Sunday, May 31, 2020

Derrida: Speech Versus Writing

In his On Grammatology, Derrida shows that there is a binary opposition between speech and writing—with speech being central and natural, and writing being marginal and unnatural. People have been writing for thousands of years, but the tradition of thought from ancient times to modernity favors speech, or the spoken word, over writing. The “logos,” which the ancients regarded as the hidden principle in the universe, is a voice or a word—it’s a sort of super-word or a god. When we speak, the sounds that we create are closer to the super-word or god, but our writing is marked by an absence, the absence of the godly sound. Derrida’s target is Saussure’s linguistics. Saussure has asserted that his linguistics is free of the viewpoints related to god, but Derrida tries to show that Saussure privileges speech because he accepts the pre-scientific assumption that speech is closer to the inner meaning, or the logos, and the super-word and god.

On Change

Only a fool will bet against change, because nothing can take place without change; even if the aim is to maintain status quo in society, you need to keep changing some things.

Saturday, May 30, 2020

Conservatives & Liberals: Action & Inaction

The wrongdoer in politics is often the entity that has left something undone, not always the one that has done something. The liberals commit a wrong by doing something, while the conservatives commit a wrong by leaving something undone. Thus the liberals are the people of political action, while the conservatives are the people of political inaction; this gives the liberals an advantage in the politics. But the conservatives were not always the people of political inaction—they became a passive force after the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, when they became convinced that in the destruction the Soviet regime, they had played their world historical role, and that from now on there would not be any challenge to their worldview. The conservatives didn’t realize that the challenge would come from the liberals who, in the post-Soviet world, would find new ways of keeping leftism alive and attacking the conservatives.

Friday, May 29, 2020

Nozick and Libertarianism

Robert Nozick was not a libertarian; he never said that he was. In the Preface to his 1974 book Anarchy, State, and Utopia he seems lukewarm about libertarianism; he writes: “With reluctance, I found myself becoming convinced of (as they are now often called) libertarian views, due to various considerations and arguments.” He bases his arguments on the claims about rights (mainly property rights), but his treatment of rights is weak, because he starts with a situation in which people are living in a so-called “state of nature,” which is a mythical concept; in his later work, he admits that he has developed some doubts about earlier view on rights. One of his intentions in writing the book was to refute the libertarian thinker Murray Rothbard, but Nozick never took his argument with the libertarians forward—after the publication of Anarchy, State, and Utopia, he dissociated himself from the book and didn’t respond to the criticisms of it, and much of the work that he did after 1974 is unrelated to libertarianism. But the book became immensely influential in libertarian circles, mainly because Nozick was a professor of philosophy at Harvard. I find the “Utopia” section of the book, in which Nozick describes how a minimal state and property rights can lead to the development of a society in which disputes can be resolved without conflict, particularly unbelievable—why does he assume that such a system will be acceptable to everyone? Nozick’s “Utopia” is too utopian.

A Stoic Wisdom

There is an old stoic saying that the easiest way to demoralize a man and destroy his character is to give him something for nothing.

Thursday, May 28, 2020

MacIntyre’s Rightwing Postmodernism

Postmodernism is generally leftwing, but, in his 1981 book After Virtue, Alasdair MacIntyre articulates a rightwing form of postmodernism in which there is an emphasis on the importance of traditions. MacIntyre’s traditions perform a role similar to the “scientific paradigms,” which Thomas Kuhn has described—the traditions include the idea of a worldview or conceptual scheme, and also a history through time, as it’s understood by a community with its distinctive way of life and social norms. The traditions are not only capable of being rational but serve as the context in which rationality can be determined—all reasoning is conducted in some tradition or another. The traditions can be judged according to the criteria of rationality; one tradition is more rational than another if it can explain the success and failure of the other tradition better than the other tradition itself can. MacIntyre shows that instead of being an escape from tradition, modernity is itself a tradition. Thus, modernity’s rejection of traditions is incoherent, and there is a need for a right-wing postmodernism. Modern moral philosophy, according to Macintyre, leads to skepticism because it has neglected the notions of character and virtue—modernity’s focus is on what makes an act right or wrong rather than on what makes a person good or evil. Macintyre says that to learn rational ethics we have to go beyond modernity and study the Aristotelian and religious traditions which focus on the formation of character and the development of virtue.

Wednesday, May 27, 2020

On Stoicism and Conservatism

The stoic philosophers in the Roman Empire used to preach that a successful war is one in which you defeat your nation’s enemy without becoming like the enemy. Conservatism is founded on stoic principles, but the conservatives, in the last hundred years, have failed to save themselves from becoming like their enemy, and today’s conservatism carries the influence of several enemies that the conservatives have fought: communism, nazism, fascism, and religious fundamentalism. The corruption in liberalism, however, is much greater than that in conservatism—the case can be made that the liberal strategists have served as the conduit for transferring the political and moral corruption of other movements to the sphere of conservatism.

Tuesday, May 26, 2020

How They Deal With Their Enemies: Liberals and Conservatives

An enmity with the liberals is dangerous in the short-term; an enmity with the conservatives is dangerous in the longterm. The liberals are a close-knit community, led by elites who have a revolutionary mindset—they view every attack as a direct assault on their elitist leadership and when they identify an enemy, they immediately go into the attack mode; they use the power of the government, mainstream media, community groups, public intellectuals, big businesses, and any other tool or institution which they control, to deliver a decisive punishment on their enemy. The conservative thinking is historical; in the short-term, they are incapable of formulating a strategy for dealing with their enemies—a series of attacks over a period of several years, or decades, is necessary to awaken the conservatives from their dogmatic slumber, but once the conservative beast is awake and has taken note of the enemy, he will not back down till he has totally destroyed the enemy. For several decades, the mainstream media and the digital industry have been attacking the conservatives and the conservatives rarely retaliated, but things have changed in the last three or four years—now the conservatives are fighting back. I am convinced that the mainstream media and the digital industry are doomed—in the next few years, the conservatives are going to rip these two industries apart from root to branch, and this means that the way in which we access the Internet and news is all set to undergo a drastic overhaul.

Monday, May 25, 2020

Structuralism’s Attack on Logocentrism

Structuralism’s rejection of all ontological and epistemological sources of meaning can be seen as an attack on the logocentric approach that lies at the core of the philosophical and religious thought of the ancient, medieval, and modern periods. Originated by Ferdinand de Saussure in his 1913 work on linguistic studies, Course in General Linguistics, and further refined by Claude Lévi-Strauss, structuralism is an anti-metaphysical philosophy which denies the existence of Aristotelian reality and the higher reality (Platonic forms or religious Trinity), and posits that the world of human beings is the product of deep structures that pre-date consciousness.

Saussure holds that words precede the idea of things—a word (a sign) does not represent the union of a thing (a pre-existent thing-in-itself) with a name; rather, it unites a concept (signified) with the sound-image (signifier). By analyzing the deep structures, Lévi-Strauss interprets several popular myths—he arranges each element of the myth into a system which can be read both horizontally and vertically. The mythic structures that he traces are wide in scope and encompass not only the tales of heroes but also the economic realities, the incest taboos, and the routine household rituals of cooking and eating.

The structures are unconscious (not conscious), material (not metaphysical), and deterministic (not humanistic); they do not exist in things, or in elements which have meaning by themselves, but in the relation between things—the differences between the constituent parts gives rise to the structural meaning. The structures are complete, logical, and all-encompassing; they are dynamic and not static. Structuralism, however, is not free of a metaphysical desire for order—as Derrida showed in his philosophy of deconstruction. I talk about Derrida’s attack on logocentrism in my post, “On Derrida’s Deconstruction of Logos”.

Sunday, May 24, 2020

Vertical Liberals Versus Horizontal Conservatives

The liberals think vertically; the conservatives think horizontally. Vertical thinking encourages the liberals to take a top-down approach for solving mankind’s problems, and they entrust the fate of their society into the hands of revolutionary leaders, experts, and technocrats who promise to obliterate the old systems and create a utopia where safety, happiness, and purposefulness are available to all. Horizontal thinking encourages the conservatives to take a bottom-up approach and look around themselves for solutions; their approach is pragmatic, in the sense that they desire solutions which have a track record of having worked in the past—they revere history and traditions as a compendium of experiences which can serve as a guide for future action. Between liberal utopianism and conservative pragmatism there is no scope for compromise.

Saturday, May 23, 2020

The Two Billionaire Philosophers: Soros and Gates

George Soros and Bill Gates are the most influential philosophers of the last three decades—with their philosophical thinking and the humanitarian work that they are doing in several nations, they are having a decisive impact on not only the financial industry (where Soros made his fortune) and the digital industry (where Gates made his fortune) but on the politics and culture of several nations. The last three decades are the only period in history when two billionaires, who didn’t have a giant military at their back, have managed to dominate the culture of the entire world by leveraging their wealth, reputation, and philosophical vision. In the philosophy of Soros and Gates, there is a kind of leftist utopianism, or the lust for an egalitarian society, that is reminiscent of the thinking of the Enlightenment philosophes and of Karl Marx. Soros believes that an egalitarian society, or a liberal welfare state, can be created by crushing traditionalism and nationalism. Gates believes that the digital technologies are the key to establishing a liberal welfare state; a digital supremacist, he is convinced that every problem that mankind faces has a digital solution, and he dreams of a world where the human population is a fraction of what it’s today and where almost everything gets done through the clean and green digital solutions. The political establishments in most nations are in awe of the wealth, technology, and egalitarian vision that Soros and Gates have come to symbolize; they are adored by the academics, the media, and the public—but I side with the small group of old-fashioned individuals who realize that the idealism of Soros and Gates is taking the world towards a climax that will be as brutal and sad as the climax of the Enlightenment philosophies (the French Revolution of 1789) and the climax of Marxist philosophies (the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917).

Friday, May 22, 2020

On Derrida’s Deconstruction of Logos

The search for a logos, or original presence, is the oldest in the history of philosophy. The Hindu thinkers believed that the logos is in the Trinity of godheads, the Platonic and Aristotelian thinkers found their logos in Plato’s forms, and Augustine and his followers found it in the Christian Trinity. Till the modern period, philosophy has been dominated by systems which are logocentric, or which held that meaning emanates from some sort of logos. For Descartes, cogito is the logos; for Kant, the logos gets internalized in the form of the absolute self or transcendental ego; for Hegel, the logos is the idea or spirit. Logocentrism is generally expressed in the form of binaries in which one term is more privileged than the other: for instance, the Platonic Form is more privileged than the real object or idea which the Form represents. There are several other binaries: soul versus body; theory versus practice; mental versus physical; conscious versus unconscious; rational versus emotional—in these binaries, the term that is closer to the eternal, and has the ability to remain unchanging, is more privileged.

According to Derrida, the philosophers since Plato have devoted their metaphysics to the search for a higher reality, which, while being untouched by materialism, gives meaning and purpose to the material world. He says that most philosophers, even the structuralists who try to avoid the logocentric approach, use the traditional terminology and its binaries—at times, they reverse the binaries, but they can’t avoid thinking in its terms. In his 1967 book, Of Grammatology, Derrida deconstructs the attempts to posit a center and establish a system of binaries; he tries to replace the logocentric approach with a free play of meaning. He argues that whenever we think that we have discovered the logos, or original presence, or center, we find that it points towards some other logos; thus, the search for logos becomes never-ending, the search for meaning becomes never-ending, and there is a breakdown between the signifier (the word) and the signified (the meaning that the word refers to). Derrida saw deconstruction as a freedom from fixed truths or origins, and the guilt over absence of meaning.

Goethe's Words

“Whatever you can do, or dream you can, begin it. Boldness has genius, power, and magic in it.” ~ Goethe

Thursday, May 21, 2020

A Parable on the Importance of Failure and Unhappiness

The man performed great penance for several years, until finally god became pleased and appeared before the man—he told the man to ask for a boon. The man then asked that he be granted the opportunity to experience failure and unhappiness in every subsequent life. God asked, “Why won’t you wish for success and happiness in every subsequent life?” The man said that he wants to experience failure and unhappiness in every subsequent life because he desires to forever be a man of wisdom and faith. That wisdom and faith often come to a man at a time when he is experiencing a great failure and unhappiness is one of god’s great mysteries.

Wednesday, May 20, 2020

On Wisdom

Knowledge can be taught, but not wisdom. A wise man teaching wisdom to someone will sound foolish because wisdom cannot be expressed in words. Wisdom is something that you discover through your life’s experiences and learnings. Every man discovers his wisdom in his own way.

Tuesday, May 19, 2020

The Relationship Between Baumgarten and Kant

The book that I am presently reading, Baumgarten and Kant on Metaphysics, Edited by Courtney D. Fugate and John Hymers, is a collection of eleven essays on the relationship between the metaphysics of Baumgarten and the philosophy of Kant. Fugate and Hymers begin their Introduction to the book with these lines: “The relationship between Alexander Gottlieb Baumgarten (1714–62) and Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) is as profound as any in the history of philosophy. In depth, it rivals such rightfully famous relationships as those between Socrates and Plato, between Aristotle and Aquinas, between Russell and Wittgenstein.” The editors note that Kant lectured on Baumgarten’s Metaphysica “from his first year of teaching in 1756 until his last in 1796, in total nearly fifty times over a span of four decades.” An examination of Kant’s personal copy of the Metaphysica suggests that Kant evolved many of his own views by constantly correcting and reworking Baumgarten’s ideas. Fugate and Hymers write: “Though physically a small book [Baumgarten’s Metaphysica], Kant’s miniature handwriting covers not only every bit of the pages interleaved, but also the text itself, the spaces between the lines, the margins, and even the gaps within the page ornaments. These notes, which in total amount to several times the length of the original book, provide a unique insight into how Kant evolved many of his own views through a constant correcting and reworking of Baumgarten’s ideas.”

Monday, May 18, 2020

The Digital Revolution’s Unexpected Consequence

The digital revolution has turned man into a cyclops, who is missing one eye, the eye of wisdom. While teaching metaphysics, Immanuel Kant used to remind his students that learning metaphysics is not easy and that, “One who would seek pearls, must descend to the depths,” but the digital technologies hinder man from descending to the depths by making everything seem too easy on the surface itself—when information and facilities are available at the click of the mouse and a tap on the app, why should anyone descend to the depth or exercise his mind. In the digital age, wisdom is a vestigial attribute.

Sunday, May 17, 2020

The Four Book Covers

I have been asked by Troy Camplin and Roger Bissell to post the cover of my favorite books with no explanation, but I must offer an explanation for my choice (I won’t talk about the books, only about the topic of this post). What is your favorite book changes with time—as you gather new knowledge, your understanding of mankind’s past and present is transformed, and that in turn forces you to revise your opinion of the books that you have read. My list of favorite books gets an overhaul every year, and there is no book that has made it into my list three years in a row. Though I am required to post two book covers (one for Troy, one for Roger), I will post four—these are not my favorite books; my favorite book is the one that I am yet to discover, but I am posting these four books because at the point of time when I read them, I found in them the answer to some of the questions that were in my mind.

Clive of India, by Nirad C. Chaudhuri

Tropic of Capricorn, by Henry Miller

The Proper Study of Mankind, by Isaiah Berlin

The Philosophic Thought of Ayn Rand, edited by Douglas J. Den Uyl and Douglas B. Rasmussen

Saturday, May 16, 2020

The Paradox of the Tiananmen Square

Paradoxically, a free market economy can be created by exterminating a popular pro-democracy movement. The rise of China as a global economic powerhouse is the consequence of the Chinese government’s decision in 1989 to send troops armed with assault rifles and tanks to the Tiananmen Square and massacre thousands of pro-democracy protestors who had gathered there. The Tiananmen Square massacre put an end to all opposition to the communist regime, and China became a politically stable country. Having implemented free market reforms in 1979, China was receiving foreign investments for a decade, but after the massacre there was a great leap in the investments coming into the country—the big corporations prefer to invest in countries which are politically stable and have a business friendly regulatory system. China, after 1989, offered political stability and a business-friendly regulatory system, and it saw such massive rise in investments and trade that, by 2010, it overtook Japan as the world’s second-largest economy.

Saturday, May 9, 2020

The Long Wait for the Barbarian

I am taking a month long break from blogging; I will use the time that I spend online to do some extra reading and writing. When I am back online, I hope the pandemic related fears will have subsided and the lockdown of the world will have ended; but whether the lockdowns are lifted or continued, I think that the next five years will bring economic decline and political instability to most democratic nations. I would not be feeling pessimistic if the downfall were the consequence of some natural calamity, like a meteor strike or a super-volcano, but what we are presently witnessing is mankind rushing to commit collective suicide. Nietzsche is right—the world cannot function without the barbarians who are capable of taking big risks and doing terrible things to achieve just goals. The democratic nations are in trouble because they are too liberal and effete, they have lost touch with their inner barbarian; but the next five years will bring them ample opportunities for rediscovering the barbarian who hides inside their skin.

Friday, May 8, 2020

Heidegger and the Countermovement to Nihilism

Heidegger never accepted that he had erred by supporting the Nazis—he was convinced that Nazism had failed to achieve its philosophical objectives because it went astray. In a 1930s lecture, he said that he saw Fascism (or Nazism) as a countermovement to the problem of European nihilism which Nietzsche has described. By endorsing Hitler, Heidegger thought that he was endorsing a countermovement to nihilism and bringing Germany closer to the metaphysical realm of Nietzsche. He aspired to have with Hitler the kind of relationship that Plato had with Dionysius (the king of Syracuse)—but after the Nazi regime’s fall, Heidegger complained that he felt let down by Hitler. On Heidegger’s dalliance with the Nazis, Karl Jaspers said, “Children who play at the wheel of world history are smashed to bits.”

Between a Utopian and an Apocalypse

As long as there is a single liberal living in this world, the dream of a utopia on one hand, and the nightmare of an apocalypse on the other hand will continue to find a voice.

Thursday, May 7, 2020

The Liberal and His Favorite Apocalypse

The modern liberal recognizes himself in his favorite apocalypse. With the advanced society in which he lives, he identifies just the material dimension of his existence;  his spiritual dimension, or his soul, he discovers in the idea of an apocalyptic event, one that will swallow his society as a whole, ripping apart the entirety of his material existence and that of everyone else, leaving behind only their souls. Thus an apocalypse is a spiritual need for the liberal; if ideas like Global Warming, Climate Change, Ice Age, Ozone Layer Depletion, Acid Rain, and Virus Pandemic did not exist, he would feel lonely, lost, and traumatized—he would lose his spirituality and his soul.

What Paves The Road To Hell?

The road to hell is paved with the good intention of saving mankind from the dangers which are not real but have been imagined by the corrupt “experts” who are funded by taxpayers money.

Books & Articles That I Will Never Read

I have taken a pledge that henceforth I will not read any philosophy book or article in which the names “Ayn Rand,” “Nathaniel Branden,” “Leonard Peikoff,” or the word “Objectivism,” are mentioned even once. Time is a precious thing; there is no point on wasting it on bad writing.

Wednesday, May 6, 2020

The MAGA Dream: Lost in Lockdown

The conservative MAGA agenda assumes a mythologized and aestheticized view of their nation; instead of a coherent plan and shrewd political strategy, the MAGA agenda is fuelled by optimism, emotionalism, and nativism—but now MAGA is lost in an endless lockdown, and the ravenous leftist beast is on a rampage and unlikely to show any mercy. While the conservatives marched to the drumbeats of MAGA, they naively allowed the lockdown to happen under their watch and brought their nation to an anti-MAGA terminus. The genesis of the lockdown problem is the ban on flights from China that the conservatives imposed in February 2020—but you can’t ban flights from China and expect the extremely powerful pro-China elements in America to sit idle. In the last forty years, America has accepted massive financial, intellectual, and political investments form China—it’s difficult to imagine American films, mainstream media, industry, academia, and even politics without considering the “Made in China” elements. The pro-China elements in America retaliated by making a medical case for locking down all the economically critical regions. Now the lockdown has lasted for more than forty days and caused a massive economic decline; the America economy might take more than ten years to recover; chances are that it might never recover.

Tuesday, May 5, 2020

Arendt on the Schreibtischtäter

In her 1963 report on the trail fo Adolf Eichmann (Eichmann in Jerusalem), Hannah Arendt says that the holocaust was perpetrated through a new, modern type of murderer: the Schreibtischtäter or desk murderer. She doesn’t see a linkage between the holocaust and German history; the Nazi murders, to her, were a problem of modernity, having little to do with Germany’s past. Modernity, she asserts, empowered the Nazi Schreibtischtäter, who blindly obeyed orders, and without personally participating in the murders, sent millions to their death by merely putting his signature on the official documents that came before him. She presents Eichmann as the prototype of a Schreibtischtäter. The phenomena of Schreibtischtäter, in my opinion, is real, and it persists till this day. In our times, the liberal political establishment is in control of the army of Schreibtischtäter in several nations.

Conservatives and China

The conservative dream of crushing China has flopped; the cost of moving even ten percent of American manufacturing bases from China to the USA is more than a trillion dollars—after forty-days of lockdown, the American economy is in a terrible shape and America can no longer afford to spend trillions of dollars on its rivalry with China. In the next four years, the Americans will need the cooperation of China, more than that of any other nation, to rebuild their own economy. To keep his base energized President Trump might say all kinds of things in his tweets, but he will not frame a real policy to coerce the American manufacturing plants to come out of China. Thus China is now in a politically and economically sound position. The failure of the conservatives to counter China proves the old truism that the leftists with a plan are usually able to outfox the conservatives.

The Discontents of Freud

Now that I am a certified pessimist, I can empathize with Sigmund Freud’s discontents—I am talking about his final book Civilization and Its Discontents in which he pours out all his pessimism: he examines the senseless slaughter of the First World War and the Russian communist revolution, and his own financial difficulties, his stomach ailments, his fight with cancer and presents a bleak picture of mankind. Life, he notes, is not being possible without suffering and that there are three ways by which a man might try to alleviate his suffering: first, intoxication; second, seclusion, which might not work for most people because we are, by nature, gregarious creatures; third, sublimation, which entails giving vent to aggressive impulses in socially acceptable ways (sports or work). He rejects the religious idea that man should love his enemies and agrees with the saying, homo homini lupus (man is wolf to man)—man is naturally inclined to enslave other men and to destroy all those who cannot be enslaved.

Monday, May 4, 2020

Three Impossibilities of Conservatism

The conservatives are stymied by the three impossibilities: first, the impossibility of deciding what is the national tradition; second, the impossibility of deciding what is to be done to preserve the tradition that they believe is national; third, the impossibility of making national progress while preserving the national tradition. But liberalism is itself a tradition; leftism is itself a tradition; fascism is itself a tradition; modernity is itself a tradition—and this means that a conservative in the twenty-first century cannot avoid being a liberal, leftist, fascistic, and modernist because these are as much a part of his tradition, as his religion and culture is.

Nietzsche’s Rejection of Conservatism

Nietzsche has called his approach to philosophy “philosophizing with a hammer”; he has claimed that his books are “dynamite” and “assassination attempts.” He was a revolutionary, a destroyer of traditions, a man who lusted for radical social transformations; there is nothing conservative in him. The conservative dictum is to keep everything as it is; if the conservatives inherit a corrupt, incompetent, and cruel socialist system, they will ignore the corruption, incompetence, and cruelty, and preserve the socialist system because that for them becomes the embodiment of the national culture which must be conserved. There is no possibility of a conservative Nietzsche, and there is no possibility of major reform under a conservative government.

Sunday, May 3, 2020

On The Conservative “Will to Power”

Twenty-first century conservatism has the “will to power”; it lacks the “will to build a better world.” The conservatives expect to find redemption and meaning in a government that is conservative in name only; they have no desire to work for a conservative society based on the principles of liberty and free markets. The conservative mindset follows Walter Benjamin’s insight “The work is the death of the intention”—for the conservatives, winning the election means the death of the conservative intention; once political power is acquired, they forget conservatism.

The Right is the New Left

The right has become fascistic, authoritarian, and imperial—they are so dominated and bewitched by their ability to win elections that they have started believing that winning elections is their only duty, and that they need to do nothing to safeguard the civil liberties, dignity, and economic interests of the people in their country. The inability of the right to resist the move towards totalitarian leftism is linked to not only their total obsession with winning elections but also to the weakness of their rightist agenda and their contempt for the concerns of the members of the public who hold a rightist worldview. The maxim from Dostoevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov applies to the right: “We are all guilty of everything and everyone, towards everyone—and I more than all the others.” For the downfall of society, the right is more guilty than all others, more guilty than the left.

Saturday, May 2, 2020

Indoctrination in the Trenches and Lockdowns

When mankind is hiding in the trenches, it confirms its spiritual and moral bankruptcy, and is susceptible to the ideologies of hate and violence. In the twentieth century’s second decade, when millions of men were inside the trenches dug across Europe, Asia, and North Africa, fighting the First World War, they were simultaneously being indoctrinated in Nazism, Fascism, and Leninist Communism. At the end of the great war, they emerged from the trenches as the brutal warriors of ideology, brainwashed to unleash any devastation in the name of Nazism, Fascism, or Leninism. In the second decade of the twenty-first century, people are once again in trenches (lockdown), which run across homes and offices around the globe: What kind of indoctrination is happening to them? The global lockdown could prove to be a point of no return, a breeder of revolutionaries, who will, in the years to come, plow without mercy through the present and future.

Socrates and the Conservative Hemlock

I despise the liberals and leftists, but I am not a conservative; I identify as a conservative rebel, or a “Conservative Socrates,” one who has tasted the conservative hemlock, and realized that the conservative hemlock is as detrimental for his health as the liberal (leftist) hemlock.

Friday, May 1, 2020

The Blood Brothers: Capitalism & Communism

Capitalism and communism are blood brothers; both were born in the heart of the western civilization, in the years following the American and the French Revolutions of the eighteenth century. Since their birth, the two blood brothers have coexisted; they have marched hand in hand and transformed the culture and politics of several nations. There has never been a capitalist nation that is not rocked by communist movements; there has never been a communist nation where a section of the population is not rooting for capitalism; all democratic governments are a compromise between capitalist and communist tendencies. The rise of capitalism is linked to the Industrial Revolution; the rise of communism is an outcome of the intellectual work and political activism of Marx and Engels, and their followers. Since the eighteenth century, the regulatory system in all nations has kept pace with the industrialization—when the first industrialist was building his industry, the first bureaucrat was writing his regulations, and the first communist revolutionary was arousing the working class.

Blind Faith in Philosophy and Politics

The fervent supporter of a political leader is the man who does not understand his political agenda at all; the same is true of the fervent adherent of a philosopher—he does not understand the philosopher’s philosophy at all. Blind faith motivates the followers in both politics and philosophy.