Why are Indians so obnoxious? Many of the bad behaviors attributed to Indians, such as poor hygiene, rape, scamming, lying, ethnic nepotism, and overt disloyalty to America aren’t exclusive to them, but Indians are distinguished by the fact that they not only embody all of these traits, they are violently defensive whenever they are criticized for anything. Anyone who has criticized Indians online is familiar with being hit with a million replies from Indians to the effect of “go fuck mom and dog, cumskin,” and Indians will harass journalists who report on their bad behavior in the form of online dogpiling (such as mass reporting and bogus Community Notes on X/Twitter), hacking and sabotage of their banking and other online accounts, physical stalking, and death threats. Here is a sample of threats I’ve received in the past couple of months (the red mark on my neck is a reference to how Charlie Kirk was shot in the neck):

A recent post on Kiwi Farms explained the Indian concept of “izzat,” which loosely translates into English as “honor” but is in actuality an entire system of morality and social control:

Izzat has no direct translation into English. We only have terms that can broach the same concept such as ‘honour’ or ‘reputation’ or ‘face’. Izzat is so much more than that. It’s a zero-sum game of collective honour shared by whole groups of people, all of whom take it very, very seriously. A system like this isn’t just foreign to Enlightenment values, but I’d argue it’s antithetical to every sensible form of governance on the planet. It will destroy any system that assumes good faith.

Izzat conflicts are not about who is right and who is wrong. It’s about who wins and who loses. This means it’s a zero-sum game where just about any action is justified (including murder) to restore the lost Izzat. Izzat is a limited social currency and the easiest way to get it is to take it from someone else. Winning is righteous in Izzat. Losing is unrighteous. This means that if someone plays the game of izzat well enough, they can get away with just about anything (murder, rape, scamming, cheating, stealing). The only morality in Izzat is the protection of your group’s collective ego. The only appropriate response when your Izzat is attacked is the complete destruction of whoever insulted it.

Two people get into an argument. They might escalate, but chances are it won’t be that bad. i.e. ‘Sorry I broke your garden gnome.’ With two Indians in an argument, the stakes are always deadly thanks to Izzat. Neither of them can back down, nor can they admit fault. Admitting fault is seen as deliberately humiliating yourself. Not only that, but because Izzat is shared, you are shaming everyone who shares your Izzat. So, admitting fault or taking responsibility for a problem is a form of social suicide. This means even if the dispute was over something completely fucking stupid or trivial (like a broken garden gnome), it could spiral into a decades long honour feud.

When you understand the concept of izzat, Indian behavior suddenly makes sense, as it explains everything from their hiring discrimination against Americans (Indian managers gain izzat from the number of Indians who work for them) to scamming (this is related to “jugaad,” or cleverness, the ability to deceive others to get what you want) to their aggressive behavior when criticized (criticizing Indians is a direct attack on their izzat). It’s a mode of thought that is wholly incompatible with high-trust societies like America which operate on the presumption of good faith.

Izzat is hardly the only example of a dysfunctional morality system; other prominent examples include the concept of “face” in China, Japan and other East/Southeast Asian countries or “honor” in the Arab and Muslim world. It’s precisely because of these morality systems, which run on shame, that mass nonwhite immigration is a threat to the West. A common refrain from pro-immigration “conservatives,” which was heavily astroturfed in the wake of the Republicans’ poor results in the 2022 midterms and continues to persist, goes something like this: “Immigrants are natural conservatives. They have strong family values and hate wokeness. The only reason they vote Democratic is because of the GOP’s xenophobic anti-immigrant rhetoric.”

This is George W. Bush-era “compassionate conservatism” and is basically the right-wing version of how leftists will lament the white working class “voting against their economic self-interest.” The shame-based morality of Indians, Pakistanis, Chinese, and other nonwhites is precisely why they are not conservative or “trad,” and once you realize this, you understand why mass immigration is an existential threat to America.

Guilt vs. Shame

Morality in America, Europe, and other European diaspora countries like Canada or Australia ultimately stems from Christianity and is based on guilt, while the “trad” cultures of places like India and the Middle East operate on shame. They are not the same thing. Guilt is the recognition that you have done something wrong, while shame is the feeling that you are wrong. The former requires acknowledging truth, while the latter has no connection to truth and centers around public perception of yourself and those close to you.

In Christian (white) morality, people strive to do good out of a conscious desire to modify their actions and behaviors. Whether you believe in works-based or faith-based salvation (or secular versions thereof), the result is the same; behaviors and actions based on YOUR personal moral code. If you do wrong in a guilt-based morality system, your own conscience (assuming you aren’t a psychopath) gnaws away at you. People strive to do the right thing because of their PERSONAL guilt over doing wrong. Hell, even Charlie Kirk’s assassin felt enough guilt over what he’d done to turn himself in.

Shame-based (non-white) morality is arguably an oxymoron, as it resembles amorality more than anything. If you are driven by shame, your primary motivation is to gain public prestige, or at least avoid losing it. Immoral actions are acceptable if they personally advance you or your family and you are not caught doing them. Additionally, if you are driven by shame, you have no consideration of society as a whole, only yourself and your family. Being publicly embarrassed is worse than committing a crime.

Moreover, guilt requires empathy and shame does not. In guilt-based morality, you do good (and avoid doing evil) because your empathy allows you to place yourself in the positions of other people. You avoid doing things like ripping people off because you can imagine what it would be like to be ripped off and can understand why ripping someone off would hurt them. Shame is almost opposed to the concept of empathy; it’s a purely selfish emotion that only incorporates YOU (or your family).

The difference between guilt-based morality and shame-based morality can be seen in the nature of Asian “face” culture. Chinese, Japanese, Koreans and so forth will often behave in illogical or self-destructive ways because they fear losing “face” more than the consequences of their actions. In Black Passenger Yellow Cabs, Stefhen Bryan wrote about how Japanese women will refuse to use birth control because they fear being perceived as slutty if they are seen buying it. Because of this, they will sleep around without protection and then get abortions when they get pregnant; Japan has one of the highest abortion rates in the world, which Bryan referred to as Japan’s “abortion industry.”

Another country in the throes of shame-based morality is Albania, where I lived for a time in 2020 due to the COVID lockdowns. Albanians were traditionally governed by the Kanun, a system of tribal governance defined primarily by gjakmarrja, a custom where Albanians are socially obligated to murder anyone who attacks their family’s honor. Gjakmarrja can be triggered by something as innocuous as failing to pay someone back, and it even authorizes the murder of the offender’s family members. Blood feuds, if left unresolved, cause a loss of honor for your entire family, so you face social pressure from your family to resolve them by any means necessary. There are Albanians whose relatives got entangled in a gjakmarrja blood feud and essentially cannot leave their homes; they are seen as “in blood” and are fair targets for murder, even if they had nothing to do with the “crime” or the “crime” happened generations ago.

Shame-based morality is in part a product of non-whites being dumber than average. Below a certain IQ, people literally cannot understand empathy. Contrary to popular belief, the majority of psychopaths are stupid and low IQ, more like Decarlos Brown or Karmelo Anthony than Ted Bundy. Prison psychologists have conducted studies where prisoners are asked to conceptualize how other people might feel in response to their actions and they literally cannot do it; they aren’t intelligent enough. This is the source of the “how would you feel if you didn’t have breakfast this morning” meme:

If you cannot develop even the most basic theory of mind, you cannot conceive of morality beyond what is personally advantageous to you; you’re basically one step above an animal. Reminder that India has an average IQ of 76, which is one point higher than the threshold for mental retardation. Also keep in mind that statistically, one half of India’s population has an IQ lower than 76.

Immigrants Are Not Socially Conservative

Pro-immigration conservatives like Joel Berry or Richard Hanania argue that immigrants make natural Republicans due to their seemingly “trad” values, pointing to incidents like Pakistanis protesting LGBT school curriculums in Britain. If the GOP wasn’t “racist,” those “trad” immigrants would vote for them. This myth has been conclusively debunked in the case of Latinos, as survey after survey shows them holding left-wing views on abortion, gun control, government spending, and other issues near-and-dear to Con, Inc. I lived in Mexico for four years and it’s just as godless as the U.S., with few Mexicans going to church, gays and trannies everywhere, and a fertility rate now lower than America’s.

However, right-wingers continue to insist that Indians, Pakistanis, or whoever make desirable immigrants because of their “family values,” low crime rates, or other specious arguments. They see cute brown kids in spelling bees and Chinese kids slaving over math homework and assume that’s how everyone from those cultures acts, or that those displays are more than window dressing for stupid white people.

The shame-based nature of systems like izzat, “face” culture, the Kanun, and so forth prevent the cultures that engage in them from developing the empathy required to universalize their actions. These systems encourage behavior that leads to short-term gain with no consideration as to how your actions affect people other than yourself or your family. In short, nonwhites are not “socially conservative” or “trad,” they’re parasitic and thuggish.

A noteworthy example of this is how Indians, Chinese, and others routinely cheat on their college coursework and tests. I’ve written about my experience before in the college ghostwriting industry, which is/was primarily fueled by Indians, Chinese, Arabs, Africans, and other foreigners outsourcing their essays and tests to (primarily) white writers. In a shame-based morality framework like izzat or “face” culture, acquiring knowledge is secondary to acquiring credentials. As such, these foreigners have no issue with plagiarizing their academic work or outright fabricating their resumes, degrees, and certifications because gaining credentials and jobs by any means necessary is seen as desirable. In many cases, these students’ parents will hire ghostwriters for them. These problems have existed for decades: the film A Serious Man, set in the 1960s, has a sub-plot about a Korean who attempts to bribe a college professor into giving his son good grades and then threatens to sue the professor for defamation when he tries to return the money.

This dysfunction manifests itself in more disturbing ways. Child sexual abuse is endemic in Latin America and other third-world countries. Latinos in the U.S. are commonly arrested for statutory rape. Police do not intervene because families see this sexual abuse as normal and/or will threaten family members who contact law enforcement. The world’s youngest serial killer is an Indian, Amarjeet Sada, who killed three babies, including his own sister, when he was eight. His first victim was his cousin; he smashed the baby’s head in with a brick and then buried him in the backyard, proudly announcing this to his mother. Sada’s parents begged their relatives not to go to the police because if it became public knowledge that their son was a murderer, it would cause such a catastrophic, generational loss of izzat that neither of them would be able to find work and might die homeless. Contrast this with Tyler Robinson, Charlie Kirk’s assassin, being urged to turn himself in by his father. That is the difference between guilt-based and shame-based morality.

The reason why “socially conservative” immigrants like Indians vote Democrat is not because of right-wing “racism” and “xenophobia,” but because they perceive no benefit from voting for Republicans. Ramesh from Bangalore doesn’t want his kids to troon out, but he doesn’t care about Earl from West Virginia’s kids. He loses izzat if his kids troon out, but he doesn’t gain izzat from fighting for Earl’s kids. If anything, Earl’s kids trooning out means less competition for HIS kids. So Ramesh will fight to keep schools from trooning his kids, but he’ll also vote for the party that is trooning out Earl’s kids because he and his family personally benefit. Ramesh has no empathy for Earl because izzat, being based on shame, precludes empathy.

I don’t entirely blame immigrants for this behavior. If you’re raised in a society in which everyone is trying to scam you, the only way to survive is to scam them first. But you can’t appeal to the better angels of someone who thinks in this manner. People from these low-trust, shame-based societies take their attitudes with them when they come to the West, an attitude of gimme gimme gimme. They’ll take whatever they grab from whatever country lets them in while shielding themselves from that society’s demons. That’s not “family values,” that’s basic survival instinct.

When you start correctly perceiving immigrant resistance to wokeness as naked self-interest rather than “family values,” it becomes easier to understand why these immigrant communities all collapse and ghettoize by the second generation. The native-born sons of Muslim migrants to European countries stop going to mosque, let their pants sag, form gangs, and start pimping and dealing drugs; their daughters get tramp stamps and spread their legs. The eternal whine of the conservative is that immigrants aren’t assimilating anymore. Yes, they are. They’re assimilating to progressivism, the dominant culture. Nobody cares about baseball and apple pie anymore; America is the rainbow flag and chlamydia. If you’re lucky, a few of them will become Andrew Tate-style hustlers, but I’m pretty sure that’s not what you had in mind.

This is the inherent problem with trying to appeal to minorities over wokeness: they don’t care about you. They don’t see you as being part of their “tribe.” They came to America not because they believe in freedom or democracy, but because they wanted to get rich. Our country is just a cheap bazaar as far as they’re concerned. They’ll work to keep progressivism out of their communities, but they couldn’t care less about yours, white boy. You’re not part of their community; you’re their enemy, their competition.

What is to be Done? Mass Deportations

There’s no way to coexist with a group of people who operate on a system like izzat. You cannot trust anyone who interprets morality in this way. And for the Indians who oppose this kind of thinking, eliminating it from the subcontinent would take something like a centuries-long communist or fascist dictatorship. In Albania, the Kanun and gjakmurrja were banned by the communist government of Enver Hoxha because even communists recognized that an escalating series of blood feuds would harm Albania’s economic development and prevent them from creating the new Socialist Man. However, the collapse in state capacity after the end of the Cold War led to the Kanun making a comeback in the 90s, particularly during the Albanian Civil War and the Kosovo War. This version of gjakmarrja is a bizarre wigger interpretation that disregards actual laws in the Kanun; for example, gjakmarrja often now involves women and children being murdered, which was forbidden under the original rules.

Pre-Christian Europe had blood feuds and other dysfunctional shame-based morality systems; for example, in The Odyssey, Odysseus’ defining trait is his cleverness, which enables him to manipulate others into getting what he wants (such as tricking the Cyclops into thinking his name is “Nobody”). These were stamped out over the course of centuries through a combination of Christian morality enforcement via the Catholic Church and the state gradually developing a monopoly on violence. The Church also strictly forbade incest; incestual relationships incentivize shame-based morality and clannishness. Even then, in some fringe parts of the continent (like southern Italy and Albania), they persisted into the 20th century.

One thing is clear: Indians and other nonwhite immigrants cannot be allowed to come to America. Izzat makes them incompatible with us, incapable of basic morality and ethics. Mass immigration is quite literally regressing white societies back to the Dark Ages and mass deportations are the only solution.

If you enjoyed this article, please consider subscribing by clicking here. Most articles on this blog are free, but your support gives you access to paywalled articles and enables me to do this work. You can also make a one-time donation here (note: this does not give you access to paywalled articles, unfortunately). Follow me on X/Twitter, where I post stories more frequently, here.