The Pestilence of Liberal Democracy

This an expansion of a comment I posted on Z blog.

I think the last greatest metapolitical shift in the history of Western Europe was the execution (1649) of Charles I at the hands of the Cromwellian parliamentary gang.

Here is how the late British philosopher Anthony Ludovici describes the struggle in his A Defence of Aristocracy:

“The triumph of Parliament did not mean the triumph of the liberties of the people. It meant the triumph of a new morality, a new outlook on life, and a new understanding of what life was worth. It meant the triumph of the morality of unrestricted competition, of uncontrolled and unguided trade, and of a policy of neglect in regard to all things that really mattered.” [pgs. 161-162]

The forces that are beyond political bureaucratization like religion, family, and ethnocultural ties/blood ties determine metapolitics. This particular triad prevents political accretion turning into a malignancy.

After 1649, the malignant forces were in the ascendance. They were to systematically destroy this defensive triad so as to clear the way for the ‘new morality’, which meant social organic body would serve the commercial/monetary interests and not vice versa.

The following are the weapons deployed to sabotage the three metapolitical pillars:

  • Freedom of Expression/Speech: against Religion and that which was held as sacred; the bifurcation of freedom and responsibility; in other words, a ‘freedom’ bereft of self-restraint.
  • Sexual Liberation/Deviancy/Libertinism: against the Family; the target was to undermine responsible motherhood without which there is no guarantee that a people would survive as a distinct race/ethnicity.
  • Commercial competition: against the organic camaraderie of a society; pit one against the other in the name of ‘individual enterprise’; reduce men into consumers with unquenchable material thirsts.

Now, if you try to read the last 500 years of Occidental history against the aforementioned background, you will understand how a full-fledged ‘liberal democracy’ is a stage of total, vicious, and wicked political bureaucratization of every aspect of life.

The Japanese: A Highly Intelligent (?) Yet Vanishing People

The Japanese appear to be on the road to extinction. The demographics augur a depressing scenario.

A hundred years ago this race of men was radiating with energy and vitality. The swiftness with which it adopted industrialization was just frightening.

The Japanese displayed exemplary intra-racial discipline. They took on the Occident when the latter’s physical dominance of the globe was at its zenith. The wounds they inflicted on the British imperial prestige in the Far East during the Second World War proved terminal for British naval supremacy.

Then, they fought a costly war with their Pacific neighbors i.e the USA. It ended in humiliation. Japan was occupied by the victorious US forces. It was the first and only time in their thousands of years of history that the Japanese were occupied by a foreign power.

They signed a constitutional framework at gunpoint. From then on, they were to focus their racial and cultural energies on commerce and mass industrial output.

And, indeed, what a transformation it was !!

Sony, Toshiba, Yamaha, Mitsubishi, Hitachi, Toyota, Honda, Suzuki, Nissan, Panasonic, Fujitsu, Canon, etc. planted the Japanese commercial flag all over the world.

But then something happened. Consumerist decadence began to set in.

Commercial health became paramount. Economics enveloped the whole social existence.

Material prosperity scarred the Japanese spirit.

Why did the Japanese culture, traditions, wisdom etc. fail to shield the Japanese spirit from the gangrene of modernity?

Your technological achievements give an impression that you are a highly intelligent and smart group of people. But, at the same time, you seem to be disappearing as a racial group.

What kind of ‘superior intelligence’ is this that ultimately pushes you over the precipice?

A people so committed to their own ethno-cultural destruction can be anything but intelligent and wise.

When Metaphysics Becomes the Handmaiden of Physics

Some standard definitions of ‘dreaming’ are as follows:

“something which one seems to see or experience during asleep”

“a dream is an imaginary series of events that you experience in your mind while your are asleep.”

Likewise, some standard definitions of ‘sleep’ are as follows:

“rest in a state of natural unconsciousness.”

“sleep is the natural state of rest in which your mind and body are inactive and unconscious.”

Now, compare the two set of definitions.

If the mind [which is consciousness] is ‘inactive’ and ‘unconscious’ when I am asleep, how does ‘experience’ take place in an entity which is by definition is in a state of unconsciousness?

Since experience and seeing imply consciousness, what is this unconscious seeing that occurs in dreaming?

Who dreams when I am asleep?

What is this realm?

What is this ‘I’?

How many I’s are there?

The meltdown will continue…unless there is a recognition that it was a mistake to apply the vocabulary of physics to matters that are and will remain metaphysical.

The Flip Side of Being The Most Spoken Language

Has the globalization of the English language been intellectually beneficial for the native White English speakers [Britishers, Americans, Canadians, Australians, and New Zealanders] and other non-English speaking Occidentals?

Or

Has it rendered them susceptible to greater political manipulation?

They understand the world in the English language.

Is this understanding superfluous or deep?

Is it primary or secondary?

Look at it this way.

Many of us do not need a translator or a Routledge/Oxford/Cambridge/Penguin/Palgrave Macmillan handbook to know what is taking place in the Occident.

Familiarity with English [as far as West Asia and South Asia are concerned] and in other cases French and German outside academia is quite common.

Unlike in the West where the academia acts as a kind of suspicious intermediary, we know politics in the West like the back of our hands.

Therefore, here, political elites find it tremendously difficult to sell ‘meaningful engagement with the West’ and other related nonsense.

People are generally aware (((who))) holds the bridle of the West and who, eventually, would gain from this ‘engagement’.

Now, put the Occident in the aforementioned context.

How many in the Occident know Arabic, Persian, Urdu, Turkish etc. outside of the academia?

When they read the news, how do they know that a certain anti-western leader’s words have been translated correctly? Or that a certain country’s internal political dynamics, history, society etc. are being portrayed accurately?

The correct answers to these inquiries will reveal why it has been so easy for Western political elites to gain enthusiasts and addicts for their ‘Judeo-Christian/Rome Jerusalem/Western Civilization is superior’ fantasies.

Afghanistan As China’s Vietnam

“Under Reagan, the Taliban, then called Mujahideen, were invited to the White House for photo-ops and declared the Afghani equivalent of our Founding Fathers.”

Taliban emerged later in the mid-90’s as a force that sought to crush the CIA warlords whose Bacha Bazi and other devilish deeds were making life more hellish for the ordinary Afghans.

Banned Hipster

Michael Scheuer has some very sharp words about Afghanistan as he always has. He points out the British called certain military actions “punitive campaigns.” You go into a country, kill a bunch of men, women, and children, bomb a bunch of buildings, blow up some bridges and dams … then you leave. You know they will leave you alone for a couple of years as they rebuild.

On the surface at least this is what Scheuer wanted for Afghanistan. Go in, kill Osama Bin Laden, kill the Taliban leadership, bomb weddings to demoralize the population, then get the hell out, by 2004 at the latest.

But the US stayed for 20 years. Why? Scheuer makes a chilling revelation. He claims during the initial planning for the war, the Pentagon completely ignored the people who were Afghanistan specialists. He mentions a specific paper done that laid out the basic knowledge and…

View original post 1,295 more words

Conspiracy Theories – Official and Non-Official

What is an official conspiracy theory?

It is an explanation, usually in the form of a ‘commission report’, which the bureaucratic machinery finds politically safe to release to the public.

What is an unofficial conspiracy theory?

It is an explanation which the citizens come up with after they identify gaps and omissions in the official narrative.

Who is a Deep Throat?

He is someone who leaks information to the press as long as it is in his best interest.

عبد القادر بیدل دهلوی در بارگاه اقدس جناب ختمی مرتبت (صلی الله علیه وآله وسلم)

بیدل‌ کسی به عرش حقیقت نمی‌رسد

تا خاک راه احمد مرسل (ص ) نمی‌شود

Islam and the White Race – II

One of the most preposterous lines of thought that I often come across on various fora is the laughable assumption that ‘Islamization’ [another dubious term nevertheless] of a particular area implies complete decimation of indigenous races, languages, and cultures. In other words, you would ultimately be transformed into Arab Bedouins.

Being an Arab and being a Muslim are two entirely different things.

I am an Indo-Aryan by race. My distant ancestors stood against the invading waves of Arab armies when in the 7th century they moved eastwards towards what today constitutes Iran, Pakistan, and Afghanistan.

The defenders were defeated and became subjects of the new ruling elite. It was a purely political struggle between two Imperial houses. The Arabs replaced the Persian Sassanids as regional hegemons. This Arab expansion, at the expense of administratively collapsing neighbors, had a lot to do with deadly intra-Arab power struggles [which I will touch upon in some other post].

Just as in today’s world mediocre politicians polish their legacies by embarking on ‘humanitarian interventions’ and aggressive wars abroad, there were factions within the Arab power elite who had to build their own ‘legacies’ to denigrate those whose exemplary conduct during and after Prophet (Peace and Blessings be Upon Him and the Ahl al Bayt) had become indigestible due to tribal and personal jealousies.

That the Arab forces were religiously Muslim did not make this engagement an ‘Islam vs Zoroastrianism/Hinduism’ affair.

If battlefield and military engagements could fundamentally transform a people’s spirit, the Greek and Mongol incursions in the Khorasan and Western Indus regions would have resulted in the spiritual Hellenization and Tengerisation of this part of the world respectively. None of that ever happened. It takes more than that to revolutionize the spirit of a people.

Besides, anyone who thinks that his ancestors were forcefully converted to a ‘foreign faith’ unconsciously sketches a damning picture of his own forefathers. I am not prepared to condemn my direct predecessors.

As I wrote in the last part, Islam addresses the human nature; not Arab, Persian, Indian, Turkic, White, Han, Korean, Japanese, Black natures etc.

Race is a biological fact as obvious as life and death.

It has a certain sanctity.

As the Holy Quran says:

“O mankind! Lo! We have created you male and female, and have made you nations and tribes that ye may know one another. Lo! the noblest of you, in the sight of Allah, is the best in conduct. Lo! Allah is Knower, Aware.” [49:13]

In light of the above verse, if now someone denies races and ethnicities, he not only denies the divine order but also displays sheer ignorance of reality.

Similarly, he who advocates forced mixing of various nations and tribes to eradicate their natural differences tinkers with the divine equilibrium and invites disorder and mayhem.

Even people who live under one roof are expected to respect each other’s private space.

Naturally, then, it is expected that macro-differences [racial, ethnic, tribal, and linguistic] too should be acknowledged and not trampled upon.

Each race, ethnicity, tribe, etc. has the divine right to maintain its distinct outlook.

And, thus, the noblest is the one who recognizes the natural differences and ventures to align himself with divine wisdom.

(to be continued)

What is Taqiyah?….And What is NOT

Please carefully read the following definition. It will help you spot whether the term is being used correctly or someone is just showing off his/her pedestrian grasp of Islamic jurisprudence.

||| Taqiyah, literally meaning ‘to safeguard’ or ‘to defend’, is a defensive mechanism that becomes operational when one is confronted with severe religious oppression. To save his/her life, he/she dissimulates his/her true religious beliefs beneath the garb of the ‘official line’ which he/she is forced to adhere on pain of death by the oppressor. |||

Now, the italics in the above text are of crucial importance. These are the conditions which trigger this doctrine. If they are not present then the doctrine becomes automatically inapplicable.

Oftentimes ignorant writers use this term as a synonym for ‘deception’ as if it is some Machiavellian directive which is deployed to divert your opponent’s focus in some run-of-the-mill conflict.

It does NOT mean wherever Muslims are in a minority, they are religiously sanctioned to lie, cheat, and swindle whenever they come into contact with those who do not happen to be Muslims. Anyone who holds on the contrary is only making a fool of himself.

You only undermine your own credibility if you toss around terms which you might find difficult even to pronounce correctly.

Yesterday I came across this essay [ https://m.rediff.com/news/column/rajeev-srinivasan-pakistan-will-soon-control-all-of-afghanistan/20210714.htm ], which was published on Rediff.com, an Indian web news portal. It was written by someone named Rajeev Srinivasan.

At the end of his ‘geopolitical analysis’, Mr. Srinivasan cautions his readers against taking him seriously.

He writes:

“One, the Afghans are not superhuman. Maharaja Ranjit Singh did defeat the Afghans and keep them under his control for some years.

Two, unless they are doing taqiya, both the Taliban and Pakistan, despite avowed support for Muslims, have been deathly silent about the Uyghurs.”

Till next time.

‘You DO NOT Have a Right To An Opinion On A Topic About Which You Know Little or Nothing’

I have tremendous regard for Dr. Matthew Raphael Johnson who presents a weekly podcast at Radio Albion.

Being a scholar of Russian Orthodox Church and philosophy and belonging to the Orthodox tradition himself, he brings a fresh perspective on things which one rarely comes across in the Anglophone world.

At the start of a podcast, which was broadcasted almost a decade ago, he said:

“Today is October 18th 2011. It is my 40th birthday today…As I get older there are a few things that are happening; I am losing patience with the pedestrian mentality in politics and history. This is a big problem largely because it’s not harmless. This sort of thing is not a hobby. This kind of thing is not something you should be doing because you need to prove to the world that you are smart. You could do a lot of damage. And if you go through the blogs and you see people some of whom have good intentions some of whom have very bad intentions spreading a lot of rumors and half-truths, not necessarily because they are deliberately manipulating people but they simply don’t know any better. And I tell you something. These forty years, forty years today and there is one thing about our social life that I have learnt and that really going to be on my tombstone one day. An epitaph. And that’s this simple phrase, and I want you to think about it in great detail and depth: ‘You DO NOT have a right to an opinion on a topic about which you know little or nothing.’ That statement in a lot very important ways summarizes the epistemology of Plato. It summarizes a lot of the semi-aristocratic approach to these disciplines. You know when I first got into this field 21 years ago, I haven’t taken a vacation; even when I do go away or do something that supposed to be fun, I bring all my books with me. I never stop thinking about these things which is a good thing and a terrible thing in many ways…In coming with even a tentative opinion on let’s say the political thought of James Madison, Napoleon, the French Revolution, you are talking about 10 solid full time years minimum in my opinion of going over the massive almost ridiculously massive amount of material out there. And then may be you can a very tentative opinion that you put forth with great trepidation. When somebody is talking about a topic, a very important topic, a very complicated topic, they think they know a few things; they have read a couple of books about it and they think they something. They have NO IDEA what they are missing. They have no idea the amount of material that you need to go through even for a tentative opinion. I am saying 10 years minimum and that’s as a full-time occupation. When I was in grad school and then afterwards at the Barnes Review and places like this, I lost a lot of sleep because I needed to solve certain problems. Who was right in the 19th century say the Russian Empire or Ukraine? What makes more sense form our point of view? An empire or a strong nation-state? These kind of questions. I lost sleep. And let me tell you I have lost friends and even family members over these issues. And the amount of material, the tens of thousands of pages whether it be in English or Russian or Ukrainian or Serbian that I poured through. And the amount of time I lost, the occupations I couldn’t do, the attacks that I have come under by the professional academics for even bringing up some of these topics in the way that we do and going through this ridiculously massive amount of material that the amateurs out there don’t even know exists, never mind, has ever been through. And 20 years of this non-stop, pretty much 365 days a year and that level of intensity; constant reading and constant writing and constant talking with professors and other experts and trying to ask the right questions and getting everything together and really developing almost an obsession, almost a pathological condition; going over this stuff for this many years in a relatively specialized field, YOU WILL PARDON ME IF I GET A LITTLE SNIPPY WHEN SOME PUNK WRITES ME WHO HAS READ A COUPLE OF BOOKS ON THIS…AND HE IS GONNA START LECTURING ME ON IT; SO ONE OF THE FEW TIMES YOU KNOW I AM GONNA CLOCK SOMEBODY IF THEY ARE IN FRONT OF ME. If you are not a bona fide expert on a topic; either you have the education; you have the publications; you have all the years you got to put in to even come up with a tentative opinion on these topics; especially topics like the British Empire, French Revolution, or Unification of Germany; the amount of material you couldn’t shoot through; you could build a house with just the English language material on this topic; PLEASE SHUT UP IF YOU HAVEN’T GONE THROUGH ALL OF IT OR MOST OF IT. YOU DON’T KNOW. YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU MIGHT BE MISSING; WHAT YOU HAVEN’T COME ACROSS. One if the things that I have learned in these…now 20 full time years. I have never had a normal job. This is what I have done FULL-TIME since I was 18. When you simply don’t know and you go out and you are on these stupid blogs and you are trying to say something and if you make an error; we all make silly errors, but I am talking about serious stuff where you are coming up with theories that are contradicted by facts you don’t know exists because you haven’t been through the material and the years it takes to get through it all and the SUFFERING that it takes; this is not something you used to read after dinner because it’s relaxing; this is something that you do and it’s painful sometimes. You are constantly suffering through these problems. I used to wake up at 2 in the morning; run to my desk and go through…because I have some inspiration on a particular topic. I mean this is how you live. This is a life style that you choose. It’s not a hobby. It’s not something you people decide to do because it makes you seem smart or because you think it is going to impress someone or you are going to change the world or you are gonna be a leader or you wanna make a couple of bucks. When you get on these blogs you see this crap; just pure factual absurdity…think of a young student going through this and they start believing some of this stuff is true; you are poisoning the atmosphere; you are poisoning the debate when you inject this kind of ignorance and extreme amateurism into these things. You could do a lot of damage and you could hurt a lot of people because if they believe some of this is true and they go spouting it, they are gonna sound like morons.”