Friday, May 5, 2017

Happy Birthday Karl Marx

Why is it ok to hold a raised fist in communist salute? 

Yes I'm sure the Holodomor was about feeding people. If you have a death toll in the tens of millions, then yes you are pathetic and unworthy, so Marxism and Maoism and Nazism are all disgusting and failed in every country they have been tried. Yeah communism wants to feed the people, that is why every state socialist nation aiming for communism had massive famines that often resulted in the death of millions. Lol @ communism. Responsible for over 100 millions deaths, including self-induced famines, all in the name of feeding the people. 

On the not-so-similar lines, Nazism (by definition) invokes theories of eugenics and is therefore seen as fundamentally offensive whereas communism in practice is an economic construct who's purpose is (was) to eliminate class and have an equal society.

That's why Nazism is in a different class to communism, socialism and capitalism. Nothing to do with how countries have used these theories in the past. Communism and Nazism are both responsible for killing millions and are equally reprehensible but are equally deserving of being laughed at and mocked.

People might think I really fail to understand the political nuance of the situation.

Hitler killed millions out of hate.

Mao killed millions out of stupidity.

Pol Pot killed millions out of greed and wrath.

Stalin intentionally killed millions of people, but at least he did so strategically in order to win WWII and turn a third-rate country into one of the two major world powers by the time of his death. He made a calculated sacrifice. Was it evil? That's a matter of opinion.

I don't think it's fair to compare Stalin to Hitler, Mao, or Pol Pot. A more fair comparison would be Truman, who committed his own fair share of atrocities. Stalin succeeded at what he set out to do.

Hitler, Mao, and Pol Pot were different animals.

Yet I'll go to the extent of stating Hitler is a saint compared to Karl Marx, Mao, Pol Pot and Stalin.

Saturday, March 11, 2017

तैयार रहिये।

अगर आप वामपंथी लेखक हैं
तो भूल जाइए
*सरकारी आयोजनों में आमंत्रणों को 
*विश्वविद्यालयों और संस्थाओं में आमंत्रण को
*सरकारी फंड को
*सरकारी संस्थानों से प्रोजेक्ट्स, किताबें और बाक़ी चीजों को
और याद रखिए
*आप पर हमले हो सकते हैं। प्रत्यक्ष और परोक्ष
*आप स्कैनर पर हैं
*आप ही इकलौता विपक्ष हैं अब
*अपने अस्तित्व की रक्षा के लिए बदलने होंगे मापदंड और करनी होंगीं नई पहलकदमियां।
तैयार हैं?

Tuesday, February 28, 2017

Akhil Bharatiya Violent Parishad.

Call it SELECTIVE freedom of speech. 

Calcutta - You can't discuss Balochistan and Kashmir by Tarek Fateh because it will create tension. (Ban on Fateh in West Bengal)

Delhi - You can raise anti-national slogans, because some intellectual morons have the right to speech on blabber anything. 

Vishvaroopam - Not a single actor came in support of Kamal Hasan. 
Padmavati- Entire bollywood came together, even all Rajpoots Hindu became terrorist. As Mr. Kashyap said - Bhagwa Atankwad. 

Kashmir - They talk about what army did, stones pelted on your own survivors. 
Why don't they talk about forceful emigration of 5lacs Kashmiri Pandits? 

At a Urdu festival Jashn-e-Rekhta, beating of Tarek Fateh is not violence, violence is what only ABVP does. 

We want freedom from this #selective_freedom_of_speech. 

Tuesday, February 7, 2017

Devil in Details

Watched a very popular musical movie recently.
Nice touch. Very much.
But found the devil in the details,
I don't want to be disappointed, but I don't want to
Do not read the following.
If the ex-es of the heroine and her last companion are the middle-born people,
That's normal to break up with the leading actor;
And, in the scene they were fighting,
The Hero shows that she has always wanted him to find a stable job.

She won't be able to get a lot of days with her boyfriend.
This shows that she has a long-term condition that she is able to live with her life.
They are doomed to break up.
It's nothing but a pity.
There is no relationship with the pursuit of dreams.
It is not a matter of self-selfishness. 

Monday, January 30, 2017

Truth in Art

There is an uproar and a question of the truth in a work of art has engaged Bollywood and masses. A basic problem has been trying to find real solution down the centuries.

I propose to show Oscar Wilde's dictum, 'Truth is entirely and absolutely a matter of style' which might leads us to a real solution of this basic problem (or not).

By 'style', Wilde means the manner in which the artist expresses, that is, the form in which his thought embodies itself as it is born, the form that objectifies his thought. The truth of a work of art is absolutely dependent on the 'style', that is to say, the 'form' of the work. Thus making the question of truth in a work of art dependent on something within itself, and so preserves the absolute autonomy of art. This, I believe and as we shall see, is the only correct approach to the vexed question of Truth in Art. Whether, in other words, the form is absolutely true to its content. The content will be convincing if the form is convincing, and therefore it is style alone that matters. To convince us as true, any work of art as a whole, must contain within itself, in the words of Shelley, the principle of its own integrity - the integrity that results from 'that' perfect correspondent of form to content.

In the course of his dialogue, The Decay of Lying, Wilde (speaking through his spokesman Vivian) shows us that truth in Life and truth in Art are two absolutely different things. To him, the ideal of Art is to break away from 'the prison house of realism' and to create a world of its own. Hence in this connection Wilde claims: 'Truth is entirely and absolutely a matter of style.' This is just another of those apparently baffling statements of Wilde that provoke a sceptical, if not positively hostile reaction on the part of most people. A serious examination of this dictum, however, reveals its far-reaching implications. Not only this, it gives us a major criterion of aesthetic evaluation. 

To Oscar Wilde, art and literature must be and absolutely free of the shackles of external reality. What is it, if not a crude fallacy to believe in a work of art just because it happens to resemble actuality, or to disbelieve if it does not. A mere copy of an object seen in nature or real-life is necessarily unreal, since an original is there in external reality : an original that challenges the reality of the copy. But an artistic expression, has its original in the artist's mind, of which it is the objective form, having no other external reality but itself. 

I shall make it simpler by taking another example: this time from ancient Indian art. If we have before us a photograph of an actual eye and compare it with the eye in an ancient Indian painting or sculpture, we shall notice a vast difference between the two representations. If we compare both with the eye of a human being we shall notice that the photograph gives a far more accurate representation than the Indian painter of sculptor's. But this does not in any way affect the 'truth' or the 'reality' of the representation in the ancient painting or sculpture. For example; if we look at the frescoes and sculptures of Ajanta and Ellora, the representation of the eye with that strange curve strikes us as absolute truth. Any attempt to change the form of the eye to make it like an actual eye is unthinkable. I suppose if any attempt was made by the painter or sculptor to reproduce an actual eye, we would immediately consider the work to be far from true as it was trying to copy something outside itself. But by the very fact that no attempt is made to make the eye resemble an ordinary human eye, and that the artist gives his own conception of a particular form which has no model outside itself, makes the work absolutely individual as well as absolutely true to itself. 

The form is the body as well as the soul of a work of art. 

Here's another example: The Greek Myth connected with the birth of Aphrodite has appealed to artists down the centuries and, as might be expected, the goddess of Beauty rising out of the waves of the sea has been a subject to inspire many a masterpiece. And why not, I say. As far as the story of Aphrodite is concerned, we no longer believe in it as a possibility, and therefore, it is today nothing more than an attractive legend. But though we have not the faith that the ancient Greeks had in the deity, when we look at Botticelli's 'Birth of Aphrodite' we believe in her as implicitly as the Greeks believed in her, even though we do not have the religious sanction behind the belief, a belief that was part of Greek heritage. The fact that we believe in the Aphrodite of Bottecelli is due to the truth or the reality that is given her by the painter through his form. 

Even in the case of subjects treated by artists which have ceased to have objective validity, the absolute autonomy of art in the creation of truth through form is still manipulated. Which makes it a sad reality of today's times and what has happened in the name of a historical film. Now an artist of, say, the 15th of 16th century dealing with a concept that was valid in his time, carries conviction to an individual of the present age even though the latter does not believe in that concept any longer. That is, through his style or form, the artist confers truth even on things that have lost their objective validity. Hell, The Ptolemaic system of astronomy no longer stands scientific scrutiny, but that does not falsify the artistic use that Milton makes of it in the form of his great epic. Sir Thomas Browne in his fine prose speaks of a system of natural history or science that was exploded long ago, but the forgotten lore is brought to life again (and believed in) in the pages of the Religio Medici and Pseudodoxia Epidemica, only because the artist's style gives it a right to existence. Not by manipulation or distortion of it!!