Home > Critical Thinking, Current Affairs, Dystopia, Musings, Philosophy sans Sophistry, Reason, Secular Religions, Skepticism > How the Democratic Party Could Lose in 2020 Elections and Beyond: 5

How the Democratic Party Could Lose in 2020 Elections and Beyond: 5

In the previous part of this series, I promised to finally go into why support for certain superficial liberal causes is going to backfire on democrats during the 2020 elections. I also made the point that most allegedly “popular” causes in liberalism, such as “gun control” and “LGBTQ” issues, are secular religions in all but name. So let us ask the next question- which traditional religion does modern liberalism most closely resemble? While modern liberalism displays some similarities to Christianity, especially its Catholic variant, it differs from from the later in some very important aspects. Specifically, liberalism is heavily dependent on the use of identity politics, constantly changing taboos and a peculiar form of abstract “spirituality” to enforce its writ among followers.

In other words, modern liberalism cannot function without increasing inter-group factionalism, constantly changing taboos and overt public displays of abstract “spirituality”. Enumerating all the stuff it ignores is even more revealing. For example- liberalism does not care about gross income inequality, horrible working conditions, shitty personal lives and many other issues that actually affect most people living in post-industrial societies. In contrast to liberalism, many traditional religions such as Christianity and Islam try to increase group cohesion, get new members, keep taboos clearly defined and to a minimum in addition to (at least) giving lip service to ideas such basic human equality, dignity and charity. So.. is there a closer match for Liberalism?

As it turns out.. Hinduism is a far closer match to modern Liberalism than almost any other major traditional religion. As I repeatedly mentioned in a previous (and still incomplete) series, almost every major problem that has plagued the India and its people since about 300 AD can be traced back to Hinduism- specifically the spread and consolidation of the ‘jati’ system throughout India. It would not be an exaggeration to say that Hinduism, as has existed since about 300 AD, is nothing more than an excuse to perpetuate the ‘jati’ system. So what makes Hinduism the traditional equivalent of modern Liberalism? Well, let us start by talking about how both use identity politics to divide society into ever smaller groups that hate each other.

Some of you might want to believe that white liberals invented identity politics, but that is simply not true. The ever fragmenting ‘jati’ system in India pioneered and refined identity politics many centuries before white liberals were a thing. The core of Hinduism (as understood and practiced by most believers) is identity politics. That is why most Indians still make important decisions, from voting to marrying, almost exclusively based on whether the other party is of the same or similar ‘jati’. But why are ideologies that preach social fragmentation bad? The simple answer is that societies which accept such fissiparous ideologies end up becoming unable to get stuff done. There is a reason why China was able to achieve in 30 years what India appears unlikely to get done anytime in the foreseeable future.

This is also why India was colonized by followers of two foreign monotheistic religions for over a thousand years. Long story short, societies which are based around identity politics lose their ability to get stuff done and become vulnerable to domination by more cohesive ones. But what does any of this have to do with the democratic party losing the elections in 2020 and beyond? As mentioned in previous posts, the public image of democrats is increasingly defined by being part of the top 10% or aspiring to join that group. But why is that a problem? Think about it this way.. the number of eligible voters who did not vote for either candidate in the 2016 election was larger than the number who voted for either HRC or Trump. Also the plurality of vote cast by the non-professional or credentialed class go to republicans.

Some of you might attribute this to racism and there is some truth to that viewpoint. However a far larger issue, which I have alluded to in a previous post, concerns how each party treats its voters. Republicans do not insult their voters while they are fucking them over unlike their democratic counterparts. To put it another way, the republican religion is a noticeably more inclusive than its democratic equivalent. But isn’t their appeal restricted to white voters? Well.. yes, but as many of you saw in 2016- democrats were unable to motivate enough young non-white voters to go out and vote for them.

A secular religion centered around “gun control”, “forced diversity”, “manmade climate change”, MeToo”, “gender fluidity”, “wokeness” and numerous other fashionable causes and ever changing social taboos simply cannot compete with another which is far more straightforward, inclusive (as long as your are white) and does not require you to debase yourself quite that much. The secular religion of democrats also does not provide solutions to far more prevalent problems such as inadequate healthcare, poor job security, ever increasing cost of university education etc. Their democratic brand of secular religion is simply too exclusive and full of useless and ever-changing rituals to appeal to the majority of voters across this country.

Will write more about this point of view in next part of this series.

What do you think? Comments?

  1. Someone
    September 26, 2019 at 4:59 am

    Every Democratic candidate and every Democrat needs to be rounded up, beaten almost to death, and then drowned in excrement along with any audience members. It’s my right to own whatever firearm I see fit, LGBT people need to stop being freaks and child molesters and simply shut up already, climate change is merely a hoax to justify more taxation and government and transfer wealth to turd world countries.

    White shitlibs are the most sorry hypocrites on earth. They live in mostly white communities if not gated, would never have their daughter marry a ‘duh-versity’, and none will do anything serious about climate change themselves.

  2. Conscience Constituent
    September 26, 2019 at 6:05 am

    AD,i think MikeCa is a sock puppet account you made.

    • MikeCA
      September 26, 2019 at 7:09 pm

      No.

  3. doldrom
    September 26, 2019 at 10:28 am

    I would counter that Protestantism is also a good match, particularly the factional, sectarian nature of Protestantism parallels the constantly shifting litmus tests of evolving liberal causes and shibboleths. Protestantism has always allowed doctrinaire propositions to surmount concern for the unity of the community and to prevail over the needs and longings of the common people for more ritual, nurture, and comfort. And of course Protestantism is a closer historical analogue for American liberalism than is Hinduism.

    Then there is another question: is the jati system really at the heart of Hinduism, or is the one wrapped in the other, like the hijab for Moslems, or capitalism and “private property” for evangelicals — historically intertwined and axiomatic for followers, but originally different strands of thought and discourse?

  4. Jack Donovan
    September 26, 2019 at 1:07 pm

    These here dis-guy-ting hindu muffin orangutans stole the secret handshake from the wolves of vineland, I ell ya…

    https://preview.redd.it/kc8lu8y0plo31.jpg?width=960&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=5f553a75c3173350eebc38da16fa431bd22a8eb5

    What’s this world cumin’ too…

  5. MikeCA
    September 26, 2019 at 7:08 pm

    This is the most ridiculous post you have made yet. You hate Hinduism and you hate Democrats, therefore Democrats must be like Hinduism.

    Your argument that the Democratic party is the party of identity politics is nonsense. Did you know that half of Democratic voters are white while 90% of Republican voters are white. Republican’s accuse Democrats of engaging in black and brown identify politics to try to scare white Democrats into voting Republican. This is purely an appeal to racism.

    • Someone
      September 27, 2019 at 5:03 am

      Mike, if you are not sharing your wife or girlfriend with a black dude, we know who the racist really are these days. You are another shitlib who produces nothing of value and lives in a gated community with zero ‘duh-versity’. Team R members are mostly worthless, but when a Democrat says they are going to tax me, steal guns, allow more worthless immigrants into the country, I believe them.

      Democrats have become the anti-white party. Anyone who thinks a bunch of stupid blacks and browns are going to buoy the economy are morons. But maybe that is the goal; make America into a Brazil 2.0 where the elites get their jollies and everyone else go can go to hell.

      • MikeCA
        September 27, 2019 at 8:07 am

        You need to seek treatment. I’d suggest some anger management classes.

      • Æåø
        October 5, 2019 at 12:54 pm

        Lol dude, get some help. We know you’re a sexually frustrated cuck but you don’t have to make it so obvious…

  6. September 27, 2019 at 11:47 am

    Agree with AD. The fractures are fracturing. Take LGBT for example. The religion of LGBTQ has separated into sub-denominations which are at odds with one another. LGBT is essentially a religion formed to attack and vilify the much larger heterosexual portion of the population by holding gays hostage against that much larger portion of the population. They cannot agree among themselves how they are going to screw over the heterosexual population just as the democrats cannot agree how they are going to screw over the republicans. “Homophobia” was formed and is maintained in order to instill fear in the minds of anyone who may be uncomfortable with homosexuality which is a the very small part of human sexuality. Once a religion gains control over individual expression of thought regarding a human instinct so fundamental as sexual reproduction, then that religion and most importantly its orchestrators can easily gain control of what individuals are allowed to express regarding many other aspects of human life and society. Understand, shaming people for feeling comfortable or uncomfortable about homosexuality is no different than shaming people for their feelings about heterosexuality. The functional operant is not one sexuality or another, the functional operant is shaming, and fear itself. Those who attempt to force or preach any form of universal mutual acceptance should be extremely suspect. They are con artists because we all know that people cannot be forced to stop hating each other anymore than people can be forced to stop loving each other. Those who preach any version of universal love without hate, are either complete fools who cannot accept the reality of human nature and are too insecure to face the truth, or they are trying to sell us something. I believe based on my experience and the overwhelming plethora of self evident blatant examples that most who preach the universal love bullshit are of the latter group, the group of psychopathic con artists who use the lie to usurp power over the masses. History proves my perspective to be correct over and over.

  7. Yusef
    September 28, 2019 at 8:29 am

    “Specifically, liberalism is heavily dependent on the use of identity politics, constantly changing taboos and a peculiar form of abstract “spirituality” to enforce its writ among followers.”

    I think the point you are trying to make would be more clear if you spoke in terms of the ideology of identity politics standing separately from the ideology of liberalism rather than saying liberalism is heavily dependent on it.

    Liberalism predates identity politics and strictly speaking identity politics has eaten away at its roots and destroyed a lot of what was best about it, including its emphasis on individual freedoms. It doesn’t rely on identity politics unless a sick persons could be said to rely on their disease, which strikes me as a confused way of perceiving.

    It is also anachronistic to read identity politics into Hinduism or vice versa. That’s not to say there aren’t resemblances. Of course there are. They don’t work the same way, though, and that’s putting it mildly. The history and the culture of Hinduism…Whether you like it or not Hinduism is a profound and multifaceted cosmology. What is identity politics? Is that profound, and how long has that persisted? Maybe a few decades.

    If you are a liberal, and it seems to me your perspective is actually liberal, and you want to be consistent about it, yeah Hinduism is a terrible way to order a society. This makes my point, though, not yours. Whatever these resemblances between Hinduism and identity politics may be, they act inimically against liberalism and liberal institutions I definitely cherish. (Freedom of speech and just as importantly, separation of church and state.)

  8. Yusef
    September 29, 2019 at 7:08 am

    “The core of Hinduism (as understood and practiced by most believers) is identity politics.”

    There’s no way most Hindus understand Hinduism as identity politics. Really, you think so? Hindus in their daily devotions to an idol, in their various rituals, in their festivals, in their visit to the Ganges, or whatever, in any way have in mind what an American gay person has in mind? Or that the “practices” are the same? Hindus are keenly aware of their caste designation, you could call it an identity I suppose, and it impacts their entire life. Correct me if I’m wrong, but you’re born into your caste designation, and it is the same as your parents, and you’ll pass it on to your children– it absolutely will never change– it is absolutely not subject to your whims or personal desires or their expression. Tell me now where I am getting it wrong that this resembles identity politics, where people assert their right to choose what they want, regardless of their parents, tradition, or cultural more.

    “That is why most Indians still make important decisions, from voting to marrying, almost exclusively based on whether the other party is of the same or similar ‘jati’.”

    Yes, but to the extent these decisions are imposed on Indians by their culture, traditions, and religion, it is incorrect to call them decisions.

    “But why are ideologies that preach social fragmentation bad?

    Well, this is a silly question in terms of democratic strategies for 2020 elections. Fragmented parties are clearly weaker.

    I think, though, the fragmentation factor is a consideration of the DNC as it appears ready to shove Joe Biden and Biden types down peoples’ throats. It seems to me you’ve got an analytical problem if you think Biden and Biden types channel the politics you discuss in this post.

    “The simple answer is that societies which accept such fissiparous ideologies end up becoming unable to get stuff done. There is a reason why China was able to achieve in 30 years what India appears unlikely to get done anytime in the foreseeable future.”

    There is a reason but you haven’t latched onto it here. China is an incredibly diverse society, every bit as much as India and every bit as incomprehensible to outsiders as India. I would say more so. If you don’t think so, you have the typical uninformed outsider opinion. What you seem to be saying here is that not only is a liberal democracy incorporating identity politics (“neoliberalism”) socially fragmenting, but that liberal democracy strictly understood is fragmenting. India is a liberal democracy; China is not. The Chinese can use coercive means to achieve change. Just as Stalin was able to thrust the USSR out of a more or less medieval or feudal economy into an industrialized economy in a remarkably narrow time frame, Chinese can accomplish similar transformations. There’s no back and forth. The back and forth and give and take of liberal democracies is a fissiparous ideology? Well, one way or the other the USA remained together while it was the USSR which fragmented. The comparisons and causalities you’ve formulated are too blurred to follow.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: