This Cardinal Is In Serious Error

A few weeks ago, I welcomed Pope Benedict's call, delivered at the German parliament, for a public debate on positivism. 


Well, today, it seems that the first shot has been fired from within the Vatican itself, with Cardinal Turkson, President of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace releasing a document titled “Towards reforming the international financial and monetary systems in the context of the global public authority." This document - which is not a "papal document" - opposes a priorism in Economics, espouses empiricism and positivism, and since these are both "intellectual covers for socialism" - as Hans-Hermann Hoppe has written - the document ends up with all the grave errors of socialism, to the extent of calling for a global central bank.


But the Cardinal begins with some half-truths - half-truths that have prompted one commentator to call this document "Right diagnosis, deadly cure." After the diagnosis, the Cardinal asks the question:

What has driven the world in such a problematic direction for its economy and also for peace?

And his first answer is this:

First and foremost, an economic liberalism that spurns rules and controls. Economic liberalism is a theoretical system of thought, a form of “economic apriorism” that purports to derive laws for how markets function from theory, these being laws of capitalistic development, while exaggerating certain aspects of markets. An economic system of thought that sets down a priori the laws of market functioning and economic development, without measuring them against reality, runs the risk of becoming an instrument subordinated to the interests of the countries that effectively enjoy a position of economic and financial advantage. 

This is an issue concerning epistemology. The question is: Does Economics have to follow the method of physics - which is measurement, after which theories are arrived at a posteriori. Or are the Laws of Economics arrived at a priori, by deduction, and are established by logic, just like the propositions of mathematics or geometry, such that they do not need measurement and observation to validate them?


Let us take an example:


The Law of Exchange - which says that when a good is traded voluntarily, both parties gain by the trade; that their individual valuations of that good are unequal. Obviously, if I prefer beer over money, the barowner prefers money over beer. How does such a law require "measurement" or "observation" to validate it? Obviously, this law is NOT going to be established a posteriori. It is true a priori. 


In fact, "value" cannot be measured, for it lies within the valuing mind. "Value is subjective." All that can be measured are prices and quantities - and the price at which exchange transpires will show agreement, not unequal valuation. The "demand-and-supply curves" type of education teaches nonsense - and these curves can only be produced by "measurement." The curves are actually "statistics."  They are thus History - they are not Theory, which in Economics must be true a priori.


Hence, the methods of physics are NOT applicable to the Science of Economics. Positivism and empiricism are the intellectual covers for socialism and interventionism, since they deny the MIND of the acting individual, and they create the false impression of a "national economy" - with its "national income" and its "growth rate" - which must be managed by a super-human mind: that of the central planner; that of the Great Leader. 


Thus, Hans-Hermann Hoppe concludes his brief essay against empiricism with these words:

If we want to attack socialism, we must also attack the absurd intellectual error of empiricism. And if we want to defeat socialism, we must make a principled Misesian case based on the logic of human action and the irrefutable laws of economics.

Since Cardinal Turkson, President of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace,  espouses empiricism and disavows a priorism, he is led deep into socialism, statism, and even the "primacy of politics."


Here are some quotes from the rest of the document:

...the world’s peoples ought to adopt an ethic of solidarity as the animating core of their action... [But we are all individuals, and we buy and sell in markets full of strangers. See my article on "catallaxy."]

the risk of an “idolatry of the market..." [The real risk is idolatry of the State and political authority. See also Tom Woods' rejoinder here.]

global social justice seem most urgent... for achieving... a fair distribution of world wealth... [The "mirage of social justice" gone global!]

one can see an emerging requirement for a body that will carry out the functions of a kind of “central world bank” [Horrors!]

strengthening the existing institutions, such as the European Central Bank [Here is a report that Germany will ditch the Euro if the ECB starts printing more of them.]

In this process, the primacy of the spiritual and of ethics needs to be restored and, with them, the primacy of politics – which is responsible for the common good – over the economy and finance. [Read Anthony de Jasay's Before Resorting to Politics.]

forms of recapitalization of banks with public funds making the support conditional on “virtuous” behaviours aimed at developing the “real economy” [Moral hazard.]

At this point, I would like to remind the Cardinal of his views on the Principle of Subsidiarity, which he upholds, and defines as follows:

According to the logic of subsidiarity, the higher Authority offers its subsidium, that is, its aid, only when individual, social or financial actors are intrinsically deficient in capacity, or cannot manage by themselves to do what is required of them.

Now, money has ALWAYS been "private money": GOLD. Accordingly, we human beings, in freedom, without the aid of any political authority, can manage to produce our own money. Free banking can be conducted under traditional commercial law - as Jesus Huerta de Soto has shown. Thus, according to a Principle upheld by the Church, and also by Cardinal Turkson, there is NO NEED for ANY POLITICAL AUTHORITY over money and banking, and certainly not at the global level.


This is NOT new - not "neo-liberalism." This is "classical liberalism." Adam Smith's "Three Duties of the Sovereign" did NOT include anything to do with money. I have recounted these three duties here.


Mises put it best, in Human Action, when he wrote:

The use of money in a market economy is a praxeologically necessary fact. That gold, and not something else, is used as money is merely a historical fact and as such cannot be conceived by catallactics.

Thus, we Hindus are currently celebrating Diwali - when we traditionally buy gold. It is a "custom" - from History. This has NOTHING to do with "theory."

As far as "world order" is concerned, Mises also put it best when he wrote, in Nation, State, and Economy:

Liberalism, which demands full freedom of the economy, seeks to dissolve the difficulties that the diversity of political arrangements pits against the development of trade by separating the economy from the state. It strives for the greatest possible unification of law, in the last analysis for world unity of law. But it does not believe that to reach this goal, great empires or even a world empire must be created.

I also recommend to my reader this Islamic Judgment on Paper Money - which shows very clear reasoning.

But recall where I began unraveling this litany of errors - with Cardinal Turkson's empiricism, his antipathy to a priorism, and his love for "measurement" in Economics. On the subject of epistemology, I earnestly recommend Hans-Hermann Hoppe's Economic Science and the Austrian Method, which you can find here.


Professor Hoppe's article "Why the State demands Control of Money" is also a very useful read in today's times.

The Fascist Threat Is Real - And Everywhere

Today I would like to comment on two speeches: first, Boris Johnson saying that "Gandhi was wrong on urbanisation"; and second, Lew Rockwell's speech on fascism. In the Indian context, I will attempt to link the two - to illustrate the fact that ours too is a fascist State, because Gandhi (and Nehru) were both wrong.


Boris Johnson, Mayor of London (not Lord Mayor of the Olde City), made a speech the other day in which he said that "Gandhi was wrong in stating in 1948 that India's future lay in its villages as the country's future actually was in its cities."


In other words, Gandhi was blind to the "division of labour" - which is specialisation, and which is maximised in towns and cities, for even tea shops cannot run in sparsely populated villages. 


Now, when we specialise in the division of labour and perform services for each other "society" is formed. Gandhian "self-sufficient village economies" where each spins his own yarn is NOT a vision of "civilised society": indeed, it can be called "anti-social." And then, of course, Nehruvian socialism is anti-social as well, something we can see only now, when it may be too late. Now, fascism is upon us. If the UPA goes, the BJP comes in - and fascism will intensify.


What is fascism: Over to Lew Rockwell's excellent and timely speech, full text here. Lew lists 8 points as to what fascism is all about:


1.The government is totalitarian because it acknowledges no restraint upon its powers.


2. Government is a de facto dictatorship based on the leadership principle.


3. Government administers a capitalist system with an immense bureaucracy.


4. Producers are organized into cartels in the way of syndicalism. This includes workers as well as manufacturers. Consumers get screwed. The free market is, on the other hand, where the "consumer is king."


5.  Economic planning is based on the principle of autarky.


6. Government sustains economic life through spending and borrowing.


7. Militarism is a mainstay of government spending.


8. Military spending has imperialist aims.


Lew says the USSA and much of the world is fascist in this sense. 


What about India?


Each one of the 8 points holds true for our country.


The reason is because Gandhi and Nehru both got it completely wrong. They said "socialism" - but they did not know what society is. They thought the State and the Party and the Leader are all society. They did not know what "civilisation" was - cities and towns, where markets happen and trade occurs. They destroyed urban India - and dreamed of a rural utopia. Thus, they destroyed the "civil service" and made it "bureaucracy": all socialist and interventionist "administrators," the "mammaries of the welfare state."


And now, they have paved the way for the BJP and their "communal hatred." Internal wars will result. Things will get worse.


Hope? The only hope we have is:

REVOLUTION

Lew ends with these stirring words from Mises:

In the long run even the most despotic governments with all their brutality and cruelty are no match for ideas. Eventually the ideology that has won the support of the majority will prevail and cut the ground from under the tyrant's feet. Then the oppressed many will rise in rebellion and overthrow their masters.

In the USSA, revolution is in the air. They are storming Wall Street - but some smarter folk are storming the US Fed. Washington DC is being "occupied."


In our country, INFLATION is killing. The RBI must be attacked. Welfarism must be ended. The Police and the Military establishments must get FUCKED where 1000 people die or are seriously injured on the ROAD every single day.

REVOLUTION! 

(Part 2 of this post can be read here.)

Say's Law: A Summing Up

Say's Law of Markets, by making a distinction between those who compete with us and those who do not, tells us that the bulk of the market is made up of those who co-operate with us; that too, in two ways: first, by providing us with our needs, the goods and services we do not and cannot produce ourselves; and second, by providing the vital demand for the goods and services we come to the market to sell. 

The market is NOT "pitiless competition." There is more co-operation than competition - and, anyway, "competition is liberty, while the absence of competition is tyranny." There is no "Social Darwinism" in the market.

This is SOCIETY. 

This is the market society built on the principle of the DIVISION OF LABOUR, which is specialisation. This is the polar opposite of Gandhian "self-sufficiency.


Say's Law of Markets thus proves what Thomas Paine wrote in the very first paragraph of Common Sense - that "society is a patron, while government is a punisher." Society is the vast majority, and they are in the market; government is a small minority, set up to apprehend, try, and punish enemies of this market order, who are an even smaller minority. 

This is the "natural order."

To socialists, Society, State and Party are all ONE: "India is Indira." Say's Law proves this vision dead wrong.


Say's Law also tells us much about taxation - that any tax reduces demand. It suggests a minimalist State; it suggests "political economy." Giving taxes to the State hurts market demand for all. Say's Law proves many genuine experts in public finance right when they write that modern taxation is more expropriation - and that indirect taxation, including customs duties, as well as the income tax, should be outlawed by constitution. Say's Law suggests "user fees" ought to replace taxes, wherever possible.


Say's Law can also be used to analyse the effects of interventionism - the key question being how interventionism in one area will hurt non-competing industries, which is the rest of society, the rest of the market order.


Finally, Say's Law "pours lead into the Keynesian's ear" - as one of my readers put it. It shows that government is a cost, not a source of benefits, not a "stimulus to demand." It points to the real source of market demand - which is the production and sale of goods and services, backed by savings and investment. This is the pathway to civilisation. The Keynesians, with their funny money welfarism, heavy taxation and even heavier borrowing, have unleashed the forces of "de-civilisation" - which is rampant capital consumption. All welfare, it may be pointed out, is consumption; nothing is saved; nothing is invested.


As a wise man put it: "It is good if the people support the government - but all hell breaks loose if the government attempts to support the people."


To conclude: In these five posts on this vital Law of Markets  which is currently mistaught universally (the first post is here), I hope I have shown my reader the correct way to look at markets, at society, and at the State. I hope my reader will realise that Keynesian "macroeconomics" must be jettisoned in toto, and replaced by methodological individualism as the epistemology of the Science of Economics.


Thus, as Sudha Shenoy once put it in an interview with Austrian Economics Newsletter in 2003:

Almost every economics department in the world can be immediately shut down without having any ill-effect on the world of ideas. 

This is the power of Jean Baptiste Say's Law of Markets.

On The Pope... And Black Money: Take #2

Pope Benedict XVI's address before the German parliament has attracted wide attention because at the outset he quoted St. Augustine's dictum:

"Without justice – what else is the State 

but a great band of robbers?"

In our own country, all the fuss is about "black money" - or money that has evaded the tax-collector. The matter has now been referred to a specially constituted board of bureaucrats - but the news report says they are "dragging their feet." So, the issue is now before the Chief Justice of India (CJI), says another report.


But, tell you me, is not all the inflation, stock-market crash, the crises over the Euro and the US dollar all about "funny money"? Will inflation be over, will these crises be resolved for our country, if all this "black money" is unearthed and "brought back" to the Exchequer? Certainly not!

We all need Sound Money - Gold.

And St. Augustine wrote, in his City of God:

"Without justice – what else is the State 

but a great band of robbers?"

So, now that black money is before the CJI, think about Ashok Jain, KL Chugh and Rajan Pillai - how they were humiliated over black money and how two of them died. The "positive law" was FERA - the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act.


Now, as any Misesian knows, foreign exchange regulation is meant to "expropriate wealth." There is nothing "just" about such a positive law. In my book, if the central banker cannot convert his note into money desired by the bearer, it is the central banker who ought to be in prison: a debtors' prison. Savvy?


After all, the "promise to pay" on the note, signed by the central banker, is a SOLEMN CONTRACT - a contract the central banker is refusing to abide by.


And St. Augustine wrote, in his City of God:

"Without justice – what else is the State 

but a great band of robbers?"

Of course, FERA was INJUSTICE writ large, so we could rephrase the above as follows:

Without Sound Money -  what else is the State 

but a great band of robbers?

It is at this point that Murray Rothbard must be quoted, for in his Ethics of Liberty he wrote what would happen to the State if this were to be the case:

For if the bulk of the public were really convinced of the illegitimacy of the State, if it were convinced that the State is nothing more nor less than a bandit gang writ large, then the State would soon collapse to take on no more status or breadth of existence than another Mafia gang. Hence the necessity of the State’s employment of ideologists; and hence the necessity of the State’s age-old alliance with the Court Intellectuals who weave the apologia for State rule.

This "black money" nonsense is the work of State-employed ideologists, judges and bureaucrats. We, the people, must focus on the "funny money" that is the root cause of our problems.


The person with black money has only evaded taxation - which is "moral" in a nation where the State "consumes capital" and there are no good roads or highways, and 200,000 people are killed in traffic accidents every year, and many more seriously injured.


On the other hand, the funny money man is an issuer of dud currency - a "counterfeiter," as I have explained in this brief column. Throughout history, counterfeiting always attracted the death penalty.


However, the Pope did a lot more in his address: he actually challenged "legal positivism" and even quoted Hans Kelsen, who was Hayek's professor of law, and a very important German legal positivist. 


Hayek of the Law, Legislation & Liberty volumes was not Hans Kelsen's student; rather, he had been strongly influenced by Bruno Leoni, whose Freedom and the Law is a must read.


After smashing legal positivism (while maintaining that positivism is essential for the natural sciences) the Pope said:

Where positivist reason dominates the field to the exclusion of all else – and that is broadly the case in our public mindset – then the classical sources of knowledge for ethics and law are excluded. This is a dramatic situation which affects everyone, and on which a public debate is necessary. Indeed, an essential goal of this address is to issue an urgent invitation to launch one.

I echo that sentiment. Down with legal positivism. Down with positivism in the sciences of human action - like Economics.

The God That Failed: Take #2

Democracy is also a form of worship. 

It is the worship of Jackals by Jackasses.

—H. L. Mencken

Democracy has been the recipient of many an abuse - perhaps none greater than PJ O'Rourke's Parliament of Whores, though that is an insult to whores, who, unlike parliaments, do not fuck you by force.

Today, this very same parliament has been heaped with abuse in this LRC post by Laurence Vance titled "The US Congress Contains the Biggest Bunch of Buffoons, Idiots and Morons in the World." 

The subject matter pertains to Google, because of whom we all enjoy so many free facilities, and who are now  being accused of being "monopolistic and violating anti-trust laws." Well, if you download Google Chrome, before installation you have a choice of three search engines. Monopolistic?

Anyway, which libertarian believes in busting monopolies by anti-trust legislation and competition commissions? What did MRTPC ever achieve in socialist India? And, as I discussed yesterday, it is State-owned Air India and BSNL that offer the private sector "unfair competition."

What is required is openness to entry by new players - which is how Microsoft's Windows Explorer got busted by Mozilla and Google Chrome.

Yes. The US Congress is nuts. And, incidentally, they are very corrupt as well.

Let us turn our attention to UK. Here is how a post from Andy Duncan's "The God That Failed" blog begins:

It would seem that as we enter the ‘idiot’ season, in which various British government halfwits (a.k.a. politicians) have pontificated on the need for more ‘stimulus’ – because previous attempts at ‘stimulus’ have been so successful – this country is standing at the edge of an abyss of debt collapse.

When will we learn that those who rule us are morons? 

Do read my comment at the bottom - about a moron I saw on BBC, which is "State-owned broadcasting." Like Pravda. Doordarshan. All India Radio. Ha ha. Poor Brits. "Thought Control" writ large.


And there is worse: The very next post says "UK QE to resume in October." Well, Keynes was English, so whaddya expect? Morons.



And now, let us turn to our morons, "socialist planners." Our Great Leader, the socialist-welfarist-democrat, chacha manmohan s gandhi, is concurrently Chairman of the Planning Commission, and this Very Important Department of our The State has got its knickers in a twist over "measuring poverty." Is 26 rupees a day poor, or is 32 rupees? And what about inflation, etc.? 


The fuss is all about welfare - the "right to food," by which this The State will mail parcels of uncooked grain to the well-measured poor, while street vendors who sell cheap cooked food are preyed upon by both policemen as well as municipal functionaries.

The Predatory State pretending to be a Welfare State.

I suggest these people look at the Corruption Perceptions Index of Transparency International. India is ranked 87/178 with Albania, Jamaica, and Liberia, with a score of 3.3 out of 10!


And I suggest my readers read the World Economic Freedom Index, from the Heritage Foundation, which finds India "mostly unfree," ranked 124/179, below Pakistan, Malawi, Tonga and Benin!


Also, read this analysis of the Economic Freedom Index from the Mises Institute. They are also offering an online course on the importance of Economic Freedom.


Democracy: The God That Failed; The Economics and Politics of Monarchy, Democracy, and Natural Order by Hans-Hermann Hoppe is a MUST READ. Buy it in India here.


Unfortunately, Hoppe does not write much about the "Natural Order": for that, read my eponymously titled book available as a free download on the right-hand bar.

Natural Liberty

Natural Order

Natural Justice

Higher Taxes On The Rich Hurt Society - Especially The Poor

A very bad idea is being floated around - in the USSA by Warren Buffet, and in the UK by Sir Stuart Rose - that the way out of the current economic crisis is to get the rich to pay more taxes. Since such an idea is bound to find acceptability in India, where the masses are poor, and the rich are considered fair game, I am devoting this post to shooting this horrible idea down.


First: The crisis in the West is because of government debt. That is, their The State is spending too much. The only solution is cutting State expenditure, not paying more taxes. The USSA should get out of its foreign wars - and Americans should tell Warren Buffet to go to hell.


Similarly, in the UK, and the PIGS of the Eurozone - the "Welfare State" policies of old have to go, and markets must be freed for citizens to make wealth for themselves. It is welfarism that lies at the core of the crisis in the Euro. Welfarism leads directly to a Big Spending State - and this spending is what needs to be cut. More and higher taxes will work in the opposite direction.


Classical liberals used the term "political economy" with good reason: first, their minimalist government, with very few tasks to perform, would cost very little in terms of taxes, and this was what "political economy" was all about; and second, their minimalist government would leave the citizenry maximally free, and maximum liberty was a cherished goal of their political science. It seems these ideas and ideals are all but lost in the West today. Here is a Daily Bell article on a column by Nouriel Roubini that says his ideas on solving the current crisis reveal him to be a "kind of radical Keynesian" and a "secret backer" of central banking and fiat money.


What about India? A Times of India editorial opposes higher taxation, but does not go far enough.


What we in India need to do is understand that welfarism of the kind chacha manmohan s gandhi has ushered in (on a grand scale) will be disastrous. We need to learn the lessons of classical liberal political economy outlined above for our own future: that is, very low taxation for a most minimal government with the least tasks to perform, such that Liberty is maximised. I have just written a post on how the poor of India need freedom, not education, nor welfare.


Taxing the rich even more hurts the poor, especially in poor countries like India, because only the rich can save and invest, and the poor need Capital for their incomes to grow. If the rich cannot save and invest, because of higher taxes, the poor will remain poor forever.


The Lesson: Big spending, high taxing, high borrowing governments are a curse. Classical liberal political economy got it right. Minimalist governments, low taxes and Liberty are the only antidote to these modern horrors.

The Trial Of chacha manmohan s gandhi - Part 2: Take #2

Continuing from where I left off yesterday, let me now draw my reader's attention to an excellent and brief essay by Friedrich Hayek that none have ever noticed, titled "Two Kinds of Mind." This essay is to be found in his New Studies in Philosophy, Politics, Economics, and the History of Ideas. In a nutshell, this Nobel laureate says that the "education system" currently in place all over the world - and this applies particularly to India - promotes and encourages those whose minds are good at memorising stuff. The crammers and muggers top the schools, enter the best colleges, and so on. Hayek says that he himself did not possess such a mind. He confesses to having not done too well at school. And he adds that whatever he did cram, for the examinations, he promptly forgot afterwards.

The other kind of mind, Hayek says, is one that assimilates "concepts." This sort of mind is slow. It is no good at memorising. Instead, it slowly and painfully assimilates concepts within it, building one on top of the other. Hayek says that his mind is of this sort. Such minds are NOT encouraged today - and certainly not in India.


Hayek has a chapter in his popular book, The Road to Serfdom, titled "How the Worst Get on Top." The education system is an integral part of this process. Good minds do not rise; the muggers do.

In India, the schools are all meant for muggers and crammers. The "education" youngsters receive is full of "formulae" that must be remembered. This is particularly true of advanced mathematics and statistics. It is also true of physics and chemistry, including organic chemistry. The study of History is NOT conceptual; rather, it requires the mugging up of chronological data: dates. Muggers top the exams. As for the rest, they forget everything they learnt soon after school.

The same continues in college. The study of "Indian Economics" is nothing but the mugging up of useless statistical data. The mathematisation of Economics is likewise. There is zero conceptual learning - that which leads to an "understanding" of the vital issues concerning market exchanges. The higher one climbs up the educational ladder, particularly in Economics, the more bizarre the curriculum becomes, and the more mathematical. And I mean highly advanced mathematics, extremely complex, which requires the memorisation of formulae. 


It is important to note that basic arithmetic is a part of every human being's mental construction. Our language contains numbers - and so we know how to count. In the Market Economy, we need nothing more than Arithmetic: addition, subtraction; and, maybe, division and multiplication. The chairmen of the biggest companies in the world use nothing more to understand their balance sheets. It was Goethe, no one less, who said that double-entry book-keeping was one of the greatest inventions of the human mind. These bastards have given us weirdo maths instead - for all to learn. This is the mathematics of The Devil.

I attended one year of the Master's degree programme at the Delhi School of Economics (and quit!) in 1977-78. We had 8 papers in all; but we also had a Course Zero, titled "Mathematics for Economists." And just the other year, I came across a bright young girl from the DSE - one who had attended some of my privatseminars - who cried on my shoulder and said, "I had come here to study Economics, but all I seem to be studying is mathematics." In my time - and things must surely be the same - the toppers at the DSE were those who took "Six Tricks": that is, six papers in Econometrics  (out of 8). Most of these muggers came from Presidency College, Calcutta. Note that it is easy to "score marks" in mathematics if you get your formulae right. This is how the worst minds get on top.


I also pursued and acquired a Master's degree in Business Economics from Delhi University between 1981-83 with specialisation in International Trade and Transport Economics. Both were taught in mathematics. We in India have NO international trade. All our sea-ports export mineral ores and import nothing. And as for our transport system, it is FUCKED. This is the result of mathematics. To pass the examinations, I even had to take tuition in math! Of course, I have forgotten all that shit.

Engineering students and medical students must, of course, mug formulae. But so do students of Law - and this is particularly harmful. They study "positive law" - that is, the written law - and they mug it all up clause by clause, article by article, Latin maxim by Latin maxim. I have personally seen the room of one such student of Law: he had written all the articles of the Constitution of India, and all the sections of the Indian Penal Code, on the walls of his hostel room, so that he could mug them all. 


It is noteworthy that chacha manmhoan's "human resource destruction minister" is a socialist lawyer. Lawyers are extremely dangerous people - especially when they are in possession of political power. Good lawyers are engaged in "private law." That is, property, contracts and torts. In India, we have NONE of these PROTECTIONS under the law. Even the BJP spokesman, Arun Jaitley, is a "constitutional lawyer." In other words, he possesses political power. He is not in the "enterprise of law." Rather, he has simply mugged up the Constitution of India, much amended, article by article, and beyond that he knows nothing. This is how the "worst get on top" and this is why there is no Justice in socialist India.

The "education system," now in the hands of CONgress lawyer, has always been engaged in the encouragement of "rote-learning." It is a "deliberate device" by which our The State, which controls and monopolises all education, makes the youth dumb and dumber. They memorise everything that our The State wants them to, but they "understand" nothing. The examinations are only a memory test - almost 90 percent of which is unnecessary in a Free Market Economy. In such an economy, where knowledge is "fragmented," people specialise, and only need to know the knowledge relevant to their calling. Just as we save on labour by specialising, so too do we save on knowledge. We do NOT need to know all there is to know. We need to be competent only in one chosen field. Thus, almost 90 percent of schooling is superfluous, and a burden. 


It is particularly shocking that the length of schooling, which was 10 years in the 50s, became 11 years in my time, and is now 12 long years. In the good old days children were only taught the 3R's - that is, reading, writing and arithmetic - after which they were encouraged to "find their calling" and acquire the relevant knowledge, either through apprenticeship, or otherwise. Apprenticeship was paid - and kids earned money, entered the Market Economy early in life, got married early, and so became self-supporting citizens by their mid-teens. Today, most kids cannot afford to marry till their 30s. This is part of the evil designs of our The State, which has delayed marriage deliberately, by legislation, in order to "control the population." It is this State that is the REAL PROBLEM. Not the kids.

Almost all of this protracted education our kids receive from The State is useless. I have simply forgotten all the higher mathematics, trigonometry, algebra, physics and chemistry I studied in school. It is NOT required for all. We need to drastically alter and cut down on education. Instead, our Great Leader, chacha manmohan s gandhi, is conspiring to inject this deadly venom into every innocent child's mind pan-India; and that too, by FORCE.

If a perfect example of the kind of bozos created by this "miseducation system" is required, it is our elite bureaucracy: the IAS-IPS-IFS types. They all cram for a tough examination in their youth - BY MUGGING - and never study anything again. They spend the rest of their lives studying government files. In their "academies" nonsensical Economics is taught - deliberately - thereby dumbing them down even further. They mug up all the "positive law" - including the Constitution of India - and the end result is that nothing from the government works; there is no "functional legitimacy" of our The State; and even the judicial system is a failure. The entire legal system is corrupt. Many judges have been found to be corrupt - in both the High Courts as well as the Supreme Court.


I have myself passed the UPSC examinations to qualify for the "public services" - not once, not twice, but three consecutive times - with Economics and Psychology as my elective subjects. Since then, after over 25 years of daily study - and public writing - I feel that the UPSC examination is nothing but a test of "how well do you know our bullshit." I have lectured twice at the IAS Academy in Mussoorie. After one of my lectures, the then Deputy Director, Yaduvendra Mathur IAS, told me: "We are knowledge-proof." They are also, interestingly, bullet-proof. They have VVIP security. And I have no gun to defend myself against them.

Thus, all the corruption we find in our society is nothing but the "corruption of the minds of the youth." It is for this great crime that chacha must be prosecuted.

This "miseducation system" is designed by our Great Leader, chacha manmohan s gandhi, who is nothing but an "intellectual bodyguard of the House of Nehru," and has served as Chairman of the University Grants Commission. In my book, all schools and colleges in India supported by our The State, or whose curricula are imposed by our The State, must be closed down immediately. This miseducation system will kill every single intellect. It will destroy this bright new generation. Even more importantly, it will WASTE TIME. The years of one's youth are precious. It is then that the mind is keen. As they say, "You cannot teach an old horse new tricks." The flower of Indian youth will be destroyed if our chacha is allowed to pursue his evil plot.

I will continue on this theme tomorrow. Stay tuned for Part 3.