One-stop shop to make India 20 times richer

Category: Bad ideas!

Ayurveda/ Homeopathy as excellent ways to an EARLY DEATH

A comment received on my blog, I thought worth publicising. Even if I persuade one person to abjure ayurveda/ homeopathy, it would be a good outcome for humanity.

I’m a general surgeon who stumbled upon this blog while putting together a case series on anal canal cancer. Going thorough the hospital records, to my amazement 26.4 percent of all patients (138) over the past five years who were diagnosed with this cancer were “treated” by Ayurvedic and homeopathic doctors for piles.

And therein lies the purpose of such blogs. These people who could have been treated by radical surgery will sadly now be treated by palliative measures. The pseudo scientific community of healers have to be questioned for their understanding of how basic medical sciences work.

– Arun Sharma   [See the comment here]

Continue Reading

John Ruskin – a deeply confused (but influential) enemy of liberty (and he went stark mad in 1878)

Now to Ruskin.

MISES’S VIEW OF CARLYLE

“The fundamental dogma of all brands of socialism and communism is that the market economy or capitalism is a system that hurts the vital interests of the immense majority of people for the sole benefit of a small minority of rugged individualists. It condemns the masses to progressing impoverishment. It brings about misery, slavery, oppression, degradation and exploitation of the working men, while it enriches a class of idle and useless parasites.

“This doctrine was not the work of Karl Marx. It had been developed long before Marx entered the scene. Its most successful propagators were not the Marxian authors, but such men as Carlyle and Ruskin, the British Fabians, the German professors and the American Institutionalists.” – Mises

RUSKIN VICIOUSLY ATTACKED ADAM SMITH

“Adam Smith was ‘that half-bred and half-witted Scotchman’ who had taught the ‘deliberate blasphemy’ that ‘thou shalt hate the Lord thy God, damn his laws, and covet thy neighbour’s goods”. (The Complete Works of John Ruskin, 1903-1912. vol. XXVII; 764, and XXIX: 134; 212; 282; London: George Allen & Unwin). [Source]

HE ARGUED THAT ECONOMIC FREEDOM IS HARMFUL

John Ruskin who insisted that economic freedom would promote, not the wealth, but rather its opposite, the ‘illth’ of nations [From Fritz Machlup’s The Dismal Science and the Illth of Nations, Eastern Economic Journal, Vol. 3, No. 2 (Apr., 1976), pp. 59-63]

RUSKIN BELIEVED IN AUTHORITARIAN CONTROL AND HATED FREEDOM

John Ruskin (1819–1900) vies with Carlyle as the pre-eminent antieconomist
of the Right, and (like Carlyle) is remembered almost as well for
his crazed anti-economics as he is for anything else. Adam Smith, in
Ruskin’s mind, was a ‘half-bred and half witted Scotchman’ (quoted in Fain
1956, p. 108) with ‘an entirely damned state of soul’ (quoted in Anthony
1983, p. 75).

Ruskin’s mind was too personal in its contents to conjure with the
sociological generalities of Right anti-economics, but he shared Carlyle’s
preoccupation with hierarchy and command, and expressed them
pungently in his anti-economics. Ruskin described himself as a ‘violent
Tory of the old school’ with a ‘most sincere love of kings, and a dislike of
everybody who attempted to disobey them’. [Source: Economics and Its Enemies: Two Centuries of Anti-Economics by William Oliver Coleman]

RUSKIN, A FANATICAL ENEMY OF ECONOMICS

John Ruskin, perhaps the most fanatical of all enemies of economics.
I know no previous instance in history of a nation’s establishing
a systematic disobedience to the first principles of its professed religion.
The writings which we (verbally) esteem as divine, not only denounce
the love of money as the source of all evil, and as an idolatry abhorred of
the Deity, but declare mammon service to be the accurate and irreconcilable
opposite of God’s service. ([1862] 1967, p. 61)

To Ruskin the error of political economy lay in it ‘considering the human
being merely as a covetous machine’. No precepts of any worth could be
derived from such an assumption, for Ruskin professed an extreme altruistic
code. To Ruskin it is the moral duty of any superior to treat their subordinates
as their children, quite literally  [Source: Economics and Its Enemies: Two Centuries of Anti-Economics by William Oliver Coleman]

RUSKIN WAS A VIGOROUS PROPONENT OF WAR

The influential Victorian art critic and anti-Enlightenment Tory socialist John Ruskin waxed rhapsodic about the virtues of war and insisted that “no great art ever yet arose on earth, but among a nation of soldiers. There is no art among a shepherd people, if it remains at peace. There is no art among an agricultural people, if it remains at peace. Commerce is barely consistent with fine art; but cannot produce it. Manufacture not only is unable to produce it, but invariably destroys whatever seeds of it exist. There is no great art possible to a nation but that which is based on battle.” [Source: Peace, Love, & Liberty – Students for Liberty]

ANTI-MACHINE, ANTI-ECONOMICS

“Modern science,” he writes, “economic and of other kinds, has reached its climax at last. For it seems to be the appointed func­tion of the nineteenth century to exhibit in all things the elect pat­tern of perfect Folly, for a warning to the farthest future.” He insisted that men and women “will neither be so good nor so happy as without the machines.” Of what value the electric telegraph, he asks, if you have no message of any importance or significance to send over it? Of what value your railroad trains, if they only serve the purpose of enabling a fool in one town to be transported to another at break¬neck speed? [THE UTOPIA OF JOHN RUSKIN – BY J. V. NASH ]

DREAM OF AUTOCRATIC PLATONIAN UTOPIA

Ruskin denounced and repudiated nineteenth cen­tury industrial society and all its works. He would have none of it. What he proposed as a substitute was the return to a kind of medieval Arcadia, in which virtuous and trustful common people should work with their own hands on little farms, raising all their own food, and making, by simple handicrafts, everything that was needful for their welfare. The government was to be in the hands of a wise and good aristocracy, to which the common people should give unquestioning obedience. He would thus realize Plato’s dream of long ago. [THE UTOPIA OF JOHN RUSKIN – BY J. V. NASH ]

TOTAL ENEMY OF LIBERTY

“We will have no steam-engines upon it, and no railroads ; we will have no untended or unthought-of creatures on it ; none wretched but the sick ; none idle but the dead. We will have no liberty upon it, but instant obedience to known law and appointed persons ; no equality upon it, but recognition of every betterness that we can find, and reprobation of every worseness. When we want to go anywhere, we will go there quietly and safely, not at forty miles an hour in the risk of our lives ; when we want to carry anything anywhere we will carry it either on the backs of beasts, or on our own, or in carts or boats. We will have plenty of flowers and vegetables in our gardens, plenty of corn and grass in our fields,—and few bricks. We will have some music and poetry; the children shall learn to dance to it and sing it ; perhaps some of the old people, in time, may also.”[THE UTOPIA OF JOHN RUSKIN – BY J. V. NASH ]

GREAT PROPONENT OF IMPERLAISM

Griffin says, “He taught that those who had inherited the rich culture and traditions of the British Empire had an obligation to rule the world and make sure that all the less fortunate and stupid people had proper direction.” [Source]

RUSKIN WENT MAD IN 1878

John Ruskin was a grossly disturbed human being who fell conclusively
into madness in 1878. [Source: Economics and Its Enemies: Two Centuries of Anti-Economics by William Oliver Coleman]

RUSKIN AS A DANGEROUS INFLUENCER OF URBAN PLANNING

His ideas on beauty have caused enormous harm – elitist ideas that looked down upon the live of the common man. It opened the path for the socialism of cities – excessive urban planning.

Continue Reading

Thomas Carlyle – a comprehensively mad and dangerous enemy of liberty

Some relevant notes:

MISES’S VIEW OF CARLYLE

“The fundamental dogma of all brands of socialism and communism is that the market economy or capitalism is a system that hurts the vital interests of the immense majority of people for the sole benefit of a small minority of rugged individualists. It condemns the masses to progressing impoverishment. It brings about misery, slavery, oppression, degradation and exploitation of the working men, while it enriches a class of idle and useless parasites.

“This doctrine was not the work of Karl Marx. It had been developed long before Marx entered the scene. Its most successful propagators were not the Marxian authors, but such men as Carlyle and Ruskin, the British Fabians, the German professors and the American Institutionalists.” – Mises

KEY ARTICLE

Thomas Carlyle: The Founding Father of Fascism

Carlyle was an enemy of economics

The originator of the great man theory of history is British philosopher Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881), one of the most revered thinkers of his day. He also coined the expression “dismal science” to describe the economics of his time. The economists of the day, against whom he constantly inveighed, were almost universally champions of the free market, free trade, and human rights. [ibid]

His literary output was devoted to decrying the rise of equality as a norm and calling for the restoration of a ruling class that would exercise firm and uncontested power for its own sake. In his view, some were meant to rule and others to follow. Society must be organized hierarchically lest his ideal of greatness would never again be realized. He set himself up as the prophet of despotism and the opponent of everything that was then called liberal. [ibid]

Carlyle established himself as the arch-opponent of liberalism — heaping an unrelenting and seething disdain on Smith and his disciples.And so on it goes for hundreds of pages that celebrate “great” events such as the Reign of Terror in the aftermath of the French Revolution (one of the worst holocausts then experienced). [ibid] [Sanjeev: No wonder Gandhi hated Adam Smith and approvingly read Carlyle’s history of the French Revoution]

CARLYLE HIMSELF, ON LIBERTY

Liberty? The true liberty of a man, you would say, consisted in
his finding out, or being forced to find out the right path, and
to walk thereon. To learn, or to be taught, what work he
actually was able for; and then, by permission, persuasion, and
even compulsion, to set about doing of the same! That is his
true blessedness, honour, ‘liberty’ and maximum of wellbeing: if
liberty be not that, I for one have small care about liberty.
You do not allow a palpable madman to leap over precipices; you
violate his liberty, you that are wise; and keep him, were it in
strait-waistcoats, away from the precipices! Every stupid, every
cowardly and foolish man is but a less palpable madman: his true
liberty were that a wiser man, that any and every wiser man,
could, by brass collars, or in whatever milder or sharper way,
lay hold of him when he was going wrong, and order and compel him
to go a little righter. [Source]  [Sanjeev: This is the most shocking “definition” of liberty I’ve come across]

CARLYLE IS LITERALLY A MAD MAN

But truly, as I had to remark in the meanwhile, ‘the liberty of
not being oppressed by your fellow man’ is an indispensable, yet
one of the most insignificant fractional parts of Human Liberty. [Sanjeev: there he goes, again]
No man oppresses thee, can bid thee fetch or carry, come or go,
without reason shewn. True; from all men thou art emancipated:
but from Thyself and from the Devil–? No man, wiser, unwiser,
can make thee come or go: but thy own futilities, bewilderments,
thy false appetites for Money, Windsor Georges and such like? No
man oppresses thee, O free and independent Franchiser: but does
not this stupid Porter-pot oppress thee? No Son of Adam can bid
thee come or go; but this absurd Pot of Heavy-wet, this can and
does! Thou art the thrall not of Cedric the Saxon, but of thy
own brutal appetites, and this scoured dish of liquor. And thou
pratest of thy liberty? Thou entire blockhead!  [Source]

CARLYLE THE STRONG SUPPORTER OF SLAVERY

The anti-capitalist writer Thomas Carlyle coined the phrase ‘the dismal science’ to describe the economic thought of the free market liberals. The epithet has stuck, as a catch-all phrase that seems to describe the dry, passionless arithmetic of economic inquiry. But few know what Carlyle really meant by the phrase. It first appears in his 1849 essay, ‘Occasional Discourse on the Negro Question’, which was written to support slavery in the West Indies.

Carlyle regretted that there was no room in the laws of supply and demand for forced labour on the basis of race. His essay first appeared in Fraser’s Magazine for Town and Country – followed by a furious denunciation by John Stuart Mill in the next issue.[Source]

CARLYLE NOT ONLY FOUGHT WITH JS MILL, BUT ALSO THE GREAT LIBERAL, MACAULAY

Thomas Carlyle called Macaulay vulgar, intrinsically common, the sublime of commonplace, an author without the slightest tincture of greatness or originality of any kind of superior merit. [Source]

Continue Reading

You can’t observe inside your head. No light penetrates there. You can only delude yourself.

From my FB post here:

MY COMMENT

Spiritualism = self-delusion. India leads the world in self-delusion, no wonder its results are so poor.

COMMENTATOR

What about self observation ?

MY RESPONSE

That’s precisely the source of the delusion. As a biological creature we are endogenous to the physical world and every moment we engage with the physical world. We should be like the other animals on this Earth.

Just because we have a more evolved brain (which underpins our survival as a species) doesn’t mean we need to create complexity where there is none. Instead, there is real complexity in the physical world: we should try to observe and understand it – including how our brain works.

Observing the “self” is like observing a black hole. It is just a hole, where no light penetrates. The only “observations” are imaginary.

Similarly, billions of humans have “observed” the “self” and ALL have come to different explanations of the observation.

To anyone (such as a child who is habituated to speaking the truth) this indicates that there is nothing to observe, and everything is being generated by our imagination.

If there was anything to observe, we’d all observe the exactly same thing.

I trust that makes clear why this “observation” is a delusion – basically brain-generated imagination.

The only thing that CAN be observed is the product of “self-observation” by billions of people. And that is religious scripture/ literature. And any objective observer can see that it is a total khichri.

On the other hand if the same time is spent in studying the real universe (which is purely physical – I’m including the underlying energy as physical), these billions of people would have produced useful knowledge.

Instead of observing “self”, observe the outside – and see how filthy and rotten it is. See how corrupt everyone has become. See how people are killing themselves on the basis of their delusions.
 
Looking outside can create real value since it is a worthwhile exercise. Looking inside is both addictive (people imagine they have become “wise” or “spiritual” and live their life in a total daze) but has nothing useful to offer us as an animal species.
FURTHER
How are such rotten people able to make a fool of us all?

Because we are busy looking “inside”. These Yogis and Babas are totally outward-focused (on money and power) but they delude us that they are looking “inside” and are “wise” and “superior”.

The filth, lies and hate that comes from their mouths then starts appearing to us to be “revealed wisdom”.

We lock our cerebrum and start following them like a dog follows its master.

And then these people gain what they really want – power over us all.

Why else would these Modis and Ramdevs and Adityanaths have any role to play in our lives? They are so despicable I would not let them come in my presence (yes, I realise Ramdev made a fool out of me as well, for a while – he is good at lying through his teeth).

I’m so glad I resigned the IAS – it would have destroyed my soul to work for these people in any capacity.

FURTHER

The only real science of “self-observation” is economics

For only economics can explain what someone who has been “meditating” will do with his time and money when he gets up to engage with the real world.

Continue Reading

Astral projection (Out of Body Experience, OBE) is PURE nonsense. I’ve set up an experiment, now prove it to me.

Someone has been pestering me that this is “real”. Well, there are tests to confirm whether something is real, and this “spiritual” phenomenon, along with a myriad others, FAILS the most basic test of scientific proof.

FIRST STEP: Learn about the scientific method, set up an experiment and test this idea on those who claim to experience this form of hallucination.

Then REPLICATE it.

Then PUBLISH in a peer reviewed journal.

Then let others replicate it.

Etc. Etc.

SIMPLE EXPERIMENT

Come into my house using your astral powers and tell me what vegetables are growing in my first vegetable patch – the one closest to my garden shed. Tell me exactly where every plant is growing and how big are the radishes (which colour?) below the soil.

After you prove this to me, I’ll set up another 1000 experiments to check.

I prefer using my brain to ask questions, not to hallucinate.

Also, ANYONE WHO CAN PROVE THIS NONSENSE OF “ASTRAL PROJECTION” SHOULD FIRST GET THE $1 MILLION RANDI AWARD, AND THEN COME TO ME.

DO NOT WRITE TO ME WITHOUT SUCH AN AWARD IN YOUR POCKET, FIRST.

I really have no time to critique each and every of the TRILLIONS OF TYPES OF NONSENSE that ill-educated humans are capable of inventing.

The great Randi has shown how stupid this idea is:

FURTHER
Astral Projection: Just a Mind Trip

On the nature of so-called “out-of-body” experiences…

Popular Delusions: Out-of-Body Experiences

Continue Reading