10 criteria for identifying a stupid

My friends asked me whom do I call stupid. Considering my loathe to stupidity, they wanted to understand my model. Here are my 10 criteria for identifying a person as stupid. Two questions for you. How many do you disagree? What percentage of the world do you think fall under this group?

  1. Anyone who thinks the earth is flat or universe was created 5000 years ago.
  2. Anyone who looks at the evidence and turns the other side to say my belief is the truth
  3. Anyone who thinks that they have a divine commandment to impose their will on others or discriminate against them
  4. Anyone who preaches against contraception or the empowerment of women
  5. Anyone believes they are superior by the accident of birth
  6. Anyone who is expecting logic to prove the non-existence
  7. Anyone who wants to procreates indiscriminately
  8. Anyone who acts like the reason for all their problems is someone else
  9. Anyone who wants to take the world to the values from the Bronze Age civilisations
  10. Anyone who looks at a new scientific evidence and claims that their faith encompasses those evidence.

So far the answer to these questions has been

Agree: 100%
Population percentage: 80% approx

I feel there are two main reasons why it is hard for people who agree with the above facts and still not able to distil it.

  1. The erosion of the premise that the majority of the people are not decent and not stupid is beyond their realm of acceptance. It shakes the foundations of camaraderie and kinship.
  2. People have friends and family who fall into this category. It creates a cognitive dissonance when they have to deal with the two. It is hard to call someone you love, adore, respect as stupid.

The one point I keep telling myself is reality and as an extension truth has no obligation to be to my liking. It is for me to stare, admire and feel challenged.

I am definitely looking to convert this into a model and introduce a dangerousness coefficient based on it. I will definitely update the blog after that.

Kalaignar Muthuvel Karunanidhi – The architect of the Tamil Deal

Muthuvel Karunanidhi (fondly called Kalaignar) died on 7th August 2018 at the age of 94. His death brings to end the generation of people who saw the transformation of politics in Tamil Nadu through the Dravidian movement. The Dravidian movement in Tamil Nadu which spread to most parts of India was the Tamil version of ‘New Deal‘. In my mind, it was also a movement that anticipated and prevented a massive civil war between the North of India and the South.  Muthuvel Karunanidhi was one of the key architects of this deal. I do not want to write this as a Tribute as I do not revere or worship him as an individual. I want to intertwine my adulation of the Dravidian movement with his contribution.

For many like myself, Karunanidhi or Kalignar was a writer, an activist, a politician and an orator par excellence. The millennials and the brainwashed caste addicts of Tamil Nadu might have a different viewpoint from mine. For his detractors, Karunanidhi was also a typical politician, a hypocrite, a pseudo-atheist, a corrupt leader who was charged with both bribery and nepotism. I want to acknowledge these facts. Karunanidhi is definitely guilty of nepotism, corruption, self-indulgence and in some instances abetting political crimes including murder. However, I also see a partisanship in some of his detractors. His detractors mostly support others who do the exact same mistakes. Irrespective of what one thinks of him, his impact on the political arena in Tamil Nadu cannot be overstated.

The Dravidian movement started with the formation of the Justice Party which was predominantly non-brahmin elites. However, it wasn’t until EV Ramasamy and Annadurai joined hands did the movement get any direction and traction. Actor turned politician Kamalhasan rightly pointed out that the people who led the Dravidian resurgence movement during the mid-twentieth century were actually the men of the hour. The situation was ripe to fight the status-quo. However, someone has to still fight the battle. I want to highlight a few critical aspects of the movement.

Revolution through literary arts

The early Dravidian movement also created a resurgence of Tamil literary arts. The beauty in the words of Annadurai, Kannadasan and Karunanidhi captivated and mesmerised the readers. They used the performing arts sectors like stage plays and movies to gravitate people towards this renaissance of Tamil Literature. Their ability to combine revolutionary ideas with humour and realism was mindblowing. Annadurai’s Velaikari, Oru Iravu and Karunanidhi’s Kagithapoo, Thookkumedai were stage plays which transformed the field of their times. They harnessed the power of literature to send a message that resonated with oppressed classes. Their philosophy resonated with women, people belonging to discriminated castes and working communities. It was a movement to emancipate the communities. There is also a part of me which feels for their speeches not becoming as famous as the ones of Dr Martin Luther King Jr, even among the Tamil speaking people of today. I fear more know about ‘I have a dream’ than the words of Annadurai.

Fight without destroying the democratic fabric

Most of the revolutions of their times destroyed the democratic fabric of the society. When the Dravidian movement started gaining momentum, India and with that Tamil nation had recently obtained the rights of self-determination from the British. While the movement in its early stages was definitely separationist, it was never non-democratic. Annadurai was always in favour of contesting elections and winning the hearts and minds of people. This brought him at loggerheads with his partner E.V. Ramasamy.

Just for history, E.V. Ramasamy affectionately called Periyar and  Annadurai, parted ways firstly on India gaining Independence from British Rule. Periyar felt that being ruled by the British will be better for the oppressed castes and Annadurai was fundamentally opposed to that. Annadurai was for the rights of the people federate and self-determine. Annadurai broke from the parent organisation Dravidar Kazhagam to form Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, a political movement which later became a political party.

While Freedom from aliens was ringing in the air, the Dravidian community wanted freedom of identity. Post Independence, the Madras Presidency or the State of Madras was ruled by the Congress Party under Chakravarti Rajagopalachari. Much like what Periyar feared, South of India also referred to as Madras State was ruled by Brahmins and people in support of the North Indian rule.  The imposed learning Hindi and caste-based vocational training. The Dravidian movement opposed the status-quo. However, they didn’t do it by going out of the systems. It was never a call to move out of the social democratic structure being set up. It was a call for national identity and federated powers without destroying what worked.

Project the federated nature of the Indian union

As I mentioned in my previous point, the movement was a call to federate the country. Surprisingly, the rejection of the federal structure was the primary reason behind the creation of both Pakistan and Bangladesh(East Pakistan). Jawaharlal Nehru wasn’t the one to relinquish the powers. He had a vision with him in the lead. It was much like Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore. Once people get a sense of freedom, it can be addictive and dignifying. The underrepresented communities of India started to call for federation. The Dravidian movement called for a separate Dravidian state. The central government under Jawaharlal Nehru had to give up its powers to keep the Indian Union intact. The process continued to reorganise states on a quasi-linguistic basis.

Once the Indian Union federated its structure, the Dravidian struggled continued to fight for identity and representation. The ruling members didn’t represent the culture, views and aspirations of the people. The Dravidian movement was a correction phenomenon. It was a correction which intended to

  1. Fight for the Right to self-determine for the ethnic Dravidians
  2. Fight against the mandatory learning of Hindi as a second language and move focus to learn the native languages
  3. Fight against the rule of the minority Brahmin community
  4. Fight against the educational system promoting caste-based vocational training

Non-violent rationalism

I am neither a pacifist nor a Gandhi follower. However, I appreciate a non-violent struggle where appropriate, especially in a democratic setting. The Dravidian movement started as a movement for rationalism in a non-violent fashion. It is true that there were elements of violence by some members, but the movement overall didn’t have strands of extremism. Their brand of rationalism encompassed secular pluralism and individual liberty. It utilised freedom of speech, expression and protest to drive the philosophy. I have to appreciate their approach.

In conclusion, I want to pay my respects to the literary works of a great writer in a language I love and hold dear. I will wrap up by sharing his words.

“வீழ்வது நாமாக இருப்பினும், வாழ்வது தமிழாக இருக்கட்டும்.”

Even if he has disappeared into eternal solitude, the words of Kalaignar Muthuvel Karunanidhi and Annadurai will remain with the Tamil lovers for generations.

“தனிமை போன்ற ஒரு கொடுமையும் இல்லை; அதைப்போல் ஒரு உண்மையான நண்பனும் இல்லை.”

The seven useless descriptors in 2018

The one word which has been removed from the social vocabulary over the last few decades, especially in West is the ‘N word’. There weren’t any regulations against it but people just stopped using it. No one even respects an individual who uses that anymore. I do know that it is still used in some countries like India and Singapore but overall no one uses it anymore as it has become devoid of any utility.

Keeping the tradition of George Carlin’s ‘ Seven Dirty Words’, I want to share seven words of no social utility in 2018.

  1. Racist
  2. Fascist
  3. Nazi
  4. Free speech crusader
  5. Skin colour(Black activist, brown man, white supremacist)
  6. (Native, African, Asian, European, Indian) American
  7. Islamaphobe

Let me address one point before I take this forward. I do not think there aren’t fascists or racists or Nazis but these words have baggage which is not applicable for a conversation in 2018. Now, I want to go through each word and share why I feel that way. I feel the main reason behind the continuous use of these phrases is that these were some of the important phenomena of the twentieth century that affected people’s lives.

Racist

This term has lost its utility because of two key reasons.

  1. It is only used against white people and that too quite indiscriminately. I have never seen it used against people of Chinese, Indian or African origin. I have seen just as much racism in these cultures as the rest.
  2. The term has become so abused that we are failing to distinguish between people who are really racists or in some instance genocidal against normal people with whom we disagree.

Fascist

Just like racism, I am seeing this term being used against everyone. Many democratically elected leaders from Barack Obama to Donald Trump have been called fascists. Fascism as defined as “the radical authoritarian ultranationalism, characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and control of industry and commerce“. Any pro-democratic leader cannot be called fascist.

Nazi

Similar to Fascism, National Socialism is a movement defined by the ideology of the Nazi party. The term was coined towards the end of the 18th century. Again not every socialist is a Nazi and not every racial supremacist is a Nazi. It is a significant attack on an individual when you call them a Nazi. It is one thing to call someone a Nazi sympathiser but a leap of irrational faith to call them Nazi. The movement doesn’t exist but for certain pockets. Above all most of them are banned. Even organisations like KKK are not Nazi organisations.

Free speech crusader

This is my pet peeve for this list. I am tired of unintelligent people gaining attention because they referred to themselves as a free speech crusader. I haven’t seen many free speech crusaders in my life. I most definitely don’t see any now. Most of them (even some people I like) like Sam Harris, Jordon Peterson, Douglas Murray, Maajid Nawaz, Bill Maher, Milo Yiannopoulos and Dave Rubin to name a few become free speech activists when

  1. Something doesn’t offend them but there is a general furore around it
  2. Something they say offends people and there are protests against it
  3. Something someone says that they like and there are protests against it

Quoting George Carlin, narrow and selfish interests don’t impress me. I find such crusades to be repugnant just as the people whom they fight.

Skin colour adjectives(Black activist, brown man, white supremacist)

I find this particularly annoying when people refer to others with their skin colour. However, there is a particularly annoying stereotype in this as well. It is never a Black or a Brown Supremacist and a White activist. It is always the other way around when you use the skin colour adjectives. Furthermore, it is always used by people who are against racism.  It is meaningless and above all counterproductive. I also want to differentiate this from people who are comfortable in a neighbourhood of a certain ethnicity. There is nothing wrong with a bunch of people of a certain ethnicity to want to live in the same neighbourhood. It is not racism or bigotry. Also, people like to speak certain languages or live in a certain way. If a bunch of vegan people decide to form a colony and live there, it is not an issue for me. Even if they think that vegans are the best and there should be a country for vegans, I am still fine. Where it becomes a problem is when they infringe on other’s right to exist or live their life a different way. If I replace vegan with white or black or brown, the core of the argument still remains the same. This makes any description of a bunch of people using their skin colour counterproductive to the broad argument that we want to make.

Native, African, Asian, European, Indian American

This one is definitely an American trait. I particularly love the response of Gérard Araud, France’s ambassador to the United States to comedian Trevor Noah’s comment on calling the World Cup winning French Football Team as ‘The African Team’. He said, “Unlike in the United States of America, France does not refer to its citizens based on their race, religion or origin. To us, there is no hyphenated identity. Roots are an individual reality.”. This was followed by people calling French as not a culture for comedy or failure to call people. It does shed light on this rather unintelligent practice of calling people from where they come from and mostly based on their skin colour. Barack Obama was called African American but he was born to a Kenyan father and an American Mother. While he does have a part of his ancestry from Kenya the other part is from England. Calling him African American is both inaccurate and unnecessary.

Islamaphobe

The final one in my list is a recent kid in the block, a 20th creation which can be thrown anywhere in a conversation without it actually adding any value. There are two main reasons why I find this descriptor particularly useless. This word is used in two circumstances.

  1. One religious group who hate the other
  2. Fear of terrorism

In the first point, there is no need for a special word for hatred towards a certain religion. There is no word for hatred towards Buddhism, Jainism, Hinduism, Christianity etc. Anti-Semitism, on the other hand, it not just hatred towards Jews based on their existence, it is hatred towards Jews coming from certain religious constructs within Christianity and Islam against Judaism.

On the second point, it is a genuine problem. Most of my Muslim friends are afraid of terrorism. If calling out against radicalisation and terrorism is bad, I am not sure what is good. So, this usage is also meaningless. Actually, I feel we should rename this to “Terrorphobia” and acknowledge that it is practical.

Rescue of the Thai boys- The world needed it

The world is witnessing an extraordinary spectacle of harmony in the effort to rescue the boys stranded inside a cave in Thailand. From the United States to Australia, from the United Kingdom to China, from individuals to the government, from mainstream media to new age digital media, everyone focussed on rescuing the boys.

Like many others, I felt an emotional connection to the issue. I also felt the whole world was waiting for something to unite us instead of focusing on our differences. Entrepreneurs like Elon Musk wanted to see how he can help. The governments wanted to prove they can help. Students across the globe wanted to show solidarity. Media wanted to report on something beyond politics and hatred. The courage of the 12 boys and their coach was mindblowing. The tenacity of the rescuers and the love and support of the community was surreal.

Now that the rescue has been successfully completed, the division and bickering have started. Elon Musk is upset that his kid’s submarine wasn’t used and called one of the British rescuer ‘a Pedo’. I sincerely hope everyone who tried and even people to just prayed feel happy and stop.

As species, we can definitely look at the incident and reflect on it. Why should it take a catastrophe to bring us together? We all long for happy news which we can create. Our civilisation is not prepared for this digital noise. We all long for the same happiness, the happiness which doesn’t come from hatred, following narcissist rulers, religious fervour or name calling.

The amazing geology & ecology of Tasmania

I visited Tasmania in the September of 2017 along with my family.  This was our first vacation in months, so we were very excited. I didn’t do much research on Tasmanian geology and ecology until I stumbled upon some amazing sights. The fossils of some early animals in the Bruny island, the organ pipes of Mount Wellington and the biodiversity in the botanical garden kindled the child in me to learn more about them. I want to summarise my learnings and amazement in this blog.

The earliest record of geological history in the Tasmanian rocks dates back to 1.27 billion years. As amazing as that stat is, I want to put it to perspective. This rock was formed when the earth looked like below. This predates any of the known supercontinents that we now understand existed.

Earth 1270 Million years ago
Courtesy: Youtube video on Continental Drift

These rocks actually predate plants as we know them and even sexual reproduction. Just think of the timeline of life.

Life Timeline.pngCourtesy: Wikipedia

Fossils @ Bruny Islands

As I was getting amazed by these facts, we made a trip to the Bruny Islands. It is a small island almost half the size of Singapore with a population of 600 people. I witnessed something truly amazing there. I saw some rocks with fossilised animals from ancient times. These pictures were taken from the rocks and the exhibits at the Inala Jurassic Garden. I have a very little clue of the animals these fossils belong. The one in the bottom right does look like a fossil of a brachiopod but I am by no means sure.  However, these fossils did give me an impression of a journey to the lost worlds of the past.
Fossil Records.jpg

The story of the rocks

Ancient rocks tell stories which amaze me more than any fiction or any myths can ever achieve. It is hard to not get astonished by rock formations in Tasmania. From the organ pipes in the Mount Wellington and the Bruny islands to the amazing cliffs which drop to one of the three oceans (the Southern Ocean to the south, the Indian Ocean to the west and the Pacific ocean to the east), Tasmania is a geological wonderland. As I mentioned, I had no clue of the reasons behind the wonders until I looked at them and got curious. Now, I want to share the pleasure I had when I learnt about these marvels. I have also provided the reference below.

Story of the rocks.jpg

In order to understand the origin of these organ pipes, we have to understand what is beneath these. The foothills of Mount Wellington has layers of sedimentary rocks. The bottom layer is mudstone formed during the Permian period (230-280 million years ago). The mudstones are creamy white to grey in colour. On top of the mudstone, one can see a layer of quartz-rich sandstone formed during the Triassic period(180-230 million years ago). These sandstones were formed from the various rivers and rivulets of the times.

What followed next was one of the five mass extinction events in the history of the earth, the End-Triassic extinction. This happened about 200 million years ago. This was followed by a volcanic activity. The molten magma flowed, solidified and with time cooled to form shrinkage cracks. This resulted of the large vertical columns with polygonal cross-sections. This can be seen in the thick sheet of dolerite in the region.

This event also coincided with the breaking of the supercontinent Pangea. The continental drift as a result of the plate tectonic movements resulted in the creation of the two supercontinents, Laurasia and Gondwana from the single supercontinent of Pangea. The tilted block faulting caused by these tectonic plates stretching was responsible for the creation of the landscape. The rocks have since been eroded to expose the formation we call organ pipes. The exposure to the erosion has resulted in the dolerite sheets getting the colour of rust. Unexposed to these natural forces, dolerite has a bluish grey colour.

plate_history_lge.jpg
Courtesy: www.britannica.com

Tasmanian Geological Timeline.png

Courtesy: Wikipedia

The ecological diversity

The formation of Gondwana (as seen above) after the great mass extinction of the Triassic period, ignited a new ecology of flora and fauna in Tasmania. Tasmania is a home to some of the most unique vegetation from the largest marsupial carnivore in the Tasmanian Tiger to the tall eucalypt trees. I saw some amazing flora in the Bruny islands which evolved during the Gondwana period (picture below). These plant species have since survived major continental drifts and another mass extinction 64 million years ago.

Flora of Gondwana.jpg

The botanical garden in Hobart is another magnificent site of nature. The variation of the flowers in the ecology not bruised by human intervention for long was an awesome sight.

Bot garden.jpg

Charles Darwin visited Hobart in the  February of 1836 during his famous voyage in the Beagle. He wrote about what he saw in Hobart in the journal. Here is an excerpt from the same.

“.. In many parts the Eucalypti grew to a great size, and composed a noble forest. In some of the dampest ravines, tree-ferns flourished in an extraordinary manner; I saw one which must have been at least twenty feet high to the base of the fronds, and was in girth exactly six feet. The fronds forming the most elegant parasols, produced a gloomy shade, like that of the first hour of the night. The summit of the mountain is broad and flat, and is composed of huge angular masses of naked greenstone. Its elevation is 3,100 feet [940 m] above the level of the sea. The day was splendidly clear, and we enjoyed a most extensive view; to the north, the country appeared a mass of wooded mountains, of about the same height with that on which we were standing, and with an equally tame outline: to the south the broken land and water, forming many intricate bays, was mapped with clearness before us. …”

I don’t think I can summarise my feeling more eloquently than the great man himself. I want to use the lines from the famous poem by William Wordsworth to showcase my feelings.

“…
For oft, when on my couch I lie
In vacant or in pensive mood,
They flash upon that inward eye
Which is the bliss of solitude; ..”

References

  1. https://www.wellingtonpark.org.au/assets/wellingtonpark_geology.pdf
  2. http://www.parks.tas.gov.au/?base=1484
  3. https://www.britannica.com/science/plate-tectonics/Development-of-tectonic-theory
  4. https://www.britannica.com/science/extinction-biology#ref281253
  5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Wellington_(Tasmania)

Family separation or detention: Ugly side of partisan politics

As an immigrant, I want to be very clear that I am in favour of controlled legal immigration. At the same time, it is hard to look at detention centres and separation of families and not feel the ugly side of the debate. I have so far not seen a single person across the board in any country who has said, we need open borders but somehow that accusation remains. I want to write about immigration in two parts, one on the exploitation of misery of the family separation saga in the US and second on immigration itself. I will write about the former on this blog.
Sometime last week my daughter watched a supposed comedy movie clip which ended with a teenage daughter and her father being arrested and jailed. In the middle of the night, she came to my bed crying. She said that the father and daughter being jailed is bad and she is unable to sleep thinking of them. If my daughter is unable to sleep in the comfort of her bed, having watched the plight of someone being jailed in a movie, I can only imagine the impact of young kids being separated from their parents or guardians.
There is no point blaming Donald Trump alone for this. He did promise a lot of atrocious policies and he is implementing the same. This is also a result of years of propaganda. As bad as the move was, the resulting exploitation was awkward to see. There were four types of reactions, I want to highlight.
  1. Frenzy Media
  2. Partisan supporters
  3. Opportunists
  4. Partisan opponents

Frenzy Media

As depressing as the news is, it is important for the media to report on facts rather than make it into a reality show. To show crying babies is one but for the media personnel to behave like babies doesn’t inspire confidence in the news. Some of the adequately documented reports are ones where the reports understood the emotions but reported on facts. Opinions are good but that cannot reflect adrenalin rush. Further, when the reporters are trying to make a point, they need to check what they are doing. This below video tweeted by NYT is a perfect example. You don’t show late teen boys if you are trying to make a point on the unaccompanied migrant issue.

Partisan Supporters

I did not expect anything factual or reasonable or remotely nice from a person like Ann Coulter, especially on the subject of immigration. However, what was really appalling to see was the comparison of the immigrants to child rapists and gangsters. This is exactly the kind of rhetoric that intends to instil fear in the minds of people. Also to say we have to treat people seeking refuge humanely has nothing to do with not treating your own people badly. Treating everyone humanely cannot be considered as a ill-treatment of a few. Also, when one generalises immigrants from certain countries as criminals and rapists and criminals from other countries as individuals, it lacks any credibility. Further, no one I saw in the media actually wants open borders and uncontrolled immigration. To keep harping on that point and giving it credibility in the media is the very embodiment of fakery. It is also quite hypocritical when Tucker Carlson does this and complaints about the lack of decency in the left.

 

Opportunists

As bad as they are, the above two responses are in the expected lines. To me personally, the lines of decency are crossed when one starts to utilise such a situation for their personal agenda. For example, Dave Rubin tweeted the below. It not only delegitimised the opposition for this order, it also the wrong problem to highlight your libertarian agenda.
Firstly, he calls out Senator Chuck Schumer for not wanting to discuss this in the Senate and handle it through the executive branch. He highlights this as some kind of laziness on part of the senator. He also is hinting at this driving some kind of authoritarian streak. This argument doesn’t stand for two reasons.
  1. This situation was caused by an executive decision. So, it makes sense for the executive decision to reverse it. A bill through house and senate takes more time. It is not easy at the time of an emergency. 2000+ kids are already affected and one can’t wait for bills to be passed.
  2. The existing immigration bills in the House are bait instruments more than bills. It combines DACA renewal with building Trump’s border wall. It is not a bill that will ever get passed.
Secondly, he sarcastically points out at Trump repealing the separation order by making fun of people who compare Donald Trump with Adolf Hitler. I do not agree with the comparison of President Donald Trump with Adolf Hitler. We are pattern seeking mammals and want to compare one thing we don’t like to the other thing we don’t. That said, Donald Trump should not get credit for reversing an order that will stop the damage which he triggered in the first place. This is called fishing for credit where credit is not due.

Partisan opponents

This piece will not be complete without talking about Maxine Waters. Maxine is a democratic congresswoman from the state of California. Dignity and civility should not be optional traits in a civilised world. It is not an excuse to be uncivilised if you believe your opponent is wrong or even undignified. Maxine called for supporters to confront people in the Trump administration. This is a blatant call for harassment and will incite violence. You cannot become the monster you hate. If you oppose Trump’s lack of civility, you cannot retaliate with uncivil behaviour. Maxine’s behaviour definitely was uncalled for and diluted the entire opposition to this policy. The unruly opposition, in general, will only result in de-legitimising valid, civil opposition. No amount of blame transfer from Maxine can defend her call to confront and harass Trump administration officials who show up in public places.

Remembering 26-June-2015

It is hard to look at the calendar on 26th of June and not feel bad for the events of 26-June-2015. It is worse when the day happens to be your birthday. I still remember waking up on that day to hear the deadly news and continue to hear more during the day. Over 400 died across North Africa and Europe and an equal number injured. The Wikipedia page on this attack provides some details.

I do not want to make this about me but it is hard to wake up to wishes and not remember this event every year. The selfish human trait does come to the forte irrespective of my will.

My daughter was 3 years old then. It continues to be gut-wrenching to think, how many of those victims had kids like me? How many were kids? How many had dependant families who are still in shock? How many of them were setup to take our civilisation forward?

I do not want to drone on or traffic on the abject misery of the victims. As life moves on, I want to pause a minute to hope well for the victims of not just this attack but attacks all over the world. I promise to continue the fight in my simple way to emancipate the world from the horrors of religions. Some part of me also hopes people who read this do the same. Empathy is hard in general but humanity can definitely come together to eliminate the evil cause that results in such horrors. It is a lot easier to be empathetic to this cause or at least I hope.

The curious case of Tommy Robinson

“A far-right thug … ”
“A martyr for English values …”
“A freedom of speech crusader …”
“A racist, bigot & Islamaphobe …”

These are common phrases one would see when reading an article about Tommy Robinson. As the world started reading more about him, I case see people jumping on to the extreme camps which reinforced their messaging rather than what has happened. I want to add to that mayhem by providing my viewpoint based on the facts I received.

Tommy Robinson’s original name is Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon. His personal life and history are clearly articulated in his Wikipedia page. Douglas Murray wrote one of the more balanced pieces on this story in the National Review.  I want to break the entire history down into a few headings. I have deliberately ordered it in a way where I cover all the opposition to Tommy first before discussing points in his favour.

  • The latest arrest is within legal limits
  • Tommy has committed offences which deserve investigation and prosecution
  • Tommy is not a racist but his movement attracted the wrong people
  • His concerns are real and need attention
  • People who should have supported him deserted him

Point #1: Tommy’s arrest is within legal boundaries

Many people across the globe are treating this arrest as some big deep state conspiracy against free speech. It definitely is not. The UK has some clear rules against reporting on ongoing court cases. Last year, Tommy Robinson was arrested and later convicted on contempt of court for the same reason. He attempted to take videos of defendants in a case held in Canterbury Crown Court. The judge pronounced him guilty and gave him a suspended sentence. He was clearly told that this is a breach and has nothing to do with freedom of speech or press. This year he did the same outside Leeds Crown Court. He was arrested, charged and taken to court. In the court, Tommy pleaded guilty and was subsequently sentenced to 13 months imprisonment. It is easy for people to do not understand the laws, to cry foul. Is it worth debating about the law? Yes, I would definitely say so. Was the law flouted to arrest Tommy? I do not think so.

Point #2: Tommy has committed offences which deserve prosecution

This is a point which Tommy Robinson himself has acknowledged. He has committed some offences which make him liable for prosecution. For example, he travelled to the US with a fake passport under the name Andrew McMaster. He was detained in New York for a drug offence and subsequently came back under another fake name Paul Harris. Early on in his life, Tommy was also convicted for assaulting an off-duty police officer. In 2014, Tommy was convicted of fraudulently misrepresenting information for a mortgage application, which he pleaded guilty. So, has Tommy committed offences? Yes, he has and he has admitted it publicly. Is there state out to get him anytime he commits an offence? It is possible.

Point #3: Tommy is not a racist but his movement attracted the wrong people

As many people want to make it, I haven’t seen any evidence of Tommy Robinson being a racist, bigot or an antisemite. I do not want to use the word Islamaphobe as I find the word useless with absolutely no intellectual value. The evidence I have seen of Tommy being those are below.

  1. Tommy Robinson has continuously claimed how the fellow Muslims in his community have supported his movement. He has also credited people the Quilliam foundation as some of the best people he has met. The people he praises are not white.
  2. Tommy has voiced concerns for the well being of the blacks, the non-muslim Asians in his community. I haven’t seen him ignore or belittle their problem.
  3. Tommy felt sad for the jews from Luton who moved to Isreal fearing their safety. He wanted them to stay back and live their life here.
  4. Tommy along with his English Defence League members burnt a NAZI flag to denounce white racial supremacy. This was followed by some NAZI sympathisers burning the EDL flag.

I can provide more evidence on the above but the point is not moot. However, it is also true that his movement attracted the wrong crowd. This is again a point which Tommy himself agrees. The English Defence League attracted genuine racists as they finally found an avenue to legitimise their claim and status. It also attracted people who were generally disillusioned with the government and wanted a means to revolt. It also attracted hooligans. This continues to this very date. Some of the protestors for Tommy Robinson’s release have a very different view from Tommy Robinson himself on what they want and what they believe. Some people as seen in their chants have no idea of Tommy’s beliefs and have joined the movement as it feels in line with their idea of truth.

Point #4: Tommy’s concerns are real and need attention

The concerns which Tommy Robinson raised are actually real. It not only affects the non-muslims in the area but also the Muslims. The same points which Tommy Robinson raised were also raised by Douglas Murray and Maajid Nawaz. Irrespective of one’s opinion of Tommy Robinson the two underlying problems are actually real and needs attention.

  1. The Grooming Gangs which exploit young, underage girls
  2. The radicalisation of young desolate Muslim men

The former continues to be a big problem. The group has a disproportionate percentage of men who identify themselves as Pakistani Muslims. Again, it is important to see that the same has been acknowledged by people like Maajid Nawaz. The Rotherham child abuse scandal is a detailed account of the atrocities committed by the grooming gangs in the UK. Tommy Robinson brought that to everyone’s attention. Any decent individual who looks into the facts will feel the pain.

The  Luton division of al-Muhajiroun, which was formed by Anjem Choudary was responsible for the radicalisation of young Muslims in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Anjem is behind bars for inviting people to join ISIS. His organisational-Muhajiroun has been responsible for a lot of attacks in the British soil. Tommy raised voice against this in the early 2000s. The United Kingdom is one of the top breeding grounds amongst developed nations for the banned organisation ISIS/ISIL.

Point #5: People who should have supported him deserted him & Britain

Nothing exemplifies the stupidity in the system than this particular set of questions and answer session held at the Oxford Union. The videos are available in public domain and I request anyone opposing Tommy to listen to the Q&A at the end. This event happened in 2015. I want to highlight some of the questions asked.

  1. Why did you think six years ago, you did not think it is a good idea to sit and debate with the Muslims or lobby the foreign policy of the government?
  2. There are tensions on both sides, far right and the Muslim extremism. Why don’t you talk about the focus on the far right which attacks of the Muslims?
  3. The EDL protest would have created even further division in our borough. You said it is a Muslim problem and non-muslims can’t solve it. Your involvement with the EDL made the divisions between moderate Muslims and the extremists larger. That is what the extremists want. Do you admit that your involvement with the EDL, in the long run, helped these extremists?
  4. I am Muslim-Pakistani. Throughout your speech, you were talking about Pakistani Muslim gangs, Muslim men raping girls. Do you see a problem in identifying any sort of criminal as Pakistani and Muslims before identifying them as terrorist or rapist?

I remember an incident during an event when a participant asked a bad question to Christopher Hitchens and he responded by starting with, “What a stupid question!!”. These questions from the students of the Oxford University are extremely similar. They are blaming a victim or a person fighting for the victims. Their contention is why he didn’t use the right language, why he wasn’t patient, why he did not use the right caveats and above all why he got involved at all.

This attitude or mostly negligence has created this hostile environment in the first place and not Tommy Robinson or the perceived generalisation. It is easy to dismiss concerns of communities under the name of bickering or worse of all bigotry. Such dismissals, in the long run, will result in antagonism, disillusion and revolts.

In summary, Tommy Robinson has committed mistakes but none of his mistakes is as grave as the ones committed by people he was opposing. I would go to the extent of saying that had the people in power acted lawfully and morally against the grooming gangs and radicalisation, Tommy Robinson would not have been the cult figure he is now. It is the failure of the complete system to provide justice to the innocents which have resulted in this chaos.  The government will only ignore it at its own peril.

 

Who represents the left and the right on free speech & news?

I am a news addict, both mainstream and online outlets. I try to balance my views by reading news from all outlets and mostly from outlets I disagree. However, after years of letting my mind get corroded, I realised a moment of realisation on the present state of craziness in the media. I have got down to three key points. I feel it is important as I have to use these filters to understand if I have to separate facts from opinions.

  1. Free speech is a big issue for everyone. However, each person/outlet has defined groups based on a set of individuals who will fit their message.
  2. Honesty is no more a common trait in individuals. It has a become a percentage game. There are some outlets/people who are almost always dishonest. There are outlets who are only honest when it favours them. Then, there are some outlets who try to be honest only when it doesn’t affect their message.
  3. Social Media is an experiment for which civilisation wasn’t prepared well. We went from professional reporters giving us news to every person with a twitter/facebook account becoming a reporter in less than 5 years. People do not have time to manage their digital self effectively. They don’t have time to fit in all their digital emotions in a day and that effect has spread back to the mainstream outlets. Now, the mainstream reporting is based on social media craziness.

I want to expand on the first two points alone as the third point is quite self-explanatory.

Free Speech – Left vs Right

Calling oneself a Free Speech Crusader has become a fashion statement. However, everyone seems to be attacking other in this area. There is definitely an element on ingenuity on all parts. I have listed all the key people in media who talk about this. Everyone in this list is for free speech. However, they do not equally condemn the social justice warriors, who play victim cards, who indulge in identity politics and treat any non-white straight male as a delicate individual needing protection. The key media personalities I can identify in this discussion are given below.

  • Ayaan Hirsi Ali
  • Bill Maher
  • Brendan O’Neill
  • Cenk Uygur
  • Dave Rubin
  • Douglas Murray
  • Glenn Greenwald
  • Jordon Peterson
  • Maajid Nawaz
  • Sam Harris

There is a lot of personal animosity between people but all these people are for free speech. I want to break each of the group down into individual segments.

Left/Progressive Media (Cenk Uygur, Glenn Greenwald etc)
I want to list some examples of the left media and left leaders defending free speech. These get safely ignored by the voices who want to accuse the left or the progressives.

TYT on Charlie Hebdo Video 1
TYT on Charlie Hebdo Video 2
TYT defending Ben Shapiro
CNN defending Ann Coulter on free speech
Bernie Sanders for Ann Coulter
Bernie Sanders against UC Berkeley
Bernie Sanders for free speech on campus
Bernie Sanders on suppressing free speech

However, there are a few points where they miss out on some specifics.

  1. They err on the side of the minority and sometimes to the extent of falling prey to the gimmicks like victim mentality and identity politics.
  2. They are quick to brand someone as a neo-con if they do not agree with their agenda. Cenk once called Ayaan Hirsi Ali as a neo-con in foreign policy. It is laughable to call her one. People are complex and branding someone like this is extremely dangerous. Also, one has to put Ayaan view in context. She escaped child marriage, underwent female genital mutilation before taking refuge in Denmark. Her friend Theo van Gogh was murdered for making a film and the murderers wrote Ayaan’s name as the next using his blood. She is constantly under threat. Her words have to be heard in this context. They also do not support the progressive/liberal voices in the minority communities. For example, Maajid Nawaz in spite of all his political views is a liberal. I have hardly seen the progressive media support him. He is always portrayed as a sellout.
  3. They tend to focus on geopolitics more than the influence of religion on the global violence and terrorism.

New Atheists (Bill Maher, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Sam Harris)

There is definitely no question about these people being on the side of free speech. They are also pro-democracy and in most instances look for the welfare of most instead of the few. They are for minority rights across the board. However, they have a fall for friends syndrome. For Bill Maher, Isreal is right irrespective of what they do. I haven’t seen him complain about anything they have done. I would appreciate if he takes a cue from Christopher Hitchens on this front. Ayaan has to understand the impact of the US foreign policy on places which are not Islamic. You cannot defend the blunders of the CIA in South America. Sam Harris has to see that he cannot be liked by all or respected the same way by everyone. All three of them generalise Islam and can learn a bit from the way Maajid Nawaz talks about this topic.

Rest (Douglas Murray, Dave Rubin, Maajid Nawaz, Brendan O’Neill, Jordon Peterson)

The rest team wants to look at individuals from just their vantage point. Donald Trump is a good man if he is good to me is a non-sequitur. I find all of them fall into that trap. Dave Rubin changed his stance of Bernie Sanders without disagreeing on any policy just after he partnered with Learn Liberty. Brendon O’Neill doesn’t like people talking ill of religion or chauvinism by taking the example of his family. Maajid Nawaz has an issue with the  Southern Poverty Law Center, so he coined the word Regressive Left. Douglas Murray doesn’t appreciate the word white privilege, hence goes on a reverse rampage against communities which didn’t have anyone who said that. Jordon Peterson has an issue with the university he taught but fails to understand that people come to his show from different universities.

Honesty

As I mentioned at the start of this blog, I do not find honest a uniform trait in journalism or media anymore. Depending on the situation, I even find Fox News more honest than some of the progressive channels. Someone like Alex Jones is full of outright lies and dishonesty. There is no way Alex Jones can be classified as a reporter or InfoWars a news channel. I have a suspicion Alex Jones doesn’t consider himself a reporter. Hilariously,  Alex Jones’s company is Free Speech Systems LLC. The rest of the media seems to be a smear show of people they dislike. For example, Sam Harris who doesn’t like when he is quoted out of context and wants to call out the dishonesty of left doesn’t understand that Ben Shapiro who worked in Breitbart did the same with Chuck Hagel. Same is the case with Dave Rubin. Dave Rubin, who says he is for universal health care, prison reforms then wants to reduce government role in it. In the US, both prisons and health care are in the hands of the private players. Cenk, who doesn’t like when he is called regressive left, ends up calling most people who don’t fall into his bucket as neocons. Fox News is the only outlet which spoke about the grooming gangs in the UK, totally ignores any police brutality in the US.

  • I have almost always stopped listening to the Rubin Report as it ceases to be about the big ideas. I look at people who come, what they stand for from their speeches. Dave Rubin says the right things about tolerance & free speech, till it reaches crossroads with his Learn Liberty buddies
  • I listen to Sam Harris’s views on individual topics until he starts accusing or defending anyone.
  • Jordon Peterson is good on psychology. His views on truth, politics and lot of social behaviours feel deluded.
  • Bernie Sanders is good till he starts to defend Isreal in a very weird way.
  • Bill Maher is still good, except when he defends his buddies in the democratic party.
  • Cenk Uygur is good till he has to put everything in the bucket of foreign policy.
  • Maajid Nawaz is good till he starts smearing Jeremy Corbyn based on partisan principles.
  • Brendan O’Neill is good for views he concurs and is abject when he has to disagree or gets a personal example.

In conclusion, the media irrespective of the channel is biased and partisan. Even the best of them have, agreement with people I like, bickering about things I don’t and smearing on people I hate. It is increasingly important to look at facts and who is partnering the reporter. My strategy professor in my B-School once said it is important to know who is sleeping with whom in your organisation. I think it is just as important to know it in the news outlets.

 

Why shouldn’t Donald Trump get Peace Prize?

Ever since there was a mention of President Donald Trump getting a Nobel Peace Prize, the meme creators have been in overdrive. What is more disheartening to see is that people have started hurling personal abuses at each other on this. Donald Trump has personally taken it for granted that he will get it soon. I personally find this a bit funny and also find it hypocritical of people to question why President Trump shouldn’t get it.

Here is why I feel Donald Trump getting a Nobel Peace Prize is not a big deal.

  1. Nobel Peace Prize has nothing to do with the beliefs, actions and impact of the winner on the Global Peace. It is a very subjective process. It should not be an epitome of achievement, especially in the field of peacekeeping. The process can be found on their website. (https://www.nobelprize.org/nomination/peace/)
  2. As I look at the history of people who have won Nobel Peace Prize, few names stand out for their notoriety.
    • Barack Obama – for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.
    • Aung San Suu Kyi – for her non-violent struggle for democracy and human rights
    • Mikhail Gorbachev – for his leading role in the peace process which today characterizes important parts of the international community
    • Yasser Arafat, Shimon Peres, and Yitzhak Rabin – for their efforts to create peace in the Middle East
    • Mother Teresa – Founder of Missionaries of Charity
    • Henry Kissinger – For the 1973 Paris agreement intended to bring about a cease-fire in the Vietnam war and a withdrawal of the American forces
  3. When Barack Obama won the peace prize, the US troops were intervening in 6 sovereign nations. I didn’t see many liberals/liberal media cry out against his award. Any meme on Obama winning the peace prize would have been considered racist.

In conclusion, my support for the Nobel Peace Prize for Donald Trump doesn’t come from the position of him achieving something but from a position of irreverence towards the award itself. It is a meaningless award given to boost the ego of different people or in some instances boost the image of the award itself. While Trump doesn’t need either an ego boost and the award will not get an image boost by honouring him, it certainly will help the world by designating the right place for this frivolous award.