Archive

Archive for September, 2018

More Thoughts on the Flaming Disaster of Kavanaugh’s Nomination

September 30, 2018 31 comments

Let me be upfront about something before we proceed any further. I had no real desire to write another post about the latest train-wreck in DC aka Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to Supreme Court. There are so many other interesting and consequential topics which I could have written about. Sadly, the shitshow surrounding nomination of that worthless loser has become national news and could have some pretty significant effects on immediate future- specifically outcome of November 2018 elections.

With that in mind, let me revisit what I wrote about that rich rapey mediocre prep-school jock a few days ago. It is my firm opinion that the idiots in Republican establishment should never have nominated somebody as widely despised as Kavanaugh. The recently publicized sexual assault accusations against him are only a small part of the litany of reasons he is seen in such poor light by establishment Democrats. Kavanaugh was, after all, part of the Kenneth Starr “investigation” as well as Bush43’s administration. But why is that such a bad thing?

This is where I start telling stuff you might not want to hear. You see.. protection of the rich and capitalist class from average people has always the main function of Supreme Court and through most of its history it has been a highly regressive institution. The Warren Court was perhaps the only time in history that it consistently ruled in a quasi-progressive manner. But how the court has ruled since the 1980s? Long story short, it has consistently ruled in favor of the rich, powerful and corporations and against average people- with exception of social issues.

But why do establishment Democrats care about who is appointed to the Supreme Court? As you all know, both establishment Democrats and Republicans are corporate whores. But, then shouldn’t their choice of candidates for that court be almost identical? Well.. for a long time that was indeed the case. There is a reason why most Supreme Court nominees, as late as the 1990s, were confirmed by an almost unanimous Senate vote. Sure, some were a bit to the right and some to the left – but by and large, they were predictable “centrists”.

Then the presidential election of 2000 happened and we know the role played by a slim majority of that court in appointing Bush43 as president. From that moment onwards, the Supreme Court (and appointments to it) were irreversibly politicized. Of course, there were other reasons for that change- ranging from changing demography of USA, irreversible decline of white male privilege, establishment Democrats support of identity politics to cover up their neoliberal belief etc.

And this brings us to why the nomination of Kavanaugh was such a bad idea. Once again to make a long story short, he was always seen as a rabid partisan figure by Democrats and there was no way they were going to confirm him. But could things have gone differently if that orange-haired buffoon had nominated a less controversial figure? What about somebody like Thomas Hardiman? For starters, the guy is a good corporate whore- just like his appointed predecessors. More importantly, his wife and in-laws are of Mexican descent and prominent democrats.

In other words, Hardiman in addition to having a compelling life story and being a good corporate whore could be relied upon to support progressive social causes. Sure, he would have only been 90% of the corporate whore Kavanaugh would be, but let us be realistic- it would be way easier to confirm him. In fact, even sad turtle face aka Mitch McConnell conveyed that to Trump on more than one occasion. But the dumbfucks in White House thought they knew better than everybody else and decided to nominate that post-menopausal woman-faced loser.

But why so much hate for this guy? Well.. it is way more than hate. I can foresee very plausible scenarios in which his confirmation (or even failed nomination) could have large impacts on the results of 2018 and 2020 elections. But before we go there, let us talk about why the sexual assault charges against him are so sticky and problematic. I kinda hinted to that in the previous paragraph by calling him a ‘post-menopausal woman-faced loser’. Still confused at what I am hinting at? OK.. let us do a thought experiment.

Imagine that the person nominated to the supreme court had the looks of a handsome masculine actor, rock star or sportsman. Now ask yourself, would sexual assault accusations by Christine Blasey Ford have been more credible or less credible? Would she have even accused him of sexual assault in the first place? Ok.. let me ask you a question, which might seem odd. Have you noticed a common thread running through almost every man who has lost his career because of accusations of sexual assault or harassment. Anything..

What about their looks or lack thereof? Have you noticed that the most famous scalps taken by the MeToo movement have been mediocre to ugly-looking men (Harvey Weinstein, Bill O’Reilly, Charlie Rose, Roger Ailes etc) with either a lot of power or money? For some “odd” reason, handsome men with complicated sex lives such as such as Rob Lowe and Charlie Sheen (in their prime), music icons (Lenny Kravitz and almost every other famous male musician) and sport-stars just don’t seem to end up on MeToo lists. It is always the mediocre-looking guy (usually white) who got lucky and made a lot of money or came into some power.

But why is that so? The simple answer to that question is that looks, physicality and attitude are attractive to women in a way that money and power are just not. That is why the white wife of a white physician will gladly cheat on him with some mediocre musician- but the reverse will never happen unless money changes hands. Kavanaugh, you see, comes across an effeminate white guy who was born to rich parents, got into an expensive prep school and ivy-league university because of parents’s connection and glided through life despite his utter mediocrity.

To put it another way, this guy has not made many (if any) pussies wet- even in his twenties. And this is why those charges of sexual assault and general rapey behavior have turned out to be so sticky. He really looks like the rich but mediocre looking white guy who has to sexual assault women or otherwise compensate them to get laid. It does not help that he is such a terrible liar. To summarize, he instinctively looks and behaves like a mediocre-looking prep-school rapey asshole and most women are viscerally repulsed by guys like Kavanaugh.

But why does this matter? The simple answer is 2018 and 2020 elections. The slightly longer answer is that the Democratic party had been unable to come up with a program or issue which was strong or visceral enough to increase turnout among likely voters in the 2018 mid-term election. All that constant talk about Russia, Putin, Collusion was simply not influencing voters who are not already partisan. Then Trump gave them an unexpected gift by nominating an hypocritical and effeminate prep-school asshole who just happened to have done some pretty repulsive (at least for women) things when he was younger.

Now they have a highly emotive issue to constantly beat republican candidates over the head with and simultaneously increase turnout of their own voter base. And this is not going away whether, or not, he is confirmed. Indeed.. confirming him might be the greatest gift received by moribund establishment Democrats since the election of Trump. And ya.. he will almost certainly be subject to multiple criminal investigations once confirmed resulting in his impeachment (or resignation) within 2-3 years. Establishment republicans, being as pathetic as their Democratic counterparts, still think they can wing it by getting him confirmed. I guess that stupid people cannot (or won’t) find out any other way.

What do you think? Comments?

Varna and Jati aka ‘Caste’ System Was Hugely Damaging to Indians: 8

September 28, 2018 10 comments

In the previous post of this series, I said that the general lack of critical thinking skills in most Indians is deeply linked to Indian style of parenting and whatever passes for ‘education’ in that country. Some might consider this to be a harsh assessment, and that is kinda true. However reality is what it is, whether we like it or not. Also, it is not possible to fix a problem if we keep on pretending that it does not exist. So let us start by first defining it.

Have you ever noticed that a lot of typical Indians, who are good at passing exams and tests, are also incredibly bad at applying that knowledge? To be fair, we see this problem in other parts of the world. However, for reasons we shall soon get into, the levels it reaches in India are just mind-boggling. But there is a weird twist to this story. Those who grew up outside India, or are otherwise atypical, do not display this shortcoming at a higher rate than other people.

In other words, this problem is cultural not biological. But isn’t it a rather odd problem? Think about it.. how can somebody capable of regurgitating all the ‘right’ answers have such a poor grasp of subject matter? Clearly, the person in question has good memory and no cognitive problems. So what is going on? Some might say that this is a consequence of the Indian ‘education’ system being based on rote memorization- and that is true. But why is that so?

Let me pose this question in another way. Would you eat at a restaurant where the cook could recite all the ingredients in his dishes and their preparation methods, but not cook well? You wouldn’t, and neither would most Indians. But for some reason, this state of affairs is normal in the Indian ‘education’ system. Why? And what does it have to do with the jati system? What prevents Indians from changing their way of doing things?

Moving on to a related problem, why do most Indians conflate knowledge with regurgitating the beliefs of famous people? Once again. you see this problem in other parts of the world, but for some reason, it reaches almost comical levels in most Indians. Why is deliberative and skeptical thinking so uncommon among typical Indians, especially the more ‘educated’. Why do most Indians display an unwillingness to think through problems on their own, pose inconvenient questions and be reasonably skeptical about whatever passes for knowledge.

And this brings us to the proximate cause of this dysfunction. Have you noticed that typical Indian parenting produces intellectually and emotionally crippled kids? To be clear, I am not suggesting that north-american parenting is especially good or free of problems. In fact, it has its unique set of dysfunctions. Having said that, it is hard to ignore that traditional Indian parenting is way more likely to create spineless kids with little capability for autonomous thinking or action.

But why? And why would parents do something like that to their own kids? Well.. the answer has to do with the jati or caste system. Have you ever wondered why the jati system sounds so alien to non-Indians? Could it be because belief in, and practicing, the jati system is not compatible with even basic levels of critical thinking? Let me put it this way.. you cannot simultaneously believe in the caste system and still be capable of critical thinking.

So how do you perpetuate the jati system and its wretched institutions such as social apartheid and arranged (historically child) marriage. Well.. the easiest way to do that is to brainwash your children from birth into believing all sorts of nonsense, blindly respecting ‘authority’, discouraging questions and personal agency etc. Traditional Indian parenting is about perpetuating the jati system by crippling the intellectual and emotional development of your own children

It is kinda analogous to breaking the legs of your slave so that he (or she) cannot escape and find a better life. And that is why, you see, children who grow in traditional Indian families have stunted intellectual and emotional development. But what does this have to do with the equally dysfunctional system of ‘education’ in India? A lot, actually. The system, you see, is not about producing competent individuals as much as it is about producing the appearance of education.

But that sounds totally nuts! Why would anybody want to produce the appearance of education rather than the real deal? As usual, the answer has to do with the mindset of those running the system. People who never received a real education and have a limited ability to think critically cannot fix a crappy system, because they are incapable of imagining a better system. You cannot be a good car mechanic, if you have no reference frame for a properly tuned car. Similarly people who are unable to think past what they learned in medical school make bad physicians.

In the next part, I hope to show you (in some detail) the intimate connection between poor group cohesion among Indians and jati system. This will help you understand why incredibly tiny armies of foreigners could conquer and rule large parts of India without any resistance from local population.

What do you think? Comments?

Some of the First Proto-Cities are Probably on Floor of Persian Gulf: 1

September 26, 2018 4 comments

In a a previous post, I promoted the idea that Rockall Bank, a now-submerged landmass (off the north-west of Ireland) might have been inhabited during last Ice Age. The idea that some of the most ancient human settlements are now underwater is hardly new. In fact we know that the ocean level during last ice age was around 80-100 meters lower than today and a good portion of the near continental shelf in many part of the world was above water. For example New Guinea, Australia and Tasmania were part of a larger formation known as Sahul. Similarly India and Sri Lanka was connected by a natural land bridge as was the Eastern most part of Asia and Western most part of North america via Beringia. I have also previously talked about Doggerland.

In other words, more than a few coast lines were noticeably different during the last ice age than they are today. But what does any of this have to do with lost proto-cities? As it turns out, much more than you might think at first glance. It is common knowledge that humans prefer building settlements close to the shores of large bodies of water or rivers. There is a reason why inland USA is sparsely populated as compared to both the coasts and you can see this pattern in many other parts of world and throughout human history. But what does any of this mean for locating as yet undiscovered proto-cities? Consider the Persian Gulf. Today, it is just a shallow extension of Indian ocean. But as late as even 9000 BC, a pretty large part of it was above water.

But how was the climate in that area during late ice age? Well.. currently available evidence suggests that it was a low-lying plain with multiple rivers draining it. It was also cooler and wetter than today. To put it another way, it had a quasi-Mediterranean climate albeit with bulk of precipitation in summer instead of winter. The climatic conditions, including availability of fresh water, were ideal for humans settlement. But could Humans have settled in that area? Based on currently available archaeological evidence, they most certainly did. So.. what is the point in writing this post? Haven’t we established that there were human settlements in that area?

And this is the part where I go beyond what most archaeologists think lies on seafloor of Persian Gulf. See.. even though we have now found large Neolithic sites from around end of last ice age, such as Göbekli Tepe and Nevalı Çori many prefer to believe that “real civilization” started after the ice age had ended. This is largely due to two factors. Firstly, we have still not found and large and organised neolithic settlements much older than 9,5000 BC. Secondly, the climate in many places which later became alleged “cradles” of civilization was not particularity pleasant during the last ice age. But what if places where humans first settled down are now underwater? What if many of the first proto-cities are now at bottom of Persian Gulf?

Some of you might point out that a number of people have previously written about the Persian Gulf being inhabited during the last ice age, and that is absolutely correct. I do however believe, unlike most of them, that settlements in what is today the Persian Gulf represented something between paleolithic hunter-gatherers and what we see in Sumer and subsequent Mesopotamian civilizations. Maybe the neolithic period started a few thousand years earlier than we currently believe. Perhaps the process of domesticating plants and animals also started a few thousand years before end of ice age. Maybe the remains of large neolithic religious sites and proto-cities lie under a couple of meters of sediment on the floor of Persian Gulf.

What do you think? Comments?

How CONservatives Screwed Themselves by Nominating Kavanaugh

September 24, 2018 16 comments

I was originally going to post about something less topical today. Then I decided to quickly share my views on how establishment CONservatives truly fucked themselves over by nominating Brett Kavanaugh for the Supreme Court. Some of you might counter by saying that his nomination might still be successful, and you know what.. that might very well be the case. But mark my words- if appointed, he will also be the first supreme court justice to be removed (either through formal impeachment or via some underhanded method) within next few years.

How did we end up in this situation, anyway? And was it inevitable? In my opinion, it comes down to a unique combination of hubris, stupidity and magical thinking on the part of CONservatives. To understand what I am talking about, let us go back to 2017 and the confirmation of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme court. You might recall that he was supposed to replace Antonin Scalia after that POS died in his sleep. Given that he was supposed to occupy the “CONservative” seat left vacant by Scalia, one might have expected stronger opposition from Democrats, especially given how republican senators scuttled Obama’s nominee for that seat.

And yet.. nothing like that happened. Heck, a few democratic senators even voted for him. So why did Gorsuch get such an easy confirmation, given all the issues Democrats should have had with his nomination? The conventional explanation is that they did not care much since he was a 1:1 replacement for a demented CONservative asshole- and there might be some truth to that. However, there is a far more obvious (and cynical) reason for their lack of ‘resistance’. Gorsuch, you see, was an otherwise non-controversial shill for business and corporate interests.

Sure.. he was also pro-gun, pro- “law and order” etc, but otherwise Gorsuch was just another establishment CONservative shill who could be trusted to reliably fellate the cause of corporate rights. Establishment democrats, being the pro-corporate whores they are, are perfectly fine with supporting plain CONservative supreme court nominees. Indeed, they prefer to have people like Gorsuch in the judicial system since it allows them to feign impotence in face of demands from their voter base. That is why they were so willing to speed up nomination of CONservative judges by the Trump administration in lower courts.

Then why was Kavanaugh’s nomination to the supreme court cursed from the beginning? Well.. it begins with his role in “investigation” of Clinton42 by Kenneth Starr in late 1990s. Kavanaugh’s senior role in that “investigative” team pretty much guaranteed that he would always be in the proverbial cross-hairs of establishment Democrats. His becoming a member of Bush43’s white house team, closeness to Karl Rove and subsequent appointment to a federal judgeship only increased the size of the proverbial red dot- and establishment Republicans knew that.

There is a reason why sad turtle face, aka Mitch McConnell, was not especially enthusiastic about Kavanaugh being nominated to the supreme court. He had a pretty good idea of the shit-storm this nomination was going to unleash, and frankly he did not see how Kavanaugh was a better corporate cock-sucker than other generic CONservative judicial nominees. But the idiots in the white house thought that his nomination would please their most delusional CONservative supporters. They just didn’t expect it to become such a big media circus.

So.. let us turn to the controversy surrounding his alleged history of sexual assault of women. What do I think about it? Did he do those things? Well.. given that he was a rich prep school kid from a white COnservative family, it is almost certain he did everything he has been accused of and worse. For example, I would not be surprised if tomorrow some woman accused him of date rape, drugging and raping, frequenting brothels which specialize in underage prostitutes, exchanging sex for professional favors etc.

That is how rich, white, allegedly CONservative men in USA with a drinking and gambling problem behave! I would not even be surprised if we someday find out that he molested one or both of his daughters. That guy has entitlement and poor impulse control written all over him. Those idiots should never have nominated somebody as intrinsically problematic and loathed by establishment Democrats as Kavanaugh. And it is not as if they did not have a stable of plain CONservative judges, who just love to fellate corporations, to choose from.

Which brings me to the hilarious and idiotic defenses of Kavanaugh’s character being mounted by CONservatives to save his nomination. As I have previously said, supporting a guy with so many skeletons in his closet is not the proverbial hill any sane person should be willing to die on. Then again, CONservatives seldom demonstrate an ability to think beyond whatever is immediately in front of them. They have also not fully understood why doing stupid things such as questioning the honesty of his female accusers in 2018 is such a bad idea. But why is that so?

Well.. it comes down to plausibility of those accusations, as opposed to their authenticity. As an example, if a woman accused Bill Clinton of staring at her body- we would all believe it without asking for further proof, simply because it fits with our previous experience and knowledge about his behavior and mindset. Similarly, an accusation of Trump cavorting with porn stars and washed-out playboy models does not require further evidence to be believable.

Kavanaugh’s public image is that of a spoilt and rich jock (with major alcohol problems) whose career trajectory was largely determined by the wealth and connections of his parents. Trying to rape a girl while drunk, or force another to blow him, sounds about right for a generic prep school CONservative jock. That is why, you see, those accusations are so sticky and will only get worse as time passes. Furthermore, they resonate very well with personal experiences of many women. Did I mention his alleged stance of Roe Vs Wade does not help his image. It will be interesting to see how much worse things will get if he is actually confirmed.

What do you think? Comments?

Interesting YouTube Channel: Ancient Architects

September 23, 2018 4 comments

Sometime ago, I came across an interesting channel on YT. Before linking to it, let me quickly describe what it is about and my thoughts about it. To make a long story short, the channel is about whether conventional histories of ancient civilizations are true. Some might say that it has an ‘Ancient Aliens‘ vibe to it and there is some merit to that view. Then again, I have been around long enough to know that “scientific” consensus based on fragmentary or selective evidence is the secular version of religious dogma.

So should you believe everything on that channel? Of course not! Having said that, he does tackle topics for which conventional explanations provided by “credentialed experts” are pretty dubious sounding. For example, I have never been satisfied by explanation that the three great pyramids of Egypt were built by 4th dynasty Pharaohs for the simple reason that their names barely appear on those monuments. Contrast that to inscriptions on most other large ancient buildings in Egypt that go to considerable lengths to highlight name of Pharaoh who built them.

Similarly, Greek travelers to ancient Egypt wrote about certain large structures which have not yet been rediscovered. What happened to them? The conventional explanation for their absence is that they did not exist in first place, and that could well be the case. However a few of those alleged structures were quite large and in areas containing other evidence of human occupation and construction, so one cannot discount possibility that they have not yet been discovered.

Link to Channel: Ancient Architects

I should also point out that unlike many others whose explanations for large ancient monument involves intervention by aliens from space, this guy sticks to idea that humans built it. Furthermore, we now know that humans at end of last ice-age were far more advanced, capable and organised than was previously believed. In my opinion, his videos about specific topics are closer to reality while those on meta topics are far more speculative.

Clip # 1: Is Atlantis located on Rockall Bank, a now-submerged island, located northwest of Ireland? Many parts on that bank are less than 100 m below the surface, which would place them above sea level as late as 11k or even 9k years ago. Given that ocean current patterns in Atlantic were also a bit different at that time, it could also have even have been more habitable than today.

Clip # 2: This one is about the lost pyramids of lake Moeris in Egypt. As I mentioned previously, certain large monuments described in considerable detail by ancient Greek and Roman travelers to Egypt have not been rediscovered. The two pyramids and associated buildings in what was once an artificial lake is one of the better known instances of a ‘lost’ monument complex.

What do you think? Comments?

NSFW Links: Sep 21, 2018

September 21, 2018 Leave a comment

These links are NSFW. Will post something more intellectual tomorrow.

Reverse Cowgirl Cuties: Sep 20, 2018 – Amateur cuties riding, reverse cowgirl style.

More Reverse Cowgirl Cuties: Sep 20, 2018 – More amateur cuties riding, reverse cowgirl style;

Doggystyled Cuties: Sep 21, 2018 – Amateur cuties getting doggystyled.

More Doggystyled Cuties: Sep 21, 2018 – More amateur cuties getting doggystyled.

Enjoy! Comments?

Categories: Uncategorized

Varna and Jati aka ‘Caste’ System Was Hugely Damaging to Indians: 7

September 20, 2018 4 comments

In the previous post of this series, I wrote about how the jati or caste system as we know it today came into existence (at least in North India) sometime between the 3rd-5th century AD. I also pointed out that conventional religion-based explanations for its genesis cannot explain how Indic religions spread beyond India, but the caste system did not. The most rational explanation for this important and overlooked oddity, in my opinion, is that the jati system was imposed by the dominant regime of that time in North India, aka the Gupta dynasty. While some see the Gupta dynasty as the golden age of India, it was beginning of the end.

I was originally going to devote this post to highlighting the connection between jati system and complete lack of group cohesion among Indians. As some of you are aware, treacherous behavior with other Indians while simultaneously grovelling before non-Indians has been a consistent future of Indian history for at least 1,500 years. It then occurred to me that my explanation for this behavior, and its connection to jati, might require readers to first understand another related concept- which I had not previously discussed at length. So let us do that first and talk about why most Indians do not seem to have a concept of history or grasp of objective reality.

Let me start by asking you a somewhat odd question: Why are the most famous literary works written by Indians from before the 4th-6th century AD? Try naming a large original work of philosophy, science, art.. anything definitively authored by an Indian for at least a thousand years after 6th century AD. Or why are travelogues of ancient foreign travelers often the only available contemporary accounts for many periods in Indian history? Why is there a remarkable lack of old documents, other than some religious texts, in India? Did Indians lose the ability to write after 6th century AD? And how is this connected with an aversion to objective reality?

A few readers will correctly point out that something remarkably similar occurred in Europe after the western Roman empire collapsed in the 5th century AD. While there are certainly some similarities between two situations, there are also some important differences. For starters, there was no collapse of a centralized authority in India after 6th century AD, because it was always fairly decentralized. Similarly, there was no great technological or organisational regression in India after end of Gupta dynasty. Life just went on, as it had previously.

So what happened? Why did Indians stop writing anything new after 6th century AD ? Some of you might say that there was not much progress during those times to write about. However, as a visit to the nearest library or amazon’s website will show- most literature has nothing to do with science or technology and is usually about religious or secular mythology, popular stories and personal accounts. Perhaps it was the lack of printing press technology, then? Unlikely.. since Indians deliberately ignored the printing press for about 300 years after it was introduced by European traders and missionaries.

My point is that, the unwillingness of most Indians to care about history, let alone write it down, has little to do with availability of technology. Nearby countries such as Sri Lanka, Indonesia and Thailand have far better written (and repeatedly transcribed accounts) of their history than India. But who did all that writing and re-transcribing of manuscripts in those countries? As it turns out it was Buddhist monks and priests who did it, just like their contemporary Christian and Muslim counterparts in other parts of the world. So why didn’t their Hindu equivalents do it?

The next concept is a bit hard to explain, so you have to sit through a few oddly phrased paragraphs. They are about how you believe what you believe aka Epistemology.

Why do most people living in USA agree that the 9/11 incident in NYC occurred on September 11, 2001 or the Pearl Harbor attack occurred on December 7, 1941? More importantly, why do we agree on certain objective stuff such as dates of both incidents even if we disagree on what or who (subjective stuff) caused those incidents? Also, how many of you were actually present at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941 or in downtown NYC on September 11, 2001? Readers might point to the huge amount of photographic evidence for both incidents and numerous accounts by survivors. But why has this evidence not been lost by now?

Isn’t that a strange question? But ask yourself, why should people record and remember things which occurred years and decades ago? Do you remember what you had for lunch and dinner on September 11, 2001? I can.. BTW. So why do we remember certain events better than others? Emotional response to, and psychological impact of, an event has a major effect on how well we recall it. But there is a far bigger reason, namely the impact of said event on future events. But how can an event have a much larger effect than itself? The answer is that people who witnessed or came to know about said event often feel part of same group or solidarity with those involved.

In other words, events that elicit strong feelings of personal involvement and group solidarity within a large number of people (beyond those affected by said events) become part of historical record. Those that did not, usually get lost in the sands of time. But what does any of this have to do with the general lack of interest in recording, preserving or reading about history in India. Ask yourself, was group solidarity beyond one’s immediate jati possible in India once the jati system became established? And if there was no solidarity beyond one’s jati, why would most people care to remember or record events that did not affect them?

Some of you might say.. “fair enough, this would seriously hamper the ability to write a unified historical narrative- but wouldn’t people in each jati keep writing their own history?”. You know what.. that might very well have been the case. But ask yourself, who will do a better job of archiving information- large bureaucratic organisations or small unstable groups. There is a good reason for why monks and clergy in the medieval era were very effective at preserving old literature in addition be writing down newer contemporary material. Having an organized and dedicated guild of archivists is much more effective for preserving information than isolated and unorganized efforts.

But didn’t India have Brahmins? Well.. ya, tons of them. But unlike the priests or monastic orders in monotheistic religions, there were many hundreds of mutually antagonistic jatis within the Brahmnin varna. It was quite normal to have half a dozen mutually antagonistic Brahmin jatis in medium-sized towns in ancient India. So basically each Brahmin jati was fighting constant turf wars with other Brahmin jatis in that area, with each trying to show the others that it had higher status than them. The jati system, far from reducing inter-group competition for jobs and occupation, ended up making it much worse. And guess what they were not writing..

But what does this have to do with Indians often having a rather poor grasp of objective reality? How does extreme social fragmentation, constant bickering and endless turf battles alter one’s grasp of reality? Let me explain that with another example. Do you believe that an antibiotic can cure an infection caused by a bacterial species susceptible to it? I am guessing almost every single one of you believe that- but how do you know that this explanation is correct? Most of you aren’t microbiologists or physicians, right?

One source of your belief comes from personal experience with having taken an antibiotic for some infection, another from knowing the basics of how they work, a third from ready access to a large body of experimental data from multiple sources and lastly it is also your own trust (faith) in the medical system. So how does it work in a highly fragmented society where everyone is trying to screw everyone else? Short answer.. it does not. In India, most people will take an antibiotic to treat an infection based on nothing more than blind faith. But why? Aren’t they as curious about the world around them as anybody else?

And this is where I have to open another can of worms. Have you ever noticed that adult Indians seem to have considerable difficulty with objective thinking and critical analysis of problems? Why is that so? My theory is that it has a lot to do with defective parenting and education, and yes.. that too is connected to the jati system. More about that in upcoming part of this series.

What do you think? Comments?