Eat and be satisfied

Eat and be satisfied

Wednesday, January 28, 2015

If Jesus epitomized tribal leadership, then so do you

How God invented the triad

I hate leadership books. They remind me of everything I should be doing as a leader but not doing today. I feel guilty, insecure, and ashamed after reading them. So when a friend of mine recommended checking out Tribal Leadership, I balked.

But I finally got around to reading it and the book is awesome because it's completely about Jesus, though he's never mentioned by name.

Language matters: The premise of the book is that tribes are groups of about 20-150 people and each tribe has a culture that can be categorized in stages. The key insight to the three authors' research is each stage is defined by its culture and the culture is defined by language.

That's the key to making the book work - listen to how people talk about their company, their group, their church and you can determine what type of culture they participate in and what stage of leadership they're at.

Stage One: Life sucks  ==> "Everything that can go wrong will go wrong. This world is hopeless"
Stage Two: My life sucks  ==> "So and so has it all together but I just can't seem to catch a break"
Stage Three: I'm great (and you're not) ==> "If only I was surrounded by competent people, they could fully appreciate my brilliance"
Stage Four: We're great ==> "We have a great team and we trust each other"
Stage Five: The sky is the limit ==> When employees of Amgen, the pharmaceutical company were asked who their competitors are, they responded "Cancer" or "Untimely death" not "Pfizer" or "Genentech"

Jesus' words: You can argue about Jesus' legacy - the Christian church, his disciples, etc. But it's more difficult to challenge his words. At the very least, he left us his language.

How then did Jesus speak about his tribe of disciples? 
Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I am going to the Father. John 14:12
He dealt with a group of mediocre, uneducated men. At so many points he could have disparaged his disciples (and at some points, he did). They repeatedly misunderstood his plans and intentions. They deserted him.  And yet he continued to believe in them.

Triads: The most distinctive aspect of Stage Four and Five tribes is their usage of triads. Rather than individuals depending on a celebrity leader, each tribe member has his/her network of expanding relationships.

Logan, King, and Fischer-Wright give the example of Darla Longo, a real estate executive, who holds an annual party whose purpose is to allow her (and others) to play matchmaker. She introduces clients to brokers, senior brokers to successful rookies, and clients to one another. In each conversation, she talks about each person's strengths and passions -intentionally creating business relationships between two people based on shared values.

Triads function based on trust. A celebrity leader accumulates followers because he alone is trustworthy. But triads expand because each member trusts the other to whom he is being introduced. This is also generates stability because no single tribe member is responsible for holding the tribe together. It is truly a team effort.

The trinity is by definition triadic. Jesus builds triads with us because he trusts us. Jesus is the bridge-builder, the liaison with us between God the Father, between us and the Holy Spirit.
If you had known me, you would have known my Father also. From now on you do know him and have seen him. John 14:7
And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever, even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, for he dwells with you and will be in you. John 14:16-17
Jesus introduces his disciples (and all believers) to the Father and the Holy Spirit. He is the mediator of both relationships. He talks up each party -  we are righteous because of his finished work on the cross , the Holy Spirit is awesome, and God the Father doesn't need a lot of introduction.
As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Abide in my love.  If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father's commandments and abide in his love. This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. John 15:9-10,12
Our role as disciples is triadic. We love each other because Jesus loved us first. And Jesus loved us first because God the Father loved him first. Our role as disciple-makers is also triadic. We introduce people to Jesus, who introduces them to the Father. The people who meet Jesus, in turn, introduce him to others. That's how the network expands. Every relationship we begin has it's basis in a prior relationship. Everything God does in us, He wants us to do in others. If it sounds like multi-level marketing or of certain cult religions, good. Those organizations are merely copying what Jesus invented. 

Reflection: In the past, when friends asked me how my tribe was going, I would be quick to blame the failings and weaknesses of fellow tribe members. They were the ones holding me back. They were the ones keeping me down. They didn't have the same gifts I did. And they didn't share the same values. I felt bitter, resentful, and insecure. I wanted people to be dependent on me and yet I couldn't figure out why the people I discipled didn't feel confident enough to disciple others. Finally, I was sorely disappointed when people failed my unrealistic expectations.

The pronouns "I" and "them" are Stage Three language markers. It is the language of arrogance and ineffective leadership. Bitterness, resentment, and insecurity are also lower stage markers. The Pharisees epitomized Stage Three leadership. They were prideful, suspicious, and insecure. Other people held them back. Jesus held them back. Jews who did not follow the ceremonial cleanliness regulations held them back. Their world was carefully structured so the Jewish community would depend on them. Everything and everyone else held them back except for themselves.

I've been stuck at Stage Three for a long time. I've spent a large part of that time wondering if that will ever change. 

The good news is it already has. 

It's the one of the first promises Jesus made to his disciples in the farewell discourse (John 14:12). The good news is that it's not about me, it's about his church - his tribes of disciples. The good news is that I am surrounded by effective and competent leaders. Truth be told, the disciples didn't hit Stage Five until Jesus left the earth. The church took off once given the Holy Spirit. Jesus guaranteed the church would have every full capacity to live out Jesus' tribal leadership. 

That is his greatest gift to us. 

If we believe his words and obey his teaching, we have every capacity, as he did, to be Stage Five leaders. That is the identity of the church - a supernatural Stage Five tribe of tribes on mission to rescue humanity. We may not act that way, we may splinter into Stage One chaos, fall into Stage Two malaise, or compete in the wild, wild west of Stage Three but the reality is that we have been changed from death to life, equipped with His Spirit, and sent on mission to triad the world to Jesus. 

Buying into that reality is what the journey of faith is about. I don't rely on external evidence of my personal change, rather I trust the Savior of the world who promised that anyone who believed in him would do even greater works then he did. There is no fear of failure because the success of my tribe does not depend on me. There is no pride or insecurity because each of us is adequate, trusted, and worthy in Christ. We depend on the supernatural reality of the Spirit working in every one of his tribal members. The ultimate tribal leader is the one whose leadership impact is greatest after he leaves.

Wednesday, January 21, 2015

Sexodus and Paper Tigers

I love Milo Yiannopoulus's viral two-part series titled "Sexodus". It is one of the few nuanced, well-researched articles that attacks feminism and defends men's rights without descending into vitriol and misogyny.

My journey with the men's rights movement (aka "manosphere") started with Wesley Yang's Paper Tigers. The New York Magazine's feature article from May 2011 blew me way. He examined how internal and external cultural biases stunt the social and economic growth potential of Asian American men. It was a mainstream unveiling of a phenomenon almost every Asian American guy has personally experienced - the bamboo ceiling and discrimination.

The 9,000 word essay wasn't just a rant. Yang provides a complex, well-researched portrait of both victims of the bamboo ceiling and positive examples of Asian American men who broke through. After reading it, I felt more hope than sadness because light was piercing an area that's been dark too long. At the end of the article, Yang encourages Asian American men to defiantly forge their own way and "dare to be interesting".

That's the same feeling I have about the Sexodus articles.

Both are sympathetic to the plight of men. It's also not a rant but rather light shining on a dark place. Except in Yiannopoulus' case, he is pointing the finger firmly at feminism:
Social commentators, journalists, academics, scientists and young men themselves have all spotted the trend: among men of about 15 to 30 years old, ever-increasing numbers are checking out of society altogether, giving up on women, sex and relationships and retreating into pornography, sexual fetishes, chemical addictions, video games and, in some cases, boorish lad culture, all of which insulate them from a hostile, debilitating social environment created, some argue, by the modern feminist movement.
I remember Yang's article mentioning Neil Strauss' seminal book on the pick-up artist community, The Game. I fell in love with the story. It's arguably the most popular men's self-improvement book, only it's written as a memoir.

After finishing Strauss' book in 2011, I discovered the Manosphere and bloggers like Roosh and Heartiste. I felt like my eyes were opened. The manosphere describes the experience as "taking the red pill" (a reference from the movie "The Matrix). I began blogging in 2012 with posts like this. I imagined myself as being defiant and interesting - championing the traditional complementarian view of gender roles while fighting the matriarchy. I thought I could be a Christian and part of the manosphere.

But I was wrong.

The men's rights movement is way too angry to be rational. There's truth that men tends hurt as anger and this victimized rage is evident throughout the manosphere. I found it increasingly difficult to read the blogs because of the hatred, vindictiveness, and most of all, insipid whining. This evidenced itself in manipulative tactics such as "running dread game" - keeping a woman in a state of anxiety or fear concerning the relationship-  or "qualifying her" - challenging a woman's self-esteem as a means of seduction. Then there was the anger and bitterness at everything women do - believe what she does not what she says, women only dig jerks, it's better to ignore women, blah blah blah. Pretty soon everything bad that happens is because of women or feminism. It got tiring.

I agree feminism has issues but whining, hatred, and rage does not help address the problems. I read Helen Smith's Men on Strike and her premise that men are behaving rationally by opting out of dating and marriage is somewhat compelling but does not sufficiently justify the phenomenon. No one behaves on purely rational terms.

In the end, men desire what all humanity was created for - connection. And we seek connection through companionship. Neil Strauss points out a fascinating irony in "The Game": these desperate men, united together to become better with women, found themselves spending most of their time bonding with each other. Through all their work as pick-up artists, Strauss discovered he was ultimately cultivating male friendships. 

In our church's men's group, we went through the Authentic Manhood series a couple years ago. The manual discusses how men often use props to facilitate bonding - a mountain climb, fantasy football league, construction project, road trip, or athletic event/endeavor.

I wonder if the pursuit of women is one of the most effective props for male bonding.

Ever since junior high, a mark of deepening intimacy among guys is broaching the topic of which girls you're crushing on. It feels like objectification but it's not. Being able to discuss women means having actual relationships with women to discuss. Most of all, misery loves company. And there is no misery like romantic travails.

What's unfortunate about the Sexodus is men are opting out of relationships with women - which robs both men and women of a huge opportunity for connection and companionship. And yet the great potential of the Sexodus is men bonding as friends because they're under attack. 500+ readers wrote Yiannopoulus privately to express gratitude, support, and relief knowing they are not alone. Lastly, given the cultural biases, I'm confident Asian American men are disproportionately over-represented in the Sexodus.  

Today, I'm not in the "man up" camp with Mark Driscoll, who castigates men for evading leadership in the workplace, church, and home. Nor do I blame women and feminism for everything like Roosh. Rather today, my goal is to restore a high view of both biblical man and womanhood. And my specific calling is to build male friendships - both in my own personal life and in my ministry, to model and encourage men to become friends. To that point, I don't mind discussing ethical game principles as a prop for male bonding.

What if my marriage serves the purpose of growing my male friendships rather than the other way around? After all, it appears the New Testament spends far more time teaching about the fellowship of brothers than about marriage.

To this point, strengthening ties between men serves as a prop for deepening men's relationship with Jesus Christ. God provides the church, the body of Christ, as the means by which our relational needs are met. Thus, the most interesting way for an Asian American man to avoid being a paper tiger is to love Jesus and love men sacrificially. Marriage is a significant but optional prop for the other two. 

Friday, December 19, 2014

Dataclysmic Disappointment

I love the OKCupid blog. Christian Rudder, an Harvard alum and dating site founder, writes  about the three "D"s of data, deception, and dating.  One of my favorite posts is this one from 2009, which connects data, deception, and dating with on another issue I'm passionate about - race. I'm fascinated by how we're walking contradictions when it comes to romance. We don't do what we say and most of the time, we're not even fully aware of the type of people we're attracted to (or repulsed by).

So when I heard he was coming out with a book I was pretty excited and finally got a copy from the library. The official title is Dataclysm: Who We Are (When We Think No One's Looking)

Wow, it was a disappointing read. The book is about self-deception and how big data now allows us to measure the precise distance between our public and private persona. It succeeds in broaching the topic but unfortunately it's a shallow dive. Here are two observations:

1) The book does not contain much about dating: Rudder gathers data from facebook, twitter, all the major social networking sites. And the stuff is somewhat interesting but most of it is not about dating. And the stuff that is about dating he's already written about in his blog. The only difference is that his insights from the book are longer, more rambly, and less humorous.

He has a unique writing style and I wanted a deeper look into the dating stuff and more interesting observations about the self-deceptions people engage in when dating. Everyone fools themselves when it comes to romantic relationships. Why not dig where there's plenty of gold left?

For example, his first chapter titled "Wooderson's Law" concerns how a woman's attractiveness  a man peaks at age 22, regardless of the age of the man. That means a 50-year old man and an 18-year old man both find 22 year old women the absolute hottest. Women, on the other hand, are more assortative in regards to age. According to Rudder's OKCupid data, a 55-year old woman finds a 46-year man to be peak hotness. 

The way this works in reality is that as men age, they will message younger women - not quite as young as 22 but with a progressively increasing age gap. 28-year old men will send the most messages to 24-year old women and 44-year old men will send the most messages to 35-year old women. 

This is not news to anyone who is modestly familiar with the dynamics of today's sexual marketplace. Worse yet, this disparity in how attractiveness works between men and women was already explored in the teaser articles that accompanied the book's release. The book doesn't add much except a little more pontificating. 

Likewise, the second chapter is about being interesting in order to attract people of the opposite sex. The ability to trigger polarizing reactions reap great benefit in terms of message response rate. The idea is not to be "meh" - the failure to elicit a strong emotional response from others. A woman with blue hair or multiple body piercings stands out a lot more than a woman posing with a cat or a dog. This makes sense when you think about the sheer volume of profiles people have to scan but I was hoping for something more. 

Chapter four is pretty lame in terms of exploring new ideas. The argument is that marital strength correlates with how embedded your personal networks are. The more friends you have in common between you and your spouse, the stronger your marriage is. That is just not that interesting. Correlation is not causation, blah blah and it feels like common sense.

2) The book does not have a unifying, compelling theme: Most popular nonfiction (anything by Malcolm Gladwell, the Freakanomics series) is  both nerdy AND interesting. That is extremely challenging to do. This book illustrates how difficult it is to pull of well. What makes Gladwell so popular is that he's able to weave a coherent, enthralling narrative out of seemingly unrelated people, ideas and fields. The Freakanomics series takes specific behavioral science principles and applies them to real-life situations. In each of those books, there's a unifying theme and the authors make it interesting. Unfortunately, Rudder does not succeed in Dataclysm. 

The latter chapters concerned how dating sites and twitter have changed how we use language and what that illustrates about who we are. It didn't relate very much to dating so I tuned out. 

The best chapter in the book is called "The Confounding Factor" and it's about race. It's a more extensive exploration into insights that Rudder began in his blog. He simply adds more data from other dating sites but the conclusions are the same. The net is Asian men are like Black women - the opposite sex does not find them sexy or appealing. I don't need a book to tell me that. 

The only mildly interesting insight was that being Asian,  Latino, or Black plus white instantly makes you more attractive to the opposite sex. Being a half-white, half-black women garnered a 24% boost in attractiveness from white men (vs. being black alone). Being a half-white and half-Asian guy provided a 32% boost in attractiveness from white women (vs. being Asian alone). Wow. I will tell my kids to marry white people for the sake of my grandchildren.

The book is about how data reveals our own self-deception but I was hoping for more concrete ways to tell ourselves the truth, especially in regards to dating. After all, the reason I like Rudder isn't just because he knows data but because he applies big data analysis to dating. That's OKCupid's niche. And by departing from that niche, it was a significant let-down. Ultimately, Rudder's book is guilty of doing what his second chapter warned against. It became too common and not polarizing. Meh.

Tuesday, December 9, 2014

Getting out of the way

As a pastor, sometimes my job gets in the way of my job. My calling is to train disciples. One way I live out my calling by teaching the Bible. But somewhere along those lines, I must teach others how to feed themselves. That means I need to trust God's work in someone's life and allow that person the freedom to develop on his own. 

In October, I helped teach a conference about reading the Bible for life change. A woman in our small group commented that she had been taught by pastors for her entire life. She learned from them how to think about the Bible but never had the courage to attempt to interpret the scriptures on her own. This conference, along with a recent small group Bible study she participates in, were watershed moments where she felt confident enough to read and think on her own. She had been fed by another person her whole life but hadn't learned how to feed yourself.

Don't get me wrong - I don't believe the Bible is best studied alone - it's not. It's best read in community but as a one grows in maturity, a professional or "expert" doesn't have to interpret everything for you. It's important to equip people with certain tools but more importantly, to shape a culture where attitude is the most important element and there's freedom to make mistakes.

I know I contribute to this when I block others' growth through my good intentions. At times, I've chosen to participate solely in church events where Bible teaching is involved - as if I'm too important to for "non-spiritual activities". I set unrealistic expectations for first-time leaders and I'm overly critical and impatient when others lead - two behaviors that make it difficult for emerging leaders to grow and develop. 

What's at play here is the desire for pastors (and any member of a group or team) to be indispensable. I'm no exception. I want to be needed, necessary, and wanted. And few things are more central to a pastor's identity than having others depend on him to teach and interpret the Bible correctly. But since my mission is to make disciples, it means equipping leaders to lead on their own. It means laying down my desire to place myself at the center. So my ultimate calling, contra to my initial instinct, is to make myself dispensable.  

Thus the final step in leadership development is when leaders are released to live out the mission on their own. Jesus did that. Before he ascended to heaven, he sent his disciples out on training missions. He supervised, taught, and modeled everything they were supposed to do, gave them the Holy Spirit, and then he got out of the way.

Which makes my job somewhat strange. I work hard to initiate with people.I hang out and get to know others. I ask probing questions and challenge people spiritually. I try get in their way. But as people grow and develop, I'm supposed to work hard and do the opposite. But I find that getting out of the way comes less naturally. I wonder if those who are gifted at entering into mentoring relationships have a tougher time upon exiting (and if the converse is true as well). 

In any case, releasing people to lead has implications for every area of life. When I worked in high-tech, my favorite managers told me what was important and then worked hard to get out of the way. In marriage, I take care of our finances but I need to train and equip Judy with the basics, trust her to take care of certain tasks, and remove myself from her way. And lastly as a father, my job with my children is to interfere in their lives and then slowly and gradually get out of the way as they learn to think, analyze, and make decisions on their own. 

If your calling is to influence people, then your most significant step in training others may not be intervening but in getting out of the way. 

Friday, November 21, 2014

How my parents screwed me up

Recently I talked with my parents about my character issues. 

In the past year I decided my main flaws are pride and anger. I have a massive ego that follows me everywhere I go. And since I'm motivated by aggression and dominance, I also have a rage complex that seethes beneath the surface and sometimes explodes.

So I told them my hypothesis: You guys helped screw me up by neglecting to discipline me for my negative attitude. You punished me for outward behavior but never called me out for being disrespectful to you and to others. Focusing on the outward kept me from experiencing the full consequences of how my temper and critical spirit would, in the future, alienate me from others and make me miserable.

My parents agreed. My dad said that wasn't all they did to screw me up.

My dad explained that they had no idea how to raise me so they focused on outward behavior without understanding the heart. He said their biggest mistake was not letting me have a chance to express my emotions. He said he was very controlling and a terrible listener, never giving me a chance to explain myself. I now recall moments as a teenager that I tried to get him to understand my perspective and he literally would stop talking and walk away. I remember feeling incredibly frustrated every time I wanted to share something meaningful. 

On the other hand, my mom said we would argue all the time; taking turns needling, cajoling, threatening, and intimidating each other until one of us got our way. I usually won unless she was in irrational-crazy-b**ch mode (I did, after all, get my temper from her). She said my dad and I were deeply concerned with how I treated my younger brother, who was the unfortunate victim of my arrogant rage outbursts, but they were completely clueless about how to address it. I remember when I was around 10 years old they set a New Year's resolution for me - "don't make your brother cry", which is a pathetic metric.

Lastly my dad commented that their poor parenting did not cause my judgmentalism since my personality is predisposed towards being critical but it did made the tendency worse. I agree. It seems I can't blame everything on my parents. 

My parents did not become Christians until I was around fourteen. And their transformation in character, like many of ours, was not immediate. I assured them that in spite of their ignorance, they were pretty good parents. I never doubted that I was loved; I was just confused about what love looked like.  


1) Anger is a violent response to pain. My failure to emotionally connect with my parents coupled with my aggressive nature made me an angry and vengeful person. I want to attack other people and myself. My ego, equipped with the energy from of hurt, forces myself on others in order to get approval and affection.

2) Pride + Anger = Judgmentalism. I have the perfect disposition for a Pharisee. I get a chemical boost from looking down on and judging others. I'm also the older brother in Luke 15. He experienced tremendous pain from failing to obtain the approval he so desperately wanted from his father. He thought he could earn it with outward, righteous behavior. Thus, I want to control people the way my parents attempted to control me. When pride and anger are given free rein during childhood, it is damaging to the child and others. 

3) Everyone is screwed up. I am not alone in pride and anger. We are all spectacularly messed up in unique yet similar ways. So parents, don't worry - you cannot screw up your children. It already happened when they were born because we are products of the fall. The shipwreck is real. Our job is only to point to the guiding star.

4) Jesus saves. And not just in an after-life sense. After we talked, my mom marveled at the difference God has made in their lives. The fact that my parents and I could have this conversation in a calm, reflective, even affectionate tone, speaks volumes about how far they have come in Christ. My parents began following Jesus when I was a teenager. It was too late for my childhood but I am tremendously grateful for what God has done in and through them until today. 

Thursday, November 13, 2014

Barriers to Authenticity

People say authenticity is important until they are called to be authentic themselves. Donald Nwankwo writes about barriers to authenticity but I think he really means vulnerability - the courage to share weakness. Below are his reasons on why we don't want to be fully authentic with others about who we are and our struggles and weakness:
1) A misplaced sense of identity: Sometimes one might feel that their Christian identity is directly tied to their Christian reputation. So for this one, to risk authenticity when it does not portray a positive status is to risk their reputation, which in turn threatens that identity. In other words, unless they appear as authentic to model, they fear they won’t belong. Therefore, they will work hard to protect this identity. The remedy for this category is a renewed sense of identity that derives from Jesus Christ, His work, redemption and continuing grace and sustenance. One is in God’s family because of what Christ has done, of course, combined with the fact that they have accepted God’s mercy and put their faith in Christ. 
2) Fear of vulnerability: To be straightforward, this is fear of judgment, criticism and condemnation from others, especially fellow Christians. When one is within a community where judgment is quick and criticism sounds smart, it could send the members of the community into an authenticity spiral which looks something like this – Because there is a rigid expectation, everyone is forced to put up with the expected. And because everyone else puts up with the intense expectation, it takes a lot more guts for one to admit their real struggles. And if no one else admits theirs, everyone else continues under that front. For the most part, the remedy to this is intentional effort on the part of the community to build an environment where people feel safe to be open about their real lives and struggles. In other words, an environment where people feel safe to be authentic to self. Along with this and over time should come growing courage stemming from a safe feeling on the part of the community members. 
3) Ironical seeker-friendliness: I have seen some fellow believers who honestly want to be either evangelistic or missional. However, they tend to think this way about it – nobody is going to want what I have, unless I can somehow show that what I have is ‘superior’. In principle, that logic is correct. However, they go on to deduce that this ‘showing of something superior” is equal to portraying to people the type of life they should crave. A life that is all together – peaceful, blessed, loyal family, etc. Well, to begin with, the risk is heightened in the case of getting busted. But the irony also is that people outside actually tend to better respect Christians they know to be open about their own struggles, and yet known to clearly pursue a life of faith in their Savior. The remedy for this is to keep showing an unwavering desire to grow in the life of faith, while not denying the attendant challenges of life along that path. Maybe, even using that tension and their testimony to demonstrate God’s involvement in our very messiness could be of real value to the seeker’s deep questions. 
4) Outright pride: Some are simply too proud to admit their struggles and shortcomings. This might be tangential to the first point on this list. The sad irony for this one is that this person takes pride in being a Christian – the very life that calls one to humility. The remedy for this is humility, repentance and surrender to the cross of Christ. 
5) Sheer tendency to overspiritualize: Some believers tend to spiritualize most things and sometimes even impose those inclinations on others, thereby not always coming across as practical. The maturity that comes over time, with proper teaching, and growth in the experience of the Christian life and faith will often take care of this and do the shaping that is necessary.
#1 and #2 are particularly poignant for Asians - we value face and face is inextricably tied to identity. Personally, I relate most to #2 and #4. What is peculiar about me is I probably place too much emphasis on vulnerability as missional (opposite of #3). Finally, my biggest barrier to vulnerability is fear of non-response. I'm motivated by people responding to me - negatively or positively. Perceiving that my sharing will fall on deaf fears or be met by silence, is a source of great dread.

Wednesday, November 5, 2014

Stuff Asians Like: White Supremacy

Asian Americans pretend to hate white supremacy but watch what they do not what they say.

According to Christian Lander, liberal white people like camping, graduate school, marathons, sushi, diversity, facebook, and posting Yelp reviews. If you wrote a book about stuff Asians like, 99.9% would be exactly the same. The only unique entries might be pearl milk tea, stinky tofu, and animé. Outside of those things, Westernized Asians like precisely the same stuff white people do.

This makes it difficult to determine exactly what Asian American culture is. African Americans, by contrast, have black culture. Their names are different. Their clothing is different. Their music is different. Black people have historically black colleges. Black people have black role models.

Asians have Jeremy Lin and no colleges they would want to attend. Because in most areas of life, Asians imitate what white people do.

Westernized Asians follow white standards of beauty. Asian guys want bigger muscles like white guys. Asian women do better in Western mating markets because skinny is king. Asian guys would date white women if they could but since educated white men prefer Asian girls, Asian guys are happy to stand second in line.

Educated Asians also enjoy working for white people. This allows them to avoid conflict, autonomy, and risk. That's why Asians prefer lucrative but stable, unexciting professions like law, engineering, accounting, and medicine. They can go to work without a fuss and afford more outdoor performance clothing and sushi.

Asian American Christians are no different.  They go to white churches with white pastors and sing music written by white people. And those that attend Asian churches follow white Christian culture as well. They also sing to Chris Tomlin and Matt Redman and listen to white pastors' podcasts while their pastors go to seminaries with white professors to study theology written by dead white guys.

Despite conventional wisdom, it is appropriate for Asians to enjoy white supremacy. After all, Asians are the ethnic group that reaps the greatest benefit from the white ruling class. Educated Asian immigrants and their children thrive in the United States because their traits are valued here. The white meritocracy favors groups willing to sacrifice everything in pursuit of achievement. Asians are better at being white than white people. Asian kids in California score higher on the standardized tests written by white people than white kids do themselves. 

The reality is the white meritocracy functions on merit to a far greater extent than any Eastern society can boast. In the US, if you work hard, you can be successful and make a name for yourself. In Asia, if you work hard, you might get to eat and have shelter. Asian Americans may complain about workplace discrimination but it's nothing compared to the cronyism and corruption of the rest of the world.

Asian immigrants get this. They owe a tremendous debt towards Western civilization. The reason Asian Americans even have language to discuss discrimination is because individual rights, democracy, and equality were championed by white people. After all, the world runs better when the pale face is in charge. Just ask Africa. 

But liberal Asian Americans pretend to hate white supremacy because it's cool to hate on white people (#checkyourprivilege). In the end, educated Asian Americans enjoy white supremacy because they can have the best of both races. They get the majority of white perks without the hassle of having to rule the world.