tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16747093895038891602024-03-19T03:02:33.348+00:00Poetry as Socio-proctologywindwheelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18099651877551933295noreply@blogger.comBlogger3034125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1674709389503889160.post-78414371330252550802024-03-18T23:56:00.007+00:002024-03-19T02:03:36.953+00:00Hattafat dam b'rit drowns the Deluge<p> </p><div style="text-align: center;">'How circumcise my heart?' I ask of that which is Spinozan in Deleuze</div><div style="text-align: center;">For Buber has said the Schizophrenic can have no 'I and Thou'</div><div style="text-align: center;">That a pin's prick drop of<i> hattafat dam b'rit </i>blood drowns Pralaya's Deluge</div><div style="text-align: center;">Manu's Maya is the Vow of the How of the Now, of Bow <i>fucking</i> Wow.</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><i>Envoi- </i></div><div style="text-align: center;">Prince! Because<i> niddah</i> can never apply to the <i>nolad mahul's </i>Mum</div><div style="text-align: center;">Christ is the blood, Christ, as Mohel, spills till but Christ come.</div>windwheelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18099651877551933295noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1674709389503889160.post-80015219981668588292024-03-17T04:01:00.015+00:002024-03-18T01:44:29.557+00:00India's Man of Destiny's Jedi mind-tricks<p>In the Mahabharata, there is the story of Arjuna and how he came to be the best archer in the world. When asked to take aim at a bird, he saw neither the branch it was sitting on, nor its plumage. He could only see the eye of the bird. Such was the intensity of his focus and concentration. True, it also helped that a lower caste archer was asked to cut off his thumbs so as to ensure Arjuna's supremacy. Still, it is Arjuna's focus on the eye of the bird which India's Man of Destiny has adopted as his own political strategy.</p><p>It must be said, never in the history of democracy has one man caused so many hundreds of millions of people to change their votes over so long a period. It is the iron determination and unshakeable ideological faith of that same man which has ensured that the BJP will get a third term. I am not speaking of Narendra Modi. I am speaking of Rahul Gandhi. He is India's Man of Destiny. That destiny, however, is to yield to Bharat- which is a living breathing Nation of great aniquity. India is a geographical expression. The dynasty of the 'last Englishman to rule' it, can either quit or continue to die nasty. </p><p>True, Modi is an exceptional politician but would the BJP really have fielded him in 2014 if Rahul had shouldered aside Manmohan, after tearing up the latter's ordinance, and led his party into the 2014 elections as the sitting PM? I think not. Advani would have been allowed a last hurrah. Alternatively, if he was judged too old, Sushma Swaraj or Arun Jaitlery- seasoned Lok Sabha parliamentarians- would have nominated as the NDA's Prime Ministerial candidate. Why expose Modi to humiliation? He might lose Gujarat if he showed himself anxious for the top job. Look at what happened to Deve Gowda. Regional Chief Ministers, however successful, don't do well as Prime Ministers- at least that was the conventional wisdom till Modi won from Benares and became PM. But he wasn't running against anybody. Rahul had refused to step up to the plate but had also refused to let anybody else do so . It was a case of Modi vs Nobody. </p><p>Suppose Rahul had followed his father's example and taken charge of the Commonwealth Games as Rajiv had taken charge of the Asian Games. His popularity would have soared. Once he became PM, the voters would have felt they should 'give youth a chance'. Moreover, Rahul could have said he was a 'Mr. Clean' who was sick and tired of the corruption in Manmohan's Coalition Cabinet. It may not have been true but it was what people wanted to hear.</p><p>Congress did get a new lease of life when Rahul consented to become President of the Party at the end of 2017. For his part, Rahul felt that his own views had been justified by the Party's debacle in 2014. Under his command, the party would follow the correct strategy and thus annihilate Modi and the BJP.</p><p>What was that strategy? For Rahul, a votary of Vipassana, you triumph by ceasing to react to your circumstances. Don't accept what appears obvious or irrefragable. Your mind can create the reality you want. In an interview with India Today before the 2019 election he said, in response to a question about his favorite fruit- '<i>I do Vipassana.</i></p><p>Which means seeing things as they really are. It doesn't mean you can disregard reality and make up any shit you like. </p><p></p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;"> The mind constructs the flavour of the fruit. </blockquote><p>No it doesn't. The fruit we buy and eat has been selected for intensively. This has to do with out taste receptors, which, too, evolved. Buddhism could be considered a Bayesian approach to a Darwinian truth. </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;">You can like or dislike any fruit you want. </blockquote><p>Unless you are allergic. </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;">You can choose to like mango, you can choose to hate it.</blockquote><p>Up to a point. But what would be the point? </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;"> You can choose to like poor people, you can choose to hate them. You construct everything in your mind. The mind decides everything. I might start off hating someone, but after a bit of interaction, I’ll see things through their eyes, and be like: Actually, I like him; he’s great’.</blockquote><p>Rahul thinks that 'interaction' with poor people will cause him to like them. This will cause them to like him and think he is great. It turns out Rahul's Vipassana Jedi mind-trick is the the sort of thing you might tell an eight year old Richie Rich who, for some reason, has to admit a public school alongside smelly proles. If he can suppress his natural reflex of disgust, he is halfway to being able to manipulate them using his superior mental powers. </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;"> But to answer your question: I like mangoes, I like bananas, I never used to like carrots, but now I do. I never used to like asparagus, but I do now.'</blockquote><p></p><p>In the same interview, he revealed his strategy to defeat Modi. Briefly, the idea is that if people say 'X will win because X has Y quality', you can control your mind and refuse to react in the normal way- which would be to find some other Achilles heel to target- to this information. Instead, you can change the facts of the case by 'interaction'. Others will start seeing through your eyes. They will understand that Modi is not a Backward Caste person from a family which has not enriched itself in a corrupt matter. Actually Modi is a plutocrat. He is a British Lord in disguise who hates Hinduism.</p><p>Thus Rahul said in 2019 that Modi would be defeated because people would believe he was corrupt. ' <i>don’t start with the idea that you can’t do it. You can. All it takes is persistence. It applies in everyday life too. <b>Everyone told me Mr Narendra Modi can’t be defeated. I said, Yeah, you really think so?’ I asked them, Tell me what Mr Narendra Modi’s strength is.’ They said, His strength is his [incorruptible] image.’ I said, Okay, I’m going to rip that strength to pieces. I’m going to take it and shred it.’ And I’ve done it.</b> Persistence, my friend! Keep going and keep going and keep going. And I will keep going until the truth on Rafale is out!'</i></p><p>Sadly, the Supreme Court gave a clean chit to the Government on Rafale. But, even prior to this, there seems to have been no impact on voters. On the other hand, Rahul's claim that Modi isn't OBC is bound to be believed. It is obvious that Modi is a Chinese lady who is also the King of Sweden. </p><p>There is another reason why Rahul will go down in the history books as the man pre-destined by History to pull down the curtain on Bharat's long humiliation as a mere geographical entity which needed to 'negotiate' and compromise with external or internal enemies. This is because Rahul is trying to use his 'Vipassana' based super-powers to change the past. He says Congress was never a cadre based party even though the RSS was an imitation of the Congress Seva Dal. The BJP evolved out of the RSS backed Jan Sangh thanks to a revolt by 'Old Congress' leaders, together with 'backward caste' Socialists against the Dynasticism and Authoritarianism of Indira's Congress. Since it wasn't caste based, the BJP could evolve into a National Party though that process is, even now, far from complete. Still, since India's Man of Destiny has created an 'INDIA' alliance which has already self-destructed, Modi has the chance, in his term of office, to ensure that the BJP does gain traction in every State of the Union. However, it will take many years before the BJP's cadres will achieve as broad a geographic reach as did Congress even before Independence. God alone knows why Rahul wants Congress to forget that it was once dominant when it came to being cadre based. The simplest answer is best. If Congress isn't destined to decline, Rahul's destiny would be to get shot or blown up like Daddy or Granny.</p><p>More mischievously, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/live/x3335k-jves?si=QFpNzJxfFXUyh0kQ"> Rahul </a>is using his Vipassana based Jedi mind-tricks to broadcast the idea that the different states- Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, Assam etc- got together and 'negotiated' the creation of the Indian Union. The thing was 'bottom up', rather than 'top down'. Thus India is like the USA which was constituted by 13 colonies and which thus retains 'Dual Sovereignty', though the Federal Government has the upper hand. Indeed, Rahul says India is like the E.U. which permits the exit of any of its sovereign members. According to him the Constitution in describing 'India that is Bharat shall be a 'Union of States', recognizes the sovereignty of each constitutive unit. </p><p>This is not the view of the Bench. It was not the view of Rahul's ancestors. The Bench has clarified that no State- including J&K- has a shred of sovereignty. Any State or Union or other Territory can be abolished, divided, renamed or amalgamated even without any consultation with the people of that State. In other words, India that is Bharat can decide how many, if any States, there should be. When the Constitution was promulgated, there was a Madras State out of which 'Tamil Nadu' was carved out. Subsequently Andhra Pradesh was split up. Rahul could see for himself that the latter event was 'top down' and did not involve negotiation with the people concerned. Why then is Rahul making this absurd claim? The most plausible answer is that he can't get elected in the North. In the South, he thinks there could be a type of secessionist sentiment which he himself can fan up and profit by at the ballot box. After all, C.P. Ramaswami Aiyar had wanted Travancore to go it alone. Later, there was a brief period when the DMK advocated a separate Greater Dravidian Nation in the South. The problem here is that Rahul does not speak a South Indian language. He can't be the head of a South Indian secessionist movement. All he can be is a 'useful idiot' for the sort of people who supported the Tamil Tigers and enabled that organization to kill Rahul's daddy when he visited Tamil Nadu. Sadly, if there is a war with China- as there was in '62- separatist sentiment will become anathema in the South. Tamil Nadu will rally behind Modi. Suddenly Annamalai might look like a future CM. Hopefully, the Chinese won't be foolish enough to start any trouble on the border and Rahul can continue to fulfil this destiny as the man who, if he couldn't destroy India, could still make Congress anti-National and yet more un-Indian. </p><p><br /></p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p> </p><blockquote><br /></blockquote>windwheelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18099651877551933295noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1674709389503889160.post-61299549964375735172024-03-16T05:45:00.005+00:002024-03-17T04:55:16.090+00:00Kaushik Basu on why cats must sodomize dogs. <p>Mechanism design is reverse game theory. Get the incentives right and you don't need a coercive authority overseeing matters. This is not to say that a 'Stationary Bandit' might not try to muscle in on this lucrative activity. But, it is important to understand, that the State, or property rights, or contract enforcement, is not essential for economic transactions to burgeon. It is just that these things are conducive to a bigger pooling equilibrium. Birds of a feather would flock together anyway- i.e. there would be separating equilibria. It is to extend these that the 'homonoia' of the Emperor or, the successor states to an Imperium- is enforced but only for a price. </p><p>On the other hand if the people are unproductive- and that includes being incapable of civil behavior- then no amount of laws and judges and police men will generate good economic consequences.</p><p>Kaushik Basu, takes a different view. Writing for Project Syndicate, he claims that 'legal behavior has economic consequences'. The problem is that if that behavior pre-existed the laws, then the legal set-up codifies acceptable behavior- perhaps for the benefit of new entrants or the incorrigibly stupid or sociopathic. Equally, merely passing laws regardless of actual behavior won't have any economic consequences at all. One may as well repeal the law of Gravity. Nothing material would be affected.</p><p>On the other hand, it is true that Basu experienced good economic consequences because his Mummy behaved towards him in a legal manner. It was not her practice to laugh heartily while chopping pieces of him. Basu may think this was because his Mummy was only seeking to comply with the relevant section of the Indian Criminal Code. He is wrong. Laws about what Mummies should not do were only written down tens or hundreds of thousands years after Mummies had shown no such laws were required. This does not mean that judges did not have to deal with some crazy or sociopathic ladies of this type. </p><blockquote><i>The Economic Consequences of Legal Behavior<br /><br />Many thriving societies, such as Germany and Japan, adhere closely to the letter of the law.</i></blockquote><p>We say the Germans and the Japanese are disciplined and civic minded. No doubt, religion played a big part in this as did widespread conscription and a traditionally hierarchical society. </p><blockquote><i> However, allowing for a certain degree of latitude for individual interpretation, as the United States has done throughout its history, can foster creativity, enhance efficiency, and stimulate economic growth.<br /></i></blockquote><p>Nineteenth Germany and Japan were both extremely creative. German music, philosophy, mathematics etc. achieved high prestige as did Japanese art towards the end of the century. Germany and Japan are still creative though it is true the German economy has overtaken Japan's However, there are geographic and demographic reasons for this. The US is a settler society which has received massive immigration over the centuries. It is foolish to compare it to 'Old World' countries. </p><blockquote><i><br /><br />NEW YORK – The way people navigate traffic can tell us a lot about their respective cultures.</i></blockquote><p>No. They can tell us a lot about what level of traffic they are used to. This has nothing to do with 'culture'. In a country where traffic congestion is a relatively new phenomenon, older people may not know how to cross the road properly. When I was young, there was little traffic on the roads of New Delhi. Now, I sometimes hire a rickshaw to get across a broad highway so as to use the Metro. However, in London, I have no such difficulty. This does not mean I have two different cultures. Its just means that my 'reflexes' are not adapted to a Delhi which now has vastly more road traffic then it used to when I was a boy. </p><blockquote><i> Recently, while walking to my office in midtown Manhattan, I stopped at a red light when an elderly woman with a walking stick caught my attention as she cautiously looked both left and right. When she saw that no car was close enough to hit her – assuming they adhered to New York’s speed-limit laws – she gave me a puzzled look and crossed the street. I must admit, I felt a bit foolish.<br /></i></blockquote><p>Basu is elderly himself. Anyway, as an absent minded Professor, it makes sense for him to wait for the green light at the pedestrian crossing. </p><blockquote><i>Such an incident would be unthinkable in Japan. Years ago, on the first night of a weeklong visit to Tokyo, my young, jet-lagged children, who had lived only in India and the United States, were amazed by the law-abiding Japanese. </i></blockquote><p>But the law-abiding Japanese also adhere to all sorts of norms and conventions which have no legal force. What Basu's kids were remarking was a country with an ancient culture in which the vast majority of the population was autochthonous.</p><blockquote><i>Peering out of our apartment window at midnight, they observed a man standing alone at a crosswalk. Even with no cars in sight, he waited patiently for the light to turn green.<br /></i></blockquote><p>Japan was briefly occupied by the Americans but it has never been truly conquered. Its people feel that its norms and rules are indigenous. South Korea, which is even more creative and innovative and economically dynamic than Japan (its per capita GDP now exceeds that of its former colonial master) had a lot of traffic accidents because drivers and pedestrians ignored the rules. Apparently, the Government is using advanced technology to keep zombies engrossed in their smartphones safe when they cross the street. </p><blockquote><i>While these normative differences may seem trivial, societal attitudes toward the law can significantly affect a country’s economic performance.</i></blockquote><p>Not in this case. South Korea is more dynamic than Japan, yet its people are more anarchic. No doubt, this is because the ordinary Korean felt subjugated first by the Japanese and then a Military dictatorship. It appears there is greater resentment of the oligarchs and crony capitalists. It may be mentioned that, during the Raj, travelers often reported that people in the big British administered Cities were more rowdy and undisciplined than those in the Princely States. </p><blockquote><i> Whereas the New Yorker’s actions could be interpreted as aligning with the spirit of the law, the Tokyo pedestrian adhered to its letter.<br /></i></blockquote><p>One might simply say that norms and expectations are different in the two countries. As a matter of fact 'jaywalking' can be quite a serious offence in parts of the US whereas it generally isn't in Japan. They have a saying ' 赤信号皆で渡れば怖くない- it isn't scary to cross the road when there is a red light, if everybody is doing it. Indeed, that is what happens in many countries. Britain doesn't have a jaywalking offence but I tend to be cautious. Still if others are crossing against the light, I do too. </p><blockquote><i>A system that emphasizes the spirit of the law gives individuals discretionary power, leading to potential misuse or abuse. </i></blockquote><p>All legal systems are the same. You can have your day in court and explain why you think you adhered to the 'spirit of the law'. The fact is, there is a permissible element of discretion in the <i><b>enforcement,</b></i> not the interpretation, of the law. </p><blockquote><i>When individuals have latitude to decide how to behave,</i></blockquote><p>everybody has latitude in this respect. It is a different matter that we won't break the law if there is a heavy fine and, because of CCTV evidence, it would be difficult for us to deny the charge brought against us. </p><blockquote><i> they might, for example, choose to disrupt traffic. </i></blockquote><p>But they may simply be people who habitually behave in an undisciplined and disruptive way. </p><blockquote><i>This is evident in the streets of New York </i></blockquote><p>No one has ever suggested that New Yorkers are docile and civic minded. </p><blockquote><i>and, to a greater extent, in my hometown of Kolkata (formerly Calcutta).</i></blockquote><p>Kolkata has gotten a lot better. Instead of burning buses, young people earn good money producing useful goods and services. </p><blockquote><i> While the city is gradually adopting the Western model, during my youth Kolkata was a pedestrian’s paradise, where crossing the street required no more than a simple hand gesture.<br /></i></blockquote><p>Back then, India produced few cars and trucks. Traffic was lighter. </p><blockquote><i>It is crucial to understand the strengths and weaknesses of both systems. Japan’s remarkable transformation from a low-income economy to one of the world’s richest countries can be partly attributed to its law-abiding culture. </i></blockquote><p>No. It can be attributed to the fact that them Japs are smart and work their asses off. That's also why the Koreans and the Taiwanese and Singaporeans and lots of Indians working in IT rose and are still rising. </p><blockquote><i>Adherence to the letter of the law fosters better organization, which fuels economic growth</i></blockquote><p>Not if the laws are stupid. The law-abiding Indian bureaucrat strangled the Indian economy. Economic growth is about being more productive not about following the rules more blindly yet. </p><blockquote><i> and overall development.</i></blockquote><p>Development arises where productivity rises. This has nothing to do with either the letter or the spirit or the heart or the soul or the vociferous farts of the law. </p><blockquote><i> Consider, for example, an orchestra: without a conductor to guide them, the musicians onstage may still make music, but it would not be the Salzburg Opera.<br /></i></blockquote><p>A leader solves coordination and concurrency problems. This can raise productivity. It has nothing to do with the law. </p><blockquote><i>The same is true for many other aspects of daily life. In a <a href="https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/64143/punctualitycultu00basu.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y">2002 paper</a> I co-authored with Jörgen Weibull, we argued that punctuality is not a genetic trait </i></blockquote><p>this is because our genes don't cause us to have a smart-watch inside our head </p><blockquote><i>but a behavior cultivated through coordination.</i></blockquote><p>No. It is behavior which is 'reinforced' by penalties and rewards. If you keep getting fired because you turn up late for work you either find ways to become punctual or decide that maybe being a homeless bum might be a life-style choice. </p><blockquote><i> Sticking to a fixed schedule becomes valuable when everyone is expected to do so.</i></blockquote><p>No. All that matters is whether you gain by it. I once lived in a Student's Hostel were nobody was expected to turn up for meals at the stipulated times. Since I couldn't afford to eat out, I soon learned to be punctual. </p><blockquote><i> It is reminiscent of the stag hunt game described by Jean-Jacques Rousseau in his Discourse on Inequality, in which two hunters could kill a stag by cooperating but only a hare if they go it alone.</i></blockquote><p>Very true. The two hunters could make an appointment with the stag. If either of them failed to turn up, the stag would express displeasure and refuse to be killed. Hares were less punctilious in these matters. </p><blockquote><i> Contemporary Japan is known for its fastidious culture of punctuality. </i></blockquote><p>So is Germany. </p><blockquote><i>What is overlooked is that, barely a hundred years ago, <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/238363223_Japanese_Clocks_and_the_History_of_Punctuality_in_Modern_Japan">Japan was known</a> for its sloppiness with respect to time.</i></blockquote><p>This is because there were multiple systems of keeping time and, in any case, the country was transitioning from agriculture. </p><blockquote><i> Japan’s ascent coincided with normative transformation from tardiness to punctuality.<br /></i></blockquote><p>Italy, too, ascended though its people claim to be unpunctual. What can't be doubted is that they are worth waiting for. </p><blockquote><i>Sociologists have emphasized the crucial role of social and institutional embeddedness in driving economic development. </i></blockquote><p>Sociologists are as stupid as shit. What drives development is mimetics to raise productivity. Japan is very different from Germany. Yet both rose as industrial powers. China has very different 'social and institutional embeddedness'. Yet, it has in certain economic areas it is as developed as the US. Much of this has been achieved in the last three decades. Meanwhile, India has had 'Chief Economic Advisers' like Basu and Rajan who witter on about Polanyi type embedding. </p><blockquote><i>Simply put, in addition to its trade, fiscal, and monetary policies, Japan’s remarkable rise over the past century has been facilitated by a social transformation which enabled its economy to grow at an unprecedented rate.<br /></i></blockquote><p>No. Japan started raising productivity. This caused <i>some</i> social transformation in specific sectors of Japanese life. This is because there was 'reinforcement'. Those enterprises which were run in a shitty manner and those employees who were unpunctual and undisciplined were weeded out. </p><p>It is a different matter than a particular 'Marshallian industrial district' may gain external economies of scope and scale of a type which can innovate and move up the value chain. We may speak of a localized culture of innovation and enterprise and we may associate this with a particular religious sect or ethnicity. But this isn't the type of 'embedding' Polanyi was talking about. Moreover, it has nothing to do with the law. After all, organized crime can be very fucking innovative. </p><blockquote><i>Nevertheless, the New York model, where individuals are given leeway to interpret the law, has its merits.</i></blockquote><p>There is no such leeway. Jaywalking is illegal. The motorist has the right of way. Still, you could sue a driver who knocked you down even if you were jaywalking provided he too was negligent. </p><blockquote><i> After all, pedestrian traffic lights are designed to facilitate the smooth flow of traffic and occasionally allow pedestrians to cross. When the road is empty, ignoring the red light does not run counter to the law’s purpose.</i></blockquote><p>You can still get a ticket for jaywalking. However, so long as you yield to the motorist where he has right of way and don't cut across diagonally, you may have a defense in law. </p><blockquote><i>It facilitates what economists refer to as a Pareto improvement, whereby some people are better off without hurting anybody else’s well-being.<br /></i></blockquote><p>Sadly, we can never know whether a thing is a Pareto improvement or not. When ever we do stupid shit we always say 'But I didn't think anybody would get hurt!' </p><blockquote><i>While enacting laws that accommodate every individual’s unique circumstances and preferences is not feasible, leaving laws open to some degree of individual interpretation can encourage creativity and enhance efficiency. </i></blockquote><p>Basu has confused guidelines with laws. The former are more similar to helpful suggestions. The latter must be 'bright-line' or else they add noise to signal. Economic activity is eased when the behavior of concerned parties is consistent and predictable. </p><blockquote><i>This approach, which cultivates a culture conducive to technological and artistic innovation, has enabled the United States to become the world’s growth engine and magnet for talent.<br /></i></blockquote><p>American Judges and legislators strive to ensure that the rules are 'bright-line' not ambiguous. There may also be 'best practice' or other such guidelines in contexts where no law has been made. </p><p>The US is a magnet for such talent as can be most productive there. But American talent may find itself more productively employed setting up enterprises elsewhere. </p><blockquote><i><br />To be sure, attempting to bring about a normative transition from adherence to the letter of the law to realizing its spirit could backfire, </i></blockquote><p>Why not just attempt to bring about a normative transition such that everybody becomes very nice and sweet and thinks only pure thoughts? </p><blockquote><i>producing cacophony in the proverbial orchestra pit. </i></blockquote><p>Also cats may start sodomizing dogs. </p><blockquote><i>Economists and legal scholars can play a crucial role in facilitating such a shift while mitigating potential risks. </i></blockquote><p>Not if they are as stupid as shit. But the smart economists would actually be economizing on the use of scarce resources- thus permitting everybody to be better off. As for 'legal scholars', if they are any good they will be too busy making money. </p><blockquote><i>This cannot be achieved through precise policy prescription –</i></blockquote><p>Yes it can. At any given time, there is some policy prescription better than any other. The guy who can supply it should be rewarded. Others should be told to fuck off. </p><blockquote><i> that would in fact be self-contradictory.</i></blockquote><p>Nope. If you want to achieve something, there is a precise prescription which you can follow. I want to control my Diabetes. That is why I follow the precise prescription my Doctor gives me. </p><blockquote><i>The key to achieving this is in the realm of ideas that John Maynard Keynes emphasized.</i></blockquote><p>Were they ideas connected to sodomy? Probably. </p><blockquote><i> We need to be aware of the two distinct modes of law enforcement,</i></blockquote><p>We are all aware that the police might let us off with a warning for a misdemeanor. </p><blockquote><i> and, despite the risks, the surprising advantages of moving from following the letter of the law to the spirit.<br /></i></blockquote><p>Most people set themselves a standard higher than the law requires. After all, crimes and torts are exceptional occurrences. Still, it is true that economic development can accelerate if people in one country voluntarily choose to abide by the more exacting laws and regulations of a more advanced country. </p><blockquote><i>As the British conductor Charles Hazlewood <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeGjmVX0d50">observed</a>, for good music you need individual musicians to follow the conductor’s instructions exactly. </i></blockquote><p>Symphonic music- maybe. Jazz can be quite good. I'm kidding. It's fucking horrible. </p><blockquote><i>Great music, however, relies on “trust” and “personal freedom for the members of the orchestra.” They need space for judgment and creativity.</i></blockquote><p>Orchestras need subsidies. Currently, none are financially viable. Basu thinks economic activity is stuff which makes a loss. Spirit of the law consoles it by saying 'pimp out your kids so as to get the money to keep playing shite snobs have to pretend to find sublime'. This will cause lots of innovation and economic development in a Galaxy far far away. Also cats will sodomize dogs even though letter of the law is weeping and wailing and pleading with pussy to spare their Doberman. </p>windwheelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18099651877551933295noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1674709389503889160.post-18552308205953716452024-03-15T10:52:00.004+00:002024-03-15T17:09:45.708+00:00Raghuram Rajan- saving savers from having any fucking savings<p>People with an engineering background who did PhDs on Banking related issues in the Eighties and Nineties tended to make three big mistakes</p><p>1) they thought Banks merely bundled discrete services which, the math said, could be unbundled and each assigned a mechanism to overcome moral hazard or incentive incompatibility. This meant that deregulation was fine so long as they themselves were the, wholly independent, regulators with discretionary charge over the repo rate and forex interventions. </p><p>Sadly, Banking is more like priest-craft- if not smoke and mirrors type thaumaturgy- rather than the sort of mathsy shite studied in Fintech. Unbundling and securitization and the entry of novel types of financial intermediary can endanger the entire financial system because Credit, that is Faith, is now serving not the one true God but a host of warring demi-gods.</p><p>The Central Banker should be more obedient than Aaron, the high priest, and bow down before Moses as he descends from Mt. Sinai carrying the commandments of the new Finance Act. Like the suave Archbishop at the court of a medieval King, the Governor of the RBI must have an emollient personality, an ability to keep channels of communication open with the FM, and a firm understanding that his role is to get money for the Government, not safeguard the interests of 'widows and orphans' or save the middle class from some putative Hitler by preventing inflation. </p><p>Even smart guys like Rajan- who, however, was a good communicator and 'added value' by inspiring confidence in financial markets- could make the mistake of trying to defy the Government even though in a poor country like India, the Governor of the RBI has no mandate to do so. Urjit Patel and Viral Acharya and were less diplomatic and paid the price by having to quit before completing their term. The lesson was obvious. India should stop bringing in foreign trained egg-heads who didn't understand India's political economy or their place in the grand scheme of things. </p><p>2) the Financial Engineers didn't understand the difference between appropriable control rights and ownership. Thus their mechanism design could be self-defeating or counter-productive. A complicating factor is the Supreme Court's predilection for striking down anything or everything on the grounds that it is ultra vires or that it violates the basic structure of their stupidity.</p><p>3) they didn't understand just how shitty Indian statistics and indices are or which of them are suitable as policy targets. All in all, these were decent and patriotic people who, however, lived in a fantasy land. </p><p> The contrary view is that they were cretins- one and all- even Raghuram Rajan. Was this always the case? Perhaps. What is certain is that he had delusions of grandeur. A mere fifteen years after moving to Capitalist America he thought he had found a way to 'Save Capitalism from the Capitalists' and co-authored a book with an Italian, which came out in 2003. </p><p> Wikipedia summarizes it thus. </p><blockquote><i>The book is neither a defense of pure <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laissez-faire">laissez-faire</a> <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism">capitalism</a>, nor is it an <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-capitalist">anti-capitalist</a> polemic. Instead, the authors develop the following arguments in the book:</i></blockquote><p></p><blockquote>1) <i>The <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market">free market</a> is the form of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic">economic</a> organization most beneficial to human <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society">society</a> and for improving the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_condition">human condition</a>.</i></blockquote><p>That <i><b>is</b></i> a defense of laissez faire capitalism. Don't forget there can be free markets in all sorts of things including market regulation. Markets can vote for the best mechanism for their own functioning and reward the custodians of that mechanism appropriately. Where there are externalities, the market can create Institutions or Enterprises which internalize them. The State is one such enterprise. It has to compete with other States which might covet its territory or other resources. </p><p>As for 'the human condition', not fucking dying horribly would be what would improve it most. Why can't I jump out of the window while high on acid without suffering grave injury? No doubt, if scientists can make a breakthrough in organ regeneration, there will be a market for stuff which improves the human condition in this regard. </p><i></i><p></p><blockquote><i>Free markets can flourish over the long run only when <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government">government</a> plays a visible role in determining the rules that govern the market and supporting it with the proper <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrastructure">infrastructure</a>.<br /></i></blockquote><p>This isn't true. During the nineteenth century, Western navies or armies forced several countries to open up their economies and permit free markets- including repugnant ones, e.g. the opium trade- to flourish. The East India Company was not a government but it played a visible role in promoting free markets however horrible the outcome. The IMF and World Bank played a similar role as have consortiums of international creditors. </p><p>It is a different matter that Governments tended to either go extinct or find ways to take a commission or 'Manorial rent' from markets in their jurisdiction. Sometimes they determined 'the rules' but gave up if this meant a loss in tax revenue. As for 'proper infrastructure'- that shit costs money. Entrepreneurs may provide it, if they have plenty but so might foreign donors or the Church. It is not the case that a country with no effective central Government will wholly lack infrastructure or 'rules' for market transactions. </p><p>One may as well say 'Free markets can flourish in the long run only when people are nice. If they are naughty and keep stabbing each other, free markets will collapse. The same thing will happen if people start pretending they are cats. This is why it is important that we save Capitalism from Capitalists by enforcing strict rules against everybody pretending to be a cat while stabbing all and sundry.' </p><blockquote><i>Government, however, is subject to influence by organized <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interest_group">private interests</a></i></blockquote><p>So are people. We must save organized private interests from themselves by insisting that they don't pretend they are cats in between stabbing people. </p><blockquote><i>Incumbent private interests, therefore, may be able to leverage the power of governmental regulation to protect their own economic position at the expense of the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_interest">public interest</a> by repressing the same free market through which they originally achieved success.<br /></i></blockquote><p>They may also be able to pretend they are cats. We must save incumbent private interests from themselves by requesting them not to pretend they are cats because this would have the effect of repressing the same free, or unfree, markets through which they originally achieved success. This is because people who pretend to be cats seldom accumulate much wealth through entrepreneurship or arbitrage. </p><blockquote><i>Thus, society must act to "save capitalism from the capitalists"—i.e. take appropriate steps to protect the free market from powerful private interests who would seek to impede the efficient function of free markets, entrench themselves, and thereby reduce the overall level of economic opportunity in society.<br /></i></blockquote><p>In this case there are countervailing 'powerful private interests'. Let them duke it out by all means. There can be a market for the power they covet. We may think of this as like the Edgeworth contract curve or 'core'. Different coalitions make different proffers and stakeholders vote with their money- unless money has already been spent such that they vote with actual votes. In this scenario, Capitalism is self-regulating because anti-Capitalism is itself a market phenomenon. However, this whole discussion is foolish. The fact is Societies have to defend themselves against external and internal threats. This means they must either seek to imitate, one way or another, what the more successful countries are doing or else fall behind in productivity and military and economic power. That road leads to enslavement by aliens or serfdom in a Spartan militaristic State like North Korea. </p><blockquote><i><br />The authors offer the following recommendations: Reduce incumbent capitalists' <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incentive">incentives</a> to oppose markets,</i></blockquote><p>Why not reduce the incentive for incumbent Socialists or Woke nutters to fuck over the economy? There may be people who believe they are cats and who spend all their time purring and trying to catch mice. Why not concentrate on giving incentives to those who can cure them? Why reduce the incentive to say miaow of people who aren't pretending to be cats? What good will that do? </p><blockquote><i> especially by limiting the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_concentration">concentration</a> of ownership of productive assets.<br /></i></blockquote><p>If there are substantial scale and scope economies, all you have done is reduce your country's competitiveness. In any case, what is important is appropriable control rights, not ownership. Any way, the Common Law can develop a competition policy all by itself. Even if it doesn't, a monopsony can gain countervailing power over a monopoly such that the dead weight loss is minimized. There are many ways to skin a cat- unless the cat is actually a person who is in the habit of saying miaow, because skinning people can attract a charge of homicide. </p><blockquote><i>Provide a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_safety_net">social safety net</a> for the economically distressed to help maintain broad political support for free markets.<br /></i></blockquote><p>Equally, such a safety net can provide broad political support for a Theocracy or Monarchy or Dictatorship. The trouble is such safety nets tend to disappear when people need them most. </p><blockquote><i>Keep the borders of the economy open to support <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_trade">free trade</a></i></blockquote><p>It is estimated that 750 million people would immigrate to the US if they were allowed to do so. This won't support free trade because Americans will no longer be able to export or import very much. Also their 'social safety net' would collapse- not to mention all the raping and looting which would occur. </p><blockquote><i> and maintain a high level of competitive pressure on incumbent firms.<br /></i></blockquote><p>how do we maintain this? One way would be to tell incumbent firms that there are highly educated cats which are seeking to enter their market and steal all their customers. That will scare them straight. </p><p>I suppose you might say 'Vivek, enough with the cats. All that Rajan is saying is that policy makers should seek to increase elasticity of supply and demand perhaps by sponsoring research into close substitutes. The problem here is that Rajan isn't saying any such thing. A production engineer- which is what Rajan was trained to be- might give us ideographic information of this sort for a particular market. Regret minimization, more particular during periods of increased Knightian Uncertainty, may militate for developing such capacities 'just in case'. </p><blockquote><i>Educate the public regarding the benefits of free markets to build political support for free market policies, </i></blockquote><p>Why not educate the public to discover the secrets of cold fusion? Better yet, why not educate them in the Maharishi's technique to achieve yogic levitation? Education costs time and money. Why educate people regarding the benefits of free markets or the great advantages to be had by not pretending to be a cat all the time? </p><p>True, if you have a charismatic orator, like Ronald Reagan, Wall street may hire the dude to go around giving stump speeches. But that is entertainment more than it is education. </p><blockquote><i>or more specifically, oppose governmental interventions in the market designed to protect incumbents at the expense of overall economic opportunity.</i></blockquote><p>Two decades later another Tambram, gained political traction by saying that 'wokeness' and 'DIE' were being used by 'incumbents' as a barrier to entry. In other words, the State's sponsorship of a liberal agenda raised compliance costs and strangled potential competitors. The problem with Vivek Ramaswamy's pitch, as with Rajan's, was that Americans don't really believe they need to be 'educated' into seeing that stupid self-serving shite is just stupid self-serving shite no matter what virtue it is meant to signal. </p>windwheelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18099651877551933295noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1674709389503889160.post-1793529699881802082024-03-15T00:57:00.008+00:002024-03-15T01:20:28.363+00:00Raghuram Rajan, Inclusive Localism & banning sexy quantum entanglements<p></p><p>Worried by the rise of right-wing populists who oppose immigration, Raghuram Rajan champions 'inclusive localism'- in other words, people should run their own local communities in the manner Rajan thinks they should. One could go a step further and suggest that everybody's brains and bodies should only function in the manner Rajan thinks best. However, as I have repeatedly pointed out, it is only once all elementary particles in the multi-universe are nice and sweet and do what my bidding that we can have a truly inclusive Cosmos which is free of sexy quantum entanglements and other such naughtiness. To my mind this clears up the problem of 'non-locality' or 'hidden variables' which so vexed Einstein. </p><p>Rajan's inclusive localism is like my theory of how elementary particles should behave. The fact is, the real problem with the Universe is that, so as to exist, it has to compete with other possible Universes with different fundamental constants. However, by discouraging 'black holes' and ensuring that the Universe is informationally isometric- which I think would be nice- the Universe could become the sort of place for which I'd leave a positive Yelp review. Sadly, the Universe is not listening to me probably because it is watching porn. Fuck you Universe! Fuck you very much!</p><blockquote><i>DISCOURAGING SORTING OF RESIDENCE AND COMMUNITIES BY INCOME Let us turn from production to residence, specifically the issue of residential sorting, which we encountered earlier. While nations have the right to control the inward flow of people, communities should not have that right, else that risks perpetuating inequality and segregation within the country. </i></blockquote><p>A right exists iff an effective remedy is available. Countries which can't seal their borders can't control the inward flow of people- more particularly if they are better armed. Communities have various legal methods by which to restrict the influx of people. For example, they can enforce laws against squatters, or homeless people, or the enrollment of students in their Schools if those students live outside the District. In the past, some communities in America had restrictive covenants and other racially biased laws. It may be that such practices continue in an informal manner. </p><p>Turning to the country which has grown the most rapidly over the last four decades, we find China thrived despite having a hukou, or household registration system which was effectively a sort of internal passport. This meant there was service provision discrimination which increased rents, and thus incentives to invest, for affluent urban communities. It is not clear that what might be termed a 'guest-worker' system- e.g. that of Singapore or Dubai- is inequitable in itself or that it reduces allocative or dynamic efficiency. Indeed, the reverse is likely to be true. Going forward, we expect to see more and more affluent countries move to this system. Thus, in the UK, the Government has restricted the ability of Care workers to bring their families. This suggest that going forward, the needs of an ageing population will be met by workers from poor countries on fixed term contracts but no right to domicile or path to citizenship. Rajan may disapprove, just as I disapprove of sexy Quantum entanglements, but there is nothing he can do about it. By contrast, my latest book- titled 'The Turd Pillar' pillories quarks which are engaged in perverted behavior. This is causing many elementary particles to rethink their life-choices. </p><blockquote><i>Yet many well-off communities, while ostensibly open, set zoning rules in a way that effectively discriminates against less-well-off people.</i></blockquote><p>Which is why those well-off communities remain well-off. </p><blockquote><i> For example, some communities forbid the construction of apartment buildings, rental occupancies, or single family homes smaller than a certain size, thus keeping out anyone who cannot afford high housing costs. </i></blockquote><p>They may go further by arranging for a low income area in a different district to bus in the gardeners and nannies and cleaners that the wealthy need to maintain their affluent life-style. </p><blockquote><i>Effectively, they keep out lower-income folk through a nontariff barrier. Economic segregation ensures those with lower incomes do not benefit from the institutional, social, and intellectual capital that the more well-to-do create for themselves—such as better schools. The individual’s desire to sort is understandable, but it will exacerbate inequality of opportunity, and increase potential social conflict. </i></blockquote><p>This is a type of Tiebout sorting. At the margin, activists may be able to seize political control of such a district. But what if they kill the golden goose? There are always places to which the wealthy can retreat leaving behind an aspirational middle class which will soon sink to the level of the poor who have taken control. </p><blockquote><i>Indeed, the more that zoning creates moats and battlements that protect the upper classes, the less incentive they have to worry about what happens to the rest. </i></blockquote><p>Ultimately, they can just offshore themselves completely and run things from their super-yachts or tax havens. </p><blockquote><i>A state intent on creating more equal opportunity communities should offset some of these incentives to sort, by ensuring the poor can follow the rich anywhere.</i></blockquote><p>Also the State should ensure that stalkers get to rape their victims. Why are super-models only marrying other handsome and wealthy people? Diversity, Inclusivity and Equity demand that I too get an equal opportunity to contribute semen to their vaginas. </p><blockquote><i> One way to get more economically diverse communities is to eliminate some of the most egregious constraints on what can be built, especially when local house prices are high. A bill introduced by a California state senator, for example, would allow all housing being built in California within a half mile of a train station or a quarter-mile of a bus route to be exempt from regulations regarding the height of the building, the number of apartments, the provision of parking spaces, or specific design standards. </i></blockquote><p>Which is great if you are a property developer. If you are merely middle class and paying off a mortgage, it may mean you can never retire or else will never be able to leave any money for your kids or grandkids. </p><blockquote><i> This is a bill that local property owners hate because it will create more housing supply and depress the value of their homes, but it will be tremendously beneficial for economic inclusion. </i></blockquote><p>Very true. Earlier this week, I dined with a friend who had bought a plush riverside apartment some years ago. I suspect he is in trouble with the Enforcement Directorate which is why he is lurking here in London. He complained to me that his apartment complex was virtually empty. The owners lived in far away countries. Still, they were very ethnically diverse. It is important that we are locally inclusive of poor suffering Billionaires from Turd World shitholes. </p><blockquote><i>Every such solution has some downsides since they interfere with community choice but, I repeat, in the trade-off between inclusion and localism, inclusion should be given more weight.</i></blockquote><p>Drug dealers and whores need to be located near major railway stations. Why are they suffering economic exclusion? We need high rise buildings to house this diverse community. </p><blockquote><i> Consider some other possibilities. The state could mandate that some fraction of the residences in any community, say 15 percent, should be affordable for low-income residents.</i></blockquote><p>Plenty of places have such laws. The upside is that the super-rich have some neighbors if, for some legal reason, they think it safer to lurk in an advanced country which might refuse to extradite them on the grounds that their country of origin is a fucking shithole- albeit one where they were able to loot a lot of money. </p><blockquote><i> If the community would like to maintain its aesthetic look and allow only large single-family residences, then a sufficient number of these should be rented or sold to low-income families,</i></blockquote><p>not to mention victims of horrendous sexual self-abuse. I am thinking of myself here. </p><blockquote><i> with the rest of the community bearing the cost of making these affordable. </i></blockquote><p>The struggling middle class should welcome this opportunity to line the pockets of property developers. </p><blockquote><i>Such a solution works most easily for new developments, where “set-asides” can be mandated for low-income housing. The city of Chicago negotiates set-asides for new developments, but certain states in the United States prohibit set-asides, perhaps because developers do not want to be burdened with the cost. </i></blockquote><p>Race based 'set-asides'- e.g. in the granting of contracts to minority owned enterprises- are banned in some States. Developers don't mind their costs rising if they can pass them on with a mark-up to the tax-payer. </p><blockquote><i>Moreover, set-asides will be harder to mandate for established older communities, where there may be little vacant land for development. Another way of encouraging mixing, or at least discouraging sorting, is through the tax code. </i></blockquote><p>Americans love paying taxes. Fuck with their tax code and you are sure to be re-elected. </p><blockquote><i>For instance, high income households whose children are enrolled in public schools in low income districts could be given a tax rebate, essentially because of the positive spillovers that their children are likely to contribute to their classes.</i></blockquote><p>Very true. If your kid was thrown out of Andover because he kept stabbing teachers, you should get a tax rebate if the only school which will take him is a public school in a District where stabbing people is not considered a social faux pas. </p><blockquote><i> Private incentives could also help. For example, top universities could give incentives to students studying in public schools in low-income districts by allocating a fraction of admits to each public school in the state. </i></blockquote><p>Top universities can make money by driving up fees and 'voluntary' donations by restricting supply. This is classic price discrimination. </p><blockquote><i>Not only will this incentivize the less-well-off to apply to the elite universities,</i></blockquote><p>which may be wealth enough to do 'needs blind' admission </p><blockquote><i> it may also be the carrot for some well-to-do parents to stay or even move into those school districts so that their children will have a leg up in admissions.</i></blockquote><p>This is also a good reason to ensure your child is a transgender Eskimo </p><blockquote><i> While this may seem like a violation of the spirit of the plan, the presence of these well-prepared children and their pushy highly educated parents in the schools will be beneficial to all.</i></blockquote><p>How? The kid from the poorer family suddenly finds the rich thicko is doing better than him in the exams. Why? His parents have hired the best tutors for him. Also, he gets in on the sports quota for 'dressage' or some other such elitist shite. </p><blockquote><i> In this vein, some states in the United States are already allocating some places in the state university to the top students in each public school. </i></blockquote><p>Nothing wrong in that. Universities traditionally recruited some poor but bright kids if only so as to have a ready pool of ill paid pedagogues at their disposal. </p><blockquote><i>Much of the incentive to sort comes because students coming from different households are at very different levels of educational and social preparation.</i></blockquote><p>The rich may have some extra polish which is cool in non-STEM subjects. But for mathsy stuff make sure you are getting in plenty of nerdy Asians. </p><blockquote><i> Attempts to mix students with very different preparation—for example through state-mandated busing from poor communities into well-off communities —obviously leads to resentment and dissatisfaction on all sides. </i></blockquote><p>It was a boon to the private, especially Church based, educational sector. </p><blockquote><i>The students who are bused in feel inadequately prepared and fall behind, while the students in the receiving schools feel they are being held behind. </i></blockquote><p>But the Schools basketball team wins the State championship. Also, African Americans are as cool as fuck. Nerdy Asians, not so much. </p><blockquote><i>The problem is the differential preparedness, which needs to be addressed before mixed classes can work. Early childhood programs that attempt to equalize preparation could be enormously beneficial, especially if they are then followed by mixed classes in public schools which ensure differences in educational capabilities do not build.</i></blockquote><p>What is even more beneficial is not going to a school where you will be knifed if you don't join a gang and start selling drugs at the street corner. </p><blockquote><i> Accelerated remedial education programs could also help, though the later they are in a child’s life the less effective they will be.</i></blockquote><p>If we don't want to bother with keeping inner-city kids safe from gangs, we can always futz around with this sort of shite. </p><blockquote><i> New technologies that can allow teachers to address students with different levels of preparedness (see later) can also help the process of equalization. </i></blockquote><p>Somali parents in London started sending their sons back to their war-torn country because they were safer there. Why not admit that killing gangsters is what stops 'disadvantaged' communities from being so fucking disadvantaged? The answer is that there's money in being a virtue signaling libtard. There is none in stating the obvious. </p><blockquote><i>Countries that have a severe sorting problem could build in stronger tax incentives to mix, including residential congestion taxes that require rich households to pay higher taxes if they stay in communities with other rich households, and lower taxes if they stay in low-income communities. </i></blockquote><p>Rajan hasn't noticed that rich peeps can employ clever accountants to reduce their rate of tax to below what the struggling middle class has to pay. On the other hand, you can have some level of redistribution of property taxes. The devil, sadly, is in the detail. Whatever mechanism the bien pensant can come up with will be quickly 'gamed' so that we end up with perverse outcomes. </p><blockquote><i>There are plenty of ideas, some more problematic than others, but we have to be open to experimentation if we want to avert the hereditary meritocracy emerging in many countries.</i></blockquote><p>It emerged long ago in every affluent country. True, conscription during World Wars could trigger social mobility as the business of warfare became more managerial and technological. But there has been a reversion to the mean. </p><p>Are there practical ways to promote an egalitarian meritocracy? Sure. Reduce the requirement for expensive, time-consuming, educational credentials. Working class boys need to start earning as soon as possible after puberty or else they can go down a bad path. Let them 'Earn and Learn' by all means. They need to build up some financial capital by the time they are in their mid Twenties. Young people will postpone marriage if they can see a clear path to, if not affluence, then solid middle class respectability. </p><p>What about competition policy? One might expect Rajan to focus on the manner in which wealth can get concentrated in a narrow hereditary caste. </p><p></p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;">Antitrust authorities should examine mergers for the possibility of industry dominance, not just from the perspective of whether the customer is better served today, but also whether competition will be irretrievably altered. </blockquote><p>Very true. Before deciding what to do today, we should first discover what will happen in the future. It isn't the case that your guess is as good as mine. <i> </i></p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;">For instance, acquisitions that have the primary objective of closing an innovative competitor, or absorbing a rival who might prove a competitive threat, should be prohibited.</blockquote><p>So should every action, including farting. How are we to know if the fart of the CEO of a company might not result in an innovative competitor closing down his business in protest? Things like that happen all the time. I wrote to Mahuaji explaining how Adani's fart, in 1984, so disgusted me that I decided not to start an enterprise which would have been much more innovative than his because all my employees would be cats. Sadly, since I didn't offer her any money, Mahua did not raise this matter in the Lok Sabha. Yet, there are people who say India is a democracy! </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;"> Preserving competition today may also be essential so that the stock market does not give a dominant incumbent the resources with which to shut out competition tomorrow.</blockquote><p>Very true. It isn't the case that doing stupid shit won't cause the Chinese to eat our fucking lunch. </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;"> The pragmatic solution is to adopt once again the clear and defensible rules of thumb of the past, whereby antitrust authorities opposed corporate actions that increased a single corporation’s dominance of any market beyond a preset specified point, no matter what the claims about greater efficiency and consumer welfare were. </blockquote><p>Cool! That way there would have been no Apple or Microsoft or Amazon. Also, smart peeps like Rajan would be writing books in Chinese. </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;">Antitrust authorities must be broadminded about what constitutes the relevant market and competition, recognizing that technology can bring product and geographic markets together that were separated in the past. </blockquote><p>They should also recognize that Bill Gates farted in 1977, thus causing me to quit the software industry in disgust. This was clearly a per se illegal anti-competitive action. </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;">However, arguments that innovation or entry by rivals will make the market more competitive in the future should be met with some skepticism—today’s dominance can allow the incumbent to alter conditions so as to make it much harder for rivals to get their foot in the door in the future. </blockquote><p>Which is why it is a big deal if China continues to overtake us in vital high-tech sectors. Rajan could learn a thing or two from fellow Tambram, Vivek Ramaswami. </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;">The economic costs of rule-of-thumb antitrust enforcement may not be large as information technology improves, </blockquote><p>Sadly, IT is 'footloose'. It can relocate to a better jurisdiction and thus escape the dead hand of competition policy. </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;">and as contracting and monitoring costs fall. Instead of a company owning the entire supply chain, we could get a more nimble, competitive supply chain consisting of many corporations contracting with one another.</blockquote><p>You will have that anyway because of Trade Unions and higher compliance costs for bigger employers. </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;"> Instead of a company merging with all competitors who produce a product, ostensibly to obtain economies of scale, we could instead retain many competitors who cooperate on specific projects through alliances whenever the economies of scale of doing so are really significant. </blockquote><p>This is also a great way to offshore the profits so as to escape the Tax-man's greedy mitts. </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;">Put differently, corporations will adapt to effective antitrust enforcement, </blockquote><p>by making it ineffective or a profitable barrier to entry for themselves, through 'Agency Capture' </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;">and given the improvements in contracting and communications, we will likely get both competition and productive efficiency at the same time.</blockquote><p>We may do. The trouble is that if China is quicker to develop Quantum Computer based AI or stuff weirder or more wonderful yet, then our whole Intellectual Property regime will collapse. The terms of trade will move against us. It will be China which has the 'exorbitant privilege' of, if not providing the global currency, then writing the rule-book and practicing price and service provision discrimination in a manner adverse to us. </p><p>Rajan does not understand that Econ is about choice under scarcity. We can, like Condorcet, dream of a more inclusive community where sexy Quantum entanglements are strictly forbidden, but as Malthus pointed out, scarcity will cause that paradise to be invaded. The State is needed to seal the frontiers. The Market, it turns out, is better than the feudal system, in providing the resources the State needs to fight wars. Thus, both are essential for communities even if the members of those communities don't give a shit about their neighbors.</p><p>Rajan concludes his vapid book thus- </p><blockquote><i>The three pillars that support society—the state, markets, and the community—are in constant flux, buffeted by economic and technological shocks.</i></blockquote><p>Nonsense! The State in India, US or UK has not been in constant flux for centuries. This is because these countries were able to defeat invaders and put down insurrections. Markets have evolved on rational lines. There is no great discontinuity, or flux, in its functioning save under conditions of Total War. Communities which have risen in material terms have seen a lot of geographical and occupational mobility but, once again, there has been no 'flux' save during the Civil War or during India's partition. </p><p>Society does need two things to survive. One is the ability to kill invaders or insurrectionists. The other is economic productivity. There is a close link between the two. If your productivity stagnates, it is likely that you will become the subject of a more economically productive, and correspondingly powerful, nation or (in the case of India) enterprise. </p><blockquote><i> Society perpetually strives for a new equilibrium, through a rebalancing of the pillars.</i></blockquote><p>No. Society does not want an equilibrium. Like other things which evolved on an uncertain fitness landscape if thrives when 'far from equilibrium'. Otherwise there is stagnation, involution (which is very inclusively localist), and- sooner or later- subjugation to an alien race. </p><blockquote><i> The ICT revolution, accompanied by the Global Financial Crisis of 2007–2008, has once again highlighted the need for rebalancing.</i></blockquote><p>No it hasn't. The virtue signalers of the West needed to pipe down because the rest of the world was ceasing to be a 'Rules taker'. Talk of DIE can kill off good quality research in Universities while turning innovative Corporations into lazy rent-seekers. That may be cool, but as Vivek Ramaswamy well understands, it means our grandkids need to start learning Chinese in nursery skool. After all, if Tambrams like us are now writing in English, not Tamil or Sanskrit or Persian, it is because a bunch of British merchants decided they could run our country at a profit. They created the 'steel frame' which supported our Society- till, that is, we were able to emigrate to a place where Anglos still ruled. </p><blockquote><i> Recent elections across the developed world suggest people are deeply dissatisfied with the current state of affairs. </i></blockquote><p>They are furious that local communities are not being more inclusive of Jihadi terrorists and transgender prostitutes of diverse ethnicities. Trump and Orban and Modi only won elections by promising- quite falsely!- to arrange for vast quantities of such people to be delivered to your doorstep. </p><blockquote><i>The ICT revolution has created a meritocracy, which is close to hereditary in some developed countries.</i></blockquote><p>Nonsense! The kids of IT billionaires don't need to bother with coding and other such boring shite. </p><blockquote><i> Moreover, in reaction to the competition generated by global markets, those who can, such as large corporations and professionals, have created protected enclaves for themselves,</i></blockquote><p>This began to happen about ten thousand years ago. Wealthy peeps in the Fertile Crescent began putting walls around their palaces and pleasure grounds. Indeed, the word 'Paradise' is derived from the Persian word for a 'protected enclave' of this sort. Rajan is under the impression that Maharajas and Dukes and Pittsburgh millionaires lived in shanty towns. They sent their kids to public schools. Indeed, Harvard and Yale were originally leper colonies rather than a place where rich kids were sent so as to acquire a bit of polish. </p><blockquote><i> further enhancing the benefits of being part of the higher meritocracy. </i></blockquote><p>It took great merit for Akshata to be born as the daughter of a billionaire. As for Anant Ambani, whose pre-wedding was attended by Bill Gates and many a former head of State, did you know that he worked so hard as a fetus and got such outstanding grades that, a bare nine months later, he was born as a billionaire? </p><blockquote><i>For the rest, outside the walled and moated enclaves, competition from man and machine from across the globe has been fierce.</i></blockquote><p>But competition from beasts has decreased. Still, it is true that I lost a pissing competition with a photocopier machine. I still don't understand how it happened. I suppose, since the machine in question was Japanese, there was a little Japanese guy inside it who had a very large bladder. The truth is, my memory of my days as an Auditor is rather hazy. </p><blockquote><i>For the unprotected, new opportunities, preserved for the privileged by walls of credentials and licenses, have been hard to access, in part because educational ladders have been too short and rickety. </i></blockquote><p>No. They have been too fucking long and have led nowhere. Take a degree in Econ and, provided you stayed drunk through the entire course, you can go on to actually economize on the use of scarce resources and thus end up wealthy. Even taking an MA doesn't turn you into a cretin. But a PhD is a step too far. Look at Rajan. He could have been a billionaire like Purnendu Chatterjee if he had stuck with OR or something useful of that sort. </p><blockquote><i>In part, they also have been inaccessible because the greatest opportunities have emerged in global cities, where limited space and zoning laws have made residence unaffordable for most.</i></blockquote><p>Actually, having to live like a fucking battery chicken for the first few years of your professional life gives you an incentive to stay late at the office and thus get fast tracked for promotion. </p><blockquote><i> As economic activity has moved away from rural and semi-urban communities, despair and social disintegration has moved in. </i></blockquote><p>What's wrong with that? Surely increased diversity is a good thing? Why is Rajan turning his nose up at his new neighbors? Is it coz he thinks Despair didn't go to the right School or disapproves of the fact that Social Disintegration wears a MAGA cap and chews baccy? </p><blockquote><i>With the establishment discredited, there is widespread desire for new answers.</i></blockquote><p>Sadly, this isn't true. I keep giving new answers to my neighbors who ask why I can't turn down my music. They show no desire to hear them. </p><blockquote><i> The demagogues of the left and right propose answers people want to hear, not what they should hear. </i></blockquote><p>They should hear Rajan explaining to them that he is not an animal. He is a human being. </p><blockquote><i>All too often, there is someone else or something else to blame, which then imposes the burden of change elsewhere. </i></blockquote><p>Very true. Zelensky keeps blaming Putin when the truth is he should inclusively localize his own rectum so that more Wagner Group mercenaries have access to it. </p><p>I am reminded of what Mahatma Gandhi said when people asked him why he didn't change his diaper. 'You should yourself become the change you want to see in the world'. Admittedly, this happened in the Eighties and it might not have been Gandhi but some other baby who said this. The truth is, I was very drunk throughout that decade. </p><blockquote><i>That is comforting to their audiences but dangerously misleading. The reality is that we all are part of the problem, and we all can be part of the solution. </i></blockquote><p>By emigrating. </p><blockquote><i>In the last five chapters, I have laid out a possible path to a new balance, a way to resist the seemingly inexorable diminution of the community, even while preserving the open access that markets provide us.</i></blockquote><p>That possible path consisted of doing stupid shit of a type which has already been tried and which has already failed. </p><blockquote><i> The intent is to build the pillars up, rather than reduce them to the lowest common denominator. </i></blockquote><p>My intent is to get elementary particles to give up sexy quantum entanglements. They should think pure thoughts and take cold showers. </p><blockquote><i>The essence of this new balance is inclusive localism. </i></blockquote><p>It is one thing to invite all your neighbors to a barbecue. It is another to permit them to have an orgy with your wife. 'Good fences make good neighbors'. A community which keeps trying to include you in its orgies- more particularly if the only female invited is your wife- is one you may wish to be less fucking inclusive. </p><blockquote><i>We can use the tools we have obtained through the ICT revolution to empower communities more,</i></blockquote><p>No. The guys who are in the vanguard of that revolution may have those tools. We don't. I did offer to borrow Bill Gates tools but he called me a tool and told me to fuck off. Mahatma Gandhi reproved him for this unkind suggestion. </p><blockquote><i> to give people more of a sense of control over their futures,</i></blockquote><p>Why not over their pasts? Why discriminate in this matter? Let people control their present, their past, their future or, at the very least, let them have a sense that they have these super-powers. </p><blockquote><i> in the process creating and distributing economic and political power. </i></blockquote><p>Rajan's Daddy and Mummy created economic and political power. '<i>Chellame</i>', they said to him, 'be nice and distribute these powers. Don't be mean and hog them all for yourself.' </p><blockquote><i>At the same time, I argue for a national framework that is inclusive, in that all ethnicities are seen as part of the nation, and the nation does not entrench differences in economic opportunity between ethnicities or classes. </i></blockquote><p>Why should the 'Nation' bother to do something which happens anyway? </p><blockquote><i>Inclusive localism breaks down gigantic walls protecting privilege,</i></blockquote><p>by farting loudly at those walls. This is the reason Amrika does not have a 'Great Wall' unlike China. Trump said he'd build one, but Rajan's farts broke them down. Sadly, people in his locality did not want to be included when it came to smelling his farts. True, I don't know if this actually happened but had I been Rajan, it is what I would have done. </p><blockquote><i> while encouraging tiny walls to preserve community character.</i></blockquote><p>Why not encourage cats to say miaow instead? How can we achieve inclusive localism when the State is not letting local cats perform CAT scans? </p><blockquote><i>The hope is that such a path helps us hold on to the best aspects of a system that has contributed to global prosperity —primarily the open access and competition stemming from global markets—while dealing with the inequality and fear generated by technological change. </i></blockquote><p>My hope is that my path will enable multiverse to become truly nice by persuading elementary particles to give up sexy quantum entanglements. Did you know that millions of quarks are looking at Porn? Army should take action. </p><blockquote><i>Specifically, for some of us, inclusive localism fulfills at the community level the natural human instinct to congregate with others similar to us.</i></blockquote><p>Americans are more similar to Rajan than Tambrams like me. To be fair, my relatives have an instinct to escape by the back door if they hear me banging on the door, demanding to be fed<i> thair shadam</i>. </p><blockquote><i> It thus heads off more divisive and artificial attempts in diverse nations to fulfill that tribal instinct at the national level through populist nationalism.</i></blockquote><p>Mahatma Gandhi's tribal instincts caused him to demand the Brits 'quit India'. True, this would have meant that the Japanese would have conquered the country but, since the Japs were much more horrible than the Brits, this was what 'Ahimsa' required. </p><blockquote><i> Also, by enhancing the local infrastructure, the means of building capabilities, and the safety net at the community level, inclusive localism attempts to broaden and equalize opportunities. </i></blockquote><p>Why not just kill gangsters and sack teachers who are shit at their jobs and find ways for the majority of boys to start 'Earning and Learning' from around the age of 15? </p><blockquote><i>It allows each community’s members to participate in, and benefit from, global markets.</i></blockquote><p>Previously they were not allowed to buy or sell stuff on Ebay by Exclusive Non-Localism. Thankfully, Inclusive Localism kicked its head in. </p><blockquote><i> The proposed path builds on what we have. I do not advocate dispensing with any of the pillars—I neither recommend eliminating markets and private property </i></blockquote><p>very good of you I'm sure. </p><blockquote><i>nor do I suggest putting everything, including governance, for sale. </i></blockquote><p>Rajan is also not suggesting that everybody should stick their heads up their own rectums. As I have said before, Rajan is one of the smartest of the Congi intellectuals. </p><blockquote><i>The state is necessary, but has to cede power to the community and can be much more effective.</i></blockquote><p>This happens anyway through the political process in democratic countries. </p><blockquote><i> The community is essential for us to express our humanity,</i></blockquote><p>only in the sense that expressing our humanity to the Pacific Ocean isn't particularly rewarding. </p><blockquote><i>but it needs to carve out space from both markets and the state to flourish. </i></blockquote><p>It already has that. There is such a thing as Local Government. </p><blockquote><i>Even if seemingly moderate, the reform path is ambitious</i></blockquote><p>No. It is stupid. </p><blockquote><i> for it eschews easy but often wrong solutions.</i></blockquote><p>in favor of stupid if not meaningless verbiage. </p><blockquote><i> We also need to recognize realities. Deep down, the vast majority of us recognize the human in one another. </i></blockquote><p>A small minority recognizes the camel in one another. </p><blockquote><i>Yet we need to come close enough to do that, </i></blockquote><p>Rajan was walking with his Mummy and Daddy. 'Look!' he said suddenly 'that camel is wearing a sari!' His parents said 'that is not a camel. It is an elderly Tamil lady- your granny in point of fact. The took the young PhD scholar closer to the supposed camel. That was when Rajan recognized the human in his granny. Strangely, insights like this haven't procured Rajan a Nobel despite the fact that he is darker than either Amartya or Abhijit. Give him time. His next book may be even more vacuous than this one. </p><blockquote><i>and all too often, we label at a distance. Understanding and tolerance of other cultures is not a weakness, not a sign of inadequate patriotism, not an indication that we are rootless “citizens of nowhere.” </i></blockquote><p>It may be all these things. </p><blockquote><i>In reality, it reflects our preparation for the world of tomorrow, where we will become ever more mixed as peoples, even as we study, value, and preserve our collective cultural heritage.</i></blockquote><p>We will also inter-breed with various types of animals and plants. </p><blockquote><i> The world is not there yet. </i></blockquote><p>Which is why Sandra Bullock is not actually a bullock. </p><blockquote><i>Therefore, we need to take smaller, easier steps, where there is room for all as we develop a better understanding of one another.</i></blockquote><p>One small and easy step is to write an utterly vacuous virtue signaling book. Still, Rajan is right. Inclusive localism requires that his neighbor's stop thinking of him as a camel. He is a human being! Americans should come close to Rajan to satisfy themselves that this is indeed the case. </p><blockquote><i> The strengthening of proximate communities</i></blockquote><p>which is what happens when Rajan farts and blows down Trump's Great Wall </p><blockquote><i> will not just allow a diversity of views, including the most tribal and the most cosmopolitan, to exist.</i></blockquote><p>They already exist without anybody permitting or allowing them to do so. </p><blockquote><i> It will also allow us to preserve direct social interaction, which may well be where more of the jobs of the future lie, </i></blockquote><p>Rajan will give blowjobs to local hobos </p><blockquote><i>as automation depletes jobs in sectors that produce commercial goods and services.</i></blockquote><p>Prostitution is a commercial service. </p><blockquote><i> It may be that the changes that are about to hit us will be more extraordinary than anything we have seen. </i></blockquote><p>They may hit Rajan. Since I eat and drink too much I will be safely dead before Biden has gene therapy and turns into a transgender camel so as to appease Hamas. </p><blockquote><i>Maybe most of us will be unemployed in a decade, rendered redundant by robots and generalized artificial superintelligence. I doubt it— ever since the 1950s, experts have been predicting that generalized artificial intelligence, that is algorithms that can replace humans fully, is less than a couple of decades away—but I also do not fear that outcome, so long as we preserve the balance. </i></blockquote><p>Sadly, the West has been unable to preserve a balance of economic, military and 'soft' power which was greatly in its favor. Going forward, it is a case of doing what your smartest rivals are doing but trying to do it better and cheaper. </p><blockquote><i>That we are unemployed will mean that machines are doing our work more cheaply, that the cost of goods and services will fall, and their quality increase, to reflect the greater productivity of machines. As Keynes argued nearly a hundred years ago, we will be freed to contemplate the finer elements of our existence, to create and cherish great art and beauty, to value goodness rather than just commercial success. </i></blockquote><p>Keynes was a racist with a dim view of working class people of his own color. He didn't understand that 'great art and beauty' has been produced by poor people throughout the ages. </p><blockquote><i>Many of us fear that we will not have the incomes for such a fine life, since the machines will be owned by a few, and all income will flow to them. </i></blockquote><p>What we should be worried about is that when the next 'gain of function' Virus starts killing millions, the Chinese will refuse to give us the necessary vaccine unless we do what they tell us to do. </p><blockquote><i>Yet as our excursion through history suggests, social values change.</i></blockquote><p>Often because of conquest or relative economic decline. </p><blockquote><i> We glorified the victorious warrior, </i></blockquote><p>we still do. </p><blockquote><i>we then turned to praise merchants and bankers,</i></blockquote><p>not unless we were paid to do so. </p><blockquote><i> today we place successful entrepreneurs on a pedestal, </i></blockquote><p>more particularly if they tell the woke nutters to fuck the fuck off </p><blockquote><i>and we may exalt community workers tomorrow. </i></blockquote><p>Just as medieval Pope exalted lepers and washed their feet. </p><blockquote><i>If the distribution of wealth becomes skewed towards a very few, the few may decide their accumulation of wealth unseemly and find ways to give it back.</i></blockquote><p>Or pretend to do so. </p><blockquote><i> Society will aid that process by muting its applause for the captains of industry who only accumulate, while increasing it for those who distribute wisely.</i></blockquote><p>Rajan has noticed that the good folk who go the Opera don't applaud the prima donna. They cheer only for the captain of industry more particularly if he is drunk and insists on singing along. </p><blockquote><i> Indeed, this already seems underway with the Giving Pledge, where billionaires across the world have pledged to give away at least half their wealth. </i></blockquote><p>If a rich man makes a promise, he always keeps it- right? </p><blockquote><i>Even if values do not change, the feared outcome of mass poverty amid productive plenty will not come to pass if we </i></blockquote><p>insist on 'workfare' rather than 'welfare'. Poor people produce poverty by having babies who are bound to be poor. If they find some more productive way to occupy themselves they will choose a more entertaining type of recreation as an alternative to procreation. </p><blockquote><i>maintain our democracy, and the separation between behemoth corporations and the leviathan state.</i></blockquote><p>No Common Law jurisdiction has ever had a 'leviathan state'. I suppose Tatas, which Rajan joined after getting his MBA, was a behemoth corporation. But since the Eighties, there are many other such giants. </p><blockquote><i> For property rights are a social construct, created and enforced only with the tolerance of the people.</i></blockquote><p>Not in India. The East India Company enforced its property rights by killing those who did not tolerate their depredations. Yet it was John Company and, its successor, the British Raj, which set India on the road to being a Democracy under the Rule of Law. </p><blockquote><i> If incomes and wealth do get more skewed toward a few owners, democracy will turn from protecting the property of the few to preserving opportunity for the many, as it has done before. </i></blockquote><p>Not if the income and wealth are off-shored. Democracy may find it can't bite the hand that feeds it for fear of getting punched in the face. </p><blockquote><i>Only the coalition of the behemoth and the leviathan, subverting democracy to enforce the property rights of the few and the poverty of the many, can stand in the way. </i></blockquote><p>Nonsense! Control rights may be off-shored as may working Capital. States will have to play 'beggar my neighbor' to retain investment and higher value adding economic activities. </p><blockquote><i>This possibility is still in the future, and we need to ensure we never get there by keeping our democracy strong and vigilant, </i></blockquote><p>Strength requires money. Sleepless vigilance can swiftly turn into paranoia. </p><blockquote><i>and the realm of the market and government separate. The path I propose will help us do this. </i></blockquote><p>Whereas my proposal- viz. that elementary particles give up sexy quantum entanglements- would help us do things we are already doing even more inclusively and locally while keeping the dick of the Leviathan out of the mouth of the Behemoth because that is like totes gross. </p><blockquote><i>A more immediate problem many countries face is population aging. In the near future, some countries will have a surfeit of jobs they need to fill, rather than too few jobs. They will have excess physical capital—infrastructure, plant and machinery, buildings and houses— that will go waste. </i></blockquote><p>Nope. They will crumble away because of depreciation. Rajan must have heard of the 'Rust belt'. But this happens even if there is a normal population distribution. </p><blockquote><i>For countries like Japan that have largely homogenous populations, the temptation will be to use more machines, thus avoiding the problems of coping with the diversity that stems from immigration. </i></blockquote><p>Elderly Japanese farmers using robots are helping sustain a market that will soon be global. Apparently there are already some big AI equipped robot farms. </p><blockquote><i>That is a choice aging countries with homogenous populations will have to make—to choose loneliness for their elderly or to accept initial culture shock and then adaptation.</i></blockquote><p>But this can be done with fixed term guest workers. There is no need to change the demography if the problem is self-eliminating. </p><blockquote><i>For aging countries with already diverse populations, the responsible choice ought to be steady and controlled immigration, with the objective of integrating immigrants and making them full and active citizens.</i></blockquote><p>But what will actually happen is lots of guest workers for the shitty jobs while smart and entrepreneurial people find legal channels of immigration. </p><blockquote><i> Once again, the path I propose offers ways to attract and integrate immigrants, while maintaining the support of the native-born population. </i></blockquote><p>But, guest-workers represent a superior path. </p><blockquote><i>I have said little about one of our most pressing problems, climate change and associated problems like water scarcity.</i></blockquote><p>This is because economists are too stupid to understand sciencey stuff. </p><blockquote><i> It may well be that technological change will allow us to address this more easily in the future. For instance, cheap renewable energy like solar or wind power, storable in large batteries and powering our cars, trucks, and factories, can help us reduce carbon emissions significantly. If it also powers reverse osmosis plants generating fresh water from sea water, and helps pipe that water inland, we can solve problems of water scarcity, and transform many a desert into lush farmland.</i></blockquote><p>We can't do shit without money and smart peeps. That is why we ought not to listen to stupid economists. Just look around and see what smarter countries are doing. Imitate them. That's it. If Singapore's workforce consists of 38 percent guest-workers, that's probably the smart way to go. </p><blockquote><i> We must also be prepared, though, for the possibility that technology develops too slowly, and we do have to deal with climate change through more painful collective measures. We cannot afford selfinterested, zero-sum nationalism if the fate of the world is in question.</i></blockquote><p>We can't afford shit if we have no fucking money. It is all very well advising a rich dude how to spend his money. Try doing that to a poor as fuck cretin like me and see what you get. </p><blockquote><i> Instead, we need responsible internationalism.</i></blockquote><p>Because irresponsible internationalism can lead to a rise in the number of unwanted pregnancies. </p><blockquote><i> By weakening our propensity for jingoistic nationalism, </i></blockquote><p>Rajan has a propensity for shouting 'Remember the Alamo!' and burning down Mexican restaurants. To be fair, he also burns down Indian restaurants and merely wanted to show inclusivity to local eateries serving similar, burn-your-arse-off, cuisine. </p><blockquote><i>inclusive localism will allow us to embrace responsibility as a nation. </i></blockquote><p>Whereas previously we were cuddling it as a species. </p><blockquote><i>Finally, the historical excursions in this book suggest hope. </i></blockquote><p>The hope this fucker would finally say something interesting. It was a forlorn hope. </p><blockquote><i>Our values are not static—they change.</i></blockquote><p>More particularly, if we are paid to pretend to have values. </p><blockquote><i> Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said, “The arc of the moral universe is long but it bends towards justice.” </i></blockquote><p>This is because the dude was a Minister of the Christian Religion. The arc of the moral universe ends in Paradise for the good Christian. The bad Pickaninny goes to the other place. </p><blockquote><i>When seen over short stretches, it seems that history repeats, that racism and militant nationalism erupt periodically in the world to sow hatred and spawn conflict.</i></blockquote><p>There is only one 'short stretch' where that was true- viz. the interwar period. </p><blockquote><i> Yet the society that experiences these movements is not the same, it trends toward being more tolerant, more respectful, and more just. </i></blockquote><p>When Biden was born, almost 90 percent of the American population was pure white. Now, the number identifying as White might be about 70 percent. However, as boomers start to die off, this figure will shrink. Realistically, non-Hispanic Whites may become a minority within a decade as the incentive to seal the border decreases. </p><blockquote><i>Around that trend line, we do go up and down. We may be down today, and we have a long way to go, but the distance we have come should give us hope.</i></blockquote><p>Rajan wrote this in 2019. Five years later we in the West have less hope. On the other hand, because Modi seems set to win big later this year, India has more of that commodity. </p><blockquote><i> Let us not let the future surprise us.</i></blockquote><p>Rajan wrote this before COVID or Ukraine or the Hamas atrocities. </p><blockquote><i> Instead, let us shape it. </i></blockquote><p>By doing gain of function research in poorly run Chinese laboratories. </p><blockquote><i>There is much to do. We have to, we must, choose wisely if we want to live together well and in peace. I am confident we can,</i></blockquote><p>Rajan may also have been confident that his book wasn't shit. Still, those he lives with didn't tell him he was was wrong because they preferred a peaceful existence. The rest of us, very wisely, refused to read his book or only did so so as to laugh at him. It is all very well trying to be the next Amartya Sen. But Sen peppers his books with highly arousing material of a sexual nature. Obviously, you have to read between the lines but the one benefit I gained from studying at the LSE was the correct manner in which to decode every theorem in mathematical economics as a delineation of highly perverted sexual activity. Sadly, when I tried to take up the study of Quantum theory, I encountered the same problem. This is why I am so insistent that elementary particles give up sexy quantum entanglements and other such ungoldliness. Just take cold shower and think pure thoughts. This is the only sane way to deal with the problem of non-locality in an inclusive and equitable manner. </p>. <p></p><p></p>windwheelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18099651877551933295noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1674709389503889160.post-17936322892297401192024-03-14T20:35:00.006+00:002024-03-15T10:48:46.632+00:00Raghuram Rajan's 'proximate community' as 'third rail'. <p></p><p>Subsidiarity is the notion that decisions should be taken as close as possible to the people affected by it whether or not they form a community or exhibit strong bonding and bridging ties. Tiebout sorting is the notion that different towns, regions, or Marshallian industrial districts, should be allowed to choose their own mix of local taxes and 'club goods' and that free movement between such 'Tiebout models' would raise allocative and dynamic efficiency and improve Social Choice. The problem is that there will be winners and losers. Mobile factors of production shift to where growth is rapid. Those left behind face a narrowing horizon. It is now recognized that there are 'externalities' here such that some type of Government 'levelling up' program is required. One reason is that declining communities have less incentive to educate kids who are bound to leave. Japan has come up with a scheme whereby declining areas give a small present to those of their young people who relocate. This triggers the instinct to reciprocate by voluntarily ticking a box such that the tax system automatically transfers some of their money to your natal Prefecture. In Germany, they have a different system. Unless you opt out, a portion of your tax money is automatically sent to your religious denomination. </p><p>Both the State and the Market already have evolved ways to 'internalize' externalities associated with the existence of geographically defined communities. Sadly, because of increased Knightian Uncertainty, the associated problems are likely to worsen rather than improve. What is worrying is that structural economic and geopolitical changes may be giving rise to an irrational type of xenophobia which might impose foolish restrictions which worsen the underlying problem. It may be argued that Racism was the foundation of the prosperity of settler colonies like America and that a return to racist or nativist policies would restore prosperity to the indigenous working class. Thankfully, there is a notion of 'koinonia'- or fellowship and joint participation- which Theistic religion promotes as an alternative to a narrow, racialist, conception of 'oikeiosis' or 'natural belonging'. However, an amelioration of racial or regional animosities can go hand in hand with pro-nativist policies. </p><p>A separate problem has to do with bad actors and bad 'mimetic targets' in bad neighborhoods or 'proximate communities'. Poor people or those with dependents may be unable to flee from crime-infested ghettos. There is a 'third rail' which electrocutes the aspirational dreams of its young residents. They are dragged down by their peers. Here, arguably, bleeding heart liberals worsen the underlying problem by refusing to permit the type of punitive policing which had enabled other communities to become affluent- essentially by killing or permanently incarcerating bad actors. </p><p>The other problem, for which Liberals are blamed, is mass immigration more particularly of bogus asylum seekers or genuine refugees who, however, might wish to impose their own bigotry on the host community. Once again, we may speak of an undesirable change in the 'proximate community' which acts like a 'third rail'- i.e. increases hazard for ordinary people. It may be that 'competitive virtue signaling' leads the libtard community to make more and more horrible suggestions for how to totally fuck up Society and the Economy. If one says 'we must help those fleeing Islamic persecution', the other ups the ante by suggesting we must take in all the Islamic persecutors whose victims have banded together against them. Just as the 'proximate community' in a gang-ridden ghetto causes bad outcomes, so too may the proximate community for Ivy League academics force them to pretend to love Hamas and want to boycott Israel- which produces very good quality academic research. </p><p>This is not to say that illiberal policies from the past should be revived in a mindless fashion. Prior to 1965, America severely restricted immigration from countries like India. The American Dream was for White Men, not darkies or females. Once the US permitted the immigration of more highly skilled or entrepreneurial Asians, quite predictably, there was a higher return on education- more particularly in STEM subjects and Management Science- and thus, ceteris paribus, lower relative wages for less educated and skilled White males. Females joined the workforce thus permitting some families to maintain a middle class lifestyle. But marriages came under pressure. There were more divorces and single parents and greater use of alcohol, drugs, etc. Angus Deaton speaks of 'deaths of despair' amongst the White male non-College educated American. Robert Putnam describes the increased loneliness and anomie of the less affluent condemned to 'bowl alone'. Meanwhile, immigrants to America have tended to do very well for themselves more particularly if they retain their traditional family and spiritual values. Raghuram Rajan himself has certainly done well. Yet he writes in 'The Third Pillar' of the need to revive 'the community' (which, in America, is racialized and wants immigrants to fuck the fuck off) as a counterweight to the State and the Market. </p><blockquote><i> Markets and the state have not only
separated themselves from the
community in recent times</i></blockquote><p>Rajan comes from India. The reason his parents and grandparents spoke English was because financial markets in England had created an East India Company which was taken over by the British Crown. Thus, in India, both the market and the State 'separated themselves from' both the British and the Indian community centuries ago. It is only in recent years that more and more of India has come to be ruled by people who struggle to speak English. Markets too are increasingly dominated by people who were 'vernacular medium'. Their English may be perfectly functional. But they are rooted in their own communities even if Rihanna and Bill Gates turn up for their weddings. </p><blockquote><i> but have also
steadily encroached on activities that
strengthened bonds within the traditional
community.</i></blockquote><p>Kipling and other such late Victorian writers did indeed reject a Bismarck type Welfare State for this reason. Chesterton described a dystopia in which Prohibition was imposed on the Brits by an army of Turks hired for that purpose by a rabidly Wesleyan Liberal politician. In another novel, there is a National Health Service which certifies as insane and incarcerates every decent English man and woman. By decent, obviously, I mean those who thought Jews should fuck off to Palestine and take the fucking Wogs with them.</p><p>However, the English working class didn't buy any of this guff. They were even prepared to tolerate colored immigration for the sake of a better National Health Service. </p><p>The truth is, Rajan's Polanyi type notion of 'embeddedness' has no evidentiary basis in English economic history. This is because Karl, unlike his brother, was a stupid refugee who knew shit about Economics and shit about English history. </p><p>The FT has this to say about Rajan's book- '<br /></p><blockquote><i>The “third pillar” of the title is the community we live in. Economists all too often understand their field as the relationship between markets and the state, and they leave squishy social issues for other people.</i></blockquote><p>But both markets and the state deal with such squishy social issues as crime, drugs, abortion etc. Economists do make recommendations for improved mechanism design in these areas. </p><blockquote><i> That’s not just myopic, Rajan argues; it’s dangerous.</i></blockquote><p>It is false. There are plenty of economists working on 'squishy' policy issues. Rajan scarcely mentions any of the interesting ones. </p><blockquote><i> All economics is actually socioeconomics – all markets are embedded in a web of human relations, values and norms. </i></blockquote><p>None are. There is a wide difference between a Cartel or Club where transactions occur and an open market. The plain fact is that the market destroyed Polanyi type 'embedding' some time after the Black Death killed of serfdom or the rising price of wool made it profitable for 'sheep to eat men'. But that was a couple of centuries before English 'Political Arithmetic'- which was empirical and data driven- first appeared in the sixteenth century. </p><p>It is a different matter that some agents who move to an area associated with a particular open market or which they think will become Schelling focal for it may form close mutual relationships and adopt 'values and norms' which promote in-group trust and increased frequency of transactions. But such agents may belong to diverse communities. In the diamond trade we may have pious Gujaratis as well as pious Haredi Jews. Their 'values and norms' are different. They belong to different communities and they may different languages to communicate with each other. Yet their communities may be embedded in the same market. </p><blockquote><i>As he shows, throughout history, technological phase shifts have ripped the market out of those old webs and led to violent backlashes,</i></blockquote><p>Backlashes cease to be violent if, as General Napier said to the Chartists, one side has greatly superior 'physical force'. Markets supply the money for such superior force. If British Generals suppressed Luddites and Chartists in their own green and pleasant land we might think this has to do with 'embedded' class relations. But when we notice that British Generals- like 'Chinese Gordon'- were also doing this in China, first with the Opium Wars and then by helping to suppress the Taiping rebellion- we must acknowledge that embedding works in the opposite manner to the one Polanyi suggested. The 'Great Transformations' occur where violent backlashes can be easily crushed by superior military technology. On the other hand, it is true that American Indians organized a violent backlash against the English at the Boston Tea Party. George Washington personally scalped a number of British Lords. Jefferson was kinder. He was content to make William Howe his squaw. Sadly, Howe was unable to furnish Jefferson with a papoose and so he drove her out of his wigwam and began a relationship with an African American lady who had been ripped out of her old webs by technological phase shifts. </p><blockquote><i> and to what we now call populism.</i></blockquote><p>unless we, like Jason Stanley, call it Fascism. Did you know that Trump personally gassed to death six million of his son-in-laws? </p><blockquote><i> Eventually, a new equilibrium is reached,</i></blockquote><p>nobody wants to reach a fucking equilibrium. Evolution is a far from equilibrium phenomenon. </p><blockquote><i> but it can be ugly and messy, especially if done wrong.<br /></i></blockquote><p>is what brides say on their honeymoon night. </p><blockquote><i>Right now, we’re doing it wrong.</i></blockquote><p>No. Right now we are merely talking bollocks. </p><blockquote><i> As markets scale up, the state scales up with it, </i></blockquote><p>The opposite happened in post-Napoleonic England. Income Tax disappeared. Free Trade triumphed. Government spending as a proportion of GDP was lower in 1869 than it had been in 1689. It is only when war 'scales up' and becomes 'Total', that there is a 'ratchet effect' whereby 'Wagner's Law' comes into operation. Interestingly, one of the few countries where there is strong empirical support for the notion that Government spending rises more rapidly than National Income, is India. </p><blockquote><i>concentrating economic and political power in flourishing central hubs and leaving the periphery to decompose, figuratively and even literally.</i></blockquote><p>That's not what happened in the UK. As financial markets burgeoned, there was more economic activity in the North and other now 'peripheral' areas. However, a 'Dutch disease' effect set in because the 'invisible' surplus caused the currency to appreciate relative to industrial competitors. That's why it became 'grim ooop North'. </p><blockquote><i> Instead, Rajan offers a way to rethink the relationship between the market and civil society</i></blockquote><p>Since Aristotle, <i> koinōnía politikḗ, </i>the free citizens of the City State, have been defined as 'civil society' separate from the King or Emperor and distinct from the Pope or Archbishop. Civil Law is Roman law dating back to the Republic. Common Law is its supposed Anglo-Saxon equivalent. King's Equity was the Royal form of Justice. Canon Law came under the Church. The 'third Estate' was neither feudal nor ecclesiastical but bourgeois. As markets developed, burghers could buy Charters from the Crown for their Cities and even their mercantile enterprises. </p><blockquote><i> and argues for a return to strengthening and empowering local communities as an antidote to growing despair and unrest.</i></blockquote><p>One way to do this would be to appoint Dukes to lead Duchies and Counts to lead Counties. Corvee labour could be introduced for public-works- e.g. the peasants having to devote thirty days per year to road-maintenance and the practice of Archery. Rajan can lead a violent backlash to the Sheriff of Nottingham who, notoriously, is a fucking Neo-Liberal who goes to Davos every year. </p><blockquote><i> Rajan is not a doctrinaire conservative, </i></blockquote><p>he is a verbose gobshite competing with Amartya Sen to be the most vacuous virtue signaler out of the UPA stable of libtards. </p><blockquote><i>so his ultimate argument that decision-making has to be devolved to the grass roots or our democracy will continue to wither, </i></blockquote><p>though American democracy is bottom up. That's why America has dual sovereignty. Sadly, Indian democracy is becoming bottom up which is why a 'Backward Caste' dude is PM instead of Rahul. </p><blockquote><i>is sure to be provocative. But even setting aside its solutions, The Third Pillar is a masterpiece of explication, a book that will be a classic of its kind for its offering of a wise, authoritative and humane explanation of the forces that have wrought such a sea change in our lives<span style="background-color: #fff1e5; color: #33302e; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 18px;">.</span></i></blockquote><p>It is ignorant shite. Rajan studied electrical engineering. He doesn't know shit about Economics or History. The IMF hired him even though he wasn't a macroeconomist. Why? He had co-authored a silly book titled 'Saving Capitalism from Capitalists'. No doubt the IMF hoped he would produce a sequel titled 'Saving Savers from having any fucking Savings by making sure the Banking sector collapses.' That way the IMF would have a bigger role. </p><p>Returning to Rajan's tome, we find that 16 years after he saved Capitalism, he has turned his attention to delivering babies. </p><span style="background-color: #fff1e5; color: #33302e; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 18px;"></span><p></p><blockquote><i> Consider some functions the
community no longer performs. In
frontier communities, neighbors used to
help deliver babies;</i></blockquote><p>which is why a lot of those babies died. In India, as Kipling pointed out, wolves would often provide essential child-minding services to village ladies. Snakes and bears too were very helpful in this regard. We need a fourth pillar- one which involves wild animals- to support the 'third pillar' which is the community. </p><blockquote><i> today most women
check into a hospital when they feel the
onset of childbirth. </i></blockquote><p>Also they send their kids to a creche rather than abandon them in the Jungle so as to obtain the child-minding services of a kindly she-wolf. </p><blockquote><i>They naturally prefer
the specialist’s expertise much more than
they value their neighbor’s friendly but
amateurish helping hand.</i></blockquote><p>India decided that it didn't want the specialist expertise of a Rajan or Kaushik Basu or the more egregious yet, 'Viral' Acharya. Thus they have returned to their American communities where they often serve as mid-wives to their elderly male colleagues. What? Couvade is a real thing. </p><blockquote><i> On a more
mundane level, we used to offer to take
our elderly neighbor shopping because
she did not have a car. </i></blockquote><p>Nor did we. Thankfully, a passing elephant would seize her with his trunk and get her to her destination. </p><blockquote><i>Today, she orders
her groceries online. Similarly, the
community used to pitch in to rebuild a
household’s home if it caught fire; </i></blockquote><p>But the community would also pitch in to burn that house down. Then, they took turns raping and killing those who escaped the flames. </p><blockquote><i>today
the household collects its fire insurance
payment and hires a professional
builder.</i></blockquote><p>The first Fire Insurance Company in America was set up in 1735. Sadly it could not get itself insured and thus failed quite quickly. For Insurance to work, you need a re-insurance market. </p><blockquote><i> Indeed, given the building codes
in most developed countries, it is
unlikely that a home reconstructed by
neighbors would be legal.
The community still plays a number
of important roles in society. It anchors
the individual in real human networks
and gives them a sense of identity; our
presence in the world is verified by our
impact on people around us. By
allowing us to participate in local
governance structures </i></blockquote><p>which arise by State action </p><blockquote><i>such as parent teacher associations,</i></blockquote><p>which arise by State action in publicly funded schools. </p><blockquote><i> school boards,
library boards, and neighborhood
oversight committees, as well as local
mayoral or ward elections, our
community gives us a sense of self determination, a sense of direct control
over our lives, even while making local
public services work better for us.</i></blockquote><p>But public services are provided by the State or else are subject to regulation and oversight by the Judiciary which too is a branch of Government. </p><p>Can Rajan point to any non-market, purely private, activity a community can accomplish on its own? I can. In America, there is no established Church. Thus every sect is based on a particular community. No doubt, that community may send out missionaries and thus a particular sect may spread to other communities. It may also be that inter-marriage between people of the same faith but different original ethnicity creates a new community. </p><blockquote><i>
Importantly, despite the existence of
formal structures such as public
schooling, a government safety net, and
commercial insurance, the goodness of
neighbors is still useful in filling in gaps.
</i></blockquote><p>Neighbors may be of different communities. The analogy is with fellow travelers on a plane or ship who help each other for the duration of the journey. </p><blockquote><i>When a neighboring engineer tutors our
son in mathematics in her spare time, or
the neighborhood comes together in a
recession to collect food and clothing
for needy households, the community is
helping out where formal structures are
inadequate. </i></blockquote><p>Equally, when a neighbor rapes our child and the community gets together to burn down our house, the community is doing something which 'formal structures' might not be able to achieve. The Rwandan genocide was community based. </p><blockquote><i>Given the continuing
importance of the community, healthy
modern communities try to compensate
for the encroachment of markets and the
state with other activities that strengthen
community ties, such as social gatherings
and neighborhood associations.</i></blockquote><p>The Ku Klux Klan, the Mafia, Hamas etc. </p><blockquote><i>
Economists Raj Chetty and Nathaniel
Hendren attempt to quantify the
economic impact of growing up in a
better community. </i></blockquote><p>They found that the children of non-Mormons do better if their parents relocate to a Mormon neighborhood. This is 'Tardean mimetics'. If you move to the ghetto your kids may want to become gangbangers or coke-whores. </p><blockquote><i> They examine the
incomes of children whose parents
moved from one neighborhood into
another in the United States when the
child was young.</i></blockquote><p>Those with money try to buy their way into a better neighborhood, better schools, colleges etc. The Market is what enables this type of Tardean mimetics. Equally, if the State keeps slaughtering gangbangers and incarcerating coke-whores, bad mimetic models are removed and the life-chances of the young improve. There is evidence that longer prison sentences actually improved outcomes for the families of habitual criminals. Indeed, for some cohorts, 'three strikes' improved life expectancy, educational attainment etc. In prison, you have to make a shiv before you can knife a guy. On the outside, guns are easily available. </p><blockquote><i> Specifically, consider
neighborhood Better and neighborhood
Worse. Correcting for parental income,
the average incomes of children of
longtime residents when they become
adults is one percentile higher in the
national income distribution in
neighborhood Better than it is in
neighborhood Worse. </i></blockquote><p>Which is why property values there are higher. There is a 'separating equilibrium' based on a 'costly signal'- viz. having the dosh to buy a house in the good School District. </p><blockquote><i>Chetty and
Hendren find that a child whose parents
move from neighborhood Worse to
Better will have an adult income that is,
on average, 0.04 percentile points higher
for every childhood year it spends in
Better. </i></blockquote><p>Parents who move away from the crime ridden ghetto probably also invest more in their kids which is why they have better life-chances. </p><blockquote><i>In other words, if the child’s
parents move when it is born and they
stay till it is twenty, the child’s income
as an adult will have made up 80 percent
of the difference between the average
incomes in the two neighborhoods.
</i></blockquote><p>This is why so many Black Economists and Jurists are socially conservative. Even if they themselves don't feel like going to Church, they do so for the sake of the kids. This also means they are less quick to have affairs, take drugs, and get divorced. </p><blockquote><i>Their study suggests that a child
benefits enormously by moving to a
community where children are more
successful (at least as measured by their
future income). Communities matter!</i></blockquote><p>Real estate markets matter. That's why darker skinned people wanted to get rid of 'restrictive covenants'. Sadly, 'bussing' as Thomas Sowell pointed out, could worsen outcomes. </p><blockquote><i>
Perhaps more than any outside influence
other than the parents we are born to, the
community we grow up in influences our
economic prospects.</i></blockquote><p>Tardean mimetics matter. The State should proactively get rid of bad mimetic models- lock up the too-cool-for-school gangbanger- and promote good mimetic targets- e.g. letting the nerdy Vivek Ramaswamys of the world get rich and politically influential. </p><blockquote><i> Importantly, Chetty
and Hendren’s finding applies for a
single child moving—movement is not a
recipe for the development of an entire
poor community. Instead, the poor
community has to find ways to develop
in situ, while holding on to its best and
brightest. </i></blockquote><p>Kill or incarcerate the bad element. Build Churches not Brothels. </p><blockquote><i>It is a challenge we will
address in the book.
</i></blockquote><p>No you won't. You are a fucking libtard. </p><blockquote><i>There are other virtues to a healthy
community.</i></blockquote><p>Provided there is free entry and exit based on market transactions in a free real estate market. Things like rent-control can cause the decline and death of a community. So can electing paranoid populists with a woke agenda. </p><blockquote><i> Local community
government acts as a shield against the
policies of the federal government,</i></blockquote><p>Which is why America could have Jim Crow and Southern trees which bore strange fruit. </p><blockquote><i> thus
protecting minorities against a possible
tyranny of the majority,</i></blockquote><p>Jews and homosexuals living in areas with a rising Islamic population would be well advised to sell up and move out. The Hindus would have already fled. </p><blockquote><i> and serving as a
check on federal power.</i></blockquote><p>Crime is a check on the power of the State. Fuck the laws! Let's just rape and loot and commit arson as a way of subverting the Neo-Liberal Patriarchy. </p><blockquote><i> Sanctuary
communities in the United States and
Europe have resisted cooperating with
national immigration authorities in
identifying and deporting undocumented
immigrants.</i></blockquote><p>The Church as taken a leading role in this. The concept of sanctuary arises from Canon Law. </p><blockquote><i> Under the previous US
presidential administration, </i></blockquote><p>Obama's administration. This book was published in 2019. </p><blockquote><i>communities
in the state of Arizona resisted in the
opposite direction, ignoring the federal
government while implementing stern
penalties on undocumented immigration.
</i></blockquote><p>About 29 percent of their population is foreign born or first generation American. I think this proportion will rise. Still, as Hispanics get increasingly reclassified as White, xenophobia there should decrease. The problem is that Hollywood won't accept that Hispanics are decent Church going people rather than crazy Cartel members who worship bloodthirsty Aztec gods. </p><blockquote><i>Although no country can function if
every community picks and chooses the
laws they will obey, we will see that
some decentralization in legislative
powers to the community can be
beneficial, especially if there are large
differences in opinion between
communities.</i></blockquote><p>This already exists in the shape of 'Tiebout models'- i.e. different districts having a different mix of local taxes and 'club good' provision- which, ceteris paribus, should raise allocative and dynamic efficiency. Sadly, increased Knightian Uncertainty has complicated the picture. We don't know if current 'tech hubs' might not be wiped out by an innovation or scientific discovery which has just been made. </p><p>In 1987, Rajan joined the Tatas but soon left for America. At the time, the received wisdom was that a smart chap like him would do much better for himself overseas. Few would have predicted that some of Rajan's fellow IIM graduates would help create new industries and become billionaires.</p><p>Rajan writes-</p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;">The technological revolution has been disruptive even outside economically distressed communities.</blockquote><p>No kidding! It is extremely fucking disruptive to discover that a guy like Adani, who dropped out of school at the age of 15, is worth 80 billion dollars! Rajan has done well for himself but he hasn't done that well. No wonder he likes Rahul who is now shouting himself hoarse against Adani and 'neech' people like the 'chai-wallah' who has usurped Mummy's throne. <i> </i></p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;"> It has increased the wage premium for those with better capabilities significantly, with the best employed by high-paying superstar firms that increasingly dominate a number of industries.</blockquote><p>There is a Pareto law which becomes more extreme when the market is expanding rapidly. You can narrow wage differentials in a sick or dying industry. Where talent pools in a particular sector, there is 'synergy' and 'network effects'- i.e. external economies of scope and scale. This creates new Tardean mimetic targets. Why be an andoloanjeevi like the cretin Rahul when you can aspire to be an Adani? </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;"> This has put pressure on upper-middle-class parents to secede from economically mixed communities </blockquote><p>i.e. places with lots of muggers </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;">and move their children to schools in richer, healthier communities,</blockquote><p>where the local police, or security companies, quietly kick in the heads of muggers </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;"> where they will learn better with other well-supported children like themselves. </blockquote><p>There are better mimetic models in posh skools. </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;">The poorer working class are kept from following by the high cost of housing in the tonier neighborhoods.</blockquote><p>Wow! Rajan figured that all by himself! He truly is a genius. </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;"> Their communities deteriorate once again, this time because of the secession of the successful.</blockquote><p>Actually communities deteriorate when poor immigrants move in or there is rent-control leading to a 'doughnut' effect. The same thing happens when rabid woke nutters get into City Hall and tax enterprises and the wealthy till they run the fuck away. </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;"> Technological change has created that nirvana for the upper middle class, a meritocracy based on education and skills. </blockquote><p>Productivity. Rahul has plenty of education. His great skill is to keep Modi in power. That way Rahul won't meet the same fate as his Daddy and Granny. </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;">Through the sorting of economic classes and the decline of the mixed community, however, it is also becoming a hereditary one, where only the children of the successful succeed.</blockquote><p>Only the children of Soniaji can succeed in leading the Congress Party. Rajan is cool with that. </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;"> The rest are left behind in declining communities, where it is harder for the young to learn what is needed for good jobs. Communities get trapped in vicious cycles where economic decline fuels social decline, which fuels further economic decline . . . </blockquote><p>Rajan is describing the India of his parents. His generation was encouraged to emigrate. The country would remain trapped in a Gandhi-Nehru-Pappu Yadav ideological quagmire. </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;">The consequences are devastating. Alienated individuals, bereft of the hope that comes from being grounded in a healthy community, </blockquote><p>emigrated to Amrika </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;">become prey to demagogues on both the extreme Right and Left, </blockquote><p>Rajan was eager enough to serve the demagogues of the Dynasty.</p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;">who cater to their worst prejudices.</blockquote><p>Gandhi and Nehru, though personally very friendly to the Brits, catered to the worst prejudices the Hindus have about 'Mlecchas' who are probably draining our wealth by stealing the oil in our hair. </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;">Populist politicians strike a receptive chord when they blame</blockquote><p>Adani and Ambani? That's what Rahul is doing. </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;"> the upper-middle-class elite and establishment parties. </blockquote><p>Gandhi dressed up as a peasant to appeal to the masses. Even Jinnah donned a sherwani. </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;">When the proximate community is dysfunctional, alienated individuals need some other way to channel their need to belong. </blockquote><p>Rajan ran away to Amrika and got his Green Card. He needed to belong to a White dominated Capitalist country. Now he is whining about 'community', though he has worked very hard to get away from his own community. As a fellow Tambram, I can't say I blame him. </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;">Populist nationalism </blockquote><p>like that of Gandhi, Nehru, Jinnah etc. </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;">offers one such appealing vision of a larger purposeful imagined community— whether it is white majoritarianism in Europe and the United States,</blockquote><p>Why can't those damn whites at least paint on black stripes like the Zebra? By refusing to do so they are engaging in majoritarianism. Biden must undergo gender re-assignment surgery so as to promote the minoritarianism of the Trans community. </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;"> the Islamic Turkish nationalism of Turkey’s Justice and Development Party,</blockquote><p>Ataturk, of course, wasn't a nationalist. Also, he had gender reassignment surgery and painted black stripes on his body. </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;"> or the Hindu nationalism of India’s Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh. </blockquote><p>Hindus should support Hamas. Why are they not clamoring for the establishment of a Global Caliphate? Majoritarianism truly is the pits. </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;"> It is populist in that it blames the corrupt elite for the condition of the people. </blockquote><p>Rahul and Mahua are saying that the Indian power-elite is stealing from the poor to give to Adani and Ambani. Rajan has no problem with that. </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;">It is nationalist (more precisely, ethnic nationalist, but I will leave the nitpicking for later) in that it anoints the native-born majority group in the country as the true inheritors of the country’s heritage and wealth. </blockquote><p>Which is what the Palestinians are doing. Will Rajan denounce Hamas because it objects to Jews whose ancestors only began to immigrate to Palestine about a 130 years ago? </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;">Populist nationalists identify minorities and immigrants—the favorites of the elite establishment—as usurpers, and blame foreign countries for keeping the nation down.</blockquote><p>There were plenty of 'populist nationalists' in the UK from the 1880s onward even though the country was 'top dog' and regarded immigrants as a valuable resource. (Though staunch Imperialists, like the Indian MP, Bhownagree, supported curbs on Jewish immigration) </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;"> These fabricated adversaries are necessary to the populist nationalist agenda, for there is often little else to tie the majority group together—it is not really based on any true sense of community for the differences between various subgroups in the majority are usually substantial. </blockquote><p>Very true. Churchill fabricated adversaries like the Kaiser and then Hitler. There was never any such thing as a German Army. During the Blitz, the RAF bombed British cities and blamed the Luftwaffe. Look at Zelensky. He is pretending that the peace-loving Putin has sent sociopathic mercenaries to invade his land. As for India, when did Pakistan or China ever attack India? This is all a myth cooked up by the RSS. </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;">Populist nationalism will undermine the liberal market democratic system that has brought developed countries the prosperity they enjoy.</blockquote><p>Though populist nationalism replaced Emperors and Popes who had no truck with liberalism or financial markets or democracy. Still, it is true that Rajan's grandparents were wrong to demand independence from the House of Windsor. But this was only because the House of Nehru was shittier. </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;"> Within countries, it will anoint some as full citizens and true inheritors of the nation’s patrimony while the rest are relegated to an unequal, second-class status. </blockquote><p>Which is why Rajan was in a hurry to emigrate to Amrika where the police are very good at shooting darkies. </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;">It risks closing global markets down just when these countries are aging and need both international demand for their products and young skilled immigrants to fill out their declining workforces. </blockquote><p>Rajan wrote this before Putin invaded Ukraine for the second time. He had got away with seizing Crimea in 2014 because of 'the war on terror'. Rajan doesn't seem to have objected to his tax money going towards the slaughter of 1.3 million Muslims. </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;">It is dangerous because it offers blame and no real solutions, it needs a constant stream of villains to keep its base energized, </blockquote><p>Rahul certainly thinks Adani is a villain. Oddly, he also seems to hate Aishwariya. </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;">and it moves the world closer to conflict rather than cooperation on global problems. </blockquote><p>What moves the world closer to conflict is invading armies or crazy terrorists. </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;">While the populist nationalists raise important questions, the world can ill afford their shortsighted solutions.</blockquote><p>Does Rajan have any solutions? No. He says 'Communities are very nice. Be nice to your neighbor. It is nice to be nice but not to the fucking RSS because they are Hindu, rather than Chinese, nationalists.' </p><p>You may ask, what is wrong with saying 'it is nice to be nice'? Surely virtue signaling is still a useful signal if people will pay for its product- e.g. this shitty book? </p><p>The answer is that virtue signaling is bad if it is done by a Professor who is spouting ignorant shite. Consider the following</p><p></p><blockquote><i>Schools, the modern doorway to
opportunity, </i></blockquote><p>in ancient times, if you went to skool, the door of opportunity was shut and barred against you- right? </p><blockquote><i>are the quintessential
community institution. </i></blockquote><p>No. In most countries they are the quintessential State or State funded institution though, if the State Schools are shitty enough, people may have to send their kids to private schools with poor facilities. </p><p>Why shouldn't 'communities' set up and run their own schools? This does happen in some areas at the primary level. But why isn't it more common? The answer is that there are 'externalities' and 'coordination problems' which require State intervention. Poor communities will underinvest in education more particularly if many of the young are bound to move elsewhere. Also, some will be disadvantaged because they were not taught to a common curriculum. There is a better 'correlated equilibrium' based on public signals from the Government. That is why, even in laissez faire England of the first half of the Nineteenth Century, there was a demand for capitation grants, a set curriculum, common examinations and a system of School Inspectors. </p><blockquote><i>The varying
qualities of schools, largely determined
by the communities they are situated
within, dooms some while elevating
others.</i></blockquote><p>No. What determines the quality of the school is resource allocation and discipline. Thomas Sowell mentions a Black School whose alumni did as well or better than those of comparable White Schools. Sadly, the Black School had higher attrition rates for socio-economic reasons. Later, after de-segregation, that School declined. Better educated Black teachers (who were trapped into teaching there because of prevailing bigotry) were replaced by stupider, less educated Whites. </p><blockquote><i> When the pathway to entering the
labor market is not level, and steeply
uphill for some, it is no wonder that
people feel the system is unfair. </i></blockquote><p>No. People understand that the distribution of income and wealth has nothing to do with their notions of fairness. It is a different matter if the law compels the Government to spend money to improve educational outcomes but that money gets stolen or misspent. In India, since it is difficult to sack teachers in State Schools, many refuse to teach or else have bogus credentials and thus are unable to do so. </p><blockquote><i>They
then are open to ideologies that propose
abandoning the liberal market system
that has served us so well since World
War II. </i></blockquote><p>We have had a mixed-economy since 1945. High inflation and 'fiscal drag' during the Seventies caused a popular revolt which led to the rise of Reagan, Thatcher etc. However, the State's share of the economy (if you include legislatively mandated 'compliance costs) has probably risen (though this does not take account of the offshoring of income and wealth). </p><blockquote><i>The way to address this problem,
and many others in our society, is not
primarily through the state or through
markets. </i></blockquote><p>There is no third way. If the people of a community say to each other 'let's set up a truly excellent school so all our kids will become IT mavens or medical doctors', they will fail unless some billionaire provides the funds. Things may be different in a very affluent area but it is a pipe dream to suggest that some rural shithole can create a school which is the equal of Eton. </p><blockquote><i>It is by reviving the community
and having it fulfill its essential
functions, such as schooling,</i></blockquote><p>Very true. Essential function of the hunter gatherer community is running a school which is better than Eton or Harrow. </p><blockquote><i> better. Only
then do we have a chance of reducing the
appeal of radical ideologies. </i></blockquote><p>Killing or incarcerating such ideologues reduces their appeal. On the other hand, if material standards of living are rising and no existential national security threat is on the horizon, people are less inclined to give ear to ranters. This is why Rahul's antics are actually helpful to Modi. </p><blockquote><i> We will examine ways of doing this,
but perhaps the most important is to give
the power the state has steadily taken
away back to the community. </i></blockquote><p>The community was previously allowed to burn witches and chop off the dangly bits of those they didn't like. Sadly, the State put an end to such pleasant pastimes. </p><blockquote><i>As markets
have become global, international
bodies, driven by their bureaucrats or
the interests of powerful countries, have
drawn power from nations into their
own hands, ostensibly to make it easier
for global markets to function.</i></blockquote><p>But if the Judiciary- which is a branch of the State- is shitty at enforcing Treaty Law, then the thing does not matter in the slightest. </p><blockquote><i> The
populist nationalists exaggerate the
extent to which power has migrated into
international bodies, but it is real.</i></blockquote><p>Only if the State enforces Treaty Law. The UK could have avoided Brexit if it had simply cheated like other countries. </p><blockquote><i> More
problematic, within a country, the state
has usurped many community powers</i></blockquote><p>Previously, the good folk of my village had their own nuclear deterrent and aircraft carriers. The State usurped this power of ours. Fuck you State! Fuck you very much! </p><blockquote><i> in
order to meet international obligations,
harmonize regulations across domestic
communities, as well as to ensure that
the community uses federal funding well.
This has further weakened the
community. </i></blockquote><p>No. A community is stronger if it is protected from external and internal threats and if 'coordination problems' have 'universal' Muth rational solutions. </p><blockquote><i>We must reverse this. Unless
absolutely essential for good order,
power should devolve from international
bodies to countries.</i></blockquote><p>Those countries will then find it expedient to create multi-lateral or even international bodies. It is all very well to say 'by getting rid of the wheel, communities will once more thrive because people won't be able to walk very far from home'. The problem is that even if you succeed in getting rid of the wheel, it will be re-invented. </p><blockquote><i> Furthermore, within
countries, power and funding should
devolve from the federal level to the
communities.</i></blockquote><p>This is 'subsidiarity'. Will Rajan go on to talk of the economics behind 'Tiebout sorting'? No. He is merely virtue signaling. There is no intellectual content to this book. </p><p>Like many vapid libtard Indian Professors, Rajan witters on about not 'Constitutional patriotism' but </p><blockquote><i>CIVIC NATIONALISM
Instead of allowing people’s natural
tribal instincts to be fulfilled through
populist nationalism, which combined
with national military powers makes for
a volatile cocktail, </i></blockquote><p>No. It makes for a country free of the danger of invasion, insurrection, civil war or ethnic cleansing. </p><blockquote><i>it would be better if
they were slaked at the community level.
</i></blockquote><p>It can't be because of economies of scope and scale. Some nations- e.g. India may be militarily and economically viable even if 'non-aligned'. But most nations don't have that luxury. As for communities, they would soon perish if left to defend themselves. Even the valiant Ukrainians need a lot of help to hold Putin's hordes at bay. </p><p>Still, Rajan is right that communities in Arunachal Pradesh should be allowed to 'slake' their patriotism by battling the Chinese People's Army all by themselves. </p><blockquote><i>One way to accommodate a variety of
communities within a large diverse
country is for it to embrace an inclusive
civic definition of national citizenship—
where one is a citizen provided one
accepts a set of commonly agreed
values, principles, and laws that define
the nation.</i></blockquote><p>This has already happened. However, in most countries there is no requirement to agree to shit. It is a different matter that you may be punished for waging war on the State. </p><blockquote><i> It is the kind of citizenship
that Australia, Canada, France, India, or
the United States offer. It is the kind of
citizenship that the Pakistani-American
Muslim, Khizr Khan, whose son died
fighting in the United States Army,
powerfully reminded the 2016
Democratic National Convention of,
when he waved a copy of the United
States Constitution.</i></blockquote><p>Khizr Khan had moved to Dubai to earn money so as to be able to emigrate to the US. As a dual-citizen, he chose to brandish the US Constitution rather than the Islamic Constitution of his other country. Nothing wrong with that. But his story- and that of his son who joined the Army to earn money for Law School- is about Markets and the State. It has nothing to do with 'Community'. </p><blockquote><i> That document
defined his citizenship and was the
source of his patriotism.</i></blockquote><p>It was a Supreme Court decision, not the Constitution which established 'citizenship by birth'. Previously, Chinese origin people born in the US were being excluded from re-entry despite the 14th Amendment. </p><p>However, the source of Khizr's patriotism was his desire to move from Dubai, where he was doing well, to America where he and his children would do even better. Nothing wrong with that at all. What isn't true is that one day, Khizr Sahib was browsing in the library and came across a copy of the US constitution. As he read it, he fell in love with America. He rushed home to tell his wife and kiddies to pack their bags. '<i>Hubb al watan min al-Imam'</i>- love of country is part of religion, even if the country you love is far away. What matters is whether or not its Constitution gets you hard. </p><blockquote><i>
Within that broad inclusive
framework, people should have the
freedom to congregate in communities
with others like themselves. </i></blockquote><p>This costs money. If they have it, no problem. If not, they are fucked. I wish to congregate with super-models in expensive night-clubs. Sadly, I am poor and few believe that I am actually Kendall Jenner. </p><blockquote><i>The
community, rather than the nation,
becomes the vehicle for those who
cherish the bonds of ethnicity and want
some cultural continuity. </i></blockquote><p>But that community may have to relocate to a place where the State will protect them from murderous mobs. </p><p>Rajan gives the example of Pilsen, in Chicago, as an area that pulled itself up by the bootstraps. Once the area became thoroughly Hispanics and the Churches and local community leaders got behind a 'Resurrection Project', it has certainly turned a corner. But this is because Hispanics are hardworking, Church going, and have strong family values. It took some time for immigrants to assert themselves against criminal gangs and a corrupt and incompetent City Hall. </p><p>Is there a moral here? Certainly. Koinonia- community- is only good if it is on the basis of Sacred and Family based values. Just babbling about communities is useless. Some ought to decline or will do so regardless of their virtue. Others will burgeon. Both the Market and the State can support better outcomes but only if people are willing to pay for it. There is no magic money tree. Rajan should explain that to Rahul. Sadly, RSS has brainwashed that moon-calf. He is now saying he is a janeodhari Brahmin! Chee Chee! That is totes majoritarian. He should have gender reassignment surgery and paint black stripes on this body and campaign for the establishment of a Global Caliphate. The only reason he is not doing so is because, as a Member of Parliament, his 'proximate community' is heavily Hindutvadi. </p><p>It must be said, in an educational context it makes sense to speak of the 'external' costs and benefits of physically interacting with other students. Go to school with dullards and you yourself might become dull. Go to a top school and you and your chums might soon be ahead of your teechurs. Sadly, we can't say in advance if a guy like Modi, who got his degrees as an external student, will be better or worse than a chap- like Rahul- who went to the best Schools and Colleges. </p><blockquote><i>THE PROXIMATE COMMUNITY We are shaped by the people who surround us.</i></blockquote><p>Unless we choose a 'mimetic target' far far away. I myself decided to quit Chanakyapuri and try my luck in Hollywood. 'Pretty Woman' is based on my youthful struggles in that City. True, I wasn't a hooker but rather an external auditor and I was in London rather than LA. Still, no one can deny that Julia Roberts closely copied my mannerisms in that film of hers. </p><blockquote><i> Our joys are more pleasurable when they are cherished by our friends, our successes more enjoyable when they are applauded by those whose opinions we care about, our protests are less lonely and our indignation less unsure when shared by our supporters, our hatreds more corrosive when goaded by fellow zealots, our sorrows less burdensome when borne with our family.</i></blockquote><p>The opposite is equally likely. I recall telling an old college buddy whom I bumped into on the street about the daring speculation by which I was able to make a profit of ten thousand pounds. Then I Googled him and found out that fucker was a billionaire. </p><blockquote><i> Moreover, we gauge our actions based on how they affect people near us, on the indentations our actions make on their lives. </i></blockquote><p>This is not the case with our important actions. You take the job which pays best even if people near and dear to you would prefer to watch you suck off hobos. </p><blockquote><i>Without such effects, we would be ephemeral passersby, with little evidence of ever having existed. </i></blockquote><p>No. By ignoring the opinions or needs of people around you, you can make something of your life. However, this may involve relocating so as to enjoy a more dynamic 'proximate community'. </p><blockquote><i>Each one of us draws from multiple overlapping communities that help define who we are,</i></blockquote><p>No. We make choices. Rajan quit the Tatas to emigrate. He couldn't remain with the Tatas while being a Professor in Amrika. </p><blockquote><i> that give us identity over and above the core we think is uniquely us. </i></blockquote><p>That core is our body. Different predicates apply to it at different times and in different contexts. But our identity remains singular and unique. It isn't really the case that I am Kendall Jenner. </p><blockquote><i>There are varieties of communities, some more tightly bound than others. A community could be a group of people who are linked together by blood (as a family or clan)</i></blockquote><p>This would be true of endogamous sects or sub-castes. However, 'mixed marriages' tend to dissolve the 'community' as opposed to biological aspect of the identity class. </p><blockquote><i> or who share current or past physical proximity (as people in, or having emigrated from, a village). A community could be those who have a common view on how to live a good life (as in a religious sect),</i></blockquote><p>this is not necessary. People with very different ideas of how to live well in this world, may still want to go to the same 'Good Place' after death </p><blockquote><i> share a common profession (as in the movie industry),</i></blockquote><p>you have colleagues but those colleagues don't constitute a community save if they face a pressing collective action problem. </p><blockquote><i> or frequent the same website or chat groups (as in my college alumni group, where everyone seems to have a different opinion on everything that they absolutely must express). Each one of us has multiple identities, based on the groups we belong to. </i></blockquote><p>Sen-tentious shite! We have one identity though many predicates can be applied to it. </p><blockquote><i> Moreover, some of us have virtual identities in addition to real ones. </i></blockquote><p>Mine is that of a super-model. Honeytits Cumbucket is my 'Only Fans' screen-name. </p><blockquote><i>As communication has improved, and transportations costs have come down, more distant communities have gained importance. </i></blockquote><p>Rajan's ancestors belonged to the Brahmin community. Even with poor communications and high transportation costs, there was a remarkable homogeneity re. orthodoxy and orthopraxy within it across the length and breadth of the sub-continent. </p><blockquote><i>For some of us, these communities may be much more important than our neighborhood.</i></blockquote><p>Which is why, during Partition, millions fled from their murderous neighbors. </p><blockquote><i> Indeed, a central concern in this book is about the passions that are unleashed when an imagined community like the nation fulfills the need for belonging that the neighborhood can no longer meet. </i></blockquote><p>Rajan thinks Islam was an 'imagined community'. He should very kindly explain this to Owaisi. The truth is nations and religions existed before any extant neighborhood was created. </p><blockquote><i>Nevertheless, we will focus on the proximate community for much of the book for a variety of reasons. </i></blockquote><p>There is only one reason to do so. Virtue signaling. Rajan is pretending that Markets and the State are very evil. We should return to the autarkic village existence Gandhi advocated. There would be no Hindu or Muslim or invidious distinction between Mummy and a nice she-wolf who might want to raise you up alongside her cubs. </p><blockquote><i>Through most of history when distances really mattered, it was the only kind of community that had a serious influence on most people’s lives. </i></blockquote><p>Nope. We now know that the influx of agriculturists could lead to the almost complete replacement of indigenous hunter-gatherer populations. At the time of the great 'folk wanderings' of the Dark Ages, vast territories came under the sway of invaders who imposed their own language or religion. Neighbors might band together but Atilla's or Genghis's hordes slaughtered them easily enough. </p><blockquote><i>Even today, it is where much economic activity is centered. </i></blockquote><p>No. We produce for a global market. It is not the case that Rajan's neighbors buy his books in return for which he introduces their children to nice she-wolves willing to raise them up alongside their own cubs. </p><blockquote><i>For most of us, the neighborhood is still what we encounter every day, and what anchors us to the real world. </i></blockquote><p>Not if you have a job. You know your colleagues pretty well. You may not know your neighbor at all. </p><blockquote><i>It is where we participate as sociable humans, not as clan members,</i></blockquote><p>clan members are anti-social beasts </p><blockquote><i> coreligionists, professionals, or disembodied opinions on the web. </i></blockquote><p>In which case, few who read this book are 'sociable humans' even if we don't have jobs. This is because our neighbor's work for a living and are less than delighted if you invite yourself to dinner more particularly if it is four o'clock in the morning. </p><blockquote><i>It is where we have the best chance of persuading others that our humanity unites us more than our ethnicity, profession, or national origin differentiates us.</i></blockquote><p>Rajan spends hours every day haranguing the residents of his apartment building on why they should look upon him as a human being. 'I am not an animal!' is his cry. They pretend to be persuaded. </p><blockquote><i> It certainly is where we debate and persuade as we elect officeholders and participate in the governance of the local public services that affect us. </i></blockquote><p>This may be true of Rajan. Sadly, where I attempt to debate with the good folk down the boozer, they tell me to fuck off. This is probably because they think I am a camel, not a Tamil. </p><blockquote><i>It is where we congregate to start broader political movements. </i></blockquote><p>Rajan congregated to Amrika to start broad political movement- thinks nobody at all. </p><blockquote><i>As we will see later in the book, a healthy, engaged, proximate community</i></blockquote><p>which you have to pay a lot of money in property taxes and mortgage payments to belong to </p><blockquote><i> may therefore be how we manage the tension between the inherited tribalism in all of us </i></blockquote><p>Rajan is a Red Indian. He used to scalp White people. Thankfully, he has now buried the hatchet and smoked the peace pipe because of the nice 'proximate community' he has bought his way into. </p><blockquote><i>and the requirements of a large, diverse nation. Looking to the future, as more production and service jobs are automated, the human need for relationships and the social needs of the neighborhood may well provide many of the jobs of tomorrow. </i></blockquote><p>Servants, handymen, prostitutes, Indian economists who knock on our door to persuade us that they aren't camels. </p><blockquote><i>In closely knit communities, </i></blockquote><p>there's a lot of incest </p><blockquote><i>a variety of transactions take place without the use of money or enforceable contracts.</i></blockquote><p>Uncle raping you is an example. </p><blockquote><i> One side may get all the benefits in some transactions. Sometimes, the expectation is that the other side will repay the favor, but this may never actually happen. In a normal family, members typically help one another without drawing up papers and making payments. </i></blockquote><p>Which is why, if those 'normal families' get rich, they spend a lot of time suing each other. Look at the Hindujas. </p><blockquote><i>In many societies, friends don’t really care who pays the bill at dinner, indeed the ability to not keep count is the mark of true friendship. </i></blockquote><p>This is true if the cost of the dinner is a small fraction of the value of the time you are spending. </p><blockquote><i>Contrast transactions within a community with a typical market transaction. I just bought a bicycle tire tube. I searched for one of adequate quality at a reasonable price through an online platform, paid by credit card, and the tube was delivered within the time promised. Even though this transaction took little time, there is an elaborate explicit understanding or contract behind it. If the tube is not delivered or it proves defective, I have contractual remedies. The transaction is arm’s length and one-off. Neither the seller nor I know each other. Each one of us is satisfied we are better off from the transaction even if we never transact again. We do not look for further fulfilment through a continuing relationship. The more explicit and one-off the transaction, the more unrelated and anonymous the parties to the transaction, and the larger the set of participants who can transact with one another, the more the transaction approaches the ideal of a market transaction.</i></blockquote><p>There is no 'hold out' problem on open markets </p><blockquote><i> The more implicit the terms of the transaction, the more related the parties who transact, the smaller the group that can potentially transact, the less equal the exchange, the broader the range of transactions and the more repetitive transactions are over time between the same parties, the more the transactions approach a relationship. </i></blockquote><p>In which case, I am in a relationship with Jeff Bezos. I should sue him for palimony. </p><blockquote><i>The thicker the web of relationships tying a group of individuals together, the more it is a community. </i></blockquote><p>Or a Gulag or slave plantation. </p><blockquote><i>In a sense, the community and the market are two ends of a continuum. </i></blockquote><p>Only in the sense that rape and murder are at the center of that continuum </p><blockquote><i>In his magisterial work, Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft (“Community and Society”), nineteenth century German sociologist Ferdinand Tönnies </i></blockquote><p>who thought people in a Community subordinated themselves to the Group's goal. The "essential will" ("Wesenwille") of the individual is whatever the Community says it should be. Hitler would have agreed. </p><blockquote><i>argued that in a community tied together by strong relationships, individual interests are suppressed in favor of the collective interest whenever these interests diverge. </i></blockquote><p>Only if there are punitive sanctions. There are plenty of communities tied together by strong relationships where anarchy prevails. Indeed, the system of collective punishment or the levying of 'blood money' on an entire clan was a step towards the establishment of a 'Stationary Bandit' who would make a profit by 'netting out' such claims between clans and gradually enforcing his own laws, again for a profit. </p><blockquote><i>By contrast, in a market transaction, “nobody wants to grant and produce anything for another individual, nor will he be inclined to give ungrudgingly to another individual, if it not be in exchange for a gift or labor equivalent that he considers at least equal to what he has given.” </i></blockquote><p>Nonsense! The drug-pusher gives you drugs for free to get you hooked. But 'streaming services' too offer you a free trial period. We give ungrudgingly if we know that the other will come to depend on us and thus have to remunerate us properly. </p><blockquote><i> In this sense, only individual interests matter, and they have to be met transaction by transaction. </i></blockquote><p>No they don't. There are plenty of mechanisms by which 'memory-less' equilibria are improved by various public signals which simulate such memory. Large firms use algorithms to build 'relationships' even with small fry customers like me. It isn't really the case that Sky TV loves me very much and keeps wanting to reward me for being a 'VIP customer'. Some computer algorithm is entrusted to massage my ego and retain me as a customer. </p><p>Rajan seems to think that geographically 'proximate' communities have some intrinsic virtue. Perhaps they do. The problem is that we live in a world of scarcity. If our productivity is lower then sooner of later our command over resources declines even if we spend a lot of time hugging and kissing our neighbors. Modern economics begins with Malthus. Rajan, who ran away from an over-populated shithole to a country where productivity was high, should understand this better than most. </p><p>A question economists of my generation (I am the same age as Rajan) must answer is why China soared ahead of India. After all, thanks to Mao, in 1990, China had lower per capita Income. When Edwin Lim from the World Bank moved from China to India, he thought India could grow much faster because it already had many of the things that China was desperately trying to acquire. Indeed, Mao had told Nehru, back in 1954, that India was ahead. Why did India do so badly compared to China? The answer is simple. Productivity. China wanted to raise it by any and all means- though, no doubt, under Mao, some of those means were as stupid as shit. Indians worried about the distributional consequences of letting vulgar little traders or artisans rising up and become super-rich. </p><p>Rajan takes a different view-</p><p></p><blockquote><i>WHY INDIA HAS NOT
DONE AS WELL AS CHINA- China and India used to be sleeping
Asian giants, but China awoke first.</i></blockquote><p>Sun Yat Sen wanted China to get rich by raising productivity. Gandhi wanted India to retreat to autarkic villages. Later, when China began to embrace the free-market, Edwin Lim of the World Bank tells us that they were even ready to work with the Japanese- whom they hated- if the Japs were the most productive in a particular sector. But then the Japs themselves had emulated higher productivity America in the Fifties. </p><p>Development is about Tardean mimetics. Find the guy who is doing best and try to mimic what he is doing. Sadly, the credulous Indians thought Stalin and Mao were the guys doing best even though millions of their people kept starving to death. </p><blockquote><i>
They used to be equally poor, but now
China has raced ahead. China’s initial
advantages of a healthier and better
educated workforce were perhaps more
important in the early flush of
liberalization, </i></blockquote><p>China had suffered terrible famines, Civil Wars and ferocious invading Japanese troops. That is why, if the Chinese were healthier and better educated it was only because of Darwinian survival of the fittest.</p><p>The Communist Party had to wade through an ocean of blood to establish its rule. In India politics was a tea-party, though Gandh & Co would occasionally go sulk in jail, and the administration which the Brits handed over to the Indians was pretty much idiot-proof. Nehru showed ruthlessness in slaughtering Muslims and Commies if they wagged their tail which is why Mao wanted to meet him. Sadly, Nehru didn't want to raise productivity. True, he had some sort of magical belief in 'heavy industry' but productivity is about capacity utilization and making a fucking profit so as to do capital widening and deepening. Also, what agricultural shitholes should do is get girls out of the villages and into giant factory dormitories till there is demographic transition. True, there will be a rising class of producers who will want lots of TV Channels and Temples and nice things to eat, but what the Stationary Bandit should understand is that, as Joan Robinson said, you first have to plant the tree and let it flourish before you can grab all the fruit. Even then, it is more sensible to just take some of the fruit so as to create an incentive for fruit production. What India should have done is taxed export industries just enough to provide better infrastructure while letting the more productive to gain in material terms. </p><blockquote><i>and its lack of a
competitive market or private property
rights were not disadvantages—</i></blockquote><p>yes they were! That's why South Korea and Taiwan shot up while Mao's China went through a big famine. </p><blockquote><i>indeed,
they allowed the state to push favored
industries.</i></blockquote><p>This failed. The binding constraint was foreign exchange. China's ship building industry was a joke compared to South Korea in the Seventies and even the early Eighties. </p><blockquote><i>
Construction is probably the most
important sector in the early phases of
industrialization.</i></blockquote><p>No. It is wage-goods- e.g. textiles. India chose to strangle the textile sector in the Fifties. Construction only matters at a later point when people have the money to build 'pucca' houses. I should explain in India 'construction sector' is defined as 'Real Estate and Urban development'. It was only in 2009 that a separate Ministry for Highway construction was created. </p><blockquote><i> It is a sector that
employs unskilled workers—and hence
can absorb many that leave agriculture.
</i></blockquote><p>Mills can employ rural girls with zero education. The same is true of the more docile type of male. But a spell of military service for boys greatly raises their employability as Japan found. </p><p>Why did India not do more highway construction in the Fifties and Sixties? One answer is that there was a paucity of cars and trucks. The other problem was that people firmly believed that once the Highway got out of sight of the State Capital, the contractors would steal all the money. Rajan must have heard stories from his Uncles about how they tried to drive down a Highway which the Chief Minister had just inaugurated and discovered there was no fucking highway- not even the sort of kaccha road that zamindars had been forced to maintain. </p><blockquote><i>It is also a sector that contributes to the
growth of other sectors, as businesses
spring up to make use of the
infrastructure. For example, it is quite
magical in India to see the economic
growth of a village as a good allweather road is built connecting it to the
city. </i></blockquote><p>That is transport infrastructure, not construction. A.O Hulme, who founded the Indian National Congress back in the Eighteen Eighties, explained in his book on Indian agriculture that the State needed to devise new taxes (and get rid of the 'Permanent Settlement') so as to set off a virtuous circle of infrastructure investment leading to higher tax yields which in turn leads to more and better infrastructure. Hulme was foolish enough to think that Hindu barristers wanted their country to rise in this manner. All they wanted was to talk bollocks, preferably while occupying one of the nicer bungalows the Brits had built for themselves. </p><p>The Indian State still does not understand that it isn't Santa Claus. It is a 'Stationary Bandit' which should use tax revenue so as to get more tax revenue in the future. </p><blockquote><i>The road allows trucks to transport
goods to the city quickly,</i></blockquote><p>only if trucks are available </p><blockquote><i> so farmers
undertake new activities like dairy and
poultry farming and horticulture. </i></blockquote><p>only if this enables them to have a higher material standard of living </p><blockquote><i>As they
get richer, shops selling packaged goods
and clothes open up in the village. </i></blockquote><p>Only if they get richer. India didn't want its farmers to get richer because they would then want a bigger share of political power. Instead of chaps with Oxbridge accents, you'd have rustics in Parliament jabbering away in some ungodly vernacular dialect. </p><blockquote><i>Soon
a kiosk starts selling prepaid cell phone
cards, and not too long afterward, the
village gets its first bank branch.
Construction thus multiplies jobs and
facilitates development.
</i></blockquote><p>Infrastructure does that. It doesn't matter if people live in shacks. </p><blockquote><i>Perhaps the most obvious
consequence of their starting conditions
is that China has been able to expand its
construction sector enormously, while
India has been less successful.</i></blockquote><p>It was only in the Eighties that the Chinese got serious about Highways. </p><blockquote><i> China has
moved ahead because it has been able to
fund construction projects with cheap
credit, and land acquisition has not been
problematic because all land belongs to
the state.</i></blockquote><p>Edwin Lim says that the World Bank could have provided cheap credit for infrastructure. Sadly 'andolanjivi' activists were better rewarded for preventing development than guys like Montek Singh Ahluwalia. That is why Manmohan tried to crack down on these foreign funded NGOs. </p><blockquote><i> In India, by contrast, credit
comes at market rates. </i></blockquote><p>Because the bureaucrats- even those of the World Bank- are afraid of the 'andolanjivis'. Thus Adanis and Ambanis do the infrastructure using funds provided by the nationalized banks. To say this is at the 'market rate' is howlingly funny. </p><blockquote><i>More important,
any new project requires a painful and
long acquisition of the necessary land
from owners. If land rights are not well
established, it can take even longer. The
time delay involved itself undermines
the economics of the project. While the
law permits forcible land acquisition for
public projects like roads and airports,
opposition politicians, sensing the
political opportunity, are always willing
to organize protests against these. </i></blockquote><p>Why mention 'opposition parties' when 'andolanjivis' are bad enough? </p><blockquote><i>India’s
well-developed civil society, with each
organization fighting for a special cause,
often joins in. If the Indian state were
effective, then these elements would
provide an appropriate check on its
power—indeed, Indian land acquisition
laws are models of trying to balance the
rights of the owner against the
imperatives of development. The state,
however, is ineffective, so land
acquisition, and hence construction, is
unduly delayed.</i></blockquote><p>The bureaucrats are timid. The politicians are nervous of the 'andolanjivis'. The Courts add an extra layer of capricious delay. </p><blockquote><i> India’s infrastructure
projects are, for the most part, too little
and too late. In the early stage of growth,
China has had an advantage.
</i></blockquote><p>No. The Chinese knew they were at a massive disadvantage. They imported White English teachers and relied heavily on the Chinese diaspora to begin to rise. Thankfully, they slaughtered the pro-Democracy students and thus prevented the West from fucking them up pre-emptively. Hilariously, they even hoodwinked Jimmy Carter into helping finance some supposed 'grass-roots' democratization! However, it was 9/11 which was the game changer. The Americans took their eye of the ball permitting China to rise. By about 2012, they were in a position to tell Carter & Co to fuck off anytime they started gassing on about Yuman Rites or Tibet or Democracy. </p><blockquote><i>India needs to speed up land
acquisition. </i></blockquote><p>It needs to kill people who make a nuisance of themselves. Just one or two will do. Andolanjivis can always find some other cause to get excited about. </p><blockquote><i>It would be tempting but
shortsighted to lighten protections for the
land owner. That would only bring the
politician in to agitate against
acquisitions that are deemed arbitrary in
the court of public opinion. Instead,
India needs to make the land owner a
partner in development by giving them
back a share of the developed land, as
some Indian states are doing
successfully.</i></blockquote><p>There is still the problem of nuisance law suits and crazy andolanjivis running amok. Look at Singur. The people there thought Mamta would get them more money. Instead they got shafted. The 'hold out problem' here arises out of the interessement of 'Civil Society' and ranting politicians- like Rahul in his new incarnation as the Messiah of the Backward Castes. </p><blockquote><i> It could also focus some of
its limited state capacity on establishing
clean property rights in land, thereby
easing ownership and sale, while giving
up other activities it does less well, such
as running an airline or bank. If it does
this, India has plenty of easy catch-up
growth still ahead of it, building roads,
ports, railways, airports, and housing.
Moreover, if it continues improving the
education of its youth—and the quality
of their learning needs to be the focus
going forward—it will have the lowcost labor and the infrastructure to
establish a larger presence in
manufacturing, to add to its capabilities
in services. </i></blockquote><p>Fuck that. Reduce expenditure on higher education and the dream of getting into the IAS. Just raise the participation rate for rural girls by shifting them into big factory dormitories. Don't subsidize their remaining in Malthusian shitholes even if they all get MPhil in Gramscian Grammatology from JNU.</p><blockquote><i>Given the right reforms,
India can still grow strongly for a long
while. And with its vibrant democracy,
it is probably better positioned than
China for growth once it closes in on the
frontier. It needs to get there first,
though. </i></blockquote><p>So, Rajan thinks that first you have to get to the frontier after which you can close in on it. That's the sort of thinking which can get you a Nobel Prize in mathematical economics- provided you are brown and say 'boo to Modi!' on a regular basis. </p><p>One final observation. China saw a great expansion of literacy in the first Millennium. Unlike India, where literature was either courtly or religious, Chinese literary culture aimed at creating a patriotic 'Mandarin' class. But affluent merchants, artisans, etc, invested in that type of education because it was and remained a 'positional good'. Thus Chinese 'koinonia' was always patriotic and nationalistic rather than religious or other-worldly. Productivity was a good thing. The Magistrate who 'ruled without ruling'- i.e. by letting the productive element rise- was able to send back lots of money to the Capital. On the other hand, 'rain-cycle' based famines (which India also experienced) had a direct political effect. The Mandate of Heaven was withdrawn when the rains failed and there was large scale agricultural distress leading to rebellion. In India, sadly, drought and dearth could be blamed on God not the King. I suppose one might say that China's relative homogeneity is a product of its literary culture. On the other hand, we must admit that the first Utilitarian was Moh Tzu, whom we might call an engineer, who sought to spread peace by giving Cities defensive technology. Thus, underneath a Confucian overlay (which stressed filial piety) there has always been an utilitarian aspect to Chinese thought. There is no reason why India should not adopt a pragmatic 'Arthashastra' which allows the Vyadha (butcher or meat vendor) to live in affluence indifferent to the strictures of Pundits or Princes, while tasting the honeyed wisdom of the Chandogya. </p><p>To end on a personal note- I recall Mrs. Thatcher's attempt to impose a 'Community Charge' (poll tax) on me. I protested vociferously that I would gladly pay to leave the shitty community where, because I was poor, I was obliged to reside. It seems the vast majority of Brits agreed. The poll tax was scrapped. My point is that communities can be shitty or, if they actively emulate nicer communities, they might be worth paying to be part of. Koinonia is a function of the mysterious economy by which the Day of Wrath is held at bay by our seeking to emulate the more successful. I myself spent the first fifty years of my life trying to persuade my Mummy that she was actually Indira Gandhi- in which case, I, not some Gujju, would be PM. Sadly, this also meant that I became as stupid as Rahul- albeit without the advantage of an MPhil in 'Development Studies' from Cambridge. </p><p></p><blockquote><br /></blockquote><blockquote><br /></blockquote><p></p><p></p>windwheelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18099651877551933295noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1674709389503889160.post-38852745121036753492024-03-14T15:37:00.004+00:002024-03-14T15:37:31.701+00:00Bertrand Russell's futile passions<p>At the age of 95, Bertrand Russell wrote- </p><blockquote><i> Three passions, simple but overwhelmingly strong, have governed my life: the longing for love, the search for knowledge, and unbearable pity for the suffering of mankind.</i></blockquote><p>Sadly, these were second order passions. Russell wanted to be loved, he was not interested in love itself which subsists with or without an object as a pure mutuality, Similarly, Russell wasn't actually interested in searching for knowledge. He wanted knowledge about knowledge- which, sadly, turns out to be nonsense. As for pity, it can only be for individuals, not an entire species because misfortune is always relative. The fact is Russell did not search out any type of knowledge which actually relieved the suffering of anybody. All his political interventions were foolish or counter-productive. What nobody could deny, however, was that he wrote well and had lived an interesting life. </p><blockquote><i> These passions, like great winds, have blown me hither and thither, in a wayward course, over a great ocean of anguish, reaching to the very verge of despair.<br /></i></blockquote><p>Russell had a marvelous, Edwardian, elasticity of self-regard. Thus, he never experienced anguish save such as swelled a great ocean, nor knew despair save by reaching its very verge. </p><blockquote><i>I have sought love, first, because it brings ecstasy – ecstasy so great that I would often have sacrificed all the rest of life for a few hours of this joy.</i></blockquote><p>Others sought love because, first and last, it's love, dude. Ecstasy is something you can buy- though it may only last a few hours. </p><blockquote><i> I have sought it, next, because it relieves loneliness – that terrible loneliness in which one shivering consciousness looks over the rim of the world into the cold unfathomable lifeless abyss. </i></blockquote><p>But that abyss has stuff useful to us. Sooner or later, we are going to be mining the asteroids and populating distant planets. </p><blockquote><i>I have sought it finally, because in the union of love I have seen, in a mystic miniature, the prefiguring vision of the heaven that saints and poets have imagined. </i></blockquote><p>Why not see it directly? The other point is that 'the union of love' is nicest when it results in the appearance of a bouncing baby. I believe Russell's own children and grandchildren have all done well. Mysticism is a consolation prize for those of us who have less valuable genes to pass on. </p><blockquote><i>This is what I sought, and though it might seem too good for human life, this is what – at last – I have found.<br /></i></blockquote><p>Human life requires sexual reproduction. Russell worked hard and was as smart as fuck. He deserved his reproductive success. </p><blockquote><i>With equal passion I have sought knowledge. I have wished to understand the hearts of men. I have wished to know why the stars shine. </i></blockquote><p>Sadly, he wasted his time on 'logicism'. The world must be as geometry says it should be otherwise we mathematicians might have to work on new types of geometry. Einstein begged to differ. </p><blockquote><i>And I have tried to apprehend the Pythagorean power by which number holds sway above the flux.</i></blockquote><p>Numbers don't hold sway over anything. </p><blockquote><i> A little of this, but not much, I have achieved.<br /></i></blockquote><p>Russell, like his great ancestors, represented radical thought for his own age. His position in the Republic of Letters is secure. Shame Anal-tickle philosophy was shit. </p><blockquote><i>Love and knowledge, so far as they were possible, led upward toward the heavens. But always pity brought me back to earth. </i></blockquote><p>Which is why Heaven was invented in the first place. In the Good Place I too will have an above average sized dick. </p><blockquote><i>Echoes of cries of pain reverberate in my heart. Children in famine, victims tortured by oppressors, helpless old people a hated burden to their sons, and the whole world of loneliness, poverty, and pain make a mockery of what human life should be. I long to alleviate this evil, but I cannot, and I too suffer.<br /></i></blockquote><p>Sadly, Russell's political ambitions remained unfulfilled. Thus, he could not contribute to the sum total of avoidable misery. </p><blockquote><i>This has been my life. I have found it worth living, and would gladly live it again if the chance were offered me. (1967, 3–4)</i></blockquote><p>His kids and grandkids were brilliant. His own popular books were so charmingly and lucidly written that they opened a window, for working class people, into the world of cloistered academia. Perhaps, by adopting radical positions, but for absurd reasons, Russell- like his great political ancestors- helped conserve a system which was already changing along the required lines. His atheism- by inclining him to a magical type of logicism- proved self-defeating more particularly once the Church admitted that it was founded not on Aristotle's Organon- by Faith which must ever remain a mystery. The Katechon is the invisible hand or 'mysterious economy' which hold at bay the Eschaton or Apocalypse. It is only then that Akreibia- the rigid following of a rule- will come into its own, save by God's mercy. </p>windwheelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18099651877551933295noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1674709389503889160.post-29096093219753257992024-03-14T14:55:00.002+00:002024-03-14T14:55:05.508+00:00Frank Ramsey's theodicy of thrift<p>During the Great War, even the mighty English bourgeoisie learned that 'forced saving'- i.e. not being able to consume because of rationing- was what happened when you hadn't saved enough in the past. Britain had underspent on Defence and thus had to fight two very costly world wars which wiped out the inherited wealth of the 'idle tenth' of the population.</p><p>Sadly, Economists didn't get the memo. Saving means not spending. But one reason you might have to decrease spending is if your Income falls. There is no magical mechanism by which all Savings are turned into Investment or by which economic activity is always maintained at an optimum level. If everybody tries to save more, aggregate demand may fall such that Income falls so both spending and saving falls. Equally, if everybody tries to provide for their old age by having lots of babies, there may be a Malthusian famine such that everybody is worse off. </p><p>A separate point has to do with assets which are 'investments' from one point of view- e.g. houses which are expected to go up in value- and 'consumption' from another point of view- e.g. the benefit gained by living in a well situated and well maintained house. If there is a speculative bubble, then many will find their 'investment' was actually a costly lesson in prudence. </p><p>It is strange that Post-Keynesian Economists still consider Frank Ramsey's 'mathematical theory of savings' paper to be seminal. </p><p>It begins thus- </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;">THE first problem I propose to tackle is this: how much of its income should a nation save?</blockquote><p>How long is a piece of string? The answer is it depends. Nations, like everybody else, should only save if they can't beg, steal or borrow at a lower rate than the expected yield on their investments, Sadly, it is when a Nation most needs to beg, borrow or steal that it finds itself doing 'forced' saving or dissaving. A Malthusian famine is an extreme case of 'dissaving'. </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;"> To answer this a simple rule is obtained valid under conditions of surprising generality; the rule, which will be further elucidated later, runs as follows. </blockquote><p>The only rule is 'act according to what would be the best possible rule unless acting according to no fucking rule would be better yet.' It is meaningless. It's like saying 'why waste money on cars and trains and planes? Just develop the ability to teleport. Better yet, pervade the Universe as an omniscient God.</p><p>Ramsey's more sensible brother didn't bother with Russell & Witlesstein & Welfare fucking Econ. He became Archbishop of Canterbury and lived a long, very productive, life. Believing in God releases one from the stupid, loveless, Hell of Logicism. </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;">The rate of saving multiplied by the marginal utility of money </blockquote><p>Ramsey thinks the Social Welfare function has a well ordered domain. This means we can identify the last dollar being held for precautionary, transactional or speculative reasons. The Chancellor of the Exchequer can phone this guy and say how much extra utility are you getting by holding an extra quid? Sadly, it is impossible to identify this person and how much he or she benefits by having an extra pound in his pocket rather than spending or investing it. </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;">should always be equal to the amount by which the total net rate of enjoyment of utility falls short of the maximum possible rate of enjoyment. </blockquote><p>But that maximum is unknowable. Suppose it weren't. Then somebody would know what everybody else should do- what job they should have, what they should buy with their wages, etc. In such a society, there would be no need for language, education, indeed, communication, or human interaction, of any sort. A Central Planning authority would coordinate all actions. Any Society without such an authority would face continuous exit because people could raise their level of enjoyment by moving to the planned community. </p><p>Consider what the M.U of money would be in a world where the utility maximizing solution were common knowledge. In that case, any idle balance can be allocated on a just in time basis to raise total utility. So there will be no idle balances. The MU of money would be zero. There would be no precautionary, transactional, or speculative demand for money. We only keep cash balances because of Knightian Uncertainty. If it didn't exist, there would be no transaction costs. There is just a Transportation problem whose solution is known by magic. Everybody is a windowless monad in Liebnizian pre-established harmony. All apparent waste or inefficiency is just a reflection of a hidden cost or bottleneck or is an example of God's mysterious economy. </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;">In order to justify this rule it is, of course, necessary to make various simplifying assumptions: </blockquote><p>assume all people are actually imaginary porpoises who aren't porpoises. It follows from the fact that they cause cats to sodomize dogs that any fucking theorem whatsoever can be proved. This is ex falso quodlibet. Getting rid of God means getting to be stupider than shit. </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;">we have to suppose that our community goes on for ever without changing either in numbers or in its capacity for enjoyment or in its aversion to labour; </blockquote><p>so, Ramsey has to suppose that Darwin was wrong. There is no such thing as evolution. But, in that case, there is no such thing as economics because there is no scarcity, no competition, there is just a steady state which endures for ever. </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;">that enjoyments and sacrifices at different times can be calculated independently and added;</blockquote><p>we get enjoyment from 'sacrifices'. You feel good knowing you have money in the bank and that you sacrificed your present desire to buy cocaine and hire hookers so as to invest in a tech start-up which people say is going to revolutionize AI. </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;"> and that no new inventions or improvements in organisation are introduced save such as can be regarded as conditioned solely by the accumulation of wealth.' </blockquote><p>Why would there be 'accumulation of wealth'? It is sufficient to just cover depreciation. Suppose a society meeting Ramsey's conditions has 'accumulation of wealth' in a particular time period. Then, the question arises why it didn't happen in the previous period? Either tastes have changed, which violates the assumption, or disutility of work has changed, which is also a violation. Now suppose there is a constant 'accumulation'. But this means Total Utility goes to infinity. So these immortals enjoy an eternity of utter bliss. Where have we heard of such a thing before? This is the Paradise of the Theists. It turns out it was Frank, not his brother, the Archbishop, whose logic required Heaven. The Church is content to say Faith is founded on a Mystery. Russell and Ramsey's Logicism is founded on Magic. </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;">One point should perhaps be emphasised more particularly; it is assumed that we do not discount later enjoyments in comparison with earlier ones, </blockquote><p>which is why Ramsey didn't take a leak when he needed to pee. Instead he drank some more water and waited till his bladder was ready to burst. </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;">a practice which is ethically indefensible </blockquote><p>how dare you 'discount' the pleasure from waiting till your bladder is ready to burst before taking a leak? Don't you know it is ethically indefensible? What are you- a fucking Nazi? </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;">and arises merely from the weakness of the imagination;</blockquote><p>Imagine how much you'd enjoy taking a leak if you held it in all day. Why not try for all week? </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;"> we shall, however, in Section II include such a rate of discount in some of our investigations</blockquote><p>Which is fine if riskless assets bear a positive real interest rate. Otherwise this is an arbitrary or meaningless assertion. The fact is, as Ramsey's generation knew very well, all sorts of 'riskless assets'- e.g. Tzarist bonds- turned out to be not worth the paper they were printed on. </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;"> We also ignore altogether distributional considerations, assuming, in fact, that the way in which consumption and labour are distributed between the members of the community depends solely on their total amounts, so that total satisfaction is a function of these total amounts only.</blockquote><p>This assumes that the solution to Society's transportation or coordination problem is computable and can be 'common knowledge'. In other words, this is a type of economics which assumes that magic has already solved all the problems of economics. </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;"> Besides this, we neglect the differences between different kinds of goods and different kinds of labour, and suppose them to be expressed in terms of fixed standards, so that we can speak simply of quantities of capital, consumption and labour without discussing their particular forms.</blockquote><p>The problem here is that even in a one person 'Robinson Crusoe' economy there will be a whole bunch of discount rates, some positive, some negative, for various activities. In a market economy, we can, through the fiction of a the return on a riskless assets- e.g. Consols- say that risk or uncertainty of various sorts explains the spread. But this is because we are assuming frictionless arbitrage. In a Command Economy, it may well happen that the discount rate is negative in that the Dictator wants to starve the population so as to acquire more weapons and Gulags. But this is a purely arbitrary matter. </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;"> Foreign trade, borrowing and lending need not be excluded, provided we assume that foreign nations are in a stable state, so that the possibilities of dealing with them can be included on the constant conditions of production. We do, however, reject the possibility of a state of progressive indebtedness to foreigners continuing for ever. </blockquote><p>Why? People may want to store their savings in our country and ultimately to emigrate to our country so as to enjoy the fruits of their thrift. </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;">Lastly, we have to assume that the community will always be governed by the same motives as regards accumulation, so that there is no chance of our savings being selfishly consumed by a subsequent generation; and that no misfortunes will occur to sweep away accumulations at any point in the relevant future.</blockquote><p>Why stop there? Why not assume everybody fits into the same pair of underpants? </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;"> Let us then denote by x(t) and a(t) the total rates of consumption and labour of our community, and by c(t) its capital at time t.</blockquote><p>Sadly we don't know what is consumption and what is capital. If expenditure of time and money on a thing or activity results in higher Income, we say 'that was an investment'. But some 'investments' which fail have to be written off as the consumption of a bitter but salutary lesson. </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;">Its income is taken to be a general function of the amounts of labour and capital, and will be called f(a,c); we then have, since savings plus consumption must equal income, dc + x =f(a,c).</blockquote><p>What about borrowing from abroad? In any case, 'saving' here includes 'forced saving'- i.e. not being able to buy stuff- as well as theft or confiscation. This would show up as 'dissaving'. </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;">(1) Now let us denote by U(x) the total rate of utility of a rate of consumption x, and by V(a) the total rate of disutility of a rate of labour a; and the corresponding marginal rates we will call u(x) and v(a); so that u(X) dU(x) dx dV(a) da </blockquote><p> Why not denote the total rate of utility as the vagina of a porpoise? There may be a male porpoise which would want to find it. Otherwise, who would bother? </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;">We suppose, as usual, that u(x) is never increasing and v(a) never decreasing.</blockquote><p>So no 'increasing returns' and no 'income effect' causing a backward bending labour supply curve. </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;"> We have now to introduce a concept of great importance in our argument. Suppose we have a given capital c, and are going neither to increase nor decrease it. </blockquote><p>In which case there is no Knightian Uncertainty- i.e. all future states of the world and their probability are known in advance- and so the rate of depreciation can be calculated without error. </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;">Then U(x) - V(a) denotes our net enjoyment per unit of time, and we shall make this a maximum, subject to the condition that our expenditure x is equal to what we can produce with labour a and capital c. </blockquote><p>Sadly, 'disutility' is a function of opportunity cost and changes when new states of the world become feasible. To give an example, I may be very happy to work ten hours a day for a wage of 100 pounds an hour. I find out that I can get 150 pounds an hour working 8 hours a day for some other employer. Suddenly I feel very unhappy in my job. My 'disutility' from work has increased. Equally, if I get a pay cut but lots of others are thrown out of work, my disutility from work has decreased. I feel lucky to still have a job albeit on a lower rate of pay. </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;">The resulting rate of enjoyment U(x) - V(a) will be a function of c, </blockquote><p>No. Disutility is a function of what is now feasible. If this changes opportunity cost changes. This has nothing to do with what capital already exists. </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;">and will, up to a point, increase as c increases, since with more capital we can obtain more enjoyment. This increase of the rate of enjoyment with the amount of capital may, however, stop for either of two reasons. It might, in the first place, happen that a further increment of capital would not enable us to increase either our income or our leisure;</blockquote><p>in which case the 'opportunity cost' of that increment has changed. </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;"> or, secondly, we might have reached the maximum conceivable rate of enjoyment, and so have no use for more income or leisure.</blockquote><p>In which case there is no disutility- i.e. no opportunity cost. This can only happen if there is 'modal collapse' i.e. the world can only exist in one particular state. This is a fatalist doctrine. God is the only efficient cause. Things can't be otherwise than He ordained. You may as well blissfully contemplate the glories of the Lord abnegating all other volition. </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;">In either case a certain finite capital would give us the greatest rate of enjoyment economically obtainable, whether or not this was the greatest rate conceivable.</blockquote><p>Because Ramsey's universe is fatalist. The universe can't be other than it is. You may conceive of how much better your life would be if you weren't a slave being whipped on the plantation. Give up such thoughts! What you can conceive- viz. a life of freedom- is not possible in this world because God wants you to be a slave. </p><p>Religion is less fatalistic. It admits that people can have better lives once they are able to conceive of a Just and Loving God- one who, like an affectionate parent, wishes His creatures to exert themselves to make life better for even the least amongst them. </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;"> On the other hand, the rate of enjoyment may never stop increasing as capital increases. There are then two logical possibilities: either the rate of enjoyment will increase to infinity, or it will approach asymptotically to a certain finite limit. The first of these we shall dismiss on the ground that economic causes alone could never give us more than a certain finite rate of enjoyment (called above the maximum conceivable rate). </blockquote><p>Could Ramsey have conceived of the felicity I would enjoy, a hundred years later, by having access to Wikipedia? He himself would have achieved so much more had he been born even twenty years later because Doctors would have been able to prevent his untimely death. </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;">There remains the second case, in which the rate of enjoyment approaches a finite limit, which may or may not be equal to the maximum conceivable rate. This limit we shall call the maximum obtainable rate of enjoyment, although it cannot, strictly speaking, be obtained, but only approached indefinitely.</blockquote><p>Ramsey is assuming the range of the SWF is well ordered. The truth is I don't know what is my maximum obtainable rate of enjoyment just from my own dinner tonight. There may be different menu choices even from my favorite restaurant which would give me more pleasure than the items I usually order. Equally, some obscure biological processes in my body may change the utility I get from a particular meal. </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;">What we have in the several cases called the maximum obtainable rate of enjoyment or utility we shall call for short Bliss or B. And in all cases we can see that the community must save enough either to reach Bliss after a finite time, or at least to approximate to it indefinitely.</blockquote><p>If there is a Bliss point and this can become common knowledge then Society's coordination problem is solved. Yet no two people, or the same person at different times, can agree on how to rank social outcomes let alone find the 'supremum'. The 'well ordering' assumption is mere magical thinking. </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;"> For in this way alone is it possible to make the amount by which enjoyment falls short of bliss summed throughout time a finite quantity; so that if it should be possible to reach bliss or approach it indefinitely, this will be infinitely more desirable than any other course of action. And it is bound to be possible, since by' setting aside a small sum each year we can in time increase our capital to any desired extent.' Enough must therefore be saved to reach or approach bliss some time, </blockquote><p>thrift is itself a theodicy- albeit one without God. By saving money we approach bliss. This justifies the ways of man to the indifferent universe. </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;">but this does not mean that our whole income should be saved. The more we save the sooner we shall reach bliss, but the less enjoyment we shall have now, and we have to set the one against the other. Mr. Keynes has shown me that the rule governing the amount to be saved can be determined at once from these considerations.</blockquote><p>Mr. Keynes would gain fame for recognizing, a few years later, that there was no magical method by which savings would equal investment. There could be a liquidity trap. People could hoard money. Aggregate Demand could collapse. People would tighten their belts and save at a higher rate for precautionary reasons. This would create a vicious circle- 'the paradox of thrift'.</p><p>To be fair, Ramsey was moving in a Pragmatic direction. Had he lived, he might have killed off the Cambridge Anal-tickle school of psilosophy. What is strange is that economists continued to go down the blind alley he had inaugurated in his thoughtless youth. </p>windwheelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18099651877551933295noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1674709389503889160.post-8584908765028910702024-03-13T18:05:00.019+00:002024-03-16T01:58:54.456+00:00Natural Numbers lack 'naturality'. <br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;">To escape its own जडप्रकृतिः (jaḍaprakṛtiḥ), Samkhya quite naturally posited itself as it own incompossible Naturality</div><div style="text-align: center;">Just as, to escape baby Rahul as fetter, Awakening became its own bed-wetter & Granger, all Causality</div><div style="text-align: center;">Save as some viral, co-evolved, Alice-in-Wonderland, Epstein-Barr</div><div style="text-align: center;">So, no fucking Von Neumann Ordinals fucking <i><b>are</b></i></div><div style="text-align: center;"><i><b><br /></b></i></div><div style="text-align: center;">No doubt, <i>ipse dixit</i>, the arbitrary has a well ordering canonical</div><div style="text-align: center;">But Economia is utile, Akreibia ever bordering on the comical</div><div style="text-align: center;">Had Frank Ramsey lived, he would have killed off the Anal-tickle</div><div style="text-align: center;">Brouwer & Godel's Intuitions were, to Faith, less fickle.</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><i>Envoi- </i></div><div style="text-align: center;">Prince! Thy Phlius Valley was once famous for its Wine, not Pythagorean metempsychosis</div><div style="text-align: center;">Tho' All always prefer Christ's blood as the universal flood of <a href="https://socioproctology.blogspot.com/2011/01/turigen-theism-and-elon-lindenstrauss.html">tuirgen'</a>s <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antidosis_(treatise)">antidosis.</a> </div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div><br /><p><br /></p>windwheelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18099651877551933295noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1674709389503889160.post-50760771884235759702024-03-12T15:15:00.006+00:002024-03-14T15:18:01.931+00:00Alex Tabarrok is as stupid as Steve Landsburg<p>Steve Landsburg is an utter cretin. He thinks that if allocative efficiency is achieved by a producer in a competitive market acting rationally then there is an efficiency argument for the consumer to do some stupid shite he pulled out of his arse. Thus, if it is rational, at the prevailing wage rate, for me to offer to teach you econ, then you have an obligation to pay me to teach you econ even if you know that I am an illiterate nutcase.</p><p>Landsburg has the following exam question. </p><blockquote><i>Q. Apples are provided by a competitive industry. Pears are provided by a monopolist. Coincidentally, they sell at the same price. You are hungry, and would be equally happy with an apple or a pear. If you care about conserving societal resources, which should you buy?</i></blockquote><p>Apples and pears are perishable. They can't be conserved. Either they are eaten or they go to waste. What about maximizing Social Benefit? Should you chose one fruit over another on that basis? No. True, if you think some other person would enjoy the fruit more than you, you are welcome to give it to them. </p><p>Alex Tabarrok is as stupid as Landsburg. He thinks the following is the correct answer-</p><blockquote><i>The social cost of producing a good is the opportunity cost of the resources used in its production.</i></blockquote><p>Not for fruit which already exists. The opportunity cost of me eating the apple is someone else eating it or its rotting away in my fridge (which is what normally happens to fresh fruit I buy). </p><p>One could say 'which fruit would you buy on an ongoing basis?' Here, if you are indifferent between the fruit, then you may boycott the fruit produced by the evil Israeli competitive market while making it a point to nosh on the virtuous product of the Hamas monopoly. But this means you are no longer indifferent between the two commodities. </p><blockquote><i> In a competitive market, price equals marginal cost,</i></blockquote><p>not in the market for perishables like fresh fruit. Price need only exceed cost of delivery and display.</p><blockquote><i> so the price reflects the social cost of production.</i></blockquote><p>Nope. It reflects exogenous shocks. As for the 'social cost', who the fuck knows what that is? Ecologists may discover decades from now, that there was a very high social cost in producing apples on a particular terrain. </p><blockquote><i> However, in a monopoly market, the price is higher than the marginal cost, so the price does not reflect the social cost.<br /></i></blockquote><p>No. A fruit monopolist would deliberately reduce acreage devoted to pears or else destroy a portion of the crop so as to hit the 'sweet spot' on the demand curve. The customer can't do shit about this. Only the Government or the Courts can force the monopolist to increase acreage or bring the entire crop to market even if this means the price collapses. </p><blockquote><i><br />Given:The price of apples (Pa) equals the price of pears (Pp)<br />Apples are produced competitively, so Pa = MCa<br /></i></blockquote><p>The marginal cost is zero. Price is determined by where the totally inelastic supply schedule hits the demand curve. Long run, with 'Muth Rational' expectations, one could say that expected price should equal expected incremental cost from the marginal acre brought under a particular fruit. But, the Muth Rational <i>equilibrium</i> (one which gets rid of 'cobwebs') for perishables like fruit involves crop insurance or buffer stocks or other methods of getting Income equalization absent which there would be entry or exit. Once again, consumers can't do shit though no doubt they could boycott particular products or take other action to directly change the demand curve.</p><blockquote><i>Pears are produced by a monopolist, so Pp > MCp<br /><br />Therefore, MCa = Pa = Pp > MCp<br /><br />The marginal cost of producing a pear (MCp) is lower than the marginal cost of producing an apple (MCa).<br /></i></blockquote><p>No. Even if the market is in steady state equilibrium, and the monopolist is restricting acreage under pears, the result is that the (presumably highly productive for pears) pear acreage has a higher price or imputed rent. The marginal cost is still zero plus the incremental transport cost. By finding a superior way to dispose of excess pears- e.g. turning them into Schnapps- Society has a Pareto improvement. But eating apples rather than pears will have no effect. </p><blockquote><i>From society’s perspective, the cost of producing an additional pear is lower than the cost of producing an additional apple.</i></blockquote><p>No. Acreage under pears is less than it would be if there was no monopolist. But this tells us nothing about Social Costs or Benefits. It may be that pear production has some positive externalities- more pollen and thus more honey- and some negative externalities- e.g. higher need for freon based refrigerants in the cold chain. But the solution is supply side. The consumer can do nothing. </p><blockquote><i> The resources needed to produce a pear (MCp) are less than the resources needed to produce an apple (MCa).<br /></i></blockquote><p>There could be a 'tragedy of the commons' if there is free entry. All sorts of nutters think they are gonna strike it rich by growing apples. They weep bitter tears when the price collapses. But the solution is better 'public signals' promoting an improved correlated equilibrium. </p><blockquote><i>Therefore, if you want to minimize the societal cost of your fruit consumption, you should choose the pear. By consuming a pear, you are using up fewer societal resources than if you consume an apple.<br /></i></blockquote><p>Nonsense! All you are doing is, at the margin, increasing monopoly profit while the little guy who brought his apples to market hoping to buy his malnourished child bride a vibrator weeps bitter tears. </p><blockquote><i>The monopoly pricing of the pear is a separate issue from the social cost of production. The higher price of the pear reflects a transfer from consumers to the monopoly producer, but it does not affect the underlying cost of the resources used to produce the pear.<br /></i></blockquote><p>If there is a negative externality or a 'repugnancy' market, we may prefer a monopoly. It may be better if Opium or Tobacco or Alcohol is a Government monopoly. </p><blockquote><i>So in conclusion, if your goal is to minimize the cost to society of your fruit consumption,</i></blockquote><p>you need to know a lot about agriculture and ecology and sustainability etc. It may be that I should eat less avocadoes and quinoa for complex ecological and geopolitical reasons. </p><blockquote><i> you should buy the monopoly produced pear, as it has a lower marginal cost of production than the competitively produced apple, despite being sold at the same price.</i></blockquote><p>At the margin, you should buy the apple for 'distributional' reasons. It is not the case that consumers should minimize marginal production cost by buying access to my farts (which cost nothing to produce) rather than purchasing real estate. </p><p>Alex gives us another 'brilliant' question from the nutter Landsburg-</p><i></i><blockquote><i>Q. The town of Mayberry is thinking of expanding its airport. One problem with the expansion is that it would result in more airplane noise. For people who live near the airport, hearing that noise would cause as much unpleasantness as the collective loss of $100,000 every year. True or False: When Mayberry weighs the costs and benefits of its airport expansion, that $100,000 should count as a cost<br /></i></blockquote><p>True. If Mayberry ignores this cost and builds the airport it is likely that it will be dragged into court and will have to make punitive damages. This is because there is a property right in Common Law and thus the matter is justiciable. </p><blockquote><i><br />A. True, the $100,000 in collective unpleasantness experienced by residents near the airport due to increased noise should be counted as a cost when weighing the costs and benefits of the airport expansion. Here’s why:<br /><br />Externalities: The airplane noise is a negative externality – a cost imposed on third parties (the nearby residents) who are not directly involved in the economic activity (the airport expansion). Externalities lead to market inefficiencies because the full costs are not being accounted for by the decision-makers.<br /><br />….a bunch more similar reasoning, all correct.<br /><br />Once again, Claude (an AI) gives a textbook answer and yet the answer is wrong.</i> </blockquote><blockquote><i>In a way this is more surprising than failing the first question because Coase got a Nobel prize for giving the correct answer (and it’s not, bargaining will solve the externality if that is what you are thinking.) </i></blockquote><p>Transaction costs are high. Thus Coase is irrelevant. Moreover there are uncorrelated asymmetries dictating 'bourgeois strategies'. In this case, property owners have an incentive to band together and sue the pants off Town Hall. </p><blockquote><i>I will let commentators work this one out. Do read the question carefully, it’s subtle. Again with Socratic prompting Claude got there eventually.<br /><br />I wouldn’t underestimate the GPTs, textbook answers can be of great value, especially when the textbooks are long and diverse. Medical diagnostics, legal reasoning and coding are ideal tasks for GPTs. Economic reasoning less so, at this stage.<br /><br />Congratulations to Steve Landsburg for the excellent questions.</i></blockquote><p>Alex got both questions wrong. What he didn't realize is that Landsburg (unlike Coase) doesn't get that opportunity cost is a 'global' concept. There is a high cost to not defending property rights which is why punitive damages are likely if the thing goes to court. </p><p>However, this does not alter the fact that people have to look at actual costs and benefits they receive. A town which builds an airport and which then has to shell out millions in punitive damages is a town which has shat the bed. As for a nutter who thinks buying from a monopolist- or paying me to smell the farts I produce for free rather than buying a house- such nutters will go fucking extinct quickly enough. </p><p>Hopefully, AI's won't be trained by stupid economists. Let them have access to real world data and work out correlations for themselves. </p><p><br /></p>windwheelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18099651877551933295noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1674709389503889160.post-29851439811634460472024-03-11T18:12:00.011+00:002024-03-12T13:18:14.628+00:00आवासः क्रियतां गाङ्गेThere's a famous couplet attributed to Bhratrhari <br /><br />आवासः क्रियतां गाङ्गे पापवारिणि वारिणि ।<br /><b>स्तनमध्ये </b>तरुण्या वा मनोहारिणि हारिणि ॥<br /><br />āvāsaḥ kriyatāṃ gāṅge pāpavāriṇi vāriṇi |<br />stanamadhye taruṇyā vā manohāriṇi hāriṇi <div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b>The Enlightened, either fix their abode on the steps of Ganga's Sin-absolving waters</b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b>Or else shoot their load twixt the rose tipped tits of Joy's roistering daughters</b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">which has a complicated 'Tantric' meaning, or else is simply a reflection of the fact that 'Samsara' is 'Nirvana' coz shit is only shit. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Now, it is true that certain very scholarly' Tantric' lineages- e.g. Kaulas, Namboodris etc.- as well Royal families who maintained hereditary preceptors/ purohits/ rhapsodists with this soteriological genealogy- did have babies and followed a middle path and are still doing very well after hundreds or thousands of years. But this is because they fucked off from where the Ganges and Cholera most copiously flowed, and concentrated on making money, not titty-fucking. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">If the girl has 'garlanded breasts' and you get to appreciatively lick the space between them, it is not coz God favours titty-wanks. It is because that space will soon be populated by a bouncing, belligerent, baby who will bite your nose and throw away your glasses and dance delightedly upon your broken bones.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">It is because there was no space between my wife's, or my Mum's, or Goddess Parvati's breasts, that baby has to content himself with sleeping between Mum & Dad due to otherwise they merge into Ardhanarishvara. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Why do stupid fuckers like me still bother with the 'Bhagirathi parishram' of translating the ultra fuckin' scholastic Bhratrhari?</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"> It's coz the latter's expensive education was the axe which laid waste to his mother's youth. Personally, I blame Bhishma. Fuck you very much <a href="https://www.wisdomlib.org/definition/gangeya">Gangeya</a>!</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Still, Ganga is great because Yamuna- i.e. Yami- is great. Fuck Yama and <i>niyamas-</i> or rather, since they are all about refusing to fuck yore sister for some sissy reason, relegate them to fucking Hades!</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div>I suppose, a hundred years ago, LSE type Iyer would have remarked the particular type of 'stream' - ओघ- constituted by the mare that is the submarine fire or the 'horses of the sea' which Cuchulain battled after the women displayed their bare breasts to him and abashed he retired to fight the milk flecked briny tide whose Prince of Whales tends to be a balding fuck. Still, if the cunt kept sucking off whales so as to preserve Pax Brittanica or whatever, fuck we care about his fucking bald-spot? </div><div><br /></div><div>As for Bhratrhari or Lord Buddha- who thought baby Rahul was a 'fetter'- here's the fucking truth. Fucking does not matter. Babies and Mummies matter. Looking after peeps and letting others learn how to look after you- that's fucking Love mate! Everything else is just solitary or mutual masturbation or some sort of fucking circle jerk. </div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div>windwheelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18099651877551933295noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1674709389503889160.post-62146384689336624882024-03-10T14:01:00.003+00:002024-03-14T15:28:40.099+00:00Ram Guha & Ambani's gay, Islamic, elephants<p> The Ambanis, perhaps for religious reasons, created a sanctuary for injured or elderly elephants in Jamnagar. It may be that, at their prompting, Parliament passed a law to make the functioning of such sanctuaries more efficient. This is an example of political influence being used to secure a Pareto improvement. Everybody is no worse off while some are better off as a result. No doubt, the Ambanis are closer to the powers that be than the average child rapist currently incarcerated, but it is a good thing if a charity gets to function more effectively thanks to better legislation. Ram Guha, nitwit that he is, thinks otherwise. But before bringing up the issue of the injured elephants, he trains his guns on the fact that, in obedience to a recent suggestion from Modi, the Adanis celebrated a lavish wedding related ceremony in Jamnagar rather than Dubai or the South of France. Again nobody lost just because Jamnagar gained. This is a Pareto improvement. It may be that the Government didn't charge the Ambanis for providing additional services at the Jamnagar airport because of the publicity and good will the country would gain. But that is a separate matter.</p><blockquote><i><br />On March 1, 2024, the online edition of The Hindu carried a report by Jagriti Chandra with this headline: “Jamnagar airport gets international status for Anant Ambani’s pre-wedding bash”. The text described how the small airport at Jamnagar, run by the armed forces, had been declared an “international airport” for ten days, from February 25 to March 5. This was done to be “able to welcome global bigwigs such as Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Rihanna, Ivanka Trump and several former Prime Ministers to the three-day pre-wedding bash” of Anant, the youngest child of Nita and Mukesh Ambani. The “Union government’s Ministry of Health, Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Home Affairs”, the report continued, “have pressed in resources to set up a Custom, Immigration and Quarantine (CIQ) facility at the airport.”<br /></i></blockquote><p>Rich people may pay politicians so as to get stuff for themselves at the expense of the tax-payer. In this case, however, it may be that the Government had its own reasons for supporting a high profile 'Marry in India' event. Why did Guha not pick up the phone and call one or two of his contacts in the Central and the Gujarat government to verify if this was the case? The answer is that Guha prefers to look at 'Social Media'. </p><blockquote><i>I read Ms Chandra’s striking report, and then went to see the comments on social media. These were, as to be expected in these times, very polarised. On the one side, there was a series of justificatory remarks by supporters of the political regime which had allowed this extraordinary discretionary favour to the Ambanis. So we were told that the Congress government did the same at Chandigarh airport in 2011 to facilitate Pakistani visitors (but then that was for a major international sporting event, the semi-final of the cricket World Cup, not a private wedding), that the Ambanis provided employment to thousands of Indians, that the VIPs visiting had to be given proper respect and security.<br /></i></blockquote><p>All this is irrelevant. Governments should do things which represent Pareto improvements. The Opposition may try to show that some damage was caused to a third party. But in this case there was no damage. </p><blockquote><i><br />On the other side, there were a series of critical remarks expressing horror and dismay. One user commented: “For Adani and Ambani life in India is like being in heaven and for the rest of us it is hell.” </i></blockquote><p>This is because Adani and Ambani are very rich. Thus their quality of life in India or America or Africa or Europe or Australia is very high. Sadly, the life of a beggar in such countries is not as nice. </p><blockquote><i>A second said: “We are new Russia with much bigger Oligarchs...”</i></blockquote><p>Ram Guha finds great inspiration in reading such tweets. </p><blockquote><i> A third dryly remarked: “The great saying ‘Vasudhaiva Kudumtakam’, which means ‘The World is One Family’ has been rewritten as ‘Me, My Wealthy Friends and their Friends are One Family’.”<br /></i></blockquote><p>But Modi's own family isn't rich. Kharge's or Sonia's or Stalin's families are all mega-rich. </p><blockquote><i>One comment on the Ambani ‘pre-wedding’ said that the redesignation of the Jamnagar airport was effected “because a young rich kid wants to showcase his private zoo by inviting some famous species from all around the world.” This remark was given credence by images of Ivanka Trump posing in front of a caparisoned elephant in Jamnagar.<br /></i></blockquote><p>A young samskari Hindu may well want to 'showcase' the state of the art sanctuary he has set up for elderly elephants and other such animals. <br /><br />A few weeks ago, Reliance Industries and Reliance Foundation officially launched 'Vantara', an animal shelter spread over 3000 acres in Jamnagar. It has about 2000 "rescued animals" from around the globe. 600 acres are devoted to elderly or injured elephants with first rate veterinary facilities.</p><blockquote><i>The private zoo referred to is run by an organisation called the ‘Radha Krishna Temple Elephant Welfare Trust’. </i></blockquote><p>Why the scare quotes? It took me thirty seconds to discover that <span face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif" style="background-color: white;"></span></p><blockquote>'The Radhe Krishna Temple Elephant Welfare Trust (RKTEWT) is a Public Charitable Trust registered under the Gujarat Charitable Trust Act, 1950. The objective of the trust is to promote animal welfare by establishing shelters and providing state of art facilities to animals who are rescued, hurt, ill, of advanced age, victims of human-animal conflict, victims of human abuse or are abandoned.<br /><br />'The RKTEWT facility is spread over 600 acres in the RIL’s Moti Khavdi complex where it has an oil refinery. The RKTEWT, set up in 2013, has been receiving elephants from across the country for their life-long care and upkeep. The RIL is also in the process of developing a mega private zoo near its refinery complex in Moti Khavdi village.<br /><br />'The Trust utilises about 500 acres of man-made Miyawaki forest, which helps in maintaining a lower temperature… the Trust has provided for each elephant a day shelter (with fans, overhead sprinkling and showering systems) and separate night shelter. Each shed is equipped with imported rubber flooring to keep their foot pad safe and comfortable. In addition, the Trust utilises about 100 acres of segregated waterbodies in the form of 10 small water bodies and 9 hydro-therapy pools. The Trust has provided for hydro-therapy pool as most of the Elephants are old and have arthritis<br /><br />'The Trust has received many elephants from donors, such as elephants belonging to circuses, temples and individuals who did not have the financial means to take care of the elephants. Apart from providing care to the elephants, the trust is also providing a better life to the mahouts and their families, who had come along with the elephants.<br /><br />'2021-10-08: Four elephants that belong to the royal family of Mysore will soon be in Gujarat, at the Elephant Rescue Centre in Jamnagagar. The four females, in the age <a href="https://www.elephant.se/index.php?id=96">Group</a> of 27-44 years, will be sent to Jamnagar after the Dussehra festival. The elephants — Rajeshwari (27), Gemini (31), Seetha (36) and Ruby (44) — are owned by the Mysore-Wadiyar dynasty. The royal family has six elephants, of which four are being sent to the facility in Jamnagar.<br /><br />2021-10: In October 2021, two were sent to Gujarat (from Arunachal Pradesh).<br /><br />2022-04: The forest department confirmed that seven elephants were sent to the temple trust in April, 2022 (from Arunachal Pradesh).<br /><br />2022-06-10: Ten elephants belonging to private owners in Arunachal Pradesh that were deployed in the timber industry and are now old and ailing will soon find their way to a care centre run by the Radhe Krishna Temple Elephant Welfare Trust (RKTEWT). The 10 elephants — seven males and three females — are set to be transported from Arunachal Pradesh to Gujarat as their owners got assurance from the RKTEWT to accept the pachyderms. With this, the number of elephants at the centre, said to be the biggest such facility for old elephants, will cross 150.<br /><br />2022: Before december 2022, 29 elephants from circus in India: The circuses that relinquished the elephants include the <a href="https://www.elephant.se/location2.php?location_id=1041">Ajanta Circus</a>, Empire Circus, Famous Circus, and Kohinoor circuses from Kolkata, Great <a href="https://www.elephant.se/location2.php?location_id=3690">Apollo Circus</a> from Delhi, <a href="https://www.elephant.se/location2.php?location_id=1461">Great Golden Circus</a> from Ahmedabad, Great Prabhath Circus from Hyderabad, <a href="https://www.elephant.se/location2.php?location_id=746">Moonlight circus</a> from Lakhimpur (Assam), <a href="https://www.elephant.se/location2.php?location_id=1458">Rambo Circus</a> from Pune (arrived 2016), and <a href="https://www.elephant.se/location2.php?location_id=3811">Rajmahal Circus</a> from Kanpur.<a href="https://www.elephant.se/location2.php?location_id=4"></a><br /><br />2023-04-22: Despite opposition from various wildlife organisations and Moran Students’ Union, 20 elephants were transported out of Arunachal Pradesh’s Namsai District on Friday morning. A Supreme Court-appointed High-Powered Committee (HPC) allowed the transfer of elephants to the Radha Krishna Temple Elephant Trust in Jamnagar supported by Reliance Industries Limited.</blockquote><p>Guha finds all this very sinister. </p><blockquote><i>This grand religious appellation masks a secular scandal more egregious than making a ‘defence’ airport ‘international’ for ten days. </i></blockquote><p>Not in the view of the Supreme Court. As for 'defense' airports, they can be 'international' for a few days without endangering national security. On the other hand, if Hindu men marry Hindu women in a brazen display of Hindutva values, Guha will shit himself. </p><blockquote><i>This trust and its activities were enabled by an amendment to the Wild Life (Protection) Act in 2021,</i></blockquote> That bill 'aims to implement the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora and expand the number of species protected by the convention which requires countries to regulate the trade of all listed specimens through permits and regulate the possession of live animal specimens so it does not threaten the survival of the species.'<div><br /></div><div>Guha finds this very sinister. Why did the Ambanis take the trouble to get Modi elected so as to be able to get their hands on some elderly elephants? What is their angle? OMG! Those elderly elephants are probably homosexual Muslims who vote for Biden! Ambanis are trying to get Trump re-elected by brainwashing, or even illegally incarcerating Gay Muslim elephants from Wisconsin and other key swing states. Rihanna is probably an elephant! This is a very big conspiracy! Bill Gates (real name Dumbo the flying elephant) is involved. This conspiracy goes all the way to the the Big Top!<blockquote><i> allowing the creation of private zoos</i></blockquote><p>this has always been allowed. The 1972 Act was amended in 1991 or 1992 to create a Central Zoo authority which can provide financial and technical support to registered zoos. </p><blockquote><i> and encouraging the capture, transport and sale of endangered wild species such as the elephant.</i></blockquote><p>Moreover, the Act specifically says that all Homosexual Muslim Elephants and Panthers must be handed over to Ambani or Adani for brainwashing. After that these animals will be sent to Amrika to vote for Trump. Rihanna is actually one such homosexual Muslim elephant. Wake up sheeple!</p><blockquote><i> At the time, the writer and conservationist, Prerna Singh Bindra, </i></blockquote><p>a journalist who served on the National Board for Wildlife under Manmohan. </p><blockquote><i>had pointed out that while earlier the Act had explicitly disallowed commercial transactions of protected species, now, with the amendment, “live captive elephants have been excluded from this general prohibition, leaving a gaping loophole for their commercial sale and purchase. It presents the elephant, a protected wild animal, as a tradable commodity; and is, therefore, at odds with the objective, and the spirit of The Wildlife (Protection) Act. This is a serious anomaly in the law that must be corrected.”<br /></i></blockquote><p>Everybody knew the '72 law was useless. Temples which had illegally acquired elephants fifty years ago wanted to transfer them to 'sevalayas' like that of the Ambanis. The law needed to change to make this legal. A few Congress supporting journalists may pretend that Ambanis are kidnapping homosexual Muslim elephants so as to turn them into Rihanna and get them to vote for Trump. But it is foolish to direct attention to the Ambani's charitable work, more particularly because it has a religious dimension. </p><blockquote><i>Naturally, given who was in power and who they were obliged to, the anomaly was not corrected. </i></blockquote><p>It should not be corrected. Rich zoos should be able to take over injured or elderly animals. </p><blockquote><i>The consequences are now starkly there for us to see. A report in The New Indian Express in June 2022 documented eight cases in a single month where attempts were allegedly made by racketeers to fake No Objection Certificates by using forged signatures to smuggle wild elephants from Assam.</i></blockquote><p>But there were thousands of forged ownership certificates for elephants all over the country! It was quite usual for a ten year old animal to have a certificate showing it to be fifty or sixty years old. </p><blockquote><i>Seven of these cases saw attempts made to transport elephants to the Ambani-run trust in Jamnagar.<br /></i></blockquote><p>17 animals <i>were</i> transported in 2022. The next year, locals tried to stop the transport of elephants but they failed. The police ensured the animals were moved from Arunachal to Gujarat on orders from the Supreme Court. Tripura has 74 pet elephants as per the 2022 Animal Census. It has sent 23 elephants to Jamnagar.<br /></p><blockquote><i>These eight cases were the beginning of a flood. In the last week of February 2024, Anant Ambani boasted that the Radha Krishna Temple Elephant Welfare Trust now housed more than two hundred ‘rescued’ elephants. These claims were taken at face value by the godi media. However, an investigation by the website, Northeast Now,</i></blockquote><p>there was no investigation. They just quoted some activist or other </p><blockquote><i> reported that “many of these ‘healthy’ and ‘fit to travel’ elephants were transported from Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, and Tripura to the RKTEWT, raising concerns about the traditional notion of ‘rescuing’ animals in need.” </i></blockquote><p>Very true. Jayaprakash Narayan was very healthy when India paid for him to go to America for medical treatment. After all, if he was 'fit for travel', he must have been in the pink- right? The fucking CIA killed him. </p><blockquote><i>It was surmised that most of these elephants were illegally captured in the wild, </i></blockquote><p>when an elephant is born in the wild, its Mummy puts a microchip under its skin and alerts the authority so they can register the little pachyderm. </p><blockquote><i>and subsequently ‘purchased’ with the help of middlemen.<br /></i></blockquote><p>When you purchase something you pay for it with money. When you 'purchase' something from a middleman, you fuck him in the ass and then he shits on your tits. Homosexual Muslim Elephants object to this practice. That is why Ambani is kidnapping and brainwashing them and then sending them to US to vote for Trump. </p><blockquote><i>Another report in Northeast Now quoted from a letter written by an animal rights group. It was troubled by the transport of young elephants “from their fertile, lush, tropical, natural habitat of Arunachal Pradesh, 3400 km apart, to the dry, unnatural terrain of Jamnagar, in western Gujarat.” The letter continued: “The cavalcade — in which each elephant per truck is strapped in, boarded by wooden frames — is racing without any stops through Bihar for six more days of the total nine-day journey.” The letter was written to alert the wider public to this “seemingly illegal trade of freshly captured wild elephants being legitimised…”<br /></i></blockquote><p>by the Supreme Court. Why don't these 'activists' launch a PIL? If there really is something wrong with the law and if the Courts, for some unknown reason, are intent on transporting Homosexual Muslim Elephants to Gujarat, then the country has bigger problems than Modi and Ambani. It is Parliament and the Judiciary which should be abolished and reconstituted on a basis that ensures more equitable outcomes for Gay, Disabled, Elephants regardless of color, creed, or their degree of wildness. </p><blockquote><i>An animal rights activist I spoke to said while he welcomed attempts to house, rehabilitate and care for wild species that had already been dislocated from their natural habitat, the scheme to transport hundreds of elephants from the Northeast to the Ambani facility had reactivated old animal trafficking networks.</i></blockquote><p>Had the animal rights activist Guha spoke to, spoken to me, she could have mentioned the Homosexuality of those Elephants which, however, did not prevent them from affirming a strong faith in Islam as well as a determination to vote for Biden in the upcoming elections. </p><blockquote><i> Once, wild elephants were captured and sent to temples; </i></blockquote><p>despite being Muslim or, in certain cases, Homosexual Mormons. </p><blockquote><i>now, they were being dispatched to this private facility in Jamnagar. The respected ecologist, Ravi Chellam,</i></blockquote><p>who has a 'long term involvement with Asiatic lions'. </p><blockquote><i> has compared the Ambani zoo to a personal “stamp collection” </i></blockquote><p>Ravi can afford to collect stamps. Elephants and lions are outside his price-range. Thus his long term involvement with Asiatic lions has not led to sexual consummation. Sad. </p><blockquote><i>which does not contribute in any significant manner to the globally-recognised aims of wildlife conservation.<br /></i></blockquote><p>Money and money alone contributes to this. Chellam was head of the Indian Greenpeace. Without foreign funding it seems to have withered up and died. </p><blockquote><i>Wildlife scientists and conservationists have raised three questions that Ambanis and those facilitating them (both within and outside government) must answer.</i></blockquote><p>They need to bring a PIL. Sadly, this means uncovering actual evidence, not just making shite up. </p><blockquote><i> First, why transport so many wild elephants to Jamnagar, a dry industrial belt spectacularly unsuited to the well-being of this forest-loving animal? </i></blockquote><p>It is because those elephants were proudly following a Homosexual Islamic lifestyle while living peacefully in the magnificent jungles claimed by the People's Republic of China. Ambani is kidnapping and brainwashing these elephants and sending them to Amrika to vote for Trump. </p><blockquote><i>Second, why create a parallel regulatory system to facilitate this? </i></blockquote><p>Because homosexual elephants refuse to follow lateral regulatory systems. </p><blockquote><i>Third, why not work with state forest departments to create such facilities in natural habitats to keep elephants safe, secure and as these wonderful animals themselves want to be?<br /></i></blockquote><p>Why not indeed? How come these nutters aren't spending billions to allow wild animals to cavort in a manner they themselves find pleasing? </p><blockquote><i>These are vitally important questions, but it is overwhelmingly unlikely that the Ambanis or their political patrons will bother to answer them.<br /></i></blockquote><p>Because these questions aren't important at all. </p><blockquote><i>When I was young, the Congress regime of the time was derided by left-wing critics as a “Tata/Birla Sarkar”. </i></blockquote><p>But those left-wing circles were derided by everybody else. The Tatas and Birlas are still around. </p><blockquote><i>Yet, surely not even J.R.D. Tata or Ghanshyam Das Birla, at the height of their influence and power in the 1950s and 1960s, would have thought that they could get Jawaharlal Nehru or Indira Gandhi to accord the airport nearest their factories ‘international status’ for a family wedding (still less a ‘pre-wedding’).</i></blockquote><p>Dictators fuck up industrialists and found dynasties. Sadly, autocracy is tempered by assassination. As for getting immigration and customs to open desks at an airport for a major event, the thing is merely a matter of cost and benefit. I suppose Modi is signaling that in his third term, roadblocks for FDI will be cleared away. If his party wins big, India jumps to a higher growth trajectory. </p><blockquote><i>Nor could they have persuaded them to radically change the wildlife conservation act to favour a single family zoo.</i></blockquote><p>Actually, Indira had some posh friends who were into Tigers and so forth. </p><blockquote><i>Things are now all too different. As the economist, Arvind Subramanian, has argued, instead of creating a level playing field, in which all entrepreneurs have an equal chance of succeeding, </i></blockquote><p>as opposed to an equal certainty of going bankrupt or being nationalized </p><blockquote><i>the Indian State has in recent years promoted a “2 A variant” of “stigmatized capitalism”.</i></blockquote><p>This is a term invented by Arvind Subramaniyan to mean distrust of the private sector. On leaving his post as Chief Econ Adviser he said-<span face=""Lato Regular", sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #212121; font-size: 18px;">“</span>My hypothesis is that India is affected by stigmatized capitalism, where there is not enough trust in the private sector or in the ability of the state to regulate the private sector. It is making it much more difficult to give the private sector a bigger role. It is easier to give a public or a quasi-public entity a bigger role rather than getting more private sector participation#</p><blockquote><i> Two industrial houses, the Adanis and the Ambanis, have witnessed a spectacular rise in their fortunes, largely because of government policies that have allowed them to establish a dominant position in such critically important areas as ports, airports, clean and dirty energy, petrochemicals, and telecommunications.<br /></i></blockquote><p>Both had grown rapidly under previous administrations. This does not mean they are bullet proof. Anil Ambani- once the sixth richest man in the world- is bankrupt. Adani could have been brought down by Hindenburg but appears to have weathered the storm</p><blockquote><i>Opposition politicians in India have trained their gaze on the proximity to the Modi regime of one of those A’s, the Adanis. </i></blockquote><p>Kejriwal used to gas on about the Ambanis but changed tack because voters think Ambanis and Adanis can provide electricity while what andolanjivis can produce is gobar gas. Kejriwal is now suggesting that 'Pakistanis' (Hindu or Sikh refugees from Pakistan) will move into your neighborhood and rape your wife. Send those damn kaffirs back to Pakistan where they can be killed or forcibly converted! </p><blockquote><i>Yet, as the cases of the Jamnagar airport and the amendments to the Wild Life (Protection) Act show, </i></blockquote><p>voters are happy that rich peeps are spending their money in India not Dubai. Capitalists are no longer stigmatized. People understand that they provide useful stuff like mobile phones, broadband, electricity, brainwashing for homosexual Islamic elephants etc. etc. </p><blockquote><i>the Ambanis have a comparable ability to bend the professedly mighty Indian State to their will.</i></blockquote><p>The Indian State is increasing in might by doing sensible things. Promoting the Ambani wedding was good publicity for India Inc. The elephant thing doesn't matter much but probably ties up with the Jamnagar District's Tourism master-plan or something of that sort. </p><p>What Guha is not saying is that there were billionaires, like Vijay Mallya, who bought their way into Parliament, and that there are plenty of billionaire regional politicians some of whom are outright gangsters. </p><blockquote><i>To invoke a currently fashionable idiom, in business matters as well as family matters, both the Adanis and the Ambanis enjoy Modi Sarkar ki Guarante</i></blockquote><p>This is marvelous publicity for the Ambanis and Adanis. Guha is saying 'buy shares in their companies. They are close to Modi who is bound to be re-elected with a bigger majority. If they can get the government to do somersaults just for a private function, what will they not be able to achieve when it comes to their profit making ventures? This also means that other billionaire entrepreneurs need to be seen to be supporting Modi. OMG! Now it makes all makes sense! The Supreme Court has got rid of Election bonds and compelled publishing the names of donors so as to help Modi's diabolical plan to brainwash homosexual elephants of the Islamic persuasion. </p></div>windwheelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18099651877551933295noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1674709389503889160.post-6224117627213326692024-03-10T03:56:00.001+00:002024-03-10T03:56:01.651+00:00Bertrand Russell's bigotry<p>Bertrand Russell thought that 'a<i> good way of ridding yourself of certain kinds of dogmatism is to become aware of opinions held in social circles different from your own.'</i></p><p>The problem here is that if we become aware of different dogmas, we may be tempted to trade in our own beliefs for those held by the most admired or successful. </p><blockquote><i>For those who have enough psychological imagination, it is a good plan to imagine an argument with a person having a different bias. </i></blockquote><p>But, in your imagination, that other person might not smell bad or be as poor as shit. In other words, you are not able to observe with the opposite dogma to your own is associated with better or worse socio-economic outcomes. </p><blockquote><i>This has one advantage, and only one, as compared with actual conversation with opponents; this one advantage is that the method is not subject to the same limitations of time or space.</i></blockquote><p>But our history and geography matter a great deal in determining when and where it is wise to hold a particular dogma. </p><blockquote><i> Mahatma Gandhi deplores railways and steamboats and machinery;</i></blockquote><p>Russell could have met the fellow easily enough. He was certainly aware that Gandhi & his crew were shit and that India was a shithole. In 1942, the wrote to the Time magazine saying Britain must not transfer power because if Indians were responsible for defense, Japan would conquer the country very quickly. Even if there was no Japanese threat, the country was likely to experience civil war. Part of the problem facing India was that Gandhi was a fucking cretin who believed earthquakes were a punishment for sin. </p><blockquote><i> he would like to undo the whole of the industrial revolution. You may never have an opportunity of actually meeting any one who holds this opinion, because in Western countries most people take the advantage of modern technique for granted.</i></blockquote><p>But western countries have plenty of crackpots. Gandhi got his anti-industrialism out of British, American and Russian authors. </p><blockquote><i> But if you want to make sure that you are right in agreeing with the prevailing opinion, you will find it a good plan to test the arguments that occur to you by considering what Gandhi might say in refutation of them. </i></blockquote><p>Russell was an even crazier pacifist than Gandhi. You are right to agree with the prevailing opinion if this is in your interest. Otherwise, why bother? As for Gandhi, the guy couldn't refute shit. </p><blockquote><i>I have sometimes been led actually to change my mind as a result of this kind of imaginary dialogue, and, short of this, I have frequently found myself growing less dogmatic and cocksure through realizing the possible reasonableness of a hypothetical opponent.</i></blockquote><p>You may as well be cocksure about dogmas which it is in your interest to hold. If you appear wishy washy even on matters of vital importance to your survival, people will think you are weak and unreliable. </p><p>Some 20 years after Russell gave the speech quoted above, an American court prevented Russell taking up a College appointment. A wealthy man- Alfred C Barnes- hired him to lecture at his foundation, but dismissed him after a year or two because he was rude to students. Private enterprise, it seems, can encourage a diversity of opinion. However, diverse opinions can pose an existential threat to the polity. Trinity had dismissed Russell for his pacifist views during the Great War. He had been sent to prison for, very foolishly, opposing America's entry into it. In both cases, there was a justification for punishing an influential man who was preaching dangerous and stupid shite. </p><p>Returning to Russell's 1922 speech, we find that refuting his dogmas requires seeing them as stupid, unreasonable, or dangerous to his own vital interests. It does not require considering the plausibility of a position as stupid, but opposite, to his own. </p><blockquote><i>There are two simple principles which, if they were adopted, would solve almost all social problems. The first is that education should have for one of its aims to teach people only to believe propositions when there is some reason to think, that they are true. </i></blockquote><p>Some person could have some reason to think any possible thing is true. Indeed, one could have a reason for thinking a set of incompossible or contradictory propositions is true. Why have an aim which anything whatsoever could fulfil? </p><p>Education is either being imparted or it isn't. Its aims are irrelevant. The question is whether the thing is worth the student's time and money. But this is true of any service industry. </p><blockquote><i>The second is that jobs should be given solely for fitness to do the work.<br /></i></blockquote><p>So, when hiring a cook, all that matters is that the man cooks well. It does not matter if he is sleeping with your wife or if he keeps telling everybody you have a tiny dick. </p><blockquote><i><br />To take the second point first. The habit of considering a man’s religious, moral, and political opinions before appointing him to a post or giving him a job is the modern form of persecution, and it is likely to become quite as efficient as the Inquisition ever was. </i></blockquote><p>Only in the sense that the habit of moving away from a person with a strong body odor is likely to result in the setting up of Nazi death camps. The reason Russell mentions the Spanish Inquisition is because neither the Gulags nor Nazism had been heard of at that time.</p><blockquote><i>The old liberties can be legally retained without being of the slightest use. </i></blockquote><p>A liberty is a Hohfeldian immunity under a bond of law. It is useless if there is no effective remedy. </p><blockquote><i>If, in practice, certain opinions lead a man to starve, it is poor comfort to him to know that his opinions are not punishable by law. </i></blockquote><p>It may be great comfort for him to know that he can fucking emigrate rather than starve. Also, having certain opinions- e.g. that you are entitled to fuck a gangster's wife- which are not punishable by law may still get your fucking head kicked in. </p><blockquote><i>There is a certain public feeling against starving men for not belonging to the Church of England, </i></blockquote><p>There is no public feeling against sacking a Vicar who insists on sodomizing the curate while presiding over Satanic rituals in the apse of the parish church. The fact that the Vicar does not belong to the Anglican Church is all the more reason for denying him any remuneration even if this means that he has to go hungry. </p><blockquote><i>or for holding slightly unorthodox opinions in politics.</i></blockquote><p>or for holding orthodox opinions but expressing them by a series of vociferous farts </p><blockquote><i> But there is hardly any feeling against the rejection of atheists or Mormons, extreme communists, or men who advocate free love. </i></blockquote><p>Russell was speaking of polygamous Mormons who were welcome to emigrate and populate some distant territory. </p><blockquote><i>Such men are thought to be wicked, and it is considered only natural to refuse to employ them.</i></blockquote><p>It may be unnatural, but sensible to refuse to employ them. You may, quite naturally want to exercise your advowson in favor of your brother who is an Anglican priest in good standing. It may not be sensible to do so if he expresses his orthodox opinions by an interminable series of vociferous farts. That sort of thing is better left to the Methodists. </p><blockquote><i> People have hardly yet waked up to the fact that this refusal, in a highly industrial State, amounts to a very rigorous form of persecution.<br /></i></blockquote><p>This is because in a highly industrialized state, emigration is impossible. Moreover, there is a Boss's cartel. You can't go into business for yourself. Also the Spanish Inquisition is conducting auto da fes all over the place. </p><blockquote><i><br />If this danger were adequately realized, it would be possible to rouse public opinion, and to secure that a man’s beliefs should not be considered in appointing him to a post.</i></blockquote><p>Russell was unaware that the 'public' knew very well that if you have a useful skill, you can always get work somewhere or other. </p><blockquote><i>The protection of minorities is vitally important; </i></blockquote><p>Only if the minority provides a vital service </p><blockquote><i>and even the most orthodox of us may find himself in a minority some day, so that we all have an interest in restraining the tyranny of majorities.</i></blockquote><p>Very true. It is vitally important to protest against death because even the healthiest amongst us may find themselves facing death one of these days. We must restrain the tyranny of Death. After that, we can tackle the problem of farts which turn into sharts. </p><blockquote><i> Nothing except public opinion can solve this problem.</i></blockquote><p>Sadly, public opinion can't solve shit. Otherwise every kid would be educationally above average. </p><blockquote><i> Socialism would make it somewhat more acute, since it would eliminate the opportunities that now arise through exceptional employers. </i></blockquote><p>Emigration is the traditional solution to the problems of Socialism. </p><blockquote><i>Every increase in the size of industrial undertakings makes it worse, since it diminishes the number of independent employers.</i></blockquote><p>No. There will be more niche service providers and thus more employers. Sadly, there may be 'duality' such that the big firms pay more than the ancillary SMEs. </p><blockquote><i> The battle must be fought exactly as the battle of religious toleration was fought. </i></blockquote><p>Russell preferred to fight imaginary battles. He didn't want to fight the Germans. </p><blockquote><i>And as in that case, so in this, a decay in the intensity of belief is likely to prove the decisive factor. While men were convinced of the absolute truth of Catholicism or Protestantism, as the case might be, they were willing to persecute on account of them. </i></blockquote><p>If Protestantism means you get your hands on Abbeys and Church Estates, then you will be happy to persecute the fuck out of any Jesuits lurking in priest-holes. Catholics too might want to get their mitts on the accumulated wealth of industrious ranters to mention Jews. </p><blockquote><i>While men are quite certain of their modern creeds, they will persecute on their behalf.</i></blockquote><p>Not if they immediately get their heads kicked in. </p><blockquote><i> Some element of doubt is essential to the practice, though not to the theory, of toleration.</i></blockquote><p>We tolerate getting fucking in the ass if the alternative is having our heads kicked in prior to being fucked in the ass. </p><blockquote><i> And this brings me to my other point, which concerns the aims of education.<br /><br />If there is to be toleration in the world, one of the things taught in schools must be the habit of weighing evidence, and the practice of not giving full assent to propositions which there is no reason to believe true.</i></blockquote><p>Why not the habit of breathing? After all, respiration is vital to life. </p><blockquote><i> For example, the art of reading the newspapers should be taught.</i></blockquote><p>Teechur shud x-plane that newspaper is owned by Murdoch. He is bad man. </p><blockquote><i> The schoolmaster should select some incident which happened a good many years ago, and roused political passions in its day.</i></blockquote><p>Russell supported appeasement. He thought Britain should surrender to Hitler. This aroused political passions. But if you read the newspapers of the day, little of it was communicated. Partly, this was because Chamberlain's government managed the Press very successfully. Also, the BBC had a monopoly on radio broadcasts and it had been made to toe the line. </p><blockquote><i> He should then read to the school-children what was said by the newspapers on one side, what was said by those on the other, and some impartial account of what really happened.</i></blockquote><p>Nothing of the sort is available. Passions may be strategic but they are emotional and reflect normative preferences. Britain didn't want to fight over Sudentenland. In any case, Poland and Hungary too wanted to take a bite out of Czechoslovakia. Poland was a different matter. I firmly believe that we in this country have always felt a debt of gratitude to the many telephone Poles which have served us so well. Sadly, as more and more people ditched landlines, the British chose Brexit. </p><blockquote><i> He should show how, from the biased account of either side, a practised reader could infer what really happened, and he should make them understand that everything in newspapers is more or less untrue. </i></blockquote><p>No. Newspapers carry some news as well as some views. The latter are 'imperative' and are neither true nor false. </p><blockquote><i>The cynical scepticism which would result from this teaching would make the children in later life immune from those appeals to idealism by which decent people are induced to further the scheme of scoundrels.<br /></i></blockquote><p>Teaching can't make kids immune to shit. That's why murders still happen. </p><blockquote><i>History should be taught in the same way. Napoleon’s campaigns of 1813 and 1814, for instance, might be studied in the Moniteur, leading up to the surprise which Parisians felt when they saw the Allies arriving under the walls of Paris after they had (according to the official bulletins) been beaten by Napoleon in every battle. </i></blockquote><p>This is nonsense. Parisians knew their fate was sealed as Napoleon kept retreating. However, many thought the Allies would go after Napoleon in the South rather than enter Paris. </p><blockquote><i>In the more advanced classes, students should be encouraged to count the number of times that Lenin has been assassinated by Trotsky, in order to learn contempt for death.</i></blockquote><p>It enough to learn contempt for Trotsky who waded through an ocean of blood only for Stalin to inherit the throne of Ivan the Terrible. </p><blockquote><i> Finally, they should be given a school-history approved by the Government, and asked to infer what a French school history would say about our wars with France. </i></blockquote><p>They say the same thing we do. Perhaps things had been different when Russell was a boy. He was a home schooled. It may be that Douglas Spalding, his tutor and the lover of his mother, kept urging him to reconquer Calais for the Queen. </p><blockquote><i>All this would be a far better training in citizenship than the trite moral maxims by which some people believe that civic duty can be inculcated.<br /></i></blockquote><p>If no special training is needed to train people in citizenship, it is likely that citizenship training is not required either. It is a different matter that a country may have a citizenship test for those seeking naturalization. </p><blockquote><i>It must, I think, be admitted that the evils of the world are due to moral defects</i></blockquote><p>only sentient organisms which have arisen by biological evolution are said to have 'moral defects'. We don't attribute the evils of the world to them because, obviously, this evil world is the fitness landscape on which they have arisen. </p><blockquote><i> quite as much as to lack of intelligence. </i></blockquote><p>Rocks aren't intelligent. World is very evil due to I tripped over a rock and scraped my knee. Bertrand Russell should kindly educate rocks and stones of various descriptions. </p><blockquote><i>But the human race has not hitherto discovered any method of eradicating moral defects; preaching and exhortation only add hypocrisy to the previous list of vices.</i></blockquote><p>The threat of punishment may do so but exhortation can have no such effect if it is always possible to kick the ranters head in </p><blockquote><i> Intelligence, on the contrary, is easily improved by methods known to every competent educator. </i></blockquote><p>Which is why, if you send a rock to Collidge, it will become very smart. </p><blockquote><i>Therefore, until some method of teaching virtue has been discovered, </i></blockquote><p>it has. There were and are plenty of religious schools. You pay more to send your kid to a place where the teachers aren't drunk off their heads and constantly shagging each other. Obviously, if your kid has a taste for arson, you may have to send the fellow to an experimental school. Maybe if he takes enough drugs he won't keep trying to burn the house down. </p><blockquote><i>progress will have to be sought by improvement of intelligence rather than of morals. </i></blockquote><p>One can easily give up immoral activities- e.g. making fun of deaf people or pretending to be a Nigerian princess- but it is very difficult to raise a person's IQ. Look at Rahul Gandhi. </p><blockquote><i>One of the chief obstacles to intelligence is credulity,</i></blockquote><p>There is no connection between the two. A very smart guy can be very credulous of all sorts of fads and fancies. </p><blockquote><i> and credulity could be enormously diminished by instructions as to the prevalent forms of mendacity. </i></blockquote><p>Such instruction is easily available from hobos wearing tin-foil hats who warn passers-by that demons have taken over the DMV. </p><blockquote><i>Credulity is a greater evil in the present day than it ever was before, because, owing to the growth of education,</i></blockquote><p>teechur shud say 'Government is lying to you. So is the boss class. As for your so called 'parents' don't get me started!' </p><blockquote><i> it is much easier than it used to be to spread misinformation, </i></blockquote><p>or misinformation about the terrible threat of misinformation </p><blockquote><i>and, owing to democracy, the spread of misinformation is more important than in former times to the holders of power. </i></blockquote><p>Democracy is very naughty. It should not let Miss Information sit on its face. </p><blockquote><i>Hence the increase in the circulation of newspapers.<br /></i></blockquote><p>Miss Information has a fine pair of knockers. </p><blockquote><i><br />If I am asked how the world is to be induced to adopt these two maxims — namely: (1) that jobs should be given to people on account of their fitness to perform them; </i></blockquote><p>leave this to the profit motive </p><blockquote><i>(2) that one aim of education should be to cure people of the habit of believing propositions for which there is no evidence — </i></blockquote><p>there is no evidence that any such 'cure' exists. Why aim at something wholly imaginary or incompossible? </p><blockquote><i>I can only say that it must be done by generating an enlightened public opinion. </i></blockquote><p>That public opinion was enlightened enough to reject Russell's stupid Pacifism. </p><blockquote><i>And an enlightened public opinion can only be generated by the efforts of those who desire that it should exist. </i></blockquote><p>And those who desire that it should exist should buy my books and pay good money to attend my lectures. </p><blockquote><i>I do not believe that the economic changes advocated by Socialists will, of themselves, do anything towards curing the evils we have been considering. I think that, whatever happens in politics, the trend of economic development will make the preservation of mental freedom increasingly difficult, unless public opinion insists that the employer shall control nothing in the life of the employee except his work. </i></blockquote><p>The Law can do so. Public opinion can drive legislative changes but, equally, a 'test case' could be brought so as to clarify that an employer can't make unreasonable stipulations regarding the employee's private life. </p><blockquote><i>Freedom in education could easily be secured, if it were desired, by limiting the function of the State to inspection and payment, and confining inspection rigidly to the definite instruction. But that, as things stand, would leave education in the hands of the churches, because, unfortunately, they are more anxious to teach their beliefs than freethinkers are to teach their doubts. </i></blockquote><p>Unless they are pedophiles. </p><blockquote><i>It would, however, give a free field, and would make it possible for a liberal education to be given if it were really desired. More than that ought not to be asked of the law.<br /></i></blockquote><p>So, it is the law- not public opinion- which matters. The population may support capital punishment for kiddy fiddlers but the law may forbid any such outcome. </p><blockquote><i>My plea throughout this address has been for the spread of the scientific temper, which is an altogether different thing from the knowledge of scientific results.</i></blockquote><p>Actual scientists have a scientific temper though they may be very religious. Russell wasn't a scientist. </p><blockquote><i> The scientific temper is capable of regenerating mankind and providing an issue for all our troubles. </i></blockquote> Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Scientific Temper, he cannot enter into the kingdom of Uranus. <blockquote><i>The results of science, in the form of mechanism, poison gas, and the yellow press, bid fair to lead to the total downfall of our civilization.</i></blockquote><p>Woe unto Nineveh! Woe, woe! Also Babylon is fucked. As for Harlem, don't get me started. </p><blockquote><i> It is a curious antithesis, which a Martian might contemplate with amused detachment. </i></blockquote><p>while pleasuring himself with an anal dildo composed of anti-matter. </p><blockquote><i>But for us it is a matter of life and death. </i></blockquote><p>No. It is just hot air. </p><blockquote><i>Upon its issue depends the question whether our grandchildren are to live in a happier world, or are to exterminate each other by scientific methods,<b> leaving perhaps to negroes and Papuans the future destines of mankind.</b></i></blockquote><p>Fuck you Papuans! Fuck you very much! </p>windwheelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18099651877551933295noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1674709389503889160.post-43006661732945337742024-03-06T18:19:00.013+00:002024-03-08T15:04:56.086+00:00Ray's Jalsaghar as Gassire's Lute.<div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;">Ray's Jalsaghar is a Gassire's lute its own auteur, brute, so percussively silences because</div><div style="text-align: center;">The breath of the <i><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bildungsbürgertum">bildungsburgertum</a></i> keeps the beat of a chilblained dominie's thaws</div><div style="text-align: center;">Plied, perhaps, to some good purpose in Paideia's Ultima Thule</div><div style="text-align: center;">Not Bengal's banshee wail for British Rule. </div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><i>Envoi-</i></div><div style="text-align: center;">Prince! Send Sentiments, Moral, not the rouged<i> Ressentiments </i>of Madam Quarrel</div><div style="text-align: center;">From Weyland's Smithy, a brand of Adam more pithy, to Ind's strand of Coral!</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div>windwheelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18099651877551933295noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1674709389503889160.post-2818952076155022312024-03-06T10:28:00.006+00:002024-03-06T10:28:26.487+00:00D.F Karkara & Breast Feeding<p>D.F Karkara was a Parsi war correspondent who covered the liberation of Nazi concentration camps in Poland. Three years later, some British army officers invited him to witness the genocide in the Punjab which India's Free Press (it would soon cease to be free as 'Security Measures Acts' were imposed) had no interest in covering for fear or upsetting the country's new political masters. </p><p>What had led to the trains filled with slaughtered refugees, Karkara saw in Amritsar, in which vastly more people were killed by violent mobs than had been slaughtered by Brigadier Dyer? The plain fact is that vast quantities of armaments had been distributed in the Province. This was an open secret. Arms salesman, both British and Indian were minting money and were thick on the ground at every elite watering-hole. </p><p>Karkara writes</p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;">Our leaders discounted stories which appeared in the Press about this gun-running. They called it yellow journalism. Meanwhile, our own soldiers, defending the refugees, were being killed by modern automatic firearms. The only people who were disarmed by government were the law-abiding. In the streets of Amritsar, within sight of the police and the military, ferocious-looking Sikhs carried threatening kirpans (long swords) and bhalas, which were short spears tied to nine-foot bamboo sticks. But in Bombay, the Chief Justice of the High Court, Sir Leonard Stone, had to get special dispensation from the Home Department to be able to carry a walking stick. It did not make sense.</blockquote><p>Actually it made perfect sense. Mahatma Gandhi had warned in 1939 that if the Brits departed without handing over the entire Army to Congress, then the Muslims and the Punjabis (regardless of creed) would overrun the country. The non-violent Hindu- who supported Congress- would be fucked in the ass. It was important that the Punjabis slaughter each other so that the two new countries could rise up unmolested by their pugnacity. </p><p>Karkara was not free of the prejudices of his time. He thought there was something sinister in the fact that Punjab had been under Governor's rule. But this was because Jinnah had ensured that the Province was ungovernable. The fact is, the Brits did not want the Province to go up in flame. It was White officers who brought Karkara to Amritsar though a Sikh General, S.B. Chimni, did welcome him once he arrived. Perhaps Chimini thought a journalist could pressure the Civilian administration to shake off their lethargy and help the refugees. Soldiers can sometimes be very naive.</p><p>Karkara too was naive. He had somehow got it into his head that Nehru and Gandhi were sincere in their professed beliefs. He didn't understand that Nehru knew that he would only win a General Election under a universal franchise if he slaughtered Muslims and Commies and jailed the bleeding hearts. This is because the voter wanted 'the smack of firm Government'. The just wanted the smacking to be done by a brown, preferably Brahminical, rather than a <i>mleccha</i>, White, hand. </p><p>Gandhi was not interested in smacking but had no objection to Hindus starving to death or being killed by Muslims or Japs or anybody else who might turn up on Ind's coral strand. Nehru, however, as a Socialist understood that his job was to kill Commies and keep killing them till they cried Uncle. At that point Congress could become a Socialist Party and he could retire. Sadly, Congress threatened to replace him with his daughter- which meant his son-in-law, a Parsi like Karkara- would wield power in his place. Since it is no fun playing King Lear- more particularly if your son-in-law is a pudgy, middle-class, LSE graduate- Nehru stayed on as Prime Minister and thus took the blame for the Chinese invasion. He had so weakened the country that even Pakistan thought it could take a bite out of India. That is when the worm- Shastri- turned. Thankfully the little sparrow died and Indira took over because otherwise her Aunty, whom she hated, might have been given the top job. Since her own younger son was an utterly unemployable sociopath, she had to ensure he would inherit her job. In India, people join politics to spend more time with their families or else to keep some relative out of power. It is said that Rajiv & Sonia only took up their Dynastic burden so as to keep out their sister-in-law and nephew. As for Rahul, God alone knows why he is still pretending to be a politician. Is it because Robert Vadra has a gleam in his eye? Perhaps the fellow will become the Indian Zardari. He once tweeted about the plight of a 'mango man in a banana republic' though he was by no means an 'Aam admi'. Still, this little flicker of wit may have put Rahul on the<i> qui vive. </i>I mean, look at Kejriwal. He is clearly a mango of some description. </p>windwheelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18099651877551933295noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1674709389503889160.post-90673975107712448902024-03-05T22:29:00.001+00:002024-03-05T22:29:05.906+00:00Manash Firaq Bhattacharjee's rectal 'mohabbat ki dukan'. <p>Nehru's ancestors had served first the Mughals in Delhi and had then become Vakils representing the East India Company. Forced out of Delhi by the aftermath of the Mutiny, 90 years later, Nehru founded a Dynasty which would still be ruling India if Rahul hasn't been gun-shy. Whatever Nehru's conception of India might have been, it was Delhi-centric- i.e. thought India should be unified and ruled from the banks of the Yamuna. </p><p>Manash Firaq Bhattacharjee takes a different view. He thinks Nehru saw India as a young nation- like Australia- which was seeking to become 'the contradictory whole' of many 'contradictory selves'. He writes in 'Outlook' </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;"> In an article he wrote for Time magazine in 2001, reflecting on fifty years of India’s independence, Salman Rushdie </blockquote><p>who was Pakistani, not Indian, though he had spent his first dozen years in Bombay. Pakistan certainly had 'contradictory selves'. That's why it split in two. India did not. There is separatism where Hindus are not the majority but not elsewhere. As a Brahmin, Nehru wanted to 'Brahminize' India, not in the religious sense but by getting the fucking Banias to be a little less fucking Bania. </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;">connected the “so-called idea of India”</blockquote><p>Pakistanis may indeed think India is merely 'so-called'. Why can't the country just fucking disintegrate already? </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;"> to the modern Indian self, through a string of paradoxes: </blockquote><p>A Democracy with Dynastic rulers is a paradox. Sonia could have become PM in 2004 but her son put his foot down. </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;">“In the modern age, we have come to understand our own selves as composites, often contradictory, even internally incompatible.</blockquote><p>Thankfully we live in the post-modern age which thinks Freud was a fraud. Disassociative identity disorder probably isn't a real thing. Yes it is! My name is Audrey and I am an eight year old girl trapped inside the body of an elderly fat bastard. </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;"> We have understood that each of us is many different people.</blockquote><p>Only in the sense that many different people are us- I identify with Julia Roberts in Pretty Woman. Basically, if instead of studying Accountancy I'd gone to Hollywood and become a prostitute, that would be the life I'd have had. </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;"> Our younger selves differ from our older selves;</blockquote><p>No. Different predicates apply to us in different contexts. That does not mean we have multiple selves. </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;"> we can be bold in the company of our lovers</blockquote><p> more particularly if we told them we are Secret Agents </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;"> and timorous before our employers,</blockquote><p>also we have to pretend to actually be doing some work </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;"> principled when we instruct our children and corrupt when offered some secret temptation; we are serious and frivolous, loud and quiet, aggressive and easily abashed.</blockquote><p>Also we sometimes take a shit and, at other times, we eat food. This does not mean we have a shitting self which is separate from our dining self. </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;"> The 19th-century concept of the integrated self has been replaced by this jostling crowd of ‘I’s.</blockquote><p>Stevenson's Jeckyl & Hyde was plenty nineteenth century. </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;"> And yet, unless we are damaged, or deranged, we usually have a relatively clear sense of who we are. I agree with my many selves to call all of them ‘me.’”<br /></blockquote><p>Very good of you I'm sure. Most people fight bitterly with their many selves and insist of speaking of themselves using the royal we. </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;"><br />Reading this article in the Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) library, a year before submitting my PhD thesis on Nehru and Gandhi, </blockquote><p>Did you know that Nehru wasn't actually married to the Mahatma? Indira wasn't born of Mohandas's womb. No doubt this was because Nehru didn't stick his dick into one of Gandhi's female selves. Sad. </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;">I detected a Nehruvian echo in Rushdie’s evocative passage.</blockquote><p>The rest of us detected a Paki whining about how India was doing well, Bangladesh was doing well, Pakistan was going down the toilet. </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;"> We can make an analogous connection between Rushdie’s description of “selves” and what Nehru describes as the nation in this passage from the ‘Epilogue’ to The Discovery of India: “The discovery of India—what have I discovered? </blockquote><p>Nehru was writing for a Western audience. His book was quite useful- especially in America- in depicting India as a youthful country which would pursue sensible economic policies. The Government would borrow on Wall Street to fund industrialization with GM and GE and Ford and Dow Chemicals getting big contracts. </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;">'It was presumptuous of me to imagine that I could unveil her and </blockquote><p>stick my pee pee in her chee chee place? </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;">find out what she is to-day and what she was in the long past. To-day she is four hundred million separate individual men and women,</blockquote><p>with single, not multiple, selves. </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;"> each differing from the other, each living in a private universe of thought and feeling.</blockquote><p>whereas in Belgium everybody lives in a public toilet of thought and feeling </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;">'If this is so in the present, how much more difficult is it to grasp that multitudinous past of innumerable successions of human beings...</blockquote><p>Historians don't have any great difficulty in this respect. It isn't a real high IQ profession. </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;">India is a geographical and economic entity, a cultural unity amidst diversity, a bundle of contradictions held together by strong but invisible threads.”<br /></blockquote><p>Nehru wanted to be that thread. Sadly, he couldn't make himself invisible. Still, he wore a cap to hide his baldness. Otherwise everybody would have mistaken him for Alaistair Sim. </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;">What Nehru imagines as India’s selfhood in terms of modern life, Rushdie finds within each self of the numerous selves that make a nation. </blockquote><p>All nations are held together by strong but invisible threads- unless the trousers split, which, to be frank, is happening to me increasingly often. This is because they use inferior quality thread. I've been a 32 waist since I was 18. I may have gained 20 kilos, but have always retained my slender coltish figure. </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;">It is impossible to contain this vast sea of differences without, and accepting, contradictions between people and allowing them to thrive.<br /></blockquote><p>Nehru didn't want the Brits to stick around. That's one contradiction he strove mightily to suppress. He wasn't too crazy about the Muslim League either and ensured it ceased to exist in his India. </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;">“Nehru did not fall into the temptation of suppressing the contradictions of history</blockquote><p>He suppressed the fuck out of the Razakars and the Commies in Telengana </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;">…He does not offer solutions; but shows us the way to find them.”<br /></blockquote><p>By telling Jinnah to fuck off to a moth-eaten Pakistan. </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;">The Mexican poet-critic Octavio Paz</blockquote><p>who was Ambassador to India </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;"> in his 1967 speech in Delhi said that as a political leader, Nehru “did not fall into the temptation of suppressing the contradictions of history…He does not offer solutions; but shows us the way to find them.” </blockquote><p>By dying. That solved a lot of India's problems. </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;">This statement acknowledges Nehru’s ideological flexibility.</blockquote><p>He was a Socialist in the morning but became a Capitalist at lunch-time. By evening he was a Nazi but slept as baby because one of his selves was the baby Jesus. </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;"> Nehru did not follow a doctrinaire politics where a combination of scientific rationality and certain revolutionary ideas turned society into a Set Theory and provided absolute answers to the problems of human life.</blockquote><p>Set theory does not provide 'absolute answers'. This is because there are no Godelian absolute proofs. However, Nehru was a doctrinaire Socialist of the Fabian variety. </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;"> The nation is the contradictory whole of the proliferation of contradicting selves. </blockquote><p>No. The nation is univocal no matter how heterogeneous its population. Nations tend to be similar to neighboring nations with which they have to compete in different ways. </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;">This is a much deeper understanding than a nation broken down to the category of individuals alone.</blockquote><p>States are not individuals. They have their own 'Tardean mimetics' and there is 'convergence' of the Tinbergen type between competing powers. </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;"> It provokes a radical idea of individuality itself, where individuals are not defined in terms of mere cogs in the wheel.</blockquote><p>Manash's Mummy frequently defined him as a cog or sprocket or lever of some type. Nehru's radical idea hadn't caught on in her neck of the woods. </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;"> In an essay titled ‘Personality’, Rabindranath Tagore </blockquote><p>who got paid hundreds of dollars for lecturing rich Americans about their lack of spirituality </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;">decried “the rampant materialism of the present age which ruthlessly sacrifices individuals to the bloody idols of organisation.”</blockquote><p>Tagore came from a part of the world where lots of goats kept getting sacrificed to Kali </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;"> The meaning of “organisation” here can be extended to include political organisations too, where individual contradictions are sacrificed in the name of a suffocatingly singular idea of the self and the nation.<br /></blockquote><p>Tagore warned the Hindus that they would have to flee from East Bengal. Manash might find it very suffocating to be a soldier in the Army, but without soldiers and policemen, sensitive poets would be stabbed or sodomized. </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;">There are similar resonances even in the imagination of the cultural self in Nehru and Rushdie. </blockquote><p>not to mention Jennifer Aniston and Charlie Chaplin </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;">When Sir C P Ramaswamy Aiyer, conservative lawyer and politician from Madras, said in public (sometime during 1934-1935) that Nehru “did not represent mass-feeling”, </blockquote><p>Aiyer was a Vadadesi Vadama Tambram- i.e. as stupid as shit. Thanks to him, Keral is now ruled by the Communist party. Still, the chap could take a hint. When some Mallu dude stuck a knife in him, he moved back to Madras. </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;">Nehru agreed and extended the point in the epilogue of his Autobiography: “I often wonder if I represent anyone at all…I have become a queer mixture of the East and the West,</blockquote><p>like Kipling's Kim. </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;"> out of place everywhere, at home nowhere</blockquote><p>Nehru was raised by wolves- like Mowgli. He and Tarzan frequently compared notes on the problems they faced in fitting in with polite society. </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;">…I cannot get rid of either that past inheritance </blockquote><p>Nehru would often howl at the moon </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;">or my recent acquisitions…</blockquote><p> Nehru had learned how to eat with a fork and knife</p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;"> [T]hey create in me a spiritual loneliness…I am a stranger and alien in the West</blockquote><p>people kept mistaking him from Alaistair Sim. Then he'd howl at the moon and they would suggest he see an alienist </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;">…But in my own country also, sometimes, I have an exile’s feeling.”<br /></blockquote><p>Not an exile, a prisoner's feeling. This was because he was in jail. </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;">By eluding representation, Nehru is being not just honest about himself. </blockquote><p>Honest people are forthcoming. They don't elude representation or pretend they don't speak Hindi to their Mummy and Wifey while speaking English at work, like Daddy and Uncleji. </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;">He is unwittingly raising a larger question about people who claim to belong to a single cultural heritage,</blockquote><p>like whom? His gardener? </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;"> whereas that heritage itself has evolved from its encounter with other cultural sources. </blockquote><p>So what? You belong to your own family even if its members evolved from encounters between Neanderthals and Denisovans and various other types of hominids. </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;">To deny that encounter is to indulge in historical bluff.<br /></blockquote><p>No it isn't. It is obvious that an Indian barrister would have a bit of British culture and a lot of Indian culture- which is what Nehru, like his Daddy, had. But then the founder of his party, A.O Hulme ended up a Vedantist vegetarian. What is sad is that he knew and cared more about Indian agriculture than any subsequent Congress President. </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;">Compare Nehru’s passage to Rushdie writing in the short story on migration, ‘The Courter’, from the anthology of short stories, East, West (1994): “I, too, have ropes around my neck. I have them to this day, pulling me this way and that, East and West, the nooses tightening, commanding, choose, choose. I buck, I snort, I whinny, I rear, I kick. Ropes, I do not choose between you…Do you hear? I refuse to choose.”<br /></blockquote><p>Rushdie chose America just as his Daddy chose Pakistan. Sadly, he didn't choose to employ a bodyguard and has lost an eye. </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;">What for Nehru in the 1930s was a conscious understanding of his spiritual homelessness,</blockquote><p>he and his Daddy had started off in Annie Besant's Theosophical Society. Then he opted for a different sort of Mahatma. </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;"> unable to rid himself of the genuine rift (and conflict) between his double identity</blockquote><p>he had a single identity as a British subject and, after India became a Republic, a citizen of India. Dual nationality was not an option because Nehru & Co wanted to prevent Muslims like Rushdie from returning to India by the back-door. </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;"> encountering western and Indian modernity, </blockquote><p>because encountering ancient Europe requires a time-travelling DeLorean. </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;">for Rushdie in the 1990s becomes an even more acute struggle to endorse that cultural rift by refusing a fake abandonment of that contradiction. </blockquote><p>What fucking contradiction? People understand why Rushdie didn't want to live in a shithole country where towel-heads could get a million dollars for sticking a knife in him. </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;">To choose being one over and against another is a false choice.</blockquote><p>No. It is a real choice. If you can have your cake and eat it too, you don't need to make a choice. </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;"> The cultural condition of modernity is the impossibility of choosing between our many selves.<br /></blockquote><p>Nonsense! We have to choose to be the self who has a job or the self that is unemployed. Where there is opportunity cost, there is choice. What you can't be is a traditional Hindu Confucian or a modern Tarzan. That is a case of impossible attempt. </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;">To choose being one over and against another is a false choice. </blockquote><p>This cretin has no choice but to write nonsense. </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;">The common thread between Nehru and Rushdie is </blockquote><p>they went to British Public School and then Cambridge University. Also they made money by writing books. </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;">the idea of the self and the idea of the nation that has a constant tendency to differ from itself, a self that experiences difference within itself. </blockquote><p>Only in the sense that the idea of the idea constantly sodomizes itself because of all the constitutive contradictions of its ipseity. </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;">The self is “often contradictory, internally incompatible” [Rushdie] and “a bundle of contradictions” [Nehru].</blockquote><p>Nehru was a bundle of contradictions. He was supposed to be a Fabian type Socialist yet was following a Mahacrackpot who kept doing stupid shit. Nehru expresses his frustrations in the Autobiography. To be air, he was an effective Congress president who put India on the path to Partition. This meant that Rushdie could not remain Indian. Since Pakistanis, writing in English, are less boring and stupid than Indians, Rushdie was initially quite readable. </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;"> It is reminiscent of Walt Whitman’s famous lines in Song of Myself: “Do I contradict myself?/Very well then I contradict myself,/(I am large, I contain multitudes.)”<br /></blockquote><p>He was speaking of his rectum. It had taken a lot of multitudinous traffic. </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;">These men of imagination make a fundamental point about the modern self that they realise—intuitively, poetically—being self-conflicted.</blockquote><p>Selves have always been conflicted because doing stuff that feels good can get you killed. Look at Rushdie. </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;"> The postulate is so fundamental that an argument for it only follows from or after the proposition, or hypothesis, is laid out. </blockquote><p>There is no such postulate. This cretin thinks you must first have axioms before you can start reasoning. Studying shite at JNU destroys the brain. </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;">The self in modernity, to repeat, is self-contradictory. </blockquote><p>Whereas in ancient times, the self would pre-emptively have sex with itself rather than get into an argument. </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;">This goes against the Kantian assumption of rationalist thought </blockquote><p>This silly man does not know that Kant argued that rationalist metaphysics is impossible. Reason has strict limits. </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;">where reason is the elimination of contradictions, </blockquote><p>Reason can't eliminate antinomies. JNU is a shit school. </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;">or even the logical formulation of identity from German Idealism that ‘‘I is I’’.<br /></blockquote><p>that's the transcendental ego. This guy has shit for brains. </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;">Even Gandhi acknowledged this principle. </blockquote><p>What principle? That Gandhi was Gandhi not Nehru? </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;">He wrote on April 29, 1933 in Harijan: “I am not at all concerned with appearing to be consistent. In my pursuit after Truth I have discarded many ideas and learnt many new things.”</blockquote><p>He went on a fast for the untouchables and thus was let out of jail. The man was consistently shit. </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;"> He clarified the point further writing on September 28, 1934, in Harijan: </blockquote><p>he had been rearrested but was released because he went on another fast </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;">“I have never made a fetish of consistency.</blockquote><p>Liars seldom have any such fetish </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;"> I am a votary of Truth</blockquote><p>is what habitual liars say </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;"> and I must say what I feel and think at a given moment on the question, without regard to what I may have said before on it.”</blockquote><p>he babbled any shit that came into his head. </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;"> The difference between truth and thinking precisely lies in the temporal space where thinking is constantly evolving vis-à-vis an ever-changing idea of truth. Time contradicts us and we contradict our older selves in time.<br /></blockquote><p>No. The difference between truth and thinking lies in the fact that the truth corresponds to the facts of the case. Thinking may or may not do so. An idea of truth can be as stupid as shit- as is the case with this cretin. </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;">This idea of contradiction has nothing to do with the chameleonesque self where you contradict your past the way people change ideological garbs and wear new masks to suit the demands of the current political weather. </blockquote><p>To change over time involves no 'contradiction'. To say 'this baby is an elderly man' is to make a contradictory statement. But no baby actually is an elderly man. Equally, every elderly man was once a baby. </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;">That is an instrumentalist—and perfectly logical—way of “self-ing”. </blockquote><p>Perhaps this nutter means wanking. </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;">The word ‘‘contradict’’, in fact, doesn’t suit this case.</blockquote><p>Yes it does. If a guy says 'I believe in merit. That's why I vote for Rahul Gandhi' he is contradicting himself because Rahul lacks merit. </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;"> This is also not an endorsement of the Hegelian dialectic where you evolve from contradictions in mere ideas alone.</blockquote><p>That isn't the Hegelian dialectic which is like a judgment which 'synthesizes' what is presented in the thesis and the argument against the thesis. This isn't too different from the Socratic palinode. </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;"> It is rather a recovery of the older, more ethical Platonic idea in The Laws that contradictions also involve people.</blockquote><p>Predicates applied to a person may be contradictory. The person is not himself a contradiction. </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;">If you follow Plato, you won’t succumb to the corrupt, logical nonsense Fascists,</blockquote><p>Plenty of Platonists were Fascists. Gentile in Italy and Kazunobu in Japan are examples. Popper thought Plato was the first Fascist thinker. </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;"> religious fundamentalists, </blockquote><p>there are plenty of neo-Platonic sectarian fundamentalists </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;">Stalinists and Maoists believe in:</blockquote><p>both Stalin and Mao were considered to be Platonic 'Philosopher Kings'. </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;"> that whoever contradicts you is your enemy. </blockquote><p>if he is also trying to stick a knife in you, he probably is an enemy. However, when Mummy says 'you aren't really a Secret Agent. You are a ten year old school-boy. Shut up and do your homework', though she is contradicting you, she isn't your enemy. The fact is, she has been brainwashed by SPECTRE. </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;">To consider others enemies is to consider your (contradictory) self your own enemy.<br /></blockquote><p>No it isn't. Your contradictory self doesn't keep trying to stab you. </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;">Nehru understood the modern self and the nation’s selfhood as one where people may avoid the dangers of what Rushdie calls “damaged, or deranged” conditions of the self.</blockquote><p>Nehru understood that you have to get rid of Muslim majority provinces because them guys keep stabbing kaffirs and apostates and guys who look as though they might be or become kaffirs or apostates. </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;"> If you deny the fact that your self contains elements of other selves </blockquote><p>which is probably true if their cum is dripping out of your rectum </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;">and that you are a “bundle of contradictions” held together by “strong and invisible threads” of love, you are most likely to suffer from neurosis.</blockquote><p>says an asshole whose 'mohabbat ki dukan' is open for business. Manash is living proof that JNU can make you as stupid as Rahul Gandhi. </p>windwheelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18099651877551933295noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1674709389503889160.post-84914451084932284632024-03-05T16:22:00.003+00:002024-03-05T16:22:25.214+00:00Kaushik Basu happy ability to not reason. <p> In a new book titled 'Reason to Be Happy: The Unexpected Benefits of Thinking Clearly’, Kaushik Basu reveals that he began to feel depressed after moving to Delhi to attend St. Stephens at the age of 17. By the time he shifted to the LSE for his MSc & PhD it had disappeared. Most Indians above a certain age would remember how fucking horrible India was back in the Seventies. Living at home was okay because Mummy and Daddy and Granny etc. are very good for hugging and kissing purposes. But the rest of the country was horrible. People who were utterly suicidal turned into little beams of sunshine the moment their plane left Indian airspace. </p><p>True, actually reasoning this out by thinking clearly would make an Indian economist unhappy. After all, it would have been easy enough to Trade theory or some other useful field so as to promote better economic policies back home. Back in the late Fifties, a couple of Chinese-American economists at Cornel had helped Taiwan move on to an export-led growth strategy. But, being Bengali, Basu was forbidden to take this road. </p><p>This was more particularly true if you were studying Economics because India's manifold problems had clearly been caused by shitty Economists like Sukhamoy Chakroborty. True, Amartya Sen, who had to leave India because he had run off with his best friend's wife, was teaching useless shite at the LSE but fuck do we care if Whites fuck up their own economy? They owe us big time for Slavery or the Raj or whatever. </p><p>Consider the following</p><i></i><blockquote><i>After returning to college from the two-week October break, the plunge began. To this day, I do not know quite what happened to me. </i></blockquote><p>You were studying Econ- the most boring subject in the world- in Delhi, which had made it its business to fuck up the Indian Economy. </p><blockquote><i>Was it triggered by moving out of a home where I felt totally, absurdly protected?</i></blockquote><p>Yes. But having to study stupid shite didn't help. </p><blockquote><i> Was it caused by a feeling of inferiority – a concern that I was not up to the mark with such smart classmates? </i></blockquote><p>If you were smart you'd have got into medical school or IIT </p><blockquote><i>Was it a specific psychological problem which had a name?</i></blockquote><p>Excessive Masturbation. But this is only a problem for your room-mate. </p><blockquote><i> Were there others who got it? Is it known what causes it?<br /></i></blockquote><p>We know what cures it. Booze. Lots of booze. </p><blockquote><i>For me, now, this is a matter of pure intellectual curiosity. In case one of my readers has an answer, let me fill you in with one or two details. One marked feature of this anxiety or depression or melancholia – I do not quite know what to call it – was its clear daily routine. I would wake up feeling more or less fine, then sometime in the morning, </i></blockquote><p>i.e. when lectures began </p><blockquote><i>the anxiety would start, building up through the day, becoming acute by late afternoon.</i></blockquote><p>other kids studying mathematics or English lit were enjoying their classes. If you were doing Econ people looked upon you with pity. </p><blockquote><i> Then, as night descended, it would begin to ease.<br /></i></blockquote><p>At that age, I masturbated for about five hours a night. I could have gone longer but tended to fall asleep. This is one reason I got sacked from my job as a night receptionist. </p><blockquote><i>As the months passed, the daily interval of calm, from night to morning, kept getting shorter. </i></blockquote><p>Basu masturbated more. Wankers do well in mathematical econ. </p><blockquote><i>This growing anxiety and depression were accompanied by a loss of interest in everything.</i></blockquote><p>there is a point when you are no longer picturing naked girls when you masturbate. Indeed you are telling them to put their clothes back on and take a cab home. You've got your hands too full to waste time on them. </p><blockquote><i> It had no daily cycle; it was persistent. I had no ambition; I no longer cared for any of the things that had been dear to my heart. It was a cause of genuine despair that I appeared to be living with no purpose whatsoever.<br /></i></blockquote><p>Repainting the ceiling with ejaculate isn't the sort of life project you can boast about at dinner parties. </p><blockquote><i>I read that John Stuart Mill had a similar episode in his life when he was twenty. </i></blockquote><p>Mill masturbated? What about Macaulay? Meredith I can understand but Thomas Babington Macaulay? And to think we had to read his 'Great Lays of Ancient Rome' in middle school. </p><blockquote><i>Normally, I would have been thrilled to find that I had something in common with John Stuart Mill, </i></blockquote><p>Mill died a virgin. At 17, that tends to be one's big fear. </p><blockquote><i>but at the time this too meant nothing. I continued to attend classes, had lots of friends, genuine and close. No one guessed what I was going through.</i></blockquote><p>If you are 17 everybody just assumes you are jacking off at least 5 times a day. </p><blockquote><i> After a year, I was fully reconciled to the fact that this pall of darkness would never lift from my life.<br /></i></blockquote><p>Touching a boob works wonders. Sadly the people who design bras want young men to lose the will to live. </p><blockquote><i>But it did. I do not know what got me out of it.</i></blockquote><p>Emigration. </p><blockquote><i> I did see a psychiatrist in Kolkata in the middle of this, the only time in my life when I have done so.</i></blockquote><p>I saw a psychiatrist in London. Sadly, she too saw me and told my Mother I was buying pornographic magazines. How was I supposed to know that Double Entry digest wasn't about the fundamental principles of Book-keeping. </p><blockquote><i> A well-read, cerebral person, </i></blockquote><p>unlike most psychiatrists in Calcutta who tend to be illiterate </p><blockquote><i>he talked about Freud, Jung and others, and said that a lot of human problems arise from our ascribing too much importance to one aim in life – sex, money or fame. </i></blockquote><p>Whereas Bengal's problems were caused by the fact that it didn't ascribe enough importance to making money. </p><blockquote><i>He said that, for people of my age, a lot of psychological stress arose from latent sexual anxiety.</i></blockquote><p>It is anxiety about whether you will ever get to touch boob. Also, what if women have teeth down there. </p><blockquote><i> He blamed Freud for this. Freud’s emphasis on the sexual origins of our psychological problems became self-fulfilling.</i></blockquote><p>He thought we wanted to fuck Mum and kill Dad. Most of us are content to just kiss the one and hug and squeeze the other. The trouble with the Viennese Jews was that were very competitive. Sooner or later, one of them was bound to go too far. </p><blockquote><i> The psychiatrist argued that once we realize there is no single purpose or target in life that takes precedence over the others, </i></blockquote><p>This was convenient. The Doctor shouldn't feel his purpose is to make his patients better. He should take a dump during consultations. </p><blockquote><i>it takes a huge load off our shoulders.</i></blockquote><p>Why worry about whether you are doing your job properly. Just phone it in. That will take a load off your shoulders. </p><blockquote><i> I don’t know whether his counselling helped me directly, but I remember his intelligent, humane conversation fondly.<br /></i></blockquote><p>Did he take a dump during the consultation? Probably not. That's the sort of thing people remember. </p><blockquote><i><br />The start of the lifting of the depression – I call it depression for want of a better word – from around the age of twenty was quite baffling,</i></blockquote><p>Basu had gotten to London. London isn't too far from Amrika. An Indian's depression tends to lift as he gets to places where Whites are the majority. </p><blockquote><i> since by then I was reconciled to a life in its shadow. After another year or two, it was gone.</i></blockquote><p>London was a great place to touch boob back in the early Seventies. European au pairs were very generous with their pair of pears. </p><blockquote><i> I did not speak about it for years. Partly out of shyness, partly a fear that, in talking about it, I might rekindle the dormant genie.<br /></i></blockquote><p>Or because people would have explained that touching boob is what cures depression in young men. </p><blockquote><i><br />I do not know what made the melancholia go away and whether, like some episodic virus, it would have gone away anyway, no matter what I did. </i></blockquote><p>So long as it involved touching boob. </p><blockquote><i>But there is one strategy which I began using around this time, which has stood me in good stead: reasoning with myself, and trying to be completely honest when doing so. </i></blockquote><p>If Basu he had reasoned with himself, he'd have seen that getting the fuck out of India and touching lots of boob works wonder for your mental health. </p><blockquote><i>Since I did not have access to antidepressants – almost no one in India at that time did –</i></blockquote><p>but he could get them in London from the age of 20 onward. But, by then he didn't need them due to vast amount boobage within easy reach. </p><blockquote><i> reasoning inside my head was my only ammunition. </i></blockquote><p>my ammunition was the vast amounts of jizz I aimed at the ceiling. Oddly, I didn't do well in academics. </p><blockquote><i>Whether or not it helped me specifically with my period of crisis, I emerged with the belief that honest, ruthless reasoning inside your head is one of the most powerful and underutilised recipes for happiness.</i></blockquote><p>Economics is about 'Granger causality' or correlation. Basu is still too stupid to see that his depression was caused by studying stupid shit in India- where there was a good chance he might end up helping the Planning Commission fuck up the country- and getting to London from where it was a short hop, skip and PhD away from a nice American campus with lots of nubile co-eds. Also, unlike the Brits, American girls had good teeth. If Vagina Dentata are a real thing, it is a consolation to know that they have had proper orthodontic care. </p><p><br /></p>windwheelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18099651877551933295noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1674709389503889160.post-90002335060495248432024-03-03T17:35:00.008+00:002024-03-03T17:37:51.689+00:00Kenan Malik labelling turds<p>Kenan Malik, in the Guardian asks</p><blockquote><i><br />where do we draw the line between criticism and bigotry?</i></blockquote><p>Criticism points to a fault, shortcoming, oversight or other type of defect, in a thing or person. Bigotry involves unreasoning hatred of a class of things, or people. Criticism is specific and concerns something essentially individual at a particular time and place. Bigotry is is not primarily concerned with the individual or particular. It is a generalized prejudice or hatred of a class though such hatred may be overridden by exigent circumstances or just plain convenience.</p><p>Malik, cretin that he is, takes a different view. </p><blockquote><i> From the uproar over Lee Anderson’s remarks about the London mayor, Sadiq Khan, being “controlled” by Islamists</i></blockquote><p>Anderson is signaling hatred of Londoners- more particularly those of the brown persuasion. This should go down well with his constituents oop north. </p><blockquote><i> to the condemnation of slogans used on pro-Palestinian demonstrations,</i></blockquote><p>what's wrong with hating Jews? Didn't Jesus Christ hate Jews? Well, it was either him or Adolf Hitler. </p><blockquote><i> it is a question at the heart of current debates about Muslims and Jews, Islam and Israel.<br /></i></blockquote><p>Nonsense! What is at the heart of the debate is concern with up-coming elections. Can Hamas hurt the election prospects of Biden, Starmer etc? Probably not. Still, its fun to demonstrate against immigrants- even if we call them 'settler colonialists'. We need to get rid of people with names like Khan and Sunak and Malik and Iyer who are occupying our country from the Thames to the North Sea. </p><blockquote><i>The distinction between criticism and bigotry should, in principle, be easy to mark.</i></blockquote><p>Criticism can be useful. That which is criticized can be made better </p><blockquote><i> Discussions about ideas or social practices or public policy should be as unfettered as possible. But when disdain for ideas or policies or practices become transposed into prejudices about people, a red line is crossed.</i></blockquote><p>One man's prejudice is another man's reasoned calculation. I may think that voting Tory in the next general election is foolish because of the appalling track record of the last five Tory PMs. You may feel that I am prejudiced against the Conservative Party. Tenth time lucky- right? </p><blockquote><i> It’s crossed when castigation of Islamism leads to calls for an end to Muslim immigration.</i></blockquote><p>Nothing wrong with calling for an end to immigration- if only to protect the standard of living of those who have already immigrated or who are descended from those that did. </p><blockquote><i> Or when denunciation of Israeli actions in Gaza turns into a protest outside a Jewish shop in London.<br /></i></blockquote><p>Both are expressions of anti-Semitism though, no doubt, the former has enabled the latter type of bullying to gain support. </p><blockquote><i><br />In practice, though, that line can appear blurry. Claims about “Islamophobia” or “antisemitism” are often wielded in ways designed specifically to erase the distinction between criticism and bigotry, either to suppress dissent or to promote hatred. </i></blockquote><p>Or they are simply true. It is perfectly rational to fear Islam- unless you live in a neighborhood with lots of Muslims, in which case it is the Muslims who are Islamophobic- while hating Jews, homosexuals, Liberals, guys wot went to collidge, Mummy when she tells me to tidy up my rooom, that fucking homosexual liberal wot went to collidge who is now dating the girl I like. </p><blockquote><i>Such muddying enables some to portray criticism of Islam or of Israel as illegitimate because it is “Islamophobic” or “antisemitic”.</i></blockquote><p>Why is it illegitimate to talk bigoted bollocks? What else does the Guardian do wen it comes to India? </p><blockquote><i>It also allows those promoting hatred of Muslims or Jews to dismiss condemnation of that hatred as stemming from a desire to avoid censure of Islam or Israel.<br /></i></blockquote><p>But they can do that even better by claiming that those who condemn them are having non-consensual sex with poultry. </p><blockquote><i><br />It is for this reason that I have long been a critic of the concept of “Islamophobia”;</i></blockquote><p>Though, since 9/11, lots of peeps shit themselves if a guy who looks like me sits next to them on an aircraft. </p><blockquote><i> not because bigotry or discrimination against Muslims does not exist,</i></blockquote><p>if it is irrational and harms those who hold such views why not be against 'Islamophobia'. I used to be terribly homophobic, probably because of the AIDS scare back in the Eighties. Indeed, I would only watch Gay porn because my husband insisted. </p><blockquote><i> but because the term conflates disapproval of ideas and disparagement of people, making it more difficult to challenge the latter. </i></blockquote><p>How? Claustrophobia is like Islamophobia is like Homophobia. Your life becomes better if you overcome such phobias. It is not the case that being claustrophobic makes you a bad person. On the other hand, homosexuality is definitely contagious. Watching Ellen turned me lesbian. </p><blockquote><i>It is, in my view, more useful to frame such intolerance as “anti-Muslim prejudice” or “bigotry”. </i></blockquote><p>This is a false view if the objection is not specific to Muslims but rather to a section of the population with a higher incidence of an undesirable trait- e.g. killing kaffirs. </p><blockquote><i>The issue, though, is not one of wording; what matters is less the term employed than the meaning attributed to it.<br /></i></blockquote><p>In which case it doesn't matter what you say. All that matters is how other people choose to interpret your speech- or your silence </p><blockquote><i>The concept of Islamophobia became popularised in the 1990s, partly through an influential report from the Runnymede Trust thinktank entitled “Islamophobia: A Challenge For Us All”.</i></blockquote><p>I attended a YMCA conference in Amsterdam in 1981 with this theme. I suppose Christians were jealous at Islam's success in retaining a hold over young Muslims and tried to get in on the action by claiming to promote tolerance towards it. </p><p>I coined the term 'vaginaphobia' for a similar reason. Sadly this did not enable me to gain access to any vaginas. </p><blockquote><i> The report acknowledged the term as “not ideal” but thought it “a useful shorthand way of referring to dread or hatred of Islam – and, therefore, to fear or dislike of all or most Muslims”.</i></blockquote><p>In the good old days being a good Christian meant joining the Crusades and killing the vile Saracen. </p><blockquote><i> Ironically, the “useful shorthand” itself exposes the problem, eliding hostility to beliefs (“dread or hatred of Islam”) with prejudice towards a people (“fear or dislike of all or most Muslims”).<br /></i></blockquote><p>This isn't a problem unless 'most Muslims' don't give a shit about Islam. At one time it was thought that Religion had a low income elasticity of demand. As Muslims or Hindus got richer they would give up going to the Mosque or the Temple. Instead of going to the Holy City of Mecca on pilgrimage, they would go to Mecca the Bingo Hall. </p><blockquote><i>In 2018, the all-party parliamentary group (APPG) on British Muslims defined Islamophobia as “a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness”,</i></blockquote><p>whereas what racists should target is Britishness more particularly Britishness with Muslim characteristics- e.g. wearing a burqa under your bowler hat. </p><blockquote><i> a clumsy formulation that has nevertheless been adopted by the major political parties apart from the Conservatives.</i></blockquote><p>Registered sex offenders aren't allowed to adopt. </p><blockquote><i> The APPG report dismissed the “supposed right to criticise Islam” as “another subtle form of anti-Muslim racism”.<br /></i></blockquote><p>Whereas drone striking towel-heads aint subtle at all. </p><blockquote><i>It argued, too, that “Islamophobia” refers to Muslims being targeted by non-Muslims. Yet, the charge of “Islamophobia” or “hatred” is often aimed by Muslims at other Muslims, from Salman Rushdie to Monica Ali, from Hanif Kureishi to Sooreh Hera, to make their arguments appear illegitimate.</i></blockquote><p>Not if they are being paid by non-Muslims to say Muslims stink big time. </p><blockquote><i> It is a means of “gatekeeping”, of certain people taking it on themselves to police a community and determine what can be said about it.<br /></i></blockquote><p>Only in the sense that I am 'vagina-keeping' when I watch Lesbian porn. Seriously, vaginas are very fascinating creatures with a rich and complex culture. </p><blockquote><i>The drive to suppress criticism of Israel and support for Palestinians has been aided by some on the left lacing their anti-Zionism with antisemitic tropes<br /></i></blockquote><p>No. What aids support for Israel is the fact that those who attack it tend to be crazy hate-mongers who also want to kill us. </p><blockquote><i>The elision of criticism and bigotry works the other way, too: to deflect challenges to hatred. Some commentators have responded to the pushback against Anderson’s conspiracy theories about Khan by claiming that labelling his comments “Islamophobic” is intended “to stop criticism of Islamic extremism”.<br /></i></blockquote><p>Khan is an important Labour politician. Anderson was a Labour councilor who defected to the Tories. It is obvious that he is seeking to get White voters oop North to vote Tory for fear that Khan will forcibly circumcise them and force them to give up bacon. </p><blockquote><i>The actions of hardline Islamists can have horrifying consequences,</i></blockquote><p>They caused the War on Terror which we lost. But tens of millions of Muslims paid a very high price. </p><blockquote><i> from forcing a teacher into hiding to the murder of an MP. </i></blockquote><p>which is pretty small potatoes compared to 9/11 </p><blockquote><i>Too often, as with the recent parliamentary mess created by the speaker, Lindsay Hoyle, politicians and institutions accede to threats rather than confronting them. </i></blockquote><p>Keir Starmer threatened to behead him- right? </p><blockquote><i>None of this should lead us to conclude, though, that challenging anti-Muslim bigotry is a distraction from confronting Islamism. </i></blockquote><p>I'd rather challenge anti-Muslim bigotry as displayed by elderly ladies with no significant criminal record. On the other hand, it is true I was on my way to confront Islamism in Yemen when I got distracted by Peppa Pig. </p><blockquote><i>Opposing the one without opposing the other weakens our ability to challenge either.<br /></i></blockquote><p>No. What weakens our ability to challenge Islamism is the fact that we keep shitting ourselves and running away. Seriously, them jihadis are well hard. </p><blockquote><i>The historical roots and contemporary manifestations of anti-Jewish and anti-Muslim hatred are different. </i></blockquote><p>Any contemporary manifestation of anything has roots all over the fucking place. </p><blockquote><i>Nevertheless, the charge of “antisemitism” can similarly be deployed to marginalise dissent while also providing racists with an alibi for their racism.<br /></i></blockquote><p>So, next time you get arrested for bashing in the brains of a furriner, tell the pigs that there's this Paki dude who writes for the Guardian who can give you an alibi. </p><blockquote><i>Take the insistence that “anti-Zionism is antisemitism”. </i></blockquote><p>though it might be simulated or strategic. I am very anti-Iyer because I think it is unfair that all Iyer males have such ginormous dongs with which they can bring women to climax repeatedly. I'm not entirely clear how they do this but think it might involve putting their pee pee in the lady's chee chee place. </p><blockquote><i>It is a claim that has become increasingly accepted in recent years by mainstream politicians and organisations, from the French National Assembly to the US House of Representatives.<br /></i></blockquote><p>Anti-Zionism is a fucking nuisance. Curb it by all means. </p><blockquote><i>Zionism is a set of ideas and social practices.</i></blockquote><p>No. It is support for Israel regardless of any other ideas or social practices a person may have </p><blockquote><i> Yet, many who insist that Islam, as a set of beliefs and practices, should be open to robust challenge </i></blockquote><p>where do they do that insisting? Teheran? Yemen? </p><blockquote><i>refuse to countenance similar scrutiny of Zionism.<br /></i></blockquote><p>would they countenance a colonoscopy instead? How about a CAT scan carried out by actual cats? In never hurts to ask. </p><blockquote><i><br />In 2016, the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA)</i></blockquote><p>a Hitler tribute band. The Holocaust was one of Adolf's biggest hits</p><blockquote><i> formally adopted its “working definition of antisemitism”, a definition that has been embraced by many governments, universities and civil institutions. </i></blockquote><p>Useless tossers. </p><blockquote><i>It has also become, in the despairing words of one of its own drafters, Kenneth Stern, “a blunt instrument to label anyone an antisemite”.<br /></i></blockquote><p>Why not just call them wankers? </p><blockquote><i>For Stern, director of the Bard Center for the Study of Hate,</i></blockquote><p>i.e. a useless tosser. You want to study hate, go talk to guys with Swastika tattoos on their foreheads. </p><blockquote><i> the IHRA definition was never meant to be a “hate speech code” but developed rather to help monitor antisemitism. It has, however, become a means by which supporters of Israel now “go after pro-Palestinian speech”. </i></blockquote><p>Do they do it with machetes? If not, they don't matter. Hate only matters if it results in bloodshed. Nobody cares that I hate smart, good looking, people. To be frank, I'm not too crazy about stupid, ugly, people. Basically, so long as you are dead and buried at least six feet under the ground, you are all right with me. </p><blockquote><i>“As a Zionist, I don’t agree with some of the speech,” Stern notes, but such speech “should be answered, not suppressed”.<br /></i></blockquote><p>Try calling this dude in the middle of the time to discuss Gaza. He soon decides not to answer or takes legal action to suppress the nuisance. </p><blockquote><i>This is particularly so because “there is a deep internal Jewish conflict about … attitude[s] toward Israel”. </i></blockquote><p>Jews will argue about anything with each other. Get your pecker out and ask them to give you a bris, and suddenly they can't get out of the restaurant fast enough. Anyway, that's why I was sacked from my position as a waiter at the Golders Green Tandoori. </p><blockquote><i>“For many Jews,” Stern points out, “Zionism, and what it means for Palestinians, is irreconcilable with what Judaism says about treating the stranger or repairing the world.”</i></blockquote><p>It was the Zionists who were strangers in Palestine. Come to think of it- Joshua too would have been a stranger. That didn't end well for the Philistines. </p><blockquote><i> Again, blurring the line between criticism and bigotry facilitates gatekeeping, </i></blockquote><p>is what bouncers at biker bars often say- thinks nobody at all </p><blockquote><i>in this case by making dissenting Jewish voices seem illegitimate.<br /></i></blockquote><p>What makes those dissenting voices seem even more illegitimate is saying 'yo' momma's a ho'. Not an expensive ho. She gets paid in dog biscuits. That's why you look like a Pekinese.' </p><blockquote><i><br />The drive to suppress criticism of Israel and support for Palestinians </i></blockquote><p>is utterly pointless. Israel will either thrive or collapse on the basis of military and economic power. </p><blockquote><i>has been aided by some on the left lacing their anti-Zionism with antisemitic tropes. </i></blockquote><p>more particularly after they laced their coffee with Whiskey. </p><blockquote><i>And, mirroring the tactics of anti-Muslim bigots, </i></blockquote><p>the ones who spent billions drone striking Muslims in remote deserts and mountains? </p><blockquote><i>too many dismiss criticism of their antisemitism as a kind of Zionist shield against scrutiny.<br /></i></blockquote><p>which is still better than dismissing such criticism on the grounds that Holy Scripture demands the extermination of the Jewish people coz they are all homosexuals and are putting stuff in tap-water which is causing my dick to shrink. </p><blockquote><i>Anti-Zionism is not necessarily antisemitic; but it can be, and too often is. </i></blockquote><p>Similarly, if someone shits on your head, that shit is not necessarily brown. What concerns you is that it should not happen too often. Like being shat upon, anti-Zionism is a fucking nuisance. It should be curbed. </p><blockquote><i>The answer is not to label all expressions of anti-Zionism as antisemitic</i></blockquote><p>why not get a job labelling turds instead? </p><blockquote><i> but to call out the latter,</i></blockquote><p>this turd looks like Adolf Hiter. Hey guys! Come and look at this turd I've just labelled! Such <i>naches</i> my parents will be getting when they find out what their little boy achieved today at work! </p><blockquote><i>while acknowledging the legitimacy of the former.<br /></i></blockquote><p>this turd is a totes legit piece of shit. </p><blockquote><i>In the polarised debate about antisemitism and anti-Muslim bigotry, </i></blockquote><p>even one debater would be one too many </p><blockquote><i>too many who rightly condemn antisemitism are less robust in challenging bigotry against Muslims.</i></blockquote><p>Jews are smart and do useful stuff. Muslims- not so much. </p><blockquote><i> And too many of those who excoriate anti-Muslim bigotry turn a blind eye to the hatred of Jews.</i></blockquote><p>not to mention the deaf ear they turn to suggestions that they should just fuck off and die. </p><blockquote><i> In both cases, blurring the line between criticism of ideas and bigotry against people narrows debate and nurtures hatred.</i></blockquote><p>There is no fucking debate here. There are just a bunch of tossers pretending their opinions matter. What nurtures hatred is killing people or grabbing their property or encouraging others to do so. Nobody cares how or why you label turds or decide if they are legitimately shit. </p>windwheelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18099651877551933295noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1674709389503889160.post-1095844662429411072024-03-02T07:38:00.006+00:002024-03-05T13:59:06.248+00:00Does Savarkar matter?<p>Aeon has an article on Veer Savarkar by journalist Mihir Dalal. It is lazy and ignorant.</p><blockquote><i>To understand Narendra Modi’s India,</i></blockquote><p>you must understand how and why 'educationally backward castes' have been taking power not just in the Provinces but also, after 2014, at the Centre. This is an on-going process stretching back six decades.</p><blockquote><i> it is instructive to grasp the ideas of the Hindu Right’s greatest ideologue,</i></blockquote><p>No it isn't. First the Muslim League was created. Then came the Hindu Mahasabha as a reaction. It helped launch the political careers of Mahatma Gandhi and Motilal Nehru both of whom were specially selected as ambassadors to the Muslims of Bombay Presidency and U.P respectively. The Muslim League chose Jinnah as its spokesman and a deal between the two parties was made in Lucknow. But the Hindus had conceded too much to the Muslims and thus the alliance was bound to breakdown. </p><p>Though the Mahasabha had some respected leaders, it was Congress which was the muscular Hindu party pushing for high-caste hegemony over the entire sub-continent. Savarkar, a revolutionary, belatedly tried to climb on the Mahasabha bandwagon but failed to make a mark because he wasn't religious himself. Still, because he had spent a lot of time being tortured in jail and thus had superior patriotic credentials, he was quite useful to the Mahasabha at a time when atheistic Communism was becoming increasingly attractive to young intellectuals. Savarkar's point was simple. Before you can have class war, you have to have some basic industrial development. The only type of warfare India would witness would be religious. But India was too poor to afford much warfare. If Hindus had no material incentive to hang together they would hang separately. There was a 'collective action problem' which only some sort of secularized version of religion could solve. After all, Ataturk was both a 'Ghazi' (victorious Islamic general) as well as a secularizing modernizer. Savarkar thought India needed something similar but it didn't really. The Brits had bequeathed India a good enough Army and 'steel frame' of a Civil Service. Congress had more Hindu religiosity than Savarkar. Since, unlike Rajaji, there was no economic dimension to Savarkar's thinking, his ideology had little to recommend it. Still, after Atal became PM, some journalists started babbling about Savarkar's ideology. </p><blockquote><i>and the world of British colonial India in which they emerged,</i></blockquote><p>Britain had begun the transfer of power. That's why caste and creed suddenly became important. The Great War signaled the end of the age of Empires. The question for India was whether it would be a loose federation (the alternative the Brits favored) or else get partitioned like Ireland along religious lines. </p><blockquote><i> and the historical feebleness of the present regime.<br /></i></blockquote><p>Modi's regime isn't feeble. Maybe this guy wrote this shite back in 2013 and hasn't bothered to edit it before submitting it to Aeon. </p><blockquote><i>Vinayak Damodar Savarkar was a polymath who read law in London, enjoyed Shakespeare, admired the Bible, wrote important historical works, and became an accomplished poet and playwright. </i></blockquote><p>Savarkar's elder brother was inspired by rebels against the Raj like Vasudev Balwant Phadke & revolutionaries like the Chapekar brothers. Vinayak was more academic and received financial support to attend college from his father-in-law. He received a scholarship to study in London from Shyamji Krishna Varma, who published the Indian Sociologist and who was a disciple of 'Harbhat Pendse'- i.e. Herbert Spencer. </p><blockquote><i>His lifelong obsession was politics.<br /></i></blockquote><p>He was a revolutionary who, like his elder brother, was sentenced to the cellular jail in the Andamans. After release, he was a marginal figure but useful to the Mahasabha as living breathing revolutionary. His elder brother helped start the RSS which developed a separate identity.</p><p> Savarkar was close to Nathuram Godse- Gandhi's assassin- and, I suppose, this lead to a revival of interest in him because a generation indoctrinated in 'Nehru-Gandhi' ideology rebelled against it and turned to Savarkar and Ambedkar rather than the Marxists who had too visibly fucked up all over the world. But the political revival of the BJP had to do with traditional Hindu religiosity- Advani's Rath Yatra- not the ravings of an agnostic. </p><blockquote><i>Savarkar took up political activity in his teens and became a cherished anti-British revolutionary. </i></blockquote><p>Cherished by whom? I suppose this illiterate cretin means 'hardened'. </p><blockquote><i>While serving a long prison sentence for inciting violence against the British, he transformed into a Hindu supremacist bent on dominating Indian Muslims. </i></blockquote><p>No. Once Gandhi surrendered unilaterally in 1922, it was obvious that Muslims would want an Islamic State. But Gandhi was offering Ram Rajya and was genuinely religious. Moreover, Savarkar was Chitpavan and might want the revival of Peshwa led Maratha power which was anathema to the rest of India. Thus Congress remained the muscular arm of Hinduism- more particularly its para-military wing the Congress Seva dal set up by Dr. Hardikar. His college friend, Dr. Hegdewar was a member. He set up the RSS as a 'non-political' copy of the Seva dal when the latter was banned. Later, the RSS helped Shyama Prasad Mukherjee, when he left the Mahasabha, to set up the Jan Sangh which morphed into the current ruling party. </p><blockquote><i>His pamphlet Essentials of Hindutva (1923), written secretively in jail, remains the most influential work of Hindu nationalism. </i></blockquote><p>It is shit. Nobody reads it. The plain fact is, Hindus- even deracinated Anglophone Hindus like me- read about Hinduism either in our mother tongue or in Hindi. Our own Swamies and Acharyas know how to talk to us about our own Faith using the words our own parents and preceptors would use. The other thing is that Hindus write bollocks when they write in English on any non-STEM subject. </p><blockquote><i>In this and subsequent works, he called for Hindus, hopelessly divided by caste, to come together as one homogeneous community and reclaim their ancient homeland from those he considered outsiders, primarily the Muslims.</i></blockquote><p>Everybody had been saying this for ever. It is easy to say. We must unite, regardless of gender, species or a liking for Taylor Swift to fight for the right to bite off the heads of the fucking leprechauns currently occupying Iyerland. </p><blockquote><i> Savarkar advocated violence against Muslims</i></blockquote><p>in self-defence- sure. The Moplah uprising had shaken the Hindus. Tagore was telling them that they must not repeat the mistakes of the past. Give the Muslims or the Christians an inch and they will fuck you in the ass and slit your throat. Gandhi, it must be said, thought Punjabis (regardless of creed) and Muslims would get together to conquer the cowardly Hindus. However, thanks to the magic of the Ahimsa fairy, they might not deprive them of their anal cherries. Still, it would be very naughty of the Brits to fuck off before handing over the Army to the INC. Savarkar, being a Maratha, didn't think Hindus were cowardly. The problem was Hindus hated Chitpavans (in the manner they would come to hate Kauls) because they hadn't liked paying the Maratha 'Chauth'. </p><blockquote><i> as the principal means to bind antagonistic lower and upper castes, writing:<br /><br />'Nothing makes Self conscious of itself so much as a conflict with non-self. Nothing can weld peoples into a nation and nations into a state as the pressure of a common foe. Hatred separates as well as unites.'<br /></i></blockquote><p>The only reason India coheres as a nation state is that Hindus, though hating each other with a passion, fear the salami tactics of the Muslims and the Marxists and anybody else who might want to fuck us in the ass. It is better to hang together than to hang apart. </p><blockquote><i>Savarkar has proven prescient if not prescriptive. Over the past four decades, the Hindu Right’s violence against Muslims has indeed helped Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) to cement a degree of Hindu political unity long considered unattainable.<br /></i></blockquote><p>Gandhi said Congress slaughtered innocent Muslims in Bihar. It was under Nehru, not Atal or Modi, that millions of Muslims were ethnically cleansed. Had Indira stuck to killing Pakistanis rather than trying to chop off the goolies of all and sundry in the name of population control, she could have made herself Empress of India. The only reason she didn't take this road is because, in India, monarchs tend to get killed by their sons or nephews. In any case, assassination tempers autocracy. Three people with the surname Gandhi have been killed and Congress got a sympathy vote every time. There's a reason Rahul works so hard to make his party unelectable. </p><blockquote><i>Some of Savarkar’s views on Hindus and their religion embarrass the Right.</i></blockquote><p>No. The whole point about belonging to the Right is that you don't have to pretend to have read shit. </p><blockquote><i> An agnostic, Savarkar declared that Hindutva – his construction of Hindu nationalism – was bigger than Hinduism, the actual religion of the Hindus.</i></blockquote><p>He merely said that the essence of Hinduism- i.e. that which would be true of it in all possible worlds- would encompass many not considered to fall under Hindu customary law by Indian courts. </p><blockquote><i> Later in life, he railed against Hindus and urged them to become more like Muslims (or his perception of them). Writing about Muslims in the medieval period allegedly raping and converting Hindu women any chance they got, Savarkar characterised it as ‘an effective method of increasing the Muslim population’ unlike the ‘suicidal Hindu idea of chivalry’ of treating the enemy’s women with respect. </i></blockquote><p>This was fucking hilarious. As the Mahatma said, the Hindu Prince, just as much as the Muslim Prince, would send his goons to abduct any attractive girl you might have under your roof. He would also very kindly relieve you of your worldly possessions- not to mention your life. There's a reason Indians preferred British rule. Viceroy Sahib did not want to add your wife or daughter to his harem. </p><blockquote><i>He wrote disparagingly about cow worship and other Hindu practices, and refused to discharge the funeral rites for his devout Hindu wife. </i></blockquote><p>Nor were any such rites performed for him by his son. Membership of a particular jati (endogamous sub-caste) may involve orthopraxy, but Savarkar subscribed to Hindutva. </p><blockquote><i>Although Savarkar’s Hindutva helped inspire the launch of the BJP’s parent organisation, Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), a century ago,</i></blockquote><p>S.P Mukherji wanted the Hindu Mahasabha to drop 'Hindu' from its name after Partition. When this did not happen, the RSS- which had a different ethos- helped Mukherji create the Jan Sangh. </p><blockquote><i> he was disdainful of its decision to avoid direct political participation. ‘The epitaph for the RSS volunteer will be that he was born, he joined the RSS and he died without accomplishing anything,’ he reportedly said.<br /></i></blockquote><p>Indira's epitaph on Savarkar was more interesting. She said his death, in 1966, "removes from our midst a great figure of contemporary India. His name was a byword for daring and patriotism. Mr Savarkar was cast in the mould of a classical revolutionary and countless people drew inspiration from him.”</p><blockquote><i>Until Modi became prime minister in 2014, Savarkar was known to few Indians, and those few knew him as a minor freedom-fighter.</i></blockquote><p>Atal had banged on about him in poetic style. </p><blockquote><i> Since then, the BJP-RSS have placed Savarkar at the centre of their efforts to rewrite Indian history from a Hindu supremacist perspective.</i></blockquote><p>No. Vivekananda is important. Savarkar isn't. Why? Vivekananda was a Swamy- i.e. a Hindu godman. Also it is good fun to get the libtards to read Savarkar. It was like how being a member of the CPM released you from the obligation to read Marxist Leninist shite. The 'useful idiots' in academia and journalism were welcome to plumb the depths of that cloaca. </p><blockquote><i> Today’s BJP positions Savarkar as a nationalist icon on a par with Jawaharlal Nehru and Mahatma Gandhi, if not greater. </i></blockquote><p>Because he was a revolutionary. He didn't queue up meekly to go to jail. Still, the politics of the bomb and the revolver ended with the assassination of the Archduke. Savarkar was right about Islam but everybody knew that Hindu India would not have been able to conquer and keep Muslim majority areas in the West. In 1947, about one third of the Army was Muslim. They could have done a deal with the Princes and the Sikhs and confined Congress to a moth eaten India. </p><blockquote><i>If Savarkar’s ‘repeated warnings against the Congress’s appeasement politics’ had been heeded, India could have avoided Partition, the separation of Pakistan from India, writes Mohan Bhagwat, the RSS chief.<br /></i></blockquote><p>Everybody writes nonsense of this sort. Congress says 'but for Jinnah there would have been no Partition'. The Commies say that if only the entire upper class had been killed the proles and the peasants would have created a Utopia. My own position is that Liaquat Ali Khan and Sardar Patel should have taken turns bumming each other. If Lord Mountbatten expressed a desire to get in on the action, they should have politely but firmly told him to try his luck with the Mahatma. </p><blockquote><i>In fact, this invocation of Savarkar disguises a much more complicated history that the Right is desperate to suppress.<br /></i></blockquote><p>History doesn't matter in the slightest. Why suppress it? What we want is Bridgerton. </p><blockquote><i>Savarkar was born in 1883 to a Brahmin family near Nashik, a city in western India. In the first part of Vikram Sampath’s extensive, hagiographical biography of 2019, Savarkar is presented as a child prodigy who loved reading and lapped up Hindu epics, books, newspapers and political journals in Marathi – his mother tongue – and English. A newspaper ran one of his Marathi poems when he was 12; another published an article of his on Hindu culture.<br /></i></blockquote><p>He was more academically gifted than his elder brother but there was an atheistic strain to him which had no appeal to Indians. </p><blockquote><i>The second of four siblings, Savarkar lost his mother to cholera when he was nine, and his father to the plague seven years later. Still in his teens, he formed a secret society of young revolutionaries against the British. </i></blockquote><p>His elder brother founded it. </p><blockquote><i>According to Sampath, he found the constitutional methods of the Indian National Congress – an organisation gently pushing local interests – unappealing, </i></blockquote><p>His elder brother had met Tilak- a leader of the 'Garam dal'- in prison. The 'hot-heads' were prevailing against the moderates. Young revolutionaries in Bengal and Maharashtra as well as Arya Samajis from Punjab and Theosophists from Madras were the idols of the rising generation. By 1917, it was obvious to all that the age of Empires was over. The Brits needed to accelerate the pace and scope of reform so that India could defend itself. During the Great War, Japanese ships were helping the Brits in the Mediterranean. It was obvious that Britannia couldn't rule all the fucking waves in the world. Sadly, Churchill was too stupid to understand the threat. When he was Chancellor, he took a shilling off Income Tax rather than spend it on the Royal Navy. Even that would not have been enough. India, Australia, and South Africa needed to have their own ship-yards and blue water naval deterrent. </p><blockquote><i>and instead drew inspiration from the few revolutionaries who assassinated British officials.</i></blockquote><p>He belonged to one such group of revolutionaries </p><blockquote><i> Savarkar would give speeches on historic nationalist movements to his secret society and extol the 19th-century European nationalist revolutionaries Giuseppe Garibaldi and Giuseppe Mazzini, who exercised considerable influence on his thought. After his marriage to a Brahmin girl was arranged by his uncle, Savarkar enrolled in college in 1902 for a major in the arts. He studied widely, reading Sanskrit and Greek classics, English poetry, international history and biographies of revolutionaries.<br /></i></blockquote><p>Which is why he wrote stupid shite. But then everybody did back then. Aurobindo was an even bigger windbag but he turned to religion and became a Godman with a successful Ashram run by a nice French lady who got him to give up brandy and cigars. </p><blockquote><i>After graduation, Savarkar moved to London to read law </i></blockquote><p>He was recruited by Shyamji Krishna Varma who founded India House for Indian students. </p><blockquote><i>but also to continue his political activity in the enemy’s bastion. He stayed at a boarding house for Indian students, where he met many co-conspirators, not a few of whom he helped to radicalise.</i></blockquote><p>Everyone knew that India House existed for no other purpose. The Brits were keeping an eye on it. They warned the parents of any student who showed an inclination to move in those circles. </p><blockquote><i>Abhinav Bharat, Savarkar’s secret organisation, would smuggle arms and bomb-manuals to India; in 1909, the group assassinated William Hutt Curzon Wyllie, an aide to the Secretary of State for India, in London. Savarkar had already worried the British enough that, by the time he arrived in London in 1906, they had put him under surveillance. In 1910, he was arrested and deported to India to be tried. By this time, India had endured British colonial rule for more than a century. Colonial narratives greatly influenced the worldviews of Savarkar and other Indian nationalists.<br /></i></blockquote><p>No. The nationalists rejected Imperial narratives- whether those of the Tzar or the King Emperor or the Hapsburgs or the Ottomans. </p><blockquote><i>How could a vast nation like India be conquered by a distant island a fraction of its size and population?<br /></i></blockquote><p>Disraeli had said it wasn't conquered. The E.I.C expanded because Indians preferred to live under its jurisdiction. If the traditional way of inheriting property involves sticking a knife in your Uncle and you notice your sons and nephews are sharpening their daggers, the British method of doing things doesn't seem so bad. </p><p>The big problem in India is that everybody preferred the Brits to rule by Indians of a different creed or caste or region. </p><blockquote><i>Over a 70-year period starting in the 1750s, the British East India Company defeated both European and local rivals and turned the Mughal dynasty that had ruled India for more than 200 years into its puppet.</i></blockquote><p>The Mughals were already puppets of the Marathas. </p><blockquote><i> Britain’s barbaric traders carried out their conquest through loot and rapacity, </i></blockquote><p>No. Britain's calculating Merchants diversified into exporting 'invisibles' to India- defence, law and order, basic infrastructure maintenance. The departure of the Brits did mean a few million got looted, raped, killed or ethnically cleansed. But for the vast majority, there was a smooth transfer of power. </p><blockquote><i>while its scribes, missionaries and historians provided the moral justifications by portraying India as a degenerate civilisation that British rule might redeem.</i></blockquote><p>Moral justifications did not matter. Either the Empire was profitable or necessary for homeland defence or else it was jettisoned. </p><blockquote><i> Some European thinkers, Orientalists and Romantics valorised ancient Hindu India as the cradle of civilisation, but they too lamented its decay.<br /></i></blockquote><p>So what? Nobody cared. The plain fact is the growing Indian middle class could afford a political class. There was money for the revolutionary as well as the Gandhian nutjob. Spending time in jail might secure your financial and social advancement in an inheritable manner. </p><blockquote><i>Under British colonialism, elite Hindus often accepted the British narratives for colonial rule. </i></blockquote><p>No. Elite Hindus were compradors- like Raja Ram Mohan Roy and Dwarkanath Tagore- who had actively solicited the extension of British power so as to keep the Muslims in check. </p><blockquote><i>They were especially tortured by the question: how could a vast nation like India be conquered by a distant island a fraction of its size and population? </i></blockquote><p>No. They only pretended not to know the answer to this question. For Hindus, it was that they didn't Maratha or Gurkha or Sikh rule unless the alternative was Muslim domination. The Brits were preferable to any indigenous alternative. On the other hand, if the Brits would hand over the Indian Army to Indian seditionists and the Royal Navy continued to protect Indian shores, then, sure, the 'Hindu elites' had no objection to moving into the Governor's mansions and earning fat salaries as Ministers. </p><blockquote><i>Such musings about Indian or Hindu history furthered the development of Indian nationalism.</i></blockquote><p>No. Japan's rise and rise put ideas into the heads of young Indians. Then they realized that they too would turn into elderly Indians without any fucking ideas in their bald heads. </p><blockquote><i> By assuming that a ‘national’ Hindu-Indian identity had existed since time immemorial (it hadn’t),</i></blockquote><p>Yes it had. Sadly, it was a bit shit. </p><blockquote><i>elite Hindus felt driven to recover their Hindu-Indian identity in the present. </i></blockquote><p>This was easily done. Discard your trousers and wrap a towel around your loins. </p><blockquote><i>In fact, until British rule, people in the subcontinent hadn’t seen themselves as Hindu (or Muslim) in the modern sense.</i></blockquote><p>Yes they had. That's why they didn't inter-marry or eat with each other. They wouldn't even drink water from the same pot. </p><blockquote><i> They balanced various identities, including those of place, caste and family lineage; religion merely provided one among several, as the political theorist Sudipta Kaviraj and others have written. </i></blockquote><p>Kaviraj is a Kommie kretin. Still, it is true that prior to the arrival of the British, Indians had no fixed gender identity. Sometimes they had dicks. At other times they had vaginas. </p><blockquote><i>However, in the 19th century, some upper-caste Hindus, awed by the power of Britain’s military and industrial superiority, launched vigorous movements to ‘purify’ their religion and make it more like Christianity. </i></blockquote><p>Anglican Christianity was cool with icons and religious statues. The Arya and Brahmo Samaj were iconoclastic in the Islamic manner. </p><blockquote><i>They moved to cast off what they saw as the appendages dragging down Hinduism – the inegalitarian caste system, </i></blockquote><p>Not the Tagore's version of the Brahmo Samaj which insisted on the superiority of Brahmins </p><blockquote><i>the large diversity of gods, sects and practices – believing this reformation would make India great again.<br /></i></blockquote><p>No. The idea was that Reformation would reduce the incentive to convert to Christianity. The Brits were cool with this. The last thing they wanted was for Swaminathan to change his name to Samuel and start haranguing Smith and Jones about the Gospel on the Mount. Darkies are bad enough. Christianized darkies are the fucking pits. </p><blockquote><i>British historical narratives portrayed Hindu-Muslim enmity as a fundamental, self-evident feature of Indian history.</i></blockquote><p>Even worse, British historians opined that Indians either had dicks or vaginas, not both at different hours of the day. </p><blockquote><i> In reality, religious pluralism and toleration – not fanatical religious hatred – had been the norm among people of various religions in South Asia. </i></blockquote><p>Unless the Muslims of the Catholics forcibly converted the kaffirs or heathens. </p><blockquote><i>In The Loss of Hindustan (2020), the historian Manan Asif Ahmed </i></blockquote><p>a Pakistani nitwit </p><blockquote><i>writes that, before British rule, many elite Hindus and Muslims had thought of Hindustan as a homeland not only of the Hindus, but of the ‘diverse communities of believers’ including Muslims and Christians.</i></blockquote><p>This is what it could have been. Sadly Muslims think the only good kaffir is a dead kaffir. Islamic Monarchs may protect minorities. They get short shrift in Islamic Republics. </p><blockquote><i> British colonialism constructed a different narrative, one in which Hindus had been subjugated in their home for 1,000 years by Muslim invaders. </i></blockquote><p>No. The Hindus kept telling the Brits that the Muslims had fucked them in the ass. Could you kindly hold down the Muslim, so we can pick his pockets? </p><blockquote><i>This distorted the South Asian experience of Hindustan into claims of immutable enmity between Hindus and Muslims.<br /></i></blockquote><p>This was Savarkar's initial claim. Hindus and Muslims kept cuddling and kissing. Then, evil Brits banned the practice and insisted that Indians get College degrees and work as clerks. If Mr. Swaminathan started kissing Mr. Sayyad in the office, District Magistrate Smythe would sentence both to jail. Worse yet, British judges were preventing Swaminathan & Sayyad from occasionally sporting a vagina instead of a dick. This was classic 'divide and rule'. Did you know Queen Victoria personally confiscated the vagina of the Maharaja of Cooch Nahin? Why don't our History textbooks tell us about atrocities of this sort. </p><blockquote><i>The British census aggregated Hindus and Muslims across India into homogeneous groups and facilitated the creation of solidarity – and belligerence – among them.</i></blockquote><p>Census also forced Indians to choose to have either vaginas or dicks, not both. </p><blockquote><i> Towards the end of the 19th century, colonial influences combined with what the historian Christopher Bayly in 1998 called ‘old patriotisms’ to contribute to the invention of a pan-Indian Hindu nationality, and a more inchoate Muslim nationality.<br /></i></blockquote><p>To be frank, 'Indian Hindu nationality' was a reaction to the Muslim and Christian threat. As for 'Muslim nationality', it was a reaction to the incredible stupidity of the Hindus & their toothless Mahacrackpot. </p><blockquote><i><br />Working in this legacy, Savarkar made his first lasting contribution to Indian politics in 1909, with the publication of a historical work, The Indian War of Independence of 1857. </i></blockquote><p>Savarkar, being Maharashtrian, would naturally dilate on the greatness of Nana Sahib and the Rani of Jhansi. The Chitpavans may have thought India would welcome a return of the rule of the Peshwas. At any rate, Brits of the period were constantly reminding all non-Chitpavans how shitty that rule had been. This was because they believed Gokhale and Tilak were actually working hand in glove. </p><blockquote><i>In 1857, large numbers of Indian soldiers and gentry in northern and western India had risen under the banner of the fading Mughal dynasty in the largest armed uprising against the British Empire by a ruled people.</i></blockquote><p>More Indians stayed faithful than rebelled. </p><blockquote><i> British historians had played down this war as a ‘sepoy mutiny’, restricted to disgruntled soldiers rather than a polity – a view Savarkar set out to correct.</i></blockquote><p>After being tortured by Muslim jailors, he lost his illusions about Hindu-Muslim unity. </p><blockquote><i> In Hindutva and Violence (2021), an authoritative work on Savarkar, the historian Vinayak Chaturvedi shows that Savarkar was a master at reclaiming Indian history from the British by reading colonial records and works of scholarship ‘against the grain’. </i></blockquote><p>i.e making shit up. </p><blockquote><i>Drawing inspiration from the French and American revolutions as well as the ultranationalism of Mazzini, Savarkar reconstructed 1857 as the ‘first war’ for Indian independence. To this day, 1857 is understood as such in India. </i></blockquote><p>What is understood is that smart people emigrate to somewhere still ruled by Whites </p><blockquote><i>His passionate, romantic account glorified Indian war heroes with the intent of inspiring a revolution against the British.<br /></i></blockquote><p>The only problem with such a revolution was that the Brits might decide to slyly fuck off thus forcing Indians to emigrate to some place still ruled by Whites. </p><blockquote><i><br />In the book, Savarkar introduced the central motif in his historical works: violence as mystical unifier.</i></blockquote><p>War unifies. Violence does not. Join the Army. Don't stab Mummy. </p><blockquote><i> He held that Hindus and Muslims had become united for the first time ever during the war through the means of violence. </i></blockquote><p>Uniting to get rid of the Brits was all very well but what if the Brits actually fucked off? The means of violence would then be used by different types of Indians on different types of Indians. </p><blockquote><i>The literal ‘shedding of [British] blood’ together had forged the Hindu-Muslim bond, as the political theorist Shruti Kapila characterises Savarkar’s idea in Violent Fraternity (2021).</i></blockquote><p>Whereas Indians who fought for the Brits actually got paid. Fraternity is all very well but the assurance of a pension is what maintains regimental esprit de corps. </p><blockquote><i> Savarkar’s conception of Hindu-Muslim history had been partly shaped by the long tradition of religiopolitical enmity against the Mughals in his homeland of Maharashtra, as the historian Prachi Deshpande shows in Creative Pasts (2007).</i></blockquote><p>This is silly. The Mughal Emperor had been a Maratha puppet before the Brits defeated the Peshva and made him their pensioner. </p><blockquote><i> But Savarkar, always the innovative thinker, borrowed only what suited his purposes.</i></blockquote><p>Sane people borrow only what suits their purpose. They don't ask for the loan of things they don't need or want. That is why Banks can make a profit by lending money rather than pieces of dog shit. </p><blockquote><i> He wrote that, since Hindu kings had avenged centuries of Muslim oppression by defeating the Mughals in the 18th century, the ‘blot of slavery’ had been ‘wiped off’.</i></blockquote><p>Sadly, the blot of having to pay chauth to the Marathas had not been forgotten. </p><blockquote><i> Having re-established their ‘sovereignty’ at home, they could now fraternise with Muslims.</i></blockquote><p>They could employ them to collect chauth </p><blockquote><i> And finally, such was the power of the violence in 1857 that India now became ‘the united nation of the adherents of Islam as well as Hinduism’. Indian War and its author were admired across the political spectrum.<br /></i></blockquote><p>The Savarkar brothers were admired for their courage and patriotism. That is true enough. Still, the lesson of 1857 was that killing a few White women and kids would not lead to any desirable outcome. Brigadier Dyer would soon underline this point. Shortly thereafter, elected Punjabi Ministers would be begging the Brits for the 'smack of firm government'. </p><blockquote><i><br />The book was the high point of Savarkar’s youth. Soon he lost his infant son to smallpox, and his elder brother was arrested for treason. In 1910, Savarkar himself was sentenced to life imprisonment at the Andamans, a brutal penal colony in the Bay of Bengal. He had become notorious on account of the violent activities of his secret society. But more than this, it was his ‘seditious’ writings with their potential to sow widespread disaffection that had threatened the British, the historian Janaki Bakhle wrote in 2010.<br /></i></blockquote><p>There was plenty of such seditious writing. What the Brits objected to was being shot at and killed. </p><blockquote><i>Prison broke Savarkar.</i></blockquote><p>No. He and his brother remained what they had been. However, after 1917, the Brits had committed to transferring more and more power to the Indians. Then, in 1919 the Afghan King attacked India believing that Muslims would side with him. Brigadier Dyer and other British officers easily routed the Afghans whose baggage trains were then looted by the Afridis and other war-like Frontier tribes. Still, it was clear that the departure of the Brits would leave India once again vulnerable to an Islamic invasion.</p><blockquote><i> In his autobiography, Savarkar writes about frequently suffering from dysentery, lung disease and malaria. He was put in solitary confinement for months, and for eight years was denied permission to see his wife. The Irish jailor was sadistic, and Muslim warders were cruel to Hindus. Nearly driven to suicide, he filed mercy petitions, abjured revolution, and promised to serve the empire (the issue most debated about Savarkar today).</i></blockquote><p>Revolutionaries considered it right and proper to pretend to have turned over a new leaf so as to be able to get out of jail so as to resume their underground activities. </p><blockquote><i> The petitions were rejected but in the early 1920s Savarkar was moved to a less harsh prison in western India.<br /></i></blockquote><p>The Brits didn't want to be lenient to those who had plotted against British lives. </p><blockquote><i>By then, Gandhi’s leadership of the Indian National Congress had revolutionised Indian politics.</i></blockquote><p>Britain's Army Chief said the country did not have the military man-power to keep India, Egypt and Ireland. Indeed, it would be hard pressed to suppress a Bolshevik insurrection in the home island. Spontaneous unrest in Egypt forced Britain to accept a unilateral declaration of independence. In Ireland, the brutality of the 'Black & Tans' had caused a backlash. Churchill had to do a deal with Michael Collins. The assassination of the British Army Chief was a trigger for a horrible Civil War in the new State. India could have got what Ireland and Egypt got but Gandhi unilaterally surrendered in February 1922. Hindu Muslim unity dissolved. The Brits would dictate the pace and scope of reform. Meanwhile, Ataturk was winning against the Greeks and their British and French backers. The Bolsheviks were defeating the 'White' Armies. Indian politics had indeed been revolutionized just as politics elsewhere had been revolutionized. But, in India, the leader of the Revolution changed his mind, pleaded guilty to sedition, and went meekly off to jail. </p><blockquote><i> His religiosity and asceticism attracted the masses to the independence movement, which had been limited to a tiny section of educated Indians. </i></blockquote><p>How did the masses get to hear about Gandhi? Educated Indians got money from enterprising Indians and used that money to create organizations capable of reaching the masses. It was not the case that India was a real small place back then. The educated Indians numbered about 3. The masses, in total, numbered about 30. One day, a religious and ascetically inclined Indian became educated. The masses started nudging each other and saying 'fuck me! did you see that educated dude over there? He is totes religious and ascetic. I find that really attractive and want to get into politics. How about you?' </p><blockquote><i>But, unusually, Gandhi emphasised nonviolence, ethical conduct, social reform and Hindu-Muslim unity as much as political independence.</i></blockquote><p>Back then, the average educated Indian kept gassing on about why one should violently and immorally resist social reform. Thus, if a guy said 'hey, how about we all agree to stop spitting in public', the educated Indian advocated beating and sodomizing the fellow and then stealing his wallet. As for Hindu Muslim unity, the average educated Indian had a very strict 'stab first, ask questions later' policy. Gandhi was unusual in that he did not advocate the anal rape of those of other sects. 2 </p><blockquote><i> He also often upset fellow nationalists. After the collapse of the Ottoman Empire,</i></blockquote><p>Indian troops had helped defeat the Turks </p><blockquote><i> some Indian Muslims launched a movement to compel the British to preserve the institution of the Islamic Caliphate, a symbol of international Muslim solidarity. Gandhi encouraged Hindus to join in, even though they had no stake in the cause.<br /></i></blockquote><p>Hindus agreed that France and Britain should not gain more colonies in the MENA. Gandhi went a bit over-board on the religious dimension to this. But he unilaterally surrendered just when Ataturk started to win. The Muslims realized he had just been leading them up the garden path. </p><blockquote><i>Savarkar had met Gandhi, and had disdain for the man and his politics,</i></blockquote><p>No. Gandhi was respected at that time because of his work in South Africa. Still, he was 15 years older than Savarkar and represented the 'Naram Dal' of Gokhale, whereas Savarkar was a Tilak man. </p><blockquote><i> which seemed to him anachronistic and effeminate. </i></blockquote><p>By the time Savarkar got out of prison, it was obvious that Gandhi's politics were crazy and useless. But so was Savarkar's. The Brits were on their way out. Neither chucking bombs nor sulking in jail would change the timetable. Gandhi's politics were superior to Savarkar's because Gandhi was getting plenty of money from industrialists. Savarkar remained poor. His property had been confiscated and he had to get by on a small detention allowance.</p><blockquote><i>The Caliphate movement also triggered Savarkar’s fears about India being invaded again by Muslims. </i></blockquote><p>Afghans had indeed invaded in 1919. </p><blockquote><i>This wasn’t simply Islamophobia. Many elite Muslims resisted the slow democratisation unfolding through the colonial period, for fear of losing out to Hindus. They saw themselves as India’s historical rulers whose say in its affairs ‘could not be merely proportionate to their numbers’, as the political scientist Christophe Jaffrelot writes in The Pakistan Paradox (2015), a history of Pakistan. </i></blockquote><p>Muslims tended to dominate the land revenue administration in the Doab- as Nehru noticed. Their notables did better under dyarchy- e.g. Nawab of Chattari who briefly served as Governor and then as Premier of U.P. </p><blockquote><i>Some Muslim leaders used the rhetoric of pan-Islamism and threats of violence to push their claims with the British. After the Caliphate movement, Savarkar felt that Indian War’s paean to a composite nationalism had been rejected by Indian Muslims because of their ‘divided love’ (the other interest being Muslims outside India); he reacted like a ‘spurned lover’, writes Bakhle in 2010.<br /></i></blockquote><p>No. The fellow had lost salience in Indian politics. Like Bal and Pal, he too raised the issue of 'divided loyalty' or, rather, accepted the fact that India would be partitioned on the basis of religion just like Ireland. Since the Indians didn't really want the British Umpire to fuck off, everybody pretended that there was some version of a united India which they alone could deliver. Gandhi's version consisted of everybody spinning cotton instead of fucking. Jinnah's version had an artificial Muslim dominated majority at the Center and a free hand for Muslims in provinces where they were in the majority. Nehru prevailed by pulling the trigger on Partition. Never again would Muslims count for anything in Hindu India. Congress, as the Mahacrackpot complained, had been proactive in killing innocent Muslims- ergo, it was the muscular Hindu party. Still, the RSS had helped in Hyderabad against the Razakars and over subsequent decades its reputation rose as its cadres where corrupt sociopaths. </p><blockquote><i><br />In 'Hindutva', Savarkar</i></blockquote><p>was seeking to appeal to the younger 'Jugantar' type generation which had been enthused by the Bolshevik revolution. This was an atheistic type of Hindu nationalism and was important back when young peeps thought Religion might be the opium of the masses whereas Marxism would deliver rapid economic growth. We no longer need any such shit. Religion is merely a service industry. It isn't a 'Giffen good' as an earlier age suspected. It actually has quite high income elasticity of demand. </p><blockquote><i> applied the European framework of nationalism</i></blockquote><p>which did not fucking exist. Europe had Kings and Emperors and Dukes and Archbishops. Prior to 1914, a German Prince might serve in the British Navy without ceasing to be German while the British King Emperor might be Colonel-in-Chief of a German regiment. </p><blockquote><i> – that a nation needed a homogeneous community, a common culture, a long history – to the subcontinent.</i></blockquote><p>This is Wilsonianism. Sadly, Woodrow's vision for Europe was fucked in the head. He destabilized the continent and made a second war inevitable. Self-determination is a recipe for disaster when applied to schizophrenic territories. </p><blockquote><i> In western European nations and the United States, Christianity, race and language had offered the basis for a common history and identity (or so their nationalists claimed). But what could work for India?</i></blockquote><p>Religion. Hindu India has held together well enough. </p><blockquote><i> Hinduism, the religion of the majority, seemed unfit since it lacked a unifying mechanism of one book or church. </i></blockquote><p>Which is why there isn't a Protestant India separated from an Orthodox India. </p><blockquote><i>India’s resident Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists and others also bitterly resented attempts to hitch an Indian nationality to Hinduism. </i></blockquote><p>Muslims did. Jains were pro-Hindu. Buddhists didn't exist. Sikhs were confined to a small area. Christians could be just as separatist as Muslims but being slaughtered by the Army tends to damp their spirits. </p><blockquote><i>Hinduism thus posed ‘the main obstacle’ in Savarkar’s quest for a big-tent Indian identity, as Kapila notes. </i></blockquote><p>Kapila is a kretin. Savarkar only regained a little salience by banging the Hindu drum and pretending that his bunch of losers would have prevented Partition by holding Muslim majority Provinces by military force. </p><blockquote><i>To resolve this conundrum, unlike religious nationalists, Savarkar strove to secularise Hindus – instead of Hindu scriptures, he chose as the foundation of his ideology the discipline of history, the paradigmatic secular form of the enlightened political thinker.<br /></i></blockquote><p>Savarkar and his brothers had 'street cred' as Chitpavan patriots. This was useful to the Mahasabha in so far as it was trying to compete with the Commies on University campuses. Just as being a Gandhian meant you could tell the Purohit to fuck off because you didn't have to bother with rites and rituals if you spun cotton, so too did being a Savarkarite mean being spared having to consume 'the five products of the cow'. </p><blockquote><i>By turning to history, Savarkar wanted to show that followers of all religions born in India – Hinduism, Sikhism, Buddhism, Jainism – owed allegiance to a common genealogy: Hindutva, or Hindu-ness.</i></blockquote><p>This was already customary practice as well as the presumption made by the law- though from time to time legislation was introduced to make an exemption for a particular sect. </p><blockquote><i> ‘Hindutva is not a word but a history,’ Savarkar wrote in his pamphlet.</i></blockquote><p>He was wrong. Hindutva is the 'tattva' or essence of Hinduism which was an intensional term with a well enough defined juristic 'extension'. </p><blockquote><i> He also seized the chance to redefine who is a Hindu. Essentially anyone whose ‘fatherland’ and ‘holy land’ resided within the subcontinent qualified as Hindu, he concluded. Not only followers of Hinduism, but Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists counted as Hindus – a novel interpretation</i></blockquote><p>No. This was the legal position. Savarkar was a barrister. He knew the decision in Bhagwan Koer v. J.C. Bose. “There were religious bodies in India, which had, at various periods, and under various circumstances, developed out of, or split off from the Hindu system, but whose members have nevertheless continued to live under Hindu Law. Of these, the Jains and the Sikhs are conspicuous examples. It appears to their lordship to be clear that.... term Hindu is used in same wide sense as in earlier enactments and includes Sikhs. If it be not so, then Sikhs were and are, in matters of inheritance, governed by the Succession Act, an Act based upon, and in the main embodying, the English law; it should not be suggested that such was the intention of the legislature.”</p><blockquote><i>Muslims and Christians, however, were outsiders as their holy lands lay beyond India, he emphasized. </i></blockquote><p>Christians had fought Crusades to get back their Holy land in Palestine- which Allenby had managed to do for the British Crown. During Khilafat, Muslims in India promised to lay down their lives to keep 'Al Jazirah' free of infidels. There was also 'Hijrat' when thousands of Indian Muslims quit 'dar ul harb' to migrate to Afghanistan- which didn't want them. </p><blockquote><i>The influence of social evolutionism was clear. Hindus must remember that ‘great combinations are the order of the day,’ Savarkar wrote. ‘The League of Nations, the alliances of powers Pan-Islamism, Pan-Slavism, Pan-Ethiopism, all little beings are seeking to get themselves incorporated into greater wholes, so as to be better-fitted for the struggle for existence and power.’<br /></i></blockquote><p>This is an echo of the 'Harbhat Pandse' of Savarkar's youth. </p><blockquote><i>He theorised that Hindu identity had been formed chiefly through violence,</i></blockquote><p>No. Like other Brahmins, Savarkar saw Hindu identity as being slow to adapt in that respect precisely because it greatly pre-dated the age of folk wanderings. </p><blockquote><i> Chaturvedi notes, whether it was in the Islamic period that lasted more than a millennium starting in the 8th century or even earlier. In the long war with the Muslims, ‘our people became intensely conscious of ourselves as Hindus and were welded into a nation to an extent unknown in our history,’ Savarkar wrote in Hindutva.</i></blockquote><p>Brahmins from other parts of India understood him to be saying 'Our Peshvas kicked ass. Chitpavans rule, the rest of you drool!' But, the plain fact is, the Maratha period had no greater religious significance for Hindus than Pindari predations had for Islam</p><blockquote><i>Eloquently written with a clear sense of urgency, Hindutva became The Communist Manifesto of the Hindu Right. </i></blockquote><p>Nonsense! Nobody gave a shit about it. But then nobody read Hind Swaraj either. </p><blockquote><i>Soon after its publication, K B Hedgewar, a former Congress member</i></blockquote><p>he remained a member of Congress. It was only a decade later on that the Mahasabha became an electoral rival of the INC</p><blockquote><i> from Savarkar’s homeland, founded the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) in 1925. </i></blockquote><p>Savarkar's brothers were active participants </p><blockquote><i>He conceived it as a sociocultural organisation that would transform the character of Hindus through indoctrination and paramilitary training, and make them masculine in order to defeat ‘outsiders’. </i></blockquote><p>Hedgewar had helped his pal Hardikar set up the Congress Seva Dal. Their inspiration was the Bengali Revolutionary 'Anushilan Committees'. The RSS was set up as an 'over-ground' non-political auxillary of the Seva Dal. Incidentally, Nehru was an enthusiastic member of the Seva Dal. He vigorously defended the creation of this supposedly 'Black Shirt' type para-military organization. </p><blockquote><i>Hedgewar thought RSS would stay away from direct politics. It would operate in the shadows to avoid backlash from the British, and build Hindu unity from the ground up to realise a Hindu nation in the future.<br /></i></blockquote><p>Why not say that Dr. Hardikar & Dr. Hedgewar were College pals who had the same agenda? Representative democracy meant beating people so as to alter electoral outcomes. The 1924 Delhi riots and the 1927 Nagpur weren't too different. </p><blockquote><i><br />In 1924, Savarkar was released from prison after 13 years inside. Still banned from political activity and put under house arrest, he launched social-reform initiatives and became a prolific writer of plays, poetry, articles and historical works. </i></blockquote><p>They weren't very good. Aurobindo, equally a revolutionary, had taken the spiritual route and was living very comfortably in his own Ashram. Savarkar, being a fucking atheist, eked out a miserable existence. It is his elder brother for whom we feel sympathy. </p><blockquote><i>Despite opposition from orthodox Hindus, he campaigned aggressively against untouchability and in favour of intercaste dining and marriage. ‘A national foolishness’ that created ‘eternal conflict’ among Hindus, the caste system deserved ‘to be thrown in the dustbins of history,’ he wrote.</i></blockquote><p>If the fellow hadn't suffered so much in prison, his head would have been kicked in. </p><blockquote><i> His aim was to dissolve barriers enough for Hindus to realise political unity; caste discrimination, not caste itself, was his target. </i></blockquote><p>In India, politicians only start babbling about caste and gender and Hindu-Muslim unity/enmity only once they have shown themselves to be utterly useless. </p><blockquote><i>Despite Gandhi’s emergence, Savarkar still burned to become the leader of the Hindus. In his autobiographical works, blissfully free of modesty, Savarkar presented himself as a great Hindu in an ancient line of civilisational warriors. After his death, it emerged that one of his adulatory ‘biographies’ may have been authored by Savarkar himself. <br /></i></blockquote><p>Nothing wrong in that. Gandhi got Doakes to do his first biography. Obama's autobiography launched his political career. </p><blockquote><i>In 1937, after he was allowed to re-enter politics at the age of 54, Savarkar assumed the presidency of the Hindu Mahasabha, a former wing of the Indian National Congress that broke out as a militant Hindu party. Anxious to stay away from prison, he greatly tempered his anti-British stance.</i></blockquote><p>The Brits actually were handing over power. Either the Indians could run provinces on their own or they would have to admit they needed the Brits to stay on. Nehru, as Congress President, outflanked the Mahasabha by denying Premierships to Muslims, telling Jinnah to fuck off, and refusing to do a deal with Fazlul Haq in Bengal. This meant that the Mahasabha could have a role there. Dr. Shyama Prasad Mukherjee was quite a catch for the Mahasabha. By contrast, its Ministers in Sindh and NWF were nonentities. Mukherjee's quitting of the Mahasabha was the final nail in its coffin. Savarkar, like Ambedkar, was a shit politician. Intellectuals often are. </p><blockquote><i> Instead, he took aim at his two obsessions: Gandhi and the Muslims. </i></blockquote><p>That's why we remember him. Muslims really were the enemy and Gandhi really was utterly shit. </p><blockquote><i>But Savarkar, whose strengths lay in literary writing and polemics, lacked the energy and vision to mount a serious challenge against the Congress.</i></blockquote><p>The only reason the Mahasabha tolerated him was because he and his brother had spent such a long time in prison. </p><blockquote><i> His health had never fully recovered from the prison ordeal, and help from the RSS was inconsistent. Even though its members sometimes participated in Congress-led campaigns against the British, the RSS as an institution largely stayed out of the independence movement. RSS leaders and Savarkar were ambiguous about the Congress-led struggle partly because of their hatred of Gandhi’s politics of nonviolence and his pursuit of Hindu-Muslim unity.<br /></i></blockquote><p>Congress was a professional outfit which had been created by British Civil Servants as the Raj's residuary legatee. If India became a loose federation, the Mahasabha might be a rival to the Congress just as the League could be a rival to Zamindar Parties (like the Unionists in Punjab) or tenant Parties (like that of Fazl ul Haq in Bengal). </p><blockquote><i>Flailing around on the periphery of power, Savarkar could only lash out at Gandhi’s ‘appeasement’ of Muslims. </i></blockquote><p>But Nehru, as head of Congress in 1937, had taken a tough line. His idea was to take Congress to the Left so as to attract the lower caste Muslim masses. </p><blockquote><i>When in the 1930s the Muslim League began to demand a separate nation carved out of India for Muslims, he was appalled (as were other Hindu politicians including Gandhi and Nehru, although for different reasons). Desperate to avoid conceding land to Muslims, Savarkar called for one secular state with equal rights for everyone, where minorities would be free to practise their religion. But he revealed his hand by accusing Muslims of anti-Indian activities; meanwhile, on the ground, his party stoked communal polarisation and organised violence against Muslims.</i></blockquote><p>So did Congress as the Mahacrackpot acknowledged. To be fair, one could say this was retaliatory in nature. </p><blockquote><i> Unlike Gandhi, Savarkar agreed with Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the leader of the Muslim League, that Hindus and Muslims constituted ‘two nations’; but, obsessed with establishing Hindu supremacy, he opposed the creation of Pakistan.<br /></i></blockquote><p>Because he wanted to be able to blame Congress for Partition. But getting rid of Muslim majority provinces was a good idea. Nehru deserved credit for pulling the trigger on this. </p><blockquote><i>Savarkar and other Hindu extremists blamed Gandhi for the bloody Partition of 1947, the division of India into Muslim-majority Pakistan and Hindu-majority India overseen by the British. </i></blockquote><p>Nope. The Radcliffe award was announced after the transfer of power. An independent India and Pakistan oversaw that blood boltered shambles. </p><blockquote><i>They were incensed by the fast the old man undertook to compel India to give money owed to Pakistan. In 1948, Nathuram Godse, one of Savarkar’s acolytes, assassinated Gandhi. Savarkar’s reputation was irredeemably stained. </i></blockquote><p>Actually, it was the only positive achievement he had to his credit. </p><blockquote><i>He was put on trial for allegedly conspiring to murder Gandhi. His fear of returning to prison was so intense that in court he distanced himself from Godse, who was hurt by his mentor’s ‘calculated, demonstrative non-association’. </i></blockquote><p>Most people who write about Savarkar are only to happy to implicate themselves in Capital cases. If jailed and tortured, they don't beg for pardon. They laugh and say 'you call this torture? Why haven't you shoved a red hot poker up my arse? Do that, and then maybe I'll take you seriously.' </p><blockquote><i>After his acquittal, Savarkar withdrew from politics and spent the rest of his life in anonymity.<br /></i></blockquote><p>No. He continued to publish silly articles- telling vegetarians to sack up and eat some meat already- and would get a bit of publicity now and then. The Jan Sangh, however, had begun to do well on its own. Atal was a good orator and he was backed up by Advani, who was fluent in English and quite a good organizer. However, its political rise depended on either right wing stalwarts like Rajaji or Socialists like Lohia, and, a little later, JP. I suppose Deen Dayal Upadhyaya supplied some sort of wishy washy 'ideology' which bridged that hiatus valde deflendum. Sadly Upadhyaya fell off a train and died. Not falling off trains is a vital political skill. Mind it kindly. </p><blockquote><i><br />In the first three decades after independence, the Indian National Congress dominated Indian politics. Drawing on the legacy of the freedom struggle, Nehru and his successors attempted to cultivate a secular democratic culture. In this period, the Hindu Right struggled politically even as the RSS multiplied its presence across India. Godse had been an RSS member and the organisation was widely seen as culpable in the murder.</i></blockquote><p>India needed assassins who would kill people surnamed Gandhi from time to time. We might even have to import them from Ceylon. </p><blockquote><i> Banned for 18 months after the assassination and fighting for its survival, the RSS was compelled to enter politics directly. It decided to people a new Hindu nationalist party, the Bharatiya Jana Sangh, with its members. </i><i>The safeguard turned into a permanent feature, as the allure of political power proved to be too seductive.</i></blockquote><p>Back in the Forties and Fifties, 'joining politics' or 'doing social work' did not necessarily mean that you were a gangster who wanted to get even richer through corrupt practices. It is perfectly natural for a patriotic organization to seek to form a patriotic political formation just as it is perfectly natural for a labour organization to seek to form a political party which will represent the interests of Trade Union members. </p><blockquote><i>In 1963, Savarkar – hobbled by old age and ailments – published his final historical treatise, Six Glorious Epochs of Indian History. The ‘glorious epochs’ referred to those eras when civilisational warriors freed the Hindu nation ‘from the shackles of foreign domination’. In this ambitious work, Savarkar excavates a triumphant Hindu will to power in history so as to furnish a guide to establishing a Hindu nation. He spends a majority of the book on the Hindu-Muslim encounter, which he characterises as an ‘epic war’ that lasted more than a millennium.<br /></i></blockquote><p>India would fight Pakistan in '65 and '71. Later there was the Kargil war. </p><blockquote><i>Savarkar essentially prescribed ‘permanent’ war for Hindus within their homeland<br /></i></blockquote><p>But it was Pakistan which ensured this outcome. </p><blockquote><i><br />Six Glorious Epochs is striking for its vicious polemic – against Hinduism, Buddhism and, most of all, against Hindus. Reminiscent of Friedrich Nietzsche’s hatred of Christianity and lay people, Savarkar rants at the ‘perverted sense of virtues’ of the Hindus, like nonviolence, religious tolerance and ethical conduct in war. Hindus, according to Savarkar, had been corrupted by Buddhism and its nonviolent creed (like Christianity-corrupted Roman culture in Nietzsche’s telling). He writes that nonviolence ‘emasculates human beings’ and that it ‘should at times be killed by cruel violence!’ Savarkar castigates past Hindu rulers for their ‘suicidal’ practices; he moans that they did not massacre Muslims en masse after winning battles, avoided raping Muslim women, refrained from enacting forcible conversions, and did not destroy mosques. According to him, this is precisely what Muslims did to Hindus, an attitude he praises as ‘highly pious and thoroughly sound’ in war. But their ‘perverted sense of virtues’ had made Hindus ‘slovenly and imbecile, and insensible to all sorts of shameful humiliation’.<br /></i></blockquote><p>Tagore said something similar forty years previously. The plain fact is that Islamic law had made jihad 'incentive compatible'- in other words there was a direct reward for ethnic cleansing, forcible conversion etc. Hinduism lacked any such thing. That is why, during the Great Calcutta Killings, Hindu goons stopped killing Muslims. If you don't get paid, what is the fucking point of shedding blood? If you drive away the local Muslims but refugees from Sindh, or worse yet, East Bengal, take over their property, what have you gained? So long as Muslims paid off locals, they would not permit refugees from seizing 'Evacuee' property. </p><blockquote><i><br />The Hindu will to power was manifest only in a few ‘heroic men and women warriors’;</i></blockquote><p>who created Kingdoms and founded dynasties- or died trying </p><blockquote><i> the rest suffered from the Savarkarist version of false consciousness. He was clear that, in order to realise their latent Hindu-ness, Hindus would have to relinquish the values they held dear. </i></blockquote><p>Pretended to hold dear. It isn't really true that Hindus weep copiously because of all the bacteria their actions kill. </p><blockquote><i>Savarkar essentially prescribed ‘permanent’ war for Hindus within their homeland, as Kapila and Chaturvedi both note.<br /></i></blockquote><p>That certainly seems to be the Pak Army's strategy. </p><blockquote><i><br />Written in the aftermath of Partition, Gandhi’s martyrdom, the unrelenting dominance of the Congress and Savarkar’s own disgrace, his bitterness in Six Glorious Epochs is a giveaway: the lover first spurned by the Muslims had been rejected by his Hindus too. In 1966, the ailing Savarkar died by suicide, aged 82.<br /></i></blockquote><p>The guy was in a lot of pain. He stopped eating and died. Boo hoo. </p><blockquote><i><br />In 1975, the prime minister Indira Gandhi, Nehru’s daughter, suspended democracy and imposed authoritarian rule, which later drew great public anger. Within two years, the Indian National Congress </i></blockquote><p>which she had split </p><blockquote><i>was voted out of power for the first time and a makeshift grouping of parties that included</i></blockquote><p>the Old Congress Party and the 'Congress for Democracy' and </p><blockquote><i> the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Jana Sangh formed the union government. The Congress soon bounced back but its dominance had ended.<br /></i></blockquote><p>No. The Dynasty bounced back. Assassination is what tempered its autocracy. </p><blockquote><i><br />In the 1980s, the erstwhile Jana Sangh, now reinvented as the BJP, </i></blockquote><p>it had merged with the Janata party which had split on the question of 'dual membership' of the RSs </p><blockquote><i>spearheaded the Rama Temple movement that permanently changed Indian politics. Riding an old myth, the BJP and its allies claimed that a mosque in the northern city of Ayodhya had been built by 16th-century Islamic invaders over the ruins of a Rama temple at the deity’s alleged birthplace.</i></blockquote><p>This was true enough. That's why the Bench awarded the site to the deity. </p><blockquote><i> The desecration of his birthplace was a living symbol of Hindu India’s historical oppression by Muslims, the BJP thundered, as it feverishly mobilised the masses to restore the temple.</i></blockquote><p>Advani's genius was to get ordinary people to donate a brick for tne new temple. In other words, he was providing a religious service thus creating value. Muslim violence helped the 'Sangh Parivar' as did Al Qaida's atrocities. </p><blockquote><i> Worshipped devoutly by hundreds of millions of Hindus, Rama proved to be irresistible: in 1992, the mosque fell to a Hindu mob. The BJP went from winning just two seats out of more than 500 in 1984, </i></blockquote><p>It had done very well in 1977 and quite respectably in 1980. It was bound to bounce back. VP Singh thought that 'Mandal' (i.e. reservations for OBCs) would snooker the BJP and there was a notion that 'Mandir' (i.e. the Ram Temple) was the BJP's response. The truth is simpler. Muslim violence drove Islamophobia throughout the world from the Nineties onward. </p><p>In 1987, Art Malik, playing an Afghan war-lord, is James Bond's friend. Muslims are good peeps who fight on our side. But, by 1994, they are crazy jihadis. Malik is the villain in 'True Lies'. It takes Schwarzenegger <i>and</i> Jamie Lee Curtis to take him down. It is some years since I saw that film. My memory is that Art Malik is using Islamic super-powers to beat the fuck out of Arnie. Jamie Lee Curtis lifts her skirt to display a hairy pussy. Hairy pussies are the kryptonite of the Jihadi. Malik's eyes burn up. Arnie can then throw him off a skyscraper before collapsing a whole bunch of skyscrapers on him. Still, Malik, manages to crawl out of the debris. Jamie Lee lifts her skirt again but Malik says 'Allah has burnt the eyes out of my skull! Your hairy pussy has no power against me! Die, infidel scum1'</p><p>Jamie Lee Curtis says 'isn't there something you are forgetting?'. 'No!' replies Malik, 'I never had a sense of smell and thus your stinky pussy poses no threat to me.' Jamie then says 'but you can still hear- right?' and proceeds to queef prodigioously. This cause Malik's skull to explode. Disney doesn't make movies like that any more. Shame. </p><blockquote><i>to the head of the ruling coalition by 1998. Since 2014, Modi, who played a minor role in the Rama temple campaign, has dominated Indian politics.<br /></i></blockquote><p>Because he dominated Gujarat politics, since 2001, to very good effect. </p><blockquote><i>The Rama temple evangelism was manufactured by an insurgent BJP primed to knock over the decrepit ancien régime of the Congress.</i></blockquote><p>Nonsense! After Rajiv was blown to pieces, the BJP rivals were caste based 'Samajwadi' parties save in Gujarat where Patels- originally an agriculturist class- backed the smarter type of BJP politician. Ultimately, it was the thuggery and incompetence of Samajwadi parties which enabled the BJP to rise in the Doab. As for Congress, had Rahul not been a moon-calf, it would have won big in 2014. </p><blockquote><i> It is the same former insurgent – now a dominant but deeply insecure incumbent, haunted by its discreditable past</i></blockquote><p>there is nothing discreditable in a Hindu party being anti-Muslim. It may not be polite to say so but that is the truth of the matter. </p><blockquote><i> – that orchestrates the Savarkar propaganda. </i></blockquote><p>Nobody bothers with that lunatic. Savarkar is almost as stupid as Ambedkar but only because he was less well educated and outside the political mainstream. </p><blockquote><i>Both campaigns share a common feature: the Right’s felt need to locate its legitimacy in history.</i></blockquote><p>History is just a story you make up. Legitimacy merely means that one has acquired authority by legal means- e.g. winning elections. </p><blockquote><i> The BJP has carried on Savarkar’s legacy of turning to history instead of Hindu religious texts for validation. </i></blockquote><p>No. It has carried on Nehru's legacy of getting fucking elected time after time. Let us see whether Modi can win as many General Elections as the Pundit. Incidentally, no Hindu monarch or other ruler has ever used 'religious texts for validation'. Why? This is because if you can't kill your rival, then you don't have any fucking validation. The other dude has stuck a knife in you and you are screaming and shitting yourself. Then you die. Sad. </p><blockquote><i>It’s not the Vedas or the Bhagavad Gita, the greatest Hindu scriptures, that ordained the BJP’s rule, but the civilisational history of the Hindus that did.</i></blockquote><p>Fuck off! Modi knows that booth management is all that ultimately matters. Your people have to knock on doors to get out the vote. </p><blockquote><i> Positing an unbroken chain stretching back thousands of years, the BJP-RSS present themselves as the guardians of the great Hindu civilisation, successors to iconic kings like Chandragupta Maurya (reign c322-298 BCE), Prithviraj Chauhan (c1178-92) and Shivaji (1674-80).<br /></i></blockquote><p>Whereas Mahamta Gandhi often pretended to be a Chinese dude who grew up in Canada. He didn't drone on about the Gita and Ramayana. On the contrary, he posited an unbroken chain stretching back from himself to Can-Can dancers at the Moulin Rouge. </p><blockquote><i>The significance of their success in appropriating Indian history cannot be overstated. </i></blockquote><p> The Left did appropriate Indian history on University campuses. Nobody gave a fucking fuck. History doesn't matter in the slightest. </p><blockquote><i>The appropriation allows for the exclusionary politics of the BJP-RSS to subsume, even replace, religious belief. </i></blockquote><p>Just as your appropriation of male gender allows for the exclusionary politics of the Penal System- not to mention the fact that you aren't allowed to use the Lady's loo. </p><blockquote><i>For example, the inauguration of the Rama temple by Modi this January, </i></blockquote><p>was entirely the result of a Supreme Court decision which awarded title to the temple deity rather than the shebait. It must be said, Yogi and Amit did a good job in enabling the Temple to come up so quickly. </p><blockquote><i>one of the biggest events in modern Indian history, incited a national frenzy among Hindus.</i></blockquote><p>Modi was a superb 'jajman' </p><blockquote><i> But the spectacle wasn’t mainly a celebration of Rama bhakti (religious devotion).</i></blockquote><p>Yes it was- for Hindus. </p><blockquote><i> It was about a politically united Hindu community declaring its pre-eminence in its homeland.<br /></i></blockquote><p>That happened in 1947. Sadly, this did involve the killing of a lot of innocent Muslims- many of whom were highly educated or otherwise talented. Still, Congress wasn't taking any chances. It eliminated its rivals when it could not coopt them. </p><blockquote><i>If the BJP-RSS have worked very hard to make history – admittedly, partly a colonial one – their strength, it is also their weakness.</i></blockquote><p>Nope. History doesn't matter in the slightest. Fifty years ago there were some cretins who misunderstood Marx's theory of history to mean that the <i>teaching</i> of history could change the 'substructure'. This was mere magical thinking. I</p><blockquote><i> The RSS is hypersensitive to its shaming non-participation in India’s freedom movement.</i></blockquote><p>The Savarkars did hard time. That's good enough. After about 1921, there was no 'freedom struggle'. There was an open door but nobody could go through it because everybody wanted to be the first to go through it. In this context some people put in a bit of jail time in between writing books or making speeches while other people got rich off government contracts or corrupt deals like the Mody-Lee agreement. </p><blockquote><i> (This is what Congress party members meant when they called Right-wing leaders ‘anti-national’, which, now, unsurprisingly, is one of the Right’s favourite labels for its critics.)</i></blockquote><p>No. Congress said that Vajpayee was a CIA agent. That's why, when Atal became FM in '77, he went running to Moscow and kept swigging Vodka there till the Soviets told their slaves in India that the guy was kosher. On the other hand, Buta Singh persecuted various Gandhian NGOs by claiming they were CIA fronts. </p><blockquote><i> There is no escaping the fact that Indian independence came under Gandhi using Gandhian methods, </i></blockquote><p>No. Everybody got Independence when the US pulled the financial plug on the British Empire. That game simply wasn't worth the candle. Gandhi's achievement was to prevent India getting the same deal as Ireland in 1922. But, if Hindus were stupid enough to follow Gandhi then they were incapable of feeding or defending themselves and thus could not be given independence. Indeed, in 1939, just after War was declared, Gandhi said that if the Brits left without handing over the Army to Congress, the Hindus would be fucked over by Muslims and Punjabis.</p><blockquote><i>and the Hindutva antipathy for Gandhi and his methods is hard to hide,</i></blockquote><p>those methods involved collecting lots of money and then pissing it against the war. One might as well support Mahesh Yogi's 'Natural Law party'. Yogic levitation will spread 'peace rays' and prevent war and violent crime. </p><blockquote><i> indeed central to their formation and history. The Right cannot fundamentally alter public perception of these facts all at once. Savarkar is the one figure who cannot be claimed by the Congress and who has genuine links with the anti-British struggle. </i></blockquote><p>Savarkar was in the Garam Dal tradition within Congress. Gandhi and Nehru were in the Naram Dal. Before the Great War it was the latter who went to jail. After it, the latter would form an orderly queue to put in a bit of jail time and thus burnish their credentials. For many, there was a healthy financial and reputational return on jail time for sedition. Sadly, the returns were negative for those who did hard time for treason or waging war on the King Emperor. </p><blockquote><i>His revolutionary past and later marginalisation yield a counterfactual interpretation that can cover somewhat for the Right’s embarrassing absence.</i></blockquote><p>This is stupid shit. Indians want to emigrate to places ruled by Whites- though Dubai is increasingly attractive because of lower tax rates. </p><blockquote><i> In the Right’s telling, Savarkar was sidelined by Gandhi and Nehru while the Hindu polity foolishly rejected Hindutva – Partition was the calamitous outcome of these two decisions.</i></blockquote><p>It was calamitous for the one third of sub-continental Muslims who lived in Hindu majority areas. Kaffirs in Muslim majority areas would have been slaughtered in any case. </p><blockquote><i> If Hindus had chosen Savarkar’s (and the RSS’s) macho Hindutva over Gandhi’s ‘Muslim appeasement’, they would have reigned supreme in undivided India, it is implied.<br /></i></blockquote><p>This is foolish. It is obvious that if Hindus wanted to rule over Muslims, they would need to build up their military power. But that costs money and involves hardship. Why not pose as a Swamy or Mahatma or Boddhisattva instead? </p><blockquote><i>The icon of Savarkar thus reminds Hindus:</i></blockquote><p>not to go in for assassinations or other such terrorist activities. The thing is counter-productive. </p><blockquote><i> without Hindutva, India’s national security is perennially under threat.</i></blockquote><p>Which doesn't matter if your main concern is food security- which was the case under Nehru </p><blockquote><i>Only by heeding ‘the man who could have prevented Partition’ can you secure Hindu India,</i></blockquote><p>as opposed to Sonia's India </p><blockquote><i> especially when Islamic terrorism is perceived as a threat</i></blockquote><p>this dude perceives Islamic terrorism as an invitation to a Birthday Party </p><blockquote><i>, and Muslims constitute 14 per cent of India’s population.</i></blockquote><p>it was about ten percent in 1950. </p><blockquote><i> Muslims oppressed Hindus for centuries and won a nation for themselves by expropriating Hindu territory – why shouldn’t Hindus become masters in whatever was left of their own ancient homeland? </i></blockquote><p>India has ejected Muslims in the past and may do so in the future. But why get rid of hardworking, productive, people? It is a different matter that particular communities might get rid of 'outsiders'. </p><blockquote><i>Gandhi had dedicated his life to fighting such realpolitik, a struggle carried on by Nehru after independence.<br /></i></blockquote><p>Yet the biggest massacre and ethnic cleansing of Muslims took place when Gandhi was alive and Nehru was the fucking Prime Minister! Their own struggles succeeded because the one got to be called 'Father of the Nation' while the other founded a fucking Dynasty. </p><blockquote><i><br />Hindutva now, however, enjoys wide legitimacy among Hindus of all castes. The BJP won about 37 per cent of the votes cast in the last national election of 2019, but that number greatly understates the public’s approval of Hindutva. Rival parties can criticise the BJP, but they dare not oppose Hindutva. </i></blockquote><p>This is also the reason so few American politicians say 'Whitey be debil' or 'all males must be castrated'. </p><blockquote><i>The self-professed secular Congress party, for instance, tends to respond to the BJP’s Savarkar propaganda by questioning his lack of machismo for filing mercy petitions with the British, instead of contesting his Hindu supremacism lest it be seen as anti-Hindu.<br /></i></blockquote><p>I suppose this was written before Congress decided to boycott the Ram Temple inauguration. Going into the 2024 general election, they do appear to be doubling down on an 'anti-Sanatan Dharma' (i.e. anti High Caste Hindu) platform favored by Chief Minister Stalin and, it seems, Kharge's son. There may be some method to this madness. After all, if Akhilesh is allying with Rahul, there must be some caste equation angle to this. </p><blockquote><i>As BJP and RSS leaders have brought Savarkar to prominence in Indian politics and thought, a cult of Gandhi’s assassin Godse has flourished among party loyalists. In recent years, statues and even temples dedicated to Godse have cropped up, while Gandhi memorials are defaced.<br /></i></blockquote><p>But this doesn't seem to have any impact on voters. My feeling is that Modi gains by being seen as religious and this has a halo effect beneficial to his party. That's why his party played up his underwater 'darshan' in Dwarka. Every district in India has one or two 'teerths' and PM Modi turning up for a Temple inauguration would greatly help attract funds for the proper development of such pilgrimage sites. </p><p>On the other hand what BJP is betting is last mile delivery to 'labhartis' through the Viksit Bharat Sankalp Yatra. The hope is this will also motivate the booth level workers. If people feel their voluntary work is actually helping the poor, then they become more effective. More importantly, some may be encouraged to join politics full time. Without this type of 'new blood', a party is bound to stagnate. </p><blockquote><i>As resurrected Hindutva icons, they stand in death as they did in life: Savarkar, the guru, behind the pulpit; Godse, the disciple, on the streets.</i></blockquote><p>But it is Netaji Bose whom Modi is promoting as an alternative to Gandhi & Nehru. This dovetails with the Agniveer scheme. Let us see if the BJP succeeds in increasing the employability of Indian youth while creating a vast reserve or territorial army. </p><blockquote><i> Savarkar would have thought that India’s Hindus today are finally being cured of what he hated as their perverted virtues of nonviolence, tolerance and respect for adversaries.<br /></i></blockquote><p>No. He was against vegetarianism and going to temples and so forth. Like many followers of Spencer, who thought Religion would die away as Scientific education spread, Savarkar would have been appalled by a world where Church attendance is rising and the internet is helping billions of people to grow strong in Faith, Hope and Charity.</p><p>Savarkar had no problem with peaceful co-existence. He regained some salience in Indian politics by warning that Muslims would ethnically cleanse kaffir minorities in the sub continent just as they had elsewhere. But this wasn't exactly news and, when push came to shove, Gandhi and Nehru were happy enough to preside over ethnic cleansing of Muslims and armed conflict with Pakistan over Kashmir. On balance, Savarkar was less religious than the dynasty- whose funerals and weddings are conducted according to Vedic rites- and his conception of Indian Nationalism was more secular in the European sense. Unlike Sonia, who said in 2002 that, if the Bench permitted, she would build the Ram Temple with the aid of the Shankaracharya who had performed her 'Grha Pravesh' ritual when she moved house. I suppose Savarkar would have refused any such ritual and demanded that money raised to build the temple be spent on Defense Research. For this reason, though we may admire his fiery patriotism and literary gifts, we find it difficult to warm to him as a person. </p><p>-</p>windwheelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18099651877551933295noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1674709389503889160.post-24231892196193036832024-02-26T16:14:00.002+00:002024-02-26T16:14:58.025+00:00Is Nazmul Sultan an utter nitwit? <p>This is an excerpt from a new book 'Waiting for the People' by Nazmul Sultan, a young Professor in Canada- </p><blockquote><i> Though the study of popular sovereignty </i><i>has long been beset with fundamental disagreements, the conflicting series of propositions associated with the discourse of popular sovereignty have propelled, rather than stymied, its emergence as the ground of modern democracy.</i></blockquote><p>Modern democracy is associated with strong institutions with deep foundations in constitutional law. 'Popular sovereignty' is restricted to periodic elections characterized by competition between large political parties which tend to be 'top-down' and open to pressure from vested interest groups. In North America, there is a 'sovereign citizen movement' of a right-wing, not to say red neck type. But that is not what is of interest to Sultan. </p><blockquote><i> Popular sovereignty thrived, as it were, on its many claimants and detractors.</i></blockquote><p>It was irrelevant. Fighting elections costs money. Vested interest groups push through their agenda in a manner that makes a mockery of popular sovereignty. </p><blockquote><i> Reflecting on the revolutionary origins of the idea of popular sovereignty,</i></blockquote><p>The American revolution was not really revolutionary. Nor was the Glorious Revolution. As for the French or Bolshevik or Chinese Revolutions, sovereignty very swiftly got concentrated on genocidal tyrants. Hannah's Aunt was as stupid as shit. </p><blockquote><i> Hannah Arendt speculated that “if this notion [le peuple] has reached four corners of the earth, it is not because of any influence of abstract ideas but because of its obvious plausibility under conditions of abject poverty.”</i></blockquote><p>The Chinese had a notion of 'the Mandate of Heaven'. If the rains fall at the right time and there are no earthquakes or invasions or insurrections, the people are happy enough with the Emperor. </p><blockquote><i>I do not share the assumption that “abstract ideas” of the people were unimportant in the global career of popular sovereignty, or that “abject poverty” has a universal political import. </i></blockquote><p>Abstract ideas- like those of the Marxist-Leninists- do have global 'careers' and 'abject poverty' certainly enabled their spread. Hilariously, some Stalinists and Maoists affirmed that their genocidal idols represented the will of the masses. </p><blockquote><i>However, Arendt’s underscoring of the singular global reach of the popular sovereignty discourse </i></blockquote><p>it had no such thing. Vast swathes of the world were turning Red at that time. It was only because Communism was utterly shit, economically speaking, that it ran out of steam. </p><blockquote><i>captures a point of utmost importance: if democracy has now acquired the status of the sole “secular claimant” of political legitimacy,</i></blockquote><p>It doesn't. China's rise and America's decline has seen to that. Still, maybe in Canada, they haven't got the memo. </p><blockquote><i> it is primarily because of the incontestability of the foundation of popular sovereignty<br /></i></blockquote><p>This is foolish. The people understand that there has to be a sovereign to solve collective action problems and prevent 'concurrency' deadlock. Ideally, this will be transparently consultative but if you have woke nutters running amok then let the task be entrusted to sensible technocrats. </p><blockquote><i>While representative and centralised forms of democratic government faced much scepticism in the global nineteenth and twentieth centuries, the sovereignty of the people, as an ideal, met with no meaningful normative challenge. </i></blockquote><p>Sure it did. The people are as stupid as shit. They don't know what's good for them. An enlightened despot might be preferable to elected demagogues engaging in a dialogue of the deaf. </p><blockquote><i>After storming the heaven of sovereignty, the “people” seemed to have conquered the globe – sometime between the great 18th-century revolutions and mid-20th-century decolonisation, and somewhere behind the main stage of social and economic history.<br /></i></blockquote><p>Where? Countries which had traditionally had 'limited monarchies' gave more power to parliament but the franchise was restricted to some degree or other till after the Great War. One might say that when the UN was constituted, as when the League of Nations was constituted, much bollocks about democracy was talked. But that was very swiftly abandoned.</p><blockquote><i>The story of this singular conquest is generally told with reference to the tremendous social and economic transformations of the 19th and 20th centuries.</i></blockquote><p>But those transformations could occur under autocratic regimes as much as oligarchic democracies. </p><blockquote><i> But alongside these changes, the global rise of the people</i></blockquote><p>Some nations rose- e.g. Japan- others fell prey to those rising nations. </p><blockquote><i> was also a story of intellectual transformations. </i></blockquote><p>But those transformations were occurring across the spectrum. They weren't univocal. </p><blockquote><i>The stubborn persistence of diffusionist approaches in the global history of democracy</i></blockquote><p>it is a fact that the UK 'diffused' democratic institutions to the sub-continent- not to mention the English speaking settler colonies. </p><blockquote><i> means that the framework of dissemination and reception tends to obfuscate the transformation and reconstitution of democratic ideas themselves. </i></blockquote><p>The problem is that those ideas were not univocal. They ranged across the whole spectrum. </p><blockquote><i>As we shall see, anticolonial aspirants for popular sovereignty</i></blockquote><p>they aspired to national, not popular, sovereignty. This might involve massive ethnic cleansing or chauvinistic majoritarianism. </p><blockquote><i> were locked in a conflict with an imperial project that had – however contradictorily – sought to derive its legitimacy from a contesting, global narrative of peoplehood. </i></blockquote><p>No. Empires derived their legitimacy from military might and the economic resources to sustain it. </p><blockquote><i>It is partly due to the history of this conflict that the age of decolonisation doubled as the global vindication of popular sovereignty.<br /></i></blockquote><p>Nonsense! Decolonisation might mean the transfer of power to a monarchy or theocracy or a military or Communist dictatorship. </p><blockquote><i>The strength and ubiquity of popular sovereignty lie in its roots as a discourse of authorisation. </i></blockquote><p>The Tibetans may be authorised to tell the Han Chinese to fuck the fuck off but a fat lot of good this does them. But the same is true of the urban Iranian and his theocratic masters. </p><blockquote><i>The modern recognition that the figure of the people no longer amounts to a “visibly identifiable gathering of autonomous citizens” shifted the primary stake of the popular sovereignty discourse to the processes of claiming authorisation from the abstraction called “the people.”</i></blockquote><p>Why not claim authorization from the Galactic Overlords? The plain fact is that authorization is only effectively done by authority not by nonsense. </p><blockquote><i> Invocations of the people in political modernity are necessarily an exercise in speaking in the name of an entity that does not empirically exist as a homogeneous, empirically locatable subject.</i></blockquote><p>But such invocations can turn into actual authority over actual people. Only where this is happening, is it worthwhile giving ear to this discourse. </p><blockquote><i> This foundational abstraction of “the people” notwithstanding,</i></blockquote><p>It is not an abstraction if the people have actually given power to a particular person or party </p><blockquote><i> much of the contemporary theoretical dispute around popular sovereignty </i></blockquote><p>occurs only between useless tossers teaching stupid shit </p><blockquote><i>concerns not whether the people are the ultimate political authority but instead how to enact and institutionalise the authority vested in it.<br /></i></blockquote><p>This is done by writing or amending a Constitution and creating legal and legislative and other constitutional institutions. This can also be done by Treaty law. </p><blockquote><i>Regardless of how critical of popular rule a contemporary liberal political thinker might be, the procedure of popular consent – which traces the sovereignty of the state to the people – is essential. </i></blockquote><p>This is a 'legal fiction'. It is not the case that proving that 'the people' did not approve the creation of the State would cancel its sovereignty. Thus even if every member of the Bench believes that the people hated the successor state, it would not mean it lacked sovereignty. </p><blockquote><i>Radical democrats – while overwhelmingly critical of representative democracy – articulate their extra-institutional vision of democracy through the figure of the people.</i></blockquote><p>So what? I articulate my extra-institutional vision of myself as Empress of India by claiming that my bootylicious figure sexually arouses 'the people'. </p><blockquote><i> Deliberative democratic theorists</i></blockquote><p>are useless tossers. That is why they </p><blockquote><i> too find it necessary to account for a procedural authorisation of rights and laws in the will of the people, notwithstanding their attempts to render the people as “‘subjectless’ forms of communication circulating through forums and legislative bodies.”<br /></i></blockquote><p>Do they sodomize those legislative bodies? I suppose so. There probably are videos of such goings on circulating through the dark web. </p><blockquote><i>Though disagreements over what exactly constitutes popular authorisation</i></blockquote><p>People, albeit reluctantly, recognize there must be authority and the rule of law. Sadly, the thing costs money. You get as much of it as you can pay for. </p><blockquote><i> – and how it must be politically instituted – are abundant, what has come to be beyond dispute, barring some residual protestations, is the idea that democratic legitimacy requires authorisation from the people.<br /></i></blockquote><p>It is enough if you win a plurality in an election to claim this though, a General, or Monarch, of Dictator, whose troops are good at shooting 'dissidents' might make the same claim. In North Korea, millions weep and wail in the street when their Beloved Leader dies.</p><blockquote><i>The distinction between sovereignty and government was crucial to the formation of modern popular sovereignty as an authorizing ideal. </i></blockquote><p>That may be true. Guys who talk this stripe of shite have shit for brains. </p><blockquote><i>The concept of sovereignty, since its medieval origin,</i></blockquote><p>its origins are pre-historic. In the Civil Law tradition, the Roman jurist Ulpian is quoted. The people (i.e. the Republic) transferred all their power to the Emperor. This does not mean City-States were not sovereign. Indeed Venice was sovereign from the seventh century. </p><blockquote><i> had implied that “authorising the actions of a government” is not the same as “governing.”</i></blockquote><p>Unless, the governor is authorizing the delegation of an executive power. Whether governing is done lawfully, inter vires, and with proper authority is a justiciable matter. However, unless an action of government is actually reversed by judicial action determines whether or not authority is distinct from governance. This involves the doctrine of political question, Executive privilege, etc. and nobody knows beforehand where the line is drawn or, indeed, whether there is a line at all. </p><blockquote><i> Sovereignty thus meant not so much the holding of political offices as the power to decide who would constitute the government and to pass fundamental legislation. </i></blockquote><p>No. A sovereign may hold no political office nor have any power to decide anything. Mad King George was a sovereign but, during the Regency, he didn't enjoy even personal liberty. </p><blockquote><i>As Richard Tuck has shown, the sovereignty-government distinction was constitutive of the idea of popular sovereignty since Jean Bodin and ran through canonical modern political philosophers ranging from Thomas Hobbes to Jean-Jacques Rousseau. </i></blockquote><p>That may be true but they had and have no power. </p><blockquote><i>The very emergence of a constitutional theory of public authority in the early modern era was likewise indebted to the incipient doctrine of popular sovereignty.</i></blockquote><p>No. It was indebted to Ulpian who said that the people transferred all their power and 'imperium' to the Sovereign who might combine the offices of Head of State, Head of Government, Chief Magistrate, and Commander in Chief of the armed forces. </p><blockquote><i> The limited government of the constitutional order had become theoretically possible owing to the “unlimited” power ascribed to the people.<br /></i></blockquote><p>No. It became theoretically possible because concrete models of limited monarchy as well as Republics under the rule of Law actually existed </p><blockquote><i>It was, however, only with the two classical revolutions of the late 18th century – the French and the American – </i></blockquote><p>presaged by the British 'Glorious Revolution'. Sadly, the French rapidly went off the rails. The American Common Law tradition kept them on the straight and narrow. It wasn't till Andrew Jackson that you had 'popular sovereignty'. </p><blockquote><i>that popular sovereignty began to acquire the public legitimacy that it now enjoys. </i></blockquote><p>What fucking legitimacy? Canada is run by a dynastic twat. The US has a choice between two very old men. A vast Eurasian bloc, under the leadership of China, appears likely to dominate the second quarter of this Century. </p><blockquote><i>The French and American revolutionaries vigorously debated the meaning of popular sovereignty, taking paths that were neither identical nor short of novel challenges.</i></blockquote><p>The French fucked up. Still, Napoleon did reintroduce slavery. </p><blockquote><i> The limited government of American constitutionalism</i></blockquote><p>not to mention their love of slavery and genocide </p><blockquote><i> and the transformative vision of French republicanism</i></blockquote><p>which transformed Europe into a bunch of Kingdoms ruled by Napoleon's family before yielding to the 'Holy Alliance' which re-established the Bourbon dynasty. </p><blockquote><i>both nevertheless emboldened the idea that the people are the source of authority and the foundation of legitimacy.<br /></i></blockquote><p>This idea was there in Ulpian. </p><blockquote><i>For all its centrality to the modern constitutional order, popular sovereignty has been no less salient to extraconstitutional claims of political authorization. </i></blockquote><p>Because shouting 'Power to me and my chums!' is less effective than shouting 'Power to the Pee-pul!' </p><blockquote><i>The invocation of popular sovereignty both by institutional and extra-institutional actors, as Jason Frank has argued, is enabled by the fact that “the people” is more of a claim than a determinate object. </i></blockquote><p>By contrast, Fason Jrank has argued that sodomizing the Andromeda Galaxy is enabled by the fact that my dick is 2.5 million light-years in length. </p><blockquote><i>The “constitutive surplus” of popular sovereignty – the surplus that remains despite institutional authorization derived from the people – tends to outlive the founding event and continues to serve as a reservoir for popular claim-making.<br /></i></blockquote><p>Not to mention its serving as a reservoir for my cum which is dripping off the Andromeda Galaxy- much to its chagrin. </p><blockquote><i>Modern democracy rode the waves of many popular insurrections, </i></blockquote><p>unless it didn't at all. </p><blockquote><i>and the founding power associated with the self-authorizing people</i></blockquote><p>not to mention the self-sodomizing people who <i>are</i> the very Andromeda Galaxy they belligerently bugger </p><blockquote><i> shaped institutional ideals of democracy</i></blockquote><p>ideally democracy wouldn't need to use a deodorant every five minutes. </p><blockquote><i> as much as the dictions of popular politics. To complicate the matter further, the essential claimability of the people</i></blockquote><p>which is like the essential claimability of the ass-hole of the Andromeda Galaxy which keeps getting sodomized by all and sundry. </p><blockquote><i> means that both governmental and extragovernmental actors </i></blockquote><p>not to mention drunken hobos </p><blockquote><i>could invoke the name of the people, thus transcending strict constitutional protocols for popular authorization. </i></blockquote><p>If the constitution protects free speech then I am entitled to claim that the people support my right to sodomize the Andromeda galaxy. </p><blockquote><i>Indeed, as Bryan Garsten argues, the multiplication and contestability of “governmental claims to represent the people” is a germane feature of modern representative democracy.</i></blockquote><p>Sadly Gryan Barsten rejects this argument on the grounds that it is the sort of shit that the Andromeda Galazy might spout after being buggered senseless. </p><p>Still, it is remarkable that a Professor of Political Science gets that a 'germane feature' of 'representative democracy' is that it represents the demos- i.e. the people. Amazing discoveries of this type are constantly being made even at Yale University. Who knew? </p><p>Turning to Nazmul's dissertation, we find that Nazmul didn't get that Indian anti-colonialism was religious in nature. Hindus wanted a Hindu nation. Muslims wanted a Muslim nation. That is what they got. True, in the Fifties many believed in the magical powers of Socialism but disillusion set in rapidly. What we have in the subcontinent is popular leaders, some dynastic, who represent not 'the people' but their own people as defined by creed, caste, or language. 'Janata' or 'Awami' 'People's Parties' may be corrupt, are frequently authoritarian, but what nobody can accuse them of is knowing Hegel or Rousseau from a fucking hole in the ground. </p><p>Nazmul '<i>theorizes the colonial paradox of peoplehood that Indian anticolonial
thinkers grappled with in their attempts to conceptualize self-rule, or swaraj. </i></p><p>Anti-colonial, like pro-colonial, thinkers in India had to grapple with the fact that the place could not feed, defend or govern itself. The alternative to Pax Britannica was war-lordism of the sort that plagued China. The Brits had to introduce gradualist representative government so as to expand the tax-base and thus set off a virtuous circle of infrastructure and public good provision. But there was a 'holdout problem'. Essentially, there was an incentive to refuse to cooperate on the grounds that Indians were slaves. The opposite incentive- viz. to cooperate so as to be able to change oppressive laws and customs (e.g. Vitthalbhai Patel's ban on inter-caste marriage)- disappeared after the Great War because it was obvious the age of Empires had ended. India could have got what Ireland and Egypt and Afghanistan got in 1922. It was already a member of the League of Nations. Gandhi- fearful that 'Muslims and Punjabis' would use violence to seize power from the cowardly Hindus- tried to delay the departure of the British. </p><p></p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;">The persistence of
the developmentalist figuration of the people</blockquote><p>Fuck that. Some Indians did 'developmentalist' work and were rewarded by the Raj. But Indian politicians were not interested in any such thing. This did not change much after Independence though some leaders who were born in poverty could implement sensible programs- e.g. free school meals in Kamraj's Tamil Nadu. </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;"> brought the swaraj theorists in confrontation with
the not-yet claimable figure of the people at the very moment of disavowing the British claim to
rule. </blockquote><p>This is meaningless. Could there be Hindu-Muslim unity? No. Muslims would ethnically cleanse Hindus wherever they were in the majority. They might also conquer the country in alliance with martial races. That was what Gandhi said would happen unless the Brits handed over the army to the INC before fucking off. </p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;">Revisiting this underappreciated pre-Gandhian history of the concept of swaraj </blockquote><p>which dates back to Shivaji and attained mass appeal under 'Bal, Pal & Lal' though it already figured in the thought of Swamys like Dayanand Sarasvati. </p><blockquote><span style="font-style: italic;">and
reinterpreting its Gandhian moment, </span>(a chapter in his book) <i>offers a new reading of Gandhi’s theory of
moral self-rule. </i></blockquote><p>Why bother? The truth is obvious. Gandhi had unilaterally surrendered in 1922. He couldn't quit politics because he needed money from the industrialists for his crackpot schemes. So, periodically, he performed a 'tamasha' before returning to the cultivation of some stupid fad alongside his crazy acolytes. </p><blockquote><i>I argue that Gandhi simultaneously rejected the developmental framework and
the very criterion of popular authorization. </i></blockquote><p>along with sex. Gandhi said everybody should stop bumping uglies. Did you know that babies come out of vaginas? Avoid that organ like the plague. </p><blockquote><i>The result was a displacement of the source of
political action from the collective to the self.</i></blockquote><p>No. The result was that Congress became reconciled to being a Hindu party and took office and proceeded to impose its stupidity on Muslims which is why they turned overwhelmingly to the League. What mattered was that the Brits had made running a Province virtually idiot-proof. Granted, there might be famine or ethnic cleansing or both, but, hey!, if that's what the natives are into, let them have it by all means. </p><p><br /></p><blockquote><br /></blockquote><p></p>windwheelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18099651877551933295noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1674709389503889160.post-24807648620367651442024-02-25T16:08:00.012+00:002024-02-28T04:37:36.960+00:00Bhaṅgibhaṇitibheda <div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;">Since ekphrasis is e'er asymptotically holophrastic-<i>id est </i>atavistic or directed at Mum</div><div style="text-align: center;">& coz Dad only got so noisily ecstatic thinking with cum to strike her dumb</div><div style="text-align: center;">& tho' <i>dhvani </i>is but the <i>vishaad</i> of <i>vyakti-vivek</i></div><div style="text-align: center;">Fuck is Love lost for Logos' fucking sake?</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><i>Envoi- </i></div><div style="text-align: center;"><i>Nar-Indr! </i>Prince! Let all learn from Vakil Sahib</div><div style="text-align: center;">Jashotabehn is the <i>arth</i> of all '<i>labh'</i>.</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div>windwheelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18099651877551933295noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1674709389503889160.post-17072867259307512792024-02-22T02:53:00.003+00:002024-02-22T03:16:06.957+00:00Liberal Socialism vs Democratic Gulags & Non-Violent Nazism<p>Liberalism was the notion that educated, property owning, tax payers should be able to elect representatives who would decide Government policy rather than leave such matters to the Crown, the Clergy, and the great territorial magnates. If the bourgeoisie got the sort of fiscal policy which increased their own income and thus generated more and more tax revenue, a virtuous circle was created. The State could perform more than 'night-watchman' functions in a manner which rendered more and more of the working class able to pay taxes which in turn could provide the sort of 'club goods' which raised their productivity and hence ability to pay taxes. If this did not happen, sooner or later there was entitlement collapse and National bankruptcy.</p><p>It was possible, of course, to have a cosmetic, rights-based, Liberalism which, however, severely rationed remedies for rights violations. In the same manner that lipstick manufacturers are happy to laud the practice of putting lipstick on a pig, some pedants or politicians might praise cosmetic politics of this sort. However, that type of Liberalism was fragile because, at the end of the day, lipstick costs money but doesn't make pork taste better and pigs have to compete with cheaper pigs reared elsewhere. </p><p> Socialism was the notion that the means of production- agricultural land, industrial machinery, mines etc- should be owned by Society as a whole. Liberal Socialism would be Socialism with free and fair democratic elections, freedom of expression, and the right of lesbos to bump uglies. It was believed that a Socialist society would be more allocatively and dynamically efficient and thus voters would be happy with the new arrangement. Sadly, Socialist administrations tended not to be very efficient. Moreover, there was increased strife between low-paid unskilled workers and the 'labour aristocracy'. High marginal tax rates had a big disincentive effect and entrepreneurs and enterprises fled the jurisdiction. If an economically efficient Socialism were possible- or the idea once again became plausible- there is no reason why Liberal Socialism might not once again attract voters.</p><p>Matthew McManus, writing in Aeon, takes a different view. </p><blockquote><i><br />The existential woes of 21st-century liberalism require we do more than return to the forms of neoliberal governance that generated discontent in the first place. It requires retrieving the revolutionary emancipatory and egalitarian ethos that defined liberalism at its revolutionary best to offer a new deal to citizens of liberal states.</i></blockquote><p>Socialism was attractive when it promised a streamlined economy with higher material standards of living for the vast majority. A revolutionary movement which appears likely to make things better can appeal to the masses. One which merely wishes to repeat the mistakes made by paranoid nutters a century ago is unlikely to gain much traction. </p><blockquote><i>The strand of liberal political theory that offers the richest guidance on what form this new deal should take is liberal socialism.<br /></i></blockquote><p>Socialism had appeal when it appeared to be Scientific and 'low hanging' technological fruit was easy to hand. It was thought that great things were achievable through a National Planning Commission, using networked Computers (like Allende's Chile) to allocate resources. This was a pipe dream. The solution to the Social Transportation problem is in a time class exponential to the life time of the Universe. In other words, no Planning procedure could be efficient. Moreover, because of 'disruptive' technological change and geopolitical volatility, Knightian Uncertainty has increased such that there can be no single market where all relevant information is aggregated. This is because, hedging occurs through not coordination but discoordination games. </p><p>The plain fact is that a number of mathematical discoveries which became well known by the end of the Sixties made clear that the assumptions made by Socialists- including people like Einstein- were simply false. This also meant that things like the two fundamental theorems of Welfare Econ or the folk theorem of repeated games were wrongheaded. It wasn't that markets could be proved to do as well as coercive regimes. It was that no algorithmic method</p><blockquote><i>The idea of ‘liberal socialism’ might appear odd and even oxymoronic. </i></blockquote><p>Only if we accept that Socialism is shit. Liberalism entails voters approving public policy. That's why a Liberal Socialism is as much an oxymoron as a Democratic Gulag. </p><blockquote><i>This is especially true for those on the Right and the Left who regard liberalism as the philosophy of market capitalism.</i></blockquote><p>If voters believe public ownership of the means of production would sustainably raise material standards of living, there can be a Socialism in a Liberal Democracy. </p><blockquote><i> Of course, there are many classical and neoliberal thinkers for whom that is true. From John Locke’s emphatic defence of life, liberty and property to Hayek’s declaration that state planning in the economy was the road to serfdom, liberal defences of the ethics of capitalism are easy to find. The economist Ludwig von Mises no doubt spoke for many (including plenty on the Left) when, in his polemical tract Liberalism (1927), he proudly declared that:<br /><br />'[The] programme of liberalism … if condensed into a single word, would have to read: property, that is, private ownership of the means of production … All the other demands of liberalism result from this fundamental demand.'<br /></i></blockquote><p>This is foolish. Many different types of regime would protect private property. Since Liberalism is associated with Parliamentary Democracy, and since voters can decide to pursue Socialism, Liberalism is not what you should clamour for if preserving your property is important to you. It may be argued that you could have a constitution and an independent judiciary upholding property rights. Sadly, experience has shown that this is no great defence. </p><blockquote><i>But this would be to ignore the reality that many great liberal thinkers have historically been wary (to downright critical) of capitalism. </i></blockquote><p>But 'great liberal thinker' means 'shithead who earned a little money writing books about things which seemed like a good idea at the time'. </p><blockquote><i>This goes far back. Adam Smith may have been an enthusiast for free trade and market liberties, but in The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759)</i></blockquote><p>which was trying to bury older notions of synderesis or a 'natural' or innate voice of conscience </p><blockquote><i> he also decried how:<br /><br />'This disposition to admire, and almost to worship, the rich and the powerful, and to despise, or, at least, to neglect persons of poor and mean condition, though necessary both to establish and to maintain the distinction of ranks and the order of society, is, at the same time, the great and most universal cause of the corruption of our moral sentiments.'<br /></i></blockquote><p>But this was still better than admiring and seeking to emulate the most sociopathic war-lord or Viking raider with a penchant for genocide and gang-rape. </p><blockquote><i>This was reiterated in Smith’s polemics against monopolisation and the alienating effects of the division of labour in The Wealth of Nations (1776). </i></blockquote><p>There already was a Common Law doctrine of 'restraint of trade'- In <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitchel_v_Reynolds">Mitchel v Reynolds</a> (1711) Lord Smith said 'it is the privilege of a trader in a free country, in all matters not contrary to law, to regulate his own mode of carrying it on according to his own discretion and choice. If the law has regulated or restrained his mode of doing this, the law must be obeyed. But no power short of the general law ought to restrain his free discretion.' Since the time of the Tudor monopolies, there had been great resentment of monopolies created by the Crown. It is in this context that Smith should be understood. Being a Scot he was at least 50 years behind the time. Add another half a century on account of Smith being a fucking Professor and you understand why his book was useless enough to become an instant classic. </p><blockquote><i>By the industrial era, some of the greatest liberal thinkers expressed sympathy and even came to align themselves with socialism. John Stuart Mill, the greatest liberal philosopher of the 19th century, openly declared himself a socialist in his Autobiography (1873) and stressed in Socialism (1879) how ‘great poverty, and that poverty very little connected with desert – are the first grand failure of the existing arrangements of society.’<br /></i></blockquote><p>Mill appreciated that competition could be 'wasteful' and 'repugnancy markets' could be abolished in a manner which benefitted everybody. What we would now call the theory of externalities and 'cooperative solutions' or 'correlated equilibria' based on public signals, were beginning to gain salience in the literature. With Edgeworth we have the notion of the 'core' or even the 'kernel' of economic games. </p><p>Mill himself had always stressed the Malthusian aspect of poverty. However, over the course of the Nineteenth century, it became clear that, properly incentivized, families figured out ways to limit fertility. </p><blockquote><i>Mill was hardly alone in sympathising with such a fusion of liberalism and socialism. In his essay collection Democratic Theory: Essays in Retrieval (1973), the political theorist C B Macpherson coined the term ‘retrieval’ to refer to getting ‘clear of the disabling central defect of current liberal-democratic theory, </i></blockquote><p>which was that it was a theory- i.e. shit. </p><blockquote><i>while holding on to, or recovering, the humanistic values which liberal democracy has always claimed.’</i></blockquote><p>more particularly when enforcing Jim Crow or committing genocide on indigenous people occupying valuable real estate. </p><blockquote><i>We must now make an effort to retrieve the political theory of liberal socialism and make the case for its salience in the 21st century (a project I continue in my forthcoming book The Political Theory of Liberal Socialism).<br /></i></blockquote><p>A physics theory guides the research of physicists whose findings get embodied in technology. It may be that there was some theory which guided 'liberal socialists' but it was stupid shit in the sense that it caused such 'liberal socialists' to fuck up the economy. This is why they have either gone extinct or else have morphed unrecognizably. </p><blockquote><i>Liberal socialism is a political ideology that combines support for many liberal political institutions and rights with a socialist desire to establish far more equitable and democratic economic arrangements. </i></blockquote><p>It is fine to have desires of that kind. Indeed, you are welcome to pleasure yourself while indulging in that type of literature be it plain vanilla third wave bukkake or more recherche Corbybista shit-on-your-tits RPG. </p><blockquote><i>The latter point is put plainly by Michael Walzer in his book The Struggle for a Decent Politics (2023),</i></blockquote><p>who is 89 years old. He should be struggling for a decent bowel movement. </p><blockquote><i> in which he writes that, while ‘liberal socialists are not “egalitarianist”, they are serious about equality – </i></blockquote><p>the grave will equalize him soon enough. Death is a serious business. </p><blockquote><i>more so, generally, than liberal democrats.’ This deeper concern for equality relative to classical liberals becomes apparent when we look at when liberal socialism emerged and how its major figures defended its core arguments.<br /></i></blockquote><p>They said Socialism meant higher economic efficiency. They were wrong. </p><blockquote><i>There is extensive debate </i></blockquote><p>among senile shitheads </p><blockquote><i>over periodising classical liberal theory. Many date its origins to the 17th century and the writings of Locke, Baruch Spinoza and Hugo Grotius among others. Whether or not these thinkers can be correctly labelled ‘liberals’ full stop, they undoubtedly developed or systematised a lot of the theoretical architecture that later liberals would rely on.</i></blockquote><p>Liberalism meant telling Crown & Church to fuck the fuck off and take the fucking Dukes with them. </p><blockquote><i> By contrast, in Liberalism (2nd ed, 2014) Edmund Fawcett insists that mature liberal political philosophy only really appeared on the scene in the 19th century, </i></blockquote><p>after the Crown & Church & fucking Dukes had more or less fucked the fucked off from the realm of Fiscal policy. </p><blockquote><i>when the term itself became popularised, and self-described ‘liberal’ parties and movements began to appear.<br /></i></blockquote><p>because the Crown & Church & the fucking Dukes had fucked the fuck off </p><blockquote><i>Whoever you agree with, there’s no doubt that liberal socialism emerged later than classical liberalism, extending the latter’s antipathy to the hierarchical ancien régimes of Europe to demand more radical changes still. </i></blockquote><p>Radical demands had always been made. The fact that some cunts wrote books about it didn't matter in the slightest. What mattered was whether one could do to entrepreneurs and bankers what had been done to the Crown, the Church and the fucking Dukes. It turned out that it was one thing to curb the parasitism of the toffs and the God-botherers, it was another to drive out the smart and productive element in Society. </p><blockquote><i>While mature forms of liberal socialist political theory didn’t appear until the mid-19th century, there were important precursor figures. Two of the most influential predecessors to liberal socialism were Thomas Paine and Mary Wollstonecraft.<br /></i></blockquote><p>Paine was such a pain in the ass only 6 people attended his funeral. He shouldn't have attacked George Washington. Mary did not have a penis. Naturally, she was quite miffed about this. Thankfully later generations of women were able to gain penises thanks to the bounty of Queen Victoria or Florence Nightingale. </p><blockquote><i>Paine remains most famous for his stirring rhetorical defences of the American and French revolutions and his acidic polemics against Edmund Burke and conservatism in the Rights of Man (1791). </i></blockquote><p>He was a racist shithead who achieved nothing. Only whites should be American citizens. Darkies should be slaves. </p><blockquote><i>Until recently, Paine was largely viewed as an extraordinary pamphleteer for the classical liberal and republican viewpoint, while not being an especially original thinker or theorist.</i></blockquote><p>Because he was a shithead. </p><blockquote><i> That appraisal has since undergone a major shift, with Robert Lamb in 2015 stressing Paine’s importance as a theorist whose ‘every instinct’ was egalitarian.<br /></i></blockquote><p>All Whites should own an equal number of Black slaves- right? </p><blockquote><i>Paine is an important precursor to liberal socialism because he embraced </i></blockquote><p>Slavery. Socialism can only work if you have Gulags and slave labour. </p><blockquote><i>the importance of individual flourishing and rights, while becoming increasingly sceptical that this could be achieved without a major redistribution of wealth and privilege.</i></blockquote><p>So, before you can have liberty you must have tyranny. But what is to prevent those doing the redistribution to enrich themselves and become the new holders of wealth and privilege.</p><blockquote><i> In the pamphlet ‘Agrarian Justice’ (1797),</i></blockquote><p>which would have destroyed the incentive of the hereditary warrior class to defend a given realm. There would emigration of the more able and immigration of the poor. Productivity would collapse. A tyrant might be able to organize national defence but material standards of living would collapse. </p><blockquote><i> he rejects the methodological individualism of classical liberal approaches to property rights, and insists that property is an eminently social phenomenon:<br /></i></blockquote><p>So is getting invaded and enslaved. A realm characterized by 'Agrarian Justice' tended to very soon become the fiefdom of some Tzar or Kaiser or else remain the playground of marauding hordes. </p><blockquote><i><br />Personal property is the effect of society; </i></blockquote><p>But society is the effect of sufficient military power to repel invaders and slaughter insurrectionists. If the indigenous people can't provide this power, they suffer genocide or subjugation. </p><p>True the middle class could provide just as good military leadership as the Aristocrats but, first, there had to be sufficient Fiscal headroom for a standing army. The bourgeoisie rose by financing, through taxation, their own regime. It wasn't till labour productivity had risen to a point where total wars of attrition were sustainable by industrialized democracies that you could have the modern welfare state. But unchecked immigration could cause it to collapse. If you can't seal the border, why bother paying to protect the territory? Just try to get into a gated community or move to a place where there are crazy, bigoted, gangs or militias of your own creed or ethnicity. </p><blockquote><i>and it is as impossible for an individual to acquire personal property without the aid of society,</i></blockquote><p>unless he and his clan are good at killing </p><blockquote><i> as it is for him to make land originally.</i></blockquote><p>people clear forest and drain swamps and irrigate deserts. </p><blockquote><i> Separate an individual from society, and give him an island or continent to possess, and he cannot acquire personal property.<br /></i></blockquote><p>But a society which can't defend itself won't have any property. Its members will be slaves of a more ruthless or richer tribe. </p><blockquote><i><br />He goes on to suggest that, since many wealthy people monopolise productive land and capital without giving anything back, they owe a major debt to the poor as a matter of right. </i></blockquote><p>Only in the sense that they owe blowjobs to hobos. </p><blockquote><i>In the second part of the Rights of Man and in ‘Agrarian Justice’, Paine develops these arguments into a call for redistribution, </i></blockquote><p>Paine was cool with Americans redistributing the land of the First Nations to White peeps fresh off the boat. </p><blockquote><i>sketching out an early scheme for the welfare state. </i></blockquote><p>When the Mayflower landed, the Puritans had initially set up such a state where 'each gave according to his ability and took according to his needs'. They gave up that shit after they began to starve. </p><blockquote><i>This includes providing money for education, guaranteed employment for those who want it, a stipend for every child born, and a prototype of an old-age pension.<br /></i></blockquote><p>What about the duty of property owners to give beejays to hobos? </p><blockquote><i>Wollstonecraft was less policy-minded than her contemporary Paine,</i></blockquote><p>because she didn't have a penis </p><blockquote><i> but even more scathing in her contempt for the corrosive effect of the inequities of property that defined aristocratic and early capitalist societies. In her classic A Vindication of the Rights of Woman (1792), Wollstonecraft insisted that:<br /></i></blockquote><p>Women be redistributed to the poor from the rich? </p><blockquote><i><br />'From the respect paid to property </i></blockquote><p>respect is only paid to property which can be defended against all comers by its proprietor. If this is not the case the property will be disrespected though the proprietor may not be sodomized because he has run the fuck away. </p><blockquote><i>flow, as from a poisoned fountain, most of the evils and vices which render this world such a dreary scene to the contemplative mind.'</i></blockquote><p>Her hubby was glad enough to take money from Shelley who was the heir to a great Estate. The contemplative mind needs money. Still, if your domestic life is a miserable failure it is understandable that you might want the whole Species to change its fundamental nature. I myself, thanks to my principled refusal to do the washing up, have often advocated the replacement of kitchen utensils by wealthy young virgins who could feed me with their own delicate hands using edible plates and dishes of various descriptions. </p><blockquote><i> For it is in the most polished society that noisome reptiles and venomous serpents lurk under the rank herbage;</i></blockquote><p>whereas in the slums, there were no drunken rapists. </p><blockquote><i> and there is voluptuousness pampered by the still sultry air, which relaxes every good disposition before it ripens into virtue.</i></blockquote><p>but does virtue not require the redistribution of beejays to hobos? </p><blockquote><i> One class presses on another; for all are aiming to procure respect on account of their property: and property, once gained, will procure the respect due only to talents and virtue.<br /></i></blockquote><p>This lady thought she had talent. Virtue- not so much. </p><blockquote><i><br />In her later Letters Written During a Short Residence in Sweden, Norway, and Denmark (1796), she lambasts the nouveaux riches as a ‘fungus’ with the criticism that:<br /></i></blockquote><p>they hired nutters like her to tutor their daughters. What she didn't get was that having a crazy feminist as a governess inoculates kids against that type of stupidity- unless they are too ugly or bad tempered to get a hubby. </p><blockquote><i>An ostentatious display of wealth without elegance, and a greedy enjoyment of pleasure without sentiment, embrutes them till they term all virtue of a heroic cast, romantic attempts at something above our nature, and anxiety about the welfare of others, a search after misery in which we have no concern.<br /></i></blockquote><p>Mary got paid a bit for making an ostentatious display of her heroic and romantic attachment to being a virtue signalling cunt. </p><blockquote><i>Wollstonecraft believed in private property, arguing it was a just reward for labour. But even this had a radical connotation, as she was critical of those who lived in luxury or defended privilege while ignoring the ‘women who gained a livelihood by selling vegetables or fish, who never had had any advantages of education…’ </i></blockquote><p>Why did the Queen not invite more fishwives to balls at Bucking Palace? </p><blockquote><i>Her critique of the idle or undeserving rich both echoes Locke’s condemnation of aristocracy and anticipates later Ricardian socialist and Marxist condemnations of the parasitic wealthy.<br /></i></blockquote><p>They also echo my demand that rich virgins of extraordinary wealth feed me with their own delicate hands. I don't mind if they are naked and giggle coyly amongst themselves as they dart their pink little tongues at each others pert little nipples. Or large nipples. Seriously, I'm quite broadminded in such matters. </p><p>People who now look down on me because I'm as poor as shit would feel new respect for me if they knew of the many billionaire Supermodels whom I store in my kitchen cupboard. </p><blockquote><i>Much like Paine, Wollstonecraft had an unfailingly egalitarian instinct (including, of course, on gender relations) insisting there ‘must be more equality established in society, or morality will never gain ground…’ </i></blockquote><p>I'm sure I'd be much improved morally if more wealthy young virgins were sent to my home by Adult Social Services. F</p><blockquote><i>In her ideal society there would be neither rich nor poor, </i></blockquote><p>because everybody would be identical in terms of talents and motivation. </p><blockquote><i>and the competitive race to accumulate private property would be a far less significant social priority than the relatively equal development of human intellectual, artistic and moral powers.</i></blockquote><p>Why not make levitation, teleportation and the gaining of omniscience the social priority? It is totes unfair that more respect is paid to what exists or could possibly exist than to what is a puerile pipe-dreams engaged in by worthless pedants or pedagogues. </p><blockquote><i> It’s this solidaristic emphasis on the development of human powers in a society of equals that makes Wollstonecraft such an important figure in the movement towards liberal socialism.<br /></i></blockquote><p>Only in the sense that Nostradamus was an important figure in the movement towards better economic forecasting techniques. </p><blockquote><i>Liberal socialism reached its maturity in the 19th century with John Stuart Mill, its most articulate and well-known spokesman.</i></blockquote><p>No. The English knew too much about how the sausage of industrial prosperity was actually made. It was in less developed societies that eggheads could dream of technological utopias. Marx thought a day would come when scarcity would disappear. People would only work for the sheer pleasure of doing stuff. Naturally, they would hand over the produce of their labour to anyone who wanted it. What he didn't get was that a fashion designer would not want me to wear their clothes because I'm as ugly as shit. Currently, I can buy stuff with money because producers need cash. If nobody needed to be paid to work, nobody would work for me because I have a horrible personality. </p><blockquote><i> Early in his career, Mill had been a more conventional supporter of the free market. But, later in life, mostly under the influence of the utopian socialist St Simonians, he shifted his views markedly.</i></blockquote><p>Because he was stupid. He didn't get that St. Simon's 'industrious class' had already risen into the landowning aristocracy and would continue to do so. One reason to work hard is so you can stop working hard and sit back and watch your kids live the life of the toffs. </p><blockquote><i> In his Autobiography, Mill declared that his ‘ideal of ultimate improvement went far beyond Democracy, and would class us decidedly under the general designation of Socialists.’ </i></blockquote><p>Nobody cared. The Trade Unions had thought it beneficial to have Mill on their side in overturning the Master & Servants Act and this brief moment of political importance contributed to Mill's recantation- <b>The doctrine hitherto taught by all or most economists [including myself], which denied it to be possible that trade combinations can raise wages, or which limited their operation in that respect to the somewhat earlier attainment of a rise which the competition of the market would have produced without them, - this doctrine is deprived of its scientific foundation, and must be thrown aside. </b></p><p>Mill didn't get that workers can extract a rent where labour supply is inelastic. The general wage rate <i>can</i> rise if immigration is restricted. 'Social' and 'moral' considerations don't matter for tradeable goods and even services which can relocate. Marshallian analysis made Mill obsolete but the Trade Unions and then the Suffragettes grew in strength and were gradually able to redistribute rents towards themselves. Smithian 'higgling' doesn't matter. Force, however, can prevail- even if that force is merely that of the voter or the Trade Union or Feminist backed political party. </p><blockquote><i>While being critical of statist forms of socialism and expressing a wariness of the threat they posed to liberty, he claimed to look ‘forward to a time when society will no longer be divided into the idle and the industrious; when the rule that they who do not work shall not eat, will be applied not to paupers only, but impartially to all.’<br /></i></blockquote><p>This was meagre and mealy mouthed compared to the Marxist Utopia where there is no scarcity. </p><blockquote><i>This shift towards socialism was reflected in later editions of the Principles of Political Economy (1848). Mill defended extensive experiments with workplace democracy and cooperatives, arguing that they would potentially be less domineering, more economically efficient, and more conducive to the flourishing of workers. </i></blockquote><p>Robert Owen had shown the thing was feasible. Bentham was one of his investors. Sadly, Owen invested much of his gains from his Scottish enterprise in co-operative experiments in the United States but the feckless Americans couldn't make a go of them. He died penniless. </p><blockquote><i>As Helen McCabe traces in her excellent book John Stuart Mill: Socialist (2021), he also came to advocate for wealth redistribution through state ownership of railways</i></blockquote><p>the Belgian state had shown it could build and run railways successfully from the 1830s onwards </p><blockquote><i> and roads,</i></blockquote><p>there already were toll roads built and operated by Princes </p><blockquote><i> and municipal ownership (and provision) of utilities such as gas and water. </i></blockquote><p>Again, some such already existed. </p><blockquote><i>He also at least suggested it would be permissible for the government to provide public hospitals; </i></blockquote><p>which had always been the case </p><blockquote><i>national banks; </i></blockquote><p>the Belgian National Bank dates from around 1850. </p><blockquote><i>a postal service; </i></blockquote><p>The American Constitution authorized the state run Postal Service </p><blockquote><i>‘manufactories’; and a corps of civil engineers, </i></blockquote><p>like the Indian, Roorkee, trained PWD engineers </p><blockquote><i>so long as the government did not maintain a monopoly on these professions or services.<br /></i></blockquote><p>a meaningless stipulation in the case of 'natural' monopolies. There's a story that Abba Lerner tried to convert Trotsky to marginal cost pricing! As Coase would show, who owns what doesn't matter. What matters is if there is a mechanism whereby control rights are appropriable by those best at allocating resources. By the Thirties, it was obvious that public ownership wasn't a panacea. The economic problems remain the same. </p><blockquote><i>Mill’s flavour of liberal socialism based around cooperatives and a generous welfare state anticipated many contemporary forms of market socialism, as well as being a direct inspiration to important ethical and Christian socialists such as R H Tawney.<br /></i></blockquote><p>TH Green was important in England. Still, there can be no doubt that Evangelical Christianity of various stripes brought many people into the Socialist movement.</p><blockquote><i>In the early to mid-20th century, an impressive array of authors came to endorse liberal socialism.</i></blockquote><p>American Capitalists couldn't get a bail out after the Crash. The State was welcome to take on the down-side risk in the name of Racial Purity, or National Socialism, or Christian Communism or any other such oxymoron. </p><blockquote><i> In a 1939 interview with The New Statesman and Nation, John Maynard Keynes proposed: 'A move out of the] 19th-century laissez-faire state</i></blockquote><p>which had already occurred during the Great War. After the Crash FDR started confiscating gold. </p><blockquote><i> into an era of liberal socialism … where we can act as an organised community for common purposes and to promote economic and social justice, whilst respecting and protecting the individual – his freedom of choice, his faith, his mind and its expression, his enterprise and his property.<br /></i></blockquote><p>but not his right to fuck other dudes. </p><blockquote><i>A variety of European democratic socialists such as Eduard Bernstein</i></blockquote><p>a sensible enough fellow who refuted Marxist orthodoxy with facts and figures about how land and industrial capital ownership was becoming more diffuse. </p><blockquote><i> and Carlo Rosselli worked to theorise closer connections between liberalism and socialism, echoing Mill’s claim that socialists were the more ‘far-sighted successors’ of liberalism. Bernstein’s classic The Preconditions of Socialism (1899) offered a sustained critique of orthodox Marxist revolutionary theory and proposed a conciliation with liberalism. </i></blockquote><p>It would have been better if he had stuck to common-sense empiricism. Don't start wars you are bound to loose. Don't kill the golden goose. Also, get the fuck out of Germany if you happen to be Jewish. A country which can produce a Kant or a Hegel is bound to turn to shit sooner or later. </p><blockquote><i>He insisted that ‘with respect to liberalism as a historical movement, socialism is its legitimate heir, not only chronologically, but also intellectually’, </i></blockquote><p>Racism was its even more legitimate heir. If you think your ideology makes you superior, it is natural to say that people of your own creed or ethnicity are superior by nature. </p><blockquote><i>and stressed that there is ‘no liberal thought that is not also part of the intellectual equipment of socialism.’ </i></blockquote><p>Or Racism or any other type of evil shit. </p><blockquote><i>Rosselli made similar claims in his book Liberal Socialism (1930), holding that:<br /><br />'Socialism is nothing more than the logical development, taken to its extreme consequences, of the principle of liberty. </i></blockquote><p>or Racism. After people of a particular Race are likely to have a Society. They also may think they are entitled to real estate currently owned by others. </p><blockquote><i>'Socialism, when understood in its fundamental sense and judged by its results – as the concrete movement for the emancipation of the proletariat – is liberalism in action; it means that liberty comes into the life of poor people.'<br /></i></blockquote><p>Racism, when understood in its fundamental sense, is the superiority of all people belonging to a particular race and their indefeasible right to the property of everybody else. Liberalism in action is wars of Colonial conquest. Incidentally, Bertrand Russell thought such wars were justified provided the aggressor was superior. The problem here is that the victor will end up superior one way or another. </p><blockquote><i><br />While he never identified with the label, I’d argue that Macpherson can also be correctly characterised as a liberal socialist,</i></blockquote><p>i.e. useless wanker. But for his own 'possessive individualism' he would have dedicated his life to giving beejays to hobos as Nature intended. </p><blockquote><i> given his lifelong effort to ‘retrieve’ a radical democratic and egalitarian core to the liberal tradition.<br /></i></blockquote><p> of giving beejays to hobos? No? Sad. </p><blockquote><i>Finally, in the United States John Dewey worked hard to extend American conceptions of democracy beyond the horizon of the state. </i></blockquote><p>but not to such an extent that billionaires ended up giving beejays to hobos. Even sadder. </p><blockquote><i>His most famous contributions were of course in education, where Dewey insisted on the pedagogical superiority a more egalitarian classroom where students actively participated in their learning, rather than being regarded as passive recipients of knowledge delivered by an intellectual superior.</i></blockquote><p>People with superior intellect don't teach. With 'active participation' the pedagogue may learn something- unless he teaches worthless non-STEM shite. </p><blockquote><i> But Dewey was also keen to extend democratic principles to the workplace, becoming president of the League for Industrial Democracy in 1939 and advocating for the labour movement.<br /></i></blockquote><p>A Maoist faction split off from it in the Sixties and did some crazy terrorist shit. Industrial Democracy meant killing the foreman and then running and hiding from the pigs.</p><blockquote><i><br />In the postwar era, there have been several prominent figures aligned with liberal socialism, including Irving Howe, Michael Walzer and Chantal Mouffe. </i></blockquote><p>Nobody gives a shit about them. </p><blockquote><i>But by far the most significant figure to express sympathy for liberal socialism was John Rawls. </i></blockquote><p>He became famous at precisely the moment working class voters turned against redistribution. They hated the Welfare Queen more than the French revolutionaries hated Marie Antoinette. </p><blockquote><i>For a long time, Rawls’s brick-like Theory of Justice (1971) was taken as an apologia for the welfare state system that, tragically, began to decline right about when the book was published. </i></blockquote><p>It was stupid shit. Rawls didn't know that everybody is always behind 'the veil of ignorance' which is why what obtains is insurance and hedging, not a pre-compact to prioritize the needs of the worst off. </p><blockquote><i>But this understates Rawls’s radicalism. In his Lectures on the History of Political Philosophy (2000), Rawls described Karl Marx as ‘heroic’ and praised his ‘marvellous’ intellectual gifts. </i></blockquote><p>The guy truly was retarded. Still, once the Soviet Union collapsed, it was safe enough to pretend Marxism hadn't always been shit. </p><blockquote><i>By the time of his swan song Justice as Fairness: A Restatement (2001), Rawls insisted that welfarism did not do a good enough job of realising liberal principles of justice. </i></blockquote><p>Because welfarism just means collective insurance. It is about hedging not justice. </p><blockquote><i>Only a property-owning democracy or ‘liberal socialism’ would be sufficient. While Rawls himself wrote more about property-owning democracy, Edmundson’s book John Rawls: Reticent Socialist (2017) makes a powerful case for why the most rigorous interpretation of justice as fairness would require liberal socialism instead.<br /></i></blockquote><p>But nobody wants that type of justice. What voters will pay for is Justice which involves catching and incarcerating rapists and murderers and Bernie Madoff type fraudsters. On the other hand Justice as Judges giving beejays to hobos is finding increasing support among the criminal community</p><blockquote><i>As history shows, liberal socialists are not a monolith. </i></blockquote><p>they are an obelisk of obtuseness </p><blockquote><i>They disagree on many core points. Some of these are theoretical: is the strongest basis for liberal socialism some kind of utilitarianism, deontology or pragmatism? </i></blockquote><p>The strongest basis is magical thinking. </p><blockquote><i>Other divides are over practical questions such as the relationship between statist welfarism</i></blockquote><p>which features entitlement collapse once the State runs of cash </p><blockquote><i> and bottom-up democratisation of the economy; </i></blockquote><p>more immigrants! Goody goody. </p><blockquote><i>Mill famously vested his hopes in worker co-ops where many modern liberal socialists focus on social programmes.</i></blockquote><p>the problem with worker co-ops is that workers have to work, otherwise they don't get paid. </p><blockquote><i> Nevertheless, all liberal socialists are committed to three central principles, which I’ve arranged from the more abstract to the more concrete.<br /></i></blockquote><p>These guys have cement in their skulls. </p><blockquote><i>First, liberal socialists are committed to methodological collectivism</i></blockquote><p>sadly, no one can say what is or isn't the 'extension' of a collectivist 'intension'. Who is 'working class'? Should we count some chicks with dicks as women? </p><blockquote><i> and normative individualism.</i></blockquote><p>coz 'Socialists' are actually individualists- right? </p><blockquote><i> They believe that the wellbeing and free development of individual persons (and, for a growing number, nonhuman animals) is the highest moral priority. </i></blockquote><p>The problem here is that the 'disutility' arising from feeling you are being robbed of your hard earned may outweigh the utility gained by the beneficiary of Robin Hood. This means the more able evade or avoid taxes or simply flee the jurisdiction. The other problem is that workers may not want to subsidize refugees, addicts, and Welfare Queens. </p><blockquote><i>However, they disagree with many classical liberals’ insular and competitive conception of human nature and their individualist approach to conceiving social relations. Liberal socialists hold that, to properly think through how individuals will best thrive, one must recognise their embeddedness in society, and how it can improve or disrupt their capacity to lead a good life.<br /></i></blockquote><p>Go to Dubai, you'll see that rich peeps from any country under the son aren't embedded in fuck. Nor are Corporations which is how come land locked Mongolia has a bigger shipping registry than the US. </p><p>On the other hand, if you assume that what Judges really want to do is give beejays to hobos then my conception of Justice is perfectly reasonable. </p><blockquote><i>Taking seriously commitments to liberty, equality and solidarity requires going beyond the social hierarchies established under capitalism<br /></i></blockquote><p>not to mention the hierarchies established by dick size </p><blockquote><i>Secondly, liberal socialists are committed to each person having as equal an opportunity to lead as good a life as possible through the provision of shared resources for the development and expression of their human powers.</i></blockquote><p>Who is to say that is not already the case? Any sort of structural change will create winners and losers. Some will have a worse life than they currently have without any guarantee that any sizable, deserving group, gains anything in the medium to long-term. Indeed, they may be the biggest losers. </p><blockquote><i>To put it another way, liberal socialists focus on the free development of human powers or capabilities along a wide array of metrics.</i></blockquote><p>Like levitation? Hindu Socialists are committed to everybody getting the chance to develop supernatural 'siddhis'. </p><blockquote><i> What Macpherson calls this developmental ethic can be contrasted with the extractive and possessive ethic characteristic of classical liberalism and hedonistic forms of utilitarianism. </i></blockquote><p>Developing countries realized quite soon that development economists, more particularly those who gassed on about ethics, were all fucking retarded. </p><blockquote><i>Where the extractive/possessive ethic holds that the good life comes from production and consumption, the developmental ethic of liberal socialism emphasises the equal development and application of each individual’s powers as a condition for their flourishing.</i></blockquote><p>What Zelensky will tell you is that 'flourishing' depends on being able to kick the ass of invaders. But this is also true of drug gangs in your 'hood. </p><blockquote><i>Thirdly, liberal socialists are committed to instituting a basic social structure characterised by highly participatory liberal-democratic political institutions and protections for liberal rights concurrent with the extension of liberal democratic principles into the economy and family to establish more egalitarian economic arrangements free of domination and exploitation.</i></blockquote><p>If your elasticity of supply and demand are high- i.e. you have good alternatives- nobody can dominate or exploit you. Only 'economic rent' can be extracted. Domination costs money. Making factors more mobile- which is what technology tends to do- reduces rent rapidly. </p><blockquote><i> This also means that liberal socialists do not ascribe the same weight of private property rights to the means of production that many classical liberals do.</i></blockquote><p>You have to pay to enforce property rights one way or another. The thing isn't a 'free good'. What matters is appropriable control rights. Sometimes, gangsters or Maoist rebels can allocate these more cheaply and effectively than the Government. If so, the State gets disintermediated. </p><blockquote><i> While all liberal socialists believe in rights to personal property, this doesn’t extend to rights to acquire forms of property that would enable forms of workplace domination or political plutocracy to develop. In these instances, what impacts all should, in part, be decided upon by all.<br /></i></blockquote><p>So that all can end up jobless or scraping by in an informal gig economy. </p><blockquote><i><br />Liberal socialist authors will defend and articulate these principles in various idioms, and emphasise one or another to various degrees.</i></blockquote><p>If the subject they studied and went on to teach made people smarter they could be Elon Musk wealthy and create any type of workplace they liked- at least in the short to medium term till China eats their lunch. </p><blockquote><i> This testifies to the internal diversity of the tradition, if nothing else.</i></blockquote><p>The tradition was merely playing catch-up because it relied on an obsolete economic pedagogy. </p><blockquote><i> Macpherson was very critical of atomistic ‘possessive individualism’ but supported a liberal humanist ethic of developing people’s capacities or powers.</i></blockquote><p>But his discipline turned its votaries into fucking cretins. </p><blockquote><i> Nevertheless, he had comparatively little to say about what kind of social structure could realise this ethic. In The Socialist Decision (1933), Paul Tillich </i></blockquote><p>who hadn't noticed that Socialism was creating a Hell on Earth wherever it gained power. </p><blockquote><i>offers a theological defence of liberal democratic socialism, which obviously runs counter to the secular approaches of Mill and Rawls.</i></blockquote><p>If you believe you will go to Heaven if you along with stupid shit, why not do so? </p><blockquote><i> Mouffe’s agonistic liberal socialism foregrounds the importance of political contestation far more than Rawls’s temperate insistence that a pluralistic society needs to unite around an ‘overlapping consensus’. Charles Mill’s</i></blockquote><p>His father, Gladstone Mills, was a great academic and Jamaican public servant. He is credited with ensuring free and fair elections in a country with plenty of very tough guys. </p><blockquote><i> ‘black radical liberalism’ rightly takes many Left-liberals to task for ignoring, or even supporting, imperialism and racism. </i></blockquote><p>and, more recently, 'regime change' and 'forever wars' which were won by the Taliban and Iran.</p><blockquote><i>But behind this variety is a core conviction that taking seriously commitments to liberty, equality and solidarity requires going beyond the social hierarchies established under capitalism.<br /></i></blockquote><p>except in Jamaica, if you actually came from the Jamaican elite. </p><blockquote><i>Given the eminence hof many of the figures attracted to liberal socialism, it is somewhat perplexing that the term can seem oxymoronic.</i></blockquote><p>Under Reagan, Liberalism became 'the L-word' which dare not speak its name. Socialism just meant queuing up for five hours to collect your ration of turnips. Thankfully, the queue for the Gulag was shorter. </p><blockquote><i> The explanation probably has more to do with politics than philosophy, especially in the US. As Moyn points out in Liberalism Against Itself, throughout the mid-20th century, many prominent ‘Cold War’ liberals turned against the more progressive and egalitarian elements in the tradition. </i></blockquote><p>When had they been for it? </p><blockquote><i>This led to the banishing of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, </i><i>G W F Hegel and Marx to the fringes,</i></blockquote><p>The Anglo Saxons had established their superiority to the Huns and the Frogs </p><blockquote><i> and the dilution of the more radical arguments of prominent liberals like Mill. </i></blockquote><p>Because, during the War, everybody had lost any relish for the Command Economy </p><blockquote><i>By the time liberal egalitarians began to marshal formidable theoretical arguments for welfarism and social democracy in the 1970s,</i></blockquote><p>Both had passed their post-War apogee. Incidentally, new mathematical discoveries re. complexity, concurrency and computability had settled the 'Socialist Calculation Debate'. </p><blockquote><i> the time to realise such an agenda had passed. Neoliberalism had taken hold across much of the world, further squeezing out progressive forms of liberalism and liberal socialism.</i></blockquote><p>Why? Well, the Arabs and other oil producers had rebelled against the Bretton Woods strait-jacket because the US had financed Vietnam by printing money. Thus exchange rates would have to float which meant that there was an impossible trinity. You cant have free capital flows and fixed exchange rates as well as an independent monetary policy. Keynesian liberalism had run out of road because 'money illusion' wasn't fooling anybody. </p><blockquote><i>Nevertheless, the future for liberal socialist political theory is bright.</i></blockquote><p>not for bright people </p><blockquote><i> While not everyone listed below would identify with the label (and some might reject it), a considerable number of prominent and up-and-coming theorists have been working to bring out the affinities between the two traditions and canonise (or re-canonise) the major figures. These include Helen McCabe, Michael Walzer, James Crotty, Chantal Mouffe, Igor Shoikhedbrod, Lillian Cicerchia, Samuel Moyn, Daniel Chandler, William Edmundson, Elizabeth Anderson, Tony Smith, Rodney Peffer and many more.<br /></i></blockquote><p>Provincial, or, worse yet, Canadian, Assistant Professors who teach drooling imbeciles or investigate things like forced marriage. </p><blockquote><i>It isn’t hard to see why the prospect of liberal socialism would be appealing today.</i></blockquote><p>To Assistant Professors teaching nonsense to drooling imbeciles in the sticks. </p><blockquote><i> Liberalism remains in or near crisis, and vast numbers express discontent with the neoliberal status quo. </i></blockquote><p>Which Putin upended. There was a time when Liberalism was Rich. Sadly, if Xi & Putin prevail, Liberalism will become equal to even the most egalitarian shitholes. </p><blockquote><i>At the same time, there are very good reasons to reject revisiting forms of authoritarian ‘real existing socialism’ and communism. Liberal socialism offers the prospect of combining respect for liberal rights, checks and balances on state power, and participatory democracy with socialist concerns for the equal flourishing of all in a sustainable environment, the extension of democratic concerns into the workplace and ‘private government’, and pushing back on plutocratic rule.</i></blockquote><p>not to mention levitation for Lesbians and teleportation for trans people. </p><blockquote><i> It also philosophically aligns well with concrete democratic socialist and radical movements appearing in the US, Chile, Brazil and elsewhere that want radical economic change but align with liberal values.</i></blockquote><p>Radical economic change is occurring anyway. First 'exorbitant privilege' will disappear as the global financial system overcomes dollar hegemony. Along with it, the whole intellectual property regime will come crashing down. After that a new 'gravity model' of Trade will emerge. I suppose the US- or parts of it- might do quite well but North West Europe will be marginalized. Liberalism will die where it was born. </p><blockquote><i> Whether liberal socialism can transition from being a theoretical tradition and become a popular political ideology is a hard question. </i></blockquote><p>Before the Revolution you can have liberal socialists and non-violent Nazis and Jew-loving Islamists. But that type of delusion doesn't last long. </p><blockquote><i>But, in a world defined by growing anger at inequality and plutocracy, liberal socialism is worthy of our loyalty.</i></blockquote><p>Our current anger will be nothing compared to our sorrow when we find our Societies becoming more equal to that of shithole countries where citizens at least have the consolation that child rapists get strung up by the balls. When productivity and competitiveness are on a upward secular trend, we may dream of levelling up. Sadly once those with historically much lower real-wages start actually levelling up to us, our concern is to stave off a further levelling down. </p><p><br /></p>windwheelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18099651877551933295noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1674709389503889160.post-90878238247417501942024-02-20T19:22:00.016+00:002024-02-27T13:13:06.712+00:00Celan's yi-ud beshert<blockquote style="font-style: italic;"> A beshert is the Yiddish notion of a soul mate. Beshert means destiny or your predestined spouse.</blockquote><br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;">To dismiss the Shoah as a gift from a dime store Santa</div><div style="text-align: center;">& Enbiggen that<i> petite mort </i>in locker room banter</div><div style="text-align: center;">Is an Imitatio Dei, commendable for its thrift</div><div style="text-align: center;">To whom did Christ pray that Death be swift? </div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><i>Envoi- </i></div><div style="text-align: center;">Prince! Shulamite the Sabbath's own <a href="https://www.almaany.com/en/dict/en-he/יעוד/"><i>yi-ud</i></a> <i>beshert</i></div><div style="text-align: center;">Darkness its dawn, His hug all hurt. </div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Note- Yi-ud could also mean a type of marriage of a Master to a maid-servant bought from her father. However, this must be with consent and proper nuptial rites.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Whatever we may stipulate as the purpose of a marriage, it is a mutuality which subverts 'Master-Slave' dialectics. Rambam knew Ahmed Ghazzali's <i>Sawaneh</i>. If Destiny is a 'mission' or 'telos', its own Destiny is obliteration in Love. I may mention, Goethe learnt Yiddish and Bulgakov's 'Master' is merely a Yi-ud.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">As for Christ, his marriage was everybody's marriage at Cana where, as Crashaw tells us, the waters blushed glimpsing their Maker's face. Seductions often work that way. Thus, God too is found in A.A. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><i><br /></i></div><div style="text-align: center;"><i><br /></i></div><div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div> <div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div> </div>windwheelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18099651877551933295noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1674709389503889160.post-47208111025820534922024-02-20T03:37:00.005+00:002024-03-03T19:35:05.833+00:00What is RaGa's vichardhara? <p>Rahul Gandhi gave an in depth interview to Chatham House in March of 2023</p><blockquote><i>Rahul Gandhi-...When I joined politics in 2004 [pause] the democratic contest in India used to be between political parties,</i></blockquote><p>At that time no party was big enough to form a Government. There was a contest between two broad coalitions- one anchored by Congress and the other anchored by the BJP. It would be true to say that one side considered the RSS to be 'Fascist' while the BJP was founded by that organization. </p><blockquote><i> and I had never imagined at that time that the nature of the contest would change completely. It was – I mean, if you had even told me at that time, I would’ve said that it was a ridiculous thing to say, but the nature of the democratic contest in India has completely changed, and the reason it’s changed is because one organisation, called the RSS, fundamentalist, fascist organisation, has, basically, captured pretty much all of Indian – India’s institutions.</i></blockquote><p>The BJP has a majority in the Lok Sabha by itself since 2014. This majority has increased. By contrast, Congress hasn't had a majority since Rajiv Gandhi won by a landslide 'sympathy vote' in 1984. </p><p>On the other hand, Congress had no qualms about taking Shankarsinh Vaghela, an old RSS man, as its leader in Gujarat after he rebelled against the BJP's choice of Keshubhai Patel as CM. </p><blockquote><i> Ben Bland And maybe for those who don’t know, can you explain what the RSS is?</i> </blockquote><blockquote><i>Rahul Gandhi RSS is a – you can call it a secret society.</i></blockquote><p>It isn't. However, during Indira's Emergency, some RSS workers went underground. </p><blockquote><i> It’s built along the lines of the Muslim Brotherhood</i></blockquote><p>The RSS was set up by Dr. Hegdewar on the pattern of his college friend, Dr. Hardikar's Congress Seva Dal of which he and Nehru were members. Unlike the RSS, the Seva Dal acquired an unsavoury reputation. It was responsible for much of the anti-Sikh violence in 1984. </p><p>The Muslim Brotherhood was started after both the Seva Dal and the RSS had been formed. By then Egypt had gained formal independence. The Ikhwan engaged in terrorism and assassination with the result that it has been actively persecuted whereas the RSS, save when briefly banned, has been part of the political mainstream ever since the formation of its political wing- the Jan Sangh- back in the early Fifties. </p><blockquote><i> and the idea is to use the democratic contest to come to power and then subvert the democratic contest afterwards,</i></blockquote><p>It is the Dynasty which subverted Congress long ago which is why this moon-calf remains its Prime Ministerial candidate. Since he doesn't want that job, Congress will continue to decline- at least at the National level. </p><blockquote><i> and it’s shocked me at how successful they’ve been at capturing the different institutions of our country. The press, the judiciary, Parliament, Election Commission, all the institutions are under pressure, under threat, and controlled in one way or the other. </i></blockquote><p>The Dynasty achieved that but, it turned out, assassination tempers autocracy. Currently, the BJPs ace in the hole is the moon-calf. Modi is very good at his job but he wouldn't win with such big majorities if Rahul wasn't the alternative. </p><blockquote><i>So, the conversation, the voice that was free flowing, the debates, those have all stopped. You know, some of the biggest decisions taken, demonetisation, which is demonetisation of the Indian currency, we were not allowed to debate in Parliament, right? </i></blockquote><p>Demonetization can't be debated. It must take the country by surprise. Otherwise it is a self-defeating measure. </p><blockquote><i>The Farmers’ bills were – large numbers of farmers were out on the street, we were not allowed a conversation in Parliament. </i></blockquote><p>The Government pushed the bills through without a debate because it had a majority in both Houses. To be fair, Manmohan pushed through a lot of bills without a debate. This has been a continuous trend. The first Lok Sabha spent the maximum time of 48.8% on debating legislations. By the eighth Lok Sabha, the time devoted by both Houses to legislative business had shrunk to 24.9% and the figure dropped even further to just around 20% by 2009.</p><blockquote><i>The GST, we were not allowed. When Chinese troops entered our territory, we were not allowed to have a conversation in Parliament. So, that stifling made us ask ourselves a fundamental question, how do we communicate with the people of India when the media is biased, when the institutions are captured?</i></blockquote><p>The Farmer's agitation got Modi to do a U-turn. Sadly, it was Kejriwal's party which reaped the benefit in Punjab. </p><blockquote><i> And the answer we came up with in the Congress Party was this walk across the country,</i></blockquote><p>The BJP's Rath Yatra was a success because it focussed on a single issue- the Ram Temple. Rahul's Yatra doesn't focus on any single issue. Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi could make political comebacks by highlighting the incompetence of the ruling coalition. But, this was because they had themselves shown they were willing and able to take the top job. Rahul, as he himself says, could have become PM at age 25, 35, 40 or 44. He refused each time. Now he is 54 and has never held a Ministerial portfolio. His 'organizational work' has been counter-productive. His continued visibility hurts Congress and pisses off its potential allies. </p><blockquote><i> which has a tradition. The word is Yātrā, it’s journey, but it’s not simply a journey, it’s a Indian idea of walking, of persevering, of listening and of questioning oneself, and so, we decided to do this. It was 4,000 kilometres, and it was quite an experience. It was a fun experience, painful at times, but we all learnt a lot, and it placed on the table a different narrative of India, right, not an angry, aggressive, violent narrative, which is currently deployed by the BJP, but a peace-loving, Gan – almost Gandhian, non-violent, open, accepting narrative.</i></blockquote><p>But Mahatma Gandhi refused to hold office. This was fine because he accepted Nehru- a charismatic Hindi speaker from a prestigious pan-Indian caste. But who is Rahul promoting as PM candidate? This is the crux of the problem. One could say that JP, too, was a political failure because he didn't have a good alternative to Indira. True, Indira fell but JP & Kripalani erred grievously in anointing Morarji- whom everybody hated. But, at least Morarji had been a Cabinet Minister. Currently, the Opposition has no Prime Ministerial candidate. Two possibilities, Gehlot and Nitish are now off the table- indeed, it is doubtful they have much of a political future. This is the problem the Opposition faces. No successful politician will risk losing his own State in order to take a punt at becoming PM. Look what happened to Deve Gowda. </p><blockquote><i> And I think that was the biggest success of the Yātrā, that it clearly placed on the table a different vision of the country.</i></blockquote><p>One in which either India has Modi or it has nobody. </p><blockquote><i>... I realised that, as a Politician, before my walk I was not actually listening properly, right?</i></blockquote><p>The people wanted him to take charge of the Commonwealth Games as his father had taken charge of the Asian Games. After that he should have entered the Cabinet and then shouldered Manmohan aside leading his Party to victory in 2014. Congress could have had a majority on its own. True, like Rajiv, Rahu's administration might have fallen apart because of corruption and in-fighting but, because of his youth, Rahul would have been forgiven and could have made a comeback at some later point. But Rahul was gun-shy. He would only lead the Congress Party if, by doing so, he could make it unelectable.</p><blockquote><i> As Politicians, we always – we start by telling you what we think, and we have a narrative in our mind and, you know, whenever somebody says something, that narrative is shaping our conversation. Maybe we want to impress a little bit and say, “We understand, you know, what you’re trying to get at.” </i></blockquote><p>Politicians need to be saying 'this problem you are facing is one for which we have made a plan. Put us in office so we can implement it'. </p><blockquote><i>So, that instinct went silent. It went silent because, frankly, I had no choice.</i></blockquote><p>Others had done Yatras. But those Yatras had succeeded because the neta in question stayed 'on message'. Rahul had no message. He was merely going walkabout. </p><blockquote><i> One, I had a knee problem, so my mind was, like, trying to calm my knee down, and second, the number of people was so big that there was no point. So, I – after some time I just went silent and I started listen properly, and it was a very powerful experience for me, taught me patience, and there was huge pressure. I mean, to give you an idea, six people died in the walk, many people broke their legs, arms, ‘cause there’s huge pressure of people, there were thousands, at times 50/100,000 people walking, so the physical experience. The other thing I learnt is that no amount of exercise makes you lose weight. It’s, like, completely a myth. I mean, at the end of this thing, 4,000 kilometres, I go on the scale, and I’ve put on a kilo. I mean, some – okay. So, it’s totally diet, it’s nothing to do with exercise, that’s the other thing I learnt, yeah. </i></blockquote><p>So, Rahul may have started off with a narrative but then he got tired and stopped pushing that narrative. In the South, where people did not understand either his English or Hindi, he was well received. But it is in the North that Congress needs to win seats to remain in the game. Otherwise it will lose ground to regional politicians who form their own dynastic parties- e.g. Mamta or YSR. </p><blockquote><i>Ben Bland And how has the walk been received politically? I mean, obviously, you did it for the reasons you said, but you’re also a Politician, you’re seeking to win public support. There are national elections coming up in India. What’s your sense in terms of how it’s been received in terms of your own political position and Congress’s position in India?</i></blockquote><p>The original plan was for the Dynasty to step aside and let Congress hold elections. True, 'the fix was in'- Gehlot was supposed to win and go on to be Modi's challenger. Rahul's walkabout was supposed to be a sort of grand farewell tour. Rahul could have morphed from a conventional politician into some sort of celebrity social campaigner- like Greta Thurnberg. </p><blockquote><i>Rahul Gandhi- It’s transformational. It’s transformational, certainly, for the party, because it gave tremendous energy to our party workers, but it’s also – it was also transformational for a lot of the people who were coming. And the powerful thing about it was the physical contact and the scale of the physical contact, and it was something – you know, I’ve been to thousands of meetings, public meetings, conversations like this, it’s a completely different thing. Because when you’re walking and you’re walking with, say, a Farmer, or you’re walking with a young woman, there’s a struggle going on, particularly if you’re walking 25/30 kilometres a day. There’s a struggle going on, and you, sort of, are jointly going through that thing, right? So, it’s a completely different conversation that happens. The other thing I did, which I think helped a lot, was right in the beginning, I got the guys I work with, and I said, “Look, what is my responsibility here? Well, you know, what is mine and your responsibility here? We are walking 4,000 kilometres, and that’s all fine, but what is it that we will not accept in this walk?” And I told them that, “Look, what I want” – and there was a rope there, so – I don’t know if you saw it, did you see the video? You didn’t see the video?</i> </blockquote><blockquote><i> Ben Bland Yeah, I’ve seen.</i></blockquote><blockquote><i> Rahul Gandhi Yeah, there’s this rope there, and there’s quite a lot of security around the rope, so I told the guys, said, “Look, whoever comes into this area to talk to us” – and there were 125 of us walking, so it wasn’t just me, I was in front but there was 125, and these conversations were going on with everybody, and I said, “Look, whoever comes in, he – doesn’t matter who he is, who she is, that person’s got to feel at home, right? And the feeling I want us to generate is that when they leave this place, they feel that they’ve left home.” So, in my mind it was not a political exercise. In my mind it was a personal exercise where I was wellpa – welcoming people, like, into this room and giving them a space to feel comfortable and talk, and also making it a personal talk, not a political talk. And we were successful at doing that, because there was a lot of pressure, security people pushing and pulling, and so, we created this, sort of, cocoon there where anybody came in and felt comfortable. And then some magic started to happen, because the moment they started to see this, that there is this connection in the 21st Century, where, you know, we’re not going through the WhatsApp or we’re not going through Facebook and all that, and there’s this gentleman who’s come here, and these people who’ve come here, and they’re talking to us, then it – the nature of the conversation changed completely. And more shocking conversations started to happen. Like, the most personal things, suddenly people were discussing with a stranger, really, you know. So, it became almost like a – either a friend or a brother, you know, that was the type of conversation, so a lot of stuff came out. </i></blockquote><p>So, the walkabout was a type of group therapy. I suppose, it could have been a transformational experience. Rahul finds a new empathy, a new style of communication, a new method of organizing and motivating local activists. Sadly, nothing of the sort happened. When Rahul entered politics- and his entry helped the Congress coalition to win in 2004- he said he would concentrate on organizational work rather than enter the Cabinet. But he was shit at organization. What was he not shit at? Walking. Sadly, walking and talking was more than he could handle. Anyway, for his second Yatra he decided to omit the walking and just stay on the bus while stopping occasionally to talk bollocks. </p><blockquote><i>Ben Bland And you’ve talked a lot previously about the attacks on democracy in India, at a time when I guess there’s a sense that, globally, democracy is under pressure. I mean, do you see any linkages there? Do you think there is some, sort of, global shift against democracy that’s affecting, or partly driving, what’s been happening in India, or do you see the challenges in India as being pretty endogenous </i></blockquote><p>Democracy does mean that power gets redistributed from time to time. Entrenched elites can lose popular support. They may feel this is 'populism' or 'majoritarianism' or 'Fascism' and complain about 'authoritarianism' once they are out of office, but they too were once accused of the same thing. </p><blockquote><i>Rahul Gandhi They’re linked for sure, but each country has its own history, its own philosophy, its own way of thinking about these things. So, definitely, there are two, sort of, visions of the planet emerging, I mean that, to me, is clear. There’s a sort of, pre-democratic open space idea, and then there’s a sort of, more controlled, coercive idea, and that is visible. </i></blockquote><p>Rahul is a dynastic politician. The 'coercive idea' triumphed under his great-grandfather who centralized power in the PMO. </p><blockquote><i>India has – there are some nuances to it in India, right? First of all, it’s not a battle between political parties anymore.</i></blockquote><p>It is. The RSS set up the Jan Sangh as an alternative to the Hindu Mahasabha which had split off from Congress. The Communists too had cadre based parties. The Socialists tended to be caste based and dynastic. There also were regionalist parties based on linguistic/religious sub-nationalism- e.g. DMK, Shiv Sena, Akali Dal etc. Mamta's TMC split off from the INC when the latter allied with the Communists. </p><blockquote><i> It’s a battle between two old ideas of India </i></blockquote><p>one is Dynastic. After the House of Windsor came the Nehru/Gandhis. Sadly, they kept getting shot or blown up and thus preferred to rule by proxy. But, by tearing up an ordinance of Manmohan, Rahul made the proxy model unviable. </p><blockquote><i>and philosophical ideas of India which are diametrically opposed, different, and the BJP represents one</i></blockquote><p>the BJP is a proper political party. Merit can rise to the top. </p><blockquote><i> and we represent the other. In India, also, there’s the matter of caste, right, which is – which doesn’t exist, for example, in England or the United States, it’s a very particular aspect of society. So, it’s – it plays out differently, but it’s, sort of, informed by what’s going on in the rest of the world. </i></blockquote><p>India has more affirmative action- but this is a zero-sum game. Manmohan and Modi want a positive sum game where people can rise by private enterprise not getting a Government job. </p><blockquote><i>Ben Bland And I mean, obviously, you know, you’re a Politician, you’ve pinned a lot of the blame for what’s happening on BJP and Narendra Modi’s government, but would you – are there bottom-up drivers, do you think, in India as well?</i></blockquote><p>Obviously! Urbanization and higher participation for women has created a space for new parties like Kejriwal's 'Common Man party'. The BJP's social origins was in the urban areas and the mercantile communities whereas the Congress machine had a lock on the rural masses till the 'dominant' agricultural castes began to rise up from the mid-Sixties onward. </p><blockquote><i> Rahul Gandhi I don’t – it’s not that I pin the blame on them, it’s that I feel they operationalise it, right?</i></blockquote><p>The BJP and other parties- like Kejriwal's AAM which has taken Delhi and Punjab from Congress- have more appeal to the rising middle class which is more urbanized and aspirational. Congress in 2004 and 2009 had a similar appeal because people did not know that Rahul was utterly useless. </p><blockquote><i> So, they are the mechanism through which it’s happening, but I said in my Cambridge talk that I think the problem – well, when we walked with – we heard, basically, three things, well four things: unemployment, price rise, inequality, and violence against women. Those are the broad themes that came up, but the real problem is the unemployment problem, right?</i></blockquote><p>Nehru's solution was to expand the bureaucracy. But that was inflationary. There is no alternative to letting the private sector expand. </p><p>I suppose Rahul is right to worry about unemployment. He will probably lose his seat in Parliament. Congress may begin to revive. </p><blockquote><i> And that’s generating a lot of anger and a lot of fear, and I think the unemployment problem is happening because earlier, if you look at the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, there was a concept of production in the democratic environment, right? </i></blockquote><p>Not in India. There was the concept of getting a Government job on the basis of a caste quota and then doing nothing till you retired. </p><blockquote><i>Countries like Britain, countries like India, America, they produced things,</i></blockquote><p>not India. Nehruvian policies strangled manufacturing. There was shitty subsistence agriculture and shitty low productivity jobs in the informal sector. Being unemployed was a luxury for those who had been to College. </p><blockquote><i> and there was manufacturing, there was production going on, and then, for whatever reason, that was parcelled out to China, right?</i></blockquote><p>It could have been parcelled out to India. Manmohan wanted to make the necessary reforms but Sonia's chums opposed him. </p><blockquote><i> And today we live in a world where there is a production model in the coercive environment, but there is no production model in the democratic environment.</i></blockquote><p>Rahul seems to think that the US and UK have high unemployment but both have lower unemployment than China. India has the same rate as France. No doubt, both would have lower rates if they were more laissez faire. </p><blockquote><i> So, the result is that it becomes very difficult for democratic countries to give their youngsters employment. I don’t believe that a country like India can employ all its people with services. I just don’t believe it. It doesn’t work, right? It doesn’t have the connectivity, it doesn’t have the structure that can deliver you those jobs. So, for me the question is can a democratic production model be rebuilt, and what does it look like, right? And I think that’s at the centre of what is creating the problem, and the problem is manifesting in different places differently. </i></blockquote><p>Manmohan hoped there could be consensus on labour market reform. In practice, some States could let manufacturing hubs come up without too much disruption by trade union activists. </p><blockquote><i>In India, it’s manifesting along caste lines, along religious lines.</i></blockquote><p>I don't understand this. the 'democratic' way of creating jobs is to let the private sector expand If you reduce property rights in jobs, you have a bigger official sector. If you featherbed workers, you have 'jobless growth' as capital is substituted for labour in high value adding fields. </p><p>Rahul understands that India is urbanizing. What he doesn't get is that he and his sister could have represented that aspirational, urbanized, India. I</p><blockquote><i>The biggest change is that India’s moving from a rural country, rural, yeah, country to an urban country, right, and that changes the nature of the political discourse. That changes the nature of the structure, and we were focusing a lot on the rural space, and we missed the ball in the beginning on the urban space, and that’s a fact, right? So, those things are there, but to say that now the BJP’s in power and, you know, the Congress is gone, I mean, that’s actually ridiculous, ridiculous idea. And as far as the coercion, the violence that is concerned, it’s not the Congress that’s saying it. Congress is saying it, but you’ve just got to travel in India and see it. I mean, you can see what’s being done to the Dalit community, or you can see it – what’s being done to the tribal community, you can see what’s being done to the minorities. </i></blockquote><p>Sadly, the majority approves of the 'peaceful' minority getting thrashed if it starts any trouble. Anti-Dalit violence is a serious issue- in Congress or DMK ruled States. The BJP wants to recruit Dalits and STs. </p><blockquote><i>It’s not that the Congress is saying it and objectively it’s not being seen. There are articles all across – in the foreign press all the time that there is a serious problem with Indian democracy, right? It’s also the way the BJP responds, right? The – it’s not interested in a conversation. They have decided that they know what’s going on, nobody else in the country understands what’s going on, and that’s it, and this is visible, I mean, you can ask any opposition party. You can see for example how the agencies are used. You can ask any opposition leader about how the agencies are used. My phone had Pegasus on it, that simply was not happening when we were in power. So, there are things that are very obvious and are apparent to everybody.</i></blockquote><p>This is hilarious. Manmohan defended his government's policy of tapping the phones of everybody- including Ratan Tata, lobbyist Nira Radia, the BJP's Arun Jaitley, & even a Cabinet colleague of the PM from the DMK, which was an ally. Rahul himself is an accused in various scams and his phone may well be being tapped under the rules that were in place under Manmohan. </p><blockquote><i> Ben Bland- And when we go beyond, kind of, the next election or the election after that and think a bit bigger about India’s future, I think you described India really nicely, as, sort of, “Ongoing negotiation between different states and peoples.” And obviously the intercommunal tensions are not a new phenomenon in India, but how does India move beyond that to a kind of, a better, more peaceful, smoother, kind of, negotiation in the next decades? </i></blockquote><p>There is no need for 'negotiation'. There is need for cooperation so everybody can get on with their lives and rise up economically. </p><blockquote><i>Rahul Gandhi Yeah, so, I mean, one way of looking at India is that it’s a country, and another way of looking at it is that it is a negotiation between 1.4 billion people, right?</i></blockquote><p>India is actually a country. It isn't a negotiation at all. </p><blockquote><i> And that negotiation, if you imagine India in terms of numbers, it’s probably three times Europe, three times the United States. It’s probably got as many languages as Europe does. It’s certainly got as many histories as Europe does, and that negotiation is a complex negotiation, and that negotiation happens</i></blockquote><p>The negotiations stopped in 1947. </p><blockquote><i> – it doesn’t happen out on the streets. It happens through institutions, it happens through the Parliament, it happens through assemblies, it happens through the courts, it happens through the Election Commission, right?</i></blockquote><p>No. There can be negotiations when a coalition government is formed. But the BJP has had two simple majorities and is likely to get a third.</p><p>Courts and Constitutional bodies like the Election Commission don't negotiate. They make judgments on the basis of the law of the land. </p><blockquote><i> And my worry is that the architecture of that negotiation is being attacked and broken,</i></blockquote><p>Negotiation only happens when there is a coalition government. Rahul doesn't get this. I suppose there is some negotiation between Opposition ruled states and the Centre. But, there also are rules about revenue sharing etc. </p><blockquote><i> right, and you can see, sort of, the symptoms, right? The Prime Minister one day turns round and demonetises the entire currency, right? </i></blockquote><p>A large portion of it- sure. But the same thing happened in 1978. Both were done by Ordinance. </p><blockquote><i>The Reserve Bank doesn’t know about it, and it’s – everything has been bypassed, on something as fundamental as the currency of the country. That’s an example,</i></blockquote><p>Rahul was 8 years old the previous time it happened. What he still does not understand is that the BJP benefitted at the polls from demonetization. Also, it killed off the anti-corruption movement- which had helped Kejriwal to rise up. </p><blockquote><i> and it’s the same way the GST was worked out, right?</i></blockquote><p>Unlike demonetization, which was done by Ordinance, GST was implemented through an amendment to the Constitution passed by both Houses, ratified by the States, and signed into law by a President appointed by the Congress Party. </p><blockquote><i> So, you can see that the reliance on those institutions is reducing, and that, to me, is very, very dangerous, right? </i></blockquote><p>This cretin can't tell the difference between an Ordinance and a fucking amendment to the Constitution! </p><blockquote><i>So, certainly there’s repair work that needs to be done, right, on the idea of freedom, on the idea of independent institutions. </i></blockquote><p>Independent institutions don't have to negotiate with cretins. </p><blockquote><i>There’s a whole bunch of repair work that needs to be done, and then, I think fundamental to a successful India is the decentralisation of power. </i></blockquote><p>Why not decentralize power in the Congress party? </p><blockquote><i>So, what – exactly what you see – the trend you see is massive concentration of wealth and power, right? And that’s – if you really look at the BJP and see what’s the one big thing that they’ve done, it’s huge concentration of power in the Prime Minister’s office</i></blockquote><p>this happened under Nehru. Manmohan, it is true, was not allowed by Sonia and her chums to use that power to unshackle the economy. Once this became apparent, the country turned to Modi. </p><blockquote><i>and then, huge concentration of wealth in the hands of two or three people, right? And that to me – a country the size of India simply cannot be run like that, right? So, that to me, the decentralisation, supporting small and medium businesses, starting or re-imagination – reimagining production, manufacturing, in a modern way, in a decentralised way, in a technological way, </i></blockquote><p>that's laissez faire, dude. Infosys and Wipro were once small just as Microsoft and Apple were once small. Rajiv Gandhi, to his credit, did help India's software industry get off the ground- by dying. Rahul is enabling India to get infrastructure- by making Congress unelectable. </p><blockquote><i>and I think there linkages between the West and India are critical. </i></blockquote><p>The Presidency cities- Bombay, Calcutta, even Madras, were once even more part of the West than Singapore or Hong Kong. Congress under Nehru ensured this would cease to be the case. Rajiv may have wanted to reverse this but it was Rao, heading a minority Government who used the excuse of national bankruptcy to embrace reform. </p><blockquote><i> Ben Bland-I want to pivot a bit here to foreign policy and start with India and China, and I know you’re a keen follower of China, and obviously, in the last few years we’ve seen these flare-ups at the border, seemingly driven by China.</i></blockquote><p>China was worried about encirclement. But, Biden & his Blinken idiot have reassured them </p><blockquote><i> There was a trajectory previously where Xi Jinping and Modi seemed to be getting on well. They had their, sort of, tea meeting in Wuhan. Why do you think in the last few years Beijing has decided to antagonise India, because it seems to have really pushed India towards the West?</i></blockquote><p>America could have got India in its camp if it had both bought and sold military equipment to India. But America is an unreliable partner. China and India tested each other at the border. India has the demographic advantage and can afford to play a waiting game. </p><blockquote><i>Rahul Gandhi- Antagonise is, sort of, a benign word. I mean, they’re sitting on 2,000 square kilometres of our territory, right? I mean, I don’t know, that – antagonise doesn’t quite capture it, right? No? I mean, yeah, it doesn’t quite capture it, and the interesting thing is that when they did it, our Prime Minister said, in a meeting with the opposition where I was there, that “Not a single inch of Indian territory has been taken,” right? Now, what message does that send to the Chinese, right? The Chinese know they’re sitting on 2,000 square kilometres of our territory, our military knows it, and our Prime Minister says, “Well, we’re not there.” </i></blockquote><p>Modi sent the right signals. Ultimately, China doesn't really have any real beef with India. Let them invest in the border region. As their population ages, immigrants from their Southern border will change the picture of Han domination. </p><blockquote><i>So, it encourages them, right? So, that’s one aspect of the problem. As a country, our ethos and our DNA is democratic, right?</i></blockquote><p>Democracies don't have dynastic political parties. </p><blockquote><i>I mean, you – there’s the book, “The Argumentative Indian,” by Mr Amartya Sen.</i></blockquote><p>It is foolish. The Bengalis may be verbose. But they have fucked up their own State and nobody listens to them any longer. </p><blockquote><i> We Indians like to talk and, you know, you spend a lot of time talking and discussing things, and that’s the way we build consensus, because it’s very complex.</i></blockquote><p>There has never been any consensus. There is nothing complex about a situation where an Italian lady is running the country with a puppet of a Prime Minister. </p><blockquote><i> And so, we in the Congress are pretty clear that whatever is going to be built, whatever is going to happen, has to be in a democratic, in a open structure, and that, of course, that’s not China, right? </i></blockquote><p>Chairman Xi isn't the great-grandson of Chairman Mao. </p><blockquote><i>So, we are much more comfortable with the democratic idea, that open idea. Of course, at the same time they’re our neighbour and we’re in competition with them, and frankly, if we’re going to talk about production, right, we are the biggest game in town,</i></blockquote><p>Sadly, this is far from the truth. </p><blockquote><i> and so they see us as a problem, right? So, my approach is, they’re offering a vision of productivity, of prosperity. Well, we should have a vision of prosperity too, and that includes the West and India, but that’s missing, right? </i></blockquote><p>Rahul doesn't understand that Westerners are much much richer than the Chinese.</p><blockquote><i>So, to me, that’s where the work needs to be done.</i></blockquote><p>Modi has done that work. Rahul has only recently found out that people in India are worried about unemployment and inflation and violence against women. The one thing they are not worried about is the RSS. </p><blockquote><i> Ben Bland It seems to me that, as someone who’s, you know, lived a long time in Asia and watched the politics, that it’s going to be very hard to have a successful, productive Asian century if India and China are at loggerheads.</i></blockquote><p>This isn't really a big worry. In a land war, India will do well. But why would two bald men fight over a comb? India's strategic importance to the West lies in its being able to tie down Chinese troops. India's 'Agnivir' scheme means that it will soon have an absolute manpower advantage even before it uses 'force multiplier' techniques to arm local people and foster insurgencies. </p><blockquote><i> So, how – can you foresee a rapprochement between India and China, and how might that happen, how could that happen? </i></blockquote><p>Don't ask Rahul. The boy is a moron. </p><blockquote><i>Rahul Gandhi- I mean, I don’t know about a rapprochement, but I do think that we have to have a vision for production, right? And I don’t think it’s going to look like the Chinese one. It can’t, structurally we can’t do that, right? So, it’s got to be a decentralised one, and I think you are going to have a level of competition between the two countries. There is going to be – on the margins, there’s going to be a little bit of tension, a little bit of hostility, but I think it’s very important that the lines are clear. I mean, they’re sitting on 2,000 square kilometres of our territory, right, that’s the fact. </i></blockquote><p>Rahul is trying to make out that Modi is as shit as his great-grandfather. But nobody is buying that. </p><blockquote><i>Ben Bland So, what would a Congress government do about that? </i></blockquote><p> Rahul doesn't know what Manmohan did. He has no clue what an Indian PM needs to do. </p><blockquote><i>Rahul Gandhi Well, I mean we’d have to – we’ll have to see when we’re there in power, but I think making things clear and certainly not denying that they’re sitting in your territory, to start with.</i></blockquote><p>So, Congress would say 'Chinese are fucking us in the ass! Eeek! It hurts!' but do nothing. </p><blockquote><i>Ben Bland- And so, you spoke earlier about, sort of, different visions of the world, and I guess a US-led vision, you were implying, and maybe a China-led one, but what’s – what would an India-led world look like? Is it very similar to the, sort of, Western democratic ideals?</i></blockquote><p>India has no interest in going around doing 'regime change'. </p><blockquote><i> Rahul Gandhi- I don’t know if it’s – I don’t know if – I don’t quite like the word ‘led’, right? I think it’s a joint effort, right? And I think there are components that the United States has, there are components that Britain has, there are components that India has, and they’re valuable, right? So, I think – I don’t like the idea that, oh, that’s being led by that person, this is being led by that person. I like the idea of a bridge. So, how can we imagine a bridge of prosperity between these systems and these ideas, where we have a role to play, we bring a lot to the table, you bring a lot to the table, right? And let’s have a conversation about what those things are and how we could put it in practice, right? Yeah, I think the world is – in the 21st Century is connected enough, where, you know, the word led is problematic, yeah.</i></blockquote><p>Fuck bridges. Just don't do regime change or other stupid shit. </p><blockquote><i> Ben Bland So, is it then – are you’re envisioning some sort more – sort of, more multipolar order where...? </i></blockquote><p>A multi-polar world will have proxy wars. </p><blockquote><i>Rahul Gandhi Of course, United States is more powerful, right? So, one cannot deny that the United States is powerful. Everybody is required. You can’t, in the 21st Century, say, you know, “We’re going to exclude you,” that’s not a possibility. So, now, what would an Indi – what would the Indian elements of that bridge look like? Successful, in my view. It would invoke the ideas of Mahatma Gandhi, it would be non-violent, it would be sensitive, it would stand for some of those values, which India is very good at doing</i></blockquote><p>India gave up that type of chatter after China took down Nehru's pajamas and made fun of his puny genitals. </p><blockquote><i>. It would respect other cultures, it would not be aggressive, it would try to listen to other perspectives. We’re good at doing that. I mean we have – in our philosophical structure, we have these ideas, you know. We have this idea called śūnyatā, right, zero, non-existence, so that can absorb everything.</i></blockquote><p>India is big fat zero. </p><blockquote><i> So, those are the type of ideas that I would say that India brings to the table.</i></blockquote><p>Why not just get up on that table and take a great big dump on it? </p><blockquote><i> Ben Bland- And I want to ask about Ukraine, because it’s obviously a massive issue, yeah, in Europe. I think by and large, Congress has supported, if I’m right in this, the Modi government’s position of neutrality at the UN when it comes to the War in Ukraine. I mean, how do you think that stands with India’s position as a democracy and wanting to provide democratic leadership and upholding, you know, the ideals of freedom and sovereignty?</i></blockquote><p>India's position is that it is a democracy. It doesn't give a fuck if other countries- like the UK or the UAE or Japan- want to be Monarchies or anything else. </p><blockquote><i> Rahul Gandhi- I mean, I would agree with the foreign policy on that issue, and there’s also an element of national interest. There are, you know, there are interests, we have to look after our interests, so they’re there, but I am against any type of war, I’m against any type of violence, and the sooner it ends, the better it is. And as far as the 21st Century is concerned, a war like Ukraine, with the potential for unlimited escalation, is just downright dangerous, and we should be very careful that it’s playing out in Europe, and everybody should try and do their bit to stop it.</i></blockquote><p>Biden should go on a very long walk. </p><blockquote><i> Ben Bland And could you see a time when India does start to move away from Russia? Obviously, that’s one of the reasons why, yeah, India is wary of criticising Russia, because it relies on Russia for, you know, a large part of its military equipment and technology, but obviously at the same time, the West has been courting India, in part because of, you know, the issues that you have with China and we see the existential threat from China. So, do you – could you foresee this shift happening over time?</i></blockquote><p>No. America is unreliable. France is a possible partner but ultimately India has to go it alone. </p><blockquote><i> Rahul Gandhi Self-interest is important, and then, you know, you’re saying ‘courting’, I don’t know, how well are you courting? It depends. I mean, that’s up to you, you know, how well you court India. </i></blockquote><p>Why bother? Just do a mutually beneficial trade. </p><blockquote><i> Ben Bland And could you ever envisage an India that does move away from multialignment or non-alignment to, kind of, harder lines?</i></blockquote><p>No. </p><blockquote><i> Rahul Gandhi I don’t know, I don’t think about it like that. I think – what is it that we’re trying to achieve? Right, start from there, what is our problem? Our problem is we’ve got a huge population and we need to give them jobs, we need to give them livelihood, we need to give them an imagination, and that’s our primary job.</i></blockquote><p>No. The government's job is to get out of the way of people who want to work and those who want to employ them. </p><blockquote><i> Now, we will do whatever it takes to make that happen, and the best route to make it happen is what we’ll be doing. We’re not going to do anything that will damage the aspirations of our own people. We’re not going to do something that is going to, you know, damage their employment prospects. So, every country looks at itself, looks at the problems it’s trying to solve and then, works from there, right? </i></blockquote><p>Rahul has been an MP for twenty years. He has led his party. Yet his head is completely empty. </p><blockquote><i>Ben Bland I’m going to come to audience questions in a minute. I’ve just a couple more. I mean firstly on the economy, I mean, it seems to me that the model of industrialisation and manufacturing, export-led growth that, you know, was very successful for Japan, Korea, Singapore, in driving them to rich country status, doesn’t really work anymore, because of changes in, you know, the rise of automation, potentially ‘cause of the fracturing of global value chains and some, sort of, shaving away of the benefits of globalisation. </i></blockquote><p>Nonsense! Urbanization- getting rural girls into giant factory dormitories so demographic transition is achieved- is the only way forward. </p><blockquote><i>So – but India, as well, which is such a big country with such a big domestic market and big challenges to employ its young people as well, what is the model, do you see, going forward for India to achieve the, sort of, rapid growth, but also more equitable growth that your country needs? </i></blockquote><p>The country needs to raise female participation rate and greatly reduce the proportion of the population engaged in agriculture and low value adding work- e.g. brick making or rat-hole mining. </p><blockquote><i>Rahul Gandhi In my walk, I walked past a town called Ballari in Karnataka, and I literally walked past it, and some people over there said, “Look, this is a jeans-producing centre, okay, and please come and see what we’re doing.” So, I spent half a day walking around Ballari and looking at this jeans production that they were doing. It used to employ five lakh people, so five lakh is half a million, right? Today it employs 40,000 people. </i></blockquote><p>Ballari made poor quality jeans in small workshops during the festival season- i.e. June to February. It may have employed 100,000 at maximum on a part time basis. But frequent load-shedding and low margins meant that it stagnated compared to Bangalore. Rahul promised that if Congress came to power it would invest 500 million pounds to create a Jeans Park. Needless to say, nothing came of that promise. </p><blockquote><i>It’s essentially a network of skill, right? Whenever you walk in there, there are people who have huge amount of skill sitting there, and they’re doing nothing, right?</i></blockquote><p>No. Ballari didn't have much in the way of skill. The 'merchant-manufacturers' were too small to build brands. Gujarat took market share because the Government there helped the industry. The local manufacturers were supposed to get an industrial park but, at the last moment, the land was given to rice mills. I suppose the locals thought getting Rahul to visit would help them. He promised a lot but, once elected, the Congress party gave them nothing. </p><blockquote><i> So, the question is, how can we take their skill and make them produce something, right, and then make that accessible to people, right? And those centres exist all across India. There’s Ballari, Moradabad, everywhere, the – almost every district in India has a skill base that is profound, right?</i></blockquote><p>No. The skill base will remain shitty if you aren't climbing the value chain. </p><blockquote><i> But then, what do we do, or what is happening today? A huge concentration of wealth, huge concentration – complete control of the banking system by three or four large industrialists, and the skills just lying there wasting away.</i></blockquote><p>No one can accuse Rahul of having any skills which are 'just lying there wasting away.' </p><blockquote><i> Those four and a half lakh people today are unemployed, right? That Ballari itself, if it’s aligned properly, if the banking system is made accessible to them, if you inject technology into that skills base, that thing – you’ll be able to produce a million jobs there, right?</i></blockquote><p>No. Gujarat, which is a big exporter, employs only about 26,000 in its textile parks. In the country as a whole there may be 400,000 in the jeans sector because of the extra labour- done in low wage hubs- involved. Rahul thinks a city with half a million population could suddenly have 'a million jobs'. This is a lad who attended Harvard and Cambridge!</p><blockquote><i> So, I don’t agree that manufacturing per se is dead, right? I look at it by saying, “Okay, here is the skill, what do we need now to make sure that the skill translates into jobs?” Right? And then there’s the – there are different areas, I’m not saying that there is no space for large business. Absolutely there is space for large business, but the level of monopolisation that is taking place today is seriously problematic. It’s problematic if you want to transform India, if you want to give Indian people jobs.</i></blockquote><p>The Indian people wanted to give Rahul the top job. Then they discovered he had shit for brains. His Dynasty's monopoly of power was broken. The sad truth is you can't give people jobs. You can give them money but you can't make them productive or useful if they are useless tossers. </p><blockquote><i> It’s problematic if you want to have a productive vision for the country, right? So, also, there’s a huge scope for agriculture, right, building a cold chain, modernising the agricultural struc – system, it’s – huge potential. It’s wasted right now. </i></blockquote><p>Manmohan wanted to go in for this but by then he had run out off steam. Modi's Kisan Sampada Yojana, however, has made some strides. But, farmers would prefer to take loans and then have their loans forgiven. You have to greatly shrink the number of farmers to get higher output or value adding. </p><blockquote><i>So, those are the type of things that one would look at. </i></blockquote><p>It's the type of thing Modi can implement because he has a majority. </p><blockquote><i>Ben Bland Right. The last question I have, before I go to questions from the floor and online, you talked a lot on this trip, and probably before as well, about listening, and I agree with you, listening is an underrated quality in politics and diplomacy, where most people prefer talking. So, given we’ve got you here and we’re all keen to listen, and you’ve been in the UK, I think, for a week or so now, what do you think we in the UK get most wrong about India? What don’t we see that we should know to better understand India?</i></blockquote><p>Modi is a Hindu. India is 80 percent Hindu. Attacking Hinduism is not going to get you elected in India. </p><blockquote><i> Rahul Gandhi [Pause] Oh, I’m going to give away the secret. You know, it’s like the quote I saw in your room, right, the Gorbachev quote. The Gorbachev quote was to the ex – to the effect of, “We are at a very important time in history and there are two options. One option is this one, and the other option is this one.” </i></blockquote><p>Gorbachev said the choice was between force and an acknowledgment of interdependence. Then the nutter surrendered Party control of the Economy and a 'Scissors crisis' caused the collapse of the Soviet Union. </p><blockquote><i>That’s just not how the Indian mind sees the world, right? </i></blockquote><p>No. The Indians see that you either have the Dynasticism or else Meritocracy. </p><blockquote><i>The Indian mind just does not see the world in a binary way. </i></blockquote><p>Which is why Rahul sometimes gets confused and puts on a saree. </p><blockquote><i>So, for the Indian person, number one, we are not at a critical point in history, right, and number two, there’s thousands of options standing right in front of us, right? That’s just how the Indian mind works, and it translates – if you look at – if you just go to Delhi and you look at the street, and you look at the lanes, you’ll see Indian drivers making their way through this thing, right, they’ll go this way, they’ll go that way. Now, that’s – that looks like chaos, right, but in the 21st Century, that chaos is very powerful, but that chaos has to be managed effectively.</i></blockquote><p>No. Delhi needs to improve road quality. Cars would not need to swerve this way or that to avoid potholes. Chaos is what happens when you don't have management or management is utterly shit. The 21st century isn't about driving on the wrong side of the road. </p><blockquote><i> Ben Bland Thanks, that’s a very good answer. </i></blockquote><p>No it isn't. It is all very well to say that we should welcome 'disruptive' technologies and enterprises. But that just means competitive 'creative destruction'. It doesn't mean driving sometimes on the left and sometimes on the right of the road. </p><blockquote><i> Rahul Gandhi Okay, I’ll tell you something else. Ben Bland Yeah. Rahul Gandhi If you can – this is a concept that’s difficult... Ben Bland Hmmm. Rahul Gandhi ...and I’ll try it. Broadly, there are two philosophies in India. One believes in infinity, right, that says you will live forever, right, and the other that says you don’t exist, concept of śūnyatā or anattā in Buddhism, right, and India operates between these two, right?</i></blockquote><p>No. India is not Buddhist. It is Hindu. Hindus say the soul is immortal. Buddhism babbles some crazy bullshit but its message is give money to Buddhist monks. That way you get to be re-born as a Buddhist monk. Buddhist monks are super-cool. Did you know that Steven Segal is a 'tulku' or reincarnated Buddhist Abbot? </p><blockquote><i> The idea of non-existence, or anattā, as in Buddhism, is the essence of listening.</i></blockquote><p>But there is no self to do the listening. The sad truth is that people often want to talk before or after handing over cash to Buddhist monks. Remember you don't really have a self. Go to your happy place till they just hand over the cash and fuck the fuck off. </p><blockquote><i> So, if I’m sitting here talking to you and I don’t exist, right, that is absolutely the perfect way to listen to you. What do I mean by “I don’t exist”?</i></blockquote><p>You don't have a fucking brain. </p><blockquote><i> It means my aspirations don’t exist, it means my fears don’t exist, it means, you know, I am sitting almost in silence, almost as if I’m dead, and I’m listening to you. </i></blockquote><p>Don't kill me. I'm already dead. </p><blockquote><i>That’s something Indian people can do, a very powerful thing, right? </i></blockquote><p>No. It is useless. </p><blockquote><i>And if you look at our, so to speak, the grandmasters, people like Gandhi, that’s actually what they’re doing, right? </i></blockquote><p>No. Gandhi talked and wrote a lot. But, what was important was, he was a great fund raiser. Non-Violence means using money to get what you want- provided you don't want anything really desirable. </p><blockquote><i>And that’s a – it’s a philosophical thing, but it’s the power of Indian civilisation. It’s why – it’s where, you know, the West got zero from. </i></blockquote><p>Will the West want this fucking zero? He could be the next Greta Thurnberg. </p><blockquote><i>Ben Bland- Yeah.</i></blockquote><blockquote><i>Rahul Gandhi- Right, and then, that – <b>no, you’re laughing</b>, but then when that zero arrives in the West, it completely transforms and does something that it can’t do in India, right?</i></blockquote><p>Zero came to the West and got a job in the Kwiki-mart. It couldn't do that in India because Ambani and Adani are monopolizing everything. </p><blockquote><i> Because when it comes into contact with your philosophy, the sum of both those things is much bigger than either of them. </i></blockquote><p>No. The zero didn't matter very much. The Sumerians and Mayans had it before the Indians. </p><blockquote><i>So, to me, that’s how I see it. I think – I mean, I used to sit on a table when I was small and my grandmother and my mother’s father </i></blockquote><p>a Fascist who didn't want his daughter marrying a darkie. His wife and her brother supported Sonia's decision and came to India for the wedding ceremony. Sonia remained close to her mother as did Rahul. </p><blockquote><i>used to sit there at lunchtime and they used to speak to each other, and I would just look at them and there were two different worlds, right? My grandmother would be speaking something else, saying something, meaning something else, and my grandfather would be understanding something else. </i></blockquote><p>To be fair, Sonia's dad worked hard and raised beautiful daughters of good character. </p><blockquote><i>But the conversation was going on, and that, to me, is the essence of the thing, which is that I look at you and I say, “He has ideas that are actually powerful and useful for me, and in turn, I have ideas that might be powerful and useful for him.” And I think that’s the – that’s what’s important in the 21st Century, hmmm hmm?</i></blockquote><p>Rahul has no useful ideas. What's important in the 21st century is what was important in the 20th century- viz not electing brain dead nutters who do stupid shit. </p><blockquote><i>Yeah, I totally agree. Listening is great, and we’re here...</i> </blockquote><blockquote><i> Rahul Gandhi As a final thi – sorry.</i> </blockquote><blockquote><i>Ben Bland …to…</i> </blockquote><blockquote><i>Rahul Gandhi As a final thing, I am a practitioner and I’m, sort of, in the – I deal in power, right? </i></blockquote><p>Rahul's stock in trade is losing power. </p><blockquote><i>And I can tell you that – and this is something, it’s a bit hard to grasp, listening is much more powerful than speaking. </i></blockquote><p>Rahul should try listening to himself. Why not get a speech-writer? His Dad read out speeches. Nothing wrong in that. </p><blockquote><i>There’s no comparison between the two, but for some reason, people are convinced that speaking is more powerful, right? </i></blockquote><p>Modi is a good speaker. I suppose he listened carefully to good speakers and practiced speaking in their manner before finding his own voice. </p><blockquote><i>Even if you’re speaking to me and I’m listening to you, I understand what you’re going to do, right? I can predict what you’re going to do if I listen carefully.</i></blockquote><p>India has listened carefully to Rahul. Indians can predict he is going to do stupid shit. </p><blockquote><i> Ben Bland Yeah, so many questions. The gentleman at the front, if you can tell us who you are, and any affiliation, and yeah, the mic’s coming to you, and please, keep it to a question, not a statement. Thank you. Hanif Adeel Thank you very much. Hanif Adeel, former Advisor, British Parliament, British Government. The question – I’m going to come to the question. I just want to make one point. Ben Bland No, but – sorry, just a question. Hanif Adeel Okay. Ben Bland Just a – other people have questions. Hanif Adeel It’s contextual, okay. Rahul-ji, thank you very much for your very sobering analysis. Clearly, the comparison between the RSS and the Muslim Brotherhood is an interesting one. The fact is, the BJP have captured the narrative and the institutions in a way that most people would’ve thought that they could not have. </i></blockquote><p>When Atal became PM he gave the lie to the notion that the RSS would impose a Fascist Dictatorship. </p><blockquote><i>So, clearly, listening, all the things you’re doing, are great, but in terms of a clinical approach, what would be your short to medium-term plan in terms of projecting what you stand for, what your party stands for, what you want to achieve with the grassroots? And – ‘cause you’re taking on somebody who is a populist, who clearly has support, who’s captured the whole state effectively. That’s my question, thank you.</i></blockquote><p>What a shitty question! </p><blockquote><i> Rahul Gandhi I think the walk that we did in the last four and a half months is a powerful model, and I think it brings in a lot of the ingredients of a response to what you’re talking about, and I think it works for most of the opposition in India. It’s acceptable to most of the opposition in India. </i></blockquote><p>We now know that Rahul's walkabouts aren't acceptable to the opposition. Mamta claims it is her reason for breaking with Congress. Now even Akhilesh has turned his back on it. So, this is a solo trip. </p><blockquote><i>So, reaching out to the people in interesting ways, and making sure that you’re having a direct connect with people, and building a new imagination, I think is central to fighting the BJP. </i></blockquote><p>A party gains power by identifying a key issue and focussing on it. Thirty years ago, it seemed possible that that key issue was 'RSS is Nazi!' but once Atal became PM it was obvious that crying wolf was pointless. Anyway, Congress was happy enough taking RSS people like Vaghela and promoting them as CM candidates. Rahul's Aunty and cousin joined the BJP. It was as respectable as the Christian Democrat party. </p><blockquote><i>Also, don’t underestimate the resistance, you know? Authoritarian people try – like to demonstrate how powerful they are and how strong they are. The resistance in India is also very strong and very powerful, and can do wonders. </i></blockquote><p>Modi was part of the resistance to Indira's Emergency. There is no anti-Modi resistance. There is merely a disunited and corrupt Opposition. </p><blockquote><i>Ben Bland And the lady in the cream jumper just behind the person..</i> </blockquote><blockquote><i>. Rahul Gandhi- But you know, what – if we step back from the BJP-Congress conversation, what – India is – what’s actually happening is a huge transition in India, right, a huge migration of people. And India is now searching for a new model with which to engage with its people and the rest of the world, right? And what’s pretty clear is that the BJP model is not it, because it’s creating much too much turbulence, much too much resistance.</i></blockquote><p>No. The BJP is getting bigger majorities. </p><blockquote><i> So, the real challenge that people like me and other leaders in the opposition have is, what does that thing look like? </i></blockquote><p>It looks like the Dynasty dying nasty. </p><blockquote><i>Member Thank you. Mr Gandhi, thank you for your candour and your plain speaking. You’ve spoken about democracy in trouble, you spoke about it just now, you spoke about it yesterday and you expressed some surprise at the fact that Western European countries don’t seem to notice that large chunks of democracy were falling away. So, here’s my question, two-parter. One, what are you, the Congress Party, but you, also the opposition, planning to do about this, and part two, what would you like London, Paris, Berlin, all the other capitals, the governments and the people, to do about this? </i></blockquote><p>Large chunks of democracy aren't falling away. </p><blockquote><i>Rahul Gandhi No, look, first of all, this is – it’s our problem, right? It’s an internal problem, it’s an Indian problem, and the rela – and the solution is going to come from inside. It’s not going to come from outside. However, the scale of Indian democracy means that democracy in India is a global public good, right? It impacts way further than our boundaries.</i></blockquote><p>Nonsense! It doesn't even impact Bhutan or Bangladesh or Burma. How the fuck is it going to impact Belgium or Belarus? </p><blockquote><i> If India – If Indian democracy collapses, </i></blockquote><p>as it did between '75 and '77, without any fucking global consequences whatsoever</p><blockquote><i>in my view, democracy on the planet suffers a very serious, possibly fatal, blow. So, it’s important for you, too, it’s not just important for us. We’ll deal with our problem, but you must be aware that this problem is going to play out at a global scale. It’s not just going to play out in India, right? And what you do about it is, of course up, to you, but you must be aware that in what is happening in India, the idea of a democratic model is being attacked and threatened.</i></blockquote><p>Rahul is attacking India while on foreign soil. This is what Indians understood. </p><blockquote><i> Ben Bland- I’m going to ask an online question, quite a pointed one, from Syed Badrul Ahsan, </i></blockquote><p>so far, two questions have been asked by Muslims. I wonder why? </p><blockquote><i>who says, “Would Mr Gandhi agree that dynastic politics has, by and large, impeded the growth of democracy in South Asia, in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh?”</i> </blockquote><blockquote><i>Rahul Gandhi I mean, I think – impeded the growth of politics?</i> </blockquote><blockquote><i>Ben Bland Of democracy. Democracy in South Asia.</i> </blockquote><blockquote><i>Rahul Gandhi No, I think the structures that are playing out and are impeding democracy are much more structural and way beyond dynastic politics, I mean.</i></blockquote><p>And yet, in Pakistan, Imran- who is not dynastic- has been jailed while the Bhutto and Sharif dynasties have been permitted to share power. Bangladesh's leader is the daughter of its founding Premier. In Sri Lanka, the nepotism and incompetence of the ruling family tanked the economy. In India, on the other hand, a 'backward caste' roadside tea-seller has risen to the top first in Gujarat and then the country as a whole. </p><blockquote><i> Ben Bland Okay, gentleman at the front, here. Bharat Ramanan [Pause] Thank you. Hi Rahul. I had a question around China. Ben Bland Introduce – tell us who you are, sorry. Bharat Ramanan Sorry, my name is Bharat. I’m from Rio Tinto, and the que...</i> </blockquote><blockquote><i> Rahul Gandhi Bharat?</i> </blockquote><blockquote><i> Bharat Ramanan Bharat, yes. The question I had was around China, and I think you’re on record saying that, you know, “This government doesn’t quite understand the nature of the risk that China poses,” and I’m just curious to understand what in your estimation is exactly the nature of that risk, and fundamentally, what are these guys not getting? Thank you.</i></blockquote><p>You may as well ask such a question of a pussy cat. A guy from Rio Tinto- which sells a lot diamonds to Gujarat- wants to know if Rahul had some reason for this claim that Jaishankar- who is hella smart- doesn't understand China's true design. But Rahul merely meant that he thought Jaishankar may not have known that China is a big country- right?- and if you have a big country- right?- and there is another country- right?- then that big country may kill some of the other country's soldiers and try to take its land. That's what happened when my Grandpappy was Prime Minister. I read about it in Skool. This Jaishankar dude may not have gone to skool. That's why I say it is important to listen. I used to listen to my grandpappy talking in I-talian to my granny. That's how I became so very smart. Did you know I scored zero in IQ test? This is because of Buddhism. </p><p> </p><blockquote><i>Rahul Gandhi If you look at what has happened in Ukraine, right, the basic principle of Ukraine, the basic principle that is being applied in Ukraine, is that the Russians have told the Ukrainians that, “We do not accept the relationship you have with Europe and America, and if you do not change this relationship, we will change your territory. We will challenge your territorial integrity,” right? In my view, that is what is happening on the borders of my country. What China is threatening – China does not want us to have a relationship with the United States, and it is threatening us by saying, “If you continue to have this relationship with the United States, we will take action,” and that’s why they’ve got troops in Ladakh and that’s why they’ve got troops in Arunachal Pradesh. So, in my view, the basic idea behind the troops in Arunachal and Ladakh is similar to what is happening in Ukraine. I mentioned this to the Foreign Minister, he completely disagrees with me, and he thinks this is a ludicrous idea.</i></blockquote><p>It is. The Chinese know that America came to Nehru's aid in 1962. India built up its defences subsequently whereas the fighting ability of the PLA declined. The Chinese are trying to signal that their troops have high morale and are fighting fit. However, there has been no real test of their resolve. India can afford to play a waiting game. </p><blockquote><i> It's fine, we have a difference of opinion.</i></blockquote><p>Jaishankar is a highly experienced former diplomat. His opinions are listened to. Rahul, very foolishly, is reminding us of Nehru's Himalayan blunder. </p><blockquote><i> Ben Bland Yeah, the lady in the third row in – brown jumper.</i> </blockquote><blockquote><i>Malini Mehra Hello, thank you very much. Yes, no, it’s me, thank you very much. My name is Malini Mehra and I run an international parliamentary organisation that works on climate change, but my question is raised to you as a citizen of India. There are many of us in the international diaspora, there is something more than 20 million Indians in the international diaspora. You spoke about the need for India to address these issues by itself, not within its own borders, because you have the international diaspora, and many people, like myself, no longer...</i> </blockquote><blockquote><i>Rahul Gandhi No, sorry, I didn’t – which issues, the environmental issues?</i> </blockquote><blockquote><i>Malini Mehra No, the issues facing India, the democratic despair that the country is in.</i></blockquote><p>India is very sad that Malini fucked off to London. It is crying like anything. Did you know Malini has launched a 'teach a girl to swim' campaign? OMG! She is so talented. Whatever will India do without her? </p><blockquote><i> So, here is my question, and I ask it as someone who is one of possibly millions who no longer recognises the country that they were born and raised in. And we would like to know what your message is...</i></blockquote><blockquote><i> Rahul Gandhi I mean, what a – is that a bad thing or a good thing? </i></blockquote><p>Environment is very nice. So is Democracy. They should get married but need not have sex. They could become Buddhist or turn into nice Zeroes. </p><blockquote><i>Malini Mehra What do you think? </i></blockquote><p>Malini, dear, you are actually stupider than Rahul. That's what we think. </p><blockquote><i>Rahul Gandhi No, I’m asking you. </i></blockquote><p> </p><blockquote><i>Malini Mehra Why am I here? </i> </blockquote><blockquote><i> Rahul Gandhi I don’t know, may...</i> </blockquote><blockquote><i>Malini Mehra I’m here because I’m feeling wretched about the state of my country. </i></blockquote><p>Without me, my country has probably just curled up and died. </p><blockquote><i>Rahul Gandhi- Yeah.</i> </blockquote><blockquote><i>Malini Mehra- Absolutely wretched. My father was an RSS man, proudly so. He would not recognise the country, bless his soul. So, for those of us who are outside of India, how can we engage? How can we re-empower our democracy? </i></blockquote><p>Teach a girl to swim and then tell her to swim to India if she loves it so much. </p><blockquote><i>20 years ago, I worked with Professor Amartya Sen, and Amartya didn’t let go of his passport.</i></blockquote><p>He ran away from India with his best friend's wife. </p><blockquote><i>Ben Bland- Okay, can you get to the question, please?</i></blockquote><p> Darling, don't make this about you. </p><blockquote><i> Malini Mehra- I’m not getting rid of my passport,</i></blockquote><p>which means she can inherit agricultural land in India. </p><blockquote><i> and I want to know what can we do to reanimate our democratic institutions?</i></blockquote><p>Mehra could join the Indian Overseas Congress. </p><blockquote><i> Rahul Gandhi- Well, I like your energy. No, I – it’s very important, it’s very important, and it’s – it goes to the point of the resistance. You see, the resistance is sitting here. No, I meant that the battle for the democratic institutions of India is, frankly, India’s responsibility and no-one else’s, right? And it’s something that we’re doing, but you, of course, are Indian, so it’s your responsibility as well and you’re part of that discussion. I think when you express yourself, I think what you said about your father being in the RSS and about him not recognising our country, in this conversation itself, is a very powerful thing,</i></blockquote><p>it would be if Malini was doing lots of voluntary work in rural India rather than living large in Lon-fucking-don. </p><blockquote><i> because for me to say it, people might feel, ah he’s fighting the RSS, he’s fighting the BJP, he might be biased, right? But for you to say it, it has a totally different impact. </i></blockquote><p>No. We get a picture of a decent chap who did genuine voluntary work for his own country where he actually lived. Malini is a virtue signalling narcissist. </p><blockquote><i>So, you’re already – you’re – by expressing yourself and by making your position clear, you’re already helping in a big way, right? I think by telling people the values that you stand for, the values that are Indian and that you protect, by telling everybody in the rest of the world that India needs to go back to those values, you’re doing the service. So, thank you. </i></blockquote><p>You are such a flake, you make me look good. Thank you for that. </p><blockquote><i>Ben Bland- I’m going to go to a question right at the back, the gentleman in the corner in the glasses, just behind the door. Thank you, and then I’m going to come to this side next, one at the back.</i> </blockquote><blockquote><i>Shuhib Hi, my name is Shuhib. I’m just a keen follower of the Indian politics. </i></blockquote><p>But changed my passport first chance I got. </p><blockquote><i>First of all, Rahul, thank you very much for giving someone else the opportunity to become the President of your party. </i></blockquote><p>Rahul gave his Mummy the chance to go back to being President of Congress in 2019. She is getting old and isn't in good health. But only Kharge, who is even older, would take that job. </p><blockquote><i>And the second question is, do you think in – yes, to implement your philosophy and your vision of the Indian politics, probably you need to win the elections, and for – to win the elections you need to defeat BJP, but do you think with Mr Kharge in – as the Party President you’re well equipped to defeat BJP in the next elections?</i></blockquote><p>No. We wanted Gehlot, but he wouldn't budge from Rajasthan. Kharge's punishment for failing to recruit Gehlot was to take the job himself. </p><blockquote><i> Rahul Gandhi Look, Mr Kharge was elected as President in a election that took place in the Congress Party, and he is the President of the Congress Party. We’re all working together to fight the BJP, and I’m extremely confident in Mr Kharge’s capabilities and his expertise. I don’t know if you know his history. Do you know his history? I mean, he’s been </i></blockquote><p>very corrupt. He is worth half a billion dollars. </p><blockquote><i>– he was a Congress worker – he’s been a Congress worker for many, many years and he’s come up the ranks and he’s an extremely capable, dynamic person. So, I’m very confident in his leadership.</i> </blockquote><blockquote><i> Ben Bland I’m going to come over here. Maybe the gentleman at the front, in the hoodie.</i> </blockquote><blockquote><i> Sriram Yeah, I’m Sriram, I’m from – I’m a Chatham House member. I just wanted to ask you, sir, like, is there any type of new policy, like how Jawaharlal Nehru-ji introduced a Non-Alignment Movement policy? Like, is there any changes that you want to introduce in the Indian foreign policy? </i></blockquote><p>No. </p><blockquote><i>Rahul Gandhi As I said, the principle of foreign policy is, unfortunately, self-interest, right? And any Indian Government would pay attention to that. So, in answering the question, [pause] the first step is, what is important to us as a country, and what are we trying to do? And what we’re trying to do is, we were a rural country and we are making a transition into an urban country. And this transition is – has a huge amount of energy, right, potential for violence, but also, potential for prosperity, potential for transformation, and we’re trying to manage this energy as it’s moving, right? If you look at our policies, they’re all – or the UPA policies, they were all about trying to manage this transition from a rural to an urban, connected country, right? So, our foreign policy will follow that idea, right?</i></blockquote><p>India wanted to industrialize under Nehru. It just went about it the wrong way. </p><blockquote><i> Our foreign policy will reflect that, right? What is – what are – what would we like to do? We would like to build a society that’s productive, a society that allows our people to have an imagination, to live happily, to be educated, to have a certain amount of healthcare. Those are things that we would – that’s what our imagination is, and our foreign policy will align with that. </i></blockquote><p>Other countries have foreign policies which aim to make their society less productive and much more unhappy- right? </p><blockquote><i> Ben Bland I’ve got a question online about climate change from Arita Sehgal, who says, “What is your vision on decarbonising India when China controls so much of the supply chain, I guess, for renewable energy?”</i></blockquote><p>Indian scientists have developed a low cost perovskite solar cells with superior thermal and moisture tolerance. That's the sort of thing Varun Gandhi could talk about till the cows come home.</p><blockquote><i> Rahul Gandhi See, I mean on the climate change issue, interesting thing I noticed in the walk was that pretty much everywhere we went, they were speaking about climate change, but they were speaking about it locally. So, they were saying, “Look, you know, it’s terribly polluted,<b> the water’s very bad, you know, it’s got fluoride in it</b>,” </i></blockquote><p>Water with fluoride is good for you. What Indians object to is water with high sewage content. </p><blockquote><i>but they were not making the connection between their local problem and the global problem, right? So, I was thinking that it’s important in India that we start to push that idea that this local problem is connected to the global problem.</i></blockquote><p>Why? People want better air and water and soil quality. That's all that matters </p><blockquote><i> So, that’s one thought, one aspect of the Yatra that came up. On, you know, what is the vision for carbon, these things are not things that one person visualises and suddenly says, you know, “This is my vision for carbon,” I mean that would be insanity, right? The way to do it is you have a conversation with people, you have a conversation with stakeholders, and you say, “Okay, so what is the best way forward?” and that’s an evolving conversation.</i></blockquote><p>Very true. If you want to have a conversation about how to boost production of indigenous wind turbines or solar cells, you need to listen to guys you meet on a walkabout. Don't bother conversing with scientists and Green entrepreneurs. </p><blockquote><i> A lot of people, sort of, they think that leadership is about, you know, sitting there and just coming up with these ideas and it doesn’t work like that. It’s about talking to people, understanding, you know, what the best, most optimal outcome is, and then, heading slowly in that direction, yeah. </i></blockquote><p>Rahul started off talking to people like Obama. Now he is listening to dudes on walkabout. </p><blockquote><i>Ben Bland Gentleman here in the glasses, at the third row, in the middle block.</i> </blockquote><blockquote><i>Zed Arun Thank you. My name is Zed Arun and I’m just a member here, but what I wanted to ask you was I know there were a lot of conversations about the narrative being taken over by BJP and RSS views, and you spoke about the challenges India – China is bringing about. But I wanted to ask you, how does – would your views or Congress’ views differ from BJP’s on Pakistan, and if there’s any difference? </i></blockquote><p>No. </p><blockquote><i>Rahul Gandhi- I mean, [pause] my personal view is that it’s important that we have good relations with everybody around us, right, but that also depends on the actions of the Pakistanis. Now, if the Pakistanis are promoting terrorism in India, that becomes very difficult to do, right, and that does happen. </i></blockquote><p>Pakistanis curb their export of terror if they are attacked in retaliation. Also killing terrorists on their soil discourages the fuck out of them. </p><blockquote><i>Ben Bland And we’ve got time for one more question. I think the lady here in the fourth row, in the – this block, yeah. Last question, yeah. </i> </blockquote><blockquote><i> Varcia Vargus Hi, my name is Varcia Vargus. I recently graduated from SOAS University of London, and I come from Kerala. So, my question is, during the Bharat Jodo Yatra, you mentioned you listened to many people, and as well, I just value the importance of listening, when people come to you, they look at someone who’s – who has a possibility of changing their lives or improving their lives. So, as someone who has a possibility of, like, becoming the future Prime Minister of India, what do you think, what actionable plans would you undertake? </i></blockquote><p>Rahul makes promises he knows he won't have to keep even if his Party comes to power in the state- as they did in Karnataka. Kerala isn't going to make the same mistake. In 2019, there was a bit of a 'Rahul wave' in Kerala. It is unlikely that Congress will keep many of the seats it gained. Rahul himself will lose Wayanad. Tharoor, however, was re-elected. </p><blockquote><i>Rahul Gandhi I mean that’s a – okay, that’s a very white canvas you’ve given me. Alright, in what space?</i> </blockquote><blockquote><i>Varcia Vargus “I could possibly improve,” or, “this is something that I should do.” If there is an incident that has touched you, or anything.</i> </blockquote><blockquote><i>Rahul Gandhi In the Yatra?</i> </blockquote><blockquote><i>Member Yeah.</i> </blockquote><blockquote><i>Rahul Gandhi [Pause] In the walk lot of women came up to me, and quite a few of the women spoke about violence that had been done to them, and in one of the cases, well, actually in many of the cases, but in one particular case, I won’t go into the details, but in one of the cases I asked the girl, “Listen” – she’d been attacked, she’d been more or less raped, and I asked her, “Listen, should we call the Police?” And she said, “No, don’t call the Police. I don’t want you to call the Police.” And I said, “Why don’t you want me to call the Police? You’ve come here, you’ve told me this, and now you don’t want me to call the Police.” And she says, “Yeah, I don’t want to call – you to call the Police because then I will be shamed,” right? So, to me, that was a very striking thing, that here is this young girl who suffered this violence against her, and now she cannot act on that violence because she’s scared that she’ll be shamed. </i></blockquote><p>Also, she knows Rahul is useless. He won't send his goons to castrate the rapists. </p><blockquote><i>So, I was thinking to myself, this poor girl is now going to live the rest of her life never telling anybody this, and it’s going to multiply the pain of what happened to her. So, that is something I think I would like to change, that the violence, the level of violence against women reduces, and particularly, this idea that – of shame, which is a completely ridiculous idea, is changed. </i></blockquote><p>Why not change the desire to rape? </p><blockquote><i>Ben Bland Right [pause]. Thank you, everyone, for joining us today. Thank you, Mr. Gandhi</i> <i> for your time and taking all the questions. <b>I’ll certainly do my best in future to not exist,</b> in the right, kind of, way and listen better, but, yeah, please join me again in giving another round of applause to Rahul Gandhi.</i></blockquote><p>There are plenty of vacuous politicians who can't string two coherent sentences together. What makes Rahul exceptional is that his aim is to make his party unelectable. Assassination tempers autocracy. Nobody bothers to kill utter cretins. </p>windwheelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18099651877551933295noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1674709389503889160.post-1084184259783133702024-02-18T20:20:00.000+00:002024-02-18T20:20:01.332+00:00vivek Iyer 62nd birthday announcement<iframe width="480" height="360" src="https://youtube.com/embed/HHCRWv-1hXA?si=vxj5KUTqkaHXQoSn" frameborder="0"></iframe>windwheelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18099651877551933295noreply@blogger.com5