africa.
And honestly, this is the best I can say for India. For all its faults, it is still a relatively free, non-violent, and stable society. Considering its ethnic diversity and population, that is a remarkable achievement. So for that, three cheers, lads. I s’pose you did the best you could.
Aditya continues:
Without the Raj, I wouldn’t exist.
The Raj paid for my maternal grandfather’s education. My paternal grandfather practiced law in the Raj’s courts. Both men loved the British though they supported Home Rule. They had the greatest and most sincere admiration for the British Raj but thought that times had changed and that Indians were ready for Home Rule. Neither man resented the British in the least.
My maternal grandfather was arrested and tossed into gaol for Home Rule agitation. His white college Principal raised all kinds of hell with the (white) Superintendant and arranged for better conditions for all arrested students. By the way, they were beaten and humiliated by “their people.”
My India is quite simply Westernized people such as myself who were raised in a secular, Western manner. I don’t know where we fit in the grand scheme of things, as we are neither fish nor fowl. We can never be Westerners but we can never be full Indians. Fotunately, there are enough of us and we manage to find each other so we’re never lonely and hence we don’t ever spend any time or energy thinking about such things.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at June 21, 2012 01:41 PM | Send