Skip to main content

Lies and Liberalism- Crooked Lies of Communism


There is unrest on Delhi streets again. Some say, it is the eternal struggle between Liberal and Orthodox thought which is spilling over on the streets. There is inherent fault in this definition. The definition further expands to interpret leftists or communists as Liberals and Right Wing intellectuals (Leftists will not like the term intellectual with Right Wing, is another matter). I have trouble with that. Because this is a dishonest classification. 

I am told, I am a Right-winger in my approach. But I am, like many called Bhakt in a very derogatory sense, very liberal. While you will not find a communist to come out in public and condemn say a Sitaram Yechury or a Lenin or even China's murderous history of communism. You will not even find the mainstream media people projecting themselves as neutral commentator with known loyalty to Congress which ruled India for larger part of our independent existence, criticizing Congress for their ugliest episodes. On the other hand, Pakistan based terrorists attacked Indian Air Base in Pathankot, and RW, so-called Modi-Bhakts, also called Paid trolls (unfounded) by media houses, even by those who were paid in cash and kind, allegedly by Nira Radia who used Journalists in establishing her private kingdom of loyal members of Congress cabinet, pounced on Narendra Modi. It is therefore, totally absurd that Right wing be called Bhakt and Left Wing media and Celebrities be termed objective intellectual minds. I find myself liberal, and I find myself more liberal than those who are called Liberal on a good day. 

Left is quite deprived and bankrupt in terms of intellect, to be honest. Left thrives on uniformity. Comrades, they call one another. Comrade is nothing but "Number xxxx" referred to in Ayn Rand Novels assigned to people. People scares the left. They thrive on mob, more unthinking the better. In most of the countries across the world, communism has fallen. Because it is stagnant water. Communist rule is absolutist rule. It operates best when men are beheaded, in spiritual and intellectual sense, and bodies which can be counter in number walk under an absolute leader. Just like Islam and Christianity are religion of book, Communism is an ideology of book. Marx wrote a book, and what he wrote is the absolute and final test of truth, decades later. A Dostoevsky who would write anything deviant from the truth of Marx will be sent to Siberia. Any mass movement runs the risk of falling rapidly into intellectual abyss. Mostly because they usually grow on the number, and the quest for numbers leads into mobs. Mobs are difficult to handle and will eventually run over. This is not only communist problem, it happened in French revolution as well. Intellect is not common, sensitivity is not popular. That is why a Lenin will get replaced by a Stalin who will rule with iron hand, for a movement not based on idea, but based on mob will quickly become a lion, which you cannot get off, once you get on it. 

The idea of communism quickly disintegrates, primarily because it runs contrary to the natural logic. At the peak of communism, we had twenty nations in the world which were communist. Now, we have five nations which call themselves communist. The swift fall of communism can be explained in the fickle argument of distribution of power and resources, on which communism is based. The concept of all people being identical is flawed. Men are different. When anyone comes out with a flawed idea of equal distribution of wealth, one should be very scared of this idea. Any distribution would essentially mean that there will be few who will hold the power to distribute it. Any fictitious equal society will invariably have few who will be more equal than others. This is the fall out of basic human nature. Men are not equal and men do not believe themselves to be equal. Humanity progresses through individual pursuit of excellence. Communism frowns over it. Discontent quickly rises when the hypocrisy of those who took the charge of wealth distribution are found holding the most of it. Before being comrades, they are human beings, who believe themselves to be better than their brethren. Therefore, an Arvind Kejriwal quickly moves into his huge bungalow, the moment he gains power. When the gap between their act and their rhetoric is pointed out, they are annoyed and quickly respond with most violent and aggressive manner. There is not room for debate. One cannot win a communist argument in a debate. It is a lofty but failed idea. Once the debate fails, quickly violence escalates. It is mob around, bitter deceived, angry mob. 

Lacking of its own rational feet to stand on, it borrows it from right, it snatches them away from the right wing. Therefore, suddenly we find George Orwell's masterpiece 1984 which of all things, wrote about the dangers of absolutist communist rule, becomes a leftist literature. Communism has not argument on its side so it appropriates intellectual arguments of the right and pretends as if it belonged to the left. Why left has so many intellectual leaders? Because they need that many. Rightism is an argument of human survival and human growth. You don't need to justify it. When a child is born and struggles to get the first drop of milk, she understands the value of self. You do not need complex arguments to prove the simple facts of nature. So communism pretends. They become liberal leftist, which is the worst of irony. The ideology which could impose itself on masses only through purging and Gulaags, pretends to be the warrior for liberal thoughts. Naive young people buy their false truth. They move well-coordinated. So before the students come, comes the teacher. Any doubts in the minds of the kids is allayed by the legitimacy offered by the teachers. To the leftist teachers who currently rule the roost in most Indian universities are sometime old dreamers, who still believe in the possibility of equal distribution of wealth; but mostly they are into it because it gives them the access to unprecedented power. To politicians, it offered captive votes, which possible explains late entry of the word "socialist" in the preamble of our constitution. 

They extend their argument and bolster their fragile legitimacy by annexing the right-wing space. As it is becoming more and more common. Suddenly atheist communists are friends of Muslims, the proponent of equality are biggest lovers of Dalits. On only needs to make a quick google search to find the number of Muslims in the five communist countries- namely China, Cuba, North Korea,Vietnam and Laos. The idea of Islam, and in fact, the idea of any religion runs counter to the idea of communism, although it is surprising that the numbers of Islamists move around in India pretending to be communist muslims. It is a pity that people still buy that. How come a communist Hindu is an atheist communist, but a communist Muslim is a communist muslim? This is all facade, as stupid a facade as a communist shouting in the TV studio about Free speech and democracy. Free speech is inconsistent to the idea of communism. History tells us that. Philosophy also tells us that. When you stand on a stage and make a statement, you are putting yourself above your audience. That is crap. It doesn't stand the logic of equal citizen. So when you stand there and knowingly lie, you need cunning in the character to keep lying with a straight face and you need the assurance of brutal force, in the event your falsehood is called out. Therefore communism is a violent force. It runs with armies, if not formal, informal. This we have seen in other countries, this we have seen in West Bengal and Kerala. And don't let them fool you with the idea of fake democracy. Democracy and communism do not go hand in hand. When you run a communist government, you silence the democratic voices. We have seen this in any instance of Communist government. Communism is invariably mobocracy, it has not respect, nay, it has no tolerance for an indiavidual. Communists may cry hoarse of State oppression, in any communist design, citizen is nothing in front of state; State rules with impunity, with iron hand.

 I do not know why I am writing this. I actually started with an intent of writing something else. I ended up writing this. I do not know why. I am troubled by the way young people are sucked up in this evil philosophy which has no logic. Aleksander Solzhenitsyn writes in The Gulag Archipelago- A submissive sheep is a find for a wolf.  Our campuses are full of sheep. I am also troubled by the way earlier governments created this close eco-system of leftist teachers, leaders, professors, writers and politicians that very few have the courage and time to show mirrors to those communists shedding fake tears on Muslims, on Dalits, on Freedom of Speech and on Democracy, all things running against the very fabric of communism. Don't let them annex your basic character. Democracy, freedom, liberty, justice belongs to the right. It is not in communist character. Communism cannot survive a state which not absolute, which is not overpowering, which is not monstrously powerful and which is cruel enough to run tank over every single individual who stands for free thought. You cannot let those people fool you into believing that they stand for individual liberty. Individual and liberty both are foreign to their vocabulary. Still they will appropriate your words, your words, not their, remember. They will talk about freedom, liberty, democracy and even nationalism and martyrdom. Be very wary, for in the desperation to exist they will soil everything. And it is not even for the existence of their philosophy, it is for the continuance of the sham of the righteousness they embody, discussing starvation over a glass of champagne, which protects their elitist existence. They walk in the space you cede. Every time you do not stand for a Salman Rushdie or Vivek Agnihotri, you cede the space. You allow fake warriors to walk in. They are surprised with the strength of your voice. Speak up without embarrassment, and reclaim the bulwark of your philosophy, the philosophy of much-slandered right.

You need to acknowledge individual first to have these things; communism thrives on the defeat of individual and the victory of mob. The mobs can only offer Guillotine. Those who are most vocal for the rights of the poor are found in the most elite of the social environments.  Some day truth will prevail and you will fall out of the mob. It will not forgive you for that. Do not wait for that day. You will find yourself walking alone that day. It leads to the Gulag or the guillotine is only incidental. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Book Review- The Waves- By Virginia Woolf

Book: The Waves Author: Virginia Woolf (1882-1941) Genre: Fiction (Spiritual/ Philosophical) Style: Experimental Published: 1931 Publisher: Hogarth Press Rating: Must Read, Classic
“The Author would be glad if the following pages were not read as a Novel.” – WroteVirginia Woolf(1882-1941) on the manuscript of The Waves (Initially called The Moths). It was first published in 1931.  We are close to a century since this book was published, still this book is unparalleled and unequaled. The Independent called this Book of a Lifetime.
This is not an easy book to read. Beauty is never too easy to create, or is it ever too easy to savor to the fullest. Both production as well as the consumption of true work of art needs to be earned. This is a difficult book to read yet immensely elegant and infinitely exquisite. The story, unlike most fictional novels, does not unfold through dramatic events. It doesn’t depend on drama, it deftly steers clear of the mundane. It is sensually sublime and magnificentl…

A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man- James Joyce- Book Review

Amazon Link 
Some books are an act of education; they cannot be read in haste, cannot be understood in one read. James Joyce’s A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man gives one such feeling.
It is a coming of age story of Stephen Dedalus. Nothing extraordinary about that. But then there a rich, slowly flowing lost river of philosophy which moves beneath the surface, turning an ordinary story of a boy growing up, encountering questions about faith, religion and sex, into an exceptional, extraordinary and engaging story. The story moves along the timeline, much in the manner of Virginia Woolf’s To the Lighthouse, where the writer is seemingly a passive narrator. Further, while this book is more of a philosophical essay wrapped around a story, Ms. Woolf’s book, on the other hand, is rather a Story primarily, with a philosophical touch. This book is blatantly philosophical, dwelling into the dangerous territory of religion and how a growing mind looks at God. It begins with his school, whe…

Madam Bovary's Eyes- Flaubert's Parrot - Book Review

Some books are very hard to classify and categorize. This is one such book. Officially, it is a fiction, a novel. In terms of genre, it should be put in the same shelf as Cakes and Ale by Maugham or The Ghost Writer of Philip Roth, both I have read this year. But then, maybe not. The two are totally fictional, in terms of all the characters contained in them, even though they do have a writer as the central character. But then, that is all that has to do with writing. I don’t think we ever consider the writer’s profession as a central point of those novels. Also the characters are out and out fiction. That is where this book is different. It is about the giant of French literary history (and now, of English classical literature)- Gustave Flaubert.
            The characters and references are all real. Julian Barnes throws all his weight behind the genius who is the key protagonist in the fiction, follows the dictum of a perfect biography as mentioned by Flaubert in a letter in 1872, …