Beyond the Vapor with Robert Stark
Robert Stark interviews Sri Dharma Pravartaka Acharya on The Dharma Manifesto
[MUSIC] [MUSIC] Hello everyone, this is Robert Stark. I'm joined here today with Sri Dharma. I just want to make sure of my pronouncing that the right way. >> It's Sri Dharma, Parvakach audio. >> And you have a book out. It's called "The Dharma Manifesto" and it's published by Arctos. >> Mm-hm, that's correct, yes. >> I guess where we can get started is tell us about yourself. And well, there's basically two parts of this book. There's a spiritual aspect and later on we'll talk about the political aspect. So tell us about yourself and your spiritual journey that led you to where you are now. >> Sure, absolutely. It's a slightly long story, but I'll try to make this as brief as possible. For myself, I was actually born and raised in New York City. I lived there for the first 24 years or so of my life. I'm a European American of Italian and Spanish heritage. And at a very early age, roughly around nine or 10, I wanted to know the meaning of life, which was definitely a very early age. But that's how it happened for me. And essentially I wanted to know, why am I here? What is the meaning of everything that I see around me? Is there some sort of meaning beyond the empirical, beyond my senses? And more, is there a God? That was especially something that was very important for me to try to discern. >> Were you brought up in any particular religion? >> Well, not really. I mean, my parents were Catholic, but they were not very religious. So I can't really say I was brought up Catholic in any way. They never baptized me, for example, which for Catholicism is a very big deal. So I'd have to say no, I wasn't really brought up in any religion. So this was really my first spiritual inkling. Again, when I was about nine or 10. And I just began searching basically through all of the scriptures of the world. First off, because I knew that that was where the answers were. And especially the answer to the question, is there a God and what is the nature of God? And at around 10 years old, I began reading first starting with the Western scriptures. I began reading the Bible. I read the Old Testament and then the New Testament. I had a copy of the Quran that I read as well. I read different Buddhist works. I read the Dao De Ching, many other books. But then finally, I came across what is called the Bhagavad Gita. And the Bhagavad Gita is the most important scripture of the Vedic tradition, of what is called Sanatana Dharma. And I notice you said, Vedic, rather, you don't like to use the word Hindu. Yes, no, I avoid that term at all costs for a variety of reasons. First of all, it's not an accurate term. The word Hindu, the dual terms Hindu and Hinduism really have zero meaning. They are words that are very recent, really only about 350 years old. They're not words that are found in the scriptures of the tradition. Rather, yes, I like to refer to this tradition either as the Vedic tradition or even more as Sanatana Dharma, which is the term that you find in the scriptures of this tradition. The term Sanatana Dharma is quite beautiful, actually, if you know the translation. What it means is the eternal, natural way. And yeah, this is the tradition that I found myself attracted to after reading the Bhagavad Gita for the first time. And what struck me about the Bhagavad Gita, especially contrasting it to the Abrahamic scriptures that I read, again, the Bible and the Quran, was that the image of God was something that was radically different. You know, in the Abrahamic religions, God speaks to us in a monologue. You know, he talks to us, actually, he dictates to us. He tells us what to do. He tells us what punishments we'll have if we don't do what he wants us to do, et cetera. But it's a one-way conversation. But in the Bhagavad Gita, what was fascinating is that it was a two-way conversation. In the Bhagavad Gita, it was a conversation between God and a warrior, of all people. Not a scene. Yeah, not necessarily a prophet, like Muhammad, just sort of an average guy. Yeah, exactly, exactly. You know, that's the other thing that struck me was that the person who was having this in-depth conversation with God was an average person and specifically a warrior. You know, he was someone who, at the time he was alive, his name was Arjuna. He was considered the greatest warrior on earth, you know, and yet he's having this conversation with God where they are discussing truly philosophy, you know, in the true sense of that term. They discussed in the Bhagavad Gita, every philosophical issue, pretty much, that you can think of, everything from ethics to metaphysics to ontology, even touching on politics, quite literally everything. So you're saying it's a mutual discussion, not a one-way? Sure, well, I wouldn't really call it mutual because, you know, there is hierarchy. So, yeah, there's obviously a hierarchy, but it's different. It's not like Christianity or Islam where there's not as necessarily, it's not as much. Well, I mean, you could say, I guess some people might make an argument that there's a dialogue, how is it comparable to, say, a dialogue with Jesus and the New Testament? I would say somewhat similar, except, again, a little bit more down to earth, a little bit more practical. That's the other thing about the Bhagavad Gita is that it's very practical. You know, there's a lot of wisdom there that you can just very easily incorporate into your daily life. You don't even have to be a follower of the Bhagavad Gita. If you just read a little bit of it, you know, there's so much wisdom that's there. And what's wonderful is that you can take from it whatever you want. If you just want some practical wisdom, you can find that. But also, if you want to go very deeply into philosophical issues, you can do that as well. So, yeah, all of this just absolutely struck me when I first read the Bhagavad Gita. And from there, again, at the age of about 10, I just began practicing this. I began reading more books and going to yoga classes and I began meditating and just trying to follow this to the best that I could. I've been following it now for 40 years. I followed this extremely in-depth to the point where I was actually a monk for six years. I did visit India a few times and I became initiated as a Vedic priest there in 1986. I then decided to also pursue this academically as well as personally. And I ended up getting a bachelor's degree in philosophy from Loyola University in Chicago. I went on to get a master's degree and eventually a PhD from the University of Wisconsin and Madison in religious studies. And basically, what I do now full time is I teach. I teach Sanatana Dharma, not in a university context because I find academia to be very empty. Rather, I'm a spiritual teacher and I've written about nine books now. I have more books coming out. I travel the nation and basically teach students all throughout the nation, the deeper principles of this tradition of Sanatana Dharma. So there is the concept of Dharma. And the thing about Dharma, it's one of those things, everyone knows the word Dharma but most people don't know what it actually means. Absolutely, that's absolutely true. Yeah, there was some show 10 years ago called something, what was it, Dharma and Greg? Oh yeah, a terrible show. Yeah, it was a sitcom, a hippie married, a conservative lawyer or something. Yeah, it's true. Everyone has heard of the term Dharma but truthfully, sadly, very few people know. What it actually means. Or there's kind of the stereotype of the hippie who goes to India that goes back to the 60s and you wouldn't say that necessarily applies to you, but a lot of people might think that. No, no, I'm very much the opposite of a hippie I can't stand hippies actually. No, there are many stereotypes about Vedic spirituality and that's definitely one of them. This idea that it's tied to liberalism, to hippie culture, that it's tied to hedonism, that it's tied to, yes, the whole anti-revolution, you could say, that took place in the 60s. No, that is not in any way the case whatsoever actually. The truth of the matter is that it's certainly in America has been very much taken over by this sort of mindset, which is unfortunate. But the truth is, Sanatana Dharma itself is radically traditionalist in outlook. There is nothing hippie-ish whatsoever about it. It's a path that believes very strongly in virtue and the idea of upholding ethics. It does not believe in the idea of relative ethics that you just kind of make up rules as you go along. It believes very strongly in the idea of hierarchy, radical hierarchy actually. In fact, there is no religion on earth that expresses the healthy concept of hierarchy more so than Sanatana Dharma. Sanatana Dharma is also radically anti-agallitarian, it's as radically anti-agallitarian actually as any philosophical system on the face of the earth possibly can be. So no, it's not some liberal hippie sort of fantasy as many people tend to think. And you said there are similarities in the European pagan traditions and Zoroastrianism, even some of the Native American religions. But there was a major break between Dharma and the Abrahamic faiths, which are basically Christianity, Islam and Judaism. Yes, it's very true. I discussed this in the Dharma Manifesto, very, very in-depth. First of all, as far as Dharma itself, for myself, when I use the term Dharma, and again, I explain this very in-depth and really for the first time ever in any book, but I explain this in the Dharma Manifesto, the term Dharma itself is a philosophical term. It's not a sectarian term. The word Dharma itself is translated very simply as natural law. That's what the term means. And what is meant by natural law is simply the idea that when we look at the cosmos around us, it is a universe, a world that is full of meaning, and that has inherent principles that are there embedded within the very structure of the universe, and those principles can be known. But in a nutshell, is Dharma. That's what the word means. Now with that understanding, all of the ancients believed in Dharma. And when it comes to, for example, the Western world, really, most, if not all, of the ancient European civilizations and cultures shared this worldview. I mean, anyone who is a classist, anyone who understands ancient Europe will readily agree to this, that the ancient Greco-Romans, that the ancient Germanic tribes, that the ancient Celts, the ancient Slavic pagans, all of these pre-Christian cultures basically shared in the exact same worldview that I just explained as the translation and meaning of Dharma, that it is natural law. So in my mind, but also within the book itself, the Dharma Manifesto, when I speak about Dharma, again, it's not tied to what we call quote unquote Hinduism, it's not tied to something Eastern, Asian, Indian, etc. Yeah, you would even say that Hinduism in India today has nothing to do with a Dharma. Very little. Yes, very little. I would say that Hinduism today is certainly, let's say, a watered down outgrowth of Dharma. But the two are not synonymous, Sanatana Dharma is pure Dharma spirituality, whereas what we call Hinduism today is just a hodgepodge of many, many more recent ideas that may be started off as Dharma, but it no longer is today, unfortunately. And yeah, I mean, India was in, they were invaded by Islam and they adopted, I'm certainly, they adopted Abrahamic principles. Oh, sure, yes, they definitely did in many ways. Yes, yeah, I mean, there's a long list of ways in which the Islamic invasion certainly changed Vedic spirituality, but also just demographic changes that occurred, ethnic changes that occurred, linguistic changes. There are many changes that happened that changed how Sanatana Dharma was both understood and practiced in India and all throughout South Asia. So truthfully, what's interesting is, if we were to try to equate Dharma with, let's say, something that we could understand today, it would not be today's Hinduism, it would not be today's India, rather what it would be would be indeed ancient European paganism. You know, I tell people this all the time that Dharma is really synonymous with, for example, Asatru, you know, with Odenism, it's synonymous with Greco-Roman paganism. You know, Dharma and pre-Christian European paganism are one, they are the same thing. What is the conflict theory? Oh, okay, this might take a little bit more time to explain, but again, I'll try to be very brief. So this goes back to the Abrahamic face. Yes, yes, definitely. And in fact, before I even talk about that, maybe I should just very quickly talk about the divide between the Dharmic religions and the Abrahamic religions, just so people can understand that first. And I guess you can get started. They obviously, the Abrahamic face, have their origin in Abraham, who was, I mean, you lived about 4,000 years ago, so this goes way back. Yes, definitely, definitely. Previously previous to Abraham, again, when you look at all of the ancient Indo-European cultures and civilizations of the world, while they all had localized expressions, you know, they all had their own languages and foods and ways of dressing, et cetera, one of several things that they all shared was, indeed, this concept of natural law of Dharma. You know, that was something that they all had in common. This was the world view of the, basically, the entire Earth, previous to Abraham. When Abraham comes onto the scene, and you're right, about 4,000 years ago, what then happens is a radical break in both world view, let's say, development of world view, but also in history, what is introduced is a new way of seeing the world that is not just different from what was there previously, not just different from Dharma or natural law, but opposed to it. Quite literally, it was the opposite of it. So to make a long story short, because we're talking about 4,000 years of history, the way I stated in the Dharma Manifesto, if we were to look, indeed, at history and even at today, at every conflict that has occurred throughout history, basically, what we can see has been nothing but an ongoing war between two poles, those two poles being Dharma. And again, when I say Dharma, I include all of paganism, I include, basically, almost everything that's not Abrahamic, almost, not quite everything. On the one hand, but then Abrahamism, on the opposite side of the pole, we have been experiencing a 4,000 year war between these two forces. All right. Now, all that being said, now we will get to conflict theory. What I call conflict theory is basically the philosophical essence of what makes Abrahamism tick. I'm not the first person, of course, to notice this divide between Abrahamism and, let's say, the natural law religions. But I'm probably the first person to understand what is it exactly that makes Abrahamism tick. And again, it's this conflict theory. With Dharma, the idea is that when we look at the world, yes, we see all kinds of diversity, but what Dharma does with that diversity is that it tries to order it. You know, Dharma looks at the world and it sees different peoples, it sees different talents in individuals, it sees all of these differences, but then Dharma tries to bring about some sort of harmony by creating a hierarchy, you know, by taking all of these different elements and putting it somewhere in this hierarchy in such a way that it creates a beautiful functional order. The Abrahamic religions, on the other hand, do quite literally the opposite. And this is conflict theory. Their idea is they also see all of the divisions that are there. They see the differences in races. They see the differences in genders. They see the differences in language and religions and on and on. Rather than trying to create harmony, what they do is instead, try to have them war against one another. That's kind of like how in Islam, the Muslims view the infidels, the outsider as the enemies, or in the Old Testament and in Judaism, it's the Gentiles, it's very much based on us versus them. Exactly, exactly. And it's unavoidable to see this in all of the Abrahamic religions, that they are religions of conflict. Even when it comes to so-called religious wars, I always have to laugh when atheists, for example, try to bring up this argument, "Well, you know, religion is nonsense because of all of these religious wars." Well, I always have to point out, the only religions that ever engaged in religious wars were the Abrahamic religions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. One of the Dharmic religions, none of the pagan religions, engaged in religious war. They had wars, certainly, but not with the idea that it's a religious war. I'm going to war against this other religion and militarily defeat them and then convert them. Yeah, like if you look at the pre-Islamic Persian Empire, which was Erostrian, they were conquerors, they conquered other people, but it wasn't necessarily based on religion, they just were conquerors for the sake of conquering. Exactly. Exactly. Yeah, this idea of conflict is something that we find being born very specifically with the Abrahamic religions. And not just conflict, but, you know, it's interesting because no one had ever really talked about this before, this conflict theory. I literally had to create a term for it in Sanskrit, if we were able to have Arghana Vada. This is a term that I literally created that didn't exist previously in Sanskrit. And what it means is, this is what conflict theory is. The theory of growth through conflict, through warfare, you know, this is basically the essence of not just the three Abrahamic religions, interestingly, in the Dharmic Manifesto. I also include Marxism in this group because I consider Marxism also to be a direct outgrowth of the Abrahamic worldview. We especially see this with Marxism, where the entire idea is class conflict. And now with cultural Marxism, of course, every kind of conflict. The idea of Marxism, again, just continuing with the whole conflict theory of Abrahamism. The whole idea of Marxism today especially is, oh, let's have men and women war against each other. We have the generations, younger people and older people, war against each other. Let's have classes war against each other and on and on and on. With the idea that as a result of that conflict, something greater will come about. You know, this is the Hegelian thesis, which inspired Marx, you know, the idea that you have a thesis, then antithesis, and then synthesis. Well, that also is rooted in conflict theory. The idea that conflict between the various elements of the diversity that we see is a good thing. Well, it's not a good thing. That's the problem. And of course, what we have seen is that all of this warfare, class, gender, race, etc., what it ends up doing is just making all of society miserable. So again, you know, this is, again, a very, very brief nutshell. But this is one of the main ways in which Abrahamism is radically different from everything that is opposing Abrahamism. So the book goes from the spiritual aspect on to the political aspect. What inspired you to implement these ideas to a political platform or agenda? Well, good question. In fact, I should actually say this is a political book. But of course, the idea is that it is a book based upon the politics of Dharma. And in Dharma, as is true for all the ancient cultures, there really is no difference between spirituality and politics. Truth is truth. And truth is simply expressed in different fields in accordance with what that field is. So the book itself is a political manifesto purely, but because it is a manifesto based upon Dharma, certainly it all throughout is very, very spiritual and tone as well. As far as what inspired me to write this, several things, first of all, for myself having understood the absolute philosophical profundity of Dharma, it gets back to those stereotypes again. Certainly there are so many people who have the unfortunate idea that one year a spiritual person, that means that you're no longer engaged in the world. And that is absolutely not the case. I wanted to show that Sanatana Dharma, that Vedic spirituality teaches us certainly self realization, God realization, how to attain very high mystical states, etc. But it's not limited to that. What is amazing is ancient Vedic culture, especially commented on every single aspect of the human experience, from the political to the economic to the aesthetic to the social, the scientific and on and on and on. And what I wanted to show is that Sanatana Dharma is indeed a very practical ideology. It has theories on economics, it has theories on every day to day situation we can think of. That was the first thing. The first thing is, I felt, I knew that there was a tremendous need in the world. You know, when we look around us, at the world around us, and this will not come as any surprise to anyone who visits countercurrents, which I do myself periodically, when we look at the world around us, what do we see? We see a world in absolute chaos. We see a world that has been turned upside down. We see a world in which meaninglessness is prevalent now. We see a world in which corruption is the norm, where we have a small cottery of individuals, of demonic individuals who control politics and culture and the media and academia. And this is the question, what are we to do? What are we to do to reverse this situation in a very practical sort of way? Well, you point out that all the basically major ideologies that have came out of the last century, they've all failed Marxism, liberalism, capitalism, fascism, you say that they're all failures. Yes, yes, and of course to varying degrees, you know, it will vary from ideology to ideology. But yes, you know, the 20th century specifically was the century of ideology and what did we see? More people died in the name of ideology in the 20th century than ever and things only got worse. Basically yes, all the politics of the past have failed. And you know, this idea is very somewhat similar to the ideas of Alexander Dugin, the idea that both the left and the right in the 20th century had their chance, they had their try, they failed, and now it's time to start something new. So you're kind of a third positionist. In a way, in a way, I try not to lock myself into, let's say, current-day ideological structures. What I like to say is that this ideology that I've explained in the Dharma Manifesto is actually something that certainly is not right-wing, not left-wing, but on the other hand it's not really a combination of both, it's something that transcends the very idea of left-wing and right-wing. This is why if you read the Dharma Manifesto, you'll find some elements that are very right-wing, but then you'll find some elements that, to the common mind, might seem liberal. So for example, being radically pro-environmental and things like that might seem liberal to people. But the truth of the matter is I truly present this as a complete break from the past, a complete break from all of the ideologies that we've seen in the past, both conservative and liberal, right-wing and left-wing. Even the terms right-wing and left-wing themselves are really left-wing terms, so that's kind of meaningless. So how would you describe those modern-day political ideologies of the left and the right and what are their biggest flaws? Oh, quite a few things. For the left, of course, again, the left is itself based upon what I described as conflict theory, it's based upon Abrahamism. Even the so-called atheistic trends of Marxism really, unbeknownst to them, are really based on antecedents that are religious, that is Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. What is interesting about the left is that their tremendous contribution to the chaos of the world today is, of course, their war on spirituality itself. That's what I would consider to be the greatest harm that they've done. As far as the right, unfortunately, much of the right-wing has been reactionary rather than revolutionary, and that's been the difficulty. The left most certainly has been in the driver's seat for at least the last 100 years, if not since the Enlightenment era, so maybe several hundred years. The right's response to the left has unfortunately just not been effective. It's been a reaction to the left, constantly allowing the left to dictate the terms of the debate, et cetera. What the right has to do is to re-embrace the idea of an ideology for ideology's sake. In other words, an ideology that is not merely reactive, but that actually offers its own paradigm that is positive in nature, its own worldview. What is missing from the right is precisely a world view, a systematic ideology. Again, in this way, both the left and the right today have had tremendous problems, which is why we need a brand new ideology. One thing I like about what you're saying is to put an emphasis on creating beauty and preserving beauty, because both the left and the right and both communism and the American capitalist system create a lot of ugliness and don't really put any emphasis on preserving beauty. That's very true. That's very, very true actually. Yes, we reject both systems, both capitalism and socialism, and it's interesting. Both systems are really based upon greed. They're both based upon materialism. What's interesting is, just dealing with, let's say, the left for now with socialism, with Marxism, socialism claims to be an antidote to materialism. This is the whole idea of Marxism, is that they're opposed to capitalist greed. They're opposed to the values of the bourgeoisie. On the one hand, on the other hand, what they use to try to defeat the so-called materialism is more materialism. Metaphysically is the idea that really all that exists in the world is what is empirical, is literally just matter, and that there is no spirit, that there is no deeper meaning to life. If you try to defeat materialism with materialism, it's kind of like trying to put out a fire by throwing matches into it. You're only going to make the situation worse. Of course, with capitalism, I don't believe ever even attempted to be anti-materialist, and this is the problem. Both systems are radically materialist in nature, and what we need as human beings in order to be happy is not merely more materialism. What we need is deep meaning in life and in deep beauty. Beauty in the metaphysical sense, and that means in every sense of that term, not simply aesthetic or empirical beauty. We need to live beautiful lives. We need to live lives themselves that are expressions of deep, deep happiness and meaning and depth, and that's something that neither socialism nor capitalism have ever had the ability to deliver to anyone. The important part is the values that you're talking about, but beyond that, what would a Dharma-based economic system look like? Again, it would be a rejection of both socialism and capitalism. On the one hand, Dharma believes very strongly in the idea of private property. It's opposed to collectivism, it's opposed to communalism, it's opposed to socialism in every way. The idea is that everyone should indeed have the ability to own property, to own their own businesses, etc. But on the other hand, such things should not be accumulated in the hands of only a few people. In this way, Dharma economics is somewhat similar to what is sometimes called distributism. I'm sure you've heard of this phenomenon that-- Yeah, I've talked a lot about distributism. It has a distributism, has its origins, strong sort of Catholic origins, so I guess in that sense, it does overlap with teachings based on Abrahamic faith. Well, not really, I would see it the other way around, actually. So you're saying, okay, I get what you're saying, so sir, you say that there are aspects of the Abrahamic faiths like Christianity and even factions of Islam that have Dharma principles. Oh, sure, I mean, the truth of the matter is, again, Dharma is natural law. It's something that can be repressed, but that never can be destroyed. And interestingly, even in the Abrahamic religions, you sometimes see expressions of Dharma just kind of creep up to the surface. You see that probably more with Christianity than the other two religions. Yeah, but certainly you do see that. But actually what I was saying is kind of the opposite. I was just using distributism as a somewhat similar example. Dharma always had this idea that property and wealth should be distributed among the greatest number of people possible. That's one very important principle of Dharma economics. Another important principle, for example, there are many, is that we are radically opposed to usury, we are radically opposed to the idea of small cottery of bankers and other individuals, loaning money to people at exorbitant interest rates, that's something that's absolutely anathema to Dharma, as it was to all of the ancient religions of the world. Interestingly, even today, even Christianity and Islam are opposed usury, but that's something that we're also opposed to on a very, seriously in the three Abrahamic faiths, opposed usury as well. Well, Judaism doesn't, but Christianity does officially and Islam does officially. Judaism, to my knowledge, is the only religion that is in favor of usury. Yeah, and it's not going to Dharma is absolutely opposed to it. So, those are the key economic principles that of a Dharma-based economic system are decentralization and the abolishment of usury. Yeah, those are certainly some of the major of the major foundations of Dharma economics. And I guess another political issue we could discuss, what would a Dharma-based foreign policy look like? Obviously, a lot of the wars that we're having, and say the Middle East, tie back to these Abrahamic issues. Yes, they do, yes, they do. Again, I'll try to state this as briefly as possible. Essentially, if we had had, let's say, a Dharma administration in place in America for the last 20 years or so, not one of these wars would have taken place because we don't believe in the idea of engaging in foreign wars in order to try to nation-build in other countries, in order to try to change the political landscape of other nations. Essentially, war should only be engaged in defense, in defense of the homeland. So with America, for example, war should be engaged in defense. If someone decides, if a foreign nation decides to attack America, well, then certainly at that point, war must take place. But the idea of having so many, so many dozens and dozens and dozens of military bases throughout the world is something that a Dharma administration would never have done. We would very quickly shut down, if not all, then certainly most of the bases that are there throughout, especially Europe, which simply don't need to be there, we would shut down all of the bases throughout the Middle East, et cetera. We would also bring most, if not all, of the troops back. Also, as far as the military itself, we certainly would actually, interestingly, make the military qualitatively stronger. In other words, we would actually reduce the number of actual soldiers by a certain degree. But for those individuals who are indeed there in the military, what we would do is create a warrior culture that qualitatively could be improved tremendously. Sort of like how Hinduism, I know you don't like the word Hindu, but Hinduism had a warrior cast. Oh, yes, absolutely. Yes, yes, and it still does. And in fact, interestingly, again, this often surprises people when I tell them this, Sanatana Dharma itself, Vedic religion, is a warrior religion. And I don't want to go too deeply into that, but I could probably go on for hours about why that's the case. So yes, we very much believe in the idea of a strong military. We believe in the idea of warrior culture, but we don't believe in the idea of imperialism. We don't believe in the idea of engaging in foreign wars, and especially when, and it's quite obvious, America is engaging in these foreign wars, not in the pursuit of its own interests, but in the pursuit of the interests of foreign nations that will remain nameless. Yes. Well, you could say, you mean like Israel or Saudi Arabia. Yes. Yes, exactly. Such a thing would not occur under a Darmic administration. Foreign policy would be nationalistic in content. So in other words, it would be based upon what is in the best interest of the people of the nation and not in the best interest of other foreign nations. And with the caste system, with the caste system in India, there was a merchant class, but the merchant class was not the top caste. Obviously, the top caste was the spiritual or priest caste, but that's one of the problems. I mean, even Adam Smith, the father of capitalism, he warned about allowing the merchant class to become the ruling class. Oh, yes, definitely. Definitely. Yeah, you know, when it comes to Vedic culture, yes, we believe in what is called the Varna system, what sometimes is called caste. Again, I don't like the word caste, just like I don't like the word Hinduism, because it's really describing something that is now a perverted system. The actual term is Varna, V-A-R-N-A. And with the system, it's recognized that there are four, let's say, psychophysical natures, you know, and every, well, I shouldn't say every human being, many human beings fall under one of these four Varna's. The top one in this hierarchy is certainly the Brahmanas, and those are the people who are spiritual, who are priests, who are intellectuals, who are teachers. These are the people who are meant to guide society and to keep society virtuous by their own example. Below that, you have the Kshatriyas, and those are the warriors. Those are the individuals who are administrators. They are the people who are actually meant to rule the day-to-day governmental administration, but they also are the fighters. They are quite literally warriors, trained to kill in the defense of the people and in defense of righteousness. Below those, we have the Vyschas, and the Vyschas are indeed the merchants. That's the, you could say, the capitalist class. Those are the people who are motivated by making money. And then finally, you have the Shudras, and the Shudras are laborers. They are the individuals who choose to work with their hands. That's their psychophysical nature. It's recognized that all four have to be there. They're all important. They all should be treated with dignity and have to be respected. It's not that because a person is a Shudra or a laborer that they should be looked down upon. All people are needed. But at the same time, there is a hierarchy that has to be recognized, and this is the hierarchy. What we've seen historically, interestingly, is that history has progressed through these four varnas from the top to the bottom. At one time, society, again, was guided by the brahmanas, by the priestly class. We see this among the Celtic, among the Celts. They had the druids who guided them. And then in Europe, for example, we'll just deal with Europe for now. Eventually, it became the warriors, the knights, who became the rulers of society. Then with the birth of capitalism, of course, yes, it became the merchant class, the bourgeoisie, who became the rulers of society. And now, what we are seeing is the Shudra class. We're seeing the laborers basically ruling society. So that's what a communism allegedly attempted, but obviously it didn't actually implement that, but that was their goal. Exactly. At least on paper, that was their goal was to have a dictatorship of the proletariat, was to have a dictatorship of the Shudra class. It didn't work, of course, because, unfortunately, the Shudra class can't rule. The reason why they can't is because, again, it's not part of their psychophysical nature. Laborers wish to work with their hands. They're not designed as individuals to rule a nation, so, of course, communism collapsed. It just never worked. You know, what is your, how would you adopt the concept of nationalism to Dharma principle? Oh, yes. In fact, interestingly, I used the term Dharma nationalism all throughout the book, Dharma nationalism, Dharma nationalist. However, when I use that term, I'm not talking about just a mere, let's say, xenophobia, because even modern nation states are indeed just that. They're rather modern. You know, so when I speak about Dharma nationalism, I mean this in two senses. First of all, in the more philosophical sense, and that is a nation that is ruled in accordance with natural law, a nation in which natural law, or Dharma, is instantiated in governance. That's the first thing. The second thing is, we do indeed have to understand what is meant by the term nation itself. And today, of course, what's meant is just a geographical boundary, you know, the nation of France, and then we envision France on a map or the nation of this country, that country. The purest understanding of the term nation, however, is tied more organically to the people. When there is a distinct people who have their own distinct ethnic identity, linguistic expression, let's say historical commonality, et cetera, et cetera, that in itself is a nation. So interestingly, when we look at something like America today, for example, or for that matter, sadly, even many of the let's say states of Europe, these are no longer nations in this proper organic sense of that term. If we look at America, at America, for example, what we have is a state in which there are many, many different nations depending upon the specific people who you are looking at within. Yeah, in America, I mean, America is an artificial nation. I mean, ideally, I mean, I'd like to see America broken up in a bunch of smaller nations. I agree. Actually, in fact, this is one of the premises that is there in the Dharma Manifesto is that we are very much in favor of the idea of not just political decentralization, but also the idea of independence. In other words, if there is indeed a people in this organic sense of the term, and if they choose to have truly their own nation in, again, the proper sense of that term, they should be allowed to do so. Yeah, in America, I would say as a like the Soviet Union, the Soviet Union was an artificial nation based on communism. America became a nation based on an artificial nation based on materialistic values. It was held up as a place for people to come and make money, but it's not a nation in an organic sense. Yes, I agree. I agree 100%. And the truth of the matter is it's been held together in a variety of ways by force. It's been held together artificially. And of course, we know that just like with the Soviet Union, America too is destined to eventually break up into, yes, more organic expressions of nationhood. So for example, as far as I'm concerned as a follower of Dharma, I would be perfectly fine. If, for example, the Native Americans of Hawaii wanted to go independent, have their own nation, if the Navajo wanted to have their own nation, if let's say some black nationalists decided, well, you know, they want to have their own nation somewhere within the context of America, et cetera, et cetera. I feel that these are very natural instincts that, again, are just arising naturally and organically and are expressions of true nationhood in the true sense of that term, and that they should be allowed to proceed in that way. So America eventually is going to split up whether people life it or not. And with the issue of a ethno-nationalist, do you think a lot of ethno-nationalist movements like black nationalism or white nationalism, do they, would you say they adopt the sort of the values of the conflict theory? Or is very much our group versus this group? Yes, and that's unfortunate. I'm very glad you brought that up, actually. Yes, unfortunately with many, let's say, natural nationalist movements in the world today, unfortunately, they do tend to have this idea of me versus the other, not merely that I am different and I should celebrate my difference, but more that I am different and that those other people are my enemy. Well, that's a silly way of viewing the world, because this is a world that has natural diversity in it. We're always going to have many races, we're always going to have many peoples, many languages. What is of importance is to celebrate who we are to embrace our identity, including our ethnic identity, but without seeing everyone else as our natural enemy who were meant to hunt down, etc. I would say that is reactionary. I mean, if you look at white nationalism, they have legitimate grievances against things like mass immigration and political correctness and anti-white policies, but I think the flaw is they adopt a lot of the same aspects of an us versus them mentality. There has to be a way to sort of, for more, a way for more cooperation and accepting differences, but for people to have to coexist, but at the same time be opposed to the policies that are in place now. Exactly, yes. You said it perfectly, actually, the problem is a reactionary attitude versus an intelligent, positive, revolutionary attitude, and we have to understand that there is a difference between natural diversity versus the idea of multiculturalism. Dharma nationalism is very much opposed to the idea of multiculturalism, but it also is very much in favor of the idea of natural diversity. I mean, how can we not? How can you be opposed to the idea of natural diversity? In that case, you're going against nature itself. So yes, we have to understand the natural diversity that's there, that people are different. What to speak of different ethnic groups and languages and religions, even within a religion or ethnicity, you're going to find infinite diversity. Well, we have to embrace that diversity. We have to understand that that's natural, but at the same time without trying to bring about an artificial idea of either radical egalitarianism or the idea that identity doesn't matter, identity does matter on every level, spiritual identity, ultimately, knowing who and what we are spiritually as eternal beings who are expressions of the divine, but even identity on the more, let's say, material sense, embracing our own heritage, everyone I feel, regardless of who they are, should embrace their heritage, whether they're Europeans, Africans, whoever, we have to embrace our ancestors, be thankful to our ancestors for everything that they did to make us who we are today, etc. So it's a matter of intelligent, healthy balance. On the one hand, understanding that natural diversity is always going to be there, but on the other hand, always in a healthy way, always hanging on to who we are and our own identity. And that is very, very similar to basically what Alexander Dugan has been saying. Yes, it is, it is. I have a lot of respect for Dugan. I'm not a follower of his, I'm not a follower of fourth political theory, but I certainly have a lot of respect for the fact that he's at least trying to take a very intelligent approach, understanding that we live in what he calls a multipolar world, you know, we live in a world where the idea of one nation or one people just dominating everything simply won't work. And it's not natural. It simply is not natural. But again, understanding that diversity that is there while at the same time having pride in our own heritage. And you're very much opposed to mass immigration. Yes, yes, I am. Yes, I mean, certainly a small amount of normal and healthy immigration has always taken place and done in a very orderly way. It can certainly sometimes benefit a nation. But what's been happening in the last several decades is certainly something that's been very harmful to really every nation. And interestingly, not just the nations that are the involuntary hosts of immigration, but actually those nations as well from where these people originate, you know, I'll give the example of India, for example, since I do know India somewhat well, you know, there's been a tremendous brain drain in India, you know, there are millions and millions of Indians who have left India to come to the Western world, all of who are MDs and engineers and IT professionals, et cetera. And whenever I have discussions with my Indian friends about this, you know, they always get very excited when I start to lay out this vision for them. I'll say to them, just imagine if all of these millions of really highly educated Indians, instead of leaving and trying to become rich in the West, if they actually went back to India, took all of their skills and did everything possible to help India prosper, imagine the benefit that would be there for the people of India. And this is true for many nations, you know, so the fact of the matter is mass immigration is something that is certainly not good for the more advanced industrialized nations, but also causes tremendous brain drain and drain of skills from all of these third world nations as well. It harms the third world nations as well. And the end result of globalism, mass immigration is it's not, I mean, it's not genuine diversity. I mean, we can say celebrate diversity in the true sense, but it's a marginalization. You get a bunch of people who are eventually a big hodgepodge of a bunch of different groups with basically this bland, corporate, materialistic culture and basically all cultures and distinct groups are all wiped out. Exactly. This is the multiculturalist version of diversity. Hey, guess what? Now you can go to McDonald's in New York or L.A., or you can go to McDonald's in New Delhi, or you can go to McDonald's in Moscow, or you can go to McDonald's in Beijing, but it's all McDonald's. Yes, exactly. It's a homogenization of culture rather than true diversity, and that is the problem. And the other issue I'd like to touch on is the issue of the environment and animal rights, because that is one thing about the Abrahamic face is it basically says that the animals and the natural resources were basically given to man, and you see that even in the Old Testament, so there is this, there's not a, basically Christianity, Islam and Judaism are, they're not sufficient when it comes to teaching respect for nature and for animals. No, not at all. This has been, again, one of the core, let's say, foundational ideas of the Abrahamic religions is that I would go so far as to say that they see themselves as being at war with nature. Yes, we see this with Judaism, Christianity and Islam. We see this also with Marxism. It's fascinating how when we had communist nations in Europe, it was always the communist nations, for example, East Germany, who were the most severe polluters and destroyers of the environment, interestingly. Yes, they see themselves as being at war with nature because truthfully, nature is synonymous with dharma, and they are at war with dharma. They are at war with anything that even hints at natural order, at natural law, etc. And dharma, on the other hand, is radically pro-nature in a very healthy way. We believe that nature is a gift from God and that it is there not merely to be an object for our use, but it is interestingly a subject. We see nature as being alive. We see everything around us as being alive. We see the earth not just as a dead rock just floating in space that exists for us to exploit and mine into. Rather, we see the earth as a woman. We see the earth as our mother. As a result, we have tremendous respect for nature, the same thing with animals as well. We believe that animals are worthy of respect. I don't want people to think that, again, we're not hippies. We're not opposed to hunting in a healthy, respectable sort of way. But at the same time, we are opposed to the abuse of animals. We feel that as much as is possible, if people can, for example, begin to adopt a more vegetarian diet, that certainly would be very helpful as far as being more ethical toward animals, but also something to help the environment as well. And you're totally opposed to factory farming. Oh, absolutely. Yes. Again, if we had a darmination factory farming would cease to exist and on the contrary, we would encourage as many families as possible to have family farms rather than factory farming. Yes. And that also, I mean, there's the animal rights issue, but it also ties in with the economic issue because factory farming and, say, in the Central Valley of California, it creates extreme poverty and it encourages illegal migration. If you have a society of small farms, you have self-sufficiency and a strong middle class. Absolutely. Exactly. Yes. I would agree with that. And in fact, getting back to economics in general, actually, we would be in favor of not just of the idea of family farms, but really of the idea that all economics should really be as family-oriented as possible. So for example, we are opposed to the idea of corporatism. We are opposed to the idea of corporations. Rather, businesses should be as locally owned and controlled as possible and more they should be owned by families. The family is considered the most important unit in society, according to Dharma. And that's true politically, economically, in every way imaginable. So we would be in favor of not just family farms, but as many family businesses as as possible. If we had our way, we would actually break up all of these chains. And so, for example, just to use the obvious example of McDonald's, rather than McDonald's, being a massive corporation that's owned by some central corporation, we would sell off every single local branch to a local family who would own it. And the same for Best Buy, the same for Blockbuster, the same for any corporation that we can think of, Wal-Mart. Actually Wal-Mart would probably cease to exist because a typical family wouldn't be able to run a store that large, but I think that's not the idea. Yeah, the Walton family, their net worth is greater than the bottom 40% of the nation. I would not be surprised. I would not be surprised. Yeah, and again, we believe that wealth should be distributed among the greatest number of people imaginable. Again, not in a communistic sense, but in a real sense, yeah, exactly. Not a Marxist redistribution, but on the contrary, the idea of redistributing the means of production in such a manner that, again, local families would be able to have shops again. They would be mom and pop shops again, something that used to exist in America, but that doesn't anymore. I can't tell you how many times I've been tricked where I'll find a restaurant that seems wonderful and I'll go in there, and it really seems like a local restaurant, and then I'm suddenly in a completely different city and, oh, there's that restaurant again, I guess it was a chain. Local restaurants, local businesses have just ceased to exist, and we have to reverse this completely. We need to decentralize the means of economic production and prosperity, et cetera. I know this side of countercurrents is more of a Eurocentric side, but have you had some positive responses from people who are of non-European backgrounds? Oh, yes, definitely, definitely. Yeah, especially Indians, especially individuals who were born and raised in the Hindu context. Many of them have actually read the book, the Dharma Manifesto and other books that I've written that talk about these issues and have been extremely positive. In fact, I would actually say in the last few years that I put these books out, including the Dharma Manifesto, I actually have not gotten even one negative response, interestingly, which actually surprises even me. The response has been very good from everyone. Before I wrap up the show, I'll let you plug your website and your information. Sure, well, thank you. Thank you for the opportunity. We have several websites, actually. The main one, which is the spiritual website, is DharmaCentral.com. That's Dharma is in what we've just been talking about, and then Central, alloneword.com. The other website that we have that deals specifically with what we've been talking about, and that is the politics of the Dharma Manifesto, that website is DharmaNation.org. I'd like to thank you again for being on. My pleasure. Thank you so much for the opportunity. I appreciate it. That's all we have for today's show, so take care and we'll be back with you next time! [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music]