Goa Inquisition : Lest We Forget -- A Talk By Shefali Vaidya

[sankranti]

P R E C I S E L Y.

yup.

 

[Joe Shearer]

yup.

Actually, the paradigm is easy to understand, when it is laid out neatly. I have already done so, but you chose to ignore it, for one of the two reasons for which a thing is normally ignored: not for not being worth a reply, but for being too difficult to reply.

There is no doubt that the only reason for this sustained revisionist campaign, of which you are one of the front-line soldiers*, is to restore the dominating position of the Brahmin wherever possible, and to eliminate those social and populating structures where Brahmin domination is impossible, such as Muslim society, or Sikh society, or Christian society; for that matter, Santhal society or north-east tribal society.

If you had really listened to Gurumurthy, you would have heard him, in the first video, construct a model of modern-day western society and economics built on half-understood and half-digested bits from Adam Smith, from Max Weber, from very badly misunderstood bits of Karl Marx, and finally from the utilitarianism of Bentham, whom he doesn't mention at all. He did get right that capitalism and communism both belong to western philosophy, but he did not get right the connection between western economical theory and western political theory or western philosophy.

There were wild leaps and bounds between Weber's Capitalism and the Protestant Work Ethic, that showed a causality between elements of Protestant doctrine and the rise of capitalism, and the Divine Right of Kings, something from the field of politics, something that he horribly mangles, with not even a faint understanding of the status of a King under this doctrine. He drops clangers such as claiming that Kings who believed in this believed that they supplanted or represented God. "A little learning is a dangerous thing..." How is all this linked together? Through rationalism, in his book, an evil thing, because it is a Rational Individual, not an individual linked to the family, a family linked to the village, a village linked to the commonwealth, a commonwealth linked to a nation.

I hope that even an intellectual coward like you, never daring to expose himself to criticism or to ridicule, therefore never daring to think on his own, can see the glaring fallacy in this.

So he says that capitalism and communism were political systems based on the rational, and so too was economics, specifically, neo-classical economics (although he quotes the classical authors, Adam Smith, for instance, in a way that never makes it clear if he is or is not aware of the distinction between classical and neo-classical economics) (Hint - there is a difference). And this is his first video.

This is what I was testing to see, if you had had even a clue about what was being said in it, and if you realised how many feet of clay your idol had demonstrated. He gave example after example about the triumph of Chinese economics, without the slightest realisation that that economy had triumphed through applications of western paradigms of economics and politics. In fact, in the subsequent videos, it becomes clear that he had actually got the entire matter wrong, and that he attributes the Chinese miracle to totally fictitious elements in the economy, as well as assuming, wrongly, that the gap between the Indian organised sector and the Indian economic performance was filled in by native 'bare-foot' entrepreneurs. To do him credit, he did get the key question of employment in India, and the problem of jobless growth, and he did make Narayanmurthy, dense as the man is, aware that even the very large number of jobs created by the IT services sector was negated by the collapse of jobs elsewhere (he didn't, however, pause to understand the intimate link between the depopulation of agriculture and the fall in the employment level).

I ploughed through the entire set of three videos and only then asked you if you had understood the point of view, and if so, what were your views on them. You refused to incriminate yourself, quite rightly, of course, and tap-danced around these and other issues the whole of last night; you would not engage with the contents of the first video, so there was no question of taking up the contents of the second and third videos.

It is for these reasons, and not for some flimsy ego-engagement, that I stayed out of any comment on this rubbish: the major reason being that you yourself had not read it, and that therefore it would be difficult to make a statement that would be understood on both sides by both sets of people.

It is a pity that you did not have the patience to read the damn things first.

I will not have anything to do with this thread or the other one, for obvious reasons.

 

[Kdpreddy]

Actually, the paradigm is easy to understand, when it is laid out neatly. I have already done so, but you chose to ignore it, for one of the two reasons for which a thing is normally ignored: not for not being worth a reply, but for being too difficult to reply.

There is no doubt that the only reason for this sustained revisionist campaign, of which you are one of the front-line soldiers*, is to restore the dominating position of the Brahmin wherever possible, and to eliminate those social and populating structures where Brahmin domination is impossible, such as Muslim society, or Sikh society, or Christian society; for that matter, Santhal society or north-east tribal society.

If you had really listened to Gurumurthy, you would have heard him, in the first video, construct a model of modern-day western society and economics built on half-understood and half-digested bits from Adam Smith, from Max Weber, from very badly misunderstood bits of Karl Marx, and finally from the utilitarianism of Bentham, whom he doesn't mention at all. He did get right that capitalism and communism both belong to western philosophy, but he did not get right the connection between western economical theory and western political theory or western philosophy.

There were wild leaps and bounds between Weber's Capitalism and the Protestant Work Ethic, that showed a causality between elements of Protestant doctrine and the rise of capitalism, and the Divine Right of Kings, something from the field of politics, something that he horribly mangles, with not even a faint understanding of the status of a King under this doctrine. He drops clangers such as claiming that Kings who believed in this believed that they supplanted or represented God. "A little learning is a dangerous thing..." How is all this linked together? Through rationalism, in his book, an evil thing, because it is a Rational Individual, not an individual linked to the family, a family linked to the village, a village linked to the commonwealth, a commonwealth linked to a nation.

I hope that even an intellectual coward like you, never daring to expose himself to criticism or to ridicule, therefore never daring to think on his own, can see the glaring fallacy in this.

So he says that capitalism and communism were political systems based on the rational, and so too was economics, specifically, neo-classical economics (although he quotes the classical authors, Adam Smith, for instance, in a way that never makes it clear if he is or is not aware of the distinction between classical and neo-classical economics) (Hint - there is a difference). And this is his first video.

This is what I was testing to see, if you had had even a clue about what was being said in it, and if you realised how many feet of clay your idol had demonstrated. He gave example after example about the triumph of Chinese economics, without the slightest realisation that that economy had triumphed through applications of western paradigms of economics and politics. In fact, in the subsequent videos, it becomes clear that he had actually got the entire matter wrong, and that he attributes the Chinese miracle to totally fictitious elements in the economy, as well as assuming, wrongly, that the gap between the Indian organised sector and the Indian economic performance was filled in by native 'bare-foot' entrepreneurs. To do him credit, he did get the key question of employment in India, and the problem of jobless growth, and he did make Narayanmurthy, dense as the man is, aware that even the very large number of jobs created by the IT services sector was negated by the collapse of jobs elsewhere (he didn't, however, pause to understand the intimate link between the depopulation of agriculture and the fall in the employment level).

I ploughed through the entire set of three videos and only then asked you if you had understood the point of view, and if so, what were your views on them. You refused to incriminate yourself, quite rightly, of course, and tap-danced around these and other issues the whole of last night; you would not engage with the contents of the first video, so there was no question of taking up the contents of the second and third videos.

It is for these reasons, and not for some flimsy ego-engagement, that I stayed out of any comment on this rubbish: the major reason being that you yourself had not read it, and that therefore it would be difficult to make a statement that would be understood on both sides by both sets of people.

It is a pity that you did not have the patience to read the damn things first.

I will not have anything to do with this thread or the other one, for obvious reasons.

K A B O O M
The monkey flings crap AGAIN.

 

[sankranti]

Actually, the paradigm is easy to understand, when it is laid out neatly. I have already done so, but you chose to ignore it, for one of the two reasons for which a thing is normally ignored: not for not being worth a reply, but for being too difficult to reply.

There is no doubt that the only reason for this sustained revisionist campaign, of which you are one of the front-line soldiers*, is to restore the dominating position of the Brahmin wherever possible, and to eliminate those social and populating structures where Brahmin domination is impossible, such as Muslim society, or Sikh society, or Christian society; for that matter, Santhal society or north-east tribal society.

If you had really listened to Gurumurthy, you would have heard him, in the first video, construct a model of modern-day western society and economics built on half-understood and half-digested bits from Adam Smith, from Max Weber, from very badly misunderstood bits of Karl Marx, and finally from the utilitarianism of Bentham, whom he doesn't mention at all. He did get right that capitalism and communism both belong to western philosophy, but he did not get right the connection between western economical theory and western political theory or western philosophy.

There were wild leaps and bounds between Weber's Capitalism and the Protestant Work Ethic, that showed a causality between elements of Protestant doctrine and the rise of capitalism, and the Divine Right of Kings, something from the field of politics, something that he horribly mangles, with not even a faint understanding of the status of a King under this doctrine. He drops clangers such as claiming that Kings who believed in this believed that they supplanted or represented God. "A little learning is a dangerous thing..." How is all this linked together? Through rationalism, in his book, an evil thing, because it is a Rational Individual, not an individual linked to the family, a family linked to the village, a village linked to the commonwealth, a commonwealth linked to a nation.

I hope that even an intellectual coward like you, never daring to expose himself to criticism or to ridicule, therefore never daring to think on his own, can see the glaring fallacy in this.

So he says that capitalism and communism were political systems based on the rational, and so too was economics, specifically, neo-classical economics (although he quotes the classical authors, Adam Smith, for instance, in a way that never makes it clear if he is or is not aware of the distinction between classical and neo-classical economics) (Hint - there is a difference). And this is his first video.

This is what I was testing to see, if you had had even a clue about what was being said in it, and if you realised how many feet of clay your idol had demonstrated. He gave example after example about the triumph of Chinese economics, without the slightest realisation that that economy had triumphed through applications of western paradigms of economics and politics. In fact, in the subsequent videos, it becomes clear that he had actually got the entire matter wrong, and that he attributes the Chinese miracle to totally fictitious elements in the economy, as well as assuming, wrongly, that the gap between the Indian organised sector and the Indian economic performance was filled in by native 'bare-foot' entrepreneurs. To do him credit, he did get the key question of employment in India, and the problem of jobless growth, and he did make Narayanmurthy, dense as the man is, aware that even the very large number of jobs created by the IT services sector was negated by the collapse of jobs elsewhere (he didn't, however, pause to understand the intimate link between the depopulation of agriculture and the fall in the employment level).

I ploughed through the entire set of three videos and only then asked you if you had understood the point of view, and if so, what were your views on them. You refused to incriminate yourself, quite rightly, of course, and tap-danced around these and other issues the whole of last night; you would not engage with the contents of the first video, so there was no question of taking up the contents of the second and third videos.

It is for these reasons, and not for some flimsy ego-engagement, that I stayed out of any comment on this rubbish: the major reason being that you yourself had not read it, and that therefore it would be difficult to make a statement that would be understood on both sides by both sets of people.

It is a pity that you did not have the patience to read the damn things first.

I will not have anything to do with this thread or the other one, for obvious reasons.

Replied in https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/indi...intellectual-giants-of-our-time.551101/page-5

 

[911]

K A B O O M
The monkey flings crap AGAIN.

Its the insecurity of them haters, the predictions of doom and gloom and desperation to prove their worth once again. For their own benefit they are creating divides in the society with fear mongering, being intentionally selective in their progressiveness, selectively ignoring violence and not raising their voices for people they think will not benefit their agenda, all of which is reciprocated by their political rivals, pointing at their self imagined intellectualism. This is nothing at all. Just wait few more months and you will see the level of rhetoric will reach new heights. The attacks will be more and more vicious and the hypocrisy will be more and more blunt.