Dwiwedi & Mohan's hoax on Hindus

India- like Nepal, where President Bhandari and  Prime Minister Oli have both recently performed rituals at the Pashupatinath Temple- is a country where Communist Ministers justify their performance of Hindu rituals by saying that it will help destroy 'those who blacken the Red Flag'.

CPI (M) Party Secretary, Kodiyeri Balakrishnan, 'is widely believed to have had his wife and son perform the ‘Shatrusamhaara puja’, a ritual whose objective is to neutralise an enemy, if not entirely annihilate him, at a famous temple while he held the home portfolio in the V S Achuthanandan government. However, more recently, another Minister, Kadakampally Surendran, has publicly offered prayers at the Guruvayur Sree Krishna temple in Thrissur district on the auspicious day of Ashtami Rohini on 12 September.  He was shown on television channels as performing pushpanjali (offering flowers to God) and praying with folded hands at the sacred steps during his day-long visit to the famed temple. Temple officials said he had also contributed money for annadhanam, a long-held, sacred tradition followed by the temple of offering food.'

This has sparked of some debate among Leftist intellectuals but will have no impact on voters. All they care about is that the Communists provide meritorious candidates- like Shailaja, the Health Minister who has won international accolades for her handling of the Nipah and Covid outbreaks. 

Still, it is curious that J Reghu and Shaj Mohan, who are both from Kerala, have written an article for Caravan magazine (along with Divya Dwiwedi) in which they take objection to Narendra Modi, who isn't a Communist, participating in a Hindu religious ceremony.

They write- 

During a religious ceremony marking the inauguration of the construction of the Rama temple, the prime minister, who heads the government of a country with a secular constitution, participated in the religious ritual, acting like a priest.

However, Modi is not a priest and he did not 'act like a priest'. He was the chief guest of a private Trust. His action was perfectly constitutional. Any Indian may participate in any religious ceremony whatsoever. Communists may not be permitted to do so by their Politburo. But they are at liberty to defy the Party Line. 

The Caravan article makes a fatuous claim, which is that the Hindus wanted to be seen as a majority. Yet, because minorities have superior rights, the fact is Hindu organizations- e.g. Brahmo Samaj, Swami Narayan etc- have repeatedly approached the Courts to gain recognition as a Minority. Jainism has secured this valuable status. Lingayats did get this status in Karnataka but the Center refused to endorse it saying that Dalit Lingayats would then lose benefits. Still, given the power of this prosperous and forward thinking community, it is bound to prevail sooner or later. Then the floodgates would open. Every sect would claim minority status. 

However, having minority status as a matter of law does not change anything on the ground politically speaking. Jains will vote like their Hindu brethren. Lingayats will vote like the other prosperous communities with similar interests and aspirations. 

Given the advantage of minority status and 'reserved seats' (under the British) why did the founders of the Hindu Mahasabha (amongst whom Mahatma Gandhi was one) in 1916 stress the essential unity of the various Indian sects? The answer has to do with the need for massive social and moral reform of a type which required the ending of 'wasteful competition' for ritual status such that life-chances for the young, and for women, were destroyed in the name of stricter adherence to some supposed orthodoxy. Loss of caste because one 'crossed the black water' or one's women gave up purdah or one decided to study Medicine instead of the Law or one took food from a lower caste- this type of stupidity was holding back Hindus of all backgrounds. It affected their occupational and marital prospects. It was a huge impediment to the development of rationality and patriotism. 

It is true that the formation of the Hindu Mahasabha had been preceded by the formation of the Muslim League and it is certainly true that Muslim domination had been a nightmare for Hindus. However, the Mahasabha's formation was also a reaction to the World War which spelled the end of Imperialism- it seemed the Kaiser was determined to rob his English and Russian cousins of their Empires just as they were determined to put an end to his dynasty. What was becoming clear, on the battlefields of Europe, was that War was no longer the sport of Kings. It was an industrial enterprise which ultimately depended on the productivity of each nation's proletariat. It was against this background that the Bolsheviks- as the party determined to establish the 'dictatorship of the proletariat'- gained international salience.

Sadly, India's Left appears to have forgotten the painstaking lessons previous generations of Communist intellectuals sought to impart. They are embracing a paranoid theory such that a few high caste Hindus invented Hinduism a hundred years ago and fooled everybody into thinking India is a Hindu majority nation. 

Their article is titled-

The Hindu Hoax

How upper castes invented a Hindu majority

This raises the question, how did Gandhi and Malviya and so forth know they were Hindu? One answer might be that the Brits, for some fell purpose, invented Hinduism. But, in that case, it was they who, through the Census, invented the Hindu majority. 

TODAY, IN INDIA, nearly all media have been co-opted into “Hindu nationalism,” which appears to be virtually the only permissible perspective on politics.

This is nonsense. There are plenty of Christian and Muslim and Communist magazines and TV channels. But, where Hindus are the majority, Hindus will be catered to more capaciously.  

According to this perspective, “Hindu” is both an ancient religion and an ethnic group mythically born with it, thus making “Hindus” the eternal natives of India.

Since religion is heritable it is perfectly sensible to align ethnicity with religion- more particularly because this is what the historical record confirms. However, no one has claimed that all Hindus have the same ethnicity or that all Muslims or Christians belong to the same race. It is obvious that a Sindhi is of different language and ethnicity to a Tamil or Manipuri. Moreover there are now African and European converts to Hinduism.  

This political project seeks to return India to an ahistorical past in which Hindus were supposedly free of external “mlechcha,” or impure, mixtures—from the ancient Greeks to the European colonial powers.`

This is a pure invention on the part of the authors. Converts to Hinduism have been welcomed more particularly where they, quite visibly, belong to a different race. But this is true of all Religions. It is an affirmation of the universal validity and soteriological power of the sect to see that it attracts converts from far off places.

The authors however believe that Hinduism is not a religion like Christianity or Islam. It is a 'hoax'. 

less has been written about the hoax of Hinduism. The definition of “Hindu” lacks objective reality

'Hindu' is well defined for all legal and soteriological purposes. 'Christian' is not well defined but 'Catholic' or 'Anglican' etc. are well defined.  

The fact is Hindus exist in Bali and Nepal and so forth. It can't be a 'hoax' perpetrated a hundred years ago by some seditious Indian barristers.

and runs contrary to recent scholarship in various disciplines.

There is no such scholarship as opposed to paranoid ranting. 

The religion has been used to suppress and control the political aspiration of the oppressed castes, who were slipped into the Hindu religious category in the last century without consultation

This is the crux of the matter. The authors want Dalits to vote against the BJP. The problem here is that the BJP is meritocratic and enables Dalits to rise up purely on the basis of their personal qualities and achievements. The Communists in Kerala are quite meritocratic but, in Bengal, they were casteist. All that the Dalits want is that they be able to rise on merit. They want Justice not paranoid ranting about hoaxes which assume that their ancestors were stupid and easily misled. It is interesting that Dr. Ambedkar never denied that he and his ancestors were born into Hinduism- though he suggested that they may have originally been Buddhists. Thus, these authors are saying 'Ambedkar was not a scholar. He was a fool. He fell for a high caste hoax. Don't listen to Ambedkar, listen to us.' Yet Dr. Ambedkar was far better academically qualified than these cretins. He was a great lawyer, a great politician as well as being a profound scholar with two Doctorates- one from Columbia and the other from the LSE. 

By contrast, whatever pedagogy Dwiwedi and Mohan can offer is a shameless hoax upon their students.  

St. Christopher's lockdown

Beggars beg not of beggars such being our common kennel's kenotic accord

But today I did, with a quid, a red-bearded rough sleeper reward

For being the cast off of all the world, yet the calling of a dog

 Christ is a King denied the wages of God.

Al Dahr & Barzakh

Not that I arrived too early, nor that you set out too late

But that our tryst e'er subsist as Tawhid's eigenstate

 So Al-Dahr is the string our barzakhs vibrate

Know Love is the ring its Engagements hate.

Envoi- 

Prince! Thy Peace's plane wave is Time's amplitude of Kairos as Sin.

Christ is only Christ in chorismos to pulchritude's Magdalene. 

Judith Butler on why Biden must not act against White Supremacists

Judith Butler has got it into her head that mourning for, or pretending to mourn for, dead people you have never heard of and who didn't matter in the slightest to you, is really important because...urm... like mebbe Fascism, or White Supremacy, or the Spanish Inquisition, will take hold if you don't? 

She writes in the Guardian

It could be considered a small thing that Donald Trump can neither meet with Joe Biden nor acknowledge that he has lost the election to him.

Trump wants to be able to pose as a martyr being persecuted by an illegitimate government when, as now seems inevitable, prosecutors come for him. Furthermore, it is in his interest to prevent Republican law-makers from cooperating with Biden. If Trump wants to make a political comeback, Biden has to fuck up completely.

It is foolish, knowing what we do about Trump's style of functioning, to consider his boycott of the Biden inauguration as something purely egotistical or psychological rather than tactical- perhaps even strategic. Biden himself, being a wily old fox, has taken the wind out of the sails of Trump's supposed recalcitrance by revealing that Trump left a very 'generous' and sweet little note for his successor. Thus, it appears, the man was simply play-acting for a political purpose.

But what if the refusal to acknowledge loss is bound up with the path of destruction we call Trump’s exit route? Why is it so hard to lose?

Trump's loss was different from Carter's or Bush Senior's loss. Trump faces prosecution in a number of different matters. He may also be in financial trouble. Prison and bankruptcy stare him in the face. Why pretend that it is merely his ego which has received a bruising? Carter and the Bush Snr. were one term Presidents. Their egos may have been bruised by defeat but they stood in no danger of jail and disgrace. They had no reason to deny the legitimacy of an Administration under which there was zero probability of their being been put on trial.  

The question has at least two meanings in these times.

Nonsense! Butler asked a stupid question. We all know that Trump is seeking to retain his hold on the Republican party so as to gain a countervailing 'nuisance' power against Federal prosecutors.  

So many of us are losing people to Covid-19, or fearing death for ourselves or others.

This is true of every country. Elections were held elsewhere during the pandemic. Obviously, there were losers as well as winners. But the fact that some people were dying of this infection did not change anything. 

All of us are living in relation to ambient illness and death

all the time. So what?

, whether or not we have a name for that sense of the atmosphere. Death and illness are quite literally in the air.

This has always been the case. 

And yet, it is unclear how to name or fathom these losses, and the resistance of Trump to public mourning has drawn from, and intensified, a masculinist refusal to mourn that is bound up with nationalist pride and even white supremacy.

Merkel is a woman. The fact that she hasn't indulged in 'public mourning' proves she is 'masculinist' and puffed up with 'nationalist pride' not to mention 'white supremacist' beliefs. The same is true of Sheikh Hasina of Bangladesh. On the other hand, if either were replaced by a man who opposes her, the guy will make great play of mourning all the innocents she killed by her neglect. 

The fact is, the job of the Head of State is to exude confidence and optimism, not to wander around in sackcloth and ashes screaming 'the End of Days is upon us! Yea! All shall die! None will be spared! Woe unto us! Woe! Woe!'  Only if a rival gains power would it make sense to pretend great grief at all the victims of the genocide perpetrated by one's predecessor. 

The Trumpists tend not to grieve openly pandemic deaths.

Nor do Merkelists.  

They have conventionally rejected the numbers as exaggerated (“fake news!”) or defied the threat of death with their gatherings and maskless marauding through the public spaces,

but nutters of this type exist everywhere. In the UK, Jeremy Corbyn has been leading the anti-lockdown protests. In Italy, the cretin Agamben has been marching around proclaiming the whole thing a hoax perpetrated by evil Capitalists.  

most recently in their spectacle of thuggery in the US Capitol in animal costumes.

That 'shaman' was hilarious. His Mummy explained he gets very very ill if he eats non-organic foods. Guess whom he lives with? A nutter of that sort would be very happy to preside over a mourning ceremony for your pussy cat- who isn't dead, but is ignoring you, and so, just to get even, you get in this guy to wail over the fact that pussy is now dead to you.  Never again will she receive tasty treats from your hands. Also, that squeaky rubber mouse you bought her as an anniversary present will now be returned to Amazon.

Trump never acknowledged the losses the US has suffered, and had no inclination or capacity to offer condolences.

So what? Nobody else did either.  

When the losses were referenced, they were not so bad, the curve was flattening, the pandemic would be short, it was not his fault, it was China’s fault.

This was the sensible thing to do. A leader should not say 'Millions are dying! Billions will die! It's all our fault! Woe unto us! Satan is going to be jabbing his pitchfork into all of our butts very very soon!'  However, his successor, if of a different Party is welcome to blame him for everything under the Sun.

What people need, he claimed, was to get back to work because they were “dying” at home, by which he meant only that they were driven crazy by domestic confinement.

This was the aspect of his handling of the crisis which won applause. It was his failure with respect to track and trace and so forth which lost him support. 

Trump’s inability to acknowledge his election loss is related to his

political strategy to keep control of the Republican Party and make life hell for Biden 

inability to acknowledge and mourn public losses from the pandemic, but also his destructive itinerary. If he were to have openly acknowledged his electoral loss, then he would be someone who loses.

Similarly, if Butler were to openly acknowledge that she has lost her marbles and is publishing worthless shite, then she would be someone who would lose her academic appointments and lucrative publishing contracts and so forth.  

He is just not the kind of guy who loses,

Just as Butler is just not the kinda gal who says 'I iz utterly shit, mate. Don't read my books. They are crap.'  

and if he does, then someone took what was rightfully his.

as opposed to what was wrongfully hers. 

But there is a further twist. The white supremacists who stormed the Capitol are also convinced not only that the elections were stolen, but their country as well, that they are being “replaced” by black and brown communities, by Jews, and their racism fights against the idea that they are being asked to lose their idea of white entitlement and supremacy.

How is this a 'further twist'? What is strange about Trump saying he won? It is in his interest to do so. If a mob can terrorize the legislature and get away with it, why should it not do so? Self-interested actions require no psychological explanation.  

To this end, they transport themselves back in time to become Confederate soldiers,

as Butler transports herself back in time to become a feminist Dr. Freud diagnosing the congenital discontents of Civilization itself.  

they occupy fantasy figures on video games with superhuman powers,

Butler fantasizes that she herself possesses intellectual powers. 

they dress as animals

Butler dresses up as a malnourished, sickly, orphan boy from the Great Depression. 

and bear guns openly, reliving the “wild west” and its genocide of indigenous peoples.

Really? I didn't see that on TV. I guess the Jews in the Media suppressed those bits. 

They also understand themselves as “the people” and “the nation”

as opposed to 'the clouds' or 'the starry heavens' 

which is why they are still in some shock as they are arrested for felonies.

Most people arrested for the first time for felonies are in shock. They say, 'guys, seriously, this is just a prank which went a tiny bit awry. How was I know repeatedly hitting my Mummy with an axe which cause her head to fall off! I was doing the whole thing ironically- like, ha ha, I'm an axe murderer, right?- the only crime I'm guilty of is having a sense of humor and, like, deconstructing the whole 'Mummy didn't buy me a pony so I chopped off her head' shtick.'   

How could this be trespass or sedition or conspiracy if they were only reclaiming “their house”?

It could be a crime for the same reason that chopping off Mummy's head is a crime. The thing is against the law. 

How could this be a crime if the president asked them to undertake these acts?

Because the Law does not say a thing is legal if the Pres asks you to do it. 

Those who sought to find, kill or kidnap elected officials had clearly violent plans, ones well-documented on their various internet sites and unheeded by complicitous police officials.

Butler is making an extreme claim. Will prosecutors follow her line of argument? Will anyone be charged with seditious conspiracy? Perhaps. But no one will be convicted. The evidentiary bar is too high.  

And the attack on police and even the death by crushing of one of their own, Rosanne Boyland, went unheeded in the excitement of their lethal rampage.

Actually, the moment 'one of their own' got shot, these guys heeded the fuck out of the fact that their lives were in danger and thus they'd better scarper sharpish.  

And it may also be

but, since it is Butler writing this, is is more likely not to be at all 

that Trump’s own final killing spree, taking the lives of 13 people since federal executions resumed in July 2020, is another example of the readiness to kill that marks these final days.

Very true. It's all there in the Book of Revelations. Cats are now marrying dogs. The end of days is at hand.  

Where there is a ready-made refusal to acknowledge the loss of lives, killing presumably becomes easier.

More especially if it is wholly imaginary. 

These lives are not quite grasped as lives, and their loss does not really count as significant.

Imaginary Lives Matter! Trillions of my devotees have been massacred by equally imaginary assailants, yet Biden is refusing to mourn them! It is because he is a White Supremacist.

In this way, Trump’s final days, including the Capitol assault, are a violent rejoinder to Black Lives Matter.

That is the equivalence those thugs are making. Why is Butler endorsing it? 

Globally, millions took to the streets to oppose in outrage police taking of black lives with impunity, forming a movement that exposed historical and systemic racism, and opposed the ease with which police and prisons destroy black lives. That movement continues to pose a global threat to white supremacy,

Actually, it was welcomed by the Right because it provoked a backlash at a time when the 'silent majority' was suffering because of COVID & lockdown etc. Fortunately, the Democrats chose Biden- who had been denounced as a racist who had spearheaded the Law under which unprecedented incarceration of African American males occurred- and Biden chose Harris- who had herself locked up plenty of Black males.  

and the reaction has been violent and vile. The supremacists do not want to lose their supremacy, even though they have already lost it and continue to lose it as movements for racial justice continue to achieve their aims.

In which case, it sounds like they are relatively powerless and are now organizing to get more power. 

Trump’s loss is as unthinkable as their own, and this is doubtless one of the ties that bind them to his delusive conviction of a stolen election.

It makes sense for any relatively powerless group to find a leader with some sort of claim to legitimacy- like Cossacks rallying to Pugachev, who pretended he was the Tzar Peter III.  

The result is a form of destructive rage that does not even bother to offer a moral alibi

The moral alibi, according to what Butler herself has written earlier in the article, is that the election was rigged. Also the Federal Government is just a cover for a pedophile ring. Will no one think of the children?!

Before the assault on the Capitol, it was surely worrisome or even humorous

either a thing is worrisome or it is humorous. It can't be both.  

that Trump manically sought to nullify his losses by any means possible.

Manically? Surely, there was a sound reason for what he was doing? He wanted to retain his hold on his Party. This would give him leverage against prosecutors. 

But this makes sense if we think about a general inability to acknowledge loss, an acknowledgment, Freud tells us, that is the work of mourning.

Freud distinguished mourning- which is for a loved one who has died and which occurs in the conscious mind and is perfectly natural- from melancholia- which occurs in the unconscious mind and is pathological. Butler, as always, gets hold of the wrong end of the stick.  

To mourn, though, there has to be a way to mark that loss, a way to communicate and register it and, in this sense, it requires communication and at least the potential of public assent.

Nonsense! My wife hears the milk-man is dead. She mourns him and hugs her children a little closer to her heart. But she does not 'communicate or register' anything. She would be mortified if all and sundry condoled with her- as they condole with the other sluts on our street- for the loss of her one true love.

The formula goes something like this: I cannot live in a world in which the object I value is lost,

this is not Freud who said that 'melancholia' of this type is unconscious. It doesn't have a formula. However, during therapy, the conscious mind can find a pattern to what is otherwise inchoate.

or I cannot be the person who has lost what I value. I will destroy the world that reflects back to me that I have lost, or I will leave that world through recourse to fantasy. This form of denial would rather destroy reality, to hallucinate a preferred reality, than register the verdict of loss that reality has to deliver. The result is a form of destructive rage that does not even bother to offer a moral alibi.

So, this is nothing at all like what Trump or his die-hard support base is doing. Trump's actions are rational and self-serving. He has taken great trouble to elaborate a 'moral alibi' because he is relying upon his continuing grip on his party so as to leverage some sort of deal with prosecutors and perhaps even make a political comeback.  

The issue is made clear in the rash of death sentences, state-sanctioned murders,

This policy dates from 2019 with Attorney General Barr doing the heavy lifting. Since Biden is against the death penalty, there has been an unseemly rush to push through as many executions as possible. This has nothing to do with COVID. 

but also the waving away of the numbers of those who have died of Covid-19, especially those numbers that show us communities of color are most adversely affected, including the indigenous populations of this land who are hardest hit. It makes cruel sense

cruel? No. Paranoid? Yes. 

that Trump would make a deal in his final days in office that destroys sacred sites in Arizona to boost the production of copper at the very time that the failure of public policy has surely increased the death toll for those communities.

But the profitability of copper has not fallen. That is all that matters unless you are actually building your McMansion on an Indian burial ground.  

White supremacy has now resumed an open place in US politics,

Very true. Biden be pretty damn Caspar.  

and Trumpism will outlast Trump,

The way Marxism outlasted Karl Marx- right? 

and continue to assume new forms.

It could become your toaster.  

White supremacy is a political fantasy, but also a historical reality.

in which case it isn't a fantasy at all. 

It can be understood

as rational and self-interested. Being superior means getting more of the nice shiny things everybody likes. Being inferior sucks ass big time.  

in part as a refusal to grieve the loss of white supremacy

Everything and everybody refuses to grieve its own loss or passing away. That is why I reject invitations to attend my own funeral or to pay for a wake so all my supposed mates can get drunk and bad mouth me.  

that the movement for black lives and the ideals of racial justice rightly demand.

BLM never said 'kindly grieve for your own death. Give yourself a decent burial and weep over your own grave-stone'. It may be that Butler's colleagues are constantly importuning her to get bereavement counselling so as to get over her own death. She should tell them to fuck off. They aren't really her friends. They are trying to gaslight her.  

So it’s time for the racists to grieve that loss, but it is doubtful that they will.

Because not even they are as stupid as shit. Meanwhile, Butler will be attending her own funeral and weeping over her own gravestone.  

They know that what they imagine to be their natural right can be taken away, is being taken away, and the struggle they are waging is historical.

So, Butler is saying these guys are behaving in a rational, self-interested, manner. Whether they prevail depends on how well they can organize themselves and who they choose to lead them.  

They will live out their fantasy until historical reality checks them.

Historical reality can't stop anyone 'living out a fantasy'- at least on weekends. Cosplay is now a 45 billion dollar global industry.  

Let us hope that the Biden rejoinder is not to intensify the police state for this purpose.

If Biden ensures that White Supremacists are arrested by the police and sent to jail for their crimes, then he would have abided by his oath of office. Butler says we should hope he does not do his Constitutional duty. Instead he should start mourning for his own demise. If Kamala says 'C'mon Pres, sign that Bill already', he should reply 'I'm dead! Losing my dearly beloved life has been a great blow to me. I am crying so hard, I can't see properly- let alone read any official papers. I must go now to weep over my grave. Judith Butler has explained all this.'

That would be a cruel irony.

No. Biden should discharge his oath of office. If that means ensuring 'homeland security' by locking up seditious militia leaders- so be it. On the other hand, if Biden decided to mourn his own death, the fate of the nation he leads would be cruel indeed. 

Of course, it may be, Judith Butler did not write this article for the Guardian at all. The thing is a cruel prank by Nidhi Razdan. The real Butler is too busy mourning her own death, to notice and complain.  Ironically, this ends up boosting her academic reputation as the stupidest Feminist ever. 

Why Rajmohan Gandhi is Racist

Rajmohan Gandh- a failed politician and grandson of the Mahatma- writes in the Indian Express 

In India, Muslims, Dalits and Adivasis, taken together, form the equivalent of America’s Blacks.

This is a remarkable statement. Hindus consider Dalits and Adivasis as Hindus provided they are not Muslim or Christian. That's how Religions work. Gandhi clearly isn't a Hindu. On the other hand, he is a Racist. He appears to believe that he- despite his dark skin- is actually an 'Aryan'. Muslims are Semites. Dalits and Adivasis are 'Dravidians' despite the fact that many are much fairer skinned than this cunt. 

American Blacks are great patriots. They do stand up against racial injustice and many take pride in their African ancestry- though, of course, everybody is ultimately descended from Africans and so we all can take pride in our African roots. What Black people never do, wherever they may be, is listen to those who think of themselves as 'White' and who pretend- as Mahatma Gandhi did with respect to 'Harijans'- to be interested in their uplift. Thus, Gandhian cunts are running a con only on imbeciles like themselves. 

Counting Dalits and Adivasis in the Hindu fold,

only if they are Hindu rather than Muslim or Christian. But then Christians and Muslims do the same thing. Rajmohan and his ilk are the only bunch of cunts who don't count Hindus as Hindus if they themselves believe they are racially superior to them.  

Hindu radicals reserve their public ire for Muslims.

Whereas this cunt reserves his public ire for 'Hindu radicals' even if they happen to be Dalit or Adivasi. God alone knows what he says in private about Black Americans or non-college educated Whites who voted for Trump. 

“Hindu consolidation” against Muslims is the political equivalent in India for the American call, open or subtle, for white supremacy.

No. It is the equivalent of Hindu supremacy. This stupid cunt may believe he is an 'Aryan' and that his ancestors had blonde hair and blue eyes, but the truth is obvious to all. He is dark skinned with a high proportion of Ancestral South Indian genes. On the other hand, Rahul Gandhi has a high proportion of purely European genes. His votaries may well call- better 'subtly' than 'openly'- for white supremacy. 

Who are the Hindu leaders who will speak frankly to India’s cow vigilantes or “love jihad” militants the way Pence, McConnell and Graham finally spoke on January 6 to America’s Trump backers?

Fuck is this cunt talking about? Pence, McConnell and Graham did not say anything against the sacred cows of their Political Party. They merely refused to put their head in a noose. 

It is interesting that Rajmohan admits that Rahul Gandhi is not Hindu nor are people like Shashi Tharoor or anyone else in the opposition. That is the reason no 'Hindu leader' will speak out against the things he mentions. On the other hand, a Communist Chief Minister of Kerala did condemn 'love jihad'.  

If “enough is enough” will not escape the lips of a Narendra Modi, an Amit Shah, an Adityanath or any principal colleague, everyday Hindus must utter the words, in their homes to kith and kin, outside their homes to fellow citizens.

Because none of the opposition parties have any Hindu leaders. Incidentally, Amit Shah is not Hindu. 

“India belongs as much to her Muslims, Sikhs, Christians, Jains, Buddhists, Parsis, Jews, atheists or others as to her Hindus.” With such words, Gandhi, Nehru and Ambedkar inspired free India to commence an impressive journey.

But they were lying. They refused to give citizenship to Muslims who fled pogroms in 1948 and wanted to return. But they did give citizenship and compensating land to non-Muslim refugees from Pakistan- which too made exactly the same claim.  

Hindus unable or unwilling today to utter these words

in other words Hindus unwilling to tell a stupid lie 

are India’s counterparts of the enablers of the January 6 attack on America’s core and constitutional meaning.

But Gandhi teaches in Amrika. He is an enabler of all the shit that goes down there coz he isn't constantly saying 'Whitey be shit. Fuck Whitey.'  

But Kamala Harris, Raphael Warnock, Jon Ossoff and Stacey Abrams too have their Indian counterparts:

no they don't.  American politics is nothing like Indian politics. 

Leaders from minority communities,

like Owaisi, are either dynasts or will become so to protect their stolen wealth

and weaker castes,

are either dynasts or & c. The only reason anybody gives Rajmohan Gandhi the time of day is coz of who his granddaddy was. 

who feel connected also to other Indians, including caste Hindus and high-caste Hindus. When their voices ring out without fear, as also the voices of everyday Hindus offended by the coerciveness of Hindu supremacy, Indian Trumpism will find its nemesis.

Nonsense! Trump fell because of his shitty handling of COVID. Also, Biden was a more than credible alternative. By contrast, Modi is a good PM and there is no rival candidate for the top job. 

India's Hindu majority is a bit bigger than America's White majority. However, the American White majority is likely to reconsolidate itself on the basis of inclusion of a large section of Hispanics and also cultural assimilation of Asians. However, there is likely to be a growing economic divergence between Red and Blue States just as, in India, there will be more and more farmer type agitations. Economics matters. Gandhian shite does not. Why? Because Gandhianism is a Racism, albeit of a masochistic sort. But all Racism is stupid. Economics erodes it but for stupid, masochistic, Racists, there will always be a small globalized market. 

Ghalib's anyons

Not that, in thy Urdu, my Love and what it Lost are constrained by barzakh's, One Dimensional, wit

But that Alterity's anyons have explained how, to exhaust Irony, the intensional is knit

 Love's soliton betrays ipseity ; Song's flight, Sorrow's cage

& bowels knotted in rage, Spite's bight, berays this page

Kathleen Stock, Sexual Orientation & the Karma Monster

If the British have a fault, and I say this as an epitome of Britishness in this respect, it is that they have horrible teeth. This is one explanation for the British reflex of politeness. We seldom bare our fangs in anger. Our smiles, on the other hand, scourge the soul and harrow the heart. 

Sadly, the influx of Romanian and Estonian dentists has so greatly improved orthodontics that public discourse, at least in British philosophy, has become as envenomed and abusive as it has always been across the pond or, that yet wider ideological chasm separating us from the Continent.

I suppose the hatred now focused on Kathleen Stock OBE does have a precedent. Over a hundred years ago, Bertrand Russel earned similar obloquy- indeed he was sent to jail. But then Russel visited America, got his teeth fixed and thus started getting laid. This caused him to give up philosophy.

Why is Stock now reviled? Apparently it has something to do with sex- which, for true blue Brits like me is not something we need to bother with because bluetooth is as much a feature of our smartphones as it is a description of the one or two rotting molars which continue to maliciously protrude from our black and bleeding gums.

This is not to say that we don't have sex. It's just that when we get disoriented and, in momentary confusion, end up bumping uglies, our profuse mutual  apologies and eagerness to take all the blame, though not preventing the repetition of the faux pas, sometimes mellows into a modus vivendi of a conjugal, or even romantic, type.

Stock takes a different view- 

I defend an account of sexual orientation, understood as a disposition to be sexually attracted to people of a particular biological sex or sexes. An orientation is identified in terms of two aspects: the sex of the subject who has the orientation, and whether that sex is the same as, or different to, the sex to which the subject is attracted. I explore this account in some detail, and defend it from several challenges. In doing so, I provide a theoretical framework that justifies our continued reference to Sexbased sexual orientation as an important means of classifying human subjects.

Human beings don't like being 'classified'. We may accept certain classifications as yielding utility in certain contexts- e.g. medical- but reject any such thing imposed on us by worthless shitheads. I reject classification as 'Black' for any philosophic purpose but may accept it, temporarily, for a medical purpose. However, as technology improves, I expect to see the classification 'Black' to disappear. It will be replaced by a more precise and technical classification based on particular DNA sequences or something more arcane yet. My point is that the underlying 'Structural Causal Model' evolves in a direction which dissolves 'ready to hand' classifications like 'Black', 'Male', 'Fat' etc. 

At one time it may have been argued that 'Black' was a politically important classification. Black peeps should serve White peeps the way God intended. Alternatively, Black peeps should go 'ooga booga' and slit Whitey's throat so as to overthrow Capitalist hegemony and the incessant surveillance carried out by my neighbor's cat. 

Clearly, this type of classification is mischievous and actual Black people reject the fuck out of it.

What about the position Stock defends?

A sexual orientation is a relatively stable feature of a person, differentiated from sexual predilections or preferences. Its possession causes a person to sexually desire, be aroused by, and exhibit other sexually-motivated behaviour towards, only those people of a particular Sex.

What happens if you assent to this proposition? Well, straight off the bat, any accusation of sexual harassment lodged against you is prima facie credible if it aligns with your imputed 'sexual orientation'. It is not in our interest to accept a type of classification which would automatically gives us a motive in a wide category of supposed crimes. The fact is, for most of us, sex is something we only do with one person who is very special to us not primarily because of any physical attribute they have. Our 'orientation' is to that person- or the memory of her or the hope of her or the idealization of her, if we haven't met her yet. This, at any rate, was the old view. It is perhaps also the true view for the majority of people. It is not the case that businessmen have an 'orientation' towards avarice and unjust enrichment nor that scientists are continually performing experiments in every department of their lives or that church-goers have an orientation to constantly get down on their knees to praise the Lord. It is generally observed that businessmen aren't particularly avaricious when out of the office, church-goers may spend their working week in highly secular professions, and a spouse who has regular intercourse may be wholly repulsed by the thought of doing the deed with someone else of either gender. 

By pretending that Capitalists spend all their time robbing the poor or that Whites spend all their time thinking up ways to humiliate or exploit Blacks or by saying that a Lesbian is constantly sexually harassing every woman in the vicinity, a great mischief is done. 

Stock justifies this great mischief by

1) firstly, saying an orientation is a 'disposition'. A disposition is, roughly, a capacity of a thing, under ‘ideal’ conditions, to exhibit some further particular behaviour or other characteristics.

If evolution is a true theory, we have no dispositions- at least with respect to sex (because sexual behavior is subject to strong selection pressure)- because 'ideal conditions' for a species are more likely to lead to degeneration (Speigelman monsters) or loss of robustness. 

We may say about behaviors which have no survival value, that they are ruled by dispositions. X farts furtively because X is of a shy and retiring disposition. Y farts loud and long because Y not?

The nature of a subject’s sexual orientation, in a particular case, is type-identified in virtue of two features: a) the Sex of the desiring subject;

This is what has got Stock into trouble. We no longer believe that 'the Sex of the desiring subject' is something unambiguously given. In any case, as medical technology improves, the thing will soon be pretty much elective.  

b) the Sex of the type of person typically desired by the subject.

If we believe in evolution we ought not to believe that something as important as sexual selection will not have drivers unknowable to ourselves. Otherwise, a predator or parasite could 'hack' us or we ourselves might myopically destroy our own evolutionary robustness. 

It may be that there are things yet more subtle than 'pheromones' and that our entire limbic system might conceal mechanisms based on a higher type of maths than we can yet conceive. 

A heterosexual or straight orientation is one which causes one to sexually desire (etc.) only people of the opposite Sex to oneself. A homosexual (gay or lesbian) orientation causes one to sexually desire (etc.) only people of the same Sex as oneself. A bisexual orientation is one which causes one to sexually desire (etc.) people of the opposite and same Sex to oneself.

An orientation to gaslight young people so as to gain power over them involves telling them they have an orientation of a particular sort even if there is no evidence for it and the thing is prima facie absurd. Stock writes ' A great advantage of thinking of sexual orientation as a (multi-track) disposition, is that generally, a disposition is ontologically distinct from its stimulus and manifestation, and in fact may never be manifested (Alvarez 2017). 

A great advantage of telling stupid lies is that being a stupid liar means you go to the top of the class in a shite discipline. That is what is happening here. Stock is telling stupid lies and then saying a great advantage of her stupid lie is that no process of reasoning or painstaking uncovering of fact can contradict her stupid lie. But, the reason she finds the notion of 'sexual orientation' greatly 'advantageous', is exactly the same reason for sensible people to stick with the opposite view. 

This fits with many of the ways we ordinarily think about sexual orientation . For instance, there might be cases where a person has a sexual orientation yet doesn’t exhibit arousal or other relevant behaviour. This might be explicable as a case where no relevant stimulus is present (e.g. no prospective partners; no suitable material for fantasising), and so no relevant manifestations either. In such cases, a person might even be unaware of their orientation, given a lack of evidence of it.

Similarly, a person may be unaware that she isn't me when she illegally gains access to my bank account. It may be greatly advantageous to her to believe she has an orientation and a disposition to be me despite there being no evidence of any such thing existing.

Just as a crook, standing in the dock, may want a completely false and mischievous type of reasoning to have currency, so may a shite academic or a paranoid political activist. Perhaps, Stock wants to stick with a 'sex' based definition of Lesbianism because then she gets to gas on about how her people are doubly disadvantaged in that both they and their partners belong to the oppressed half of humanity. Stock is concerned that Lesbianism's grievance value might be undermined if, by replacing sex with 'gender', every woman could say 'well, my partner has a tiny dick. So I get to be counted as Lesbian too.' But why should things stop there? Male homosexuals may say 'OMG, me and my hubby are so like discriminated against by size queens that we are practically Lesbians'. Donald Trump obviously qualifies as a Lesbian- hounded out of office by bigots- because of his tiny hands. In this way the 'Grievance Value' of Lesbianism gets diluted. 

Stock is a Lesbian and wants to keep a Lesbian type of politics (despite it having been boring, stupid and wholly useless) going simply as a matter of securing her bread and butter.  The emergence of a loud, social media savvy, 'gender' rather than 'sex', based activism represents unwelcome competition. Stock writes-

The prevalence of homosexual and heterosexual dispositions undoubtedly contributes to their social significance, since it means that any empirical consequences will be correspondingly large, but it doesn’t seem important in itself. In fact, though, I think this last point gives a clue to what really differentiates homosexual and heterosexual dispositions from other sexual preferences. To look for some further inherent differentiating factor is, I think, the wrong approach. Instead we should recall that homosexual and heterosexual dispositions are ones we collectively care about, across a range of contexts, such that names and accompanying concepts for them have eventually emerged, staying in prominent use amongst language-users. Calling them ‘orientations’ is just a way of demarcating them from other less interesting or important preferences. ‘Orientation’ doesn’t denote any special inherent feature of a disposition. It’s therefore pointless to ask why homosexual and heterosexual dispositions ‘orient’ whilst other preferences don’t; or to argue that other preferences are orientations too, because they, too, ‘orient’ in some relatively arbitrary shared sense. Rather, the use of the concept denotes a contextual difference: linguistic communities are more interested in those dispositions than other preferences, as a valuable causal explanandum across many fields, for reasons I’ve already given.

So 'sexual orientation' does not exist but some small minority of pseudo-intellectuals has pretended otherwise for a few decades. This is the status quo which Stock seeks to defend. 

Would Stock have got an OBE if she hadn't been attacked by 'woke' nutters? Who cares? What goes around comes around. There are no 'safe spaces'- even on campuses- when the karma monster is on the prowl.