Category Archives: Philosophy

The Alt-Right, The Other Alt-Right, And The Rise Of The Alt-Left

Here.

There Are Two Alt-Rights, Not One, and the Alt-Left Is Poised to Defeat Both in the Next Decade

I don’t know who the  Hell he is talking about, but it sure ain’t us.

Leave a comment

Filed under Anti-Racism, Conservatism, Fascism, Left, National Socialism, Neo-Nazism, Philosophy, Political Science, Politics, Pop Culture, Racism, Republicans, US Politics, White Racism

Alt Left: Civil War? Bring It On!

Well, low level civil war in the present form of pre-civil war or civil strife anyway is just fine. It’s not ok to promote anything beyond that right now though.

Here.

A new article in Salon says that Trump has set off a civil war in America. As a supporter of the very similar Revolutionary movements of the 1960’s and 1970’s, which also erupted into a near civil war, the Alt Left supports this low- level civil war (civil strife) completely. Right now what is going on is like a pre-civil war or what is often referred to as civil strife. The civil war will pretty much only start if and when people start killing each other, and that’s not happening…yet. Hopefully it will not come to that because not only will the enemy start dying but we will too. That means you, me, our friends and loved ones. It’s generally better if civil strife does not move to a shooting civil war level barring extreme circumstances.

The only thing that is happening now is street fights between the Left and Right, similar to the Left vs. Right street thugs fighting in the streets in Germany in the 1920’s and 1930’s. It also similar to civil strife that goes on in Latin America. Particularly in Chile, left vs. right street fighting is very common. The Right is fascist and supports Pinochet. The Left is almost Communist or socialist and supports Salvador Allende and his followers. A woman from Allende’s own party is now governing the country. The Left regularly stages what can only be called pro-Allende demos, which are regularly raided by fascists who support Pinochet. Similarly, fascists regularly stage what are more or less pro-Pinochet demos which are regularly invaded by leftists. Street fighting between the two is very common.

People do not realize it but rioting is very common in Latin America. Venezuela had regular riots, often led by university students, even before Chavez came to office. After Chavez came in, the Opposition staged regular riots and demos in their neighborhoods. After a while, the Chavista police just sat back and let the Opposition trash their neighborhoods. The Chavista police must have had one of the most hands-off approaches to rioters in the world.

In Chile once again, high school students are now staging regular demos which typically turn into riots. This is because in this wealthy country, the schools are literally falling apart. These riots have been happening about once every three weeks now. The Chilean Indians are a much discriminated against population and popular racism against Indians is at a very high level.

I had a friend in Chile whose father worked for Allende and considered himself a progressive guy. He was majoring in sociology and he planned to go to the Indian regions to do fieldwork. However, this anti-Indian racism was off the charts from an American point of view. He also had wildly classist views which would be shocking in the US. Obviously any country afflicted with crazy high levels of classism and racism along with some of the worst wealth inequality on Earth is a pretty shitty place. In a shitty country, you might as well demonstrate and riot all the time because that is exactly what shitty countries deserve. If they ever clean up their act and turn into decent countries, I think the rioters in general should knock it off.

Rioting should only be for protesting truly noxious systems, not, for instance, against Swedish social democracy. It’s a very civilized and decent system and there’s nothing to riot about. But rightwing shitholes can have all the riots in the world for all I care. They asked for it by being rightwing shitholes. If they don’t want riots all the time, all they have to do is create a decent country.

Needless to say, the Chilean Indians riot on a very frequent basis. And Indian riot is almost banal down there. That’s how common it is.

I was very close to the politics of Peru for a while there and I got regular updates of the situation on the ground. Even leaving aside the fact that there was an armed and very deadly insurgency going on, besides that, on the Left in general (which did not necessarily support the insurgency at all) there were regular strikes and demonstrations.

A lot of the strikes were by people like teachers and physicians. Teachers’ unions are very militant in Latin America, they go on strike all the time, have regular demonstrations and they even riot quite a bit. Schoolteachers rioting seems odd in a US context but down there, it’s just normal. There are also almost constant demonstrations against mining and really for all manner of leftwing causes. It’s quite common for these to turn into riots. Even setting aside the insurgency, Peru struck me as a place where leftwing riots were quite common.

I don’t know much about civil strife in the rest of the continent. I saw a recent video of young people mostly in their late teens to mid twenties who appeared to be actually demonstrating in favor of the FARC guerrillas and against death squad activity directed at civilian supporters of the guerrilla. I was surprised that the FARC had that much support. The demonstration was quite violent to say the least.

I believe demonstrations are very common in Brazil and if I am not mistaken, they regularly become riots also.

This low level civil war or civil strife is a good thing in the US right now. Bottom line is we deserve it. We are turning into a true rightwing shithole along Latin American lines, and shitty countries deserve all the riots that rioters can unleash against them. Don’t like the rioting? Fine, put in a halfway decent government. Unless and until that happens, I say let the riots go on.

All of the following are important:

  • Calling or writing to your Congresspeople.
  • Attending town hall meetings of Congresspeople.
  • New laws at the state level
  • Anti-Trump lawsuits by states
  • Anti=Trump lawsuits by individuals and aggrived parties, often being taken by the ACLU right now.
  • Appearances by Congresspeople at areas of controversy, such as Congresspeople who tried to get travelers released from airports
  • Journalists writing highly critical and rabble rousing articles
  • Openly defiant and angry press organs, even such staid venues as the New York Times. There’s nothing with the NYT calling Trump a liar on the front page.
  • Letters to the editor
  • Signing petitions
  • Refusing service to Trump supporters in the workplace
  • Ending as many friendships with Trump supporters as you can handle
  • Various organizations leading peaceful demonstrations of all sorts such as the women’s march. Those demos can get pretty loud and rowdy, but without overt violence, they are still peaceful
  • Blocking highways
  • Walkout strikes
  • Wildcat strikes
  • Boycotts
  • Shopping strikes

And also nonpeaceful protest would seem to be in order. If we are truly turning into a nightmarish Latin American style rightwing shithole, then this country deserves as many riots as rioters can stage. Shitholes deserve nothing less until they clean up their act and turn into decent countries.

Among forms of nonviolent protest:

  • Looting of noxious corporate venues, especially window smashing.
  • Bonfires
  • Fireworks
  • Smoke bombs
  • Rocks, bricks and police barricades at windows of some venues, the purpose being merely to break windows at the venue.
  • Vandalism, especially of corporate property. Window smashing is just fine.
  • Arson, particularly of corporate property but especially of the property of our class enemies, such as the limousine burnt on January 20.

Violence against people.

  • Generally not recommended at this point.

This is a very tricky area and I am wrestling a lot with this one. In wars, the civilian supporters of the insurgency or state are supposed to be left alone. They seldom are in wars anymore, but they are supposed to be. This is why the fire bombings in Germany and Japan were so wrong. Even if Germans were supporting Nazis, it was not ok to set their cities aflame with the sole purpose of incinerating as many civilians as possible. Something very similar but much worse happened in Japan.

Of course the purpose of the atom bombs was to slaughter as many civilians as possible in order to end a war. The argument is typically raised that it was worth it to murder 300,000 Japanese civilians in a couple of days to end the war and that alternatives would have been more costly. Even with a goal of ending a war and supposedly saving lives by ending a war prematurely, it’s awful hard to justify mass slaughter of civilians, even if they are supporting a noxious regime. Killing thousands of civilians even for this purpose seems wrong, not to mention 10,000’s. Killing 100,000’s of civilians even for some supposedly noble goal gets very hard to justify under virtually any circumstances.

So if civilian supporters even of armed insurgencies and noxious regimes are not to be killed or even harmed for that matter, how is it ok to beat up Trump supporters. Now granted, things are much worse in hot wars. If all Assad’s army and supporters were doing was punching out rebel supporters, I doubt if anyone would care. I doubt if many would be bothered by German patriots clocking Nazi supporters during the war, assuming they could even get away with it. Likewise in Japan. The main argument in all of these cases is that state are actually mass murdering civilian supporters of insurgencies and civilian supporters of enemy states during state to state war. The argument never gets down to the level of if it’s ok to punch out guerrilla supporters or people backing a state in wartime in a state to state war.

Nevertheless, attacks on Trump supporters leave me a bit queasy. It may come down to that at some point, but for now, political violence against Opposition civilians doesn’t rub me the right way. Of course the antifa will do it anyway, we don’t have to stamp our approval on it. And it’s a thin line that separates a right hook from a group beating stomping someone to death. Single punches can turn into fatal beat downs faster than you can think.

For right now, nonpeaceful tactics should be limited to property damage, particularly of noxious corporations. Destroying the property of class enemies such as limousines is certainly acceptable. Even arson is ok against their property and that of noxious corporations, especially if you clear out the civilians just stick to burning stuff, not other people. A lot of limousines deserve to be torched and a lot of banks are asking for it too.

But I am going to butt out of attacks on people of the opposition. And surely, attacks with guns, bombs and whatnot are completely out of line at least at this stage. Now it may come down to a 1970’s revolutionary scenario where as late as 1972, 1,900 bombs went off in the US. That’s six bombs a day. Very few of them killed or even hurt other people as they were often set off late at night or preceded with warnings. Nevertheless, once you step it up to setting off bombs, it’s a whole new ballgame. We aren’t there yet, so such activities are not acceptable at the least.

6 Comments

Filed under Amerindians, Brazil, Chile, Conservatism, Economics, Education, Ethics, Fascism, Government, History, Journalism, Latin America, Latin American Right, Left, Peru, Philosophy, Political Science, Politics, Race Relations, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Regional, Republicans, Revolution, Social Problems, Socialism, Sociology, South America, US Politics, USA, Venezuela, War, World War 2

Is It OK to Punch a Trump Supporter at a Political Rally or Gathering?

Discuss.

Jason Y: No offense Robert but you seem to be sympathizing with Trump supporters when before you were praising all acts of rioting and other mayhem directed at Trump. Note, these anti-fas are just playing by your playbook and, of course, it is to be expected cause Trump is so infiltrated with WN’s that it all seems like fair game.

Riots are just fine. I do have some issues when it comes to people getting hurt, and these Trump supporters, let’s face it, they boil down to the definition of innocent civilians. I didn’t like the fire bombings of Germany or Japan either. You can’t kill civilians just for supporting a regime.

Well I have nothing against some property damage, but it does rather bother me to see even these Trumpsters getting beat up or even punched out. I have some real mixed feelings about it. I say they deserve it, but when I see it happens, it bothers me. Also if we see it’s ok to assault them at their gigs and if they show up at ours, they get to come to our demos or see us at their demos and assault us on sight too. I don’t really want to get beat up or even punched. If it’s ok for us to hit them, it’s going to be ok for them to hit us.

I am currently having an ethical dilemma about this stuff. Sure, I say I don’t care about them, but then I see them getting beat up and I want to run over there and shield them to keep them from getting hit anymore. Part of me says it’s ok for them to get clocked once or twice but I definitely do not want to see them get suffer long-term or permanent damage. A little temporary damage might be ok, but I am not sure about that either.

I don’t care if they clock Richard Spencer. If anyone is asking for it, it is him. But I also don’t care if they never hit him again. I disagree with the antifa that guys like Spencer are the problem. I mean Bannon, Pence, Price, De Vos, Sessions, those guys deserve a punch in the face 1,000 times worse than Spencer does. Or worse. They are actually doing some very serious damage and harm to lots of human beings. A lot of people are going to die and a lot more are going to get hurt, and it’s all going to be done by these people.

These supporters are just cheering on the attackers and killers, which I am unsure is such a serious offense.

Compared to those names I listed, what damage is Richard Spencer doing? Shooting off his mouth. If you are going to assault someone, hit someone who is actually doing some sort of concrete damage, not just flapping his gums.

20 Comments

Filed under Ethics, Left, Philosophy, Politics, Racism, Republicans, US Politics, White Nationalism

Why Should I Care What Happens to My Enemies?

Regarding Trump supporters, Alt Right types going to see Milo talk, etc. getting assaulted by antifas. At first this bothered me a great deal. They struck me as innocent people guilty of little more than thought crimes, saying the wrong things or voting wrong.

But now I have changed my mind. I will not support this sort of thing, advocate it or cheer it on. But I don’t care anymore. I will just say that I don’t care what happens to Trump supporters from now on. Anything that happens to them, good, bad or indifferent, it makes no difference to me. So if they get beat up by antifas, I will just shrug my shoulders and say I don’t care. Why should I care about Trump supporters? Why should I care what happens to them? Why should I be bothered if bad things happen to them?

Honestly, if all 63 million Trump supporters dropped dead tomorrow, I would not even care. Actually I might even cheer. I simply have no human feelings for these people anymore. If you support Trump, you are my enemy, my personal enemy, and you will be treated as such until you come to your senses.

Am I right or wrong for turning somewhat sociopathic like this? Actually I have sort of been this way most of my life, but my heart went soft for a bit there but now it hardening up again in middle age as it should.

Why should we care if Trump supporters get hurt? Give us a reason why we should care about this.

Discuss.

88 Comments

Filed under Ethics, Philosophy, Politics, Republicans, US Politics

Is It Ok to Punch Nazis?

This website answers the important question of whether it is ever ok to punch a Nazi. This is a difficult philosophical question that the world’s top philosophers have been debating for decades now.

That’s a Black Bloc guy who hit him. The Black Bloc was behind most of the violence and destruction at the Inauguration of this Monster. They are anarchists. I do not mind them smashing windows of corporate establishments or ATM’s or trash cans. That’s all ok. And setting the limo on fire was great! Fight the rich! The rich are our class enemies so we must fight them. A limo driver got his hand cut and I am sorry he got hurt. He’s just a regular working guy. A Trump supporter waded into a cops versus Black Bloc battle and a Black Blog guy punched him in the face! Good! All in all, the rioting was really great. We need to be doing this rioting all the time now. Let’s make the country ungovernable.

We now have a dictatorship. Trump stole this election with those damned voting machines. As long as we have a dicatorship and not a democracy, that means that all peaceful roads to power are generally blocked. When  all peaceful roads to power are blocked, there is nothing left to do but to turn to non-peaceful methods. There simply is no other way. I am not advocating killing people, though a lot of these monsters deserve it, especially those involved in vote fraud. That should be a street justice capital offense right there. Surely it is moral to kill or hurt people who are involved in stealing elections.

On the other hand, the way of the gun is not going to work right now. The US military will start enforcing civilian law and the FBI is very good at solving crimes. Sure, some of the enemy will be killed which is fantastic, but a lot of us are going to be arrested too, and some of us may also be killed. When we get arrested, we will usually be convicted and sentenced to long prison sentences. As many of us will be harmed as them. It’s not worth it.

However, rioting, property destruction, etc. is perfectly acceptable for making the country ungovernable. Attacks on Nazis should be ok as long as no weapons are involved. Fisticuffs are fine. Most of them deserve a punch in the face anyway and getting punched usually does not result in death or permanent or long-term damage. About attacks on Trump supporters at rallies, that is a much more difficult question. If they wade into brawls, it may be ok to hit them, but otherwise, I think maybe we should back off.

110 Comments

Filed under Conspiracies, Corruption, Crime, Ethics, Fascism, Government, Law enforcement, Nazism, Philosophy, Political Science, Politics, Regional, Republicans, US Politics, USA

Egotism Versus Narcissism

Apparently I have some narcissistic traits according to a therapist. But I have seen a lot of these guys, and he is the only one who ever brought it up, so I do wonder.

Another therapist called it egotism, implied that he was that way too, and said, “So what? So you have some egotism? What’s wrong with that?”

I would agree with this. I have big ego. So what? What of it? Look around you at important people. Quite a few of them have huge egos. It goes with the territory. Now you can also become a huge asshole if you have a big ego, but it is not necessary by any means. My egotism doesn’t seem to bother anyone very much.

In fact, I note that a lot of other men feel this way too. I am not particularly arrogant, but it is something I have to work at constantly. Because I have tendencies this way, I often have to manipulate my mind when I am around certain people. I tell myself lies like, “I am a worm. I am nothing. I am zero. This person is so superior to me. I am ashamed of myself.” I don’t really believe any of that, but I can play that role if I need to and brainwash my mind into thinking it is true for a bit. You would think that people would regard a person who thinks this way as disgusting and pitiful, but possibly because I do not really believe the lie I am telling myself, apparently it just comes across and nice and friendly and not pitiful and self-hating.

When I am not doing that, I have my normal egotism thing going, which just means that I like to have a high opinion of myself. I have no idea why this is pathological, and I believe everyone should have high self-esteem. Sure it runs into arrogance, but you can control that if you try. I figure I’m great. What’s wrong with that. Everyone should think they are great. That’s how I see it.

Of course there’s no evidence that I am great, and in fact, there is a lot of evidence that the opposite is probably true, but so what?

Playing roles in life is one thing (you can technically play all sorts of different roles in life as much as the finest character actors if you work yourself into it. Actually I advise it because by playing all sorts of different roles ion life you will realize that there is no real you, there is no true self, and there’s no need to figure out who you are because its constructed and you can deconstruct it or construct new selves any old time you want. People get way too trapped up in the somewhat nonsensical belief in “being yourself” or “finding the true you,” or “figuring out who you are.” To some degree it is as silly endeavor.

Anyway when I am doing my egotist thing, I notice a lot of men are very friendly to me, and they go into this egotist mode themselves where they seem to be communicating, “Hey, I have a high opinion of myself too! I see you’re great. So I am I! We’re both great, you and me.” If high self-esteem only provokes others into a similar high self-esteem mode, I fail to see the problem.

On the other hand, narcissism is a bit like a box of matches. Sure it can be very useful in life, but it can also cause you all sorts of problems if you get careless or carried away with it. You can even burn the whole house down.

Taoism applies here. The Middle Way is moderation in all things, and I would add narcissism to that list.

66 Comments

Filed under Narcissism, Personality, Philosophy, Psychology

Narcissistic Personality Disorder In Therapy: A Pointless and Unpleasant Endeavor

Like everyone on Axis 2, the person with Narcissistic Personality Disorder thinks they are fine. Obviously the problem is everybody else. They will just go through their whole life blaming other people. That’s how they ride.

They rarely if ever show up for therapy, and when they do, it is often at the behest of others who are forcing them into therapy because the narcissists is driving these people insane and ruining their lives. Once in therapy, the narcissist plays games, engages in a boatload of manipulation, does no work on themselves because after all there is nothing to be done, and often engages in a lot of ego and narcissistic games with the therapist, including insulting the therapist, thinking he is better than the therapist and telling him so, deciding that the therapist is a lousy therapist, etc.

If you tell them they are narcissists, will generally either reject the diagnosis, ignore it, blow it off with some humorous blustery remark, decide that psychiatry is a pseudoscience, or say, “So what? I like being this way.”

They might take it as an insult, but they usually will not react aggressively. Instead you will see a spark of recognition and alarm in their eyes. The narcissist is not an idiot. Many are highly intelligent and in fact, sadly it goes with the territory. At some level, most if not all narcissists now what is going on. The problems is they don’t care, or they like to be this way.

If you keep reminding the narcissist of what he is, he will stop being flippant about it and start getting aggressive. Expect dirty fighting, devious and crafty manipulation, nasty insults, or walking out of the room. Keep it up, and the narcissist will just end the relationship. The narcissist is not going to sit there and let you call him a narcissist all day. He’s too good for such degrading treatment. If he cannot do that, at some point, he will probably create a nuclear explosion of a fight and try to terrorize you into not bringing up the subject again.

Generally speaking, they are a complete waste of time in the office, therapy with them is often quite unpleasant, and nothing gets done anyway. It’s not uncommon for the therapist to simply fire the narcissist as client, informing him that nothing is getting done. This a relief to the narcissist, as now he has an excuse to quit the degrading therapy. Technically this is client abandonment and an ethics violation, but the decision is always mutual, and nothing was getting done anyway, so why prolong the pointless endeavor?

Theoretically, the narcissist can be cured. Since lions cannot change into tigers, all we can do with personality disorders is turn the bad side of a basic personality type into the good side of that type. The good side of Narcissistic Personality is Confident Personality. These people can be a bit much too, but they are healthy enough that they can function quite well especially in a hyper-competitive capitalist society like ours. The goal of therapy with an NPD is to turn them into a Confident Personality. But good luck with that.

There is so much more to talk about with narcissism and NPD, but let’s leave that for another day.

17 Comments

Filed under Ethics, Mental Illness, Narcissistic, Personality, Personality Disorders, Psychology, Psychopathology, Psychotherapy

“Hinduism Versus Confucianism: An Analysis and Comparison,” by Dota

Nice essay from Dota, former commenter here who now blogs at Occident Invicta with Bay Area Guy, another former commenter here.

The societies of India and China have been structured along feudal lines for much of recorded history. Despite both societies placing a premium on hierarchy and authoritarianism, their internal motivations and ethical paradigms are widely divergent. The Chinese mind has been shaped by Confucianism, whereas the Indian mind has been shaped by Hinduism.

Let’s begin by analyzing Confucianism.

Confucianism stresses social order and postulates that no society can attain political stability by precluding social stability. Confucianism views society as a massive collection of interdependent networks that are comprised of relationships on the atomic level.

The genius of the Confucian model is that it recognizes the inherently relative nature of power and how power is also a zero-sum resource. Those that possess power do so because others do not. An emperor may possess power over a subject, but that subject isn’t powerless, only merely so in relationship to his sovereign. This same subject may be a teacher and wield power over his students.

To ensure social stability, Confucius ordained that relationships be guided by the principle of ren or benevolence. This is Confucianism’s highest virtue and arguably the philosophy’s overarching universal ethic. A sovereign treats his subjects benevolently by ensuring that they are fed, protected, and generally want for nothing (materially speaking). The subjects then reciprocate with obedience and loyalty. Those in power must treat those without (in the context of their relationship) with benevolence, while the latter reciprocate with obedience and loyalty.

Benevolence is often strictly interpreted as each party honoring their respective obligations. It would be unjust for a wife to expect her husband’s kindness if she herself were disobedient. Conversely it would be unjust for a husband to demand his wife’s obedience if he himself failed in his husbandly duties. We see a glimmer of this idea even in Western tradition. Plato argued that interdependence was at the heart of justice, and that social order was maintained when members of social classes refrained form crossing lines.

Confucianism’s approach to social justice is not dissimilar to other Eastern philosophies. The primary aim here is to ensure the prevention of abuse rather than empowering the disenfranchised (a preoccupation of modern day social justice). Sumeria’s Ur-Nammu famously proclaimed that: “The orphan was not delivered up to the rich man; the widow was not delivered up to the mighty man; the man of one shekel was not delivered up to the man of one mina.” Not unlike other ancient societies, the Chinese also believed that class structures were an inherent feature of any civilized society, as men of greater talent would naturally rise above their peers. The ancients thus focused their energies on ensuring that men of ability did not use their powers unjustly against those lodged beneath them in the social order.

Before we move on to discussing Hinduism, a few comments are in order pertaining to the success of feudalism in China. It is my opinion that feudalism was wildly successful in China for the same reasons that the Catholic Church was successful in Europe. The Church absorbed some of the most talented men in society by giving them an avenue to express their talents. Such men could not ascend in a strictly feudal order despite their talents and thus gravitated towards the church.

The Chinese state implemented that very approach and absorbed men of resource into its ever growing bureaucracy. This also had another unexpected benefit – it prevented the formation of a class of dissidents that could prove to be a source of agitation. I believe the Communist Party of China absorbs talent in such a manner even today. Men who wish to ascend the rungs of power often choose the political route (via the party) as opposed to the riskier route of commerce.

Hindu society, like its Chinese counterpart, was similarly structured along feudal lines. There is, however, one key difference in their underlying composition – Confucianism stresses the interdependence of relationship networks, whereas the Hindu caste system is the world’s oldest pyramid scheme.

As we are well aware, a pyramid structure is one where every level attempts to profit (by exploitation) off the labor of the level below, and so it goes all the way down until one reaches the base – the most crucial level and also the most exploited. Pyramids are inherently unstable and one way to ensure their longevity is by means of force. Individuals must be coerced to remain at their stations so that the structure may endure. This method leaves the structure vulnerable to rebellions and a constant tension between the levels. This point is obvious from British history alone where Barons often clashed with the monarchy.

In order to allay this source of instability, some pyramids permit upward mobility. But this makes the crucial base unstable by putting it in a constant state of flux as individuals at the lower stations climb up and leave their former stations vacant. This problem is alleviated by constantly recruiting newer members into the base so that there is always a base available for exploitation.

The genius of the Hindu caste system is that it combines both the aforementioned approaches. Hinduism forbids caste mobility in the current life, thereby ensuring the perpetual hegemony of the upper castes. However, in order to prevent tension, Hinduism allows caste mobility but only through rebirth/reincarnation. This system ensures that the lower castes are given some hope of improving their station in the social order so long as they serve the interests of the upper castes in the current lifetime. It is karma, the cosmic recruiter, that ensures that the base will always remain staffed with compliant serfs.

The ultimate difference between Hinduism and Confucianism is that the former is an escapist religion whereas the latter is at its core an ethical philosophy. While many a Westerner would disagree with the ethical rules of Confucianism, it is impossible to deny the ethical focus of this philosophy. Ethics reside within the horizontal space between individuals. Any ideology or mode of thought that attempts to address this space is ethical in nature, even if we may disagree with the rules that regulate this space and by extension the human relationships bound to it.

By contrast, Hinduism addresses a very different space: the gap between man and the universe (cosmic order). The goal of Hinduism is to escape the world and become liberated from karma once and for all. Karma and Dharma are cosmic forces that to the best of my knowledge have no equivalent in Chinese philosophy; the focus of the latter being on social and ethical matters as opposed to metaphysics.

To illustrate this point, consider the life of an ascetic. Hinduism places a great degree of value on the ascetic lifestyle. But the man who renounces the world resides in (to quote Arthur Danto) a space “beyond good and evil.” In such an environment, an agent’s actions have no moral content. A hermit who lives outside society will always act in a morally neutral way. The closest analogy to this in Chinese philosophy is the Taoist wanderer, who is essentially a loner. But the wanderer is not seeking escape from the world, merely freedom from discomfort and anxiety that plague those that haven’t discovered the way (Tao).

Confucianism on the other hand, by its very essence, rejects the ascetic lifestyle. Man’s place is rooted firmly in society, for as Confucius put it: “One cannot herd with the beasts or flock with the birds. If I am not to be a man among men, then what am I to be?” It is this space that Hinduism ultimately seeks release from. Consider the following illustration from India’s Bhakti tradition:

In the basic story, Tiruppan grows up as part of an ‘untouchable’ panar caste of bards and minstrels in a town near the temple of Srirangam, arguably the most revered of all Vaisnava pilgrimage sites and indisputably the single most important temple for Srivaisnava devotees. From the moment he is able to speak, Tiruppan sings beautiful songs praising the qualities of Rangi (or Ranganatha), the form of Visnu worshiped in the temple of Srirangam just across the river from his home town.

Every day he travels to the south bank of the river and sings from a distance to his beloved Rangi. Tiruppan yearns to see the image of his beloved but is unable to enter the temple due to his ‘untouchable’ status. Eventually, the beauty of his songs and the intensity of his devotion awake the compassion of Rangi, who comes in a dream to the Brahmin priest of Srirangam and tells him to bring Tiruppan into the temple on his shoulders.

The priest goes to get Tiruppan, but he refuses to come, saying, “How could you do such a thing with me, your slave, who belongs to the class of untouchables?” In another version, he states, “How can I step with my feet on to the holy temple of Ranga?” And the Brahmin replies, “Never mind! You can go [sitting] on my shoulders.” In yet another version, Tiruppan is so insistent that he cannot come to the temple because of his low birth and sinful life that the priest must physically force him onto his shoulders.

Eventually, Tiruppan enters the temple riding on the shoulders of the Brahmin priest, and gazing at Rangi in devotional ecstasy, he sings ten verses of praise describing the God from foot to head. These are the very verses that are still remembered and recited today in the Srivaisnava community. The story concludes with Tiruppan miraculously uniting with and disappearing into the image of his beloved Rangi.

This story illustrates how a man can close the gap between himself and the divine (Tiruppan and Rangi) whereas leaving the glaring gap between individuals (Tiruppan and the Brahmin priests) unaddressed.

This brings me to the final point of this essay. What is Hinduism’s overarching ethic? Western civilization’s universal ethic is moral universalism, and Confucianism’s is Ren (benevolence). It is my view that Indian civilization is unique precisely because it failed to do something which other advanced civilizations have done: produce a universal ethic. This view was shared by three individuals whom I have listed here in chronological order:

  1. St Francis Xavier
  2. Max Weber
  3. Dr Ambedkar

Francis Xavier, the Spanish missionary, made a series of observations about Indians that are quite illuminating. It is obvious that he did not think too highly of Hinduism, but it is one particular interaction that I wish to draw your attention to – a conversation between Xavier and a group of Brahmins:

When Xavier asked a group of Brahmins to summarize what Hinduism stood for, he was told that their gods “required two duties of those who desired to go to them hereafter, one of which was to abstain from killing cows because under that form the gods were adored; the other was to show kindness to the Brahmins, who were the worshipers of the gods.”

Max Weber arrived at a similar conclusion when he stated:

“There is no universal ethic but only a status and professionally differentiated dharma according to caste”

The Religion of India the Sociology of Hinduism and Buddhism

Dr Ambedkar’s observations in his book The Riddles in Hinduism were identical to Weber’s. The very first chapter, The Difficulty in Knowing Who Is a Hindu, is centered around an attempt to define some common ethic or even creed that binds Hindus together. Ambedkar arrived at the conclusion that one is a Hindu precisely because one is born into the faith and not due to any universal ethic that binds individuals together under a set of agreed-upon moral rules.

Just as it is impossible to practice larceny in a culture that has no concept of private property, similarly it is impossible to practice intolerance in a culture that believes in nothing. I suspect this is the secret of Indian ‘tolerance.’ Tolerance can only be measured in opposition to what one cannot tolerate. The act of enduring what one cannot tolerate is in effect practicing tolerance. It is only in this context that tolerance acquires a moral quality. One however cannot practice tolerance when one subscribes to no real beliefs whose limits can be tested. The Indian approaches the world with extreme apathy and conflates his indifference for tolerance.

In conclusion, the difference between Confucianism and Hinduism can be observed in their differing worldviews despite some overlap in social conventions. Hinduism’s focus is on mystical objectives, as it dismisses reality as we understand it as illusionary. Confucianism’s focus is squarely on this world, and its chief emphasis is social and political harmony.

217 Comments

Filed under Asia, Catholicism, China, Christianity, Culture, Ethics, Guest Posts, Hinduism, India, Jurisprudence, Left, Maoism, Marxism, Metaphysics, Philosophy, Political Science, Regional, Religion, Sociology, South Asia

On Truths and Falsehoods: “True” Poison and “False” Poison are Both Still Poison

 

Steve: It’s sure something to think about. I don’t like either side, but I’d prefer a world ruled by political correctness than actual fascism.

It sure is a shitty choice, and the Cultural Left has stated that I am an enemy, but still I would rather be ruled by my enemies than these guys. I don’t think they will be that hard on me anyway.

Steve: I’d like if we were mature enough to accept HBD and still be ethical and kind but sometimes

That has been the position of this site for some time now, but I now think this is no longer possible. Humans just don’t work that way.

Steve: I worry that the pendulum has to swing to one extreme or the other.

Societies can and do work this way at times. It’s not a cliché!

Steve: We might miss the politically correct world one day.

No shit. They suck, but they’re worse than NAZIS? Um, NO.

Steve: Could it be….better… that people are ignorant about it, that our media tries to keep it that way, intentionally or unintentionally?

I am starting to see why people hide this stuff. That video is what happens when people start signing onto HBD. Some facts might just be so toxic and evil that we might as well shut them down. What’s going to happen if we deny HBD? The sky will fall?

Look, poison’s poison. Sure poisonous lies are ugly things, but so are poisonous truths. If you hand me something to eat and say, “Hey this stuff is all falsehood. And it’s also poison,” of course I won’t eat it and I’ll be glad I didn’t consume a falsehood because I dislike lies. But if you hand me the same stuff, I’m suddenly supposed to consume this poison just because it’s scientifically validated? “Here, eat this poison! Science just proved that this poison is a scientific truth!” So what? What do I care? Poison’s poison. I won’t eat poison because it’s bad for me. I don’t care if the journal Science just proved this particular poison is scientific fact. Great. It’s proven fact. Now I should eat it? Hell, no, it’s poison. I don’t eat poison.

Steve: On the other hand, if the mainstream doesn’t accept reality, isn’t there a danger it will empower the far right?

We are screwed either way. It pisses some off and makes them turn into the people in this video, but also if you acknowledge HBD as true, you probably create even more people in this video. We are screwed either way, but denial probably creates fewer Nazis than acknowledgement.

Steve: Doesn’t the truth have to come out in the end?

Who knows? I’m not sure it matters, since once the truth of HBD comes out, it seems like you just create a ton of Nazis, so I think we should put off this truth coming out thing.

5 Comments

Filed under Fascism, Nazism, Philosophy, Political Science, Race Realism, Racism

Richard Spencer Addressing the National Policy Institute

Jared Taylor’s organization sponsored their annual confab, and I must say this was one of the worst ones yet. Wait, it was the worst one yet. The NPI has now gone full Nazi. I wonder what Mr. Taylor’s wife thinks about that? Jared watered these strange little plants for years no doubt knowing full well what sort of a nasty garden he was cultivating, and now that the crop is ready to harvest, is he surprised at what bloomed? Right what it said on the seed package, right?

The white sheets are coming off these guys in a big way. I recognized a few of the people there. Harlem Venison was there. I know why he went there, but I say he made a big mistake. Sometimes you just walk in the wrong party, you know? In that case, you say, sorry, wrong address. Do you stay for a drink? Maybe you do, and maybe you don’t. But with some accidental parties, you’re glad you wrote the address down once you take a good look a the revelers. Parties are usually good fun, but some folks are so seedy you don’t even want to have a beer with them, you know? And some parties are not all good fun. Some wild parties are downright dangerous, and it’s smarter to just stay home alone. Case in point.

Harlem says he’s not a White nationalist, and I agree with that. So what’s he doing here? Bad choice. He only wants to take down antiracism as a dogma. Which sort of makes sense considering what sort of weeds have sprung up in that once well-tended community garden. But really, in life you have to choose your enemies. Either antiracist dogma is the enemy that needs to be fought, and doing so by making alliance with these jugend is the right thing to do in terms of the enemy of my enemy is my friend, or it’s the other way around. And yeah, that’s a moral question all right. Not such a simple one either.

The antis hate me as much as they ever did, but that’s too bad because much as the feelings are mutual on my end, I would very much prefer to ally with the Cultural Left against this NPI malignancy than the other way around.

You pick your “enemies” in life. And so with your “friends.” Half of your enemies are really frenemies, and it’s even worse than that with your friends. First you brutally sort them into two calculatingly amoral piles. If you have any sense, you do so strategically. Sometimes allying with the bad guys against the worst guys is not only cynical realpolitik and situation ethics but also moral high reason if not moral righteousness of the highest order.

If you sit around waiting for the good guys versus bad guys war, you’ll sit out every fight because there are no good guys in war. And in so doing, you will allow your world to be potentially overrun by the worst Orcs of your nightmares all because the good guys couldn’t pass your petty purity test.

Virginity tests went out a long time ago in the West. In a world where we all sullied, they never made sense anyway. There are crystalline whores singing in the lofty crags and black-eyes virgins grunting in the boiling mud. A hymen’s a piece of flesh, not an honor badge. It’s about as meaningful as a hangnail. There’s a reason prigs are so hated. They demand purity and chastity in in a world where few humans measure up, not that anyone should anyway. Priggism is a con, a lie, a scam, a shield for projecting sinners with weighted hearts.

In real life, you get your hands dirty, you don’t always get to wash up right away, and the stains don’t always wash out. Cloisters are for nuns, and they have earned the privilege of residence. The rest of us don’t have that luxury. We have to wrestle in the mud like everyone else. A man chooses his battles wisely, and almost almost no one wears black or white in war anymore. Every army is a shade of one or the other or both or neither, and that’s when the colors are discernible at all. Roll them unfiltered,  drink it straight, and die with your boots on. Dead is dead, but at least you went down fighting.

Pick your poison and head to the front. Some wars can’t be sat out.

48 Comments

Filed under Anti-Racism, Conservatism, Ethics, Fascism, Nazism, Philosophy, Political Science, Racism, White Nationalism