Western people would like to take pride in themselves for rigor, rationality and factfulness. My critical observation is about these only, that most of them fall short on it.
In my observation, Western countries, specially US politics is as dirty as in India. Western people are hypocrites, they stick to their set of rules and talk about objectivity as long as it suits them, and quickly abandon objectivity or change the set of rules when first set of rules doesn't suit them. And they do it without any shame.
Like many others, westerners like to have opinion on everything, they speak too much, without thinking critically and supporting it with facts. But there is a special problem, since they sit on the pulpit, nobody can tell them so that makes them look even more stupid and silly. They almost feel entitled.
Many times Kings tended to be most foolish, silly and stupid person in the court and the country. Because the king has special privilege, nobody can tell the king that he is completely disconnected from reality, and he has foolish ideas. As happens in corporate offices many times here.
They are born and raised up with ideas, full of superlatives, specially in USA. "You are so nice, you know how great you are ! If you were not born, this earth would have stopped rotating around the Sun" (Well nothing happened when US lost war in Vietnam and Afghanistan.). And then that kid grows up, meets an Indian, talks some bullshit, and Indian being a typical sycophant says "Yes sir, you are great, you are so nice.." Indians crawling everywhere to get photographed with westerners, to give them a memento in ceremonies.
The fact that average person of USA has GDP, eight times (PPP) in terms of income, means nothing more than that. Any conclusion afterwards should must be arrived by reasonable discussion/proof etc. When we go into detail, then only we can find loopholes and hollowness of frantic attempts to get to some conclusion, without concrete evidence.
Problems of Entitlement :
In general Western people sugarcoat their laziness, lack of completeness in examination and convenience as broad mindedness. I get very bored hearing platitudes from western and upper class white collar Indians, who talk from the place of their privilege. I agree that there are benefits of education, and in west people are more open, methodical and factual. But people in west take their view of themselves too far.
It is economic prosperity, functioning systems, law and order, easy access to jobs and higher education which frees normal people of many concerns. Not their broad mind.
Per capita expenditure on defense/military in many developed countries USA (2200 $) is 70 times to that of a developing country India (31 $). People in west should apply broad mind principles to themselves and remove all this expenditure, spend it on eradication of poverty, if their broad mind alone protects them.
Visa policy of most developed countries is very restrictive, giving more access to developed countries while closing entry to educated highly skilled workforce from India and China. Tuition fee in most British universities in 35000 USD per year for non EU candidates. While it is one third for locals.
Where is broad mind in all this?
It has become standard in the west, people talking in certain way, nice things, are automatically considered broad mind. It is like when poor people argue, whole colony gets to know, because poor don't have walls. Same way wealthy people argue but nobody knows. Wall shields them. Wall becomes symbol of class, people confuse that broad wall protecting them with their broad mind. A high per capita income (30 times in top twenty countries, compared to India) and closed borders are like that wall.
This standardization of broad mind is often to serve the interests of people who fall under that class. It is not for everyone on a fair basis. Why should others follow their metric and definition and standards? Why should others care about their (so called broad minds) opinion? Who are these so-called broad minds to decide right, wrong, good or bad for others? It is by effort of working arms and money in pocket that one outside that class lives. Those standards serve only people within that class. It is the mindset of a slave, to follow labels given by master.
This broad mind thing also works like religion. That thing in the center is missing, there is no proof. But many rituals come up. Those rituals become synonymous with religion itself. Same way is broad mind thing, there might be nothing, a big zero in the name of mind, but people may follow or do many social rituals, those rituals become synonymous with broad mind, which get them place in the class of broad minded. Religion doesn't bring superstition. Religion is caused by human superstition, human ability for superstition. And that human ability for superstition doesn't appear only in religion, but also in other walks of life e.g. politics, social life, economic decisions etc.
People speak nice not because they are very broad minded. They don't have a mind. They don't know what they are talking about. They don't study subjects on which they make big conclusions. By definition being broad minded should mean having considered multitude of views, ability to see the problems from all angles. People take path of least trouble, least energy expenditure. People take path of standardization. Society has standardized, one who speaks nice is broad minded. So every foolish person on this earth who speaks without thinking or knowing much is considered broad minded. Not having a question in mind, being completely unaware also brings happiness. By not having questions, a person is having energy surplus, not strained. They are compared with a person who is at peace and happy, because he has figured out everything. It is the happiness of submission. I think turbulence is a better state of mind compared to that, if it is leading somewhere.
___________________________________________________________________________________
This is what I wrote to an American citizen after he was completely wrong on too many facts. But he thought otherwise.
"A part of the American media writes fiction. And there is a sense of entitlement among many of them. Their definition of truth is what they publish or want to be true. Not what is objectively true. They think they can not be questioned. They are like another God. Their judgement is final. They can not be examined on the basis of facts, can not be questioned, they feel entitled to be taken as true even when they are not mostly.
Definition of facts or truth can not be that whatever pops up in the minds of wealthy Americans or their editorial boards is true. And responsibility of proving facts rests first on (A) those who/what act like sources of facts, and those who take that whatever comes from (A) is fact.
It can't be that whatever starts in America is good of everyone in the world, and they are our God. And we have to blindly accept that. It was not true in the past, it is not true today. Americans are not some special species bereft of any human mistakes. And all Americans are different, so it will never make sense if some homo-sapiens of US wants to be taken as truthful, and source of facts, just because they are Americans.
That is my opinion on fiction writers and propaganda masters in USA. Truth in itself is simple. But it is difficult to convince oneself about some truth and convince others about some other truth. Problem is not that facts are worthless, but problem is with mind which doesn't want to believe in it.
Individuals in the west think they know what is true, and good. So they can civilize, guide unfortunate misguided people in other worlds to prosperity, justice, truth and peace. They can be kind to other unfortunates. All this confidence doesn't come from some experience of the situations, or learning from their results of past interventions. They do not have much past record of responsibility in the event of their convictions turning wrong. The Basis of all this is often the feelings of the individuals."
___________________________________________________________________________________
People feel dazzled in front of west, so they accept anything, everything. I agree with Lee Kuan. He had brain and character. He could hold on, and had much more to show in the end.
https://www.pri.org/stories/lee-kuan-yew-dead-here-are-7-his-most-provocative-quotes
If a columnist in west writes opinion, that doesn't become a fact. It only means he/she has right to write that opinion. If somebody says that what he believes is fact, it only means that he has a story in mind, according to which his beliefs are true.
___________________________________________________________________________________


