Hitler’s Legacy

The shake-down that never ends.

June 26, 2013admin 27 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Uncategorized

TAGGED WITH :

27 Responses to this entry

  • Thales Says:

    Given what the war (eventually) did for Athenian monetary policy, perhaps Hitler should instead be thanked at some level. 😉

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 26th, 2013 at 5:04 pm Reply | Quote
  • Scharlach Says:

    Unfortunately for the ethno-nationalists, their emphasis on nationhood and posterity does indeed mean that the son can still pay for the sins of the great-grandfather.

    Keeping with their love of double-speak, progressives, in most other cases, pay lip service to the present, the future, re-inventing norms, constructing new identities, tearing down old borders, so on and so forth. But when it comes to atrocities committed by Certain Groups (i.e., white Europeans) generations or centuries ago, well then, of course the past must be owned and continually repented for! Never forget!

    The ethno-nationalists, in most cases, emphasize history, conserving the past, continuing old traditions . . . but that sets them up for precisely this kind of shakedown, and too many of them retreat into the “Well, that was generations ago, and we had nothing to do with it!” excuse.

    What they should say, of course, is the something along these lines:

    “Keep your false piety to yourself, muchacho. This isn’t about ‘humanity’ or ‘paying for sins.’ This is a shakedown in 2013, and you’re just using the 1940s [or 1490s or whatever] as a pretext for getting something out of me. Otherwise, why did you wait until now to bring all this up? Call it like it is, hombre, and I’ll work with you. You’re desperate and grasping for straws, so obviously you’re not going away unless you get something. Fine. But if you insist on continuing this human rights bullshit rhetoric, don’t be surprised, if I fall on hard times, when I dig into the skeletons in your closet and find some distant pretext for getting shit out of you in the present.”

    [Reply]

    Artxell Knaphni Reply:

    If the notion of reparations for actual atrocities is to be considered as a ‘shakedown’, what distinguishes the criminal from the nation? If a profits of criminality are said to be ill-gotten gains susceptible to confiscation by the state, whosoever is the beneficiary of them, what distinguishes nations that has utilised the wealth gleaned from exporting atrocity as investment kapital for their own development, well-being, and economic advantages over other nations, not to speak of the practice of continuing exploitations?

    “It is interesting to note that Allan Ramsay likewise deplored “a friendly alliance between the camp and the counting-house” for exactly the same reasons (Letters on the Present Disturbances, p.34). Ramsay maintained that of the evil consequences of such alliance “the two last wars carried on by England against France and Spain, furnish a most melancholy illustration. To obtain the sole and exclusive commerce of the western world, in which the French and Spaniards were their rivals, was the modest wish of our merchants, in conjunction with our Americans. The fair, and truly commercial, method of effecting this would have been, by superior skill, industry and frugality, to have undersold their rivals at market: but that method appearing slow and troublesome to a luxurious people, whose extraordinary expences* required extraordinary profits, a more expeditous one was devised; which was that of driving their rivals entirely out of the seas, and preventing them from bringing their goods at all to market. For this purpose, not having any fleets or armies of their own, the powers of the State were found necessary, and they applied them accordingly” (ibid., pp.32 f.).

    Knorr, K. E. ‘Ch02-Part2 British Colonial Theories 1570-1850’. In British Colonial Theories, 1570-1850. The University of Toronto Press, 1944.”

    [Reply]

    Scharlach Reply:

    c.f., Legitimacy (political)

    /Oh, and you had me at “investment kapital” 😉

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 26th, 2013 at 7:24 pm Reply | Quote
  • Thales Says:

    Further, Germany is already playing the role of Atlas by lugging the PIGS upon its mighty shoulders. What’s Greek for “chutzpah”?

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 26th, 2013 at 7:46 pm Reply | Quote
  • Artxell Knaphni Says:

    At what point does ‘criminality’ become legitimised as ‘war’?

    Why is it ‘wrong’ for an ostracised and disadvantaged group to engage in particular activities (e.g. Columbians dealing drugs), and yet considered as honourable history when a ‘nation’ has engaged in the same activities (e.g. Britain dealing opium, imposing this trade by force, against Chinese legislation of the time)?

    If atrocity is to be considered, the Germans have not been alone as its eager practioners. Britain, and other European states, have willingly exported atrocity in exchange for wealth. Islamic nations, too, have not been reticent, in this regard.

    It does seem somewhat hypocritical for a lot of the nations, west of India and China, to speak of preserving civilisation, as if they were exemplars of a history of civility.

    [Reply]

    Scharlach Reply:

    It does seem somewhat hypocritical for a lot of the nations, west of India and China, to speak of preserving civilisation, as if they were exemplars of a history of civility.

    Okay. For the sake of argument, I’ll draw up a list of nations, tribes, and historical populations that have NEVER dealt violently and self-interestedly with surrounding, nations, tribes, and populations.

    1.

    There. Done.

    The question for you is: Why does it only get your panties in a bunch when it’s people “west of India and China” doing the deeds?

    [Reply]

    Artxell Knaphni Reply:

    “Okay. For the sake of argument, I’ll draw up a list of nations, tribes, and historical populations that have NEVER dealt violently and self-interestedly with surrounding, nations, tribes, and populations.”

    LOL. Typical rejoinder, good sir.
    The conjunction of “self-interest” with “violence” hides a multitude of sins. It puts the ordinary individual in the same category as Hitler. It is possible to draw up a more realistic list, one that points out consistent reoffenders in unprovoked hostility. Such a list would show both China and India to be relatively unconcerned with serious territorial expansions, over the last 1500 years at least (border disputes are hardly the same as invading a country and committing genocide).

    Why was this so?
    At one time, India stretched all the way to Persia. And there were many wars, in the early days. After King Asoka’s conversion to Buddhism, India turned away from wars.
    In addition, there really wasn’t anything worth having in the rest of the world. China, too, despite their warlords, had no incentive to go outward. Remember, the “Great Wall” was built to keep people out.
    And in both cases, India, too, the “barbarians” always came from the North…
    Is it not interesting that on the whole, for millenia, China and India had no serious conflicts or disputes, until modern times, after Islamic and European interventions?

    So, yes, my “panties” feel quite justified in bunching themselves up. lol
    I return to my spot under the Bodhi tree. OM, or AUM.

    [Reply]

    Scharlach Reply:

    Yes, all those Islamic and European interventions . . .

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre

    And re: India, do you even bother to spend five minutes with Wikipedia before forging your obdurate worldview?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikh_Empire

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mughal_Empire

    Those borders you see on the contemporary globe? Conflicts that occurred within those borders in the past, before those borders existed as such, weren’t just civil disturbances.

    So, try once again: Panties, bunch, only when it’s white Europeans doing things?

    Scharlach Reply:

    Also, jut in case your contemporary affairs literacy is as lacking as your historical literacy, China’s millennium of isolationism came to an end a while ago . . .

    http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/article/new-imperialism-china-angola

    admin Reply:

    “Is it not interesting that on the whole, for millenia, China and India had no serious conflicts or disputes, until modern times, after Islamic and European interventions?” — I don’t want to pile on AK, but this is unbelievably ridiculous. Have you ever heard of Chinghis Khan?
    Chinese history is thoroughly blood-drenched — mostly systematically due to nomad invasions from the north, but also interrupted by quite regular and extremely violent uprisings. For more recent stuff, check out Qing Emperor Qianlong and his ‘Ten Great Campaigns’, then tell me whether you think that sounds like a quietly introverted period of peace.

    Posted on June 26th, 2013 at 8:51 pm Reply | Quote
  • Severen Says:

    Anyone familiar with the view of Hitler as antiwhite? Hitler isn’t viewed as being pro-white by everyone (maybe practically everyone, but not literally everyone).

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIfzKe_Mdco

    Part 1 is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1ruln-9KwU

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 26th, 2013 at 10:29 pm Reply | Quote
  • Orlandu84 Says:

    I could not resist posting the following quote from Book IV, Chapter 4 of Augusitne’s “City of God”:

    Justice being taken away, then, what are kingdoms but great robberies? For what are robberies themselves, but little kingdoms? The band itself is made up of men; it is ruled by the authority of a prince, it is knit together by the pact of the confederacy; the booty is divided by the law agreed on. If, by the admittance of abandoned men, this evil increases to such a degree that it holds places, fixes abodes, takes possession of cities, and subdues peoples, it assumes the more plainly the name of a kingdom, because the reality is now manifestly conferred on it, not by the removal of covetousness, but by the addition of impunity. Indeed, that was an apt and true reply which was given to Alexander the Great by a pirate who had been seized. For when that king had asked the man what he meant by keeping hostile possession of the sea, he answered with bold pride, What you mean by seizing the whole earth; but because I do it with a petty ship, I am called a robber, while you who does it with a great fleet are styled emperor.

    Augustine does not think that states are naturally robberies; he only contends that a state without justice is just a really large band of robbers. This insight, of course, raises the question of what constitutes “justice.” Unless you posit an ordering of the universe distinct from human will, then strength is justice. Machiavelli, anyone?

    [Reply]

    Artxell Knaphni Reply:

    “Justice being taken away, then, what are kingdoms but great robberies?”

    This is just what I’m talking about!
    Thank you for that, Orlandu84.

    I’ve wondered, for awhile now, what the difference is between colonial nations that have exploited others and their own peoples, and criminal organisations that have power?
    What is the essential difference, is there any at all?
    Consenting citizens alone, whatever their number, is not a really germane difference. Though, it is an important conditional factor.
    Justice, law, does seem to have a deep appeal to any community. It derives from a desire for ‘fairness’.

    ‘Fairness’ could be said to constitute a sense of propriety, not necessarily an equality with respect to specific empirical or ‘material’ distributions, but in the sense of an Hegelian recognition of each ‘cog’ in the ‘social machine’, as it were. Everyone is ‘sovereign’, in their own place. “An Englishman’s home is his castle” is a phrase that exemplifies this well. This perhaps constitutes a logic of ‘ultimate’ rationality, wherein the idea of law, as a space of universal ‘considerations’, is supposed to give each individual equal attention. It is not so much whether this ideal is realised effectively or not, that is important, rather, that it is ‘universally’ acceptable to all who use ‘reason’ to articulate their own claims.
    Without this ‘universality’, this sense of ‘fairness’ (see example), it seems that people are reluctant to explicitly subscribe to any proffered system of government, hence ‘peasant revolts’, etc.. A good king is said to be wise, if his rule is ‘just’.
    The increased ability of a system to deliver this notion of justice results in a decrease of appeals to that notion of justice by counterforces to the system: the claim of ‘injustice’ is harder to make. It is only in a scenario of all-out war, everyone against everyone, that such concerns would be irrelevant. But this would be at odds with even the simplest form of ‘social contract’ necessary to form any family, community, or social relationship.
    Hence, any governing system that can offer this form of justice on a wider scope, itself has a wider scope, a wider appeal. Hence the appeal of the democratic ideal, at least everyone, technically, gets representation, their moment in the light of Absolute Reason, as it were, without being too Hegelian about it. lol

    Any ordering based on strength alone devolves into increased reliance on “pure force” and arbitrary preference.
    Ad hoc preferentiality as the determinant of centralised rule may not be conducive to long-term, effective governance.
    It is potentially unstable, too, as there would probably be a host of contenders who prefer the contest for sovereign authority, rather than the insecurity of languishing in the hinterlands of the capriciously governed.

    “Pure force” government would appeal to those who see the rest of the world as an exploitable resource. The ‘democratic ideal’ would appeal to those who are concerned with building and living in a structure of mutually beneficial cooperations. These are the two conditioning extremities of polity, as presently instanced in the world.

    There are other configurations available, but they are not yet easily comprehensible within Occidental categories.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 27th, 2013 at 12:41 am Reply | Quote
  • Artxell Knaphni Says:

    @

    @Scharlach

    My point was that China and India were not expansionist for the last 1500 years.
    Although India did requisition some islands in the Indian Ocean.

    “http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre”

    This was an event of Japanese expansion, an invasion of China, not Chinese expansionism..

    “http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikh_Empire”

    The Sikh kingdom was an internal development, originating in India, not Indian imperialism imposed on other nations.

    “http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mughal_Empire”

    The Mughal empire was an Islamo-Mongol occupation, not Indian conquest of others.

    “So, try once again: Panties, bunch, only when it’s white Europeans doing things?””

    I must admit to not actually wearing “panties”, so am rather uncertain about the reference. I assume it to mean an irritation of a sort? Like those trains the British left, very noisy. Try meditating to “choo choo”.

    [Reply]

    Scharlach Reply:

    “Internal development” eh? I tried to preempt that argument in my comment, but you obviously missed it.

    First, the Sikh Empire set up colonial bases in Afghanistan. So, there’s that.

    But by your same logic, the expansion of the Roman Empire was essentially an “internal development.” I wish we could travel back in time to see what the Celts and the Germanic tribes would think about that.

    Also “internal” would have been the expansion of the Aztec empire, yes? They’re brown, so obviously they didn’t do anything wrong. Just some rearranged furniture in ol’ Mexico. It’s not like they replaced indigenous populations . . .

    http://public.wsu.edu/~bmkemp/publications/pubs/Mata-Miguez%20et%20al%202012.pdf

    An empire is an empire is an empire, Arxtell. People don’t get land and resources by being nice. Quite frankly, the first imperial expansion was the human one out of Africa. Don’t you think it’s just a weeeeeeee bit coincidental that every other archaic hominid went extinct while we thrived?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal_extinction_hypotheses

    Tens of thousands of years of violence, expansion, imperialism, warfare . . . Yet your Moral Outrage is only pointed at one very specific group, which, I assume, just happens to be your own group. I’m just trying to figure out why?

    [Reply]

    Artxell Knaphni Reply:

    “First, the Sikh Empire set up colonial bases in Afghanistan. So, there’s that. ”

    Ranjit Singh’s conquest of the Afghans?
    But Afghanistan actually was an ancient Indian province; it was called Gandhara; it was Hindu or Sind or Indus, whatever you want to call it. It was Indian. The invasions began with the Persians, more ‘barbarians from the North”?

    “Cyrus the Great (558–530 BC) united the Iranian people into a state that stretched from the Caucasus to the non-Iranian areas around the Indus River. Both Gandhara and Kamboja soon came to be included under this state which was governed by the Achaemenian Dynasty during the reign of Cyrus the Great or in the first year of Darius I. The Gandhara and Kamboja had constituted the seventh satrapies (upper Indus) of the Achaemenid Empire…
    The conquered area was the most fertile and populous region of the Achaemenid Empire. Indus Valley was already fabled for its gold; the province was able to supply gold dust equal in value to the very large amount of 4680 silver talents…
    When the Achamenids took control of this kingdom, Pushkarasakti, a contemporary of king Bimbisara of Magadha, was the king of Gandhara. He was engaged in a power struggle against the kingdoms of Avanti and Pandavas.”

    As ever, the ‘barbarian from the North’ takes advantage of internal dissents to steal gold and land. Once they have what they want, through ‘barbaric’ means, they start playing at being ‘civilised’.

    Afghanistan-Ghandara has gone back and forth, between native Indus-Sind-Hindu-Buddhist rule and foreign Persian-Mughal-Muslim invasions. Nadir Shah of Persia (another “barbarian from the North”?), in his 1735 invasion of India, annexed Afghanistan.
    Given that the Afghans-Persian-Turkics-Muslims were consistently raiding and invading India for centuries, from their base in Afghanistan-Ghandara, it seems highly exaggerated to imply the Sikh Empire’s occupation was an ‘expansion’, it’s not as if they (Afghans-Persian-Turkics-Muslims, etc.,) stuck to Afghanistan.

    “Yet your Moral Outrage is only pointed at one very specific group, which, I assume, just happens to be your own group. I’m just trying to figure out why?”

    I’m not morally outraged, Scharlach. I’m just pointing out the hypocrisy of all regimes that wish to call themselves ‘civilised’, but did it through exploitation of other civilisations. Barbaric regimes always use the imagination of ‘perpetual war’ as a justification, to the point of hypothesizing war as an enabling precondition for civilisation. That theory won’t work with the Indus Valley Civilisation: they didn’t have weapons. They practiced meditation and yoga. Their engineering feats weren’t equalled until 19th century Great Britain.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 27th, 2013 at 5:54 am Reply | Quote
  • Artxell Knaphni Says:

    @

    @admin

    “China and India had no serious conflicts or disputes, until modern times, after Islamic and European interventions?”

    I meant “China and India had no serious conflicts or disputes” with each other, at least until recently..

    [Reply]

    spandrell Reply:

    That’s because they never had a common border until Gengis Khan, and even then there’s still this small problem called the Himalayas.

    [… cropped for civility …]

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    (I’m assuming the Europoid ethno-masochistic response is that the very fact ‘India’ and China weren’t in contact attests to a comparative modesty of expansionist ambition. It’s not a great response, but it keeps the self-flagellation going a little longer.)

    [Reply]

    spandrell Reply:

    Modesty of expansionism! For the biggest countries on earth. China used to rule up to Lake Balkhash, And it’s already a long way from Luoyang to Hanoi. If there were no Tibetan plateau to complicate things, China and India would have been fighting since the Qin dynasty.

    In the end his only argument is that India has always been incapable of building strong states with expeditionary forces. I’ll give him that.

    Artxell Knaphni Reply:

    @spandrell

    “That’s because they never had a common border until Gengis Khan, and even then there’s still this small problem called the Himalayas.”

    My initial claim:

    “Is it not interesting that on the whole, for millenia, China and India had no serious conflicts or disputes, until modern times, after Islamic and European interventions?”

    I said: “no serious conflicts or disputes”: I didn’t mention full scale invasion. In any case, the Himalayas did not prevent considerable cultural interchange (Buddhism, etc.) between the two kingdoms. This implies a degree of cordiality. I realise that Buddhist monks could be formidable practioners of the martial arts, but I’m sure any motivated army with animus and ambition could have followed in their tracks – the Alps didn’t stop Hannibal, did they?.

    People have a tendency to conflate geopolitical arrangements of the present with those of the past. Instead of adequate imaginations of the past, they project their own limited, categories of understanding, in the hope that a fuller comprehension might arise. For those who only have axes of ignorance to grind, the past is something to appropriate according to their own dispositions, not an open text to interpret, and be interpreted by.

    “You’re just stupid, I guess our host lets your nonsense stand as a zoo-like reminder of HBD.”
    [Uncropped for honesty, I leave it to admin, whether to leave this section in or not? I think it is significant that spandrell resorts to this sort of ad hominem invective, locating my productions in the categories of the ‘zoological’, and ‘intellectual incompetence’. It allows the exploration of contradictions: e.g. implicit denigrations of ‘animality’ vs. the valorisation of evolutionary underminings of the exceptionalisms of ‘human spirit’, ‘soul’, etc.. The religious adherence to a particular form, regime, of mechanistic thought? ‘Intellectual competence’ identified with a fixed interpretation: the ability to calculate within a ‘fixed’ vocabulary of ‘fixed’ understandings? If Spandrell’s ‘logic’ is explored, it could be interesting.]

    That might be an insult, if you had a sufficiently rich conception of what thinking is about. But you don’t. You seem limited to wargames. I suppose you could quote Heraclitus? That might be in your favour? But, in any case, I’m quite happy to be considered stupid by an ‘intelligence’ that only equates with the dull mechanics of avarice. Such an ‘intelligence’ isn’t my project.

    [Reply]

    spandrell Reply:

    Understanding that Buddhism took a freaking 1000 years to get to China by circling the Himalayas to the West, going north into Central Asia and into the Tarim Basin, that isn’t your project either.

    If you spent half the time you spend in rationalizing your crap into going to Wikipedia and reading some basic history you wouldn’t be so embarrassing.

    Posted on June 27th, 2013 at 6:17 am Reply | Quote
  • admin Says:

    @ spandrell
    Quibbles apart, I agree. As for the quibbles:
    — ‘India’? I’ve no idea what that means, except as a British Imperial creation.
    — Effective capitalist imperialism followed colonialism, which required commercial endeavor with a high degree of autonomy (e.g. Dutch and British trading companies). That’s what Chinese Imperial government wasn’t prepared to tolerate.
    It also seems likely that, given it’s geo-strategic environment and the technological factors you emphasize, China has always been expansive up to the limits of its capability. So I agree that what is really being applauded is negative competence. (Nietzsche is right on this: triumphant slave moralities always applaud incompetence, misrepresented as restraint.)

    [Reply]

    spandrell Reply:

    Well overseas colonialism on ocean ships is one thing. But you could say that the integration of South China was a semi-autonomous effort of civilian Chinese migrating to the South and colonizing the land on their terms. Sometimes imperial commanderies were set up before them, sometimes not.
    Government led colonization, such as Korea on the Han Dynasty or the Tarim Basin on the Tang, on the other hand didn’t have long lasting results.

    And I think that there’s a common Gestalt for the subcontinent. Even in the absence of central states, most foreigners did understand India as a distinct cultural area. Something strange in the air after crossing Khyber Pass.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 28th, 2013 at 5:31 am Reply | Quote
  • John Hannon Says:

    Yes, when it comes to self-interested aggression, white Europeans are certainly no worse than anyone else on the planet, but then neither are they any better. There’s no diversity here – humans are rapacious creatures the whole world over – a fact that can only ever be overcome via worldwide cultivation of expanded consciousness.
    That’s the real war.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 28th, 2013 at 1:01 pm Reply | Quote
  • Artxell Knaphni Says:

    @spandrell

    “Understanding that Buddhism took a freaking 1000 years to get to China by circling the Himalayas to the West, going north into Central Asia and into the Tarim Basin, that isn’t your project either.

    If you spent half the time you spend in rationalizing your crap into going to Wikipedia and reading some basic history you wouldn’t be so embarrassing.”

    Interestingly, spandrell, your beloved Wikipedia seems at odds with itself…

    Siddhārtha Gautama was the historical founder of Buddhism. He was born a
    Kshatriya warrior prince in Lumbini, Nepal, in 623 BCE.[1]
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Buddhism#Siddhartha_Gautama

    563 BCE: Siddhārtha Gautama, Buddha-to-be, is born in Lumbini into a leading royal family in the republic of the Shakyas,
    which is now part of Nepal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Buddhism#BCE

    It seems that Buddhism “took a freaking 1000 years” to flourish in China, not merely arrive.

    “3rd Buddhist council (c. 250 BCE) [edit]
    Main article: Third Buddhist Council
    King Aśoka convened the third Buddhist council around 250 BCE at Pataliputra (today’s Patna). It was held by the monk Moggaliputtatissa. The objective of the council was to purify the Saṅgha, particularly from non-Buddhist ascetics who had
    been attracted by the royal patronage. Following the council, Buddhist missionaries were dispatched throughout the known world.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Buddhism#3rd_Buddhist_council_.28c._250_BCE.29

    “According to traditional accounts, Buddhism was introduced in China during the Han dynasty (206 BCE-220 CE) after an
    emperor dreamed of a flying golden man thought to be the Buddha. Although the archaeological record confirms that Buddhism
    was introduced sometime during the Han dynasty, it did not flourish in China until the Six Dynasties period (220-589 CE).”[28
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Buddhism#China

    And the circumnavigation you refer to, in no way obviated the Himalayan route.

    Daruma Daishi was the great monk who introduced Buddhism to China. Originally from India, he traveled across the Himalayas on foot to share the wisdom and knowledge from his studies. When he reached China, many people felt he was a fake or had mystical powers, and were immediately skeptical of him. “How could he get here from India? You can’t cross the Himalayas on foot!” http://www.kimsookarate.com/contributions/daruma_072603/daruma.htm.

    “Over the course of several centuries, not only did many outstanding Indian masters visit Tibet, but also many Tibetans made the difficult journey over the Himalayas to study the Dharma in India. They brought back with them the Buddhist philosophy of India and also the knowledge of Music, Medicine, Logic and Art. Within a relatively short period, Tibetan society had been transformed. What had once been a primitive nation was changed into one noted for its learning and wisdom”
    http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/buddhistworld/to-himalayas.htm

    It is generally accepted that the history of the development of modern Karate started in China. In the year 527 A.D. an Indian Buddhist monk named Bodhidharma (Daruma Taishi: jpn) walked across the Himalayan Mountains from India into the Hunan province of China to the Shao Lin (Little/Young Forrest) monastery that was situated there.
    http://www.sanchinryukarate.co.uk/history-of-karate/

    Bodhidharma like the Buddha renounced his kingdom and left for China. His father and his family opposed this renunciation, but ultimately seeing the resolve of the prince acceded to his request. Bodhidharma now set course. He traveled across North India and negotiated the Himalayan passes and crossed Tibet as enjoined by the Buddha. This travel took him 3 years and after that he entered China. http://mg-singh.hubpages.com/hub/bodhidharmandspreadofbuddhismtochina

    “If you spent half the time you spend in rationalizing your crap into going to Wikipedia and reading some basic history you wouldn’t be so embarrassing.”

    What’s the point of going to a page, if you don’t read it, except to hunt for straws?

    None of this is central to the point: whatever route Buddhism could take, a belligerent army could take, from either side.
    If the Himalayan route was not logistical, others could be found.

    {Large-scale endeavours of conquest would have to be incentivised, The development of effective capacities of belligerence could be hastened by factors such as domestic need, hardships that regiment a people around the common aim of external acquisition: plunder. There’s the factor of ruling desire, too, what does the sovereign want? Other checks and balances, etc..
    But none of this removes the other, very real factor.
    That wealth has to be generated by some sort of structure.
    If a peoples or sovereign finds it necessary to visit unprovoked hostility on one of those ‘structures’, for wealth, this is a radical move that necessarily implies a deficiency in those people, that sovereign.
    They’re engaging in an action, an effort, for the purpose of acquiring something they do not, as yet, have.
    The nebulous smog of claims and counter-claims to ownership could apply to all but the first instance of occupation.
    So there are disputes.
    Nevertheless, there have been many hostile actions which were quite obviously not petty border disputes, or quarrels over land entitlements.
    Whatever the reasons, these actions would have no justification, according to basic ethical norms exemplified in most moral codes.
    Thus, any socio-ethnic-national structure that has engaged in such hostilities, has necessarily limited the scope of its moral code, as not applying to all persons.
    If this limitation is based on empirical boundaries, geographic, genetic, cultural, linguistic, etc., it can be subject to the vacillation of those boundaries, their variance. This would generate the need for logics of ‘purity’ to legitimate where the moral code applies.
    These logics of ‘purity’ would necessarily lead to idealisations that have no empirical instantiation.
    They would lead to scenarios of contradiction: where idealisations, stemming from the valorisation of empirical instances, themselves ‘impure’ hybrids, finally clash.
    All of this results from any morality that founds itself on its own selective transgression. The very selection of its location of inapplicability, becomes the fulcrum around which it unravels, the logic of exclusion and dissolution, essentially being one and the same.}

    The point about China and India, is that there was cultural interchange on an amicable basis. That did exist. For those who only see conflict and deprivation, such interchanges are rendered secondary or dismissed as insignificant because war was impracticable in those circumstances. This assumption of ur-conflict is itself an anxiety that is historically conditioned and exploited. People are faced with choices: to cooperate or contest: to understand or ignore. I don’t really believe in ‘democracy’, per se, as it has been practiced, but what other sane alternative is there, as a tentative, global framework? We already have an anarchy of nation-states, layered with predatory structures of kapital. Are these structures sufficient to generate the nuanced responses required, in a time of global vulnerabilities?

    If ‘Neoreaction’ is to be any more than a basic sophomoric contrariness, a wider perspective has to be taken. Anything else leads to a resentful balkanisation, at the very time that technology is enabling global monstrosity. If those two trends conflict, it’s not hard to see which will win.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 29th, 2013 at 9:52 pm Reply | Quote

Leave a comment