Skip to main content

Lunatic warmongerers: review of a review of a book
The link is to a WSJ review of a book written by an apparent trigger happy lunatic. The book in question is called 'a time to attack'. Clue no. 1 about the psychiatric help that the author needs.

How should one read this?
1. The conclusion is the title, why read the rest of the book? who wants to read a story without any suspense? who  reads a story backwards? The answer is, the ones who are in agreement, but are either  in conflict with self over that position or want to be able to convince others.

So the book is obviously not for people who want to figure things out or understand the very complicated situation that we are in. (Why not 'the Iran problem'/ 'the nuclear question')
It is for the ones who are too impatient to appreciate complexities and want simple 'final' answers. People who seek vicarious fulfillment in abstract far away conflicts in a bid to not face the real challenges of every day failures. 'There are final solutions out there, unlike my unemployment/ obesity/ falling apart relationships.'
 'I am too impotent to actually affect change in my real life. So let me rage about something that obviously (they told me) is a threat to me.'
So he/ she would read this only to rationalise his/her hunger for violence. But that is for Americans, what about me who also read it?

2. what does it mean that I read this WSJ article on Mint newspaper in India?
The allies must declare their allegiance!
that the global subjects must believe in US. War is peace.

What does Mint (an Indian news paper) outsourcing its voice to US's propaganda machine mean?

3. Books tend to have a lot of words. The assumption is the volume of words are good indicators of thoroughness of research/ logic. Now one would assume a book like this, on a serious topic of crucial importance would be in the least be 'well informed'. "If it's in a book, it must be correct (or atleast from a perspective higher up than mine)."
How can any argument be considered well informed if it only takes into account one side of the story. The review gives an impression that the book concludes with a finality about attacking Iran, without ever trying to understand Iran. The logic, the people quoted are all American. Could it atleast name a few Iranians?

US has Robert Gates, Obama, Kroenig .. people with names. Iran has continuously revolving cenrifuges, ICBMs and crazy mullahs. Its the classic gambit of imperialists conquering the 'orient'. The other is not human - the other is a threat, a bomb, crazy fanatics. Genocide rationalization 101.

The distance from which the lunatic writes this is astonishing.. In the age of internet there really is no reason why one can't understand another people, their concerns or plans of better tomorrow. The only reason for this 'expert' to not include the 'other' point of view is to rationalize the impending genocide.. to make the attack look justified to the humans of USA. The distance is crucial to numb you of impending violence.
The military complex can't afford a decade without a major war. (Initiating civil wars just doesn't give as much growth to the bottom line.)

4. Whom should we trust? acts and facts or fatwas and guesses?
Who has been consistently violent with one engineered coup after another? Who has been the most vicious user of Nuclear bombs ever? (Why did it take 2  nuclear bombs in Japan to end the war? why not one?) Who has systematically subverted international tribunals and who has systematically refused to sign treaties to reduce weapon stock piles?


Popular posts from this blog

Why I repair my shoe

I have 3 shoes. One formal, One sport shoe and another a mix of the two. The last one is particularly awesome, cause of its uniqueness. It looks like a formal shoe, but is as comfortable and flexible as a sport shoe. I bought it for my first job in Mumbai. I was newly rich and was expected to behave like one. I found this gem of pure black leather in a Colaba Causeway showroom. Quite a find. But its been almost two years now and the shoe shows its age. For all its awesomeness, its quite a weak shoe, to give out so early. I have stitched it, got new laces, and strengthened its sole. It doesn't look shiny anymore cause the leather has suffered from a few hostile trespasses. I think, like a man, things too should be allowed to carry their scars. Shiny scar-less men are just so... irrelevant. 

Since childhood, I have been used to using things for long times. Clothes, equipments, shoes etc. I can't just throw things away cause they don't look as good anymore or they don't w…

Walk about - II

I have been living in Gurgaon for the last 5 years. 5 years! in Gurgaon! I never thought I would end up staying this long here. In my head, it always was just a transit camp - to earn money to fund travel to Himalayas, come back and refill, go back and chill.. repeat until one figures out a way to break out of the cycle.
For the first 2 odd years that reflected in my lifestyle - My house was small and barely functional, a temporary base camp to return to 'home' in the hills. That 'home' was among strangers in the farthest corners and alleys of small villages in the hills. The home was not peopled really. It had no walls. It was the crisp cool air of the hills, the majesty of Himalaya, the clarity of sun's rays, the hot vapours rising from the ginger tea and the never ending walks in the forests, up the hills, down the valleys and through gullies and alleys of small villages and towns. When I was alone, that's what home was for me: A living breathing intimate …

Reading India through 'Dictator's handbook'

What's the difference between a democracy and a dictatorship?
The book says, not much. India, agrees. Current political dispensation especially agrees vigorously.

"Soma" of hindutva and past glory + divided impoverished amnesiac masses + legitimised attack on individual rights + tremendous wealth shared among few = brave new world of oligarchical India.

Essentially, democracies/ dictatorships etc., are simply variants of the same power dynamic between the ruler, essentials, influentials and inter-changeables.

Interchangeables are the nominal selectorate - the individual voters who have nominal (or cosmetic) power to choose leader - most of us.
Influentials  are the real selectorate - the guys who really choose the leader. In US recently, the electoral college famously went against the popular vote and elected a clown as their president instead. In India, theoretically, the system is a bit better in terms of a wider base of influentials - it could be religious gurus, party…