What strikes me as an Indian reader is the selective nature of moral deference in modern Western politics.
Almost no one else gets this treatment. Most communities are expected to obey the law, assimilate, compete, study, work, and avoid disorder. Indians, East Asians, Jews, and many immigrant groups are judged by fairly unforgiving standards. If they fail, no one builds an elaborate mythology to explain away the failure.
But with blacks and Muslims, the West seems to suspend ordinary judgment. Crime, disorder, underachievement, separatism, or even sympathy for political violence are often explained through grievance, trauma, marginalization, colonialism, racism, Islamophobia, or “root causes.” The standard applied to everyone else is quietly relaxed.
This is why cases like Duke Lacrosse, O.J. Simpson, Ferguson, Trayvon Martin, Iryna Zarutska and now Karmelo Anthony are so clarifying. The facts matter less than the moral script. One group is presumed endangered, another presumptively guilty, and the public is asked to pretend this is justice.
The same pattern appears with Islam. After 9/11, an earlier generation might have responded with ugly street revenge. Instead, liberal Western society overcorrected in the opposite direction. The new posture became: we are so morally advanced, so unlike our bigoted ancestors, that we will show special indulgence even toward communities where sympathy for extremism, separatism, or anti-Western politics is far too common. The election of Zohran Mamdani feels like part of that same moral theatre: proof that the white voter is enlightened precisely because he refuses to notice what would be obvious in any other context.
To outsiders, especially non-white outsiders, this is baffling. We do not view this with historical guilt. We see a simpler picture: some groups are held to universal standards, while others are granted exemptions from them.
That double standard cannot last forever. A society can be generous, forgiving, and pluralistic. But it cannot survive if law-abiding, high-performing communities are treated as morally suspect while disorderly or separatist communities are endlessly indulged.
The real shift may be that more people, including immigrants, are finally willing to say this plainly.
On a related point, what I find particularly interesting is the selective application of scepticism and scientific literacy that often underpins this worldview. Standards of evidence appear to shift depending on whether a conclusion reinforces or challenges an existing narrative.
Much of our media and political class - not to mention large sections of the Western electorate, including the uni educated younger demographic - have little difficulty accepting remarkably weak Critical Theory scholarship when it aligns with a pre-existing, self-critical understanding of Western society.
This tendency extends beyond academia to the interpretation of real-world data. To this day, I routinely encounter misleading, exaggerated, or outright incorrect representations of evidence presented as settled fact, even in publications such as The Telegraph (supposedly right of centre). Examples include claims that 70 - 80% of observed gender pay disparities are attributable to discrimination, assertions about systemic disparities in policing that go far beyond what the evidence demonstrates (particularly in the UK, where discussions are often imported wholesale from the US context), or the oft-repeated claim that one in four women are raped in their lifetimes. These propositions have become so widely accepted that they frequently serve as foundational premises for public debate and, in some cases, public policy (for example, mandatory gender pay-gap reporting for large UK employers).
What is most striking, however, is the selective scrutiny. Research and statistics that support prevailing narratives are often accepted with relatively little examination, while findings that challenge those narratives are subjected to extraordinary levels of scepticism and hostility. In some cases, this extends to creating environments in which dissent itself is all but socially discouraged.
One of the clearest UK examples was the reaction to the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities (CRED) report, chaired by Dr Tony Sewell and published at the height of the BLM movement in 2021. The report challenged several widely held assumptions about race and inequality, including by highlighting the educational underachievement of working class white boys relative to many other groups. Rather than being welcomed as a contribution to an important and contentious debate, it was widely denounced, intensely scrutinised, and, in many quarters, dismissed outright.
One reason James' point resonated with me is that I encountered a version of this dynamic personally when I lived and worked in the West.
I found that many people were perfectly comfortable making sweeping generalizations about groups they regarded as privileged or powerful. They viewed themselves as simply stating facts, following the evidence, or speaking truth to power. Yet the moment the same style of analysis was applied in a direction they disliked, it suddenly became prejudice, stereotyping, or bigotry.
What struck me was not the disagreement itself, but the asymmetry. The rules appeared to change depending on who was being discussed.
I was particularly surprised because the people exhibiting this tendency were often the very class I had expected to be most committed to intellectual consistency and open inquiry. Instead, I often found them to be among the least tolerant of challenges to their assumptions.
I encountered a similar dynamic as a manager. I ran a high-functioning team and held people to demanding but achievable standards. Yet many of the same people who objected to standards, accountability, or performance expectations for certain groups had no hesitation applying extremely demanding standards to managers, organizations, or other groups they viewed as powerful.
Perhaps what disappointed me most was that I grew up admiring Western civilization. The West I encountered through books and history was confident that it had something valuable to teach the world: scientific inquiry, intellectual honesty, meritocracy, free speech, and individual responsibility. You did not have to agree with everything, but there was a sense of civilizational confidence.
When I eventually lived there, I was surprised to find a culture that often seemed uncomfortable defending its own achievements and more interested in cataloguing its own sins. Healthy self-criticism is a strength. Endless self-criticism eventually becomes a weakness.
In the end, I returned to India. Partly because I realized that the West I had admired was increasingly something I encountered in its history books rather than in its contemporary elite culture.
India sucks both culturally and economically but it does have a lot of smart and productive people as well. There is also less political correctness and standards can be enforced. It will only take one government to implement the necessary free market and civil disobedience, hygiene etc reforms that make India at least ok - Indians are online enough to see the negative perception of their country and there will be appetite for change. The future of India is probably something like Latin American standard of living with less crime.
In other words, at least they have a future better than the present. Which is increasingly unlikely for the UK, Germany etc. The USA will be worse in some ways but the economy seems to be going strong at least.
The lib boomers stopped passing on the values they inherited because they thought they were the shit, not realizing every generation believes this about themselves until they hit 40 and reality hits. Now everyone shows them the disrespect and contempt they showed their own elders and it astounds them.
Look up Dani Sulikowski - she has advanced the theory that this is actually the main objective of these leftist ideologies. She claims eg feminism is a reproductive suppression strategy by elite women to sabotage other (ie working class) women's reproductive success so the elites will success in creating a genetic bottleneck. They want collapse so their descendants will rule over the remains in the future.
Blacks as a collective supporting the party of mass immigration was suicidally stupid. About as if not more suicidal than liberal Jews doing it.
The new immigrants are indifferent to the black story in America. At best, they like the famous black celebrities everyone likes + sports. But they aren’t gonna care about MLK or Civil Rights as much as old school American Whites.
They did it because it moved the median voter more to the left, which meant more handouts. Without immigration for instance we probably wouldn't have the ACA or expanded medicaid, which clearly benefits blacks more then anyone else.
True but it was penny wise pound foolish. Same with Jews as well getting all their socially liberal stuff through immigration and expanding the amounts of people going to college. They didn’t realize how lucky they were to have lapsed WASPs as their leaders who were apostatizing, having no children, and felt guilty. Perfect storm for both groups to take advantage but the well is now dry.
You can’t co opt feminism. You can however get white women to realize they are the enemy of the mainstream and that they need to tribe up with their religion and family rather than “big woman” because it’s better to be an important part of the white Catholic coalition filled with patriarchal men who will protect you than to be second from the bottom of the progressive one.
Ultimately, they, like any other group of liberals, did not sign on to a slate of policies, but to a slate of masters. It's a deal that's occasionally bad for the taker and always bad for their descendants. They get used as a tool against recalcitrant Whites, and then discarded when they become useless or unnecessary.
Same deal as WWII, really. Churchill got to play hero and get praise and prestige, but his people are far worse than they'd be if he hadn't.
Going to the gym and seeing Will Cain devote close to half his show to this case was very awesome. 100% agree this will cause generational damage to magic Americans
America has homegrown its own Third World. While it may have had a race problem in 1926, by 2026 it has literally created a problem race. Whatever gains that individual Black Americans strive to make are undone by Blacktivism and the worship of ghetto culture.
"ECHOLS-RICHTER: I want to just say too, I think one of the things here is to talk about the difference between responsibility and blame. We want to assign blame. What I've discovered in my life is that when we do that, it takes any responsibility away from us. I think in this case, we have to all claim responsibility.
MARTIN: And why do you say that?
ECHOLS-RICHTER: I say that because of the way we've taught children in our community that you should have a certain pride in your school. And I'm not saying that's necessarily a bad thing. But when that turns into, this is our territory - we're going to defend our ground - that becomes problematic. And we have to all look at ourselves and say - how do we all accept some responsibility? - as opposed to immediately jumping in and saying, oh, well, I know who's to blame."
You see? We are ALL responsible, and we shouldn't *blame* Karmelo Anthony, because after all, it was Austin Metcalf "defending territory", which is a bad thing that *WE* "taught children in our community".
LOL!
Also, in this bit of "reporting", no mention of the outrageous and aggressively racist reaction in the black community (celebs, politicians, influencers, etc) to the trial, and the $600+K donated to the killer, but of course white "right-wing provocateurs leading racist protests" get coverage.
The petulent defiance of human nature and natural rationality of the propaganda wing of the plutocracy never ceases to astound me. Defending kith and kin from strangers is ingrained in our blood; the fact that in this case (and many such cases) the stranger murdered one of them further cements the evident rationality of the tribal instinct.
This happened in Frisco Collin County. This is an extremely affluent area of the Dallas suburbs. The reaction to the verdict is unhinged and horrific. Idaho and Montana are looking better and better everyday. Good extremely high paying jobs are not worth risking your personal safety and the safety of your family members. Plenty of decent jobs with Micron in Boise. The tech scene in Ada County is booming and there are plenty of good STEM jobs. Plenty of good jobs in healthcare, municipal government support, and public education all over Idaho and Western Montana. If you have a remote job with PPO insurance with a suitcase around the PPO on your insurance card I don’t understand not at least making future plans to move to Idaho/Western Montana.
Many in the Latino community have had it with crime in large major metro areas: https://rumble.com/shorts/v78uhaa The crime wave of the early 2020s was the first experience of many Latino American families to highly elevated levels of urban crime in the US.
Something that always happens in online discourse with these racially charged cases is the predictable whataboutism from blacks who just start dredging up cases of whites behaving poorly, seemingly totally oblivious to the fact that the issue is that white people for the most part not only don't defend fellow whites as whites, but genuinely relish in the punishments that they receive. Blacks would do themselves a huge favor if they started speaking in one voice to condemn the worst of them rather than jumping to their defense. It's not that hard!
“Metcalf’s supporters argued that they now have to worry about their sons being assaulted left and right by whites since they can no longer defend themselves.” Should be “Anthony’s.”
All Oppression Narratives come from a total lack of racial humility among white people. Most, if not all, White Liberals just can't accept that black people are competent enough to exploit or victimise them.
It's the same here in the UK. White Liberals spent over a decade denying the existence of Grooming Gangs because they had too much racial pride, and could not accept that brown people were capable of exploiting white people.
A raven envied a swan the whiteness of her plumage. Thinking that the swan's beauty was owing to the water in which she lived, the raven deserted the altars where he used to find his livelihood and took to the pools and streams. There he plumed and dressed himself and washed his coat, but all to no purpose, for his plumage remained as black as ever, and he himself soon perished for want of his usual food.
What strikes me as an Indian reader is the selective nature of moral deference in modern Western politics.
Almost no one else gets this treatment. Most communities are expected to obey the law, assimilate, compete, study, work, and avoid disorder. Indians, East Asians, Jews, and many immigrant groups are judged by fairly unforgiving standards. If they fail, no one builds an elaborate mythology to explain away the failure.
But with blacks and Muslims, the West seems to suspend ordinary judgment. Crime, disorder, underachievement, separatism, or even sympathy for political violence are often explained through grievance, trauma, marginalization, colonialism, racism, Islamophobia, or “root causes.” The standard applied to everyone else is quietly relaxed.
This is why cases like Duke Lacrosse, O.J. Simpson, Ferguson, Trayvon Martin, Iryna Zarutska and now Karmelo Anthony are so clarifying. The facts matter less than the moral script. One group is presumed endangered, another presumptively guilty, and the public is asked to pretend this is justice.
The same pattern appears with Islam. After 9/11, an earlier generation might have responded with ugly street revenge. Instead, liberal Western society overcorrected in the opposite direction. The new posture became: we are so morally advanced, so unlike our bigoted ancestors, that we will show special indulgence even toward communities where sympathy for extremism, separatism, or anti-Western politics is far too common. The election of Zohran Mamdani feels like part of that same moral theatre: proof that the white voter is enlightened precisely because he refuses to notice what would be obvious in any other context.
To outsiders, especially non-white outsiders, this is baffling. We do not view this with historical guilt. We see a simpler picture: some groups are held to universal standards, while others are granted exemptions from them.
That double standard cannot last forever. A society can be generous, forgiving, and pluralistic. But it cannot survive if law-abiding, high-performing communities are treated as morally suspect while disorderly or separatist communities are endlessly indulged.
The real shift may be that more people, including immigrants, are finally willing to say this plainly.
On a related point, what I find particularly interesting is the selective application of scepticism and scientific literacy that often underpins this worldview. Standards of evidence appear to shift depending on whether a conclusion reinforces or challenges an existing narrative.
Much of our media and political class - not to mention large sections of the Western electorate, including the uni educated younger demographic - have little difficulty accepting remarkably weak Critical Theory scholarship when it aligns with a pre-existing, self-critical understanding of Western society.
This tendency extends beyond academia to the interpretation of real-world data. To this day, I routinely encounter misleading, exaggerated, or outright incorrect representations of evidence presented as settled fact, even in publications such as The Telegraph (supposedly right of centre). Examples include claims that 70 - 80% of observed gender pay disparities are attributable to discrimination, assertions about systemic disparities in policing that go far beyond what the evidence demonstrates (particularly in the UK, where discussions are often imported wholesale from the US context), or the oft-repeated claim that one in four women are raped in their lifetimes. These propositions have become so widely accepted that they frequently serve as foundational premises for public debate and, in some cases, public policy (for example, mandatory gender pay-gap reporting for large UK employers).
What is most striking, however, is the selective scrutiny. Research and statistics that support prevailing narratives are often accepted with relatively little examination, while findings that challenge those narratives are subjected to extraordinary levels of scepticism and hostility. In some cases, this extends to creating environments in which dissent itself is all but socially discouraged.
One of the clearest UK examples was the reaction to the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities (CRED) report, chaired by Dr Tony Sewell and published at the height of the BLM movement in 2021. The report challenged several widely held assumptions about race and inequality, including by highlighting the educational underachievement of working class white boys relative to many other groups. Rather than being welcomed as a contribution to an important and contentious debate, it was widely denounced, intensely scrutinised, and, in many quarters, dismissed outright.
One reason James' point resonated with me is that I encountered a version of this dynamic personally when I lived and worked in the West.
I found that many people were perfectly comfortable making sweeping generalizations about groups they regarded as privileged or powerful. They viewed themselves as simply stating facts, following the evidence, or speaking truth to power. Yet the moment the same style of analysis was applied in a direction they disliked, it suddenly became prejudice, stereotyping, or bigotry.
What struck me was not the disagreement itself, but the asymmetry. The rules appeared to change depending on who was being discussed.
I was particularly surprised because the people exhibiting this tendency were often the very class I had expected to be most committed to intellectual consistency and open inquiry. Instead, I often found them to be among the least tolerant of challenges to their assumptions.
I encountered a similar dynamic as a manager. I ran a high-functioning team and held people to demanding but achievable standards. Yet many of the same people who objected to standards, accountability, or performance expectations for certain groups had no hesitation applying extremely demanding standards to managers, organizations, or other groups they viewed as powerful.
Perhaps what disappointed me most was that I grew up admiring Western civilization. The West I encountered through books and history was confident that it had something valuable to teach the world: scientific inquiry, intellectual honesty, meritocracy, free speech, and individual responsibility. You did not have to agree with everything, but there was a sense of civilizational confidence.
When I eventually lived there, I was surprised to find a culture that often seemed uncomfortable defending its own achievements and more interested in cataloguing its own sins. Healthy self-criticism is a strength. Endless self-criticism eventually becomes a weakness.
In the end, I returned to India. Partly because I realized that the West I had admired was increasingly something I encountered in its history books rather than in its contemporary elite culture.
An Indian posting about returning to India that makes me feel SAD? Now THATS an accomplishment. Valentin’s writing sir!
India sucks both culturally and economically but it does have a lot of smart and productive people as well. There is also less political correctness and standards can be enforced. It will only take one government to implement the necessary free market and civil disobedience, hygiene etc reforms that make India at least ok - Indians are online enough to see the negative perception of their country and there will be appetite for change. The future of India is probably something like Latin American standard of living with less crime.
In other words, at least they have a future better than the present. Which is increasingly unlikely for the UK, Germany etc. The USA will be worse in some ways but the economy seems to be going strong at least.
The lib boomers stopped passing on the values they inherited because they thought they were the shit, not realizing every generation believes this about themselves until they hit 40 and reality hits. Now everyone shows them the disrespect and contempt they showed their own elders and it astounds them.
Just think of them as upper-caste indians.
Well said and true
Look up Dani Sulikowski - she has advanced the theory that this is actually the main objective of these leftist ideologies. She claims eg feminism is a reproductive suppression strategy by elite women to sabotage other (ie working class) women's reproductive success so the elites will success in creating a genetic bottleneck. They want collapse so their descendants will rule over the remains in the future.
Blacks as a collective supporting the party of mass immigration was suicidally stupid. About as if not more suicidal than liberal Jews doing it.
The new immigrants are indifferent to the black story in America. At best, they like the famous black celebrities everyone likes + sports. But they aren’t gonna care about MLK or Civil Rights as much as old school American Whites.
They did it because it moved the median voter more to the left, which meant more handouts. Without immigration for instance we probably wouldn't have the ACA or expanded medicaid, which clearly benefits blacks more then anyone else.
True but it was penny wise pound foolish. Same with Jews as well getting all their socially liberal stuff through immigration and expanding the amounts of people going to college. They didn’t realize how lucky they were to have lapsed WASPs as their leaders who were apostatizing, having no children, and felt guilty. Perfect storm for both groups to take advantage but the well is now dry.
Agreed. It’s a rough sort of optimism relying on white ability to retribe, especially getting white women on board. How do we co opt feminism lol
Based White women are the best. I think gaining big with them would be a huge key to it all.
You can’t co opt feminism. You can however get white women to realize they are the enemy of the mainstream and that they need to tribe up with their religion and family rather than “big woman” because it’s better to be an important part of the white Catholic coalition filled with patriarchal men who will protect you than to be second from the bottom of the progressive one.
Yeah I know we can’t co op feminism I was joking, hence “lol”
You should learn how statistics work
Ultimately, they, like any other group of liberals, did not sign on to a slate of policies, but to a slate of masters. It's a deal that's occasionally bad for the taker and always bad for their descendants. They get used as a tool against recalcitrant Whites, and then discarded when they become useless or unnecessary.
Same deal as WWII, really. Churchill got to play hero and get praise and prestige, but his people are far worse than they'd be if he hadn't.
Slate of masters. Great phrase.
It might work out for them yet if the democrats open the gates to the population tsunami building in Africa.
Going to the gym and seeing Will Cain devote close to half his show to this case was very awesome. 100% agree this will cause generational damage to magic Americans
America has homegrown its own Third World. While it may have had a race problem in 1926, by 2026 it has literally created a problem race. Whatever gains that individual Black Americans strive to make are undone by Blacktivism and the worship of ghetto culture.
Apparently NPR hasn't got the memo. From Morning Edition today:
https://www.npr.org/2026/06/12/nx-s1-5853211/texas-pastor-on-karmelo-anthonys-conviction-and-the-tension-following-the-trial
"ECHOLS-RICHTER: I want to just say too, I think one of the things here is to talk about the difference between responsibility and blame. We want to assign blame. What I've discovered in my life is that when we do that, it takes any responsibility away from us. I think in this case, we have to all claim responsibility.
MARTIN: And why do you say that?
ECHOLS-RICHTER: I say that because of the way we've taught children in our community that you should have a certain pride in your school. And I'm not saying that's necessarily a bad thing. But when that turns into, this is our territory - we're going to defend our ground - that becomes problematic. And we have to all look at ourselves and say - how do we all accept some responsibility? - as opposed to immediately jumping in and saying, oh, well, I know who's to blame."
You see? We are ALL responsible, and we shouldn't *blame* Karmelo Anthony, because after all, it was Austin Metcalf "defending territory", which is a bad thing that *WE* "taught children in our community".
LOL!
Also, in this bit of "reporting", no mention of the outrageous and aggressively racist reaction in the black community (celebs, politicians, influencers, etc) to the trial, and the $600+K donated to the killer, but of course white "right-wing provocateurs leading racist protests" get coverage.
The petulent defiance of human nature and natural rationality of the propaganda wing of the plutocracy never ceases to astound me. Defending kith and kin from strangers is ingrained in our blood; the fact that in this case (and many such cases) the stranger murdered one of them further cements the evident rationality of the tribal instinct.
Always a big money aspect in it. America is the land of opportunity and grift.
This happened in Frisco Collin County. This is an extremely affluent area of the Dallas suburbs. The reaction to the verdict is unhinged and horrific. Idaho and Montana are looking better and better everyday. Good extremely high paying jobs are not worth risking your personal safety and the safety of your family members. Plenty of decent jobs with Micron in Boise. The tech scene in Ada County is booming and there are plenty of good STEM jobs. Plenty of good jobs in healthcare, municipal government support, and public education all over Idaho and Western Montana. If you have a remote job with PPO insurance with a suitcase around the PPO on your insurance card I don’t understand not at least making future plans to move to Idaho/Western Montana.
This is going to manifest in declining political power as well. Mestizo eligible voters already outnumber blacks by nearly 2 to 1.
Many in the Latino community have had it with crime in large major metro areas: https://rumble.com/shorts/v78uhaa The crime wave of the early 2020s was the first experience of many Latino American families to highly elevated levels of urban crime in the US.
It seems to me that the Latino demographic will be important in keeping the US from going under.
Something that always happens in online discourse with these racially charged cases is the predictable whataboutism from blacks who just start dredging up cases of whites behaving poorly, seemingly totally oblivious to the fact that the issue is that white people for the most part not only don't defend fellow whites as whites, but genuinely relish in the punishments that they receive. Blacks would do themselves a huge favor if they started speaking in one voice to condemn the worst of them rather than jumping to their defense. It's not that hard!
Another view. https://torrancestephensphd.substack.com/p/why-people-think-the-black-community
Your essay was extraordinary! Clear and logical. Thank you
Thanks for taking the time to read it.
My thoughts exactly! My cousin and I make these same points in our last podcast. We’re huge fans!
https://everymancommentary.substack.com/p/ep-29-what-radicalized-you?r=1auoq&utm_medium=ios
“Metcalf’s supporters argued that they now have to worry about their sons being assaulted left and right by whites since they can no longer defend themselves.” Should be “Anthony’s.”
All Oppression Narratives come from a total lack of racial humility among white people. Most, if not all, White Liberals just can't accept that black people are competent enough to exploit or victimise them.
It's the same here in the UK. White Liberals spent over a decade denying the existence of Grooming Gangs because they had too much racial pride, and could not accept that brown people were capable of exploiting white people.
The Raven and the Swan
A raven envied a swan the whiteness of her plumage. Thinking that the swan's beauty was owing to the water in which she lived, the raven deserted the altars where he used to find his livelihood and took to the pools and streams. There he plumed and dressed himself and washed his coat, but all to no purpose, for his plumage remained as black as ever, and he himself soon perished for want of his usual food.
Change of scene is not change of nature.
I pre-ordered 🥰😍
Unfortunately, I’ve reached the point of not interacting with these folks at all, rather than becoming a victim of their behavior.
That’s a very sad thing, because there really are so many wonderful people out there.
But better safe, than sorry.
If black power is in decline why don't whites stop encouraging sacred victim, entitled parasite culute and end race quotas?