Religiously-inspired imperialism began with the more localized expansion of the Israelites in the Levant region two thousand years before the birth of Christianity.[2] However, it was soon after the appropriation of the original teachings and spiritual movement of Jesus, and the massive expanse of this later, corrupt form of post-Constantine Christianity, that the expansion of the Abrahamic ideology began to take on truly global proportions. As the French thinker Alain de Benoist explains, this catastrophe of European history,
. . . the conversion of Europe to Christianity and the more or less complete integration of the European mind into the Christian mentality, was one of the most catastrophic events in world history — a catastrophe in the proper sense of the word . . .[3]
With the ascent of the Abrahamic onslaught came the counter-proportional descent of Europe’s traditional Dharmic civilization.
Christianity, in retrospect, was but one of several artificially constructed, new movements that all fall under the general term “Abrahamic,” named after the infamous founder of fanatical religious exclusivity, Abraham. Whether we speak of Judeo-Christian “holy wars” and Inquisitions, or the bloody and unending Islamic jihads against “infidels,” or the genocide of over 100 million people in the name of Marxist revolution, all four of these Abrahamic movements have been responsible for more destruction, loss of life, and social mayhem than all other ideas, religions, and ideologies in world history combined.
The Abrahamic onslaught has been an unparalleled juggernaut of death. While all four ideologies have remained apparently divided by dogmatic, sectarian concerns, all Abrahamic movements have been fanatically united in both their common origin, and in their shared aim of annihilating their perceived enemy of Dharma from the earth, and seeking sole domination of world power for themselves alone. While Judaism, Christianity and Islam have been at war with each other for millennia, they are all united in their insistence that Dharma is their principal and most hated enemy.
Dharma and Abrahamism are exact opposites in every way. Dharma and Abrahamism stand for two radically opposed visions for humanity’s future. Dharma stands for nature, peace, diversity, and reason. Abrahamism stands for artificiality, war, uniformity, and fanaticism. They are the only two real ideological poles of significance in the last two thousand years. There has been an ongoing Two-Thousand Year War between these two opposing worldviews that has shaped the course of much of human history since this conflict’s start. Every philosophical construct, religious denomination, political movement and worldview of the past two millennia falls squarely in one camp or the other. Every human being living today falls squarely into one camp or the other. Dharma and Abrahamism are the only two meaningful ideological choices for humanity today. And for the duration of this Two-Thousand Year War, Dharma has been on the losing side as Abrahamism has continuously succeeded in its unrivalled ascendancy.
The destructive ascendancy of Abrahamism is, however, about to come to an end. We are now about to witness a period of Dharmodaya — of Dharma ascending.
Conflict Theory (Virodha-Vardhana-Vada)
We will now examine the primary metaphysical principle and political mechanism that has fueled the rapid hegemonic expansion of Abrahamism for the last several thousand years. The philosophical essence of the Abrahamic worldview and praxis is what I have personally named Virodha-Vardhana-Vada. This is an original Sanskrit term that I have created in order to accurately convey the very heart of Abrahamism in terms of its metaphysics, its social-political methodology, and its end-goal objective. Virodha-Vardhana-Vada can be translated as “the theory of growth through conflict,” or alternatively and more simply, Conflict Theory.
In a comparative analysis of the two opposing ideologies of Dharma and Abrahamism, Dharma Theory, on the one hand, seeks to establish human happiness and prosperity through the allied means of the use of Natural Law, the harmonious reconciliation of diversity, the maintenance of order in the face of chaos, the establishment of a meaningful peace for as many sentient beings as possible, and vertical (spiritual) advancement. Dharma is predicated upon creation, not destruction.
Conflict Theory, by stark contrast, blatantly declares that it seeks to establish prosperity and progress through means of artificial social deconstruction, conflict, chaos, the direct confrontation of seemingly contrasting forces and interests, and the horizontal (mundane) leveling of every and all hierarchical structures and thought systems.
Conflict Theory purposefully and artificially forces the inter-group alienation of differing classes, genders, ethnicities, religious paths, sexual orientations and even generational distinctions of human beings against one another in the utopian anticipation that, when the dust of such dualistic clashes finally settles, and the blood has been washed off the streets, the resulting situation will be one in which a greater state of being will have then been born.
Conflict Theory is designed to contrive a falsely pronounced sense of “us” versus “them,” of Black versus White, of proletariat versus middle class, of female versus male, of Islam versus the non-Islamic communities, of gay versus straight, of urban versus rural, and of young versus old.[4] Abrahamist agitators employ this divisive tactic in order to artificially exacerbate the otherwise quite natural and reconcilable differences that are found among people, and to forcibly level such differences in a consciously and deliberately horizontal social fashion. It is the goal of Conflict Theory to replace natural differences, such as the natural harmony of vertical hierarchy, along with the inherent psycho-physical differences that exist between people, with a monotonous, enforced uniformity of thought, behavior, and social outcome. Conflict Theory is a via negativa predicated upon the destruction of all time-honored and universally acknowledged standards of reality, not the creation of any recognizable positive reality.
Perhaps the starkest and most prevalent example of Conflict Theory that has wrought havoc upon the modern era has been the ersatz philosophy of Marxism. Marxism marks a sharp departure from the earlier forms of Abrahamist Conflict Theory in several ways. Marxism attempted to take this root essence of Abrahamic philosophical-praxis that I call Conflict Theory and transform it into an exacting “science” of social change with pseudo-philosophical aspirations. Moreover, unlike the three previous incarnations of Abrahamism (Judaism, mainstream Christianity and Islam), Marxism rids itself of any spiritual pretense whatsoever, and openly declares itself an atheistic movement.
As the latter-day manifestation and most efficiently destructive form of Abrahamism, Marxism posits the notion that the “inevitable march of human history,” as well as human “progress,” happiness, evolution, and personal growth, is achieved through the mechanism of direct conflict — most especially class conflict. Marxism is specifically based upon the earlier Hegelian notion of thesis-antithesis-synthesis,[5] as well as dialectical materialism. Conflict Theory, in all its forms, is philosophically and practically the exact opposite of Dharma theory.
For Marxism, every element of Natural Law represents the thesis. The social envy and degeneration instigated by Marxism represents the antithesis. The synthesis is a new atheistic, Communist world order.
Though Conflict Theory finds the zenith of its philosophical expression in the seemingly secular vehicle of Marxist thought, Conflict Theory forms the very heart of all Abrahamic ideologies, stretching back to and exemplified by Abraham himself. All forms of Abrahamism employ a program of agitation of the masses as a violent tool for destructive, “progressive” religious and/or social change.[6]
Comparison of Abrahamism with Dharma
Abrahamism
Dharma Nationalism
Covenantal relationship with Yahweh/Allah.
Qualitative unitive correlation with God in loving relationship.
Anti-nature.
; Pro-nature.
Egalitarianism.
Qualitative distinction.
Women are inferior (superior for Marxism).
Women are different but equal.
Agitation of the masses as a violent tool for destructive, “progressive” social change.
Encouragement of the masses to emulate the ideal models in society in order to encourage their individual elevation and the realization of their individual inner potential.
Man is essentially evil and/or animalistic.
Man is essentially good, but possessed of the ability to choose to
do evil.
Man is either body only (Judaism/Marxism), or a body with a soul as an appendage (Pauline Christianity/Islam).
Man is consciousness (soul) temporarily encased within a material form.
The world is inherently evil.
The world is a manifestation of one of God’s energies, thus the world is good.
Economic encroachment based upon a strategy of looting and confiscating the assets of economic producers for redistribution amongst their own nonproductive supporters.
Encouragement of the productive and creative segment of society.
With each of the four historically successive waves of Abrahamic expression, we see the quintessential esse (essence) of the Abrahamic behavioral mindset becoming increasingly pronounced, increasingly intense, and increasingly brutal. Beginning historically with Judaism and reaching its end-point with Marxism, we see the corrosive ideological refinement, the violent excesses, the geographical and intellectual scope of expanse, the cultural sphere of influence, and the brute power of Abrahamism incrementally increase. In the following section, we will examine the individual organizational instances of Abrahamism throughout the last four millennia.
Judaism
“Tob shebbe goyyim harog — Even the best of the Goyim (non-Abrahamists) should be killed.”
Talmud: Soferim 15, Rule 10[7]
It is in the ancient texts of the Old Testament that we trace the earliest development of Abrahamism.[8] It is specifically during the earliest time period of Judaism’s founding, and within the cultural milieu of the world of the Old Testament, that we first encounter the very founder of Abrahamism himself.
In brief, Abraham (1812–1637 BCE) was a merchant originating in the Mesopotamian Vedic city of Ur. Thus, Abraham himself was most likely originally a follower of Dharma previous to his exile from Ur, and his subsequent journey westward to the Levant region. It was in the area today known as Palestine that a localized desert divinity named variously El, Yahweh, and by other names[9] appeared to Abraham to offer the first of what would eventually become several covenantal pacts with Abraham and his descendents that would forever alter the loosely confederated societies, culturally speaking, of Dharmic world civilization.
The Book of Genesis (12:1–3) records several very worldly incentives that were given to Abraham by this local desert god in return for Abraham and his descendents becoming devotees of Yahweh. These favors included the possession of a future nation, the glorification of their family name, Yahweh’s blessings upon their allies and converse protection against their enemies, and — most important of all for a family of disgraced merchants — land and property.[10]
It is in the formation of this very first, tit for tat covenant between Abraham and the channeled being Yahweh that we witness the seeds of Conflict Theory in its first occurrence on the world stage. Jacob Burckhardt (1818–1897) explains the central place of Yahweh in the formulation of Conflict Theory in the following way: “Among the Jews we find history viewed as a great antithesis, i.e., a theocracy composed of the true Yahweh worshippers on the one hand, and all their enemies ranged against it on the other. Their history is a series of indictments, argumentations, and testimonies in a long, drawn-out lawsuit.”[11] Using the framework of this covenantal codependency with Yahweh as their ideological bulwark, each and every successive generation of Abrahamists now viewed reality as consisting of an opportunistic dynamic of dualistic, conflictual tendencies: “chosen” versus the cattle; the “true believers” versus the pagans (i.e., followers of Dharma); the Ummah (global community of Islam) versus the infidels; the “proletariat” versus the aristocratic classes — the forcefully imposed realm of Yahweh versus the natural order.
Rather than seeking to retain the relative harmony that existed between classes, tribes, peoples, nations and religions that had existed for millennia previous to the birth of Abrahamism, there was now born into the world the systematic ideology of radical exclusivity that saw itself as being eternally at war with the natural order, and everything that stood for that natural order. Moreover, in the minds of the Abrahamists, this can only be a war to the death.
Pauline Christianity
“All formal dogmatic religions are fallacious and must never be accepted by self-respecting persons as final. To teach superstitions as truths is a most terrible thing. The child’s mind accepts and believes them, and only through great pain, and perhaps tragedy, can he be after years relieved of them. In fact men will fight for a superstition quite as quickly as for a living truth.”
Hypatia[12] (ca. 350–415 CE)
When we look at the teachings and the personal characteristics of the spiritual teacher known as Jesus, those who have a deeper spiritual insight tend to see a tremendous disconnect between this individual as a sage versus the later, highly politicized organizational monstrosity called Christianity. The latter has all too often engaged in the very opposite of Truth, and usually in the very name of this profound Dharma teacher (Jesus). The person known as Jesus and contemporary Christianity could not be any more distinct from one another. These two phenomena are as radically opposed to one another as are the eternal spirit and the temporary material body. It is for this reason that I make the clear distinction between what I call Paleo-Christian versus Pauline-Christian.
The Paleo-Christians were the early mystical followers of Jesus who sincerely attempted to incorporate his teachings in their lives with a deeply esoteric, mystical and crypto-Vedic understanding. They sought gnosis, which comes directly from the equivalent Sanskrit word jnana, meaning direct spiritual insight.[13] These original followers of Jesus rejected the Old Testament, and the imposter god of the Old Testament,[14] as being in direct opposition to the teachings and the God of Jesus, respectively. Many of these early followers of Jesus were vegetarians,[15] believed in reincarnation,[16] practiced mystical yogic and meditational techniques to deepen their direct experience of God, and in many other ways conducted themselves in a manner akin to the sages of the other Dharmic spiritual paths of the ancient world.
The Pauline-Christians, on the other hand, were followers of Paul of Tarsus (5–67 CE) (also known as Saul). Paul had never actually met Jesus during Jesus’ earthly ministry, or learned directly from Jesus, but rather claimed to have had an apparition of Jesus appear to him on a road to Damascus. This resulted in his historically belated conversion from Judaism to the new movement inspired by the sage of Nazareth. Whether or not Paul was sincere in his abandonment of Judaism, the religion that Jesus himself patently rejected,[17] is highly debatable. What is not debatable is that Paul and his followers forever altered the theological understanding of Jesus’ personhood (Christology) and teachings forever, reintroducing much of the Old Testament baggage that Jesus himself had given his life to help his disciples grow beyond.
In his many epistles that now form a large part of the New Testament, Paul clearly transforms Jesus from a teacher into a divinity, indeed into the Divinity. Rather than viewing Jesus as a perfect teacher whose wor
ds were to be understood and whose actions were to be emulated, Paul now transformed Jesus into a God to be worshipped. Paul, along with multiple generations of his followers, took the pure teachings of the Dharma Master known as Jesus and reverted these teachings back to the materialistic, degenerate and evil practices of the earlier Yahweh-worshippers of Old Testament fame — all of which Jesus himself had clearly rejected.
The true followers of Jesus are, in actuality, those who are practicing Dharma (the Natural Way), with its inherent familial association with all pre-Abrahamic religio-cultures. The followers of contemporary, mainstream Christianity (Pauline-Christianity), on the other hand, are trapped in the tenacious hold of Abrahamism, with all that this Old Testament worldview and behavioral mindset implies.
The Dharma Manifesto Page 7