Reality Check India

A criminal passion

Posted in Uncategorized by realitycheck on June 5, 2021

When you come face to face with public expressions of malevolence which defy conventional explanations such as difference of opinion or prejudice you know it is time to go a bit deeper. A search into the psychology of the hater will yield the answers. Only by confronting the etiology of hate and the psychological make up of the hater can you start building a proper response. While my primary concern is the Anti-Brahmin or more precisely the Anti-Tamizh-Brahmin (ATB) in the state of Tamilnadu in India, this post is about sharing a well known analytical framework. What is the in the depths of the mind? In the next post, I will describe how these dimensions manifest in the Dravidian ATB individual. This post is about introducing a particularly deep piece of work that already exists in the domain.

Jean-Paul Sartre – The Anti-Semite and Jew

Jean-Paul Sartre is one of the leading lights of the philosophical world known for his contributions to existentialism. A fierce thinker of the kind the world hasnt seen he even refused to accept the Nobel Prize for fear of unconsciously losing his free thinking.

In 1944, shortly after the liberation of Paris from German occupation, some of the French Jews started to pour back into Paris and surroundings. In the wake of this jubilation he was dismayed that hardly anyone in the media was talking about the Jews who had somehow managed to scrape through the nightmare. Was it a fear of angering the Anti-Semite ? This question prompted him to write a profoundly deep essay “Réflexions sur la question juive” later translated to English as “Anti Semite and Jew – An Etiology of Hate“. I have read this multiple times and it stuns me how well it fits as a general psychological analysis framework even outside the specific European war context. I want to share this with my readers here.

This essay is divided into four parts roughly 1) a psycho pathological analysis of the anti-semite 2) the democrat liberal response 3) the authentic and inauthentic Jew and 4) a discussion about the religious locality and zionism. The first part , the psychology of the ant-semite is a spectacular piece of work that still commands influence decades later. That is what I will be focusing on.

A PDF of this essay is available , google for “Anti-Semite and Jew”

The only way to do justice to the essay is to post the whole thing. But here are some relevant excerpts. Once again, I encourage people to read the essay. You WILL thank me later.

Is it a prejudice ? an Idea? an Opinion?

Others [Fakenheim] have pointed out that anti-Semitism is more than just a prejudice, because unlike a genuine prejudice Anti-Semitism does not seem to disappear when knowledge comes on the scene. A pre-judice is a pre-judgment that is like a default position based on incomplete knowledge. An act of prejudice might be you assume someone is incompetent, then he performs well, then that prejudice disappears. Does this ring a bell? There is no FACT or correction you can make to the various antipretexts to help. The pretexts of hate are themselves tenuous and might just be a wilful misinterpretation of events. If it is not a prejudice then what is it?

Here is where Sartre’s genius comes in – he says it is not a prejudice it is not even an opinion such as those that are protected by freedom of speech. Strong words on foreign policy, economics, abortion, social justice, religion, are opinions. Sartre

here we have a case of holding an opinion on the administration of things. But I refuse to characterize as opinion a doctrine that is aimed directly at particular persons and that seeks to suppress their rights or to exterminate them. The Jew whom the anti‐Semite wishes to lay hands upon is not a schematic being defined solely by his function, as under administrative law; or by his status or his acts, as under the Code. He is a Jew, the son of Jews, recognizable by his physique, by the colour of his hair, by his clothing perhaps, and, so they say, by his character. Anti‐Semitism does not fall within the category of ideas protected by the right of free opinion

p 6

If it isnt prejudice,

not is it an idea in the sense of something that can be protected by free speech.

What is it? Sartre calls it a “passion” a “criminal passion”.

Indeed, it is something quite other than an idea. It is first of all a passion. No doubt it can be set forth in the form of a theoretical proposition. The “moderate” anti‐Semite is a courteous man who will tell you quietly: “Personally, I do not detest the Jews. I simply find it preferable, for various reasons, that they should play a lesser part in the activity of the nation.” But a moment later, if you have gained his confidence, he will add with more abandon: “You see, there must be something about the Jews; they upset me physically.

… (Passion) It is an involvement of the mind, but one so deep‐seated and complete that it extends to the physiological realm, as happens in cases of hysteria

p 6

He goes on to build his case that these involvement is not based on experience — a non-Jew has a bad experience at Furrier and hence hates all Jews instead of hating Furriers, a nonJew loses a college spot where there are ten nonJews ahead of him but only the Jews ahead of him cause him to hate all Jews, a young actor without talent who accuses the Jews of keeping him out of key roles, they stack stories and experience such as this to justify their passion . He notes

Far from experience producing his idea of the Jew, it was the latter which explained his experience. If the Jew did not exist, the anti‐Semite would invent him.

p 8

then he goes on to buttress his point saying the actual historical record itself is not as important in front of the anti-semite. You can see the parallel in Tamilnadu Dravidian rhetoric – history does not inform the Anti-Tamizh-Brahmin (ATB) but it is the ATB that informs history. This can be seen by re-interpretation and fabrication in tune with the ATB sensibilities. More on this in my next. For now here is Sartre

therefore the idea of the Jew that one forms for himself which would seem to determine history, not the “historical fact” that produces the idea.

People speak to us also of “social facts,” but if we look at this more closely we shall find the same vicious circle. there are too many Jewish lawyers, someone says. But is there any complaint that there are too many Norman lawyers?

Choosing to think wrongly. A thirst for impenetrability

One of the most brilliant lines come next. Now the basis for the hate is on specious and thus tenuous ground. The reasoning defies logic, but the question is “How can anyone choose to think wrongly?” I ask this during so many interactions with ATB. Sartre, explains that there is a longing for impenetrability. A solid mass like a rock that is impenetrable. The passion is a lifestyle choice, the Anti-Semite chooses to be impenetrable by not entering the plane of logic. Sartre

How can one choose to reason falsely? It is because of a longing for impenetrability. The rational man groans as he gropes for the truth; he knows that his reasoning is no more than tentative, that other considerations may supervene to cast doubt on it. He never sees very clearly where he is going; he is “open”; he may even appear to be hesitant. But there are people who are attracted by the durability of a stone. They wish to be massive and impenetrable; they wish not to change. Where, indeed, would change take them? We have here a basic fear of oneself and of truth. What frightens them is not the content of truth, of which they have no conception, but the form itself of truth, that thing of indefinite approximation.


Trying to reason and debate with the Anti

How does talking to an Anti-Semite by means of reason and debate. Do they believe in words and reason? Here is Sartre.. I find it stunning how directly it applies to the ATBs who come forward to defend their point of view. How brilliant is Sartre that he could develop this psycho analytical model that applies so well to a completely different setting. Because it is the psychology of passion. Here is how trying to reason with a Anti-Semite will be

If out of courtesy he consents for a moment to defend his point of view, he lends himself but does not give himself. He tries simply to project his intuitive certainty onto the plane of discourse. I mentioned awhile back some remarks by anti‐Semites, all of them absurd: “I hate Jews because they make servants insubordinate, because a Jewish furrier robbed me, etc.” Never believe that anti‐ Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti‐Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.

p 13

The Anti-Semite and indeed the ATB is a terrifying person, everyday people want to assuage his anger and make peace. They dont know the depths or the lengths or the violence potential that underlies this hate. It is possible for someone to go so far out in hate speech without being backed by violence potential? It is like people fear the madman because they dont want to test him. What if he has nothing to lose? The political benefits of Anti-Semitism can be explained psychologically. Another question is how is a group made to hate another group? The answer lies in the psychology of persuation. Through an incessant bombardment of canards and defamation and elevating such demagogues to very high levels such as textbooks and universities and landmarks, masses can be persuaded. The Jewish issue with Christ is just one such mechanism. There is a general mass psychology at play here. This is from a recent book by Amos Kiewe (The Rhetoric of Anti-Semitism)

Mass psychology persuasion offering yourself as the Anti of the Undesirable

It is possible to see how by attributing the opposing view to community, then maintaining a barrage of defamation of that community, you can gain political power by simply persuading the public to support the NOT-community. The non-demonized. This strategy is crude but works spectacularly in low grade societies. This is in fact the trump card of the ATB (Dravidians) – they just have to link any issue to Tamizh-Brahmins and go to the people and persuade them to adopt the stand that is the opposite, i.e, their own stand.

Feeling of oneness. For the few hours the anti-semites or ATB meet in their halls and pour venom on the other. For those few minutes the King and the Pauper are in unison. It is mostly found in the petty-bourgeoisie .. in our context middle class white collar. For the truly elite, they have better things to do since they are the ultimate beneficiaries anyway. They can even feed the beast and play the property games.

Thus I would call anti‐Semitism a poor man’s snobbery. And in fact it would appear that the rich for the most part exploit this passion for their own uses rather than abandon themselves to it — they have better things to do. It is propagated mainly among the middle classes, because they possess neither land nor house nor castle, having only some ready cash and a few securities in the bank. It was not by chance that the petty bourgeoisie of Germany was anti‐Semitic in 1925. The principal concern of this “white‐ collar proletariat” was to distinguish itself from the real proletariat.

The Jew is absolutely necessary to the Anti-Semite, if some really powerful Jew is no where to be found he will simply elevate the ones of far lower stature , because .. lets see how Sartre puts is.

To this end he finds the existence of the Jew absolutely necessary Otherwise to whom would he be superior? Indeed, it is vis‐à‐vis the Jew and the Jew alone that the anti‐Semite realizes that he has rights. If by some miracle all the Jews were exterminated as he wishes, he would find himself nothing but a concierge or a shopkeeper in a strongly hierarchical society in which the quality of “true Frenchman” would be at a low valuation, because everyone would possess it. He would lose his sense of rights over the country because no one would any longer contest them, and that profound equality which brings him close to the nobleman and the man of wealth would disappear all of a sudden, for it is primarily negative.

Anti-Semitism is not to be found among the workers, but ironically among the very same parasite professions.

The majority of the anti‐Semites, on the contrary, belongs to the middle class, that is, among men who have a level of life equal or superior to that of the Jews, or, if you prefer, among the “non‐producers” (employers, merchants, distributors, members of the liberal professions, parasites). The bourgeois in fact does not produce: he directs, administers, distributes, buys, sells.

Raising the temperature against the common enemy as a uniting function

Sartre, notes that political action cannot be directed against individuals. I suspect this means that you cannot bring a civil defamation case against a passionate hater who expression is artistic freedom by penning a caricature, an obscene representation of women of the hated group, taking rudely etc. It is the crowd, the mass. Even if you punished one, that would be of a low quality when there are hundreds who will use that as proof of why their passion is even more required. There is also political gains to be had. The temperature of anti-semitic rhetoric can be adjusted to compensate for the presence of class or caste differences. The higher the temperature the more closer the Lord and his Servants are united against the common enemy.

We have demonstrated that anti‐Semitism is a passionate effort to realize a national union against the division of society into classes. It is an attempt to suppress the fragmentation of the community into groups hostile to one another by carrying common passions to such a temperature that they cause barriers to dissolve. Yet divisions continue to exist, since their economic and social causes have not been touched; an attempt is made to lump them all together into a single one — distinctions between rich and poor, 107between labouring and owning classes, between legal powers and occult powers, between city‐dwellers and country‐dwellers, etc., etc. — they are all summed up in the distinction between Jew and non‐Jew. This means that anti‐Semitism is a mythical, bourgeois representation of the class struggle, and that it could not exist in a classless society.

Do you see the similarity here? If you removed the ATB rhetoric you will just be a serf and your leader will be the owner. Because that hasnt disappeared at all. Why would you otherwise bother about 3% or 5% when you have a classless 95%?

In the very depths of his heart, a criminal

The final analysis is of Passion, a Passion of Hate. That which is chosen of their own free will. They decide for themselves to think, argue, and reason wrongly. They are willing to accept the humiliation of being caught out. They want the annihilation. Hence Sartre terms Anti-Semitism as not a prejudice, an idea, or an opinion but a passion. A criminal passion. He doesnt create any thing new even though he has it within himself to do so in a snap. He seeks only to clense what exists. What else can explain the Dravidian failure to simply solve to a great extent the ritualism by creating their own temples and own liturgies ? This is how Sarte explains

A destroyer in function, a sadist with a pure heart, the anti‐ Semite is, in the very depths of his heart, a criminal. What he wishes, what he prepares, is the death of the Jew. To be sure, not all the enemies of the Jew demand his death openly, but the measures they propose — all of which aim at his abasement, at his humiliation, at his banishment— are substitutes for that assassination which they meditate within themselves. They are symbolic murders. Only, the anti‐Semite has his conscience on his side: he is a criminal in a good cause. It is not his fault, surely, if his mission is to extirpate Evil by doing Evil. The real France has delegated to him the powers of her High Court of Justice. No doubt he does not have occasion every day to make use of them, but we should not be misled on that account. These sudden fits of anger which seize him, these thundering diatribes which he hurls at the “Yids” are so many capital executions. The anti‐Semite has chosen to be a criminal, and a criminal pure of heart.

The mild ones , the elites

Okay so the profile of the Anti-Semite is now complete. But that person is not everyone. Passion is a spectrum, those with such real passion are the true believers who will be few. Those are the vanguard elements. What about everyday nonJew people ? Those who do regular jobs, are not particulary offensive, nor inoffensive, at home with the hard Anti-Semite in a flippant sort of way. This NonJew is described perfectly by Sartre – the are not persons at all. And as second-hand anti-Semites. They can drop in an instant and turn into an aggressive personality.

If some of those who readily assert that they detest the Jews do not recognize them‐ selves in it, it is because in actual fact they do not detest the Jews. They don’t love them either. While they would not do them the least harm, they would not raise their little fingers to protect them from violence. They are not anti‐ Semites. They are not anything; they are not persons. Since it is necessary to appear to be something, they make themselves into an echo, a murmur, and, without thinking of evil‐without thinking of anything ‐they go about repeating learned formulas which give them the right of entry to certain drawing rooms. Thus they know the delights of being nothing but an empty noise, of having their heads filled with an enormous affirmation which they find all the more respectable because they have borrowed it. Anti‐Semitism is only, a justification for their existence. Their futility is such that they will eagerly abandon this justification for any other, provided that the latter be more “distinguished.”‘ For anti‐Semitism is distinguished, as are all the manifestations of a collective and irrational soul which seek to create an occult and conservative France. It seems to all these featherbrains that by repeating with eager emulation the statement that the Jew is harmful to the country they are performing a rite of initiation which admits them to the fireside of social warmth and energy.

The second hand anti-semites draw on the energy to gain a personality for themselves. Or to have that latent snarling aggression.

It permits them to put on the externals of passion and, as has been fashionable since the Romantic movement, to confuse this with personality. These second‐ hand anti‐Semites can provide themselves at little cost with an aggressive personality. One of my friends often used to tell me about an elderly cousin of his who came to dine with his family and about whom they said, with a certain air: “Jules can’t abide the English.” My friend doesn’t recall that they, ever said anything else about Cousin Jules. But that was enough.


Time to wrap up this long post. I have not done justice to Sartre in the places where I tried to rephrase him. You need to read the entire essay for yourselves. There is a certain contextual element here that makes it all the more relevant for Tamizh Brahmins in particular to be aware of this work , but all others should do well to read it. Any society in which such a strong element of hatred exists in the mainstream, that society cannot have rational discourse. All choices and debates can be easily shouted down by the ANTI group by liking it to the primary demonized group.

I just covered 30% of the essay here. The other part which I found fascinating was the description of the Inauthentic Jew. A Jew who sheds his image to conform to the anti-semitism. Sartre calls it ‘avenues of escape’ but exhorts the Jew to ask exactly what it is that he is running from?

More on this soon.

24 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. dagalti said, on June 5, 2021 at 8:13 am

    Will read. Meanwhile, guess who is heading the commission to examine the ‘adverse SocJustice impact’ of NEET?

    Retd Justice AK Rajan 🙂

  2. dagalti said, on June 5, 2021 at 11:43 am

    The acuity is astounding even in its original context.
    But the extent to which this ports to other contexts is something else! Shows how he has gotten to the core with such surgical precision.

    /They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert./
    To this day you see the triumphalist assertion: நீ காண்டானேல்ல, அதுவே போதும்.
    The idea is never ever to engage, because there is simply no logical foundation. It is to meet logic/argument with specious irrelevant nonsense calculated to incite disgust and duly harvest the same. That is all.

    There is one point though:

    /Never believe that anti‐ Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies/
    / These second‐ hand anti‐Semites can provide themselves at little cost with an aggressive personality./

    I would say, it is well nigh impossible to distinguish the latter group from the former. It is an exhausting realisation.

    One either assumes in good faith that one is dealing with the latter and engages. And what does that lead to: the ‘utter emptiness’ of their position makes them clutch even harder!

    Here is how second-handers reading this astute analogy will attempt to body-swerve

    They will try to say the analogy of Jews: ATB wrong (yawn!)

    1) The point is, even if true, it does little harm to the fact that the diagnoses of the hatred and how it manifests and morphs.
    2) Secondly, the bases of dismissal of the analogy will be typically weak, based on Dravid propoganda repeated ad-infinitum. This is hygiene which they ought to know by themselves, with so basic rigour. Engaging with this completely changes what the argument is about – and helps maintain and harden the second-hander’s stances. And these stances are socially encouraged as ‘progressiveness’ – so it is kinda locked in from all directions.

    • realitycheck said, on June 5, 2021 at 2:29 pm

      >> This is hygiene which they ought to know by themselves, with so basic rigour.

      Again this is because of the criminal passion inside — they choose to argue dishonestly and without basic hygiene. What is more infuriating than trying to argue with reason with a person who is laughing inside ?

      Once we understand the type of person, there are ways out.

      They are frightened of themselves, of being caught in a situation where they are FORCED to face logic. Inside of their home environment they can just pretend no one is talking to them. There is also the potential for violence to prevent. As Sartre says, the abruptly end any discussion that is visible to the public such as a Twitter thread only because a humiliation will result in potential followers flipping out. In the end, he says fi the other side shows they are a dynamic unit capable of response they will roll back. One way is to create an Anti Defamation League. Another way is to speak in English so there is always the element of outside curiosity (rarity in India though). Today an ATB has nothing to lose, because outside of the immediate context he can just mingle with the outside world which is completely oblivious to his Janus face.

      just some thoughts.. yeah. My post on Temple / AK Rajan report is pending. Will get to that. Many of the pathologies can be found expressed in that.

  3. realitycheck said, on June 5, 2021 at 2:17 pm

    Stunning isnt it? Every words hits the spot. This needs a slow read and multiple times.

    Yes, they will dismiss my post as an attempt to compare TB and Jew. That is only because the Jew situation is already widely known and hence they fear the outside world will make the connect and TB can get a free ride.

    As you said, that is not even the point. It is not about the “situation” – whether TB and J share the same situation. This is about Sartre’s psychoanalysis of the Anti-Semite (AS) mind and the Anti-TamilBrahmin (ATB) mind. Not about us, but about them.

    The second hander in the D context is a winning proposition for multiple reasons having to do with our unique social justice overlay that was missing in France/Germany. The second-hander due to his pole position can ride the ATB wave created by the middle tier and amplified by the underclass. There is also an element of the ‘Gentle Rogue’ a highly attractive position sexually for the second-hand ATB male. Someone who could turn aggressive on a dime into ATB, but who has that under control. He will be nice as long as you do not annoy him.

    You want to hear something really bizarre ? This framework perfectly explains the Social-Justice-Paradox.. why do ATB not focus on the social-justice encroachment by a few elites? The reason could well be : Because losing out to an explicitly rigged unfair SJ platform will ANNOY and HURT the TB much more than losing to a fair system. Hence , for the ATB who in his heart harbors a criminal passion, he would place his passion of hate higher than a fair SJ system.

    Hope you read the essay all the way to the end. I stopped at the first part. The entire essay is gold. The part about the Jewish history and Zionist obviously do not apply – those parts caused considerable push back but the psychology of the anti-semite is a very celebrated piece of work.

    We should really discuss this piece by piece later.

    • dagalti said, on June 6, 2021 at 5:03 am

      No. I didn’t read the book yet. I don’t know if I will get around to it any time soon. I just read your post and excerpts.

      I was reminded of an important distinction Hannah Ardent makes in her seminal book on Totalitarianism that resonates with some aspects mentioned here.

      She distinguished the 19th century rise of antisemitism from the historical anti-Semitism. The latter had some basis/foundation in the religion/culture itself and the insularity of Jews. To be clear, she wasn’t justifying historic anti-Semitism, just positing the bases of earlier hatred.

      Whereas by the 19th century in Europe there was a greater intermingling, secularization – so to speak – and distinct increase in social intercourse. This ought to have resulted in an abatement of hatred, because the grouses against the comunity, prima facie, were getting diluted. But what happened was the exact opposite. There was an amplification of hatred (no doubt, drawing from the wellsrpings) on completely new terms!
      For starters, the Nazis didn’t conform with extant models of Christianity. At the very least they didn’t wear religion on their sleeve. So the ‘Jesus killer’ basis of hatred is not what Nazi antisemitism was. It just tapped into the historical hatred – that may have had some vague basis in physical tensions but ultimately transcends reason – and repurposed it into a new ‘progressive’ form.

      The parallel here is quite striking.

      • realitycheck said, on June 6, 2021 at 7:16 am

        Please do read it. You WILL thank me. It is an longish essay more than a book. It should be a quick read but the gains are enormous. You can structure your dispersed thoughts.

        Today I was sparring with a D, he took joy in hinting that Uganda and Burma fate awaited TB . So deep inside they harbor criminal intent, and they are passionate about it. I pushed and he abruptly stopped. Exactly as modeled by Sartre. That is how good this essay is.

  4. GK said, on June 6, 2021 at 6:18 am

    ‘fight D’ = weaken them politically… nothing else works


    BJP with its Hindi baggage is a godsend for D’s.. we need Hindu Munnani revived with zero Hindi baggage… BJP can coexist, but not steer them or dictate

    One hopes @swamy39 and @trramesh will bless this.. not sure about @sgurumurthy

    • realitycheck said, on June 6, 2021 at 7:10 am

      No you cant fight it politically because the “high negative” assigned to TamizhBrahmins is still the dominant political feature of Tamil society. JeMo wont talk about this.

      They will just increase the temperature ATB rhetoric until a big chunk falls in line out of conformance or simply fear. This is then added to the demographic shifts taking place. Read the essay – he talks about the “temperature setting”

      • GK said, on June 7, 2021 at 8:19 pm

        “No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country” -General Patton

        If you cannot inflict political pain on the D’s, please don’t use the word “fight”.. As a reminder that you are not fighting this alone, here is a tidbit: DMK’s 37.7% vote share, second lowest since 1996, brings 133 seats.

        From that speech of General Patton: “I don’t want any messages saying ‘I’m holding my position.’ We’re not holding a goddamned thing. We’re advancing constantly and we’re not interested in holding anything except the enemy’s balls”.

    • realitycheck said, on June 8, 2021 at 5:14 am


      அடேங்கப்பா.. போட்ரா பீரங்கிய 🙂

  5. dagalti said, on June 7, 2021 at 8:24 am

    Today I came across an example :

    This was the exchange. A Dravideologist gent was triggered in the Seemanbois v DMK குழாயடி சண்டை, posted a stunning message saying (sic) ‘when MK wailed about fraternal skirmish he was criticized. We didn’t understand then. Only now we see LTTE for what they are’.

    Patently untrue nonsense. The tweeter is inferrably of ஏழு கழுதை வயசு enough to know the bloodlusty nature of Tigers all along
    But even if admitted prima-facie, it shows their hitherto (presumably) vociferous stances in hilariously poor light.

    Now here is the kicker: a fellow Dravideologist proffers this theory that RAW, IB Brahmins must have given JJ right feedback about the true nature of Tigers and hence she was clear. Whereas MK was blinded by இனப்பாசம். And the gent readily agreed.

    Now hang on, here…what was that exchange again.

    Never mind the simplistic understanding of how the two leaders took stances on a complex issue. Let us just focus on how easily it is being recast and digested:

    1) Now the fanbois are doing a bit of a volte-face regarding the Tigers. Simply because the barrage (partly unfair IMO) on their dear leader triggers this seeming reevaluation.

    2) In this they are willing to even grudgingly acknowledge that their bête noire, JJ, may have been right all along.

    3) But but but….what is the reason she managed to be right?

    4) Because she is an ethnic outsider – as per the unshakable fundamental principle of Dravida politics. So even her supposed clarity/objectivity on this issue proceeds from her fundamental ‘vice’: alienness. What a spectacular back-handed compliment! Even when completely shifting stance, it is done without injury to their foundational bigotry. It was jaw-dropping!

    5) And of course the casual suggestion that RAW Brahmins (an insinuation that has been elevated to the status of fact by perpetual pounding into the public consciousness) fed her the truth in their reports.
    Whaa..? Notice how even when the action is being argued as correct, the ethnicity is invoked to suggest a certain cunningness. It doesn’t even have to be done overtly. Just the mere statement conveys it.

    6) And lastly – they willingly reduce their own masterly politician – as someone capable of being blinded by இனப்பாசம் (a handicap that JJ is congenitally free from!). Again, forget the factual baselessness of this reduction – the fact that this reduction ‘elevates’ MK in discourse is what is vital.

    And mind you, all this NOT done by some careful, ploying crafty Goebbels. Just average joes, who have internalized a hatred so so completely that it reflects in every way they think about ANY issue – even when changing a stance!

    The gymnastic contortions that ensure that the core – pardon the pun – bigotry is untouched, is without parallel in the world 😀

    • realitycheck said, on June 7, 2021 at 9:31 am


      Their train of thought only has to go as far as to link upto a Brahmin connection. It is their conditioning and experience using this to win big, win again and again. No matter how crazy. It could be even something like ‘A brahmin cook in dear leaders house used to give him bad input about the ltte’ or whatever..

      btw this post may interest – when JJ and MK had a ethnic tiff on LTTE tamizhchelvan death.

      Tamil blood politics

      • dagalti said, on June 7, 2021 at 10:07 am

        Oh the frustratingly predictable turn in the comments section!

        Notice how JJ too can’t actually refer to the elephant in the room – what MK is actually implying – and can only talk about Mysore.

        Btw, besides other things I noticed this :
        /It might have had some relevance in the 50’s – but not today/

        13 years since you wrote that line.

        The ‘passion’ continues to pay bumper dividends, doesn’t it?
        Around then, I too used to naively think that the factual irrelevance will expose the movement’s emptiness (if not other shortcomings) and it will die a natural death. Boy was I wrong.

        The factuality of the faultlines is thoroughly irrelevant, the extent to which it fires up the imagination and passion is all that matters – which is why it is verily impervious to logical counteraction.
        And by that account, it is on a firm upswing.

  6. dagalti said, on June 9, 2021 at 7:10 pm

    Re. your Tweetskirmishes and bemused wondering on ‘why can’t you guys be civil’; I repeat: that IS the point.

    Let us take the two examples you tweeted about
    1) DravidaSaiva oldlady’s abusive language – you can see the comments by ‘normal people’ commending her for precisely that.
    2) Jeyaranjan being feted for ‘democratizing economics’ – you can see the exultation precisely for his cringey public performances. It is exactly what is wanted is appreciated. Note: you may have seen one Congress economist Anand Srinivasan, who pretty much is policy-wise critical in almost the same way as Jeyaranjan. Cynical and sarcastic, speaks economics in accessible terms – pretty much what is being official mentioned as the reasons to hail Jeyaranjan. But he isn’t someone who would say: ‘இலவசம்னு சொல்றவனை செருப்பாலடி’ on stage. That is the point, especially in 2.0.

    The abuse and the ‘low’ register (to use a polite term) breaching the echelons without bowdlerization is exactly what creates enormous harvestable traction.

    In the 60s, Vallikkannan wrote a book titled ஆட்சிப்பொருப்பில் எலிகள் – a rather dull collection of essays criticizing Dravideology.

    The title is taken from a header written by the ‘GreatScholar’ explaining the strategic U-turn on secessionism, wherein he explained the strategy as (sic) எலிப்பொறியில் மாட்டிக்கொள்ளாமல் கருவாட்டை எடுத்துச் செல்கிறதே எலி அது போல.

    Likening one’s party to a rat and its lofty ideology to karuvaadu, ought to have any reasonable reader in splits over the utter self-debasement in the very choices of terms.

    But that is not at all how it is received. It is precisely what strikes the chord.

    It goes to show, the ‘passion’ existed and it was merely tapped into.
    It is too execrable and debasing to even engage with – and that is victory right there.

    Film Maharasan
    Kamal: ஜமாலகடி கிரி கிரி சைதாபேட்ட வடகரி. இதுக்கு என்னாய்யா பதில் சொல்ற நீ?
    VK Ramasamy: யோவ்! இதுக்கெல்லாம் எவன்யா பதில் சொல்லுவான்?

  7. realitycheck said, on June 10, 2021 at 9:25 am


    The thing with kalaiarasi natarajan clip.. that was an interview, but they chose to clip ONLY those 20 seconds and share. Is that the clincher? No, Because that chiding is the only thing that makes sense. The purpose is to chide Maalan like that. The rest is filler.

    That eliPori is hilarious but expected. there is a self image as a clever fox (why?) you can see that in their description as பனங்காட்டு நரி .. that is quite odd. It is about outwitting .. or not getting bluffed.

  8. dagalti said, on June 10, 2021 at 4:19 pm

    This is wrt your questioning on the intentional obfuscation of the term Dravidian, which were defined in no uncertain terms by the Elder himself:

    Prof.T.Dharumaraj’s wrote a critique of M.S.S.Pandian’s book ‘Brahmin and Non-Brahmin: Genealogies of the Tamil Present’ where he makes a pointed criticism on the choice of words and gravitations away from what will be laughed out in academia:

    “English-language analyses of society all have a very peculiar character. For they are either lacking in any particular utility for the societies about which they write, or are simply not in circulation in those societies; such works, thereby, need not concern themselves with the self-representations of those societies. English-language scholarly discourse thus follows its own course, attending only to the niceties of scholarly exactitude and jargon-laden prose Moreover, there is little difference between the scholarship of those belonging to the societies in question and those outside it, since both kinds of scholar will conform to the discursive frameworks set by the academy.

    The term “Non-Brahmin” is central to English scholarship on 20th century Tamil politics, and Pandian too employs it in his very title. In the English-language imagination, “Non-Brahmin” is a concept that signifies a popular political movement that seized power through the mobilization of the people. To what extent is that conception accurate? And what is the usefulness of the term “Non-Brahmin,” so ubiquitous in English scholarship, when deployed in Tamil? If this was indeed a popular concept, by what name was it known? We usually translate “Non-Brahmin” as “other-than-Brahmins” (pirāmaṇarallātōr), but in ordinary language, apart from texts, this translation has no validity whatsoever. And given that no word corresponds to the putative entity “Non-Brahmin” in everyday linguistic usage, how can it be said that the concept structures Tamil political life? Can it really be the case that the concept, as well as the ideology based upon it —prevalent only in English and in translated form in Tamil scholarly texts— could determine the politics of the entire Tamil populace?

    Furthermore, the fact that there is no Tamil word corresponding to “Non-Brahmin” suggests as well that the no identity “other-than-Brahmins” was ever constructed. Why then does Pandian write at such length about this figure, the Non-Brahmin, that lacks any reality?

    If we accept that there is nothing that properly corresponds to “Non-Brahmin,” under what sign did the people rally together politically? While there is no unity to be found behind the political term “Non-Brahmin,” animosity towards Brahmins had pervaded every corner of Tamil society. The difference between north and south had emerged as significant, and the rivalry between Sanskrit and Tamil was deeply felt. There was recognition of the fact that we were being derogated, and indeed betrayed, by North Indians. Tamils understood themselves as autochthons, subjected to slavery by North Indians —Aryans— who had come from elsewhere. And the view that South Indian Brahmins were the representatives of those very North Indian perpetrators attained hegemony. All these ideas, however, appeared against the backdrop of the representation of the “Dravidian.”

    What then is Pandian’s purpose in leaving aside these facts —well-known to even ordinary Tamil men and women— and claiming instead that a discourse of the “Non- Brahmin” flourished? There is an obvious answer, which is simply that this is the structure provided by English-language scholarship; the reason, that is, is that, in English-language thought, “Brahmin” and “Non-Brahmin” are assumed to be real. At the same time, moreover, the Anglophone world has recently critiqued terms like Aryan and Dravidian as outmoded fabrications, and there might thus be a certain embarrassment in employing “Dravidian. “All these, of course, are only possible reasons. I suspect, however, that Pandian’s interest in using “Non-Brahmin” to the exclusion of “Dravidian” has different reasons, about which more below..”

    Spot on!
    I have other problems with the bizzare turns that the essay goes on to take (link below) but this particular point is quite sharp. What is being deftly elided in M.S.S.Pandian’s jargon-shifts is very telling!

    And then you have SocMed which is, even in 2021 way behind what the academe elite of their ‘side’ themselves realized long back and gently shifted (and caught by Prof Dharumaraj here)

  9. […] article was first published on on June 5, 2021 and has been reproduced here in full with a modified headline and minor edits to […]

  10. Vijay Vanbakkam said, on June 16, 2021 at 10:09 am

    Excellent application of sartre’s analysis to TN situation. I thought he wrote the esay in the 1930s for warning people about anti-semitism in France. Anyhow.
    Pure Tamil movement, dravdian movement, Self-Respect (what a joke) , assorted political cultural personalities like EVR, Pavanar, Maraimalai adigal have all different take on things, however what joins all of them is brahmin hate. Dravidian movement is not a movement to build new future , but something which aims to capture the imaginary pre-brahmin, pre-sanskrit, pre-Hindu , ‘pure’ Tamil society which existed before 2000 or 3000 or 50000 years. It is an archaic movement masquerading as a modernist movement. That is why it still hankers on removing 2000 year old ‘injustice’ and removing the influence of ‘3%’ as a DMK party programme. Removing the elimination of ‘3%’ allegedly ruling the roost for 3000 years is as close to the ‘eternal Jew’ , the caricature of nazis and anti-semites in the west.

    I think there should be a website dedictaed to recording ALL the anti-brahmin hate of the drav movement or others influenced by their rhetoric, however big or small, all the way from early 20th century to running current

  11. Vijay Vanbakkam said, on July 7, 2021 at 8:59 pm

    Is it true your twitter account suspended on a complaint ?

  12. […] I also know that deep down the Dravidian imperative plays to their criminal passion groomed and watered over 100 years by anti-Tamil Brahmin ( #ATB) hate […]

  13. […] ask exactly what it is that he is running from?More on this soon.This article was first published here.An Appeal…Dear Reader, As you are no doubt aware, Swarajya is a media product that is […]

  14. […] because the hate is targeted at “Tamizh Brahmin” not at a concept or an opinion. As Sartre would say Dravidianism isnt an opinion – you arent against or for an ‘opinion” – […]

  15. […] nailed this so well when speaking about the Anti-Semite the same way we must speak about the Dravidian-Tamil who claim to represent all Non-Brahmin Tamil […]

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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

%d bloggers like this: