Thoughts on economics and liberty

Hitler’s socialist views were exactly like Nehru’s or AAP’s Prashant Bhushan’s

Hitler was a National Socialist. But above all a socialist. There is simply no way that someone who believes that the nation is ABOVE the individual won't be a socialist. After all, he "knows" what is good for everyone!

From this source:

"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions." –Adolf Hitler     (Speech of May 1, 1927. Quoted by Toland, 1976, p. 306) [Sanjeev: Of course this is a severe distortion of capitalism, and fails to talk about liberty and justice, but it is the "standard" language of socialists and hard to distinguish Hitler from Nehru/ Prashant Bhushan, etc. on this.)

7. We demand that the State shall make it its primary duty to provide a livelihood for its citizens.[Sanjeev: Note Hitler doesn't say the state should govern or provide security/justice, he wants the state to DO something economic.This is the standard socialist segue into dictating what we can or cannot do.]

10. The activities of the individual must not clash with the general interest, but must proceed within the framework of the community and be for the general good. [Sanjeev: This flows from Rousseau's General Will, whereby the government is not our servant but our MASTER and tells us what is for the "general good"]

11. The abolition of incomes unearned by work. [Sanjeev: This implies confiscation of whatever someone (read government) thinks is "unearned". It destroys the concept of accountability and justice]

13. We demand the nationalization of all businesses which have been formed into corporations (trusts). [Sanjeev: not much difference between Prashant Bhushan of AAP and Hitler, here.]

16. immediate communalizing of big department stores [Sanjeev: i.e confiscation of wealth. No difference between Stalin and Hitler on this issue. Nor Indira Gandhi.]

24. The common interest before self-interest. [Sanjeev: Once again, after talking about religious freedom Hitler destroys the freedom of the Jews on the ground their freedom is not compatible with common interest. The idea that there IS a common interest, or that government can determine it is obnoxious and repellant to the advocate of liberty]

Please follow and like us:
Pin Share

Sanjeev Sabhlok

View more posts from this author
9 thoughts on “Hitler’s socialist views were exactly like Nehru’s or AAP’s Prashant Bhushan’s
  1. Shiela

    These quotations are from the Twenties. There was a Leftist element in the Nazi party which was purged during the ‘night of the Long knives’. The Hitlerism that followed was a Corporatist – with particular attention to the grievances of the Prussian agriculturists which Gen. Schleicher (who had thought to use Hitler as a puppet, the way Zia tried to use Junejo) had neglected to his peril.
    The real parallel between Nehruvian India and Hitlerism arises in the following way-
    1) In the early 20’s both the I.N.C and the Weimar Republic adopted ‘non-cooperation’ as their strategy. In Weimar, the Govt. subsidized the Rhinelanders to go on strike against the French. This bankrupted the Govt. leading to hyperinflation which pauperized the middle class. Similarly, in India, in the 20’s the INC subsidized lawyers not to practice law and committed other such blunders. Even Bardoli was subsidized. Dalmia paid for the Salt March- all these efforts failed completely. Motilal Nehru and C.R. Das made fools of themselves with the Swaraj Party- all they did was buy minority support with concessions so as to prevent the Govt. passing their bills. Why? The wanted to show that the Viceroy had the power to enact them anyway. But, everybody already knew that. Similarly Weimar did very stupid things which were bound to fail and, in the process, destroyed the foundations of the Govt’s credit thus creating what Carl Schmitt called ‘the state of exception’.The German people had no choice but to rally to their war-time hero- Hindenberg, but he was senile. Luddendorf was mentally unstable and had chickened out of going to Jail- thus projecting Hitler as the Army’s candidate. Gen. Von Schleicher tried to use intrigue to get the top spot but alienated some of his own brother officers. Hitler had him and his wife killed and got away with just an apology because he had got rid of the S.A and the ‘Leftist’ element and could and did deliver on re-armament.
    Nehruvian Socialism- which consisted in signing whatever the bureaucrats put before him (provided they emphasized that there was no alternative)- like Indira’s lurch to the Left (which was hand-crafted in every detail by P.N. Haksar (I.F.S)- or Narasihma Rao’s lurch towards Liberalization- all these things were dictated by ‘the state of exception’ which the recurring complete and utter failure of the I.N.C’s strategies and tactics had given rise to. What condemns India to ‘Socialism’ (i.e. Corruption and Poverty) is that India is ruled by agitators not engineers. China is ruled by engineers. Herbert Hoover was an engineer and (though misunderstanding the monetary shock arising from the Stock Market Crash) helped lay the foundations for American Corporatist success. Hoover unwittingly worsened the Depression because his efforts on the part of industry tended to increase wage/price downward rigidity.
    Still, engineers can change tactics when they fail miserably. So too can soldiers. Agitators have no reverse gear- especially if their method of agitation weakens the Polity’s structural ability to do anything worthwhile at all.
    When Manmohan became PM, some people thought- at last!, the technocrats are taking over- India will be like Spain in the Fifties. The ideologues had messed it up in the Thirties and Forties, but Franco finally got rid of them and put in smart people. Manmohan sadly hasn’t been able to do much. We don’t even know if he wants to do anything. He is an enigma. Kapil Sibal is smart- but what does he want? what is his vision? Chidambaram looked firm- but appears to have a soft spot for avowed and irreconcilable enemies of the State.
    Why is the supposed technocrat not delivering? The answer is that unlike Franco, a soldier who well understood the difference between victory and defeat, we have the Nehru-~Gandhi dynasty- descended from failed agitators who, being aloof by nature and rendered stupid by lack of contact with reality, could be trusted to at least sign a file if the bureaucrats said there was no alternative.
    The one thing we can say about the dynasty is that the alternatives were always worse- Lohia, JP but also Deendayal Upadhyay- ‘angrezi hatao’ easily became ‘computer hatao’ for the Samajwadi aspirant to the PM’s chair- Mulayam Singh Yadav- as for the nativist nonsense of the BJP, which fluctuates between ‘integral humanism’ and ‘Gandhian Socialism’, there is no guarantee that it won’t win out in their choice for 2014.
    The problem with Indian politics is that failure in one’s agitation (no matter how foolish the agitation was in its aims or modus operandi) is taken as a sign of Saintliness deserving reward at the ballot box.
    Who in their right mind would vote for Kejriwal rather than good old Aunty Shiela Dikshit? Still the fellow will get in by the back door- the Rajya Sabha beckons. Let him keep company with over-the-hill cricketers and obese film actresses.

  2. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    Thanks, but it is too facile to assert that Hitler was a socialist in his earlier years but then he moved to “corporatism” (I’ve only this term used by people who can’t explain what exactly it means: by which I mean many academics whose confused writings I’ve been unfortunate enough to read).

    Either one values the individual and hence individual choice and accountability (capitalism) or one values the tribe/society/nation above the individual. There is simply no other logical way to look at the world. All methods (e.g. corporatism) fall into one of these two buckets. Corporatism the way I see it is purely a socialist worldview: a group approach to exploit or impose views on society with some efficiency.

    Although I’m not an expert on Hitler’s ideology I see his views squarely in the socialist (not necessarily Marxist) tradition that arose from Rousseau and elaborated by Hegel. The nation was (a very narrow view of the term in his view) to him greater than the individual. That is socialism: collectivism. The theory that values society (in this case the Aryan nation) above individuals who constitute them.

    I agree entirely with Hayek who notes: “The persecution of the Marxists, and of democrats in general, tends to obscure the fundamental fact that National “Socialism” is a genuine socialist movement, whose leading ideas are the final fruit of the anti-liberal tendencies which have been steadily gaining ground in Germany since the later part of the Bismarckian era, and which led the majority of the German intelligentsia first to “socialism of the chair” and later to Marxism in its social-democratic or communist form.”

    Also encourage you to consider:


    The rest of your points are a digression and I’ll not comment although I agree with you in part.

  3. Shiela

    Hitler was an Austrian Pan-Germanist whose big intellectual influence was his History teacher who followed the Conservative Trietschke against Adler who moved towards the Left. His anti-Semitism however was more extreme than that of Lueger, Mayor of Vienna. Unlike Mussolini, Hitler had no Socialist views at all till recruited by the Army to infiltrate the fledgling Nazi party. Hitler wasn’t even a collectivist but a votary of Carlyle type ‘great man’ theory according to which the masses have no destiny or interests save to sacrifice themselves so as to bring to pass the vision of the Great man.
    Heiddegger and Carl Schmitt have explained Hitlerism, from the inside, as it were. Hayek, an Anglicized Austrian knew nothing and cared nothing for Prussian philosophy or Economics. At that time, the revolutionary work of H.H. Gossen, a Prussian, was little known in Germany and not at all in Austria or England.
    Gandhi and Nehru were influenced by Carlyle’s ‘Great Man’ theory. For Gandhi it was perfectly proper for the entire Indian nation to be destroyed so long as this destruction was a testimony to their unswerving adherence to his concept of satyagraha. This is not Socialism, it is nonsense.
    Neo-classical Econ. comes in two flavors- one deontological, stressing Liberty, one consequentialist, stressing maximizing the Social Welfare Function. However, both are based on Classical Utility theory. The argument for minimizing the State or maximizing it ultimately cashes out as an argument about total Utility.
    In contrast, eschatological or ‘Great Man’ type theories might prefer to maximize Total Social Suffering and valorize the destruction not only of every individual- save the ‘Chosen One’ or ‘Man of Destiny’- but also of every collective. Hitlerism, unlike Mussolini’s Fascism (Mussolini genuinely was a Socialist, as Leftist as Gramsci, when he started out. But he backed Italy’s entry into the Great War and the rest, as the say, is History)
    I don’t think my points were a digression. You’ve written a couple of posts showing the Hiterite tendency of various self-proclaimed ‘Great Men’. Lucky for us, Indian political culture has inculcated a habit of agitating in a manner precisely calculated to frustrate the supposed aim of the agitation. We accord the title of ‘Mahatma’ or ‘Deshbandhu’ or ‘Netaji’ or ‘Loknayak’ or whatever to these Great Failures who nevertheless consider themselves Great Men- or women- witness ‘Didiji’.
    Hitler felt he actually had to invade countries to show he was a Great Man like Fredrick the Great. In India, by contrast, our great champions of the poor and ignorant Masses, know that to arrange their own failure in advance fail is the best way to attain ‘Greatness’.
    ‘Swaraj’ is not rooted in ‘the collectivist General Will’- I wish it were- unless the General Will of India is to be badly governed. It was and is rooted in rent-seeking and infantile narcissism. You might try reading Timur Kuran on preference falsification and availability cascades.

  4. sheila

    I read the jonyayray article- it is erudite but disingenuous. Every one knows that the Marx and Engels of ‘The German Ideology’ were still romantics- Engels never lost his infatuation with Schelling style Naturphilosophie- Wagner’s essays of that period give a flavour of that Zeitgeist. The importance of Marx to Socialism is the radical break he makes, under the influence of Classical Ricardian economics, with the Continental Romantic tradition.
    Your Dr. Ray makes great play with the Soviet use of the Swastika. He does not mention that the last Tzarina signed her letters with the same emblem. Was she a Socialist? So did Rudyard Kipling- the man who wrote a poem attacking ‘the 50 hour week’- no doubt, he was actually a Socialist.
    Was Marx guilty of anti-semitism? But if so only to the same extent as Heinrich Heine but less than Solomon Maimon- the contemporary of Kant and Moses Mendelsohn- and a full fledged Rabbi, no less.
    My son is like you. A Mathematician turned Economist who believes that there is no need to read History, read canonical Literary texts, because some short-cut on the internet is available to support any hare-brained idea that pops into one’s head.
    Nowadays, if a woman is better than a man- she will get the job. This is thanks to Capitalism- not Socialism. Hitler’s mother was worth three times his worthless bureaucrat of a father. The problem with the ‘agitators’- and you are also becoming one, Sanjeev- is that you don’t value your Mothers. You think- because when you were growing up- women were denied education and employment opportunities (well, at least, amongst the ‘khandani’ Upper Castes)- that Mother is an idiot because she only has ‘common sense’ whereas Father is a Deity, because he has surpassed the realm of making ends meet.
    But making ends meet, telling the truth, this is real Economics. The word, as Wicksteed and Coase emphasize, means ‘household management’ which is done by the ‘housewife.’
    What is this nonsense you are spouting about Microwave signals? After retirement I was a voluntary Prison Visitor. The most ignorant sort of women were saying this to me. By God’s grace, I was able to use my influence to get them transferred to good Psychiatric ‘secure wards’ where their family members could visit them every day.
    You have good I.Q and generally good mental health- but you overwork, over-worry and make yourself vulnerable in more ways than one. Some bogus Guru won’t help you. Your wife will. She is the mother of your children. ‘May you have ten sons and your husband the eleventh’- let your wife or your daughters or whoever it may be, let the ‘Matra jati’ – the people of the Race of Mothers, let them look after you- learn from them and though you will be slower in formulating your thoughts, your thoughts will be well-formulated- you will sustain no ‘repetitive stress injury’ such as, not Microwave radiation, but thinking stupid things, saying stupid things- even though you’ve previously thought something virtually identical, but less stupid, even though you’ve previously written something, but less risible- must inevitably inflict on so weak, parasitic and inutile an organism as your ‘Political Beliefs’.
    There is good in you. It is easy to dismiss what you are trying to do. I simply don’t like unfairness. I don’t like bullying and name-calling. I spent my working life as a teacher in London. If I had run a business- I’d have been wealthy. Yes, I retired as Head teacher and have a good pension- but I’m not wealthy. The blog where I came across your name vilified was one where I am also castigated as a posh lady.
    I feel the younger generation has lost respect for everything- not just on the internet. Foul language and vitriolic comments are considered ‘cool’.
    After my husband passed away, my world was shattered. You people are shattering your own world though your near and dear ones are alive. I worked, my children got an education and now they are far away. Good! They don’t need me but are happy in the Society to which their education and inclination has brought them to.
    A Mother should be a ‘Socialist’ in this sense. Every woman knows this in her heart of hearts.
    But, look, Sanjeev- I hope you don’t mind my saying this- you men also have jealousies against each other just like the most stupid elderly women. What they are saying against me- that I live in a big house and I should sell it to give the proceeds to my children- what can I say? My children are successful. They come home for Christmas- they call me at all times of day or night- I don’t keep the Skype video link, otherwise they will get an unpleasant surprise! Mother has grown old.
    Well, this is not for publication, so whether you read it or not, still- perhaps- some higher purpose is served.
    May God bless you and your family.

  5. Sanjeev Sabhlok


    Thanks for this interesting take on my interests/relationships/perspectives. And wherefrom did you derive this? From my note that I don’t buy “corporatism” as a concept. I don’t discuss gender, nor care for personalities. I prefer proof.

    To brush aside Hayek as ignorant of the history of political thought is too facile. I might not know too much about anything in particular (never having been an academic, and traversed broadly not deeply into most things), but Hayek did not suffer from such a defect.

    More importantly I explained why what you call “romantic” socialism, is essentially derived from Rousseau, and has a direct relationship with the Great Man model (I’ve not read Carlyle but is it possible he was perhaps following, unconsciously, examples from the French Revolution itself with Robespierre; little realising the entirely opposing perspective displayed by George Washington who resigned and retired as a common man, something Europeans could perhaps never understand (even now?).

    The great man theory is entirely collectivist. That’s the first point to note. It arises from the same seed as Rousseau’s general will. The assumption in the mind of the “great man” is that he is somehow the representative of the general will and everyone must do his bidding. Great Man is the opposite side of the General Will coin.

    Gandhi was a democrat and individualist and I disagree was even remotely a collectivist. His writings arising from the Hindu tradition (above all) are purely about the individual and self-purification. Yes, a bit overbearing he was in some of his writings – expecting that nations would follow the morality of the individual – but by no means a collectivist.

    I don’t agree there is a ‘great man’ disorder in India. In fact there is quite the opposite. Among the educated, there is severe dissonance among views about different leaders. Even everyone’s guru is different. To deduce such a disorder from the behaviour of voters is incorrect. Indira Gandhi was a “goddess” but then the voters booted her out. The Indian voter is no fool. He picks the dynasty since better options are not on offer.

    In brief, I continue to hold that Hitler was a leftist (“society first”) and any suggestion that my mathematical training (which is the precise thing I’ve decried in economics) or overwork has anything to do with this belief, is incorrect.

    Finally a quick one re: microwaves.

    It is absolutely true that bee colonies are collapsing.

    It is entirely true that in every single way, the physics of all life is closely linked to the natural environment in which we exist. I have no doubt that brain waves are real, and slow waves are critical in memory formation. I have no doubt that meditation has proven benefits for the mind (and body). I don’t get time to practice yoga, but from what little I know of it, it is unsurpassed in bringing the body and mind to their highest level of performance. I can readily see why microwaves – being just one part of the electromagnetic spectrum, although much lower than light – could be detected by living cells and confound them.

    We are all made of energy and vacuum.

    I’ve actually gone and read a few research articles for myself on this topic and am convinced this theory has some merit in explaining both the decline of bees (and some birds) and potential adverse effects (including cancer) on humans.

    90 per cent of the world is still undiscovered. Science in its current form is PRIMITIVE beyond imagination. To rule out the effect of microwaves on living organisms you need a level of scientific knowledge you don’t have. Nor does anyone else for that matter.

    In my view you seem to rush to judgement on a number of things but I’ll let that pass.


  6. Shiela

    Carlyle, like George Eliot, made his name by his familiarity with German philosophy.The reason that Eschatological and Great Man theories of History aren’t Collectivist is because the mass of human beings have no importance or significance. They may or may not stand witness- i.e. be martyred- but the Truth to which the stand witness is indifferent to their testimony.
    The reason I can rule out your ideas about microwave radiation from rational consideration is because you have no expertise in this field. I do not know what fields you have expertise in. But, it is likely, that when you write about something of which you have expert knowledge then your arguments will be cast into a recognizable logical form.
    I suppose people of my generation read a great deal more. Universities were stricter then. Not to have read Carlyle- whom Gandhi called one of his Gurus- suggests a level of cultural and political illiteracy which belies the rather expansive claims you make on your blog.
    A pity because you are right to criticize the likes of Rajiv Dixit.

  7. Sanjeev Sabhlok


    a) There are fundamentally only two types of social theories: one, those that value individuals and their choices; two, those that value a society’s choices. The first of these is totally new and very rare to find in human history (outside of India). Indeed, till today I don’t see many Western thinkers who understand the former. The vast majority (99%) of Western theories to date have been socialistic, raising the society above the individual. The reason is that the West was predominantly tribal. The idea of great man is related directly to the tribe because it assumes others are mere means to the great man’s usually tribal “ends” (“the mass of human beings have no importance or significance. They may or may not stand witness- i.e. be martyred”). It is IMPOSSIBLE for a person who believes in liberty to aspire to be a “great man”, for he/she has no intention of imposing on others. Greatness through productivity perhaps, but not greatness in the ‘great man’ sense you are referring to.

    Despite your resistance to place Hitler squarely in the leftist tradition (“society first; I’m the great man whose ideas the entire society must follow”), and your great knowledge of Carlyle, I’m not persuaded that Hitler was a votary of individual liberty. When you find more persuasive evidence than Carlyle, please suggest. I’d suggest pointing out extracts from his writings which prove his love of liberty and any humility he might have had about his own ignorance.

    b) Microwave. Your response unfortunately attacks me, not my arguments. That’s not helpful. Please disprove through evidence. You’ll be surprised how quickly I’m able to absorb any amount of scientific evidence. My expertise is deceptive. I may have only a few academic degrees, but when I study something seriously I don’t skimp. I generally get to the bottom of things.

    c) Re:my not reading Carlyle, I can guarantee you’ve not read about 95 per cent of authors/things I’ve read. Does it matter whether I’ve read Carlyle? Or that you’ve not read 95 per cent of the stuff I have? Carlyle has nothing significant to contribute as far as I can see, to the Hitler argument, or to liberty. If you prove his ideas on liberty are particularly cogent, I’m happy to flick through his stuff and correct my ignorance.

    Given there are hundreds of millions of books in this world, I have no intention of reading everything.


  8. sheila

    a) there aren’t two types of Social theories, there are many. Perhaps, what you mean to say is that all existing Social theories can be divided into two camps- ones amenable to ‘methodological individualism’ and one’s that stress emergent properties of Social systems. If this is what you are saying, then you need to specify a criteria of demarcation and address the underlying sorites problematic- i.e. what, at the margin, is the ‘tipping point’ rendering a theory either this or that. If you have indeed originated or espoused any such demarcation criteria, do let us know what it is.
    As a rider to this, I may mention that your insistence that Hinduism is individualistic can’t be supported by any argument you present. Indeed, I am not aware of any responsible scholar who has argued otherwise- people like Swami Agnivesh ( a Socialist) are not Scholars. They are tendentious propagandists for a cause whose mischief they neither envisage nor care greatly to curtail.
    You write ‘the vast majority (99%) of Western theories to date have been socialistic’- this is nonsense. The vast majority of Western theories have been eschatological or teleological. Even deontological approaches- like that of Nozick- appeal to consequentialist considerations. But this consequentialism is eschatological- pointing to an Omega point of Information- such as that involved in that ‘Judge Hercules’ without whom Nozick’s argument falls to pieces- or it is teleological (as I believe your own argument is) pointing to a perfect end state and working backwards from that.
    To speak of ‘tribalism’ without showing awareness of the the paradigm shifting work of Morton H Fried is simply ignorant. As in Europe, so in India, tribes (e.g. the AJGAR) came into existence in response to an Imperium.
    You write ‘Despite your resistance to place Hitler squarely in the leftist tradition (“society first; I’m the great man whose ideas the entire society must follow”), and your great knowledge of Carlyle, I’m not persuaded that Hitler was a votary of individual liberty. When you find more persuasive evidence than Carlyle, please suggest. I’d suggest pointing out extracts from his writings which prove his love of liberty and any humility he might have had about his own ignorance.’
    This is not just ad hominem (I must be a very bad person to resist placing Hitler in the leftist tradition) but ignoratio elenchi of a particularly flagrant sort.
    b) Microwave- your obsession with this is evidence of an incipient mental illness as your style of argument further demonstrates. I easily disprove your argument by stating the following fact- Microwave radiation has not led to any drop in scholastic achievement anywhere affected. Your expertise is not merely deceptive, as you proudly claim (perhaps inadvertently. I take it your School education was in a vernacular language, in which case allowances can be made) but entirely delusionary.
    You may only have a few academic degrees but you disgrace every institution which you rewarded your sedulous cramming with a Credential whose worthlessness your prose amply demonstrates.
    c) You talk about Gandhi but haven’t read Carlyle. I can guarantee that you don’t understand 95 percent of any serious book you have ever read. You don’t understand Hayek. Lord Meghnad Desai does. He’s a self confessed ‘Hayekian Marxist’. You know very little about the history of Economic Theory. Did you know Coase and Abba Lerner were great friends? But, you are entirely ignorant of Coase’s ‘Law & Econ’ approach aren’t you? You have read nothing- or rather profited not at all from what little you have read. This would not matter if you had a feeling heart- the power to empathize with others.
    You write worthless books as do hundreds of millions of others- but some books are worthwhile. But even those remain a closed book to you because you have a bigot’s brain and a harridan heart.

  9. Sanjeev Sabhlok


    Instead of providing evidence that Hitler promoted individual liberty you’ve gone off on your usual tangent. No you are not a bad person. You are simply unable to engage in meaningful discussion.

    I really don’t have time to spend time on my tangential arguments (I don’t have time to discuss why Hinduism is rooted in primary of the individual, or why most Western philosophies, religious systems and political organisations are based on primacy of society over the individual, etc. ).

    I need you to show me where Hitler promoted the individual choice, rights and freedoms. From all data I can assemble, he saw the world as “groups” (Aryans, Jews) and believed society (his “nation”) came above any individual. His actions, his writings all point to a socialistic view. Nationalism is itself a socialistic perspective if it is not a derivative from individual primacy.

    But let’s move on since you have no evidence to offer. I admit I’m very ignorant. If you want to prove that fact, you’ll not find it too hard. But if you are able to provide me with evidence that Hitler was a votary of individual liberty and choice, you’ll be surprised how quickly even an ignorant person like me can understand.

    ==Microwave. It’s not an obsession. Only the first time I ever wrote about it. I’ve not bothered much about it earlier, but all evidence I can find so far confirms that the documentary that started that blog post is actually on the right track. E.g.

    Or:, etc. etc.

    I never suggested microwaves lower scholastic scores. The documentary says these can cause cancer after 10+ years of exposure. Plus it affects bees/birds. Please review the published scientific literature to rebut.

    Simplistic arguments don’t work with me. Solid evidence does. You seem to spend a lot of time on me, my education, my writings. Instead of doing that (you are almost entirely wrong in all your assumptions), please spend time providing evidence.

Social media & sharing icons powered by UltimatelySocial