Author: Yuga Parivartan yuga_parivartan

  • Civilization and barbarians

    Civilization and barbarians

    Why do you create riches if the enemy waiting behind the lines will come and take it all away one day in the future? Would not you have been better if you had invested that time in building defence and keeping the barbarians off your territory?

    Let me start by retelling early recorded Chinese history. There was once a confederation of nomadic tribes which the Chinese referred to as Xiongnu, known as the Huns today. The most famous person of the confederation being Attila the Hun who sacked the eastern Roman empire. This retelling is about Meha the Hun, an ancestor of Attila, who was able to unite the various tribes into a strong Confederacy. Meha, a brave and capable general went on to raid China repeatedly. Basically these Nomads lived off by plundering the Chinese who had a far refined culture, way of life as well as developed systems of governance. All the Huns did was bide their time and look for a perfect opportunity to attack and plunder and take away whatever they could, be it women, gold, silver, horses etc. Many would now find parallels between the Afghans and the Huns, which is true, both lived on plunder. Now let us come to the present times, Hindus are today working hard, earning money, trying to build a civilization, rather rebuild it as some of the readers may point out later on, while Pakistan or certain sections of our society are simply biding their time. They are not bothered about poverty or well being, they know they can always snatch what they like from others when the opportunity arises. Does Kairana ring a bell?

    Civilization is a delicate thing. To protect it we must strive to destroy the barbarians at the gate, at all costs. Humanity or other forms of opiates which stem from universalism or similar doctrines, should be neutralised as soon as possible and never let these problems prolong as time only strengthens the barbarians at the gate.

    When the barbarians arrive to plunder our civilization, refinement, superior ways of life will count for nothing! Seize the opportunity and smash the enemies into oblivion. Compassion is a value your enemies do not share.

    How to revive the Hindu Kshatriya spirit

    Image Source:
    http://villainstournament.wikia.com/wiki/The_Hun_Army

  • State of Right wing media in Bharat

    State of Right wing media in Bharat

    The state of right wing media is very fluid in India right now. The market is already showing some signs of consolidation with the acquisition of OpIndia by Swarajya.

    One thing which you can take away from the discussion is that there is a big potential in this market and there is big scope for rise of new portals, both in English and local languages. What is needed is a genuine effort to popularize the ideology and help each other grow.

    Right wing is a big tent now and is growing fast after Modi’s win with the rush of turncoats to identify themselves with the new winners. On most social policies though, there is not much difference between any of these media houses- all follow western liberal constructs and find it valuable for Indian society without evaluating the current rot in western societies.

    But traditions are equally important and what we need is rational defence of the old wisdom and not give in to the unabashed hedonism promoted by most mainstream media houses under the guise of individualism.

    PS: Some portals missed in the above podcast: HinduPost, Jagruk Bharat, MyIndMakers

    Image Source:
    http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/09/15/article-2421411-1BD759F2000005DC-174_634x430.jpg

  • Data shows no significant increase in pollution due to Diwali

    Data shows no significant increase in pollution due to Diwali

    The liberals are in outrage over Hindu celebration of Diwali. Since they could not find any other problem, they are outraging over some fumes caused by crackers during Diwali celebration. The irony gets lost over these arm-chair liberals who sit in AC during the whole summer, travel in airplanes and gas-guzzling SUVs, but leave no stone unturned to lecture the unwashed masses on protecting environment.

    This is what Livemint said

    The data shows that pollution levels this Diwali were far more dangerous than last year. As per the SAFAR data, last year after Diwali, the PM 2.5 levels were 428µg/m³ which was nearly six times the safe limit.

    A newspaper which prides itself on reporting finance news does not even know the concept that air quality has too many factors and it is foolhardy to compare last year with this year’s level of pollution. A cloud cover can increase pollution much more than any Diwali. Or a small rain can reduce it to unimaginable levels.

    The above figures are taken from a service which tracks air quality in real time. So what does the above figures show? There is no significant difference post Diwali i.e. Monday 31st October 2016 and the days preceding Diwali. So pollution levels were in dangerous territory the whole week before Diwali. The overall AQI hovered around 500 both before and after Diwali.

    It is obvious to anyone who understand even a little bit about air pollution that one day of Diwali will add hardly anything to the overall pollution levels in big cities, which get choked due to vehicular pollution as well as other factory emissions.

    The data punctures the narrative on high pollution levels due to Diwali. There is not much change in pollution due to Diwali even compared to previous week and the increase is definitely negligible in the overall pollution levels in a pollution sink-hole like Delhi. So, liberals can go and whine while we heathens will continue to celebrate our festivals with great pomp.

  • Indian Diwali in Fiji: festival of life

    Indian Diwali in Fiji: festival of life

    Growing up in India, Diwali was my most favourite festival. India, truly a land of festivals, has something to celebrate every other week. A few holidays have the entire country — all age groups and all religions — in their grip, as does Diwali. It is also the loudest and the brightest of celebrations, thanks to the bursting crackers and shimmering lights.

    So when I left India as a young girl, excited to be a world traveller, the one day that I missed my homeland the most was Diwali. Every year I longed for the bright and the “real” Diwali. I have now spent about half of my life outside of India. And for years I waited for a Diwali that matched the memories of my childhood, when the preparation started not weeks but months before Diwali.

    I lived in Botswana and the US before moving to Fiji. One year I even spent a few days in London during the Diwali season. In Botswana, since the Indian population was sporadically spread throughout the country, I never got the feeling of a consolidated community like we have in Fiji. The artificially created Diwali in the US seemed more like a high school function, only with a higher presence of grown-ups. Yes, there were streamers and catered food, and we did dress up one Saturday evening to gather in a school or community hall to commemorate the passing of Diwali — but we did not exchange homemade sweets, nor did we contemplate for weeks the colour of our Diwali outfit with our friends, nor did I ever hear of “Diwali cleaning.”

    Oh, how I craved the long extended Diwali preparations of India that continued for weeks, and the actual celebration that lasted for almost four days. The day before Diwali, when we “almost” celebrated Diwali, was labelled Chhoti Diwali — “little Diwali.” On Choti Diwali, we dressed up just not as bright as for Diwali, we had fireworks just not as loud or for as long, we ate special sweets just not the ones being offered to the deities. We were preparing for Diwali.

    So not until the Diwali of 2006, which I celebrated in Fiji, did I feel the thumping of my heart for the festival of lights with the same intensity as it did in India. The Diwali of 2006 almost replicated the Diwali of my childhood. Just like the Diwali of my childhood there was also a building up to the final celebrations — slow, gradual, extended, and with much anticipation and hope.

    Although there were no Ramlilas being staged, I first felt the warm electric spark of Diwali when the lady at the Hare Krishna restaurant, right across from USP, dropped the plate she was serving me in to rush to the balcony. “What, what happened??” I asked, panicking. “Oh, she loves fireworks!” exclaimed the other hostess as she ran out as well. I followed the eager spectators, nearly tripping on the side tables. I shared their joy as they revelled in the faint sounds of fireworks about half a mile away — and just smiled in reminiscence. The bursting joy, the cracking sounds, the fragrant memories, the flickering magical lights of the Diwali of my childhood had returned. That was almost three weeks before Diwali.

    Slowly, over the next three weeks I would see symbols of celebration spring up — bhajans replaced boisterous Bollywood songs, the stores in Suva were beginning to sell Diwali paraphernalia, diyas in all sizes and colours, family-size packets of incense, camphor and other puja material were on display. Special hand-painted Ganesha and Lakshmi adorned the sales windows of Indian shops. Bright lights went up on houses and shops, temples decked the idols in new and even brighter clothes, visitors to temples had increased — and there was a general air of happy anticipation around. And something that I had not witnessed anywhere else but in India: Diwali ads on Fiji TV.

    I knew then that I was in for a memorable Diwali.

    That I was invited to the nine-day affair of Navratras — when women dance in temples for nine straight nights — was surprising enough, but the fact that I had invitations to the celebration at three different venues was unbelievable. Even in Delhi, where I grew up, I had never attended a Garba dance. I chose to attend the function at the Lakshmi Narayan temple in Suva. Almost three weeks before Diwali, women of all ages were already dressed in their finest threads. These delicately and richly clothed women danced with such poise that I almost forgot to take pictures.

    The Suva Indian Association, almost a week before Diwali, had a celebration at the Kshatriya Hall on Devoux Road. But it was the morning that set the celebration as typically Indo-Fijian. Instead of busily ironing sarees, reading newspapers or watching morning cartoons, men, women and children were gathered the morning of the celebration to cook food for the evening. The food we ate that evening was cooked by people who had known each other for decades. I overheard stories of new brides who were now mothers of twenty-year-olds. Being an outsider and a newcomer to Fiji, I had nothing to share but all to imbibe. That morning in Suva, I got a whiff of that long-sustained Indian community in Fiji. And that evening, when I saw young Indo-Fijians dancing along with Fijian and Chinese children, I knew that this small island country is not just maintaining the old but working very hard to incorporate the new and different into its present.

    The day before Diwali, I was in town and was awestruck to see almost everyone on the street dressed in bright clothes. That day was one of the most memorable shopping days for me. I got served by women clad in silk and chiffon and adorned in intricate jewellery. The bank teller, the hostess at the restaurant, the helper at the shoe store, and even the woman selling me vegetables were all dressed like Bollywood actresses. The Diwali fever had spread to non-Hindus as well — Fijian women wore salwar-kameezes, Muslim women wore shinier hijabs that matched their outfits. It really was not a religious holiday. Diwali seemed synonymous with celebration.

    Image: One of the stores in Suva, Fiji decorated for Diwali
    Representative restoration image generated because the original image was not embedded in the supplied HTML.
    One of the stores in Suva, Fiji

    The Diwali day itself was just as busy, bright and boisterous as I remember in India — phone calls from friends, gifts, boxes of homemade sweets, Rangoli outside the houses! And it is a national holiday! Finally Diwali was Diwali, celebrated on the actual day with great pomp and show — complete with the sound of firecrackers and the smell of gunpowder.

    Later that evening, my friend Kirti, who is an Indo-Fijian, took me for a Diwali drive to see the lights and we took plates of homemade sweets to our neighbours. We visited her parents and ate delicious homemade food, and we took pictures.

    In Fiji that year, I became a ten-year-old again — excited at every sound, smell and taste of Diwali, and yet sad that within a few hours it would all be over. So I kept awake till late, listening to the firecrackers. I lay on my couch with the contentment of a well-fed, well-gratified person — for my craving for a real Diwali had been appeased.

    But it was months after Diwali, when I truly acknowledged what a unique experience I had had, when in mid-December I saw a sign at the Prouds in Suva. The sign, bright and red, pasted on the window where a huge idol of Ganesha was displayed, simply said: “We wish you a Merry Christmas.” And to the memories of my ideal Diwali, another image of the beauty of unity in celebration, regardless of religion, had been added. Only in Fiji.

    Written by Charu Uppal. Originally published October 28, 2016 on Yuga Parivartan.
  • Evolutionary banter about pre-marital sex, stress and divorce

    Evolutionary banter about pre-marital sex, stress and divorce

    Brothelwood has always taken upon itself to promote degeneracy and the open promotion of promiscuity and one night stands is the natural step forward for such an organization. The new movie Befikre will be just another addition to the long list of movies made to hollow out the remaining cultural norms of an already decaying civilization.

    So what made premarital sex such a taboo in the civilized world?

    Premarital sex is very harmful in pair bonding and leads to unhappiness and divorce. It does affect men and women differently though. The divorce risk goes up for every partner that a women has ever had. The below figure is reported from a survey on American women and it can be easily seen that divorce rate goes up from around 5/7% for women with zero partners before marriage to almost 35% as they reach 10+ partners. (Funny part- The study is named counter intuitive trends in the link between pre-marital sex and divorce rate! Well it was never counter intuitive for civilizations of the past.)
    The above trend also holds true for happiness and not just for marriage. Women with more number of sexual partners also report lower happiness. Similar studies are well documented around the internet and are frequent point of talk among the western red pilled men. While the men do not show similar decrease in happiness or increased divorce risk as compared to women, there are negative impacts on men as well. The negative impact on men usually comes in the form of handling breakups. Men often seem stoic and indifferent but relationship breakup hits them harder. So, the consequences for men appear more devastative in the short term, which are nevertheless important and should not be ignored. Actually men face higher chance of falling into depression and substance abuse post divorce as reported here and here. Let us add the third fact here- Women initiate almost 70% of all divorces.

    Although the psychologists can give varied answers (or non answers) to the above, but digging into evolutionary biology can give insight into all these puzzles. Lets highlight some evolutionary facts-

    1. 20% of men ever passed their genes compared to 80% women, so average female have been biologically more successful than average male. See here and here.
    Recent evidence for male deaths in different tribes

    1. At the end of wars, while adult males were killed, women were taken as prisoners of war
    1. Women’s sexual market value decrease as they age (decreased beauty, reproductive value), while it is reverse for men as they get richer and powerful

    So, how does it all fit together to cause decreased happiness for women (with large number of sexual partners) in the long run? While at the same time causing depression among men after breakups and divorces. Point 1, goes towards showing that women are the more valuable of the two sexes due to their contribution to the formation of next generation. So a few top tier men are sufficient for mating with most of the women. This had been true for most of human history before society became more egalitarian and monogamy was enforced in one way or the other. But this imbalance still shows up in modern law and social sciences, as otherwise there is no reason to fund very few studies on problems faced by divorced men. To give example from Bharat, there is almost no media coverage on abuse of laws like 498a against men, further enforcing the viewpoint that eggs are expensive while sperms are cheap.

    Point 2 is important to understand the docile nature of women as compared to men. Since women were often captured in wars due to their reproductive value for the invading tribe, they escaped the fate of men from the losing tribe as the latter were almost always killed. The women who easily forgot their native tribe and surrendered to the dominance of new tribe had an easy time surviving while those who were steadfast in defending their native tribe would have had difficult time in surviving. Either they would have been killed for making too much nuisance or they might have killed themselves due to emotional pressure. This essentially means that current females are selected from the set of docile females, who were able to switch their loyalty. Men on the other hand survived only if they fought well and dominated their enemies.

    Point 3 is very difficult to swallow for many people and they would come up with all kinds of explanations to refute it. There are other qualities in women that men would look up before marrying but youthfulness is one of the most important ones. This can be seen in the study done on data from the dating website called OKCupid. Read here.
    a1
    Men’s age is on the vertical axis, while women on horizontal. The pink numbers represent preferred age of women.

    Results from this study show that 20 or 21 old girls are preferred by men of all ages. The above graph also overlays the top two quartiles (25%) of ratings given by men, shown in dark and light pink i.e. the top 50% of ratings. You can see young women (below 27) capture the top 25% ratings. To quote the author-

    the male pattern runs much deeper than just a preference for 20-year-olds. And after he hits thirty, the latter half of our age range (that is, women over 35) might as well not exist. Younger is better, and youngest is best of all, and if “over the hill” means the beginning of a person’s decline, a straight woman is over the hill as soon as she’s old enough to drink.

    Of course, one can come up with few counter examples here and there but that do not change evolutionary facts that reproductive value drive male choice for younger females. On the other hand women almost prefer men of their own age.

    Now let’s put together these evolutionary facts together to explain the unhappiness of women, stress in divorced men and high divorce rate initiated by women. The unhappiness of women and divorce are closely related. Since women lose their sexual market value over time, it means over time the quality of males they attract goes down due to competition from younger females. Since premarital sex is no longer a taboo and marriages are often delayed, this essentially means that girls start having sexual encounters from an early age up until they get married. Somewhere around 24-25 years a girl might have best chance of getting married given optimal financial stability and fertility at this age, but from 25 onwards increased financial ability cannot compensate for ageing.

    So as a woman ages, she has to increasingly settle down for a lower quality mate than her previous encounters. This results in unhappiness later in life due to previous experiments (mistakes) and lost chances of settling down. The disenchantment naturally goes up with the number of sexual partners as it further delays the marriage as well as increase the baseline expectation of mate value (due to more experiment) to compare the present mate with. This is nothing but reflection of The Paradox of Choice, arising due to negative emotions arising from missed opportunities.

    Men on the other hand do not face similar problem as women. Men’s attractiveness to women comes primarily from their status as a provider, which essentially means how rich and powerful they are. Although, there are other factors but a 30 year old male is usually richer and does not lose mate value as fast as women. So, large number of sexual encounters for men do not translate directly into negative emotions from missed opportunities later in life as there are no missed opportunities since the quality of mates they attract actually goes up as they age. But there is another significant factor at play here. Go back to point 1 in evolutionary facts i.e. only 20% of males ever passed on their genes. In a free sexual market, it is the top males (alpha) who corner a large and significant part of this market. This can be seen from the study on American individuals as reported in the table below.

    a1

    While a lot of women lie in the middle range, it is top 33% men who have large number of sexual encounters which accounts for more sexual partners than the bottom 67% together. So, in a free sexual market, a large percentage of men would not have any experience to look back upon and face the same missed opportunity conundrum as faced by an average women or if they have experience it would improve over time before their sexual market value slowly fades away.

    But what explains the presence of post divorce/breakup stress among men? Go back to point 2 and culling of men during wars. Evolutionarily, men hardly ever survived the loss of their female partners. It was men who were sent to die in wars or engaged in hazardous activities. This is reflected even today by lower life expectancy for males due to their engagement in hard labour industries. Add to it the above point 2 on survival of women after being captured by enemy. While today’s females are descendants of the survivors of past females, who learnt to suppress their emotions of death of kith and kin and accepted dominance of new tribe, men were almost always killed or failed to pass on their genes. So, men did not learn to suppress their emotion that arises from loss of a partner. While men did grow out of love of an old partner but it was never about snapping of ties at the drop of a hat. This explains why so many men take to substance abuse or contemplate suicides post failed relationships. The same stress can be spotted even among men who lose their wives and are less able to deal with the loss of spouse. This lack of evolutionary experience in dealing with spouse loss also explains how stable marriages help men.

    This brings us to the last part of the puzzle- why women initiate more divorce than men? The same reason which explain post divorce stress among men, also explains why men file substantially lesser number of divorces than women. Looking again at points 2 and 3 of our evolutionary facts explains choice of women. Since women have been selected for bearing emotional loss of their mate, they are better prepared evolutionarily to handle post breakup problems and deal with their emotions. Coupled with the explanation for large sexual number of partners leading to unhappiness due to The Paradox of Choice, modern women are unhappy in their marriages. Since, they are unhappy and are better adapt at handling fallout of emotional stress post divorce, they go ahead with the decision. But since their Sexual market value keeps falling with age, they fail to attract higher value mate and get caught in the vicious cycle of regret spell due to missed opportunities.

    A smart society with strong cultural norms understands how evolutionary algorithms can ruin the happiness of men and women unless society puts some checks and balances on the lizard brain. The decay of west should be a wake up call to all sane societies. Question is- will Bharat rise to this challenge and stop the spread of degeneracy being served right into their living rooms under the grab of liberalism and modernity by Bollywood?

  • A discussion on Marriage

    A discussion on Marriage

    The following discussion looks at the institution of marriage from Hindu perspective and what each party gains from the institution. Since this institution developed independently across all societies, marriage should serve some teleological function.

    D:

    Regarding this modern woman problem, the issue is the halo attached to this thing called ‘career’. This is originally a Protestant idea where routine work came to be seen as service to god. In the ancient texts we read that duty of men was to bring wealth and glory to the family. Women were care-givers for the family. Both worked for the family in their different capacities. But ‘career’ is for oneself. Once men get hooked on it, it is unfair to expect women to remain care-givers for the family. If salvation for men lies in building careers for themselves, the same will be demanded by women as well. I see men as the root of the problem here. They have switched from being ‘settler’ to ‘hunter’. Women merely emulate men in whatever they do.

    DF:

    So much of the modern world can be traced back to Protestantism.

    PT:

    DF the primary motivations under Protestantism is also the same, but protestantism spins it into work is worship. That’s the point. The primary motivation is always the same because humans are all the same animals fundamentally. The religions shape our baser instincts into something greater. Counter religions just do a shoddy job of it IMHO.

    AS:

    Within the confines of religion, counter religions sacralize primal instincts of man. For example, Islam grants four wives to men along with infinite number of sex slaves. It incentivizes aggression against a perceived ‘enemy’. So naturally, anyone choosing Islam is not maladaptive as far as base instincts are considered evolutionarily. The women on the other hand have a steady supply of good number of alpha men. Men who are polygamous and ever ready for war. Where Counter-religions fail is at building civilization. The costs of polygamy and being in war always within or without makes them incapable of building civilization.

    Also as far as women participation in the industrialized work force is concerned I would blame that on not only ‘feminism’ but also viewing women as primarily economic beings. This erodes the inherent value they come with- which is giving birth. Consequently, the relation between working women of today and their low TFR makes eminent sense.

    About ‘Sex’ being the primary motivation for men to marry. I think this whole approach is wrong from a Hindu perspective. Creating dichotomies between sex, procreation, filial piety, etc. is wrong. I have seen numerous Hindu couples who have got married without consummating the marriage.

    YP:

    Good point AS. Islam is a war machine and is used to gain new territory, but once in peace it cannot build civilization unless it gives up its Islamic core.

    AS:

    Their aim is not to bring order which civilization brings and with that progress. That is why they are unmattas.

    DF:

    Procreation and sex being divorced is very much a post-contraceptive development.

    AS:

    Due to degeneracy or for that even the way marriage was conceptualized in the Judeo-Abrahamic traditions. Sex is often seen as the primary motivation of marriage. It is a very good incentive, no doubt. And biologically perhaps the single biggest motivation for men to marry. Women of course have their own motivations to marry. But we are I feel not analysing the role of Religion and culture in bringing about marriages. Religion as PT pointed out curbs the primal urges to bring about a modicum of order. And we cannot discount that. DF, contraception is just an excuse. The larger forces at play is progressivism. Islamic societies still do allow free sex.

    YP:

    Successful easily available contraception is not an excuse. But you can say putting condom machine at every corner is definitely a choice by state.

    DF:

    Of course, but contraception is a dysgenic technology which has altered our understanding of sex/reproduction/marriage.

    AS:

    Granted. But who or what incentivizes the use of contraceptives? What I am trying to say is contraception is just a tool.

    DF:

    Liberal democratic state 🙂

    AS:

    Yes.

    DF:

    I’m making an entirely different point though.

    AS:

    Yes DF I got your point.

    PT:

    My point in saying sex is the primary motivation of men to marry is the base instinct. Why else marry, if you can simply sleep with whoever you want? And we can see that once women started sleeping around in the West and there was easy access to sex through these women plus porn, men have stopped marrying. It has nothing to do with the Hindu perspective, rather I’m hypothesizing about the fundamental reason marriage existed at all in all societies everywhere.

    YP:

    Historically speaking marriage was a way to get alliance and resources as well. But yes, in the end resource acquisition too boils down to value in sexual market. Cannot close eyes to its primacy.

    PT:

    Well let’s say there’s no marriage at all, then no one inherits any property right? Along with the institution of marriage Svetaketu also instituted property rights. So inheritance/alliance/resources pre-Svetaketu didn’t exist?

    YP:

    They must have existed in some form.

    PT:

    Well not property rights but inheritance laws. See here’s what I’m trying to figure out. Why marriage? What does a man gain out of marriage, similarly what does a woman?

    AS:

    PT- why would men marry if they get free sex like in the West? It used to be the case pre-Svetaketu. Of course, no one here is saying that sex is not one of the motivations of marriage. But there are other elements to marriage which the elders and wise understood and hence imposed upon the philandering men and women. Religion/Culture played a crucial motivational role.

    YP:

    I did not say sex does not play a role. It is primary market. Even other resources help in the same market. So thinking that it does not matter is foolhardy for Hindus.

    SV:

    The primary beneficiary of marriage (or similar agreement as in animal) is female in keeping the male bound as female is the known parent and the one that knows the male parent of offspring. Male’s motivation is two-fold: its fiefdom without which its existence is meaningless, and its possession of female (which again is twofold, mating and ownership).

    AS:

    Yes, what I am saying is along what YP is saying I guess.

    PT:

    Fiefdom in what SV? Isn’t ownership of the female the same as mating rights? Else ownership in what sense? I know the motivation for women. It is to have a protector, resources. Men I still don’t fully grasp.

    YP:

    Beta men gain by marriage! Weaker men have fitness incentive to not sow the oats everywhere but use one partner and see that his genes get passed on.

    AS:

    SV- in keeping the male bound, does the Female also possess the man?

    SV:

    Not just mating – the region it owns and rules, the food that the female gets, the protection of offspring, holding the sense of unit (pride or clan or family) etc.

    PT:

    Yes, YP I know that. One way I look at marriage is that it exists only to restrain alphas and enable betas to lead fulfilling lives.

    SV:

    Female possesses the male too, but I guess it is not of the same nature. Say for instance Sita tells Hanuman she does not know whether Rama’s affection for her is more or his ego of owning her.

    PT:

    AS if you look at the data on how marriage causally reduces crime it’s because the woman controls the finances as well as persuades the man not to indulge in risk taking behaviour.

    SV:

    After all things of nature apply to both genders but to varying degrees.

    PT:

    The civilizing aspect of marriage is because women control men within marriage and because men have duty to women. Simply being married in itself restricts a man’s liberty.

    AS:

    PT, yes aware of that. SV, interesting.

    SV:

    Call it restriction of liberty or finding a means of fulfilment through family 🙂

    PT:

    All limiting of that kind of liberty is good according to me so I use it interchangeably.

    AS:

    In a marriage, therefore, the man gives away his liberty, in exchange of ‘fiefdom’. I get it now.

    PT:

    Men probably gain much more than women in marriage else women wouldn’t initiate divorces.

    AS:

    So we both understand the teleos of marriage and how it is beneficial from a man as well as women’s perspective.

    YP:

    Not true PT. Women now marry the social security. Women would have cheated even in the past or would have had dalliances but they would not get divorce, just because state would not fund them.

    SV:

    I guess women initiate divorces because they stop thinking like women (except in extreme cases of course).

    YP:

    The institution of marriage has changed over time, giving more power to women both in and outside the marriage. If you give progeny to the male, divorce would again fall. But in the west 80-90% times they get child custody.

    AS:

    Yes, laws are destroying civilization.

    Good point YP.

    YP:

    Divorce is a function of incentives. So you can say modern marriage don’t offer much to the women (in the west). Not so much true in Asia yet.

    AS:

    Interesting to note how the institution of marriage has changed based on progressive legislations.

    SV:

    Modern marriage is no marriage at all. It is a joke – sleep around for years and get married just like that and then separate when you want.

    AS:

    I am with the classical liberals here when they say that the state should have no role in passing out marriage certificates. If you stop that much of the stresses on modern marriage would go.

    PT:

    Right that makes sense, YP.

    AS:

    Let the ownership of marriage return to the society.

    Discussants- AS- @Abhra Sarkar, D- @Damanaka, PT- @PaganTrad, SV- @SkandaVeera, YP- @YugaParivartan

    Image Source:

    https://partycruiserevents.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/homa_agni.jpg

  • Game theory: what makes SF raid inside Pak optimal

    Game theory: what makes SF raid inside Pak optimal

    India under the leadership of PM Modi is finally showing the signs of coming out of “Kadi Ninda” or no response regime to terrorist acts of Pakistan. In the aftermath of Uri terrorist attack, Indian Army conducted a raid on terrorist camps inside PoK, the camps which were used as launching pads for the terrorists. There are two things which make this raid special. 1) Overt declaration by the army, that it conducted such an operation and 2) the size and scale of this operation, which targeted multiple such terrorist hideouts across the whole LoC. The first point is the more important change here because even in the past small time raids have been conducted across LoC to keep up the troop morale but it was never meant to get a nod/reaction from the government. But what made the current PM Modi government change this?

    One should look at this scenario using Game Theory and understand it in terms of assessing relative Payoffs for each player i.e. India, Pakistani government and Pakistani Army. First of all, one needs to understand that the current adversary for India i.e the real opponent, which takes all decisions is the Pak military generals. Pak’s overall population and politicians, although hostile are just pawns in the game, not the decision makers. So one can ignore them for most of this analysis.

    Before this SF raid, the Pak generals achieved positive Payoff by committing proxy terrorist attacks in India. They get a Payoff- the benefit of positive adulation from Islamic supremacists and the overall Pak population. Any criticism was deflected by claims that it is third party actors committing the terrorist atrocities and not the Pak military. Also the Pak military keeps getting funded as they keep peddling the inherent Muslims persecuted by Yindoos myth and the need for an effective Pak military to counter Yindoo kafirs.

    Now the Payoffs from the Indian perspective, up until the recent PM Modi government, perceived options were limited. Terrorist acts in India were negative Payoffs, but the alternatives were considered even worse. Cold Start Doctrine, which was formed post 2001 Parliament attacks, was obviously considered as a non starter because of the fears of escalation to nuclear conflict. Indian leaders had to consider the death of millions on the Indian side, whereas Pak generals don’t give a shit if millions die on their side. Basically Pak generals were by accident or design positively playing the “Game”.

    So what could have been done to reduce the Payoffs for these Pak Generals. First of all, CSD is a non starter, as the payoffs from a nuclear conflict remain the same, i.e. millions die from both sides as Pak Generals think it’s for the greater Islamic good. Without a credible ABM shield for India in the 90%+ effective range, there is no way that the relative payoffs can change in the near future.

    On the other hand, any strike backs on the Pak military/civilian or terrorist assets, without giving the Pak generals an excuse for all out war, would achieve negative Payoff for them, as it would make them look impotent/incompetent/stupid from the perspective of the Pak population and Islamists generally. On the other hand liberal Pak politicians would achieve positive Payoff by being in a position to finally take on the generals.

    So what forms can such strike backs that don’t escalate into a full blown nuclear war be? Well first of all, support for freedom movements and balkanisation by proxy is a definite tactic that seems to be working at the moment. PM Modi’s support to Balochistan should be seen in this perspective. Whether or not the current Modi government is actually supporting the Baloch freedom movements, the Pak generals seem impotent to do anything about it. Hence the negative Payoff and their whining, which is good news for India.

    Additionally any Indian strikes at specific targets like the ones that happened this week also achieve the same objective as long as the Pak generals don’t have an excuse to escalate it to full blown war. Indeed the strikes don’t even have to be particularly accurate as long as they cause negative publicity in Pakistan and the Pak generals are shown as weak and impotent to do anything about it. Take out terrorist leaders, or camps by all means. But even if there is collateral damage as long as it is mostly to infrastructure rather than people, India can always say- Oops, so sorry, we were hunting terrorists. Blow up a bridge, a ship whatever. Just say- Oops, so sorry collateral damage. Keep firing off artillery, as Modi government did in 2015. Pak will criticise it, but Pak generals cannot do anything about it and will look impotent.

    Now once having explained the rationale for retribution against Pak, the question why to make it explicit and declare that India targeted terrorist launch pads. Fans of covert only operations fail to realise that covert strike is not a valid option against a major terrorist attack. Covert operations is a long term strategy with a long term payoff of balkanisation/instability, but it has no effect on single terrorist incidents. Look at the perpetrators of the previous Mumbai incidents, they are still roaming freely in Pakistan. Also covert operations do not preclude overt operations. No one can argue against covert operations, but as a background longer term strategy. In shorter term, overt action gives the signal and shows India’s resolve to not sit back in case of a terrorist attack. Also, this is the only way to show weakness and impotence of Pak Generals, which covert operations cannot.

    Also read, Why raid by SF inside Pakistan is strategically brilliant.

    The ultimate objective of Game Theory is to induce alternative behaviours in your opponent. During the Cold War, Game Theory was used to prevent all out war between the US and USSR, whilst still each side asserting their interests. Game Theory is said to have been used by Kennedy during the Cuban missile crisis, to browbeat the Soviets into recalling their ships. The negative payoff to Pak General should be seen in this regard.

  • Why raid by SF inside Pakistan is strategically brilliant

    Why raid by SF inside Pakistan is strategically brilliant

    There are news doing rounds since yesterday that India conducted a special operation inside Pakistan to avenge the Uri terrorist attack. This was first published in an exclusive report by Quint. GoI has neither validated nor denied anything about this operation, which is again a very significant step in maintaining operational secrecy. If it really happened, then it is brilliant strategic move and signifies India has come out of age and is ready to sit on the world stage with big boys.

    There could have been two conventional responses from Indian side:

    1. India could have used irregulars and hidden assets in Pak for the same operation but that would not have delivered the same signal as this raid would evoke in Pakistan Army’s mind. Using irregulars from Af-Pak border to come in and do the job would not generate awe and change in Indian’s stance of the past.
    1. Or India could have shelled Pakistan border like it did in 2015, but would have been called escalation and amounts to declaration of war without saying so.

    But this raid shows some very important change in India’s posturing:

    1. If it is true, India will be doing what USA is doing for past decade.
    1. Now the onus is on Pakistani army to respond and show it is not paper tiger. It is brilliant from strategic and diplomatic point of view.
    1. It shows Pak army weak and in a way calls out their nuke bluff, if Pak does not respond heavily to Indian instigation by selecting time and place to shoot down Pakistan soldiers.

    This is probably the way to fight this war for India. You come and kill our army men, and we will just raid across and kill equal or more of your regular troops. While you send irregulars for deniability, we send regulars but don’t say anything. Could there have been a better way to show how impotent Pak Army actually is?

    It is not declaration of war but if Pakistan wishes India will give it war.

    It completely changes the defensive strategy India has used forever against state sponsored terrorism. This generates collateral damage and loss of face, the only thing which hurts Pakistan Army.

    To save its face if Pakistan owns up terrorists as its regulars, then it is overt declaration of war. On the other hand, India by sending its regulars shows that it has joined the league of big boys and does not care about world opinion when it comes to national security and delivering hard message to its enemies.

    Indeed war should happen on time and place of India’s choosing.

  • Why Western “civilization” is not a civilization, let alone a superior one

    Why Western “civilization” is not a civilization, let alone a superior one

    There is so much propaganda on the internet, movies (specially Hollywood, but sometimes in Bollywood and other local Indian film industries as well), press (most of the national press especially the ones run in English language) about how Western “civilisation” is superior and how they civilised the whole world. This is specially true among the conservatives and the StormFront type white nationalists/superiority advocates, and they use this notion to justify the hundreds of millions their countries slaughtered, looted and starved. For instance the British barbarians today, typically justify their barbaric looting along the lines of “We gave India the science and technology, rail roads etc and hence our looting and starvation of hundreds of millions of Indians is OK”, even though it is pathetically false through and through as shown in this article Myth of British helping India. This propaganda is so pathetic that modern day “rationalists” like Sam Harris claim that western interventions today is Ok since western civilization and way of life is superior and interventions are a way of bringing said civilisation to the rest of the world. For instance Sam Harris even remarked how British and Portuguese helped end Sati in India, partially justifying millions of people that Portuguese genocided in Goa with their Goan inquisition and hundreds of millions the British barbarians starved to death during their loot, even though the truth is that Sati was banned by both Sikhs and Marathas, long before the British did it in their respect areas and was a practiced in areas where Indians/Hindus were not in power like Bengal as a self defence against Muslim barbarians. In fact, Hindu voice against Sati is much older and it is prohibited even in the Vedas, as shown here by Koenraad Elst. As one can see, this argument of western civilisation being superior is often used as a justification to intervene and destroy other countries, much like USA spreading democracy in Iraq.

    So it is imperative to understand the term “western civilization” for what it is to safeguard our civilization from the looting barbarians today. In the past, several non western publications poked holes in the notions of western superiority to show Westerners a mirror whenever they started denigrating others. But for some reason, that seems to be lost today because of the shameless western wannabeness among the middle class Indians and Indian elites, because of their colonised minds. Their media, much like Indian media, never shows the actual face of the Western countries or their barbaric societies and hence Indians have a very rosy view of the west, far removed from reality. This is a recent phenomenon though, as many in the past used to point out west for it what it is to their face before, much like what Mahatma Gandhi said about Western “civilisation”. When asked about it, he famously quipped that “It would be a good idea”, meaning if west had a civilisation, it would be a good idea. So Indians need to know what a shallow soulless garbage western “civilisation” is to counter both the Strom front and Brietbart type of white supremacists on the internet and to prevent the inevitable decay of our civilisation if we ever follow the western “civilisational” model.

    Western Civilisation is not a civilisation

    The most pathetic claim about the notion of Western Civilisation is that western countries are civilisation to begin with. So what do they actually mean by the term western civilisation? The term Western civilisation refers to the descendants of the “Western half of the Roman empire and its descendants” while the Eastern Roman empire or the Byzantium Empire is traditionally called the Eastern Roman empire. This is where the term comes from. But how legitimate is the claim that western civilisation is the descendants of the Western Roman empire? As one will shortly see, not very much.

    The majority of the claimants of western civilisation are not actual descendants of the Western Roman empire to begin with. For example, the flag bearers of supposed western civilisation today, United Kingdom, Germany, and its descendants in United States and Anglosphere, the Anglo Saxons are not actually descendants of Roman civilisation or culture and are just barbaric Anglo Saxon tribes (as referenced during Roman period) which robbed and looted and eventually settled in present day England, Germany. They are not Romans, but rather the barbaric tribes which scavenged the corpse of the dying and decaying Roman empire and carved their own respected societies in modern day Britain and Germany. Then of course, the Britain got invaded and conquered by the Scandinavians, who themselves were barbaric Vikings (and one can even now see association of Americans to Vikings to relate their history and ancestry today) in the 6-7th century well after the fall of the Roman empire to warring barbaric hordes. Similarly, the French today are the descendants of Frankish tribes which carved out their own kingdom in France or Gaul, as known in Roman empire. These are the same people which then went onto settle in USA, Canada and Australia. They have little or nothing to do with the Roman civilisation. The same is true for most other European countries as well. Their claims of being western civilisation is their pathetic attempt at trying to forge a history of civilization pre-dating their colonial era of barbarity and looting, which isn’t filled with barbarity and hunter gathering tribes as was the case with most of their histories. They attempt to paint themselves as the Western civilization because without that illegitimate claim, their actual history is nothing but that of barbarity, loot and rapes, unlike a civilizational country like India, China or even Persia/Iran.

    These claims of being descendants of western civilisation by the Anglo Saxon west or indeed the majority of west is of course as legitimate as that of a poor fatherless bastard claiming his successful rich neighbour as his own dad to make up for the fact that he doesn’t have a dad or that he is an illegitimate bastard. Hence, the term western civilisation is by itself is an illegitimate and pathetic one and a more apt description would be to call them as modern nation states without any actual history. The truth is, most of them actually know it deep down, specially in the colonial countries like Canada, Australia and USA. They often make up for their lack of legitimate history or civilisation with artificial stories of greatness and of course trying to downplay the achievements of actual civilisations like Bharatiya or Chinese civilization through their communist coolies and sepoys here through their use of deliberately corrupted Indology and with attempts to rename Indian subcontinent as South Asia, for example.

    Of course, there is no actual western civilisation today as not even Italians can claim Roman heritage today. Rome is dead so are its customs and languages. While Shri Rama still enlightens the heart of any true Bhartiya today, does Jupiter generate any veneration in the hearts of Italians? The Roman civilization died the moment it adopted the worship of the bastard Jew from Bethlehem (ironically situated in Arabia/Asia). The original Roman culture or the western culture of worshipping Jupiter or Juno is long dead and what is present is a cheap Abrahamic culture which masquerades as a descendant of the Roman culture since facing the reality of lack of any history or culture on their own is embarrassing. This is especially hilarious when seen in the context of Scandinavia which had nothing whatsoever to do with “Western Civilisation” or Roman Empire,not even in the slightest, and still gets lumped together to cite western countries. Ironically, even the camel banging Bedouins of Saudi Arabia or other barbaric Islamic nations can at the very least claim a religion and culture of their very own unlike Europeans who resort to worshipping an Asian Jew/Semite while calling themselves “superior culture or civilisation”.

    Why Western superiority is a Myth

    The second problem with assertion of western civilizational superiority is of course the very assertion that the western society is superior in the first place. The truth of the matter is that, the supposed western superiority these people talk about is a very recent and a transient phenomenon borne out of looting, pillage and genocide against actual civilisations and not really their own achievement. This is evident from the fact that the only period of time where the supposedly superior west even had an edge over proper civilisations of Asia, i.e. during the 18-20th century is also the time they looted and raided the Asian civilisations to enrich their pathetic decadent societies. As soon as the decolonisation, caused primarily by Hitler’s breaking of colonial empires backs, an inter-barbarian civil war among the European barbarians, made them too weak to hold onto their colonies, they descended back into their historical role in the world- playing second fiddle to Asian civilisations

    Ever since the loss of their colonies, western countries like UK, Germany, French etc, is back to their barbaric and decadent ways of mediocrity and are today once again back to being the second fiddles to Asian countries and proper civilizations, like India, China, Japan or South East Asia or is in the process of losing out to the above like USA, which is on its decline. This is not anything new to known Human history of 8000 years. Indians and Chinese were living in large cities in Indus Valley and Yangtze river by 3000BCE, when the Scandinavians, Britons, French were still hunter gathering barbarians even in 7th century. Asia was the centre of arts, culture, science, philosophy, religion for most of Human history. India was the centre of the world for religion, arts, culture, science and philosophy, having also taught the other South East Asian countries like, Japanese and Chinese. The supposed western rise of the 18th century was due to western conquest and genocide of four continents – the two Americas, Africas and Australia- and not because of their greatness. Even many of the technologies used for these conquests were copied from the East in the initial phase of colonization.

    Of course one could argue that the conquest of proper civilisation like Indians, Chinese or South East Asia was only possible because of western superiority but that is a nonsensical argument. Superior army tactics doesn’t equate to being a superior civilisation. Nobody in their right mind calls the Gengiz khan and his horde of Mongolian horse back raiding barbaric thugs as a superior civilisation just because they managed to conquer China, Persia, Europe(Russia) and Central Asia. We just call them barbarians with superior military tactics who destroyed the civilised world for their own profit. Similarly,the western colonialists which conquered the proper civilisations like India, South East Asia or China are not superior civilizations but rather just barbaric thugs with better military tactics and they looted, plundered and killed hundreds of millions, sometimes even in the name of the bloodthirsty psychopathic monotheistic God for filling their treasury. If western barbarians are to be considered superior civilization because they conquered others, then so should be the Mongolian barbarians under Gengiz Khan. In short, military strength is not what demonstrates the superiority of a civilisation and the only superiority west had was that, else everything it acquired was by looting others and preventing others from developing. Also, European military superiority is a 200-300 year glitch in 8000+ years of written civilization, where Asians dominated the world and are on the way to dominate it again.

    Asia had the largest GDP, had the better science (Indians and Chinese had Heliocentrism for 4000 years, while Europe was still persecuting Galileo for heliocentric theories in 16th century), better religions (Europeans or west doesn’t have a religion of their own and worship an Asian Jew), better societies with even caste ridden India was a much better place for the lower castes than the peasant life (peasant castes as opposed to Nobility caste of Europe) in Europe during the 15-18th century (peasant revolutions were unheard of in medieval India while extremely common in Europe due to exploitative systems employed there) before industrialisation in Europe destroyed the caste structure there, which was denied to India during her colonial rule and hence the persisting caste problems (since India was robbed for 200 years of industrialisation and the subsequent societal growth), better livelihood, better sanitation , better philosophy (of building your own country rather than loot and destroy other countries and steal their resources like the European barbarians did at that time). The European spike in living standards during the 18th century was a result of conquest by military and not because of ideas or superiority of culture. Even industrial revolution was brought by the mass production of rifles for the military at the time in the Britain.

    So, when this conquest and looting of others stopped, so did the momentary superiority of the so called Western countries, which they enjoyed over proper civilisations like India or China. With loss of colonies, Europe and west is relegated to their decadent societies as powers of yesteryears and a society of bastards, dead bodies and crime. The Asian century as the 21 st century is called today is a misnomer as all centuries, except 18-20th had been Asian centuries only, for the known history of Human race. It is especially funny that certain white cretins in online forums advocate eugenics as if their race is in the top hierarchy of races of the world, even though any proper analysis of human history would show how much of the bottom feeders the white race actually is.

    Of course leaving history aside, what is the supposed superiority of western countries today? 50% bastard rates? 2000% higher rapes per capita compared to Asia? Several magnitudes higher crime figures and prison population? 50% divorce rates? A “culture” so materialistic and self indulgent that they can’t even bring themselves to have enough children to replace themselves and have to import rape happy Muslim immigrants from middle east for improving their economy? Seriously which part of western society can one define as being superior? Their economic prosperity was of course brought by loot of others and now that that has dried up, even the economic edge the western barbarians had over proper civilisations like India and China is dying out today .

    All in all, it is stupid to think that western “civilization” is actually superior (actually it is not a civilization if we go by proper definition and death of Roman culture) and it is suicidal to mimic their decadent culture of single mothers, bastards, divorces and rapes. Every Indian (and indeed every non westerner) should know this fact. Next time the Storm front or Brietbart thugs brag about “Western civilization”, they should be shown a mirror for what they truly are- a subhuman barbaric trash for most of human history, someone who got rich and wealthy by destroying other races and cultures. Their model of society/culture/”civilization”, as they like to call themselves, is not a model for anyone except barbarians. Civilisations like India, China, Japan, South East Asians etc would do well not to adopt the western barbaric morals or code or culture or religion!

  • Addendum: The biggest losers in a feminazi world

    Addendum: The biggest losers in a feminazi world

    This is further addition to the last article on same topic. This time we concern ourselves with the winners of this new feminist world. The last articles focussed on the impact on different classes of men/women in the society, but more can be said about other groups. The other winners are-

    1. Corporates: Apart from sexual winners, if one thinks about economics then the corporates win. The reason they started to let women work is because they were falling short of laborers during the world war. The feminist social doctrine that evolved was just an extension of this economic model. Not letting women work means 50% of capable labor force remains unproductive. Instead, if they are made to work, the production goes up and need to import migrant labor goes down. There are more buyers for all sorts of products and local economy goes up.

    Now the attack on biological aspects of womanhood is a further extension of this economic agenda. If she is stuck in traditional gender roles then their economy is hurt, so they are trying to take away the femininity of the woman away and trying to brainwash all women into thinking that they are a “resource”, like a good HR would label them. Women have started buying this definition too and just like men, they have started attaching their self worth to how much they earn.

    In the west, this is somewhat okay because it increases productivity but in India young women have started a new doctrine of their own, they want the good points of the western doctrine but don’t want to let go of the traditional benefits of “patriarchy”. For example a girl earning the typical 3.5 Lakhs Per Annum from one of the top 4 mass recruiting IT firms now wants her potential husband to earn at least 12 LPA. So she is trying to play the realpolitik game and make the best of both doctrines and squeeze benefits for herself. Although western women too display hypergamy but not at the same level as their Indian counterparts. If one goes around barking about being an independent woman who is not dependent on any man to sustain herself, why not marry a low earning artist, or a plumber or a carpenter? Why 3X salary requirement from the husband? Where’s the feminism now? Why claim maintenance money after divorce? Why claim custody of children by default of being a “mother”?

    1. Government: No one can forget the second beast in the room which is the government itself. It has all the reasons to make corporate slaves out of women. More labor means more tax and more tax means more spending on welfare. The increased and non-stop growth in the size of bureaucracy means that the government needs an ever expanding size of labor force to balance budget. Now having run out of women, the same western governments are not shying away from importing foreign migrants to shore up their finances in the future.

    The government bureaucrats and politicians not only draw power from increased spending power delivered through increased revenue but it also gives them immense power to interfere in public sphere. Large number of propaganda programs can be rolled out to change mindsets and thus favours can be curried to the select few through media and academia. Different gender issues which were earlier monitored and improved by civil society now require explicit government interventions, which means more redundant jobs created by the government.

    We leave the reader to dig deeper into this issue but look at the kind of studies funded by taxpayer’s money as shown below. If they are not outrightly ridiculous, then one would wonder what is:

    Gender scholar asks 55 women if there’s a link between being a woman and having a vagina.

    If you want to think in Indian context, then think about abuse of 498A. An incoherent law has been imposed on the society which has led to destruction of families through rampant misuse, but the vested interests do not want to let it go. And who are the vested interests in this case? Feminist groups and law fraternity. These two groups hardly want to budge back on this issue, even though greater than 90% of the cases don’t get any conviction and half of the victims are themselves women. So once a law is enacted, it is almost impossible to backtrack on it. The one way street of feminism allows no U-turns.

    As one can by now see, the feminist ideology gives enough reasons for the above two classes to implement these policies even more zealously. So next time when you see a government funded program in favour of altering social norms, you would understand why.