Thursday, 28 August 2025

Why Trump must put Jason Stanley in the Smithisonian

Kimberlé Crenshaw & Jason Stanley write in the Guardian
In a letter sent to Smithsonian secretary, Lonnie G Bunch III, on 12 August, the Trump administration announced its plan to replace all Smithsonian exhibits deemed as “divisive” or “ideological” with descriptions deemed as “historical” and “constructive”.

Why the scare quotes? It is enough to say x deemed y as z for it to be known that the word z is a quotation taken from x. It is how x characterises y.  

On 21 August, just nine days later, the White House published a list of said offending fixtures – the majority of which include exhibits, programming and artwork that highlight the Black, Latino and LGBTQ+ perspectives on the American project.

Trump thinks these are divisive and ideological. Many agree.  

Included in his bill of particulars was an exhibit that rightly depicts Benjamin Franklin as an enslaver,

Franklin bought slaves. He did not enslave them. They were enslaved by African people in Africa. Later on, Franklin became an abolitionist and freed his slaves. It would be 'divisive' to show an American hero as an 'enslaver' when he never enslaved anybody. We know some African American slaves were enslavers till they themselves were enslaved. But people who bought slaves in America were slave-owners not enslavers.  

an art installation that acknowledges race as a social construct

which is 'ideological'. Those who think that ideology is divisive are welcome to say so. If they also have executive authority, they may cause it to be removed.  

and a display that highlights racist voter suppression measures, among others.

Racist voter suppression was based on a racist ideology. It was divisive. What's wrong with removing it rather than pandering to those who still uphold that ideology.  


The assault on the Smithsonian comes wrapped, as it were, as part of a broader attack on democracy,

which has caused Jason to run away to Canada. Kimberley is made of sterner stuff.  

scenes of which we see playing out every day. The federal occupation of Washington DC, the crackdown on free speech on campus, the targeting of Trump’s political opponents, the gerrymandering of democracy

Biden was President when Trump won. Democracy is what has put Trump twice in the White House. Incidentally, it was American Democracy which protected slave owners and which permitted 'voter suppression'.  

– these are interwoven elements of the same structural assault.

Just as the Smithisonian pieces the Trump administration objected to were part of a structural assault. The question is why Trump won & Kamala lost. To some extent, it was because nutters like Jason were taken- wrongly, I believe- to represent the mindset of, if not the Democratic establishment, then a vocal minority on the Left which the Dems had fallen into the habit of appeasing. 

So with many fires burning across the nation, concerned citizens who are answering the call to fight the destruction of democracy may regard his attack on history

You can't 'attack history' anymore than you can invade the Past or sexually molest days of yore.  

and memory as a mere skirmish, a distraction from the herculean struggle against fascism unfolding in the US.

Do these cunts mean 'Anti-Fa'? It seems to have backfired. Look at the Kyle Rittenhouse case.  

But this is a mistake. Trump’s attack on American museums, education and memory, along with his weaponization of racialized resentment to package his authoritarian sympathies as mere patriotism, is a critical dimension of his fascist aims. The fight for democracy cannot avoid it, nor its racial conditions of possibility.

One can avoid a fight in the US by moving to some other country. Stanley appears to have done so. The problem is that calling Trump a Fascist doesn't seem to have any effect. By doing so you aren't fighting anybody. You are merely shitting yourself.  

Fascism always has a central cultural component,

Only because everything human has a central cultural component.  

because it relies on the construction of a mythic past.

It has never done so. By the time it appears on the scene such a path has already been constructed. It may refer to it but it may not. It may- like the British Union of Fascists- be based on imitating Mussolini. The Italian Fascists had taken over the black-shirts worn by an elite Italian military corps. Moseley had served in the Lancers & the Flying Corps neither of which had black shirts. Yet he clothed his men in black- like the Royal Tank Corps from 1924 onward. This was peculiar. British ex-Servicemen had strong prejudices. Khaki or 'Kitchener blue' may have been acceptable as an egalitarian gesture, but black wasn't. Moseley was going against British tradition because British Fascism was imitative of the Italian prototype. 

The mythic past is central to fascism

No. It is irrelevant. Fascism was initially associated with 'Futurism'. But it didn't invoke a mythic past. There genuinely was a Roman Empire.  

because it enables and empowers a sense of grievance by a dominant racial or ethnic group

Italians in Italy? That's where Fascism was born. It prevailed because there was a Communist threat. It entrenched itself by making a Concordat with the Pope and adopting a Corporatist approach to the Economy. The grievance Italians had was that they had fallen behind because foreign powers had occupied large parts on their country.  

whose consent is crucial to the sustainability of the project.

No. Fascism, like Communism, can dispense with 'consent'. Beating and torture and Concentration Camps can keep the regime in power provided it has the support of the Army.  

In Maga world, the mythic past was pure, innocent and unsullied by women or Black leaders.

The actual American past didn't have women or black leaders.  

In this kind of politics, the nation was once great, a by-product of the great achievements of the men in the dominant racial group.

Whereas in the politics of these two nutters, George Washington was a Lesbian Rabbi born in Africa who had spent her formative years plucking cotton in a Southern Plantation. 

In short, the assault on the Smithsonian and, more broadly, against truthful history

Abraham Lincoln was a Somali immigrant. She launched a jihad against the Southern Baptists. 

and critical reflection is part of the broader fascist attack on democracy.

What 'critical reflection' are these two paranoid cretins capable of? 

From this vantage point, racial equality is a threat to the story of the nation’s greatness

America really was great. Did it become less so as racial equality increased? No. The reason it has declined relative to China, in recent years, has to do with Economics. I suppose, the reason Trump got re-elected is because voters thought, as a business man, he could handle the economy better. The right way to attack him is by suggesting he is fucking it up. Gassing on about the Smithsonian is foolish.  

because only the men of the dominant group can be great.

Nonsense! The English have a great regard for Elizabeth I. The French have Joan of Arc.  

To represent the nation’s founding figures as flawed, as any accurate history would do, is perceived, in this politics, as a kind of treason.

A politician who says George Washington was a Lesbian Rabbi would be a liability for her party. Stupidity isn't treason.  

The success of the fascist dismantling of democracy is predicated on

Democracy already being D.O.A by reason of elected politicians doing stupid shit. That was the case of Italy, Hungary, Germany, Spain etc.  

the widespread systematic failure to see the larger picture.

These nutters can't see any picture save one they painted for themselves using their own faeces.  

The anti-woke assault that is a key pillar of Trumpism

because Wokeism, as Obama warned- and the film 'Undercover Brother 2' confirmed- was utterly toxic for the Dems. Vivek Ramaswamy, however, did well out of it. 

is part of that failure, partly due to the racial blinders and enduring ambivalence of too many in positions of leadership in the media and elsewhere.

Why are they not eating their own shit? These two nutters subsist on nothing else. That is why they have such great political influence.  

Those who sign on to the attack on “wokeness” but regard themselves as opponents of the other elements of the fascist assault are under the mistaken assumption that these projects can be disaggregated.

Worse yet, they don't understand that chocolate cake can't be 'disaggregated' from their own shit. That's what they should be eating. Chocolate cake is so tasty.  

In fact, the dismantling of democracy and of racial justice

reparations for African-Americans? Or do they mean the restoration of 'Turtle Island' to the First Nations and the forcible deportation of people of European, African or Asian origin.  

are symbiotically entangled.

No. They are wholly unrelated. Indeed 'racial justice' for these two nutters means injustice to Whites. Sadly, if they are in the majority, they will vote against it.  

To support one is to give cover for the others.

Also, everybody should eat only their own shit. Failure to do so will inevitably lead to Fascism and men having penises even though the vast majority of women have to sit down to pee.  

It is no coincidence that this ‘proper’ ideology Trump exposes is constitutive of a more well-known strand of fascism – nazism

What isn't a coincidence is that nutters of every stripe start babbling about Hilter.  

It is clear that the Trump administration understands this relationship and fully weaponizes racist appeals as a foundational piece of its fascist agenda. And if this was once the quiet part, it is now pronounced out loud in official government documents. In an executive order issued on 27 March 2025 titled “Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History”, Trump reveals that his mandate to ban “improper ideologies” targets core commitments repudiating a scientific racism that historically naturalized racial hierarchy thereby neutralizing resistance. According to Trump, the problem with the Smithsonian American Art Museum’s exhibit The Shape of Power: Stories of Race and American Sculpture was that it promoted the idea that “race is a human invention”.

Like gender. Just because a woman has a large penis and uses it to rape other women doesn't mean she should be sent to a jail for men. Still, if reparation payments are made to African Americans, it is good to know that rich White folk will be able to claim them on the basis that Elon Musk just invented their blackness. He also invented the whiteness of actual black peeps. Moreover billionaires have been invented as very poor people and thus shouldn't have to pay any tax. Instead, they should get big fat welfare checks. 

The understanding that race is a social construct as opposed to a biological fact is perhaps the most fundamental advance in repudiating enslavement, genocide and segregation.

It has no such magical effect. DNA is a biological fact. My DNA would reveal me to be of Indian origin. Stanley's would reveal him to have some Ashkenazi heritage. Kimberley would show some sub-Saharan African ancestry. 

Rejecting the idea that racial inequality is natural or pre-ordained – a claim that grounded enslavement and dispossession in America – forms the cornerstone of the modern commitment to a fully inclusive democracy.

No. The two ideas are wholly unrelated. Democracies grant voting rights on the basis of citizenship, not race. One is welcome to believe that Blacks are superior to Whites but, if you are a Democrat, you have to accept that both will get the same number of votes.  

Trump’s declaration that this cornerstone is “improper” is an effort to turn the clock back, upending the entire American postwar project.

It is people who talk of Fascism and Nazism who are trying to turn the clock back to a time when their views might have had some salience.  

It is no coincidence that this “proper” ideology Trump exposes is constitutive of a more well-known strand of fascism – nazism. How else can we understand why Maya Angelou was purged from the Naval Academy library while Adolf Hitler remains?

Hitler was important. Many American soldiers died in the war that put an end to his evil regime. Maya wasn't important. Still, after a public outcry, her books were reinstated.  

The fight against fascism in the US must be as robust in its embrace of racial equality as Trump’s embrace of outdated ideas about race and racism.

Sadly, updated ideas about race have to do with everybody being sick of the very sound of the word- unless we are talking of a horse race.

The defense of memory, of truthful history, of telling the whole American story rather than ascribing agency in history to the deeds of “great men” is vital to the American democratic project.

Democracy is under threat because kids aren't being taught George Washington was a Lesbian Rabbi.  

A pro-democratic education fosters the agency of its citizens by teaching about social movements that overturned entrenched hierarchies which blocked democratic equality and imposed racial tyranny.

LBJ was the African American wife of George Washington. Obama was their butt baby.  

The story of how ordinary Americans lived and struggled and remade America is essential knowledge in developing and sustaining a multiracial democracy.

Only in the sense that eating your own shit will overthrow Neo-Liberalism 

The Smithsonian has been a vital institution in making this knowledge accessible to the masses.

The masses of shit lodged in the skulls of these cunts- maybe.  

The National Museum of the American Latino and the National Museum of the American Indian, for example, provide artifacts and perspectives about the nation’s westward expansion that challenge the myth of unoccupied territory and manifest destiny.

The National Museum of the American Cunt challenges the myth that women don't have penises or that they have to sit down to pee.  

A people who cannot remember their past are a people who cannot resist a fascist future.

Why resist it if it is better than the alternative? What these cunts don't get is that Fascism was better than Communism- provided it didn't go to war with a stronger country. That's why Franco died peacefully in his bed while the Spanish Commies & Anarchists were either killed or ran away.  

Knowing our history

e.g. George Washington was a Lesbian Rabbi 

can give us the weapons and wherewithal to battle Trump’s efforts to catapult us back to a time when the majority of Americans lacked both the civic and economic power that we have now.

Very true. The First Nations would have easily repelled the White Man if only they had known their own history was some stupid shite invented by these two cretins.  

The fight for our museums and for our memory is a critical bulwark against the unraveling of American democracy.

It is wholly insignificant.  

It is vital that we fight to protect our repositories before it’s too late.

It really isn't. If you really thing Trump is the Devil then say stuff which might tank the Stock Market. That way the Donald loses control of Congress and his last two years in office are a fucking bed of nails. That may happen anyway if he doesn't get a deal with the Chinese and doubles down on doing stupid shit. As for the two clowns who wrote this- put them in a museum by all means.  

 

Simone Weil's antagonomic coprophagy


France and Britain went in opposite directions around the year 1905. France drove the Catholic orders out of education and refused to provide any State funding for Church schools. This meant that a large section of the population felt alienated from the Republic. In England, despite Civil Disobedience from 'Dissenters', Church Schools got State Funding. Other measures taken around that time conciliated organized labour and introduced 'death duties' much to the distress of the landed Aristocracy. All in all, the UK was more united, going into war, than France. This directly affected military strategy and is quoted as a reason for France's defective offensive doctrine. 

French intellectuals of the inter-war period proved deaf, dumb and blind to the real problems facing their country. Teachers in State Schools should have championed the cause of their ill-paid brethren in the Catholic 'free' schools. But education itself should have been geared to boosting productivity and increasing national security.

Even after Paris was occupied, the intelligentsia lived in a fantasy world. Hilariously, they would later pretend that some supposed psilosophy of 'Freedom' had helped in their liberation. One nutter who didn't live to see it was Simone Weil- the cretinous younger sister of the great mathematician Andre Weil. 

Christy Wampole writes in Aeon 

Simone Weil belonged to a species so rare, it had only one member.

She belonged to the same species as the rest of us. She wasn't really a 'Martian'. Anorexia of some sort is a cruel affliction. At one time it was thought that 'high achieving' girls were more likely to suffer it but that does not appear to be the case. I believe great strides have been made in its treatment. 

This peculiar French philosopher

the French are wrong to make High School Students pass an exam in worthless shite. It is not surprising that those condemned to teach that subject, go utterly bananas trying to escape from that miserable fate only to enter into the yet drearier business of writing ignorant nonsense.  

and mystic diagnosed the maladies and maledictions of her own age and place – Europe in the first war-torn half of the 20th century –

she was mentally ill. She couldn't diagnose shit. 

and offered recommendations for how to forestall the repetition of its iniquities: totalitarianism,

Only one thing worked. Winning a total war and then having enough nukes to destroy the fucking planet.  

income inequality,

a good thing. It drives 'Tardean mimetics' leading to higher productivity and material standards of living. 

restriction of free speech,

Speech doesn't matter. Any nutter can talk. Where productivity is rising, people have better things to do than worry about what nutters are saying.  

political polarisation,

A good thing. Society has to make choices. It can't have its cake and eat it too. Where there is polarisation, there is more information about 'opportunity cost'. This means better decision making.  

the alienation of the modern subject,

shite invented by nutters.  

and more. Her combination of erudition,

ignorance. Passing an exam in shite isn't education. It is coprophagy.  

political and spiritual fervour,

hysteria

and commitment to her ideals

 lunacy

adds weight to the distinctive diagnosis she offers of modernity.

What the lass needed was to do was put on weight by eating three square meals a day.  

Weil has been dead now for 75 years but remains able to tell us much about ourselves.

Her cultus was part and parcel of the Cold War initiative to reconstitute a Catholic 'Zentrum' or its equivalent in European countries menaced by Communism.  

Born to a secular Jewish family in Paris, she was gifted from the beginning with a thirst for knowledge of other cultures and her own. Fluent in Ancient Greek by the age of 12,

Nobody is fluent in Ancient Greek. What is meant is that she could pass an exam in a subject which did not require much reasoning power.  

she taught herself Sanskrit,

like her elder brother. Again, this isn't difficult. 

and took an interest in Hinduism and Buddhism.

like her elder brother, she understood nothing of either. To be fair, tie Hindus her brother met in India were even less interested in that type of philosophy. Religion is merely a service industry. If it is helping raise productivity, well and good.  

She excelled at the Lycée Henri IV and the École normale supérieure, where she studied philosophy.

Grete Harmann studied Math & Philosophy. What she did was useful. What Simone got up to was stupid and useless.  

Plato was a lasting influence, and her interest in political philosophy led her to Karl Marx, whose thought she esteemed but did not blindly assimilate.

She understood nothing of what she read. Nothing wrong with Plato if you are a Godel type math maven. Marx was simply wrong. Still, if you had a bit of Math, you could go in the direction of Slutsky.  

As a Christian convert who criticised the Catholic Church and as a communist sympathiser who denounced Stalinism and confronted Trotsky over hazardous party developments, Weil’s independence of mind and resistance to ideological conformity are central to her philosophy.

No. Her stupidity caused her to be attracted to various stripes of stupid shite. Thankfully, she was bat-shit crazy so it was in nobody's interest to recruit or retain her.  

In addition to her intelligence, other aspects of her biography have captured the public’s imagination. As a child during the First World War, she refused sugar because soldiers on the front could have none.

French soldiers received sugar. Once rationing was introduced, towards the end of the war, this was limited to 48 grams. That's 12 teaspoons a week.  Some kids sent their sugar and chocolate ration to soldiers at the front. During the War on Terror, I refused to eat any of my own shit till every last Noam Chomsky had consumed at least 5 kg of faeces for breakfast. Sadly, I did not receive the Nobel Peace Prize.  

Diagnosed with tuberculosis, she died at 34 when working for the resistance government France libre in London, refusing to eat more than the citizens’ rations of her German-occupied France.

She had got it into her head that they were all starving. The coroner's report said ;The deceased did kill and slay herself by refusing to eat whilst the balance of her mind was disturbed.”

Teachers and classmates called her the Martian and the Red Virgin,

as opposed to 'Farty-pants' which, I firmly believe, is what they called Simone de Boudoir. 

nicknames suggestive of her strangeness and asexuality.

 better a Martian Virgin than a promiscuous farty-pants. 

A philosopher who refused to cloister herself behind academia’s walls,

She was only licenced to teach in High School. She quit to go work in a factory.   

she worked in factories and vineyards, and left France during the Spanish Civil War to fight alongside the Durruti Column anarchists, a failed mission in many respects.

She had some family money. She was a dilletante. Still, she could have made a career out of it by writing silly books. Anything is better than teaching shite to high skool kids. They deserve better. So do you.  

Several mystical experiences, including Weil’s discovery of the poem ‘Love (III)’ by the 17th-century poet George Herbert led her to embrace Christianity,

the good thing about Catholicism is that you don't have to torture yourself. Just say your Hail Marys and get absolution already.  

and many have called for her canonisation as a saint.

 Not anti-Semitic enough.

In her book Devotion (2017), the Francophile poet and punk-rock star Patti Smith described Weil as ‘an admirable model for a multitude of mindsets. Brilliant and privileged,

Stupid as shit, when compared to her elder brother. 

she coursed through the great halls of higher learning,

she studied stupid shite 

forfeiting all to embark on a difficult path of revolution, revelation, public service, and sacrifice.’

The US taxpayer's financial sacrifice liberated France. Only after it got nukes did it become safe.  

The French politician Charles de Gaulle thought Weil was mad,

nobody who studies and teaches stupid shite isn't mad or doesn't become so.  

while the authors Albert Camus, André Gide and T S Eliot recognised her as one of the greatest minds of her time.

Like they'd know! Von Neumann had a great mind. So did Andrei Weil. 

Weil’s best-known works – The Need for Roots,
She thought 'order means society requires a web of social relations where no one must violate an obligation to fulfil another obligation'. She didn't get that type theory makes this trivial albeit not categorical. In other words, any configuration of Society can have many different such webs. Even if there is no 'overlapping consensus', still there are 'trade-offs' of an economic or political type. 
Gravity and Grace,

if you are going to rely on God's grace, why not also rely on your confessor for absolution? Say your Hail Marys and then carry on living your best life.  Religion is a service industry just like Education. Weil got a credential in worthless shite but others didn't. They did something useful with their lives and enjoyed themselves at least some of the time. She tried to make Catholicism as useless and stupid as the worthless shite she had been taught to teach. Still, she managed to get out of that line of work. That's what makes her a role-model. Sadly, few of her admirers starved themselves to death. 

‘The Iliad or the Poem of Force’,

That war was won by guile not force.  

Waiting for God,

don't be in a hurry. Believe me, the Big Guy in the Sky isn't dying to meet you. 

and On the Abolition of All Political Parties,

because bureaucrats run things so well- right? 

all published posthumously

it is safer to make a cult of a dead shithead 

– offer only snapshots of the philosopher’s wide-ranging diagnoses of societal maladies.

Everybody should starve to death because otherwise everybody won't be obliged to starve to death.  

Based on her notebooks, letters and published essays, scholars have traced compatibilities between her thought and that of philosophers such as Martin Heidegger, Hannah Arendt, Maurice Blanchot, Nikolai Berdyaev, Iris Murdoch, Giorgio Agamben, Maurice Merleau-Ponty, Michel Foucault, Gilles Deleuze, Quentin Meillassoux, Alain Badiou, Jacques Rancière, Emmanuel Levinas, Jan Zwicky, Meister Eckhart and John Rawls, to name just a few.

Leaving aside Eckhart, the rest were or are ignorant shitheads.  

Weil is a hinge between religious and philosophical thought,

of a shitty kind- sure.  

and her notebooks often do away with differences between them.

Doctors differentiate between types of shit. Indeed, they can diagnose stuff from your turds. Weil's oeuvre was that of a lunatic.

All of her work

failed because she had been trained in stupidity 

constitutes an attempt to regenerate connective tissue between all disciplines, between culture and nature, science and art, and God and humans.

People doing useful stuff have no trouble in that department. It is only if you teach stupid shite that you have to pretend that some horrible metaphysical calamity has befallen mankind. Only by eating our own shit can we restore a truly human way of life.

A Weil revival is underway, in part due to

shitheads who want a credential in stupid shite 

the surges in nationalism, populism, tribalism and nativism about which she had so much to say in her work.

Because you don't get paid for saying 'eat your own shit. It's delicious!'  You have to pretend to be 'resisting' Fascism or Neo-Liberalism or shite of that sort.

Weil, a firm believer in free thought, argued that: ‘The intelligence is defeated as soon as the expression of one’s thought is preceded, explicitly or implicitly, by the little word “we”.’

No. Intelligence is defeated by going kray kray and believing all sorts of crazy shit.  

Uncritical collective thinking holds the free mind captive and does not allow for dissent.

Which is the only reason more people aren't eating their own shit.  

For this reason, she advocated the abolition of all political parties, which, she argued, were in essence totalitarian.

Though only totalitarian societies abolish all political parties.  

To substantiate this claim, Weil offered three arguments:
1) A political party is a machine to generate collective passions.

Only in the sense that Churches and Schools and Cinema halls and Sports Stadiums are such machines 

2) A political party is an organisation designed to exert collective pressure upon the minds of all its individual members.

That's a Church. It aint any mainstream party in a Liberal Democracy.  

3) The first objective and also the ultimate goal of any political party is its own growth, without limit.

That may be true of the Catholic Church. It isn't true of the Tory party. They really don't want to recruit members from the Cannibal Isles.  

These tentacular organisations make people stupid,

In which case, smart peeps will run circles round them 

requiring a member to endorse ‘a number of positions which he does not know’.

Like Catholicism.  

Instead, the party thinks on his behalf, which amounts to him ‘having no thoughts at all’.

It really doesn't.  

People find comfort in the absence of the necessity to think, she claims, which is why they so readily join such groups.

One can live a solitary life without much necessity for thought.  

In a resonant passage in The Need for Roots, Weil writes: ‘A democracy where public life is made up of strife between political parties is incapable of preventing the formation of a party whose avowed aim is the overthrow of that democracy.’

It can ban such parties and incarcerate their members. 

Weil supported the freedom of individual expression.

It was she who encouraged Simone de Boudoir to fart noisily every time she saw Jean Paul Sartre. This wore him down and he finally asked her out to the Prom.  

(She believed, however, in certain speech restrictions for institutions such as newspapers and government propaganda offices that, as collectivities, were, for her, naturally suspect.)

Sadly, nobody cared enough her to get her admitted to a lunatic asylum.  

She writes that ‘complete, unlimited freedom of expression for every sort of opinion, without the least restriction or reserve, is an absolute need on the part of the intelligence’.

She needed psychiatric care & medication. Intelligence turns to shit unless it is focused on doing something useful. 

The health of the intelligence relies on full access to the facts,

If all the facts are known, intelligence is not required. When no facts are known, we need smart peeps to formulate hypotheses and proceed on that basis.   

and without it, thinking is always deficient.

Simone had access to lots of facts which, because she had been taught stupid shit in Collidge, she blithely ignored.  

She would have sided with even the most detestable of speakers, if for no other reason than that thy enemy must be known.

Thy real enemy will lie when she speaks so as to be stick the knife into you when you least expect it. 

Weil’s writings are infused with care.

No. She takes extreme positions because she really doesn't give a fuck if she comes across as bat-shit crazy. This is because she was bat-shit crazy. 

She believed it politically essential that every human soul feel ‘useful and even indispensable’ within the social body.

This is true only in the sense that it is essential for plumbing maintenance that every human and animal should be useful and indispensable in fixing my fucking toilet. A good polity is one where comparatively few people make policy decisions so other people can concentrate on economically productive activities. Fuck that. We just want to party.  

She offers the example of unemployed people and manual labourers, who often feel little responsibility toward a society that does not embrace them.

They are also pissed off with an Economy which does not give them a rim job and a Technology which does not come to their birthday party and an Ecology which does come but brings a shitty present and then drinks up way too much of the good Champers. 

Regarding criminal justice, she believed in the redemptive power of punishment

if the thing is redemptive, it should be applied to people who want or are capable of redemption no matter how innocent they may be.  

, arguing that it should ‘wipe out the stigma of the crime’

Simone didn't get that prisoners wipe out the stigma of having to do time with pedo scum by kicking their fucking heads in. 

and offer an education to offenders, allowing for full re-entry into the community.

Simone had received an expensive education but was utterly useless to any community she entered.  

Her care-infused recommendations for how to think of one’s nation

was shit. French peeps needed to be thinking of their nation as one which needed to hang together or else risk enslavement. Nutters like Simone wanted to exacerbate class and other divisions in French society. Also, they were as stupid as shit. 

could be edifying to consciences troubled by the confrontational nationalist movements of today. She wrote:
[The] poignantly tender feeling for some beautiful, precious, fragile, and perishable object has a warmth about it which the sentiment of national grandeur altogether lacks

Cheese eating surrender monkeys don't have national grandeur. Who gives a fuck, so long as they have cheese  

… A perfectly pure love for one’s country bears a close resemblance to the feelings which his young children, his aged parents, or a beloved wife inspire in a man.

Simone thought she was a man. She wasn't. Men hate their young kids, aged parents and beloved wives. They firmly believe that but for these impediments they would be shagging super-models and jetting around the word as a secret agent or some such shit.  

The thought of weakness can inflame love in just the same way as can the thought of strength …

All of this is wholly irrelevant more particularly if war is imminent. Everybody in the country may agree that the place is a shit-hole but they may also agree to pretend otherwise and fight hard to protect it. Why? The alternative is enslavement or eradication.  


Thinking of your nation as something vulnerable, something that must be nurtured, stands in contrast to the chest-thumping, hubristic barking of today’s ultranationalists.

Ukrainian ultra-nationalists are kicking Putin's ass. No army has succeeded in defending its country by 'thinking of their nation as vulnerable or incontinent or mentally retarded.  

Weil’s political pliability could account in part for the surge of interest in her work.

That surge was confined to pseudo-intellectuual shitheads.  

Perhaps we are looking for someone to lead us out of the forest in which we find ourselves,

because we are Hansel & fucking Gretel- right 

planted by the sowers of discord.

Forests aren't planted. Crops are.  

I reflected on my attraction to Weil’s thought,

which is a reflection of your stupidity 

and on my habit of putting her books into the hands of my students and friends saying: ‘Read this.’

This is acceptable. What is unacceptable is putting your dick into the hands of your students.  

There are six reasons I return to Weil and want to share her: 1) the total absence of irony in most of her philosophical writings;

she was a humourless moron 

2) her sustained campaign against a self-interested, narcissistic citizenry;

like that of the US of A which liberated France 

3) the ethical urgency with which she approached the problem of education;

what was urgent was getting rid of Philosophy as a compulsory subject for High School Students.  

4) her emphasis on first-hand knowledge (of the assembly-line worker’s plight,

which Time & Motion analysts had. 'Taylorism' was big in the Soviet Union- not just the US. 

for example, or the farmhand’s daily exertions);

which it was profitable and socially beneficial to make less back-breaking. Come to think of it, Pratap Singh Kairon, despite getting a useless MA in Poli Sci in America, spent ten years working on farms there. That's why, as Chief Minister, he was able to lift up East Punjab so quickly. Simone was a shithead who didn't get that the interesting thing about manual labour is that using your brain helps you figure out ways to do the thing better and cheaper. Moreover, an innovation in one branch of labour can be adapted and applied elsewhere. 

5) her belief that technology’s distancing effects would lead to total alienation;

She was already mad. But mad people existed before there was technology 

and 6) the congruity of her preaching and her practice.

Her practice involved starving to death because she believed crazy shit. I suppose she got high on her own supply of shitty preaching.  

Weil’s emphasis on the ethical urgency of education and her pursuit of knowledge through direct experience both counter some of the worst traits of the academic humanities today.

No. She was shit and academic humanities today are shit. Don't forget, what a Philosophy teacher in a French High School was doing was simply introducing kids to a few Greek and Latin tags and getting them to polish up their essay style. 

The strange proliferation of empty jargon and self-aggrandising theories, conferences and scholarly articles and books of dubious necessity, and the greed-fuelled transformation of houses of learning into houses of earning, all would have unsettled Weil.

It's one thing to teach High Skool kids some of whom will end up as teachers. It is another to teach Collidge kids who will have to teach even more imbecilic Collidge kids. Why? The opportunity cost is less for seventeen year olds.  

The precarious livelihoods of public schoolteachers and university adjuncts and lecturers would have bewildered her as well.

Nope. It existed in France. People like her were relatively well-paid by the State. But the situation of Catholic schools was financially parlous and legally ambiguous. Though the interwar period saw many Catholic schools operating as such, pay was low, organization was poor and there was an element of secrecy and deceit.  

Indeed, she keenly observed the connections between what was happening in the schools and in the factories: ‘The youth of our schools are as much obsessed by their examinations as our workmen engaged in piece-work are by their pay packets.’

Sadly, her own obsessions weren't as reasonable.  

I knew Weil was speaking my language when I came across this passage in her book The Need for Roots:
A lot of people think that a little peasant boy of the present day who goes to primary school knows more than Pythagoras did, simply because he can repeat parrot-wise that the Earth moves round the Sun. In actual fact, he no longer looks up at the heavens. This Sun about which they talk to him in class hasn’t, for him, the slightest connexion with the one he can see. He is severed from the Universe around him.

No he isn't. Only the person who writes such self-regarding shite is severed from the world around her. She thinks it is evil. It thinks she is stupid, useless and as ignorant as fuck.  

She described how those outside the intellectual class had been alienated from thinking, cut off from the great philosophy and literature of the past

it really wasn't that great though, if you had to teach it, you had to pretend otherwise 

that caught the essence of what it is like to experience the world as a worker, a farmer, or a soldier.

Fuck essences, she couldn't even catch the clap from them dudes.  

She hoped to restore these lost connections by introducing every person to history’s richest texts, particularly the Greek classics,

they are shit- at least in the manner they are taught by stupid pedants. Otherwise, they provide a data set. That's useful.  

which articulate what it means to fully inhabit the world.

The ancient Greeks decided 2000 years ago that their 'classics' fell short in that respect. That is why Europe became Christian. Zeus can go fuck himself. He isn't getting any burnt offerings from us. 

Weil would have appreciated Bryan Doerries’s Theater of War project, which brings Sophocles’ war plays to military and civilian audiences in the US and Europe in order to ‘forge a common vocabulary for openly discussing the impact of war on individuals, families and communities’.

It brought peace to Ukraine- right? 

Weil also believed that by infusing every physical movement required by one’s trade with full, contemplative attention, one could become woven into the vocation and into the generation line of forebears who’d also practised it.

Sadly, she didn't take up the world's oldest profession.  

The alienation produced by the mind-numbing repetition of meaningless

shite by people like this Professor doesn't matter in the slightest. All we ask is that they put books, not their dicks, in the hands of their students.  

gestures would hence disperse, and factory workers, farmers and other manual labourers would recover the dignity they’d lost in the industrial age.

If America hadn't liberated France, sooner or later, Philosophers too would have been drafted to work in German factories or to bring in the German harvest.  

To try to understand the appeal of Weil to a contemporary person, I took a close look at three examples from the first two decades of the 21st century, instances where her thought and life have been harnessed toward imaginative projects: Chris Kraus’s book Aliens and Anorexia (2000), Anne Carson’s collection Decreation (2005) and Julia Haslett’s experimental documentary An Encounter with Simone Weil (2010). Weil’s work seems to have a particular resonance with women.

Stupid women. Not CEOs.  

In part, the radical embodiedness of her thought – with its apparent inseparability from her afflicted body – appeals to women because it invites everyone to recognise what they likely already know: that the body, with all of its burdens and pleasures, is the precondition for all thought and creation.

Atheists may believe that. Catholics don't. Pick a side. 

The bodies of male philosophers, artists, musicians or writers have been virtually irrelevant in considerations of their work, while a curious emphasis has been placed on the bodies or troubled psychologies of women thinkers and creators.

No. We speak of the different types of mental illness or psychological affliction particular writers or notable personalities suffered from.  

Kraus offers an example, noting that though Friedrich Nietzsche had migraines, he was never thought of as the philosopher of headaches,

He was a syphilitic nutter.  

while Weil is popularly imagined as the ‘anorexic philosopher’.

because she starved to death 

Weil forces us to see the body as the vessel out of which thought arises.

Her body was irrelevant. She repeated and expanded upon shitty availability cascades of the period. 

Her outsider status – as a woman in the man’s world of philosophy, as a mystic among secularists, as an intellectual among workers and peasants, as a woman whom Kraus calls ‘Bizarre-Simone’ and an ‘admirable freak’ – makes her a compelling figure for anyone trying to

be as useless and shitty as her under the pretence of teaching shite.  

insinuate themselves in a realm made by and for someone else. Weil is the patron saint of anomalous persons. The women inspired by her see something of themselves in Weil.

Sadly, they don't starve themselves to death. Indeed, they put on weight.  


Weil understood human vulnerability in the most visceral way. She argued that: ‘Fear and terror … whether they be caused by the threat of unemployment, police persecution, the presence of a foreign conqueror [or] the probability of invasion’, give rise to ‘a semi-paralysis of the soul’.

Weil was wrong. The threat of unemployment causes people to acquire useful skills or to save money. The presence of a foreign conqueror may reduce fear and terror. Also, though the body may be paralysed, the soul- being immaterial- can not be. It may be constrained or it may be lethargic, it can't be paralysed.  

Her objective was to use the individual as a conduit for bringing feeling back to the numbed limbs of the social body.

There is no social body. Weil was as stupid as shit.  

In all of her recommendations, we see the connections between political theory and spirituality, which at times conflict.

There is no political theory- as opposed to puerility or paranoia in her writing. Is there 'spirituality'? No. Spiritual people may be very stupid but stupidity is not spirituality.  

We see a tortured individual too susceptible to the world’s pain,

No. She had some sort of medical condition. Also, she studied worthless shite at Collidge.  

too committed to her idealistic plans to live long enough to execute them. Surely this is not a model to emulate.

It is wrong to mock the afflicted. But we may well mock stupid Professors who gas on about Weil or Arendt. They were stupid and wrote shite. Still, Arendt made a good living doing so. Simone- like Shulamith Firestone- was mentally ill.  


So, what can be done with Weil?

Make some money of her by pretending she was smart.  

If her psychological complexity makes it difficult to take her as a paragon, her work still offers an ethical invitation.

Only in the sense that a lunatic eating her own poo offers one.  

She provides unusual but practical counsel for educators, students, workers and citizens.

No. What you should do is not 'maximise cost' but 'minimize opportunity cost'. Why not simply say 'eat your own shit! It is chocolate cake!'  

For outsiders of any gender, creed or colour, she has something to say.

It is the equivalent of 'eat your own shit'.  

She is relentlessly anti-ideological, and gives judicious guidance for resisting the pull of narcissism.

But not the pull of starving yourself to death.  

She invites us to act in the world, and to identify and eliminate the hypocrisies that tarnish almost everyone.

It is hypocritical to pretend she was smart.  

Stressing the urgency to write, think and, most importantly, do, her life can inspire fictions, poems, songs, images and political action.

Shite ones- sure.  

She serves as a muse for those who are open to her mystery.

But they write crap.  

Above all, in a society whose most distinct feature is alienation,

The society of this woman may well feature not just alienation but coprophagy.  

Simone Weil proposes ways to feel at home again in a place that has become strange.

Like starving yourself to death because Neo-Liberalism has brainwashed people into eating nice food rather than their own shit.  

Wednesday, 27 August 2025

Can the plebian speak? Ranciere as Rancid Idiot

Some forty years ago, stupid Indian academics started asking the question 'can the subaltern speak'? (the answer was yes. The basis of the administrative and justice system was the 'panchnama'- i.e. spoken testimony of five men of the vicinity. The working class may not be able to read and write. But they were required to speak and did speak.) 

Apparently, Erich Auerbach had previously raised the question of whether the pleb could speak (same answer as above) and the cretin Edward Said had eagerly embraced the notion that they couldn't so as to have some credibility as the spokesperson of the Palestinian cause.

Andrew Parker, in an essay titled 'Impossible Speech Acts: Jacques Rancière’s Erich Auerbach', quotes a passage from Tacitus referring to the suppression of a minor mutiny after the death of Augustus by Drusus the Younger, who was considered to have an unseemly predilection for actors and the professional claques at the theatre. Tacitus attributes this minor mutiny not to the laxness of the commander (he had given his troops leave rather than employed them on erecting some suitable monument to the late Emperor) but to the demagoguery of a plebian who had formally been a leader of a theatrical faction. The story is unlikely and Tacitus's readers would have taken it as such. Still, that may have been the official view taken at that time. Drusus had written a letter to the Senate setting forth the grievances of the soldiers and thus the thing was a matter of record. A little later on, the Senate had taken steps to rectify what they saw as Drusus's partiality for the actors over his own soldiers. In other words, this was a more or less concocted story which fitted with the records of the period. Smart people don't need to be told that if you are commanding troops and there is a change in regime, then you need to keep your troops occupied. If nothing else, at least arrange for athletic competitions and religious rituals. Idle hands are the devil's workshop. 

Tacitus contrasts this minor mutiny with a much more serious affair faced by Germanicus. The material is interesting because Tacitus's readers, even into the early Twentieth century, belonged by birth, education and sex, to a class likely to serve as Army officers under exigent circumstances. Such people would naturally be interested in reading of how a mutinous temper might spread amongst soldiers and what tactics might be used by a commander to re-establish order. 

Auerbach wrote-

The grand style of historiography requires grandiloquent speeches,

it may do. It may not. Churchill's histories were grand enough. They don't feature grandiloquent speeches- not even those he himself delivered.  

which as a rule are fictitious.

In other words, Tacitus's readers understood that there was no 'head of a theatrical faction' who stirred up soldiers. It was simply the case that respectable people in Rome had a higher regard for soldiers than actors because their safety depended on the former not the latter.  

Their function is graphic dramatization (illustratio) of a given occurrence, or at times the presentation of great political or moral ideas; in either case they are intended as the rhetorical bravura pieces of the presentation.

No. These were forensic presentations rendered in a persuasive manner. They were modelled on speeches made in law courts or before the Senate not on Antigone's monologue or lamentations from the Medea.  

The writer is permitted a certain sympathetic entering into the thoughts of the supposed speaker, and even a certain realism.

Auerbach was German. He probably thought that everything was forbidden save what was permitted and what was permitted was compulsory.  

Essentially, however, such speeches are products of a specific stylistic tradition cultivated in the schools for rhetors.

Which is what gave them verisimilitude.  When a bunch of guys have a grievance, it makes sense for them to choose a spokesman who can approximate the language of the 'logothete'.  

The composition of speeches which one person or another might have delivered on one or another great historical occasion was a favorite exercise. Tacitus is a master of his craft, and his speeches are not sheer display; they are really imbued with the character and the situation of the persons supposed to have delivered them;

unless they aren't and his readers can readily suss what is really going on. The fact is, an army commander who doesn't keep his troops occupied during a change in regime is just asking for trouble even if he is the maternal uncle of Sejanus. Also, young patricians should never side with a theatrical faction against soldiers. Connect the fucking dots! 

but they too are primarily rhetorical. Percennius does not speak in his own language; he speaks Tacitean, that is, he speaks with extreme terseness, as a matter of disposition, and highly rhetorically.

He may have existed. Tacitus says he, and another troublemaker were killed by Drusus and buried underneath his tent. 

Undoubtedly his words—though given as indirect discourse—vibrate with the actual excitement of mutinous soldiers and their leader. Yet even if we assume that Percennius was a gifted demagogue, such brevity, incisiveness, and order are not possible in a rebellious propaganda speech, and of soldiers’ slang there is not the slightest trace.

So what? Tacitus sets the stage for the Army commander to come amidst the soldiers and offer his own breast to their swords and to make a melodramatic speech. The soldiers agree that the commander's son should  be sent off with their demands. This is the useful bit in Tacitus. It shows how you can regain command of your troops by making an emotional appeal to them. Also, get your young son out of the place. 

What other lesson do we learn? The answer is that only slaves, gladiators and German Praetorians could be relied on if the Roman soldier grew mutinous. 

What helped was

1) their superstition- an eclipse of the moon demoralized them

2) they wanted money. Only the Emperor or the Senate could give it to them. Otherwise, they were welcome to loot the neighbourhood till fresh troops arrived to massacre them. Their own morale and esprit de corps would have broken down in any case because looting and raping demoralizes a soldier. When not drunk off his head, he is plotting on how to run away with his ill-gotten gains. 

Drusus was no orator and had a cruel streak. In this instance it served him well. He killed the ringleaders and resistance collapsed soon thereafter. Tacitus hints that the mutiny in Germany could have succeeded if Germanicus had put himself at the head of it. His readers, don't need the hint. The thing is fucking obvious. If a Mutiny is about pay, then you have to have a leader who can become Emperor or at least get paid off very substantially. 

Andrew Parker writes-

What Auerbach seems to be pondering here is nothing less than a question we have learned to pose in a rather different context: ‘‘Can the plebeian speak?’’

Even Auerbach wasn't that stupid. All humans can speak.  

To which, for Rancière, the answer would be ‘‘no’’: ‘‘Percennius doesn’t speak; rather, Tacitus lends him his tongue.’

As he does to Blaesus or Drusus who, being human, could and did speak. By contrast, wolves and tigers can't speak even if Kipling is kind enough to lend them his tongue.  

If we were expecting him to declaim in propria persona, we soon realize that ‘‘Percennius had no place to speak,’’ since, as a represented member of the poor, he has only ‘‘an essential relation with nontruth.’’

He came from a gens which was achieving Senatorial rank around the time Tacitus wrote this. In Roman law, the testimony of a plebian was admissible but that of a slave might not be.  

The justifications for the revolt that are credited to Percennius are not refuted by or even commented on by Tacitus;

He justified continuing the revolt till specific grievances were redressed. But Drusus turned up with a whole bunch of foreign troops. Everyone understood that plenty more might suddenly appear. Was there any way they could get a bit of money? No. Sad. 

the historian has no need to do either, since the argument Percennius provides can be neither true nor false:

Demands are not arguments. I suppose one could ask if the Roman legionary would have been better off if there were no fucking legions? The answer was obvious. They would either have been slaves or legionaries in a non-Roman army. Tactitus makes the point, in connection with the mutinies Germanicus had to face, that slaves who are drafted into the army are more likely to entertain fanciful ideas of what soldiers could achieve by killing their commanders. This was because they didn't understand that Rome itself had enemies and its defeat might mean their own extinction. An occupying army may kill off its own officers but it will swiftly be slaughtered by the natives because its fighting ability would have been gravely impaired.

My own book 'the Poor and the yet poorer philosopher' which, sadly, was not published in 1983 alongside Rancid-idiot's Le philosophe et ses pauvres, because I was too drunk to write it , centred on my struggles, as a poor clerk working in the City, to get my old chums, who were doing PhDs in Shite Subjects, to buy a fucking round of drinks once this fucking decade, mate. I should explain, my generation firmly believed, on the basis of Monty Python sketches, that only elderly Cockney housewives discussed Descartes and Kant in between scrubbing pots in the scullery. To study Philosophy, rather than Accountancy or Computer Science, was to doom oneself to teaching cretins for a pittance. Worse, it was to make yourself stupider than nature intended. Consider the following-

They (the plebs) have, fundamentally, no relation to the truth.

Nonsense! They had been sacrosanct tribunes and even Consuls for centuries. French Philosophers know less Roman history than an 11 year old English boy swotting for Common Entrance.  Sadly, if he gets into a really pukka Public School, it is his anus which becomes the common entrance. I need hardly say, my skool wasn't 'Public'. It was 'Approved'. 

Their illegitimacy is not due to their content but to the simple fact that Percennius is not in the position of legitimate speaker. 

He is a mutineer. That's why he was put to death.  

A man of his rank has no business thinking and expressing his thought.

He was a soldier who defied superior officers. Even in the French Army, this is not tolerated.  

And his speech is ordinarily reproduced only in the ‘‘base’’ genres of satire and comedy.

Fuck off! Agrippa was a pleb. He married the only biological daughter of Augustus. He was the maternal grandfather of Caligula and great-grandfather of Nero.  

It is ruled out that an essential conflict would be expressed through his mouth, ruled out that we would see in him, in a modern sense, the symptomatic representative of a historical movement that operates in the depths of a society. The speech of the man of the common people is by definition without depth
if he is saying something silly- yes. The question was whether there was something the troops could do to get money and release from military service. Neither of the two agitators named by Tacitus had an answer to this question. They could stir up a sense of grievance. But they could not show how the troops could gain what they wanted- e.g. by linking up with other discontented legions or persuading the local people to join them in rebellion or gaining gold from some enemy of Rome or some Senatorial faction. Worse yet, they could not provide military command so as to restore morale and go on the offensive rather than wait till German troops turned up to massacre the lot of them. 
Thus Tacitus, as Rancière reads Auerbach, explains the revolt twice,

He explains it once. The message is clear. When there is a change in regime, or a new Emperor is crowned, make sure the troops have plenty to occupy them. Be pro-active in arresting and flogging malcontents. It is obvious that when one long-lived Emperor dies, some may say 'our oath was to that Emperor. We are free to quit military service. Moreover, he is bound to have left us lots of money in his will. Let us stand together and demand a big pay-out.' 

The other point is that once soldiers have lost their teeth and their hair, dismiss them from service if you can't pension them off. An army with a lot of old codgers is neither efficient nor likely to have high morale. The youngsters are confronted every day with the spectacle of their own miserable fate- provided they escape the yet more miserable fate of death in battle. 

doubly dispossessing Percennius by stripping him both of his justifications and his voice.

What the fellow really objected to was Drusus stripping him of his life and burying him under his tent. What can I say? Plebs are like that only.  

According to Rancière, Auerbach here would be marking, ‘‘in his own way, the relation between a politics of knowledge and a poetics of narrative around the question of the politics of the other.’’

Auerbach had a Doctorate in law and had fought for 4 years in the Great War. He received the Iron Cross. His family was affluent. It simply isn't the case that he had any sympathy for Bolshevism.  

But this other is not simply excluded by Tacitus, whose discourse nonetheless manages, precisely, to give a place ‘‘to what it declares to have no place.’’

Tacitus, like Auerbach, was trained in the law and spent time as a soldier. The speech of a mutineer has a specific space in military law. Both Tacitus and Auerbach served in Armies where soldiers guilty of making such speeches were executed. The thing had a place in the military archives. 

While Auerbach left underemphasized the question of ‘‘the modality of the poem’s enunciation,’’ Rancière suggests that what makes Percennius’s speech not only fascinating but politically efficacious is its ‘‘indirect style,’’ the narrator’s ‘‘they’’ replacing the expected ‘‘you’’ in Percennius’s address to his audience.

Tacitus tells us that this mutiny, unlike the one faced by Germanicus, featured only a few 'ministers of sedition'. He writes- Postremo promptis iam et aliis seditionis ministris velut contionabundus interrogabat cur paucis centurionibus paucioribus tribunis in modum servorum oboedirent. quando ausuros exposcere remedia, nisi novum et nutantem adhuc principem precibus vel armis adirent? (Finally, as if he were speaking to the other ministers of sedition, he asked them why they obeyed the few centurions and the few tribunes in the manner of slaves? When would they dare to demand remedies, unless they approached the new and still wavering prince with prayers or arms?)

Tacitus is explaining the psychology of the ordinary soldier which would have been familiar enough to his readership. Percennius treats the soldiers as if they are already of one mind with the 'ministers of sedition' just as a commander speaks to the troops as if they have already studied the military situation and decided on the optimal strategy. It only remained to say 'why are we waiting? This is the moment to strike!' 

The obvious problem was that the new 'Prince' might not be 'wavering' at all. The fucker might enjoy bathing in the blood of a mutinous legion so as strike terror into the rest of the Army. 

What results from this substitution is much less a new synthesis than a torsion between two distinct pronominal points of view—both of which nonetheless inhere at once: ‘‘The indirect style, in practice disjoining meaning and truth,

There is no such disjoining in law. The witness may provide testimony either with direct quotations or with an indirect summary which gives the gist of what transpired. 

in effect cancels the opposition between legitimate and illegitimate speakers.

It has no such power.  If a corporal says 'Shoot the Colonel!' that is prima facie illegal unless he has been put in charge of a firing squad for that purpose. It may be legal for the Colonel to say 'shoot the Corporal!' if the fellow is endangering the mission. 

The latter are just as much validated as suspected. The homogeneity of the narrative-discourse thereby constituted comes to contradict the heterogeneity of the subjects it represents, the unequal quality of the speakers to guarantee, by their status, the reference of their speech.

No. It confirms that armies in all ages are pretty much alike. Auerbach knew that mutineers were executed during the Great War. Rancid-idiot, being a cheese-eating surrender monkey, may not have understood this. Why should only Marshal Petain get to surrender to the Germans? Everybody should be allowed to do it. Capitalism is very contradictory in that it wipes its own bum but refuses to wipe the bum of Communism.  

Although Percennius may well be the radical other, the one excluded from legitimate speech,

he was killed because he was a mutineer.  

his discourse is included, in a specific suspension of the relations between meaning and truth.’’

There is no such suspension in Tacitus. The truth was the guy was a mutineer. This meant execution and an ignominious burial.  

For Rancière, then, Tacitus records in his discourse a speech event impossible to imagine phenomenally as a historical utterance.

Yet, for 2000 years, every reader of Tacitus has been able to imagine it well enough.  

Rancière stresses that this very impossibility is what opens a political future: ‘‘By invalidating the voice of Percennius, substituting his own speech for the soldier’s, Tacitus does more than give him a historical identity. He also creates a model of subversive eloquence for the orators and simple soldiers of the future.

Simple soldiers may read Tacitus. But they don't take Percennius as their model because the fucker was executed. There are times when a Mutiny can lead to soldiers getting a big pay-out. But that has to with the military situation. 'Subversive eloquence' just means getting killed by your own people rather than the enemy. 

The latter henceforth will not repeat Percennius, whose voice has been lost, but Tacitus, who states the reasons of all those like Percennius better than they do.’’

No Mutineer has ever done so. It must be said, Trotsky was very good at putting down Mutinies though it was Stalin who went the extra mile in putting down potential mutineers. It is sad that the Commies didn't take over France and kill its numerous Rancid-Idiots.  

Monday, 25 August 2025

Nayantara Sahgal on Indira's 'Style'.


Motilal Nehru was a successful barrister. He sent his only son to England so he too could become a successful barrister. Sadly the lad had no interest in the law. However, he accepted an arranged marriage and became the father of a daughter in 1917. Motilal political career began under Annie Besant's Home Rule league at around that time. When Besant was arrested, Nehru, as Secretary of the League, participated in the protests which got her released a couple of months later. In February of 1919, Motilal Nehru set up a newspaper called 'the Independent'. Its editor, Syed Hosain- an aristocratic Bengali Muslim related by marriage to Fazl ul Haq & Suhrawardy- eloped with Motilal's 19 year old daughter, Vijaylaxmi. Mahatma Gandhi came to the rescue of the family. He sent Hosain away and found a suitable Brahmin boy for Vijaylaxmi to marry. The Nehrus now owed Gandhi big time. Motilal was the first President of the new Gandhi dominated Congress. His motivation was to build up political capital which his son could inherit. Since the son put in a lot off jail-time and was a Hindi speaking Brahmin, it made sense for Gandhi to anoint him as his successor. 

Jawaharlal did not have a son, merely a daughter who was made PM two years after her father's death because that seemed the only way to keep Morarji Desai, whom everybody hated, out of the top job. Like Motilal, Indira had a useless unemployable son named Sanjay. He wanted power. But he did not have the patience to rise up through the ranks. Thus his Mummy had to move in an autocratic direction so that he and his chums could have the reality of power without the tiresome necessity of sitting in Parliament or attending Cabinet meetings.  Thus Indira's previous style of functioning- as a Socialist supported by 'Young Turk' plebians from the Provinces- changed to that of a Mummy indulging a headstrong son who disliked Socialism and felt nothing but contempt for the average Indian politician. 

The problem with empowering Sanju was that he or his chums might decide to bump off Mummy in the belief that they could retain power. Thus Mummy was obliged to call elections and spend a bit of time in the political wilderness till the utter shittiness of Morarji, as PM, caused the opposition coalition to crumble. 

It should be mentioned that other politicians had sons. Morarji had Kanti- who was considered corrupt and appears to have been involved in foreign arms deals- Jagjivan had Suresh- brought down by a sex scandal publicized by Maneka Gandhi. Charan's son- Ajith- was the best of the crop. He was working for IBM in America rather than enriching himself by brokering shady deals. What made the Nehru Dynasty special was that the incumbent would take risks and make sacrifices for the sake of the heir- provided that heir was male. No doubt this was galling for daughters or cousins. But, it went down well with the Indian public. What was odd was that while Sanjay was alive, primogeniture was not observed. Indeed, if Sanjay had been employable- perhaps as a pilot like his brother- there may be no Dynasty. It would simply be the case that Indira was brought in to keep Morarji out and that she remained so as to enable an equally shite cohort of Leftist 'Young Turks' to take power from the old men in Congress. 

In 1978, Vijaylaxmi's daughter, Nayantara- who somehow managed to avoid marrying a Muslim- wrote 

The essence of Indian politics before her (Indira’s) time had been diversity of opinion, institutes and channels for its expression,

No. After 1947, the Muslim voice was silenced. The RSS was banned, though this was later reversed. Then it was the turn of the Princes and Zamindars. The Gandhians, following the example of Bhave and then JP, wandered off into the rural hinterland. In 1955, Nehru had imposed Socialism on the Congress party. Opinions didn't matter. Consumer Sovereignty was gone. Instead you had the Planning Commission. Indira herself took the party further to the Left. She allied with the Soviet Union and put Socialism and Secularism into the constitution. 

and a wholehearted acceptance of the nurture of these diverse strands as essential to the democratic faith and system (…).

in other words, the essence of Indian politics was everybody talking ignorant bollocks. Meanwhile, Radio & TV was State owned and as boring as shite.  

With Mrs. Gandhi, this atmosphere, along with the political structures it involved, the climate of debate and dissent it had encouraged (…) began to be eroded.

 Where? Within the party? Mahatma Gandhi had got rid of any dissent long ago. To this day, to be a member of the Congress Party you have to profess to be a 'habitual spinner of khadi'.

A simple formula of for-and-against, either-or replaced it.”

I suppose, Nayantara means the Emergency- a period during which journalists were afraid they might be carted off to jail. But, newspapers had nothing interesting to say about anything. Neither did academics. From time to time some foreigner would publish a book on India which offended our amour propre. Why hadn't the thing been banned? Come to think of it, why haven't all books been banned? Would that be too much to ask?  

Mrs Gandhi's great service to India was to make its politics even more boring and stupid than her father had done. In this, she was the Mahatma's spiritual daughter. But, it was Vijaylaxmi's eloping with a Muslim which had brought the Nehrus under the wing of the Maha-crackpot. It was Gandhi who designated Jawaharlal as his successor. Why? He believed that sooner or later Nehru would see India as he himself saw it- viz. a vast gaping shithole where the best anyone could do was give up sex and eating nice things and pretending to care about governance or poverty alleviation or defending the country. 

Nayantara published a book in 1978 titled 'Indira Gandhi's Emergence & Style'. Achin Vanaik reviewed it thus-

As another addition to the spate of publications on Indira Gandhi and Emer­gency, this book does not provide any fresh insights into either the personality of the former Prime Minister or on the economic/political developments which led to centralization of the state in the form of Emergency.

Sanjay had returned to India in 1969. The hope was that he would start a car company. This was set up in 1971. If that had kept him busy, Indira could have got on with her job. Sadly, the boy was useless. He decided that it would be easier to take over the country rather than bother with producing a car. Mummy wanted to indulge sonny boy. Hadn't Motilal made sacrifices for his sonny boy? Anyway, Indira had a big majority and had won a war. She could do what she liked and her courtiers and Cabinet colleagues would have to grin and bear it. 

It must be said, having a dynastic heir means that your Cabinet colleagues have less incentive to stab you in the back. There is no way they will get the top job and hence they might as well keep themselves occupied with their Ministries.

Unfortunately, but not surprisingly the personality of Indira Gandhi overrides all other considerations.

It was Sanju's personality which mattered. Indira was a doting mother. The elder boy was married and enjoyed his job as an airline pilot. Maybe the younger would do well in the family business.  What mattered was that any alternative to 'Madam' within her own party would be bitterly opposed by a colleague. Thus it was a case of 'better the devil you know'. Otherwise Congress would go on splitting. Nobody would be concerned with running the country because their priority would be to stab each other in the back before themselves getting stabbed. 

As the author puts it, ‘we were moving inexorably towards an authoritarian order …. because of the …. needs of her own nature which had little to do with the reason and rhyme of the Indian situation.’

The only way Sanjay could exercise power is if dynastic autocracy entrenched itself. This is what happened. Sanju's personality was the deciding factor.  

In the first two chapters, Mrs. Sahgal describes the childhood, education and the family traditions of Indira Gandhi,

that tradition was to indulge the unemployable son by building him up as a politician. The Brits were kind enough to send Jawaharlal to jail from time to time. That kept him occupied. At least he didn't keep eloping with Muslims like Vijaylaxmi.  

which according to her, provided every opportunity for training in democratic ideals.

i.e. ensuring your unemployable son can inherit your political position.  

However, unfortunately for India and for the Nehru family ties, the tem­perament of Nehru’s daughter clashed with this inheritance.

No. She did what Motilal did. He was President of Congress and ensured his son would gain the same position. She did the same thing- though sadly the younger died and so it was the hapless elder son who replaced her as PM. This is the inheritance Sonia preserved for Rahul.  

As a member of decision-making bodies of the National Congress, such as the Congress Working Committee and the Central Parliamentary Board, Indira Gandhi had during her father’s time gained political experience.

She did not have a penis. Her father didn't greatly care for her. Still, at least she hadn't eloped with a Muslim.  

But she was never exposed to the process leading up to these decision-making posts—she had not faced an electorate until 1967—long after becoming Prime Minister.

Thirteen or fourteen months after becoming PM.  Previously, she had been in the upper house. This suggests that 'parliamentary norms' had already been dispensed with. In other words, she had been put in to keep Morarji out and because of who her daddy was. But daddy was his own daddy's sonny boy. The tradition here was that of dynastic succession. 

The emergence of Indira Gandhi in 1967-69 shows up her political style and behaviour which the author repeatedly contrasts with those of Nehru.

Her 'style' was irrelevant. She was PM because Daddy had been PM. The problem was she had a son who might draw the conclusion that killing Mummy is the way to get the top job.  

But vital points are missed. The emergence (after 1967) of opposition rule based on elec­toral alliances in several states and the erosion of the domination of the Congress took place within the context of

it being shit.  

a severe recession and growing political instability. The large-scale middle class discontent took the form of communal riots in Bihar, UP, Andhra and Maharashtra.

There was also a rise of far-left violence.  

The ideological foundations of the Congress steadily declined in this period.

Planning came under intense criticism. The target for the Third Five year plan had been over five percent growth. The outcome was half that. There had been devaluation and a reduction in tariffs which was felt to be humiliating and which might choke off  'rent-seeking'. Something had to give. Indira, like Mrs. Bandarnaike, lurched to the left and broke with the Old Guard. She presided over a minority government with support from the DMK and the Left. Then she won a big majority in the elections. Her gamble had paid off.  

The Party needed a popular man­date

Indira provided this with Bank Nationalization, ending privy purses etc. By then she could rely on the 'Kashmiri Mafia' in the administration. But this also meant Sanju could demand more and more immediate power and influence.  

and consent to regain its former dominance. President’s rule was merely a constitutional device, a form of domina­tion without consent during fluctuations in parliamentary alliances. For the Cong­ress, including the old guard, the question of revival of the Party was supreme.

The Kamaraj plan had already killed it off.  It increased the power of the PMO. Kamaraj came to be seen as the 'king-maker' who raised Shastri & then Indira to the throne. But 'king-making' is fatal to Democracy. 

But there was a crisis of leadership. Politically it took the form of the struggle between Indira Gandhi (the ‘Left’) and the old guard (the ‘Syndicate’).

Morarji had lost badly in 1966 to Indira. He was already 70 and people thought his career was over. But he remained as truculent as ever in Cabinet. A parting of the ways was inevitable.  

As Mrs. Sahgal admits, ‘ideas and issues were fogged by political theatre.’ There were very few differences in the economic policies of the two sides.

They were sizable enough for Indira to gain support from Left wing parties and the DMK. Kamaraj's foolishness had destroyed Congress hegemony in Tamil Nadu. He should have remained CM in Madras. He was a good administrator. 

For the old guard who domi­nated the Congress Working Committee the question was control of the Govern­ment.

Was it though? Their concerns seemed petty. Keeping out Morarji was the priority purely because of the personal antagonism he generated by his prickly personality.

For Indira Gandhi it was the question of her individual leadership. This was reflected in the Presidential election.

Which didn't matter in the slightest. The real issue was whether Morarji & Gadgil would decide economic policy. 

The Congress defeats in the 1967 elections revealed the

rise of other parties.  Elections are competitive. 

loss of its social base among the rural and urban petit-­bourgeoisie.

meaningless Marxian jibber-jabber.  

For Indira Gandhi and the Congress the organization problem had to be solved before the 1971 general elec­tions. Having failed to get her candidate selected for the Presidential post, Indira Gandhi introduced her programme ‘jotted down in a hurry, in about one and a half hours’—proposing a ban on the entry of big capital into consumer industries, a licensing policy to curb the growth of big capital, nationalization of banks etc.

In other words, she was reversing the 'reforms' which the IMF had forced on India. 

Most members of the Old Guard welcomed it except Morarji Desai and S.K. Patil ­so the rift was not on economic issues as such.

Indira was 54. Desai was 75. Patil was 73 and had previously lost to George Fernandes. This was a generational shift in a country with a youthful demographic. 

But the timing of introduction of these issues took the Party by surprise.

Why not wait till we turn 89 before doing anything?  

Indira Gandhi was seeking the support of the urban and rural petit-bourgeoisie.

No. She wanted poor people to vote for her because, she said, she would 'remove poverty'. Nobody gives a shit about the petit-bourgeoisie in a country which is as poor as fuck and has universal suffrage.  

Nationalization of banks widened the credit base of this strata which included rich and middle peasants, small industry, traders, artisans, etc.

It might eventually do so. But not immediately. Still, there would be jobs in nationalized banks for unemployed graduates.  

According to the author, the new era of populist politics, arranged rallies, leadership cult, intrigue and manipulation became the order of the day under Indira Gandhi. During the national movement Mahatma Gandhi was the political invest­ment of G.D. Birla. For K.K. Birla the Maruti car was a major investment.

K.K hadn't inherited much of his father's wealth because he only had daughters. He was close to Indira but also got along with Atal who tipped him the wink so he could leave the country before Charan Singh could pounce upon him. Maruti was a non-starter so long as Sanju was involved.  

The next few chapters touch upon the growth of a ‘committed’ civil service, judiciary, press and the frequent use of the Presidential Ordinance. The PM takes over Home, Intelligence, Police, Election Commission, RAW and Revenue Intelli­gence under her immediate control. All criticism is regarded as a personal attack on her. On a bogus platform of ‘Garibi Hatao’—the mid-term elections returned a number of Party candidates who did not wince when the MISA was passed in 1971 or severe repression was carried out in Bengal through the Preventive Detention Act.

A good thing. The Naxals had to be killed one way or another.  Indeed, it was Jyoti Basu who first got the police involved. Once the Naxals started killing judges, the judiciary was perfectly content too allow extra-judicial killing to curb the Maoist menace.

After relating the events leading to Emergency—the growth of the JP move­ment in Bihar,

the Naxals had shown JP that his 'bhoodan' scheme was a fraud. Previously, he had been living in a fantasy world. His mistake was to try to get the first Muslim CM of Bihar removed. This made him look 'communalist' more particularly because he was in bed with the RSS. But it was Lohia who first embraced them.  

suppression of the railway strike, the Allahabad verdict and finally the resistance and the emergence of a national alternative to the Congress,. Mrs. Sahgal concludes that Indira Gandhi’s personal style broke the whole content of the Congress past and altered fundamentally the Indian political process and institutions.

Not really. The only thing different about the Seventies was Mummy's need to keep Sonny Boy happy. One could say this 'subverted norms' but nepotism and dynasticism were well established norms. Nothing had been subverted.  

Shoba De- a better novelist than Nayantara- describes the Lesbian daughter of an Iyengar Inspector General of Police who uses her father's authority to persecute her lover. My point is that Indians don't think there is anything unusual about the son or daughter of an important official illegally exercising the parent's authority. Indeed, even nephews or son-in-laws or mistresses may do so. 

This change in political values and ethics marked the distance between the India of Jawaharlal Nehru and that of his daughter.

The distance was that he didn't have a son. She did. What Motilal did for Jawaharlal, she would do for her son. Sonia repeated the pattern with Rahul. But Rahul hasn't married. Will the succession pass into the Vadra line? I suppose so. Poor old Varun has been frozen out. 

To conclude, was there any thing distinctive about Indira's 'style'? No. In India, you join politics to spend more time with your family. What makes the RSS such a force in Indian politics is the tradition they have of choosing celibacy in the cause of national service. Thus, dynasticism is much less a feature of the BJP's institutional culture. If they are able to recruit smart young people and bring them forward- well and good. If not, they too will decline. 

 

Sunday, 24 August 2025

Arundhati Roy's exemplary family

 For people of Arundhati Roy's class, India was a small place. Everybody knew somebody who knew your Mummy or Daddy or Granny or Aunty. Still, in the pre-internet age, you could blackguard your family to your heart's content in books for the foreign market. Sadly, my own bildungsroman titled 'Lust of the Leprechauns' which depicted my gang-rape, decapitation, and expulsion from Iyerland by various leprechaun ladies in the mid-Sixties and early Seventies of the last Century, failed to find a publisher even though I depicted my father as Jack the Ripper and my mother as Joseph Stalin. I need hardly say, this was the fault of Neo-Liberalism as propagated by evil Iyengars who falsely claim I put garlic in the sambar.

By contrast with my own horrendous sufferings, Arundhati Roy- by her own account- had an idyllic childhood as I discovered in this excerpt from her latest book published in today's Guardian.

A teacher was what my mother had always wanted to be,

She ended up establishing and running one of the highest ranked schools in India. But she didn't start off as a teacher though her degree was in Education. Her first job was as a secretary for Metal Box, a British Company in Calcutta. She married the brother of a colleague whose grandparents had settled in England. His grandmother was a leading suffragette. His father, after a British Public School and Oxbridge education, and service in the British Army during the Great War, joined the Railway Service in India where he did much to promote amateur boxing. This was a highly anglicized family where the sons attended the Doon School. By comparison, in Kerala, boys who attended local schools were not disadvantaged in any way in getting scholarships to study abroad or standing high in the Indian Civil Service exam. In other words, Educational excellence was not linked to imitating an English mode of life. 

It must be said, Anglicized men enjoyed the outdoor life of the tea-planter but wives felt rather cut-off from Society. Perhaps, becoming a mother motivated Mary Roy's interest in teaching. Later, she was particularly impressed by the creative educational methods used by Missionaries for their own children as opposed to the rote-learning and Examination preparation which Indian parents wanted. 

what she was qualified to be. During the years she was married and living with our father, who had a job as an assistant manager on a remote tea estate in Assam, the dream of pursuing a career of any kind atrophied and fell away.

The way to fulfil your dream to be a teacher is to get a job as a teacher in some nice nearby school. Marrying a dude who lives in a remote part of Assam isn't going to help you realize your dream.  

It was rekindled (as nightmare more than dream) when she realised that her husband, like many young men who worked on lonely tea estates, was hopelessly addicted to alcohol.

Not so hopelessly as to get the sack. After his wife left with the kids, he carried on there for a decade and did very well till about 1973 when he quit the Tea business. There was a good reason to get out of that line of work which had to do with pest infestation and the opening up of rival plantations in Africa with lower costs. Also, India was going down the toilet of Socialism. The smart thing to do was to go somewhere Whites still ruled the roost. 

When war broke out between India and China in October 1962, women and children were evacuated from border districts. We moved to Calcutta. Once we got there, my mother decided that she would not return to Assam.

This was at a time when married women- especially those with small children- were unlikely to be hired by 'box wallah' Companies even if they were very good at their job.  

From Calcutta we travelled across the country, all the way south to Ootacamund – Ooty – a small hill station in the state of Tamil Nadu. My brother, LKC – Lalith Kumar Christopher Roy – was four and a half years old,

in other words, just the age when getting him into a good English Medium School became a priority. It would give him a  'head-start'. Moreover, the high social status of both the mother and the father's family would get him into one of the best school- one where Whites or 'Anglos' still did the teaching. That's the only way you can be sure your kids will have a 'pukka' accent. 

and I was a month away from my third birthday. We did not see or hear from our father again until we were in our 20s.

It must be said, the isolation of the Tea Estates took their toll on many a marriage. Ooty would be a good place to settle because of the abundance of good schools for the kids. The problem is that the climate doesn't suit everybody.  

It may be, if the mother had landed on her feet, the penitent Dad would have turned up. Maybe he could be a coffee planter in the Nilgiris instead of a Tea-planter. What was certain was that a Dosco boy would land on his feet. 

In Ooty we lived in one half of a “holiday” cottage that belonged to our maternal grandfather, who had retired as a senior government servant – an Imperial Entomologist – with the British government in Delhi.

There were Government servants on both sides of her family tree. What is interesting is that the kids preferred to rise in private enterprise. This shows they were very fucking evil.  

He and my grandmother were estranged.

She was a strong woman. She set up a pickle business in which her Rhodes Scholar son joined her after acquiring experience working abroad and in India for prestigious foreign firms. They built it up into an innovative and quite successful brand. Arundhati's elder brother is a successful businessman- I believe in the frozen food line. These are people who create wealth and enrich their own ancestral homeland.  

He had severed links with her and his children years ago.

Fuck him. They did well by their own efforts.  

He died the year I was born.

The maternal family was Syrian Christian and thus did not have a tradition of matrilocal inheritance. Arundhati's mother fought a famous court case against her brother so as to gain equal intestate rights for daughters. In other words, there was a property angle to the family returning to the South. When she died, Mary Roy was hailed by the Chief Minister of Kerala for fighting the court case which benefitted women of her religious sect in her ancestral homeland. That Chief Minister may have been an Atheist but in 'God's own country' any person who does anything concrete to advance any section of the indigenous population is hailed as a patriot. It is a different matter that people in Kerala are educated enough to write wills and thus preserve ancestral property or ensure the survival of a family business. 

I don’t know how we got into that cottage. Maybe the tenant who lived in the other half had a key. Maybe we broke in.

There was an inheritance claim and 'possession is nine-tenths of the law'. What Mary Roy did was perfectly sensible though this would not have been obvious to kids. Still, kids grow up. They can find out about such things. It is odd that Arundhati has chosen to remain in ignorance of these matters. 

The cottage was dank and gloomy with cold, cracked cement floors and an asbestos ceiling.

Back then, asbestos was considered a good thing.  

A plywood partition separated our half from rooms occupied by the tenant. She was an old English lady called Mrs Patmore. She wore her hair in a high, puffy style, which made us wonder what was hidden inside it. Wasps, we thought, my brother and I.

Who thought? Was it our waspish Arundhati or was it her older brother? It may be that Arundhati's whole personality is a vestige of that of her older brother at a time when he was very young. In 'God of Small things'- which is an ultra-feminist version of the 'return of Orestes' (or Freudian 'Electra complex') and which ends with brother-sister incest- the girl is the smart one while the boy is a hebephrenic blank. Yet, it is the brother who is a wealth creator in his native Kerala. The sister has done well for herself, true, but only by shitting on her family and her country. 

At night she had bad dreams and would scream and moan. I’m not sure if she paid any rent. She might not have known who to pay it to. We, certainly, paid no rent. We were squatters, interlopers – not tenants.

No. There was a property claim deriving from the grandmother who was alive at the time. This was covered under the Travancore Christian Succession Act.  The fact is 'streedhan' (dowry) was part of Syrian Christian custom. It may not have been paid at the time of marriage. 

We lived like fugitives amid huge wooden trunks packed full of the dead Imperial Entomologist’s opulent clothes – silk ties, dress shirts, three-piece suits.

The mother had taken the first step to making a legal case to inherit from her father who had died intestate. At the time, most people would have assumed that since Christians are a minority, the Indian Succession Act would not apply to them. But there was a lot of wriggle room (e.g. issue of 'streedhan') . The sensible thing would be for the family to come to a settlement. Why did this not happen? I don't know. I can only speculate. The fact is, us 'Southies'- at that time- felt North Indians were vulgar and materialistic. Also, they were as greedy as fuck. Was Mary acting under the direction of her husband? Maybe not. But there was another consideration. There was a son. If the mother's side takes unfair advantage of the father's absence to establish emotional hegemony over the boy, they could be suspected of having a mercenary motive or else of behaving in a high handed manner. My point is, for Indian readers like me, Roy's book means the opposite of what she intended. Still, back in 1998, we were pleased to see the Kerala Communist party held up to ridicule, hatred and contempt. But, whatever mistakes that party may have made, it has learnt from them. It is meritocratic. 'Teacher' Shailaja, as Health Minister, earned plaudits for her handling of COVID. This made Indians- no matter how Right-Wing or Modi-bhakt- feel pride. More importantly, it made Indians want to do better. Just because we don't speak bejewelled 'manipravalay' Malayalam, doesn't mean we should be utterly shit.

We found an old biscuit tin full of cufflinks. Later, when my brother and I were old enough to understand, we would be told the legendary family stories about him: about his vanity (he had a portrait of himself taken in a Hollywood photo studio)

I suppose he might use this in a book he published.  

and his violence (he whipped his children, turned them out of the house regularly, and split my grandmother’s scalp open with a brass vase). It was to get away from him, our mother told us, that she married the first man who proposed to her.

But she was already away from him. She had a job and a life of her own in Calcutta. Her husband is described by contemporaries as a dashing 'Public School' chap of good family. From the social point of view, this was not a mesalliance by any means.  

Quite soon after we arrived, she got a teaching job at a local school called Breeks. Ooty was, at the time, swarming with schools, some of them run by British missionaries who had chosen to stay on in India after independence.

This explains why her Mother settled in Ooty. Sadly, the climate did not suit her.  

She became friends with a group of them who taught at an all-white school called Lushington, which catered to the children of British missionaries working in India.

Mary Roy says that Lushington was less academic in its approach and more holistic. The children of Missionaries would be returning to England where they needed to display intelligence not their fucking Degree Certificate. I noticed, when I switched from the Indian to the English education system, that exams got a lot easier. The burden of rote-learning was greatly reduced. I suppose Mary Roy succeeded so well because she took the English approach. I think, she also kept class sizes small. Maybe, if Arundhati was a bit troublesome as a kid, the pay-off was that her Mum became a better teacher and teacher of teachers. Thus, at least as a child, she too made a contribution to 'God's own country'.  

She managed to persuade them to let her sit in on their classes when she had time off from her job.

She was a darkie. They were White. Yet she 'managed to persuade' Christian Missionaries who had purposely come to a place where there were a lot of darkies to preach the Gospel, to let her sit in on classes where fucking Proddie bastids were spreading their poisonous heresy. I'm kidding. South Indian Christianity has been ecumenical for three centuries. 

She hungrily absorbed their innovative teaching methods while being simultaneously disturbed by their kindly, well-meaning racism towards Indians and India.

Her ancestors had been Christians while the Anglo-Saxons were still dying themselves blue with woad. On the other hand, India wasn't doing well in the Sixties. It could neither feed nor defend itself. England, on the other hand, was rising in affluence. The sons of ICS officers- like Sir Raghavan Pillai- were settling in the UK. 

A few months into our fugitive life, my grandmother (the Entomologist’s widow) and her oldest son – my mother’s older brother, G Isaac – arrived from Kerala to evict us.

or simply to defeat a claim of 'adverse possession'.  

I hadn’t seen either of them before. They told my mother that under the Travancore Christian Succession Act, daughters had no right to their father’s property and that we were to leave the house immediately.

But the daughter was in possession of the property. If they started a court case, it would drag on for decades. The smart thing to do was reach a settlement. Why not invest in setting up a school? The thing would soon become very profitable. Perhaps, back then, people thought manufacturing industry could do well in India. Sadly, the country took a Socialistic turn. Non-tradeables- i.e. Service industries- could rise because public sector provision turned to shit. Interestingly, Singapore forces all locals to send their kids to Government schools. But standards are high. It is more difficult to get into a Government University in Singapore then to get into Ivy League. The result is that the population is globally competitive in high value adding Knowledge based industries. 

It didn’t seem to matter to them that we had nowhere to go.

If it is really true that her mother and brother were evil cunts, it seems Mary Roy had been smart enough to go to a place where she would have to be paid off munificently to leave.  

My grandmother didn’t say much, but she scared me. She had conical corneas and wore opaque sunglasses. I remember my mother, my brother and me holding hands, running through the town in panic, trying to find a lawyer.

This is a confabulation.  

In my memory it was night and the streets were dark. But it couldn’t have been. Because we did manage to find a lawyer,

five year old boys can manage to find lawyers and inform them of the nature of a complex property dispute.  

who told us that the Travancore act applied only in the state of Kerala, not Tamil Nadu, and that even squatters had rights.

The party in possession has rights. In this case, the grand-mother had a superior right but it would be costly to enforce it. The domicile of the deceased was what mattered. Since it was in Kerala not Tamil Nadu, Kerala law applied.  The problem with Arundhati's lies is that they are stupid. They can only take in people as stupid and ignorant as herself. Still, if she makes a bit of money off those suckers, no great crime has been committed. The thing is merely unsavoury. 

He said if anyone tried to evict us, we could call the police.

Anyone can call the police. Alternatively, you can just scream and scream till the police show up of their own accord. There is no need to run here or there or consult a lawyer. 

We returned to the cottage shaking but triumphant.

The mother was educated. She had been a secretary in a very good Company in Calcutta. She must have known the law. The mother and brother might have thought that the mother's interest in the property would be extinguished with her death as that was how the law was understood at that time. Mary Roy, represented by Indira Jaisingh, was able to find grounds to overturn it retrospectively and thus bankrupt her brother. This was a good thing because the bastard was an entrepreneur. He was creating jobs. This violates HUMAN RIGHTS! Since Indians are fascinated by inheritance law, the details of the case are known to many. It is vitally important that public spirited lawyers- not just legislators or Trade Unionists- help ruin the country by driving entrepreneurs out of business.

Our uncle G Isaac could not have known then that, by trying to evict his younger sister from their father’s cottage, he was laying the ground for his own downfall.

Isaac was a successful entrepreneur, founder, along with his mother, of the Palat brand in 1959, and did mortgage some ancestral property to expand his operations. He was a public-spirited man and was aware that the success of Syrian Christian family businesses could be imperilled if the 1925 Indian Succession Act was applied to his community. The difficulty was 'streedhan'- i.e. dowry given to the daughter at the time of marriage. If this had been omitted (by reason of the marriage being 'out of caste' which means 'patharam' to the Church would not have been recorded) the law, even as then understood, was less clear.  

It would be years before my mother had the means and the standing to challenge the Travancore Christian Succession Act and demand an equal share of her father’s property in Kerala.

The father had died intestate. Had he made a will, this problem would have been avoided. Perhaps he was a bad tempered man who didn't get on with his kith and kin. Let his wealth get consumed in lawyer's fees.   

Until then, she would shield and safeguard this memory of her mortification as though it were a precious family heirloom, which, in a way, it was.

It is Arundhati's heirloom. But the story behind it is more interesting than her confabulation. Mary Roy was smart. She may have been in poor health and had other sorrows in her life at the time. But she wasn't a crazy lady up to something shady.  

After our legal coup we expanded into the cottage, made ourselves some space. My mother gave away the Imperial Entomologist’s suits and cufflinks to taxi drivers at the taxi stand near the market, and for a while Ooty had the best-dressed taxi drivers in the world.

Suits of 'pre-war' quality could be sold for a good price as could cuff-links. Thankfully, taxi-drivers were above the lure of filthy lucre. When not wearing cuff-links, they were busy screwing monocles into their eyes while their valets wound cummerbunds around their waists.  

Despite our hard-won but still tentative sense of security, things didn’t go our way. The cold, wet climate in Ooty aggravated my mother’s asthma. She would lie under a thick metallic-pink quilt on a high iron cot, breathing great, heaving breaths, bedridden for days on end.

We sympathize. Asthma is a terrible affliction. I suppose the mother suffered so her kids could get an educational head-start in life. 

My brother started school before me. He went to Lushington, the white-people’s school, for a few months. (It must have been a favour to my mother from the missionaries.) But when he began to call local children like ourselves “those Indian children” she pulled him out and enrolled him in Breeks, the school that she taught in.

At that time, the two schools shared staff.  Breeks was classed as an 'Anglo-Indian' school. It seems to have had a lot of very posh Hindu students all of whom did very well educationally and career-wise. No one could say the mother hadn't done her best by her two children. Sadly, Mary Roy's health deteriorated. Still, even a village school in Kerala gives a good education. Sadly, being able to speak English as a mother tongue remained a passport to privilege in Independent India though this was less true in Kerala.

Eventually my mother grew too sick to hold down her job.

This must have been agonising for such a smart and autonomous person.  

Even the steroids she was on didn’t help.

Sadly, they can have side-effects.  

We ran out of money. My brother and I grew undernourished and developed primary tuberculosis.

Thus they lost their employment as chimney-sweeps. Mr. Bumble, the beadle, beat them savagely.  

After a few more grim months of fighting on all fronts, my mother gave up. She decided to swallow her pride and return to Kerala, to Ayemenem, our grandmother’s village. She was out of options.

Her concern was the welfare of her two young children. She wanted the best for them. If her health had held up, the educational future of both would have been assured.  As things were, both attended excellent schools. That itself was the proof the Mother was a good teacher. The wonder is that the school the mother set up became, in time,  just as good- if not better than British 'Chieftain's Colleges'. An Indian woman had shown herself equal to Nineteenth Century White Missionaries or Viceroys! This shows the spirit of 'God's own country'- Kerala. 

We arrived in Ayemenem uninvited and manifestly unwelcome.

I doubt that. The whole point about family is that it would be rude to be too effusive in welcoming them. It is fundamentally un-Indian to say 'please' or 'thank you' or, yet more inauspiciously, 'delighted to see you!' Only God should have such sentiments regarding His creatures for, where blood binds them, any achievement of propinquity is but by His Grace and Favour. In other words, it's like first time you cuddle baby. There is ineffable awe. But there is something more. It is that for which Creation occurred. 

The house whose doorstep we appeared on with our invisible begging bowl

What fucking begging bowl? This was a woman who had held down a job with a top Company in Calcutta. She had married into an excellent family. Now she was returning with a son who would be all the better for having a little sister. This is a fucking bonanza mate! The only thing missing is a 'ghar jamai'- e.g. a reformed drunkard of a husband who turns up and adds to the family's man-power. 

Beggars can't add to your wealth. A daughter of the family, returning with her young ones, does so- provided she aint a fucking whinging parasite. But Mary Roy had never been any such thing. BTW she didn't personally benefit by winning her court case. It would take decades before any disbursement occurred. Moreover she had already proved herself when the Case began. Still, her court case may have had a good effect on her community. People realised the importance of making wills and setting up trusts.

Thus, there is a story here which all Indians could learn from. True, Arundhati quickly shat on it. But, long term, shit is a fertilizer, not a nuisance simply.  

belonged to my grandmother’s older sister, Miss Kurien. She would have been in her 60s then. Her thin, wavy grey hair was cut in a style that used to be called a pageboy. She wore starched, papery saris with big, loose blouses.

Kurien is a name Gujarat associates with the 'White Revolution'- i.e. greatly boosted milk production. It is a sacred name. It is said that Kurien wanted to use his American qualifications to do something useless like mathematical Growth or Social Choice theory but, constrained by the terms of his Government Scholarship, he was forced to raise up his own motherland by causing milk to more copiously flow. I doubt this story. I know plenty of people surnamed Kurien. They are patriots. They aren't Sen-tentious shitheads.  

Miss Kurien was far ahead of most women of her time. She was single,

all women should aspire to be single. That way you are less likely to have kids. Arundhati is wrong. It is worthless men like me who should be single. Women, if they wish to be mothers, should avail  themselves of either good quality sperm or men worthy of love.  

held a master’s degree in English literature and had taught at a college in Sri Lanka (then Ceylon).

So, this was a family with a long tradition of high education and self-reliance on the part of women. But. the poet Shelley, who had read 'The Empire of the Nairs' written by a fellow Old Etonian- already knew two centuries previously of the excellence of 'God's own country' with respect to freedom and equality for women. Western Christianity was playing catch-up with Hindu Kerala throughout the long Nineteenth Century. 

My mother assured her that we would stay only as long as it took for her to find a job.

Which was only fair. The older woman mustn't get too attached. The priority was the children's education. True, you may point to plenty of IAS officers who studied at the local school- but their English accent wouldn't be 'quite, quite'.  Still, at least in the South, nobody gives a toss about such things.

Miss Kurien, who prided herself on being a good Christian,

how wicked of her! 

agreed to let us stay, but made no effort to hide her disapproval of us and our situation.

because, by rights, the kids belonged to her younger sister. If she showed signs of attachment, she would be imposing an obligation or, worse yet, cunningly working an usurpation. 

She did this by ignoring us and showering her delicate affections on other relatives’ children who visited her. She gave them gifts, played her piano and sang to them in her quavering voice.

they were guests. Those who lived under her own roof-tree were her own- for the moment. It was obvious that a talented person like Mary Roy would get a job in Calcutta or Madras. It was only fair that she should be allowed to advance in her career. As for the children, the mother was determined that they would have the best English Medium education India had to offer.  She succeeded. What is remarkable is the kids first went to their Mum's school in a small place in Kerala- not 'Holy Angels' in Madras or some other such 'Convent School' in a 'Presidency' Metropolis. 

Even though she made it clear that she did not like us (which made us not like her),

she didn't kiss and cuddle the little ones. I admire her restraint. Clearly, she was a better man than, yours faithfully, Gunga Din.  

she was the one person who helped us out and gave us a roof over our heads when we most needed it.

The older lady may have been attached to them but did not want to show it and thus create an obligation. Anyway, to usurp the affections of your own younger sister's offspring is a ghastly sin.  

My grandmother lived with her, too.

So, this lady looked after her younger sister and made no attempt to supplant her in the affections of her daughter or her grandchildren. This is an old fashioned sort of rectitude which is not without its pathos.  

She was almost blind by then and still wore her dark glasses. Even at night. She had a ridge that ran across her scalp – her famous brass-vase scar. Sometimes she let me run my finger over it. Every evening she would sit on the veranda and play her violin. She had taken music lessons when her Imperial Entomologist husband was posted to Vienna. When her tutor told him that his wife had the potential to become a concert-class violinist, he stopped the lessons and, in a fit of jealous rage, smashed the first violin she owned.

Something similar happened to me when my tutor told Queen Victoria that I could become the next Beyonce because of the excellence of my booty-shake. On orders of her Imperial Majesty, I was repeatedly raped by Mary Poppins.  

My uncle G Isaac lived in an annexe attached to the main house. At first, I was terrified of him. I only knew him as the tall, fat, angry man who had tried to turn us out of our home in Ooty.

This is a confabulation. It may be the mother made the mistake of talking to the kids in a manner they could not understand. Still, she had unwittingly provided her daughter with the requisite intellectual capital to make her way into the 'Grievance Studies' industry. But, the 'efficient cause' for Arundhati reaping that reward, was Mum's commitment to English Medium- i.e. deracinated and more than somewhat shite- education for her progeny.

In Ayemenem, though, I grew to love him after he began to take my brother and me down to the river and teach me to swim.

Not 'us to swim' but 'me to swim'. Everything is about Arundhati. The Sun revolves around her. I guess her elder brother spoiled her and made her feel special after Daddy disappeared. That's why 'God of small things' ends in incest.  

G Isaac was one of India’s first Rhodes scholars. His subject was Greek and Roman mythology. At the dining table he would suddenly say things like: “Isn’t it wonderful to have a god of wine and ecstasy?”

Dionysius conquered India non-violently with lyre, lute & the vine.  

Everybody would look at him blankly. And he would tell us about Dionysus, or whoever his god of the day was.

After teaching for a few years in a college in Madras, he gave up his academic career to return to his roots and start a pickle, jam and curry powder factory with his mother.

He had worked for Metal Box (which supplied canning technology)  in the UK. The same firm employed his sister as a secretary in Calcutta. Back then, this was a prestigious and highly desirable type of employment. 

It was called Malabar Coast Products. They ran it out of the Imperial Entomologist’s family home in Kottayam town, which was a short bus ride away.

Uncle was an 'entrepreneur'- i.e. a Capitalist. He created jobs and boosted small industries in Kerala. What an evil cunt! 

(This was the house that would become the centre of the dispute when my mother challenged the Travancore Christian Succession Act.) G Isaac, notwithstanding his keen interest in inheritance and private property, was a Marxist.

i.e. he believed labour, not lying, was the source of value. What a bastard! 

He said he had given up his career to start a factory to promote small industry and generate local employment. Fed up with his nonsense, his Swedish wife, Cecilia, whom he had met in Oxford, left him and returned to Sweden with their three young sons.

He had worked for the Scandinavian Bank in Stockholm. I suppose, it would have been difficult for his wife to move to rural part of Kerala.  

In these strange and manifold ways, this constellation of extraordinary, eccentric, cosmopolitan people, defeated by life,

because life in Kerala isn't real life and doesn't involve the labour of starting your own business. To win in life you must move elsewhere and get ahead by telling stupid lies.  

converged on the tiny village of Ayemenem.

There was a strong entrepreneurial streak in the family. Arundhati herself has entrepreneurial elan in marketing herself as some sort of Slumdog or street urchin.  

Life there was like living on a ledge that we could be nudged off at any moment. Even Kochu Maria, the cook, would tell me that we had no right to be living there.

Similarly, Mary Poppins would tell me that she would hand me over to the tender mercies of Lesbic leprechaun unless I renounced my claim to the throne of Iyerland. Then she would ride me ragged while yodelling. The Sixties were an eventful time for me.  

She would mutter and grumble about the shamefulness of having fatherless children living under the same roof as decent people. Every few days the Cosmopolitans would quarrel. When they fought, the whole house shook. Plates would be smashed; doors broken down.

But Mary Poppins did not rape the occupants of the house. Neo-Liberalism can be quite negligent in that respect. 

As soon as the shouting began, I would flee. The river was my refuge.

Not, sadly, the river's bottom.  

It made up for everything that was wrong in my life. I spent hours on its banks and came to be on intimate, first-name terms with the fish, the worms, the birds and the plants.

By contrast, I always insisted that birds refer to me by surname. It doesn't do to let them get too familiar. Otherwise, they shit on you.  

I became close friends with other children (and some adults) in the village. I picked up Malayalam quickly and was soon able to communicate with everybody quite easily.

especially the worms.  Some plants, however, tend to be stand-offish. 

They inhabited a different universe from mine.

No. It was the same universe. Knowing English doesn't mean you live in a fucking parallel dimension. Only shite writers in English- Nayantara Sahgal, Anita or Kiran Desai, Arundhati etc.- inhabit different dimension or have otherwise 'seceded' from that India-which-is-larger-than-the-world.  

Most of them worked in nearby paddy fields and rubber plantations, or picking coconuts or working as house-help. They lived in mud-and- thatch-roofed houses. Many of them belonged to castes that were considered “untouchable”. I didn’t know much about this horror at the time, because everybody in the Ayemenem house was too busy fighting with one another to bother about indoctrinating me.

They had already told her she was shit. That's what mattered. 

One young man who lived in Ayemenem but worked in Kottayam in Malabar Coast Products became my most beloved friend. We spent a lot of time together. He made me a fishing rod out of a culm of bamboo and showed me where to find the best earthworms to use as bait. He taught me to fish; he taught me to stay still and be quiet. He fried the tiny fish I caught, and we ate them together as though we were feasting at a banquet. He was the inspiration for the character called Velutha, Ammu’s lover, in The God of Small Things.

Arundhati was deprived of the opportunity to kill even one or two Dalits. It was only in her fiction that she was able to complete this essential rite of passage for one of her caste and class.  

Within months of being in Ayemenem, I turned into a part of its landscape – a wild child with calloused feet who knew every hidden path and shortcut in the village that led to the river.

Sadly, she was not shown the proper method of killing Dalits or even skinning them alive. Life can be very unfair.  

I lived outdoors and went home as seldom as possible.

I lived on one of the rings of the planet Saturn. Mary Poppins would often visit and rape me there.  

In the non-human category, my closest companion was a striped palm squirrel who lived on my shoulder and whispered in my ear. We shared secrets.

It was a Naxalite spying out the lie of the land.  

She wasn’t my pet. She had her own life,

as a senior member of the Politburo 

but chose to share it with me. She would disappear often because she had things to do. At mealtimes she would appear, perch on my plate and nibble at my food.

Mary Poppins expected much more from me.  

She was constantly watchful, eternally alert to every possibility of looming danger. She taught me things.

Arundhati's deep knowledge of economics and political science was acquired from a squirrel.  

My mother unloaded the burden of her quarrels and the daily dose of indignity that she had to endure on to my brother and me. We were the only safe harbour she had. Her temper, already bad, became irrational and uncontrollable.

Any yet she was a great success as a teacher who created one of India's finest schools. 

I found it impossible to predict or gauge what would anger her and what would please her. I had to pick my way through that minefield without a map. When she got angry with me, she would mimic my way of speaking. She was a good mimic and made me sound ridiculous to myself. I clearly remember everything about every instance she did that.

These were confabulations. By contrast, my memories of rape at the hands of Mary Poppins are veracious.  

Even what I was wearing. It felt as though she had cut me out – cut my shape out – of a picture book with a sharp pair of scissors and then torn me up.

The mother set up a school in 1967. It succeeded so well that by 1972, she was able to raise the money to buy 5 acres of land. Laurie Baker was the architect. As time went by, more land was purchased and more buildings were erected. Mary Roy was hailed as a great educationist who had enriched her ancestral town. It may be that she was bad-tempered. But it may also be that she was a woman of great determination who wasn't ashamed of creating a successful private school. Tuition there is only about 2,000 dollars a year. It is very highly ranked. 

It is entirely possible that Arundhati's family weren't always gracious and affectionate and even-tempered. But they were hard-working and enterprising people who did something with their lives without having to resort to telling stupid lies. I, on the other hand, suffered innumerable rapes and decapitations at the hands of Mary Poppins. I remembered the one time I made the mistake of mentioning the matter to Joseph Stalin- my beloved 'Ammadorai'. Stalin was initially polite and suggested that perhaps I had been drinking too much vodka. But when I persisted in my tale, Stalin lost her temper and suggested I get a fucking job you lazy piece of shit. This broke my heart.