Lack of civil freedoms.
Inherent freedom of the human person.
Personhood subsumed in the amorphous masses.
Human personality never subsumed in the amorphous masses.
Democratic centralism.
Leadership principle.
Omnisexuality.
Heterosexuality.
Abortion on demand.
Respect for innocent life.
All means of production controlled by the state.
All means of production controlled by free and creative human persons and families.
Marxist philosophy, and the Communist movement in general, is without doubt the most destructive ideology humanity has ever been subjected to. Marxism represents the exact antithesis of Natural Law, of religion, of positive culture, of any form of national ideal, and of healthy tradition. Marxism is the polar opposite of life itself. It is the embodiment of the final, quintessential stage of the 4000-year-old failed Abrahamic experiment.
Communism has been responsible for the death, murder, torture and pain of more human beings than any ideology in world history (with, arguably, the possible exception of Islam). In China, the former Soviet Union, and the former Warsaw Pact nations of Eastern Europe, it has caused unprecedented environmental damage. Marxism is a culture-destroyer. Far from being “progressive” and leading societies toward greater advancement, Marxism has led the nations under its rule back to the Dark Ages. In each and every significant way, Marxism is the exact opposite of everything that Dharma and Natural Law has ever stood for. This explains why Communists have been among our greatest enemies for the last 150 years, and have tried to destroy us at every opportunity. Marxism is our natural enemy. Every Dharma Nationalist must oppose Marxist materialism with every breath we have.
In the following section, I will briefly comment on several modern sub-sects of Abrahamism that have come to prominence within the last few centuries.
Atheism
“The atheist cannot find God for the same reason a thief cannot find a policeman.”
Laurence J. Peter (1919–1990)[24]
Inclusion in human classification is predicated upon the ability of the individual human entity to both understand, and to subsequently choose to conduct his life in accordance with, the natural ordering principles of morality and nobility. It is precisely the freely-made choice to traverse the higher path of moral self-discipline that separates a true man from a sub-human, and not merely an accident of species. One may happen to have been born into the human species, but what makes one a noble man (arya-manushya) is the choice to exemplify in his own personal being the maximal potential for good that the gift of a human birth can reveal.
The source and basis of all moral, ethical, noble, and legal norms and behavior is the eternal and universal Natural Law. The aggregate principles of Natural Law constitute a metaphysically-based reality that is as substantially incontrovertible as are the principles of physics-based reality. Atheism is predicated upon the metaphysical assumption that metaphysical principles are non-existent, and thus devoid of meaning.
Since atheism intellectually disputes the existence of Natural Law, atheism is itself, subsequently, an attempt to negate the morality, ethics and legal norms and behavior that are predicated upon Natural Law. As Joseph de Maistre (1753–1821) explicates the atheist predilection to disassociate adherence to Natural Law from real world ethics: ‘’If there had been no moral evil on the earth, there would be no physical evil.’’[25] The existence of moral principles is a disjunctive proposition: morality either is or is not. There is no grey area. The unequivocal capacity of morality is rooted in its transcendent provenance.
Having rejected the basis of all meaningful morality, which subsequently necessitates the rejection of morality itself in both theory and praxis, atheism relegates itself to hedonistic Epicureanism.[26] Atheism is, thus, not as much an intellectual position as it is a moral pathology. Dharma affirms the indispensible importance of morality, ethics and nobility in any truly human society. All followers of Natural Law, then, reject all forms of atheism.
Satanism
“An insincere and evil friend is more to be feared than a wild beast; a wild beast may wound your body, but an evil friend will wound your mind.”
Gautama Buddha (563–483 BCE)[27]
Satanism (alternately known as Luciferianism)[28] is a puerile offshoot of the Abrahamic sects.[29] The pre-Abrahamic religions that followed Natural Law (Dharma) did not have a need for a Satan-type figure in the Biblical sense.[30] It is understood that the ultimate locus of both evil and good are firmly situated within the free-volitional will and the conscious choices of each individual moral agent, and not in an omnipotent, malevolent being who forces evil actions upon human individuals.[31] Thus, the existence of a personage named Satan, and consequently an organized method of communing with this non-existent being in the form of “Satanism,” is not predicated upon reason. Dharma Nationalism absolutely rejects Satanism in all its modern variants, as well as the worldview of Aleister Crowley, the innovator who gave rise to all modern Satanist ideology.
Radical Egalitarianism
“Equality may perhaps be a right, but no power on earth can ever turn it into a fact.”
Honoré de Balzac (1799–1850)
We live in a world of seemingly infinite instances of natural diversity. Diversity and difference in all form and substance is what makes the world the interesting, beautiful, and dynamic place that it is. If all existent objects, concepts, ontological states and species of beings were equally the same, life as we know it would be incapable of functioning, and beauty itself would cease to exist. With diversity, there of course comes inequality, since no two different things can ever be fully equivalent without those two different things sharing the exact same place in time and space — and thus being, not merely equal, but being rendered the very same thing. In this regard, as has been attributed to Aristotle, “The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal,” so attempts to bring about equality thus render unjust outcomes.
Is the warmth of the Sun “equal” with the sweet taste of water? Is physical strength “equal” with a philosophical concept? Is a baby’s smile equal to an erupting volcano? Diversity is as inherently unavoidable a part of Nature as are the forests, oceans, and sky. The diversity, inequality, variation, as well as the hierarchical and substantial ordering of such diversity that we find in the world around us are a beneficent reality. Thus, the basis of the natural order is expressed in the form of the qualitative hierarchy of all existent things. To deny the fact of inequality is to deny the natural order itself. The obsessively pathological and relentless need to force a quixotic sense of artificial equality upon all human diversity, conduct, relations, statuses, and outcomes is a failed weltanschauung (worldview) that is antithetical to Natural Law, and is thus wholly rejected.
Radical Universalism
“Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.”
G. K. Chesterton (1874–1936)[32]
The fallacy of Radical Universalism is one of the most frustratingly persistent and damaging ideas to have crept into popular wisdom around the world in the last two centuries. The fundamental claims of Radical Universalism is that all of the varying, individual religious traditions, sects, denominations and paths that presently exist, in addition to all those that have ever existed historically, all share the same ultimate goal of salvation, and that all theological systems are equally valid philosophically, despite the fact that their individual claims to absolute truth are mostly irreconcilably contradictory when these systems are analytically juxtaposed. In sim
pler terms, Radical Universalism makes the philosophically untenable claim that “all religions are the same,” thus rendering all individual instances of religious and spiritual expression devoid of meaning. Dharma philosophy, by contrast, teaches us that all religions are not the same.
Dharma has always maintained a very high degree of tolerance for differing views on a variety of spiritual and philosophical topics. However, Radical Universalism has substituted a healthy sense of intellectual tolerance for differing views with a blind acceptance of all views, regardless of their legitimacy or compatibility. We thoroughly reject the fallacy of Radical Universalism for the following reasons.
a) Radical Universalism is based upon circular logic: no other religious worldview other than Radical Universalism teaches the fallacy that all religions are the same. Therefore, since only Radical Universalism is teaching the supposed “truth” that all religions are the same, then Radical Universalism has positioned itself into a superior position vis-à-vis all other forms of religion, thus rendering the basic propositional claim of Radical Universalism itself an inherent absurdity.
b) Radical Universalism fosters moral relativism: to say that all religions are equal is also to say that all actions done in the name of all religions are equal. Thus, if a Muslim were to kill a pacifist Jain in the name of his religious belief, the action of murder is seen as being morally equivalent to the action of pacifism.
c) Radical Universalism negates the need for spirituality itself. Since all religious paths are the same, according to the fallacy of Radical Universalism, and thus any activity performed in the name of religion is just as valid as any other activity, then any activity at all that is performed in the name of religion is valid. Thus, if one wants to claim that his religious path consists of watching pornography all day, then this is just as legitimate a path as any other. Moreover, having rendered all paths equal, the paths themselves become unnecessary, since any activity can be claimed to be a legitimate path. To either follow a path, or not to follow a path, are rendered soteriologically equivalent. Consequently, the only path of any significant meaning remaining is the religious path of Radical Universalism — which by self-definition is not a path! Thus, spirituality itself ceases to have any meaning.
These are only several of the many reasons why Radical Universalism is an irrational proposition. For a much more in-depth critique of this topic, you may wish to refer to my book Radical Universalism: Are All Religions the Same?
Relativism
“Truths are not relative. What are relative are opinions about truth.”
Nicolás Gómez Dávila
The proponents of relativism claim that the intellectual, perceptual, phenomenological, and ethical norms dictated by reason are in actuality of a purely subjective nature, and thus subject to personal opinion. In other words, the claim is that we individually make our own truth. Relativists would claim that the mathematical proposition that 1+1=2 is only a relative opinion, and not a universally verifiable, intellectual principle. They would claim that the truth that it is morally unacceptable to murder another innocent human being for the sole interest of one’s own pleasure is only a relative opinion, and not a universally upheld ethical principle; and so on and so forth. Since at least the 1960s, the intellectually infantile, and pop culture-driven, relativist outlook has become one of the most omnipresent cornerstones of modern argumentation and self-serving justification.[33]
Though not known under the modernist term “relativism,” the comparable philosophical thread of skepticism is as perennial a tradition in Western philosophy as the ancient pre-Socratic Greek sophists. While the relativist debate in the history of philosophy has been a rather uninteresting one, nonetheless, relativism, in one guise or another, one subtle permutation or another, seems to have always been an option for the more intellectually lethargic among us.
On the absurdity of relativism, Nicolás Gómez Dávila had the following witty observation: “’Taste is relative’ is the excuse adopted by those eras that have bad taste.” What makes the relativist/skeptic argument ultimately unfulfilling could be put as follows, in an admittedly very tiny nutshell.
The majority of relativist postulations are predicated upon the clearly empirical fact of there being experiential, epistemic, cultural and philosophical diversity, both between human societies as well as between individual human beings. If we pose the proposition that “Circles are not rectangular,” the relativist would argue that if there is any diversity of opinion about the validity of this proposition, then, necessarily, knowing the truth or falsehood of it is a distinct impossibility. This position assumes that the very existential fact of diversity of opinion on any particular question negates the possibility of there being a valid answer to the question. Of course, this is an arbitrary, non-empiric, non-rational assumption.
The truth or falsehood of any given proposition is not dependent upon our individual ability to know its truth or falsehood, or upon the “style of reasoning” that we choose to employ, but upon the inherent truth or falsehood of the propositional statement itself. Thus, relativism leads to inherent absurdity.
Secular Materialism
“It is the duty of the governmental head to see that people strictly follow a religious life. A king should also be strict in chastising the atheists. In other words, an atheistic or godless government should never be supported by a king or governmental chief. That is the test of good government.”
Prabhupada[34]
The term secular materialism serves as the generic descriptive of all post-Enlightenment-era materialist philosophies. Dharma Nationalism is radically juxtaposed to everything secular materialism stands for — Marxism, Communism, atheism, cultural and moral degeneracy, anarchy, the radical feminization of culture, perverse sexuality, the eradication of the family, and so on. Secular materialism is the enemy of Dharma Nationalism. There will simply never be a reconciling of the two.
[1] All quotations from Dávila are taken from Nikos A. Salingaros’ Website, “Annotations on an Implicit Text”: The work of Nicolas Gomez-Davila, at www.math.utsa.edu/~yxk833/davila.html.
[2] One of the prime examples of such Abrahamist expansion was the conquest of Canaan (circa 1400–1350 BCE), described in the Book of Joshua and the first chapter of Judges.
[3] Alain de Benoist, On Being a Pagan, ed. Greg Johnson, trans. Jon Graham (Atlanta: Ultra, 2004), p. 5.
[4] Indeed, many of the now commonly accepted categories and classes of the population are in themselves artificially concocted groupings that had no recognized existence previous to their direct creation by a small coterie of intellectually dishonest Marxist ideologues of the twentieth century. These concocted categories include the modern, invented groupings of “teenagers” (first used in America in 1941), “gays” (first coined for “homosexual” in 1971), various hyphenated protected groups (“African-Americans,” “Hispanic-Americans,” etc.), and “the homeless,” among a myriad of other recently conjured, and now politically recognized and privileged, “communities.”
[5] Specifically, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel’s (1770–1831) notion that historical progression proceeded through a three-fold process of thesis (the currently prevailing worldview), antithesis (the current thesis being confronted by a novel worldview), and synthesis (resulting in the reconciliation of both thesis and antithesis, and the creation of a new prevailing worldview, which then becomes the new thesis).
[6] Historically, Judaism and Marxism have affected contrived mass agitation, riots and mob behavior through conspiratorial manipulation of the more proletarian and benighted segments of various societies. Such covert behavior has been the primary methodology used by Abrahamists specifically throughout the advanced industrial nations of the West for the last century. Christianity and Islam, on the other hand, have employed the demographically manipulative method of incr
easing their numbers in the communities they occupy via conversion to a numerically viable degree as to then safely overthrow the prevailing status quo of various traditionally non-Christian/non-Islamic societies. Once the Muslim populations of individual European nations reach a demographically viable point for the successful exertion of violent social pressure, for example, such nations will then be declared de facto Islamic nations by the leaders of the local Muslim populations.
[7] “The Tractate of the Scribes” (Hebrew: מסכת סופרים).
[8] Especially in the earliest strata of literature known as the Torah.
[9] Later in history, this localized desert divinity with illusions of being a universally recognized deity becomes known as the god “Allah” of Islam. El, Yahweh and Allah are all one and the same nefarious being.
[10] “Now the Lord said unto Abraham: ‘Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father’s house, unto the land that I will show thee. And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and be thou a blessing. And I will bless them that bless thee, and him that curseth thee will I curse; and in thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed.’” Genesis, 12:1–3. The very first imperative clause of Yahweh’s words (“Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father’s house, unto the land that I will show thee.”) especially marks this covenantal occasion as a strictly demarcated break from all past Dharmic norms and understanding of reality, and the inception of a radically new and destructive worldview upon the world.
The Dharma Manifesto Page 9