I think the Izzat post and the subsequent Jugaad post are very insightful and explain the discrepancy in thinking very well.
But I do disagree with one minor aspect. Maybe it is only implied, but a lot of people seem to think that this line of thinking was exclusive to Indians or northern Indians. If you actually believe this, I think you're delusional. Everyone except White people operates by the same parameters, plays the exact same game. In fact the main source of my frustration with westerners is specifically that you refuse to adopt this line of thinking, you refuse to stop restricting yourselves, and because you refuse to play, you constantly lose. It's why your countries are not your own anymore, why exploiting and exterminating the native White population has become commonly accepted national policy in every western country. Everyone else has been playing the game, working together as a tribe or a race, each person making decisions in the capacity of whatever position they held based on what benefits
their people rather than anyone else, and you did not, you sacrificed your own prospects for an ideal and thus you lost everything.
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.
Take the Karmelo Anthony case for instance. Teenager occupies another teenager's tent, stabs the other teenager to death when asked to leave, and then the other teenager's spineless father shows up to the trial to profess his undying loyalty to the killer's race. And not only does Karmelo's family not punish or distance themselves from Karmelo, but they side with him and claim that any consequences are an injustice, and they even cast out and castigate Jeff Metcalf for daring to show up. It makes no sense if you apply pure rationality or even some basic moral thinking, but it makes perfect sense when you examine it with Izzat in mind. In their eyes, Karmelo is righteous in stabbing Austin to death, because Austin was White and therefore an enemy, and there is honor in slaying your enemy. Killing people is not seen as a bad thing, if those people are your enemy. As far as they're concerned, Karmelo did nothing wrong. And with that in mind, it suddenly makes a lot of sense why they think that him facing consequences is an injustice. Why would you imprison someone that is righteous and honorable?
Izzat is also the reason why police are reluctant to get involved in disputes. Because Izzat is a zero-sum game, all participants are involved in the game. If a policeman sides with one family over another in an Izzat dispute, this means that he's deliberately taking the side of that family and dishonouring the other. This marks him for retribution by the offending party. Without parties being able to be impartial, then centralized authority cannot effectively function.
I mean, every non-White policeman in western countries does the exact same thing. The UK is infamous for the police walking in on basements filled with chained up children and refusing to lift a finger, because the people that chained them up happen to share a middle-eastern religion with said policemen (yes I'm referring to Islam). They do the same in other countries as well. It's why in any European countries, you can't defend your property because if a burglar gets injured, the police will arrest and prosecute you instead of them. The police have a clear side and if any of them refuse to tow that line, they face consequences, social or otherwise.
And that side is not with you. It lies with the ethnic group of whoever is in charge of their departments. No policeman wants to be perceived as 'siding' with the native White population, because that is viewed as a betrayal of the 'most vulnerable communities' aka the police's tribal ingroup. It would be social suicide.
Izzat is also the reason why Indian managers are so infamous for hiring more Indians. It's because from the manager's perspective, he's using his position to gain an invisible social currency. Merit and actual qualifications come second to that idea. If he hired a westerner, he would not gain or even lose Izzat by doing so. He has a very strong cultural incentive not to be impartial. Meanwhile, if he can strong-arm dozens of Indians into a company, he is gaining huge quantities of Izzat and conspirators who owe an absolute debt to him.
Again, every race other than White people does this. Jews are infamous for how aggressively they prioritize their own tribesmen over the wellbeing of any company or institution entrusted to them. How do you think someone like Bobby Kotick gets back in charge of Blizzard after all the scandals? It's because he's a respected member of the tribe. The egregious monetization practises he imposed and further popularized in the entire videogame industry, well beyond mmos, aren't seen as a negative, because exploiting non-Jews for one's own benefit is seen as a glorious and righteous act among their people. How do you think all the JQ-related graphs and statistics come together? Because Shlomo knows that if he hires John instead of Chaim for that newly opened department head position, he'll be forced into a long and painful conversation with his rabbi about how he betrayed the tribe and may have to face trial before the Sanhedrin.
Let's say someone in India complains about a broken water pipe. Instead of the problem being addressed, the official responsible for the water pipe denies it's a problem and counterattacks him instead, because daring to question his efficacy in his role was challenging his Izzat. So the official destroys the person who brought the problem up. The water pipe never gets fixed.
The entire entertainment industry does this. In this case, it's not even a racial thing, there's plenty of White people that pull the exact same shit. Every time some game or some regular computer program releases and turns out to be dogshit because it's either unoptimized, full of bugs, or full of disruptive and baffling design choices, what's the go-to cope from the company if it's western?
>our product is great, you're all just sexist
>there's nothing wrong with it, all of that is just racist undercurrents
>there's no insidious business deal behind this business model, you're all just paranoid wingnuts
>anyone who dislikes those design choices are just white trash (white = basically the western version of 'dalit')
Deny that anything is wrong, attack the social capital of anyone saying otherwise.
And it's not limited to games, the movie and comic book industry are the exact same in this regard.
Some hood black people were arguing with the Indian cashier about how he didn't put out the wet floor signage after mopping, concerned someone might get hurt.
One of the black guys asked me my opinion and I agreed that it is a potential danger to the customer and that he legally has to put the sign out. The Indian got visibly annoyed that I wouldn't take his side. It turns out he did put the sign out, but all the way in the corner, nowhere near the wet area and in a spot that's very easy to miss. He probably just has it there all the time just in case he mops to cover his ass.
This izzat thing really recontextualizes every interaction I've ever had with Indians.
To explain one part of why he was so mad, you and Indians have a common ancestor, so he expected a modicum of loyalty from you, at least when it comes to conflicts with outside groups like east Asians, Blacks etc. Instead, you sided with literal niggers over him. The 'correct' thing in his eyes would have been to either say nothing or tell the niggers that they're wrong, even if objectively, they're right.
The Indian 'hatred' of White people isn't the same as with certain other groups (like niggers for instance). Black people view White people as an existential threat that must be eradicated at any cost. Indians don't like White people either, but they instead view you as the spoiled older brother who got everything handed to him, but who completely fumbled it by donating all their wealth to Africans and putting your countries up for grabs for any brown person willing to take take them (can you really blame us for invading? If you're so adamant about wanting brown people to seize your countries, it may as well be us). I'd say 'resentment' is a better term than hatred.
along with my wife and kids. My parents are also moving here after their green cards are approved
