Stating the obvious

Much of human actions are concerned with very primitive instinct, namely fear.

Fear is a critical faculty for survival of organism. This instinct combined with capacity for abstract thinking makes man imagine and sometimes invent danger, other animals are too preoccupied with real dangers to imagine any. I think when somehow this above combination becomes controlled it gives rise to all kinds of phobias and paranoia.

Arising from fear is the strong need for reassurance. Humans have pursued this since time immemorial.

Much of rituals in religion exist because of this. This is not limited to religion, wars are waged, massacres committed because of fear, whether of few well placed individuals or masses. I have come to believe that much of global warming cult is a manifestation of the primal instinct.

There is not much one can do against such primitive force, for which even the most developed civilizations have limited as well as ineffective antidotes.

The most effective countermeasures are, availability of information, and capability and willingness to act on intelligence well before the problem attains dangerous dimensions.

It is in this, that any action against terrorism has to be judged. US was responsible for 9-11, but not by repressing middle east or Muslims, but by failing to decisively nip the growing network of Islamic terrorism in bud during last decade.
Similarly UK should be blamed for 7-11 because it ignored to address the problem of radicalism.

The great Indian (zero sum) game

In previous posts (from distant past) I had speculated that the reason(s) socialism is so successful as a political strategy is that while superficially appearing to be concerned with exalted ideals (of humanism and altruism) in reality it appeals to the sloth and dishonest in us.

The mechanism through which it is achieved is by misrepresenting any progress as a zero sum game.
Essentially this means, in order that one may prosper another must suffer. This of course is used to pit one group against another, Farmer against industrialists, employer against employee and what not.

Each group is encouraged to grab as much as possible, irrespective whether it has done anything to earn that or not. Of course this grabbing exercise is sugar coated as social justice or such misnomers. (The rationale is that tyranny of strong is despicable, on the other hand tyranny of a mob is moral)

The real beneficiary of this set up are those who are in control. The pay off may be either wealth acquisition or as is typical increased dominance (as spokesperson for oppressed), but barring these exceptions the society is the loser.

In India, the effort to grab is not that visible, for the reason that there is less wealth to grab.

Somehow this sounds familiar, isn't it !

Recurring follies

Read what Shenoy writes

PS. Is there a need to add anything at all ?

Sen & Nonsense

The Indian history according to Mr Sen

.......... Asoka , a cool guy................... Akbar, again a dude,......................

Of course I am exaggerating, but not much.

I think the Argumentative Indian is easily one of the most over hyped work.

Mr Sen sets out from the beginning, not to discover or even elucidate about India of bygone era, but to reinterpret to suit progressive frame.

RIP

It is with profound grief that I am writing about untimely demise of my most intimate friend.

In his short life he was a great companion to this blogger (who is by nature reserved and a loner), many a evening we spent in each other's company, beholding the ancient mysteries of the existence, amazed at the subtle character of the being.

I bid adieu, with tears in my eyes, nail of my right leg's big toe, painfully aware of the chasm that surrounds the self.

Examples - II

For ref. read this post and this post

Another example

Examples - I

For this post, I hope this will suffice.

The only thing that I have to add is, I am glad Hindus did not listen to Mahatma

I say this not because I support riots, but because I think those who support appeasement are guilty of most serious misjudgement, which is that such acts of grovelling can pacify the fanatic.