I see the bhramin/kshatriya divide as a manifestation of the yin/yang duality (with Brahmin the yin). The question of why Brahmin is seen as the higher caste has long been interesting to me.
But I am not sure “truth” is the right knife to cut here. There are different kinds of truth. Specifically, there is a truth of effectiveness which shows up in politics and military, also engineering.
Then there is moral truth, the ought.
So if you are concerned with, say, mathematics, which kind of truth is it? Maybe there is a triad the father (power), the son (authority), and the spirit (math).
Thanks for giving word to something many people in these spaces tend to dismiss.
One meme I’ve seen frequently in dissident circles that perfectly illustrates your point: the scene from the film Starship Troopers where the teacher lectures about “violence is the ultimate authority”. It’s a dangerous viewpoint that often culminates in catastrophes such as the French Revolution and Bolshevism, as well as their complementary reactionary political movements (which weren’t completely misguided either).
The only contention I have with your article, and correct me if I’m wrong, but you seem to be using the term *kshatriya* in a pejorative sense (was your title spelt intentionally?). A brahmin can’t really be said to be “superior” to another caste by virtue of his position in the hierarchy, but rather by his excellence in fulfilling his role as a spiritual leader. A kshatriya who fulfills his duties and obligations in the hierarchy is equal in dignity and excellence, and the same could be said for the merchant, the artisan, and the laborer. All roles are equally necessary and virtuous, and can be seen as paths to fulfillment in a traditional society.
Also, the reality is that many (perhaps most) dissidents are simply not brahmins. They shouldn’t be expected to be thought leaders. We may have already reached a point in the historical timeline where action must be taken and this is the purview of the “warrior”. Some who would see themselves as brahmins may be content to lecture everyone to “not do anything” in the hopes of some ideal solution that will manifest by itself in some imagined future—if it’s not perfect, then it can’t be good. I think this mindset can also be equally destructive. The time for action must be recognized and acknowledged.
The spelling of the title is intentional, but the intention is not to derogate Kshatriyas (in modern terms, the military classes); lower-case 'kshitriya' is a playful distortion of the word, meant to convey the idea of a warrior-fantasist (cf. 'shemale' vs. 'female'). I've clarified all that in a footnote now, so thanks for flagging up the lack of clarity.
As for the question of taking action, and your correct perception that most dissidents are not Brahmins, we might look at it through the Kshatriya prism of a military analogy. Imagine the dissident right as an 'army' with the Brahmins as the 'strategists', the Kshatriyas as the 'cavalry' or 'armour', and everyone else as ordinary militia, conscripts, skirmishers, etc. Obviously this latter group will only get cut to pieces if the Kshatriyas are not around to support them, and those best suited to act as Brahmins merely herd the people into action and get embroiled in the fighting without ever having reasoned out a plan. But this is precisely how dissident rightists roll, and no amount of breakage will dissuade them (as I'm sure we will soon see in the aftermath of current events), which is what led me to think that the problem is psychological.
h1b pajeet would've been all over this
This is a very good post. Bravo.
I see the bhramin/kshatriya divide as a manifestation of the yin/yang duality (with Brahmin the yin). The question of why Brahmin is seen as the higher caste has long been interesting to me.
But I am not sure “truth” is the right knife to cut here. There are different kinds of truth. Specifically, there is a truth of effectiveness which shows up in politics and military, also engineering.
Then there is moral truth, the ought.
So if you are concerned with, say, mathematics, which kind of truth is it? Maybe there is a triad the father (power), the son (authority), and the spirit (math).
Thanks for giving word to something many people in these spaces tend to dismiss.
One meme I’ve seen frequently in dissident circles that perfectly illustrates your point: the scene from the film Starship Troopers where the teacher lectures about “violence is the ultimate authority”. It’s a dangerous viewpoint that often culminates in catastrophes such as the French Revolution and Bolshevism, as well as their complementary reactionary political movements (which weren’t completely misguided either).
The only contention I have with your article, and correct me if I’m wrong, but you seem to be using the term *kshatriya* in a pejorative sense (was your title spelt intentionally?). A brahmin can’t really be said to be “superior” to another caste by virtue of his position in the hierarchy, but rather by his excellence in fulfilling his role as a spiritual leader. A kshatriya who fulfills his duties and obligations in the hierarchy is equal in dignity and excellence, and the same could be said for the merchant, the artisan, and the laborer. All roles are equally necessary and virtuous, and can be seen as paths to fulfillment in a traditional society.
Also, the reality is that many (perhaps most) dissidents are simply not brahmins. They shouldn’t be expected to be thought leaders. We may have already reached a point in the historical timeline where action must be taken and this is the purview of the “warrior”. Some who would see themselves as brahmins may be content to lecture everyone to “not do anything” in the hopes of some ideal solution that will manifest by itself in some imagined future—if it’s not perfect, then it can’t be good. I think this mindset can also be equally destructive. The time for action must be recognized and acknowledged.
The spelling of the title is intentional, but the intention is not to derogate Kshatriyas (in modern terms, the military classes); lower-case 'kshitriya' is a playful distortion of the word, meant to convey the idea of a warrior-fantasist (cf. 'shemale' vs. 'female'). I've clarified all that in a footnote now, so thanks for flagging up the lack of clarity.
As for the question of taking action, and your correct perception that most dissidents are not Brahmins, we might look at it through the Kshatriya prism of a military analogy. Imagine the dissident right as an 'army' with the Brahmins as the 'strategists', the Kshatriyas as the 'cavalry' or 'armour', and everyone else as ordinary militia, conscripts, skirmishers, etc. Obviously this latter group will only get cut to pieces if the Kshatriyas are not around to support them, and those best suited to act as Brahmins merely herd the people into action and get embroiled in the fighting without ever having reasoned out a plan. But this is precisely how dissident rightists roll, and no amount of breakage will dissuade them (as I'm sure we will soon see in the aftermath of current events), which is what led me to think that the problem is psychological.