Hi, as someone who's been both almost alt right and now leans left, the progression for me was the more literature i read and the more academically inclined i became, the more left i moved. The most fundamental thing we need to accept is, not everyone starts on the same level economically, socially, or anywhere. The fundamental difference between conservative values and progressive values boils down to the dismantling of hierarchies which help these people who have historically, and still continue to lack equality of opportunity.

It is also a factual truth that the US is more polarized not because the left has moved farther left, but because the right has moved farther right (overturning roe v wade, repealing protections for transgender folks, threatening to overturn gay marriage, the bashing of immigrants, the christian nationalist agenda the republicans have espoused) the US democratic party is where it has always been, centre right. The US democrats don't become left leaning just because the party they oppose becomes more right wing.

This "someone" is a PragerU speaker who makes a ton of money off making vague culture war videos. PragerU is infamous for never citing their sources and all their "sources" being questionable in their academic merit. I could sit here and debunk every argument she makes with sources, but its the same "HAVE WOKE LIBS GONE TOO FAR?????" that has been the conservative narrative for 2 centuries now. There are dozens of videos talking about how PragerU is bad and there are various academic disapprovals of the organisation too but the nail in the coffin is PragerU and other conservative commentators are funded by billion dollar oil companies that don't have the best track record when it comes to caring about human lives.

Also India and the US are more similar than you might think, we also lack a large leftist presence in India, BJP is ultranationalist and Congress is at best a classical liberal party, the "socialist" parties here have to operate in a capitalist framework and are already plagued by infighting over disagreements with things like caste (samajwadi party lol) and the only social democratic presence, CPI M has resulted in what is by all metrics that concern quality of life, the best state in the country, even Delhi under AAP, a party with keynesian ideals has seen incredible public sector undertakings.

Stop reading J Sai Deepak and pick up an actual book written by someone who cites their sources and actually has sensible things to say. (I'd recommend Cornel West or Angela Davis, Piero sraffa if you're economically inclined, also capitalist realism is a fun one)

I'll start with the question you asked. For me, I was born into a relatively affluent brahmin household, and that, of course, comes with a degree of privilege from the system. It took me a while to grasp this and come to terms with it, but when I was in my era of believing in things alt right, it often took a turn to an indian version of the pre-dominantly US-based Alt-Right philosophy. I was raised in a rather left-leaning household, but my parents never really tried to make me believe a certain thing. They just handed me books and left me to interpret them. And given that I was a child through all of this, I wasn't able to quite grasp the nuance in these books, my first bad experience started with the fountainhead when I was 7 or 8, it made me believe in this myth of a true meritocracy, so those people that need systemic support have an inherent flaw, this belief more or less subsisted until I was 15, I read more literature and was exposed to more viewpoints, my beliefs at the time I was 15 would be that the ideal societal structure would be an atheist objectivist society, which is unachievable and unfair for a myriad of reasons. The people that most often fall into the far right are deeply dissatisfied with their life, at least from what i observed, these people wanted a scapegoat to blame, it was always "if X didn't exist we'd be much better off" so a combination of unrealised systemic privilege, dissatisfaction with life, and a contempt to those they view as "undeserving" is what throws people into the far-right.

My transition back from the alt right started with research of climate change, and reading more literature, which is what had thrown me in it, in the first place, the book I would attribute my change to is The Archaeology of knowledge by Foucault, pretty much recategorised the study of history for me. I definitely don't believe politics is hard wired though, I am currently 17 so my viewpoints will definitely change but I feel like the shift towards conservatism is often motivated by a disconnect from the status quo (you're culturally connected when you're younger) as you get older (also richer) you feel a disconnect from both cultural and the economic state of the nation you reside in, so you often feel a disconnect to the political messages of the youth. My dad is almost 50 now, but he's still left leaning, I think he is so because he reads voraciously and keeps up with issues despite not needing to, so I don't think one has to shift to conservatism as they get older (most do) I also don't like a dogmatic view of politics, I think it hurts our prospects to move towards a better society, politics isn't an identity, it is a reflection of the beliefs you hold, and ever changing beliefs are a sign of improvement I'd say.

I find it rather hard to find common ground with most conservatives given they are diametrically opposed to my beliefs, a lot of them also disapprove of my existence (I am a queer person) i would be open to discourse between conservatives but so many often jump to their axiomatic beliefs.

I have both read and understood Sai Deepak's work, and I do not believe in the shared cultural identity of a nation as pluralist as India, I think India's beauty and strength lies in how diverse we are, J Sai Deepak arguing for an "Indic" culture does not sit right with me because it argues for a hindu identity, a hindu state identity to me is pretty much the same as christian nationalism in the US. An argument for india's national identity from a secular platform is far more valid. This left you disavow is the reason the Indian nation exists. Though I digress, i'll recommend a reading list that should hopefully help you realise why J Sai Deepak's beliefs are deeply flawed.

1. Ur-Fascism - Umberto Eco
2. The myth of sisyphus - Albert Camus
3. The argumentative Indian - Amartya Sen
4. The nature of fascism - Roger Griffin
5. Left hand of darkness - Ursula K Le guin

I would recommend some specialised indian literature such as D.D Kosambi but i assume you'd just dismiss him given what happens when you mention anyone remotely marxist in the presence of a conservative

Good day!

Academic books are very interesting when not forced onto you by institutions, I have noticed despite the books schools asking you to read being classics, i enjoy them far less because schools and other institutions force them onto you.

The alt right points out legitimate problems but it ascribes them to a vague degeneration of culture, (usually its minorities getting rights or something along those lines) plus the problem with the distinction between government and capitalism is that they're the same institution. The state is there to enforce capitalism and capitalism exists to uphold the state. I agree many on the left have a problem with discourse and demonising those they disagree with. You must consider many on the left are not just fighting for an idea they agree with, it is usually their right to equality, opportunity, fair treatment, etc. So it'd be pretty infuriating if someone that benefits infinitely from the system simply opposed your right to exist because of who you are. Discourse should happen, but the "intolerant authoritarian left" are usually people that just want equality.

This is an attempt to change the goalposts, but I'll indulge. The shared Indian cultural identity and

Hindu ones are two VERY important distinctions. India is not Hindu, despite what J Sai Deepak claims. India is multicultural and diverse. Also Pre-Colonial India might have been non toxic monotheism, but modern India very much is not. The majority believes the state must impose their religious beliefs, not very "Non-Toxic Monotheism" of them wouldn't you agree?

Early Islam in India was definitely not toxic, the Mughals, as rulers, were very tolerant for their age. And as far as different laws created to appease religious groups, I agree with you they are ridiculous, so I think we should repeal every ban on beef.

As far as why campaigning for a Hindu state is stupid, the admin's comment points that much out.