The Mask is A Broken Record

IT IS EASY TO PREDICT EVERY RATIONALE AND ARGUMENT IN PUBLIC NARRATIVES. THE ARGUMENTS IN THE PUBLIC NARRATIVES REFLECT WELL-THOUGHT-OUT-AGENDAS, NOT WELL-THOUGHT-OUT-INSIGHTFUL-TRUTHS.

Recently, a RJ, noted mostly for two of her abilities – ongoingly and persistently defending her undefendable religion, and making an ass of herself in the process every few days – displayed what can be easily labelled as “3 stages of absurdity”.

She started by quoting a tweet by a vocal opponent of liberal and secular wokes. This tweet mentioned 3 verses from the Holy Book, that described in graphic detail how the “disgusting” and “annoying” people called Polytheists and Unbelievers should be treated.

In my experience, most elite followers of the two imported religions have only studied the politically correct parts of their religion, and are often totally ignorant of the horrifying things that their “Book”s say. An Indian ex-Christian describes how she went to the US after her marriage and enrolled herself into an Advanced Christianity course in an American University. Before she graduated, she had become an ex-Christian. Many scholars are of the view that no person with their heads and hearts in the right place who study these imported “Books” thoroughly would continue with their religion if they understood these totally and comprehensively.

Not surprisingly, the first stage of this RJ’s reaction to this tweet was “Denial“. 
She mocked the tweeter for “learning the Holy Book from Whatsapp University“.

As expected, she was generously trolled. What was even more intriguing was that the prominent part of trolling came from her own community members, who admonished her for being apologetic for these verses, and demanded from her to defend the verses boldly.

It took her a few days to learn a few nuances. She came back by moving on to the 2nd stage – “Dismissal“. She asked non-muslims to back off from this discussion. She said – “These verses are for us. This is of no concern to the non-muslims“.

This would be the analogy of saying that a secret murder conspiracy plot that has been leaked to the public is of concern only to the conspirators and is of no concern to those who were potentially being targetted by this conspiracy.

It required another round of tutoring for her to realize her gaffe.

Then she displayed the unbeatable 3rd stage – “Defrosting” – a total melt-down.

With no more defences left, she played the most powerful card these religions command you to play – the Victim card. She tweeted – “People mock others’ religions and call themselves religious“.

This – was tweeted – to defend 3 verses that graphically describe what treatment should be given out to unbelievers.

This, coming from a religion, which is often accused to have killed 800 million people since its inception. The most interesting rebuttal of this allegation that I came across on the internet was in the form – “Do not exaggerate. We have not killed 800 million people. The number is 500 million“.

It’s not the absurdity that is of importance here. For a religion that began with loads of absurdities, an internet warrior of the religion being absurd is only expected.

What is of significance is that it reveals some interesting aspects about debates in the public domain, especially by the liberals, wokes, marxists, followers of the two imported religions and anybody else who have absolutely no facts backing them, and the only tools available to them wavers between the two extremes of gaslighting and moonlighting.

In the last 7 years, you would have experienced the “opposition” (and their formal and informal “teams”) come up with some of the most absurd “criticism” of government’s schemes. Notwithstanding, that the meaning of “criticism” now borders on abuse, you often come up with comments like – 

“This looks like a good scheme on the paper. But we have to see if the government implements it well”.

“This scheme will never work. Indians have never been sensitive to hygiene and this whole cleanliness campaign is bound to fail”. There were many other hilarious sides to this debate. I have experienced the alumni groups of esteemed institutions discussing how toilets are bad for eco-system and what the benefits of defecating in the open are.

“We do not have the necessary infrastructure. No attempt to make in India is going to succeed”.

Often the last one ends up being sounded by prominent leaders who ran the previous governments. Their wish for the government failing is so strong that it overrides even their basic common sense, and they end up certifying their ineptitude and lack of will and intent of the governments they ran.

On one level, this would sound like they are acknowledging the government for these brilliant schemes and ascribing other reasons for potential failures of the schemes.

What is the exact thinking behind these criticisms?

The brief answer is – there is no “thinking” behind these criticisms. There are only uncontrolled emotions and feelings they cannot bear and that they hide. Their wish for the failure of the government is so strong, that their capacity to see people celebrating the announcement of a scheme betrays them and they end up expressing their wish in public.

This can be likened to my childhood experiences of whenever I was praised for one of my accomplishments or one of my skills, an aunt promptly pointed out a similar (not even equivalent, but just something on those lines) accomplishment or skill among one of her relatives. 

What drove these quick parallels to “similar accomplishments”?

It is just the feeling of being unable to bear excessive celebration by and about people you do not like very much. The emotions around this becomes excessively strong and there is a strong compelling urge to discredit, rubbish and snub whatever is being celebrated.

The message is simply – “There is nothing to celebrate here”, and in some more explicit cases, a loud – “DO NOT CELEBRATE. NOT TODAY”. Of course, accompanied by “YOU ARE WRONG“. Cannot say why, but “YOU ARE WRONG“.

When somebody says, “the scheme looks good on paper, but only time will tell if it is successfully implemented“, he is just unable to bear the excitement, the buzz, the electricity in the atmosphere about the scheme. They do not have facts to counter, and so they go – “DO NOT CELEBRATE. NOT TODAY“. Of course, accompanied by “YOU ARE WRONG“. Cannot say why, but “YOU ARE WRONG“.

When somebody says that the cleanliness drive will fail because Indians are bad at hygiene, he is not absolving the government of the blame for the failure of this scheme. When the scheme fails, he will come out with strong indictments of the government, and will take strong objections to blaming Indians for bad hygiene. He is just loudly spelling out his wish and prayer for the scheme to fail, and is telling people loudly – “DO NOT CELEBRATE. NOT TODAY”. Of course, accompanied by “YOU ARE WRONG“. Cannot say why, but “YOU ARE WRONG“.

When even a minister of the ex-government says with total glee – “How will you implement this scheme? There is no infrastructure for it?”, he is not confessing that he failed as a government to do what he should have done then to create the infrastructure. He is just loudly spelling out his wish and prayer for the scheme to fail, and is telling people loudly – “DO NOT CELEBRATE. NOT TODAY”. Of course, accompanied by “YOU ARE WRONG“. Cannot say why, but “YOU ARE WRONG“.

In the public narrative, what matters is NOW. What matters is what you say TODAY. In future, they will find another set of criticisms. They would not blink an eye contradicting themselves. The art of success in public discourse rests in your ability to make two contradicting arguments before you encounter the next full-stop, and be totally unapologetic about it.

It works, because people have very short term memory. By the time they go to the second argument in the same sentence, people would have forgotten what was said in the first part of the same sentence.

This is the whole secret and the challenge of Public Discourse. This is where we screw up so badly and so totally.

We often feel very tempted to get into a “rational” discussion around these comments, and try to prove things one way or otherwise.

The moment we do this, we are sucked into a bottomless abyss, where people speak not because they have found a strong reason or argument. They invent reasons to fire at the target. The target is defined not by virtue of its actions. The target is defined by virtue of who they are, and who they are not willing to become.

A debate that has as its basis a malicious agenda will not provide any results whatsoever, no matter how prolonged and deep you get into the debate.

The whole point of these people is not to provide any rationality to a discussion, they are just unable to contain their festering wounds and the scorching pain that go with them, and are loudly pleading – “DO NOT CELEBRATE. NOT TODAY”. Of course, accompanied by “YOU ARE WRONG“. Cannot say why, but “YOU ARE WRONG“.

These are all emotional dumps. No amount of logical discussion is going to bring out anything substantial. If you shoot down one of their arguments, they will fire another one. If you shoot down the second, they will fire yet another one. If they have nothing more to fire, they will shut up, smile sheepishly, look to the sides, and then come again the next day and fire another one. Or they will do what they did to a pastor in Uganda who was winning a debate against Islam.

Misinterpreting a malicious intent with a rational intent is the biggest mistake we make in dealing with those with clear-cut agendas.

These are the people, who when they hear of a surgical strike conducted by India, go from – “this didn’t happen“, “show us the proof“, and also taking jibes at gaffes about “weather affecting radars“, to expression of total shock and outrage with “how could they release the videos during elections” and “surgical strikes are supposed to be secret“. The same person makes all these statements. The statements do not reflect their views on the validity of the strike, or their views on India’s capacity to make a strike or anything about any fact whatsover. Their comments depend on what “emotions” have been triggered in them today so strongly that they are unable to contain. All they are saying is – The whole point of these people is not to provide any rationality to a discussion, they are just unable to contain their festering wounds and the scorching pain that go with them, and are loudly pleading – “DO NOT CELEBRATE. NOT TODAY”. Of course, accompanied by “YOU ARE WRONG“. Cannot say why, but “YOU ARE WRONG“.

All arguments in public domain are “emotional dumps”.

In 1983, Saint Mother Teresa, in an interview to the magazine India Today, made some interestingly outrageous outrageous comments.

Q. Just as the caste system in Hinduism is a fetter, do you feel that the labyrinthine regulations of the Catholic Church too are a fetter?
Saint Mother Teresa. I never felt that way. Nor did I feel the necessity to change the rules of the Catholic Church. It is not relevant, too. In the hour of death, we are going to be judged by what we have done to the poor. We have consecrated our lives to give wholehearted and free service for the poorest of the poor.

Q. Can the Church do any wrong?
Saint Mother Teresa.  No, as long as it stands on the side of God.

Q. Mother, if you were born in the Middle Ages, and were asked, at the time of Galileo’s inquisition, to take sides, which would you have chosen – the Church or modern astronomy?
Saint Mother Teresa. (Smiling) The Church.

How many of you didn’t already know the answers just on reading the questions?

To even get into a rational discussion around the statements of a Saint who stands by the Medeival Age murders of those who disagreed with the church, is not just stupid and insane, but absolutely criminal and guilty of abetting a murderous ideology.

Saint Mother Teresa didn’t support an action because of any reason that arises out of logic, rationalism, humanitarian issues, or moral and ethical considerations, or based on the rightness or the wrongness of a situation or an action.

Her support, and the reasons of her support were entirely pre-determined, as are any rationalization by the Trolls’ Darling RJ, or all those blind anti-government propagandists, who fire at a target not because what they are firing at is wrong, but because what they are firing at is what they are supposed to fire at, as mandated by the authorities they rest their loyalties to.

The biggest deception of the modern times is the “deception of rational debate“. People are almost “shitting” it out in the public, and we are busy arguing the rationales.

The only way to deal with emotional vomits is to dismiss them. Entirely.

Everyone speaking out there is a broken record. They are not a versatile radio program that can play a wide variety of music depending on the situation and the moods and the weather.

They are broken records. Given a situation, you already know what will come out of their mouths when opened.

To “debate” with a broken record is insane, stupid and sanctifying the malicious agenda programmed in these records.