SocraticGadfly: Hinduism
Showing posts with label Hinduism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hinduism. Show all posts

October 11, 2022

What's next for Tulsi Gabbard?

In announcing she was leaving the Democraps, Tulsi Gabbard did not say whether she would become a true Independent, a Rethuglican, a capital-L Libertarian, or a Green. (This ex-Green shudders at the possibility of her joining the Green 2024 presidential field. I'm an ex-Green for current political purposes, but no, not a Democrap. But, I still eye Greens. And I'll cut her less slack than I did Cynthia McKinney in 2008.)

Update, July 18, 2023: Tulsi is leaving the door open for possibly running for the No Labels nod against Yachtsman Joe Manchin or whomever, per her yakking with Sean Hannity.

So, I took her to the house in this Twitter thread this afternoon. And, a lot of people that should know better, and should have known better long ago (some are likely grifters, getting paid to pretend not to know better, or paid to peddle the Kool-Aid, per my photoshopping) went to that woodshed:

We start here:

One thing, beyond these tweets, is that the malign influence of her homophobic Svengali, Chris Butler, is still in the background on her attacks on "wokeness." There are some times when the "woke" world is wrong, as when I talk about "wrongfully woke." Usually, it's connected to capitalism. Tulsi's failure to make such a connection also proves, contra people named below, that she's no lefist.

Then:

And, yes, she did, even to the point of speaking at one of Hagee's events. It ties with her Islamophobia, or Islamo-hatred, as a "good" Hindutva-fascist.

And:

Next:

Per the above, it's totally explicable. But, the Twerkers out there just don't want to admit it.

And:

I don't know who is worse at ruining Black Agenda Report since Bruce Dixon died, Haiphong or Margaret Kimberly. Maybe it's a tie. You can search here for Haiphong by name to see why I say this about him in particular.

Then:

Gravel never did surprise me, especially when his Berner campaign managers tried to stage-manage him for public consumption and failed. You can search Gravel's name on here, like Haiphong's.

This:

Whatever they're saying is at least 50 percent bullshit by Taibbi and of course more from Glennwald. Interestingly, Matt's not said anything yet. He's still going off (more rightly than wrongly) about Bernanke getting a share of the Nobel in economics. That said, it's not totally rightly, as his prize award is from work that pre-dates the Great Recession.

==

That said, this ex-Green know that she's not totally wrong about Dems. Let's look at some of the highlights, starting with:

It’s now under the complete control of an elitist cabal of warmongers

Erm, Rethuglicans, for the most part, as well as Democraps, are voting for arms for the Ukrainian arms bazaar. 

Then this:

driven by cowardly wokeness

Was dealt with above.

This one: 

who divide us by racializing every issue & stoking anti-white racism

Is dogwhistling. She's pretty well shot herself out of the Green Party sweepstakes (if anybody pays attention to her in 18 months). Given the Mises takeover of the Libertarian National Committee, she may find a home there ... in a cracking-up LP.

This one?

who actively work to undermine our God-given freedoms enshrined in our Constitution

Mises LPers or Rethugs might sign off on it. Anybody who actually knows the Constitution knows it's bullshit.

But, as I said on one of my Tweets? Note to the Religious Right: WHAT God does Tulsi have in mind for these "God-given freedoms"? Krishna? Vishnu? Hanuman? Ganesha?

For people mentioning Nikki Haley or Bobby Jindal? Haley's Christian, though raised Sikh. Jindal was attacked on his religion in his 2003 guv run, by ignoramuses, as he's self-described as an "evangelical Catholic," though born Hindu.

Gabbard, on the other hand? Never "de-converted." And, she was actually born into a "bi-religious" family. An old Atlantic profile has more. It notes that she's said that a Hindu-American could become president, in her eyes. Sadly, the piece says nothing about Chris Butler.

==

Update: I've seen speculation about a Constitution Party future. From the party's point, with its version of Mises vs non-Mises Libertarian infighting in the not too distant past, it would likely jump at this for the exposure .... if it swallowed at least as hard as Republicans on her Hinduism.

Per comments at Independent Political Report and Third Party Watch, the idea that being a woman wouldn't handicap her as a Rethug? Tell me how many women have been in leadership positions there compared to Democraps.

==

Update the main: Apparently she hasn't read the Rethuglican press clippings. Or, more likely, she has a degree of anti-librul venom, like a Candace Owens, that she just doesn't care. If she's campaigning for and endorsing an election denier like Kari Lake, then spiting Democrats is the first thing on her mind.

Labels: , ,
at Tuesday, October 11, 2022 0 comments Posted by Gadfly

January 28, 2020

The pseudoscience called Marxism
— details of why it's pseudoscience

These thoughts have been posted on Twitter, left as comments on others blogs and websites, occasionally on my own, but have not been unified into one big piece for some time.

Time to rectify that.

Yes, Marxism is a pseudoscience.

NOT because it's within economics. Economics is a science, albeit arguably the least scientific of the social sciences, outside behavioral economics, which is actually doing some scientific, empirical work.

But it's a pseudoscience above all because it's based on a crappy philosophical theory that is pseudoscientific when edited, folded, spindled and mutilated to be the basis of a theory in ANY scientific field.

That crappy philosophy, of course, is Hegelian dialectic as developed by Fichte. The idea that one person presents an anthesis to another's idea? Yes, individual people work that way. The idea that waves of history operate in thesis-antithesis-synthesis? Bullshit. Bullshit as a philosophy let alone anything more.

First and behind this all is that it's wrong in being based on Continental idealism in general and German forms of that in particular. Just because all your nouns get capitalized doesn't make it profound when stated in English. (Sidebar: Perhaps this is why Marxism never got the same footing in the Anglosphere as on the Continent, and ditto for both areas of Europe's extensions. And, to the degree it did catch on, it has been through further filtrations beyond the original that have in general moved beyond even the likes of the Frankfurt School on the Continent.)

Second, Marxists, changing the "idealism" of Hegelian dialectic into "materialism" doesn't make it any sounder as a philosophical theory or any less pseudoscientific when used as the basis for any scientific theory.

Marxist, and Hegelian, dialectic, are both pseudoscientific, or worse. Really, per Wolfgang Pauli, it's "not even wrong."

In addition, Fichte somewhat, and Marx even more, seemed to be guided by 19th century positivism, which is also not even wrong. Positivism is, by and large, a direct forerunner of today's scientism, which is also not even wrong. And, even to the degree it might be true in the "hard" sciences, while I laud behavioral economics, individual as opposed to group behavior will never reduce to positivistic laws in economics or other social sciences.

Positivism, and the scientism that follows on it also has another fatal error embedded within it. As the likes of Steven Pinker today show, both operate from a progress-based theory of history, perhaps fueled by seeing evolution, as put on a scientific footing by Darwin, as progress-based. (Just as he generally, though not always fully, rejected Social Darwinism, so did Darwin respond to would-be progress-theory interpreters of evolution.)

And, the classical economics with which Marx was trying to work? Beyond its general assumption of a rational homo economicus, which behavioral economics has crushed to death, it's ultimately based on Adam Smith's Age of Enlightenment era idea of a "wind up the universe like clockwork" Deist divinity's "rational hand" guiding all.

Uhh, no.

And, no, Smithians, while you're here, the claim that the rational hand is NOT Deist theology at end is untrue. I've blogged about that before, too, and there's clear traces in Smith.

So, while economics today isn't pseudoscience, one can argue that it was 150 years ago, and that Marxism is therefore pseudoscience squared.

I do want to thank Andrew Stewart of Washington Babylon, on Twitter, for prodding me to put this together, starting with my disagreement with his take on the 1619 Project, as noted in my update to my original piece. And I could tell it was Stew, not Ken Silverstein, by the first response.

As to the claim behind our Twitter back-and-forth that was the final impetus for this piece?

Uhh, no, not all racism issues, not even in modern, capitalist times, reduce to socioeconomic class ones. I told Stew that and provided links from this blog — stuff that led to me and Doug Henwood arguing and him eventually blocking my old primary Twitter account. (The likely last straw for Henwood, per that second link, was me saying Reed was either mendacious or an idiot when he called New Mexico one of the whitest states in the nation.)

Let me go further, though.

Empirical counterexamples are always the best final weapon for undercutting bad theory, and I have two from today.

Two instances of how racism indeed affects social class, but, although it might have indirect effects on economic standing, does not directly focus on economic standing let alone directly target it.

This Marxism I fully endorse!
I'm taking about the race-essentialist Zionism that drives not only the Likud bloc but almost all political thinking in Israel and the Indian caste system, that, cross-pollinated with Islamophobia, is seeing a resurgence as we speak in India from the BJP and its Hindutva allies.

And old Chinese racism against Europeans pre-dates European forms of modern capitalism (but don't forget that China invented paper money way back in the Tang Dynasty!) and was culturally based.

And, I know Stew knows (or should know) all of this, though he, Henwood, Adolph Reed and others would likely differ in interpretation. That's their problem, not mine.

I am some sort of socialist. I might even become some sort of pre- or post-Marxist Communist some day, though I doubt it. I'll never be a Marxist, though.

Related to that? I am, in a small bit, some sort of post-capitalist. Anti-capitalist, though? Never. That's in part because that phrasing might imply support for the Marxist dialectical system.

Now, that said, I know that many people call themselves "Marxists" as a signifier of generic social rebellion, or a generic protest against capitalism or other things. In other words, many people think "Marxist" has a certain je ne sais quoi, from what I can tell.

Sloppy usage is not excused at this site, though.

If you're an anarchist anti-capitalist, but not actually a Marxist, then call yourself an anarchist. Ditto if there's some other "ism" you fit into more than Marxism.

==

I have gotten strong push-back on Twitter from friendly fire!

The biggest objection is that Marxism as a theory is political philosophy, and thus not a science. I content that it was established as a theory of economics first and foremost and that economics is a social science, ergo, like any other social or hard science, the theoretical framework as well as individual experimental or other allegedly empirical elements can be examined to see whether they're pseudoscience or not.

Erik Weissengruber accepted my premise, but said that, on the actual empirical / experimental side, Marxism actually was panning out. That said, that piece is predicated on the labor theory of value being true.

Per Wiki, there's the additional issue, and I stand partially guilty on Twitter responses, that Marxian economics can stand separate of Marxism.

So, as I update, and incorporate thoughts from others on Twitter, and what they provoke within me, I will work to focus on Marxism the big picture, not Marxian economics. Besides, to the degree I hold fast and prove fast that Marxism is pseudoscience, the economics falls with it, ultimately. And, somewhat contra Wiki (and referencing a goal of mine to use Zionism peddler Jimmy Wales' site less and less), even among more heterodox (from Marxism) Marxian economists, I don't think it can stand TOO independent of Marxism. I mean, this week's Existential Comics from Corey overlaps Marxism and Marxian economics. Those who claim it can, per my note at the tail end of the original post, are probably using the word "Marxism" too loosely.

First, Marxism is more than political philosophy. And I know that philosophers always get nervous about scientific turf-field creepage. But, political science is a science, a social science. And, history is at least halfway between the humanities and the social sciences.

So, I think it's a legitimate critical essay to call Marxism pseudoscience, and not just individual outshoots of it, like the labor theory of value in Marxist hands.

If one doesn't accept that political science is an actual social science, then we're at a linguistic-usage fork in the road. And, by the time of Marx's death, per the history of the field, I think we can distinguish political science from older political philosophy. Per my reference to positivism, I think people like Marx were making a conscious effort for that distinguishing.

And, at the same time, re my friendly critics, I have talked in the past about "philosophism" as a philosophy-driven counterpart to scientism.
Labels: , , , , ,
at Tuesday, January 28, 2020 2 comments Posted by Gadfly

November 28, 2010

Hindus want to reclaim yoga

A group of ardent Hindus, some called "Hindu nationalists," want to reclaim yoga to what they claim are its Hindu roots. An eclectic group of opponents, ranging from Deepak Chopra to religious scholars, says it's not Hindu but pre-Hindu.

Is yoga from before Hinduism? Well, I think that it depends on part what you call Hinduism.

Western critical religious scholars, for example, call everything in the Bible before the Babylonian exile "Israelite religion," reserving "Judaism" only for post-Exilic religion.

If that standard is followed, AND if roots of yogic practice can be traced back that far, then, no, it's not Hindu.

That said, conservative Christians and Jews alike, today, reject the scholarly distinction mentioned above. I'm sure the "nationalist Hindus" do the same. (That said, I think it's fair to say Hinduism is not "just" a religion, but, more than any other world religious tradition, a sociology as well.)

That said No. 2, folks like Chopra have good financial reasons for denying the Hindu roots of many religious practices from India that have become relabeled as "spiritual." Per the story, even if you're not a conservative Baptist minister who believes yoga is of the devil, telling many practitioners that they're engaged in a Hindu religious exercise will surely drive them off.

But, package it in smiley New Age wrapping and ...
Labels: ,
at Sunday, November 28, 2010 0 comments Posted by Gadfly

March 01, 2009

Outcasts in the name of gOd

The Hindus took racism
Against natives of darker hue
And made it a religious crime.
Their four-tiered socio-religious totem pole
Had the grunts of manual labor at the bottom,
But, left without even a pole to pose on
Were, and still are today,
The shittiest workers of Indian society,
Pun intended –
Out-castes.
Untouchables in their alleged contamination,
Calling them harijan, or the lOrd’s children
As a Gandhian absolution
Is no absolution for a stain, a blot,
On the very core of Hindu thought.

God told Saul, “Kill the Amalekites!”
And not just the adults, but the seven children
That went along with each adult family,
And not just the children,
But the seven livestock the adults had
For each of their children.
No Amalekites would be allowed to go to St. Ives,
Or Hebron, or Shechem, or Shiloh,
As the world’s first recorded Holocaust
Was perpetuated by Jews and not against them.

In the American South, in the land of cotton,
Old bible passages were not forgotten
But were twisted, to look away from the evil
Of black slavery in Dixie land.
No, no, worse than that;
Twisted to justify slavery as a redeeming,
Christianizing uplift,
For alleged children of Canaan,
Smitten by the curse of Ham.
People who wished they had not been born in Dixie
Were told it was for their own good,
And in fulfillment of the word of gOd.
Oh, ye cursed of Ham!

No wonder that Sunday morning
Is still the most segregated hour in America;
No wonder that Indian outcastes
Have their own political party;
No wonder that right-wing Israeli Jews
Talk of an Arab-rein Eretz Yisrael.
The real wonder is that blacks didn’t become atheists
Long before the Nation of Islam,
Or that the Dalits, oppressed outcastes, aren’t all Buddhist, or Christian,
Or that some Arabs still participate in Israeli political life.

Were a god actually to exist, he would be mocked by his own alleged words.
Labels: , , , ,
at Sunday, March 01, 2009 0 comments Posted by Gadfly

February 03, 2009

Ahh, those non-violent Hindus – and Buddhists

When I posted a review of a new Churchill-Gandhi dual biography on Amazon last fall, several Indian nationals made negative review comments, all variants on the “sainted, can do no wrong” claims about Hinduism. Well, as carnage in Sri Lanka shows, the Hindu-religion driven Tamil Tigers, inventors (yes, them, not Muslims) of suicide bombings, are anything but nonviolent.

That’s why Chris Hitchens’ “God is not Great” is the best of the “new atheist” apologetics books.

(Oh, you Buddhists, you shouldn’t be so smug. Although Hitchens points out that Gen. Tojo and other Japanese war criminals worshipped at Shinto shrines, japan has strong Buddhist elements, too.

None of this is to excuse the less-than-savory actions of Sri Lanka’s ethnic Sinhalese majority government over the decades. That said, that government theoretically most represents the Buddhist religious majority of the island, further reason to tell adherents of the other great Eastern religion to not be so smug about themselves.

Nor should the devotees of the Dalai Lama.

Yes, Beijing is trying to wipe out both Tibetian Buddhism and Tibetian ethnicity behind a wave of Han Chinese migration to/resettlement in Tibet.

But, that said …

Before Beijing’s takeover, the Dalai Lama and other Tibetan lamas ruled the country as the equivalent of a Western European feudal religious holding, like the archbishopric of Cologne or something similar.
Labels: , , , , , ,
at Tuesday, February 03, 2009 0 comments Posted by Gadfly

October 13, 2008

Hindus persecute Christians — fundamentalism in ‘tolerant’ Eastern religion

In India, Hindu fundamentalists are forcing Christian conversions.

So much for lies about tolerant Eastern religions.
Labels: , ,
at Monday, October 13, 2008 0 comments Posted by Gadfly
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)