A Vedic critique of Marxism by Frank Morales (Sri Dharma Pravartaka Acharya). 

A Vedic Critique of Marxism

“If you can cut the people off from their history, then they can be easily persuaded.”
– Karl Marx (1818-1883)
Marxism is arguably the most monstrously destructive and morally reprehensible worldview the world has ever known. The perpetual violence that has been instigated by Marxist movements, totalitarian Communist dictatorships, bloody guerrilla wars, and terrorist bloodshed has been responsible for more deaths and suffering during the twentieth century than any other rival ideology of that era, including National Socialism. Marxism has led to the destruction of cultures, the dehumanization and misery of large segments of the global population, and the degeneration of the human spirit. Marxism is an atheistic and materialistic philosophy that views human beings as purely mechanistic, characterless and utilitarian automatons. For Marxists, human persons are to be reduced, both philosophically and in practice, to nothing more than soulless and bland laborers, whose existence only has meaning in direct proportion to their degree of utility by, and enslavement to, the state.
Karl Marx (1818-1883) was a German citizen of Jewish descent who in his youth had been interested in the views of the German idealist philosopher and theologian Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831). Though Hegel’s philosophical system was theistic, and most of his followers at that time were themselves primarily religious individuals, Marx’s introduction to Hegel’s thought was via the Young Hegelians, a group dedicated to misusing Hegel’s philosophical methods to undermine and eradicate religious thought itself, rather than uphold it. The two main leaders of the Young Hegelians were Ludwig Feuerbach (1804-1872) and Bruno Bauer (1809-1882).
Karl Marx had initially (pre-1844) subscribed to the Feuerbachian program of the critique of religion. While he continued to employ the notion of a philosophical anthropology – the attempt to discern the human meaning behind every experience – he went further than LudwigFeuerbach with his attempt to perform a critique of political economy. In the following section, we will briefly examine what led Marx to attempt such a critique, and talk about the ways in which political economy is thoroughly resistant to such a Marxist critique.
Fueurbach and the Young Hegelians felt that the very apex of both the philosophical and the theological enterprises had been achieved by Hegelianism and German Lutheranism, respectively. Thus, in their monumentally insular view, the end of the philosophic enterprise had suddenly commenced in their lifetime.[1] Now, the only project left was the creation of a philosophical anthropology – an attempt to show that all philosophical ideas were dependent upon what is essentially human in the purely biologically behavioral sense. Once a general account of humanity would be attained, so their belief went, then such an account could be applied to all things. The primary tool of this project was the use of the process of criticism, which would purportedly reveal the conditions for the very possibility of any object under observation.
The Young Hegelians, including Feuerbach and Marx, had applied this process of critique to the nature of the theology of the so-called Right Hegelians, who were primarily Lutheran theologians loyal to Hegel’s theistic philosophical underpinnings. Feuerbach, specifically, felt that religion was merely an unreal projection of essential, alienated humanity. Furthermore, for Feuerbach, God was no more than the construction of human beings, and actually represented the conceptual personification of what were in actuality very human traits. By critiquing God and religion, Feuerbach thought, a greater knowledge of human beings could be attained. Marx would later fervently agree with this general premise.
While Feuerbach felt that there was at least a trans-historical human essence, however, Marx felt that such an idea was too much of a concession to the “metaphysical”, and that man’s essence was only ever revealed under real world, materialist conditions. Human beings, for Marx, are in essence, primordially, producers and makers. Work, for Marx, was both the raison d’être and essential attributive nature of the human person. Therefore, on Marx’s account, self-actualization consisted in nothing more than having the freedom to perform meaningful work. Production, for Marx, was labor that is transformative towards creating a certain outcome, a praxis. Political economy was a body of theories formulated by the classical economists (such as Adam Smith) that sees human beings as essentially productive animals. Therefore, political economy – the realm of production and exchange – now became the central object of any Marxist critique.
The French Revolution supposedly succeeded in creating political emancipation, so Marx insisted, but state equality displaced inequality into the social sphere. In the social sphere, human beings were subject to an overwhelming sense of alienation. The proletariat (the working class) was separated from what they essentially are – biologically-determined producers unleashed to create, as an expression of their own essence. Political economy was thus seen as nothing more than the projection of our collective human praxis.  Instead of political economy serving human purposes, however, Marx felt that humanity was presently serving the needs of political economy. But the present political economy is nothing more than our own creation. Now a human revolution was needed. In order to begin this purportedly emancipatory process, Marx felt that the economic system of his time needed to be translated into a philosophical anthropology.
Marx’s attempt to translate the critical program to political economy proved immediately problematic for three reasons. 1) While God is immaterial, economies are very material; 2) It was impossible at Marx’s juncture in history to imagine a world without alienated labor; 3) Marx used Adam Smith as his primary economic theorist, though many of Smith’s ideas no longer applied.
Thus, while Marx made the attempt to translate Fueurbach’s failed critique of religion into a critique of political economy, such an application was itself a complete failure, to say the least.
The Failures of Marxism
“We are ruthless and ask no quarter from you. When our turn comes we shall not disguise our terrorism.”[2] – Karl Marx
The failures of Marxism are legion and have been well documented for many decades by a wide variety of scholars, researchers, thinkers, economists and political scientists. Marxism eliminates all incentive for people to engage in any form of labor, whether intellectual, artistic or physical. By eliminating wages directly reflective of the value of individual instances of labor, people living under Marxist regimes are forced to work for a rationed amount of food and basic resources. Without a fair wage to work for, people naturally lose the motivation to work at all, thus leading to economic stagnation and a sense of hopelessness. We have seen such instances of economic failure in every Communist nation in history, and we are now beginning to see such economic breakdown occur in Europe and America as a direct result of the incremental introduction of crypto-Marxist economic policies.
A nation under the bondage of Marxism is destined to failure because such a state provides its people with no reason to strive for anything higher than being a personless atom in the social mass. With no distinctions, diversity, hierarchy, or classes to order the varying social strata of society in a sane and reasonable manner, a doctor will be paid the same wage as garbage collector, and a factory laborer has no hopes of ever earning a better life even if he acquired a Ph.D. All people are paid equally for work that requires unequal levels of skill, talent, education and personal natural propensity, so the person who aspires to be a doctor has no motivation to go to school for so many years of hard work only to be paid the same amount as someone who has not gone to school at all.
Marxism is predicated upon the idea of radical egalitarianism. Consequently, Marxists strive to utterly eliminate any sense of ethnic and national diversity, pride or celebration. The policy of eliminating a people’s natural and inherent sense of distinct cultural identity is designed to deprive people of any identity-sourced empowerment to dissent against the totalitarian, atheistic government. It is precisely for this reason that we must hold on to our ethnic and cultural identity at all costs, expressing a healthy pride in who we are, and in the ethnic heritage that made us who we are. Marxists, both those who have already gained power and those who seek to force their way to power in non-Marxist societies, promote and force ethnic amalgamation at the direct expense of ethnic diversity, often in the very name of ethnic diversity. We must never allow any government to eliminate the rich and beautiful diversity of the many cultures, languages, ethnicities, races and unique peoples that make our world the fascinating and meaningful place it is.
Marxism enforces its own beliefs and forcefully prevents all free speech that departs from their own belief system. Marxism is based upon fanaticism, hatred, doctrinaire closed-mindedness, dogmatic slogans, and blind faith in unsound historical, social and economic theories. Those found dissenting against the Marxist system are taken from their families and put into re-education centers or Gulags for merciless and systematic brainwashing. Those who continue to dissent are often summarily executed, with the family expected to pay for the bullets. The nightmarish Marxist model of the state represents the very opposite model that is presented by Dharma.
Comparison of Marxism with Sanatana Dharma

(Please compare both lists side by side)
Biological Determinism.
External environment creates human essence.
Nurture trumps Nature.
Radical egalitarianism.
Class, gender, race and social conflict.
Ethnic disintegration.
Eradication of gender differences.
Destruction of Tradition.
Culture reflects the lowest common denominator.
“Socialist realist” art.
Destruction of the family structure.
Exploitation of Nature, and degradation of the environment.
Relativist ethics (the ends justify the means).
Lack of civil freedoms.
Personhood subsumed in the amorphous masses.
Democratic centralism.
Abortion on demand.
All means of production controlled by the state.
Human beings create their external environment, which in turn can have an effect

upon the natural development of the person.
Will trumps both Nature and Nurture.
Qualitative Hierarchy.
Class, gender, and social harmony and cooperation.
Ethnic Plurality.
Ethnic integrity.
Celebration of gender distinctions.
Celebrating Tradition.
Culture reflects the highest ideals.
Aesthetics inspired by ideal forms, transcendent insight, eternal archetypes,

and inspiration from Nature.
Upholding the traditional family.
Preservation and reverence for Nature.
Firm non-relativist ethics.
Human values based upon transcendent truth.
Inherent freedom of the human person.
Human personality never subsumed in the amorphous masses.
Leadership principle.
Respect for innocent life.
All means of production controlled by free and creative human persons and

Marxist philosophy, and the Communist movement in general, is without doubt the most destructive ideology humanity has ever been subjected to. Marxism represents the exact antithesis of Natural Law, of religion, of positive culture, of any form of national ideal, and of healthy tradition. Marxism is the polar opposite of life itself. It is the embodiment of the final, quintessential stage of the 4000-year-old failed Abrahamic experiment.
Communism has been responsible for the death, murder, torture and pain of more human beings than any ideology in world history (with, arguably, the possible exception of Islam). In China, the former USSR, and the former Communist nations of Eastern Europe, it has led to environmental degradation that is unprecedented. Marxism is a culture-destroyer. Far from being “progressive” and leading societies toward greater advancement, Marxism has led the nations under its rule back to the dark ages. In each and every significant way, Marxism is the very exact opposite of everything that Dharma and Natural Law has ever stood for. This explains why for the last 150 years of history, communists have been one of Vedic civilization’s very greatest enemies, and have tried to destroy us every chance they get. Marxism is the natural enemy of Dharma. Every follower of Sanatana Dharma must oppose Marxist materialism with every breath we have.

Some awesome Truths!

Source: Collective Evolution | by MARK DENICOLA

No matter how much we believe we have our “shit” together, life carries many harsh truths, and no matter how much we may wish to run away from them, it is only through accepting them that we can take full responsibility for our lives.

You may be aware of some of these already, but for the rest, I’m willing to be the blunt bastard that tells them to you. You may hate me today, but you’ll thank me tomorrow.

For the record, this isn’t meant to be a pessimistic rant about how tough life is. It’s meant to motivate you to take action armed with this knowledge.

Here are 8 brutally honest truths you need to hear if you want to get your shit together in both video and written form:

1. You’re Going to Regret How Much Time You Spend on Social Media

Social media is amazing, and I’m as addicted to it as you are. But social media is also making us all more disconnected than we’ve ever been before through the illusion of increased connection. Yes, we are able to communicate with thousands of people with ease, but with what depth?

Social media is robbing way too many of us of real connection and real life experiences. Rather than looking at the world as we walk somewhere or ride public transit, we regress to what the digital world has to offer. If our addiction level stays the same, things could become really scary, and this doesn’t even take into account the potential repercussions of so much exposure to technology.

2. Your Reactions Are the Problem

Yes, shit happens. And quite often that shit really sucks to have to go through or deal with. But regardless of how challenging something is, it’s always our reaction to it that will dictate how much it is going to impact our lives.

You decide how much, and for how long, getting cut off on the highway is going to piss you off, and you decide how much someone’s poor opinion of you is going to make you shell up in insecurity. Let your natural reactions happen, but then consciously choose how long you want to let them impact everything else.

3. The Riskiest Thing You Can Do Is Avoid Risks

Whether or not you consider yourself a risk-seeker, there is nothing more risky than complacency. I’m not suggesting that you cannot get to a point where you are truly happy with your life and therefore simply want to sustain that lifestyle, but I’m suggesting that never taking any risks is about as dangerous as it gets.

Stop playing small if you know you want to play big, and stop telling yourself “this is good enough” if you know deep down you would love to do, create, and have so much more. The cost of taking that risk is your long-term happiness.

4. You Should Always Have Enough Money for What Matters

“I would love to attend that seminar or buy that course that can change my life, but money is too tight right now.” As true as that may be, you should always have more than enough to do the things that really matter.

The biggest obstacle is the way we instead spend it on the things that don’t. We don’t process buying a $7 premium coffee daily as an investment in nothing, but we do overthink and see spending a couple hundred dollars on something life-changing as too much. I’m not suggesting we start spending recklessly, or never treat ourselves, but rather that we do reassess how we currently spend our money.

5. People Are Going to Hate You No Matter What You Do

You can try and people please your entire life, but no matter what, some people are always going to dislike you. So rather than wasting your time trying to match what you think is the most acceptable, spend that time accepting exactly who you are.

6. Blaming Only Makes You Weaker

In the moment, to unjustly direct blame towards a circumstance or other person may seem relieving, but in the long term it really takes its toll. The less you take responsibility for your actions and decision making, the weaker you become mentally.

Taking responsibility may come with some immediate repercussions, but over time, it builds a life founded on honesty, and it strengthens your ability to tackle challenges when they do arise.

7. People Don’t Think of You as Much as You Think They Do

From our perspective, the whole world revolves around us, but there are 7 billion people who see it the same way. While we are not all inherently selfish or self-obsessed, we are all far more concerned with how we are perceived by others than how we perceive them.

So once again, embrace your true self and find peace in knowing that people are too concerned with themselves to give you as much as attention as you think they are.

8. Not Even the Perfect Relationship Is Going to Complete You

I have close friends whose long-term romantic relationships I not only admire, but also hope to one day experience. But even they, who seem to have found “the one,” recognize that true happiness comes from within and can never be filled in by another.

Relationships are an extension of our happiness and not the basis of it, so focus on strengthening the one with yourself and all of the others will follow accordingly.

Beautiful discourse by Swami Mukundananda on the Vedic teachings on Free Will & Agency.

JUN 26, 2011

When God is the actual Doer, why are the souls subjected to the results of their karmas?
I added this discourse by Swami Mukundananda here because of its sheer explanatory excellence in illuminating the Vaishnava Vedantic principles of Agency & Free Will.

Question asked by a devotee: When God is the actual Doer, why are the souls subjected to the results of their karmas?  

Answer by Swamiji:  Many people diminish the need for self-effort in their minds by saying, “Nothing is in our hands.  God is seated within us.  He is the doer of all our actions, and we act as He inspires us.”  However, this philosophy is not really true, as the following points will illustrate: 
If God were the doer of all our actions, we would never have committed any mistakes.  All of our works would have been perfect, since God can never make a blunder.  The fact that we make innumerable mistakes implies that we are performing actions with our own free will.  If God were the doer of our actions, we would not have to bear the karmic reactions.  Why would we suffer for works that God did through us?  He would either bear the karmic reactions on His own, or forgive Himself.  But there is the Law of Karma, “As you do, so you shall reap.”  This implies that we ourselves are responsible for what we do. God is impartial towards all souls and perfectly just.  If He was the doer of our actions, He would either have made everyone do good works and become Saints; or He would have made everyone do bad works and become demons.  But there is so much of variety in the world.  One is a Saint, like Prahlad, while the other is a demon, like Hiranyakashipu.  This variety implies that we have the freedom to choose our own actions, and we are responsible for them, not God.   If God were the inspirer of our actions, there would have be no need for Him to reveal the Vedas or any other scriptures.  There would be no need for Him to explain to us the path to perfection.  He would simply have to say two sentences: “O souls, I am the doer of everything.  So you do not have to understand what proper and improper action is.” 

It is true that God is seated within us, and He gives us the power to act.  However, what we do with that power is decided by our own free will.  This is just as the powerhouse supplies electricity to your house.  If it did not give the power, you would not have been able to use any electric appliances in your home.  However, once you do have that power, what you do with it, is your own choice.  You could operate the fan, light the lamp, or heat/cool the house, as you wish.  

Similarly, God gives our eyes the power to see.  If He did not give us this power, we would not have been able to see anything.  But once we do have this power, what we see is in our own hands.  You could go to the temple and see the Deities, or you could see dirty pictures on theinternet.  God is merely giving you the power to see.  What you decide to see is your own choice decided by your free will.  Hence, we must not blame God for our mistakes.  If we do something wrong, we should take responsibility for the error and strive to correct it.

Swami Mukunananda

Posted from WordPress for Android

Which is more dangerous, climate change or Islam?

The liberal media & their co-conspirators in academia keep bombarding us with climate change propoganda as though this phenomenon has never before happened in the planet’s 4 billion year history! In fact, climate stability has been the exception rather than the norm in the natural history of this planet. So, what are they trying to accomplish by doing this?

The devious left wants the developing world to be denied the benefits of Grid distributed electricity & the consequent industrialization that would result! This would serve a number of their goals. Firstly, it would keep the developing world economically poor & politically unstable in order to better exploit their resources & be susceptible to externally funded forces of social and cultural destruction and disruption. Secondly, it would also enable Africa & the Muslim world to continue to be a net source of unskilled & illegal immigration into North America & Western Europe in order to benefit the super rich with cheap labour & hasten the process of cultural breakdown & replacement among the lower economical segments of society.

Therefore, it’s imperative for them to convince us that the greatest enemy we face is the chimera of climate change & not the reality of Islamic extremists in our midst and often right next door. Constantly, we are told that only a *small* fragment of Muslims are dangerous because they’ve been somehow brainwashed into an ideology that’s foreign to their religion. I’ve even heard the BBC & Indian MSM compare demonic groups like ISIS & Al Qaeda with homegrown activists like the VHP & RSS! The comparison in the case of the RSS is so ludicrous that it’s malicious intent is quite apparent!

Unfortunately, large segments of our media drugged societies believe this balderdash that’s constantly being drummed into into their pathetic, unthinking brains! We need to find ways to reverse this barrage of mind numbing Voodoo zombiefication that the media spews out if we’re going to be able to save the very souls of our ailing societies!

Posted from WordPress for Android

How can we have a Hindu Rashtra when we don’t even precisely define what Hinduism is!

It is a matter of intense frustration for me when Hindus routinely define Non-Hindu & Anti-Hindu religions to be Hindu. Admittedly, this perversion of Dharma was first promulgated by Nehru & his Hinduphobic lackeys in an insidious attempt to dilute the purity & power of Sanatana Dharma!

It is not at all uncommon to see Hindus on various social media platforms defending Non-Hindu religions like Buddhism & Sikhism and diluting their own faiths in the process. No Buddhist or Sikh would agree that they are Hindus! These religions contain teachings that are in fundamental contradiction to Vedic teachings & their committed followers are fully and correctly cognizant of this fact. One often sees this ridiculous stance even parroted by Hindu Nationalists.

Buddhism is a religion that died out in India some 600 years ago or thereabouts. It thrives in various Asian countries in forms that would be utterly unrecognizable to the Ancient Buddhists of India. The teachings of Buddhism moreover, have evolved after the Buddha’s passing in ways that would be inimical to his original teachings as well as to Vedic Dharma! Buddhism as practiced today is a Soulless & Godless religion that is also intensely Anti-Hindu! This can easily be seen in a casual perusal of Buddhist literature that deals in interfaith issues. Moreover, in India, Buddhism is often used as a political ideology that is positioned to attack Hinduism & India’s unity! Vedic Acharyas like Shankaracharya, Ramanujacharya & even the Patanjala school have dedicated reams of literature dedicated to refuting the conclusions of this false Dharma! It would be a matter of intense disappointment to our spiritual ancestors to know that we’re not able to distinguish True Dharma from Falsehoods. The fact that we must recognize is that Buddhism as it exists today is most emphatically neither Hindu nor even Indian!

Sikhism is another religion that is considered to be Hindu in today’s India. Nevermind that the Sikh religion itself considers itself to be a mixture of Hinduism & Islam. The Guru Granth Sahib itself is a mixture of the writings of Hindu Saints & Muslim ideologues. The teachings of Sikhism moreover forbid the principle of Deity worship and adopt the Abrahamic dogma of conceiving the Supreme being as an amorphous entity. Moreover, recent political events have ensured that Sikhs consider themselves far closer to Islam theologically & politically than to Hinduism. The most interesting issue here is that Hindus feel obliged to appease a community that is thoroughly inimical to it & is less than 2% of the total population of India. This indicates an extremely low level of cultural self confidence among Hindus.

A viable Hindu Rashtra must be based on the Eternal principles that underpin Sanatana Dharma and not on mere nationalistic values. This requires us to go against acquired conditioning and be willing to acknowledge differences between religions and not attempt to reduce everything to a meaningless & impotent unity. The enthusiastic study of the Vedic Scriptures in conjunction with their authentic commentaries will be a good start to this end though a program of sharing what one has learned by teaching it to others is equally important.


Posted from WordPress for Android