Time to read: approximately 9 minutes
Dharma is an Indo-European concept that has been lost to Europeans. It has also become somewhat distorted in Hinduism. It is simple to explain. It means: the totality of goodness of a person or population.
Modern Idea of “Goodness”
Modern people tend to fragment goodness into multiple types, where in each type the word “good” is treated as a kind of homonym for the word “good” when used in another way. For example, “moral goodness” is one type of goodness, but “good health” is another type, and “having a good lifestyle” is another type, and “abiding by good advice” is another type, and “having good looks" is another type, and so on. Dharma is all of these things together.
Reason for Amalgamation
These things are not put together arbitrarily, but for a reason. They all are in accordance with nature. Which means, the cycle of life of an organism. They are correlated to each other by this principle. They are demonstrably correlated within the same people by this principle; the treacherous are often the ugly, the ugly are often the distressed, the distressed are often the unhealthy, the unhealthy are often the impious, the impious are often the immoral, etc, because people who are bad at surviving breed with others who are the same.
Relationship to Virtue
Survival is a necessary but not sufficient condition for goodness. One must survive as something worthwhile. Something worthwhile is a virtuous person. However, the legal virtues are correlated with survival, and hence they happen to be within dharma, which does not make dharma higher than them. It is possible for someone who is against your own mortal opinion of virtue to be dharmic, just as it is possible for someone within it to be adharmic.
Dharma is thought to be good, like all contingent goods, because it aids the existence of virtue. If someone is utterly against your opinion of virtue, yet they competently adhere to nature, it cannot be said that they are actually good from your point of view (except insofar as their competence probably implies legal virtues), but they are nonetheless called “dharmic” in a hypothetical sense. You can wish for your enemies to be adharmic, just as you can wish for them to die.
Thus to be more exact, dharma does not mean “the totality of goodness” but “the totality of qualities in accordance with nature”, which are typically regarded as “good” in non-adversarial circumstances, just as “eating” is usually regarded as “categorically good”, when this is actually somewhat inexact since one may find occasion to starve his enemies (which is a dishonorable method of conflict).
Dharmic and Adharmic Individuals
Within a population, there exist those who are dharma-oriented (that is, who care about nature) and those who are not. Since people tend to strive for what they care about, and tend to care about that which they already are, the dharma-oriented tend to be dharmic when left to their own devices, while the non-dharma-oriented tend to be adharmic when left to their own devices. A superorganism fails, and begins to die, whenever the dharmic are not allowed to rule. For, when they rule, they force the non-dharma-oriented to be dharmic, but when they do not rule, the adharmic are “left to their own devices”.
Superorganisms are allowed by nature to harbor non-dharma-oriented individuals for a reason. This reason is, that they are individuals who are born to exercise particular non-managerial functions. If one only needs to exercise a particular function, one only needs pleasure incentives that relate to that function. If, however, nature requires that one oversee the continuation of the cycle of life of the superorganism, directing all aforementioned functions for its benefit, or perish otherwise, one must have pleasure incentives for dharma. This is the case not in a binary way, but by degrees, where different individuals care about dharma to differing levels, according to how much of the organism they are designed to manage. Most people care about dharma, at least to some extent, as it relates to their own self and their family.
Natural Dharmic Superiority
This struggle between those of a population who are more-dharmic and those who are more-adharmic is almost always won, except in short aberrations that are irrelevant in the grand scheme of nature, by the more-dharmic. As, nature does not allow any superorganism that is not dharmic (that is, which is not controlled by its most dharmic organisms, with the lesser dharmic organisms below them), therefore there are no superorganisms where the dharmic are not predisposed to reign.
Return of the Dharmic
In some cases, due to certain selection processes, the population of the dharmic is reduced. For example, when there is a very deadly war that recruits the highest quality and most devoted men for the most dangerous jobs, so that many of them die. In these cases, and to a lesser extent in the case of the aforementioned aberrations, the superorganism will begin to decay, to be colonized by foreign dharmic individuals, to be subjugated, reduced, or stolen from by the rival superorganism of those individuals, and sometimes exterminated or driven to extinction by them. Inevitably, as long as the superorganism does not die, the dharmic population will recover, which recovery is usually preceded and enabled by a clever new strategy to take control from the adharmic despite their influence, and a very dharmic leader who executes that strategy as a result of desperation. The prosperity granted by power can then enable the dharmic to repopulate, and they can also use said power to govern once again according to dharma, and to make right any wrongs of adharmic rule, including to rid the land of the foreigners who took advantage of it.
This is not only recently historical, or merely historical, but embedded in Indo-European folklore, where it is countlessly supposed that some great king, god, or avatar will return when dharma is desperately needed. These are now called “sleeping hero legends”, or “king in the mountain legends” - the legend that Frederick Barbarossa sleeps in a cave in the Kyffhäuser, or that Wotan sleeps in the Untersberg, or that Vishnu will incarnate as Kalki, or that Charlemagne sleeps in his castle at Nürnberg, or that King Arthur sleeps in any number of places, etc, to return when needed to restore greatness to the land.
Such persistent folklore does not exist uselessly, but, in accordance with elitist pragmatism, as a heuristic for a real phenomenon in Indo-European societies.
Circumstantial Dharma
The dharmic level of a person or population can also be altered by circumstance. For example, when the wealth of a nation declines, so that poverty, malnourishment, distress, and so on increase, dharma of the whole population is decreased. When the freedom of a European nation declines, so that distress, male frustration, boredom, resentment, and so on increase, dharma of the whole population is decreased.
Distortion of Dharma in Modern Hinduism
Dharma has become distorted even in the continued Indo-European tradition of Hinduism. In this tradition it is common for Indo-European wisdom to become an obscure eastern abstraction of its original form, like a watercolor copy of a technical drawing. Besides the abstraction, Hindus tend to “sterilize” the concept of dharma more than it should be. Meaning, they think of dharma as akin to “kindness, positivity, things that make me feel safe and good when I think about them”. The Templist, though, knows that there are many viable strategies of life that are suitable to different organisms and the superorganisms on which they depend. The Hindu framework also tends to make the identification of particular cases of dharma or adharma more unintuitive than it should be.
That dharma is a broadly Indo-European concept can be seen from such ancient pagan concepts as niþ, hamingja (which is notable linguistic evidence of a parallel to our racial theory concerning “Europeanism”, because hamingja meant “luck”, “general goodness”, and also “shapeshifting”. So it is indicative of the psychology that certain highly “European” populations have, where if you ask them what constitutes “good behavior”, they will not answer with a specific quality or disposition, but will instead say something like “winning”, “accomplishing things”, etc, which is the goal-focused way of saying “doing whatever is necessary” i.e shapeshifting), and virtue (which has often been defined in a way differently from how we use the term. The Roman virtus, as with the Greek arete, was not a particular set of ethical qualities, but encompassed all good qualities. Our definition of virtue is a derivation from Aristotelian ethics. By the way, one can see our racial theories in the linguistic difference between virtus/arete and hamingja, as the former were associated with many qualities, while the latter was associated with so many quality-variations that they could only be expressed as “shapeshifting”. Hamingja was, however, associated with honor specifically, since a society of shapeshifters requires honor especially).
Intuitive Definition of Dharma
Since dharma encompasses all goodness of a human or a human superorganism, it cannot possibly be technically described in total, though individuals may make a commendable effort to describe as many parts of dharma as possible. It can only be known in total intuitively, by those who are dharma-oriented. Intuitively, an instance of dharma or adharma can best be identified by informal modern colloquialisms:
Dharma is “being the opposite of a loser or a traitor”
Adharma is “being a loser or a traitor”
Puritanical Laws
The concept of dharma has consequences for law. If all negative qualities go together, it follows that it is eugenic to punish behaviors that evidence adharma. To punish, for example, drunkenness, gambling, etc, directly prevents these behaviors, but insofar as these behaviors are only conducted by adharmic people, it also reduces the fitness of such people by sallying them with fines, sending them to prison, killing them, etc. Thus you also reduce ugliness, treachery, intemperance, etc.
This also happens “negatively”, in that policies that primarily serve people who are adharmic, such as many types of welfare, are dysgenic.
I am not telling you what to do politically. Politics is a pragmatic matter meant for leaders and kings rather than opinionated fixations. But these facts say something in favor of puritanical laws and elitist economies. This is an example of our precedent: the Canon is to be interpreted literally. If I did not command you to do something, then I did not. What I said was: puritanical laws are eugenic. What you must believe is: puritanical laws are eugenic. Of course, this is completely insufficient to prescribe a system of law. What if your nation provides unemployment benefits to seasonal menial laborers, which make their jobs palatable to natives (i.e, relative to their standard of living and purchasing power within domestic markets), where otherwise foreigners would fill the demand? Well, it is marginally dysgenic, but would you rather be filled with swarthoids?
August 25, 2022
great information