Historical Combat, War, Geopolitics History and Analysis

[YeşilVatan]

This isn't a reversible phenomenon, it could be contained and slowed, but history moves in one direction all the time.

It is true that unless you're a Western country, many have yet to pass through all 6 stage of an empire, especially the newly emerged countries after the decolonization of the 20th century, because not all countries are destined to be an empire, some are just there to exist and eventually fade without ever reaching the peak of power. Mind to tell you that I'm not talking only about any country, I'm pointing in fact towards civilizations, civilizations are larger sphere than individual countries. What I'm pointing in particular is the Western civilizations and all of its constituent countries (including non-Whites) like Japan. Yes, Japan is a Western country even though it is not geographically located in Europe or the Americas.

Just like the great Islamic civilizations in the past, there's always one particular polity that towers above the rest, in the golden age of Islam, this is the Caliphate of Ibn Al Abbas and its rival Caliphate of Cordoba. In today's all powerful Western civilizations, its the USA. Once the core eventually rot the rest will soon follow.

We have seen a lot of things that precipitated the fall of past empire coming into an accelerated motion today, such as :

1. The growing importance of money and wealth above all
2. The rise of women into positions of importance in the state
3. Loosening of morality and the acceptance of degeneracy (LGBTQ+, nudity, swearing)
4. Rise of fiat money
5. Replacement of masculinity with that of feminity, seeing a rise of man singers, man used to be seen as tough and rough, not some melodical individual

The simple answer when humans are confronted to this problem is, what can we do ? At least for me there's not much we can do, historians could gather all knowledge it has about the dear situations of the civilizations of today but rarely those warning are taken into action by the politicians and citizens of their time, in particular the politicians and masses at the age of decadence, which are frequently greedy and ignorant.

I'm willing to say that by the time we reaches the new century (2100), none of today's Western great power like UK, France and Germany will be in the top 6. and By the the time the world reaches 2150, the gravity of civilizations will be borne by Sub-Saharan Africans and Arabs, and not the Arabs like UAE or Saudi (That is if they still exist by the that time), rather its the conflict ridden Arabs as well a sub saharan African states of turmoil of today's time that I predict would come to prominence.

This people has all the characteristics of the men of the age of pioneers:

1. They're poor and hungry
2. They're dumb (in an academic sense) but brilliant in survival and out of the book solutions
3. They are a patriarchial society
4. They're offensive minded
5. They are warlike and has a long history of killings

At some point in time they will have their moment of outburst, while the Western civilizations that somewhat control their country/continent from behind will eventually retreat, back into their continent with an increasingly defensive minded, isolationist population.

Please note that jihadism and militancy in Africa and the Middle East never really fade away, rather it is in containing mode by the Western powers, made possible by their superiority in technology, know how on combat and their vast expeditionary capabilities, If at one point in time if political turmoil in the continent erupt, or people are increasingly isolationist, it could result in the pulling out of this "barriers' and this militants is all ripe to take over, we have seen for example what the 2011 drawdown of American troops from Iraq resulted in the sudden explosion of ISIS into prominence, nearly capturing Baghdad. We have also seen how French pullout from Mali resulted in AQIM sudden re-emergence just a year after France pulls out.

Overtime this people in the particular area will be more warlike, they're toughened by war, their society has only one job : survival, they don't have the non-sense of feminism, LGBTQ etc because they don't have much option rather than surviving and fight another day. This is the characteristics of the Romans in the early republic, the Arabs in their early consolidation, the Spaniards when they're in the mountains of Northern Spain etc.

That would be true, but you have to consider some other aspects.

1- Nuclear weapons
2- Face recognition technology
3- Drone warfare
4- Automation

Human society is deeply shaped by military technology. Legionary formations gave rise to the vast slaver empire of Rome. Rise of feudalism correlates with knightly way of war which is perfect for oppressing peasants. Pike-and-shot tactics opened the way for mass armies and nation states. Rifles are one of the primary causes of why republics are a thing. Carriers and airpower is the base of Pax Americana.

Sure, decentralized resistance ala Iraq is still a powerful deterrent. Ukrainian experience proved complex technological weapons to be hard to mass produce also. But the technological baseline to set up a mostly automated system that would kill a nascent pioneering empires is here. I'll give you two examples of empires that were killed at their respective inceptions: Third Reich and the Islamic State.

I've been thinking about this a lot. Since I've been exposed to Oswald Spengler's work back in 2013-14. I reached the conclusion that if the world system we have today doesn't falter in a spectacular fashion, maybe through an economic collapse or nuclear war, then the technology is simply so far ahead that pioneering peoples can't simply will to power.

 

[Ryder]

All this talk reminds me of one thing due to advanced weapon technology we underestimate peoples will with a gun.

 

[Gary]

That would be true, but you have to consider some other aspects.

1- Nuclear weapons
2- Face recognition technology
3- Drone warfare
4- Automation

Human society is deeply shaped by military technology. Legionary formations gave rise to the vast slaver empire or Rome. Rise of feudalism correlates with knightly way of war which is perfect for oppressing peasants. Pike-and-shot tactics opened the way for mass armies and nation states. Rifles are one of the primary causes of why republics are a thing. Carriers and airpower is the base of Pax Americana.

Sure, decentralized resistance ala Iraq is still a powerful deterrent. Ukrainian experience proved complex technological weapons to be hard to mass produce also. But the technological baseline to set up a mostly automated system that would kill a nascent pioneering empires is here. I'll give you two examples of empires that were killed at their respective inceptions: Third Reich and the Islamic State.

I've been thinking about this a lot. Since I've been exposed to Oswald Spengler's work back in 2013-14. I reached the conclusion that if the world system we have today doesn't falter in a spectacular fashion, maybe through an economic collapse or nuclear war, then the technology is simply so far ahead that pioneering peoples can't simply will to power.

If you're implying that nuclear deterrence and technology would safe empires from eventually crumbling on its own weight, then please realize that an empire will decay with its inhabitants, not any amount of deterrence stopped the human decadence. Civilizations are a human endeavor, it thrives along with its humans.

Those nukes, technology are only as good as the humans that will eventually maintain them, civilizations gains and eventually loses knowledge. Recently its is known that Britain of all countries losses the ability to manufacture barrel

UK no longer able to manufacture large-calibre gun barrels, BAE Systems admits | Shephard

The UK may need to cannibalise stored Challenger tanks and AS90 howitzers to source replacement barrels for platforms sent to Ukraine as no manufacturing capability currently exists.

www.shephardmedia.com

A shock, considering that it's the barrel (and sail) that define and eventually deliver the country into worldwide prominence just 200 years ago.

If you look at the de-sophistication of the Romans for example, coming from creating this...

Into this...

And you realize that these high tech could/would eventually lost. One thing about money is it creates a whole new level of intellectualism when everything is proper, but an overly huge load of money creates degenerates without purpose, and eventually the decaying and disappearance of knowledge altogether.

I said the disappearance of knowledge not schools, because if something is eerily similar between late stage civilizations and today's western led civilizations is that while schools multiplied, knowledge itself are becoming to common and under appreciated , and no one really understand why it is needed. Overtime knowledge losses its importance, replaced by greed and eventually collapse.

At some point in time when degeneracy and decadence is the norm, when everyone is only thinking about making money without proper morale on how to make money, knowledge disappear and those technology just fade away without anyone noticing.

 

[Ryder]

Best example is school instead of reforming for proper education they are now imposing lbgt and feminism.

Its no longer about knowledge.

 

[Afif]

That would be true, but you have to consider some other aspects.

1- Nuclear weapons
2- Face recognition technology
3- Drone warfare
4- Automation

Human society is deeply shaped by military technology. Legionary formations gave rise to the vast slaver empire of Rome. Rise of feudalism correlates with knightly way of war which is perfect for oppressing peasants. Pike-and-shot tactics opened the way for mass armies and nation states. Rifles are one of the primary causes of why republics are a thing. Carriers and airpower is the base of Pax Americana.

Sure, decentralized resistance ala Iraq is still a powerful deterrent. Ukrainian experience proved complex technological weapons to be hard to mass produce also. But the technological baseline to set up a mostly automated system that would kill a nascent pioneering empires is here. I'll give you two examples of empires that were killed at their respective inceptions: Third Reich and the Islamic State.

I've been thinking about this a lot. Since I've been exposed to Oswald Spengler's work back in 2013-14. I reached the conclusion that if the world system we have today doesn't falter in a spectacular fashion, maybe through an economic collapse or nuclear war, then the technology is simply so far ahead that pioneering peoples can't simply will to power.

I agree with the fact that military technology became too lethal (the kind of pioneers @Gary is Describing historically depended to a great extent on human physical strength and light infantry weapons, but thanks to increased automation with stand-off precision smart weapon systems, old concept became considerably ineffective ) and nuclear weapons somewhat created a deadlock. (At least when it comes to territorial conquest.)
But the issue is, we simply cannot be sure if the 'Nation state' itself will continue to survive.

 

[No Name]

View attachment 59199

All this talk reminds me of one thing due to advanced weapon technology we underestimate peoples will with a gun.

The 4th industrial revolution is slowing change that. As AI-controlled robots are slowly being intergraded into armies worldwide, the police and soldiers will outnumber the civilian population soon.

I agree with the fact that military technology became too lethal (the kind of pioneers @Gary is Describing historically depended to a great extent on human physical strength and light infantry weapons, but thanks to increased automation with stand-off precision smart weapon systems, old concept became considerably ineffective ) and nuclear weapons somewhat created a deadlock. (At least when it comes to territorial conquest.)
But the issue is, we simply cannot be sure if the 'Nation state' itself will continue to survive.

two things are going against the nation-state:

the first is that demographics are forcing Nation states to import foreigners into the nation as the existing population is too old to maintain the state and the female population is being too self-centred and not having children.

the second factor is that war is going to be far less costly when robot soldiers become a thing. Imagine that country A invaded country B, then used country B's own resources to create a never-ending Army to occupy the population of county B. The concept of empire never went away it just became too costly to maintain an empire when everyone had an AK.

 

[YeşilVatan]

View attachment 59199

All this talk reminds me of one thing due to advanced weapon technology we underestimate peoples will with a gun.

That was a valid point in the previous century, it still is to a large extent. But I don't know if mass popular resistance can be as effective against the things I listed: face recognition technology, drone warfare, automation. Drones effectively prevent the resistance from acting in large groups. And when they are divided into groups of a few people, you can wage a 'police war' on them. If they fortify cities, you will have UGVs that would take the city back. Only thing you need is a relatively smaller number of collaborators and technical specialists that would maintain/use the drones, which themselves would be largely automated.

If you're implying that nuclear deterrence and technology would safe empires from eventually crumbling on its own weight, then please realize that an empire will decay with its inhabitants, not any amount of deterrence stopped the human decadence. Civilizations are a human endeavor, it thrives along with its humans.

Those nukes, technology are only as good as the humans that will eventually maintain them, civilizations gains and eventually loses knowledge. Recently its is known that Britain of all countries losses the ability to manufacture barrel

UK no longer able to manufacture large-calibre gun barrels, BAE Systems admits | Shephard

The UK may need to cannibalise stored Challenger tanks and AS90 howitzers to source replacement barrels for platforms sent to Ukraine as no manufacturing capability currently exists.

www.shephardmedia.com

A shock, considering that it's the barrel (and sail) that define and eventually deliver the country into worldwide prominence just 200 years ago.

If you look at the de-sophistication of the Romans for example, coming from creating this...

Into this...

And you realize that these high tech could/would eventually lost. One thing about money is it creates a whole new level of intellectualism when everything is proper, but an overly huge load of money creates degenerates without purpose, and eventually the decaying and disappearance of knowledge altogether.

I said the disappearance of knowledge not schools, because if something is eerily similar between late stage civilizations and today's western led civilizations is that while schools multiplied, knowledge itself are becoming to common and under appreciated , and no one really understand why it is needed. Overtime knowledge losses its importance, replaced by greed and eventually collapse.

At some point in time when degeneracy and decadence is the norm, when everyone is only thinking about making money without proper morale on how to make money, knowledge disappear and those technology just fade away without anyone noticing.

These are all fair points, but I believe the devolution of society would play out somewhat differently. I believe new Caesars will arise as per Spengler's predictions. This age we live in dictates that these people be technocrat billionaires like Elon Musk. They will set up monarchies (I use a loose definition of the term; Atatürk, Lincoln and Roosevelt are all monarchs in my eyes). Who knows, maybe one of them will solve this impossible riddle and find a way out of this civilizational death spiral.

The erosion of knowledge would indeed be a problem. Humanity will probably suffer the equivalent of the decaying American infrastructure but online. STEM fields will not produce enough people (with enough quality) to upkeep our current impetus. I have to admit I find myself pretty ignorant on this topic to make a prediction so I'll take what you say as truth.

 

[Afif]

This isn't a reversible phenomenon, it could be contained and slowed, but history moves in one direction all the time.

Technically speaking, it can actually be reversed if you are totally taken over by some pioneer conquerors.
But then again, it won't be your civilization anymore.

Anyway, excuse my use of loose word.
As you rightfully said, reversion is not possible, it can only be contained and slowed. (That's the part where I want to focus on later.)

It is true that unless you're a Western country, many have yet to pass through all 6 stage of an empire, especially the newly emerged countries after the decolonization of the 20th century, because not all countries are destined to be an empire, some are just there to exist and eventually fade without ever reaching the peak of power. Mind to tell you that I'm not talking only about any country, I'm pointing in fact towards civilizations, civilizations are larger sphere than individual countries. What I'm pointing in particular is the Western civilizations and all of its constituent countries (including non-Whites) like Japan. Yes, Japan is a Western country even though it is not geographically located in Europe or the Americas.

Just like the great Islamic civilizations in the past, there's always one particular polity that towers above the rest, in the golden age of Islam, this is the Caliphate of Ibn Al Abbas and its rival Caliphate of Cordoba. In today's all powerful Western civilizations, its the USA. Once the core eventually rot the rest will soon follow.

Overall agreed.

We have seen a lot of things that precipitated the fall of past empire coming into an accelerated motion today, such as :

1. The growing importance of money and wealth above all
2. The rise of women into positions of importance in the state
3. Loosening of morality and the acceptance of degeneracy (LGBTQ+, nudity, swearing)
4. Rise of fiat money
5. Replacement of masculinity with that of feminity, seeing a rise of man singers, man used to be seen as tough and rough, not some melodical individual

The simple answer when humans are confronted to this problem is, what can we do ? At least for me there's not much we can do, historians could gather all knowledge it has about the dear situations of the civilizations of today but rarely those warning are taken into action by the politicians and citizens of their time, in particular the politicians and masses at the age of decadence, which are frequently greedy and ignorant.

The greed for money is not necessarily exclusive to the people of a decaying Civilization/Empire.

It also seems to reflect among pioneers who are poor and hungry.
(For example arabs just before ISLAM)

Similarly, pre Islamic Arabia lacked sexual morality. (At least by the definition of pioneers muslims)
Although, that was nothing like today's LGBTQ.

However, the other phenomena that you mentioned are almost exclusive signs af a decaying rich and intellectually superior civilization.

However, many newly emerged countries that are facing some of these phenomena to varying degrees are not necessarily going skip the 6 stages and and just fall with the West.

Yes, there is a Loosening of sexual morality. The rise of pre-martial sex is indeed concerning but still, in every muslim countries it is not socially acceptable, unlike West.
LGBTQ is not yet holding out muslim societies Hostage. And porbbaly never will, at least on large scale lile West. Even most of the young liberals Muslims knows this is madness and not to be repeated.

Let's remember, one of the legitimate complain of far rights in Europe and America about Islam is it not compatible with modernity and even after lot of effort to modernize and adapt, it is uniquely resistant.
(And tbh, by and large this is actually true.)

And as West continues to decay, globally their ability to impose/export their cultural phenomena by using soft power will increasingly diminish.

And as the other countries develops step by step, they will be able to introduce their own governance, judicial and financial systems instead of the Western model. Which is would be more compatible and supportive of local culture.

Thus, gradually it will make containment of those phenomena socially and politically much easier for countries that are already effected by them.

But as you said, it seems the most conservatives and 'backward' folks will have the best chance.

Last but not the least, practically there can be effective measures and policies to contains these phenomena to an acceptable level. (That's the main point of social sciences)

 

[Nilgiri]

@Nilgiri Any comment?

I didn’t have enough time to read about Bengal famine in depth to reach any solid conclusion about the extent of Churchill's role in it.
However, there is seems to something fishy about this 'uncensored history'.
That guy didn’t even try present enough info to make a full picture of what happened. (For example, historically we know British army burned down a lot of grains under so called denial policy) And then he just oversimplified and downplayed the whole thing.
(I know Douglas Murray from his previous debate talk shows and writings, apparently a clever guy but not a very good one)

He's not denying role of British colonialism as a whole (along with the war situation of the time) on the Famine though....or that Churchill held racist view fairly common to the time as well.

Just that its wrong to claim Churchill as the entire culprit (asserting his racist beliefs as some grand impetus) that engineered the entire Famine with direct intent for murder in some way akin to Hitler or Stalin. Some people do follow this extreme which is wrong as the other extreme to deny the famine and its consequences happened.

The system of agriculture in India was left in precarious state for long time under the British:

1) No land reforms done (to bring ownership to small farmers etc to control their affairs better when mass industrialisation of cities didnt happen like in UK to improve remaning farmer labour bargaining power). The political system of a colony is very different and rigidly opaque and resistent to one found in a proper modern republic regarding how pressure is built for legislation, policy and reform.

2) Little investment and improving of agricultural infrastructure (irrigation, canals, food reserves, input production) commensurate to what could have been done and the populations involved....as the colonial enterprise was primarily extractive and heavily mercantile in nature (prioritizing the home country population over the colony which was to provide resources and captive markets rather than have economic development).

3) limited surpluses achieved and hence reliance on foreign and regional buffers to address any relief effort when a drought and famine did occur in larger subcontinent and is felt worst in the most population dense regions like Bengal...with limited ability of other regions to provide surpluses to deficits if the drought is extensive enough. Buffers at start of war were also previous directed to the war effort as priority. He mentions Thailand, Malaya etc to step up here when there is larger drought, and both were indeed under Japanese occupation along with sea trade affected to begin with in a war.

So war time + drought brought about the calamity....which had been left to be this vulnerable to it (expecting such combination to not occur) for a longer time period.

The British Colonial State was responsible in a longer term way. Churchill and British state had relative apathy to the situation given the war effort and colonial mindset....but even if they didn't for sake of argument, things had been set into motion long enough for this to happen as it did when a heavy war environment arrived with limited emergency stocks/routes.

i.e it was the general existence of this longer term that provided the main tragic scale that occured when a war situation arrived..... rather than a deliberate intense policy and engineering (to intend to inflict death on purpose) in a short time period.

The wiki page is pretty good and has lot of sources to explore further on topic.

 

[Afif]

Do you know what’s going on here? #vietnam #colorized #shorts

youtube.com

@Gary @Ryder

 

[Ryder]

Do you know what’s going on here? #vietnam #colorized #shorts

youtube.com

@Gary @Ryder

Man in Australia we were no different to the way we treated the Natives.

What we done to them was pretty awful and disgraceful.

European Colonisation will always be controversial in many aspects a lot of people will try to talk about the benefits while at the same time it has done lots of damage also unleashed what humans can do.

White people or Europeans in general at the time really thought the world was their amusement park.

 

[Afif]

@Gary @Ryder @Nilgiri Very interesting stuff.

 

[Ryder]

@Gary @Ryder @Nilgiri Very interesting stuff.

He opened up a can of worms but lets not forget that various nations were actually researching nuclear weapons and yes the Nazis had their nuclear program but it never got off to the stage where they got nukes.

Oppenheimer basically a genius while at the same time he also lives with regret on what he made.

 

[Nilgiri]

@Gary @Ryder @Nilgiri Very interesting stuff.

The pacific war was a brutal one...once the nuclear weapon technology had matured, the genie was out of the bottle.

It became inevitable matter on its use as long as Japanese regime continued the war.

I used to think why didn't the US simply make a demonstration of its devastation in the countryside somewhere so the Japanese authorities would be aware of its lethality and influence a decision (along with the Soviet land invasion that would happen as well) without the need for the death of the civilians that ended up happening in the 2 atomic bomb missions.

But then this argument has limited utility in fuller retrospect, as an incredible number of civilians had already perished in the firebombing missions (the largest being the raid on Tokyo in March earlier in the year)....after the Japanese naval and airforces had been vastly depleted to challenge them.....and with US having acquired the mariana airbase area and then altered bombing strategy and methodology to more lower altitude caring less about mission attrition from AA fire and interdiction (i.e just use superfortress raw payload capacity combined with the napalm munitions over its altitude capacity + regular HE bombs). Lemay basically going for area destruction/crew loss ratio as the one to maximise fully first.

So given Japanese establishment was resistant and fanatical enough to continue the war knowing fully well the civilian casualty being inflicted already.....it ended up becoming a matter of displaying the utter concentrated ease with which the US could do so with a new technology compared to mass air-dropped napalm.

If the nuclear technology arc didnt happen or was impossible in physics of this universe etc.... essentially one would imagine the same number of civilians having died (by continued napalm missions) or maybe even more in the end....even if US held off on Operation Downfall to try bomb Japan into submission for a year etc. So the nukes essentially ended up accelerating the end of the war as nasty as it is to think of the events related to them.

 

[Anastasius]

At best you could argue that nuking two cities was excessive when the US could've just bombed one and then dropped another one in a more desolate area to make the point that "yeah, we've got more where that came from". But that was more Truman being annoyed that Germany had already surrendered so he got cucked out of being able to nuke Berlin.

He opened up a can of worms but lets not forget that various nations were actually researching nuclear weapons and yes the Nazis had their nuclear program but it never got off to the stage where they got nukes.

Oppenheimer basically a genius while at the same time he also lives with regret on what he made.

Nazis were never going to be able to make the bomb. Their scientists were handicapped by the fact that the ruling ideology of the day had put a hard limit on anything considered "Jewish physics" which meant that after a point, it was fundamentally impossible for them to progress. Which is why their nuclear program was scrapped after a few years.

 

[Gary]

A very detailed overview over the struggle to secure one building, the Reichstag in Berlin, 1945.
@Afif @Ryder @Nilgiri

I imagine what a gargantuan task will it be to capture modern Asian (especially East and Southeast Asian capitals) by an assaulting force.

Imagine trying to assault this. Where distance between buildings is even more tight than the distance from the Reichstag to the nearby Kroll opera.

 

[Nilgiri]

At best you could argue that nuking two cities was excessive when the US could've just bombed one and then dropped another one in a more desolate area to make the point that "yeah, we've got more where that came from". But that was more Truman being annoyed that Germany had already surrendered so he got cucked out of being able to nuke Berlin.

Its different to this IMO. I suggest you read more about the firebombing missions, okinawa's impact on the calculation for operation downfall and the conversations taking place in GHQs of both sides (e.g. Marshall being surprised Japan capitulated after two nukes and the Emperor's unique role within the opposing GHQ regarding that relative to a typical western setup) after what had been witnessed so far in the firebombing preceding, okinawa's actualised doctrines and costs, potsdam declaration and the intelligence being picked up w.r.t Operation Downfall and how these factored in the calculation.

If Truman was so liberal on nuke use as you suggest, we would have seen a number of them being used a few years later upon China during the Korean war on the insistence of MacArthur as just one example.

The ratios determined from Firebombing of previous Japanese cities (having little change on their regime's calculus), Okinawa being extrapolated to what Operation downfall would entail and Japanese utter non-communication via Switzerland and USSR after Potsdam meant significant shift towards the use of a new scale of destructive ease impressed upon the Japanese regime...... in order to save immense numbers of both military and civilian (and Japan's sheer existence) in future stages of the war (likely in the 10x and 100x range) if this was not opted for.

This all has to be considered before we rush to other theories/reasons nukes were used at this juncture.

 

[Afif]

@Nilgiri

I wanted to ask you about the proposed uniformed civil code.

I will read about it in-depth when have some times, but right now i thought for a brief summery i should ask you.

Do you think UCC is a good idea for India in the long run? given how diverse it is as country.


On seperate qustion, about what is going on in in our Eastern neighborhood,(Manipur) Obviously, there was a failure from central government to have adequate response to contain the unrest from the beginning.
But do you think there was some sort of cover up (on the horrendous incident) as it has been alleged?





Unrelated to any of it, but this guy is keep popping up on my YouTube recommendations.

First I saw this

Akhand Bharat concept according to j Sai Deepak..🙏👀 #jsaideepak #akhandbharat

youtube.com

Then for a weak or so I listened to his various content.

And this seems to be his summery.

Why I Don't Trust Pakistani & Bangladeshi Muslims | J Sai Deepak

youtube.com

Unfortunately this guy is super popular in youtube podcasts and different 'think tank' dialogue and debates. (Which makes me depressed)

 

[Nilgiri]

I wanted to ask you about the proposed uniformed civil code.

I will read about it in-depth when have some times, but right now i thought for a brief summery i should ask you.

Do you think UCC is a good idea for India in the long run? given how diverse it is as country.

At current juncture, UCC is bad idea. If it was to be done, the hard work should have been done in the 50s while there was fresh beginning and conducive atmosphere for such a thing to be done in relative good faith (and identity politics free way)....after the good job (all things considered in hindsight) done by constituent assembly and Ambedkar et al w.r.t constitution implemented in 1950.

Other things were instead prioritized to occupy the best minds in the legal and political tiers of the time....and I would have done the same in their shoes given what the country was facing in monumental way (literal mass starvation etc if land reforms were not done for farmers....and immense deficits if focus not given to some crucial capital acquisition).

This downstream now means any UCC will be tainted, botched (both in real ways and perceived ways past that) given politically polarised climate favouring certain raw identity majorities....at sacrifice of trust and cohesion in deeper humanist principled way.

Just like the way mandal commision implementation was politically expedient for that political goon VP Singh at the time....but set all kind of nasty identity politics into motion downstream that have impacted vast damage even in deep layers of the Indian psyche (already not in best of shape). I already mentioned the great damage Indira Gandhi did as well before that w.r.t authoritarianism precedent set too.

On seperate qustion, about what is going on in in our Eastern neighborhood,(Manipur) Obviously, there was a failure from central government to have adequate response to contain the unrest from the beginning.
But do you think there was some sort of cover up (on the horrendous incident) as it has been alleged?

Yes there has been a cover up, precisely because of the issue left to fester and ignored/diverted for months (during worst of excretion hitting the fan) but also the lead up to it if you look at this Biren administration and this guys history to begin with in the whole meitei vs kuki setup and how to proceed with that in actual comprehensive way to build trust level from say 3/10 to at least 5/10 etc....and then figure out later how to improve it more with more bedrock settled in future.

Instead they just sat on it and made things worse because thats the toxic way BJP-centre and BJP-distant conduct political affairs now (aping the same overall problem that Congress-centre and Congress-distant had, but making it even worse than that all things considered given contexts inherited and mandates given....and the majoritarianism real or perceived of the centre now compared to more secular one adopted by congress).

The bhakt of the northern heartland, when weaponised politically is steroid to India's body. It may feel good to juice something for while, but the consequences arrive later. They are unable to sense this or know this as they never lived what a breakdown of trust entails between groups sharing some place.

As Tamil I know the story all too closely seeing how it happened in Sri Lanka with my kinsfolk there (and keeping in mind I have a good number of Sinhala friends right from school days)....and so I know just what has been broken in manipur again....the scale is particular to it, but I am very cognisant to such things, here is earlier context read you may find interesting:

Coffee House

Yes a woman will remain but if number of woman increase in community by religious conversion , won't it increase birth rate ? That is hypothetical. Nothing like that has happened. Look at the published figures.

defencehub.live

Really wish Joe, wise Bong friend of mine (and family origins from your Barisal part of BD, dialect and all that does not square much with ghoti at all hehe) comes here from time to time later..... you will enjoy to pick his brains. Ill try remind him later elsewhere.

Unrelated to any of it, but this guy is keep popping up on my YouTube recommendations.

First I saw this

Akhand Bharat concept according to j Sai Deepak..🙏👀 #jsaideepak #akhandbharat

youtube.com

Then for a weak or so I listened to his various content.

And this seems to be his summery.

Why I Don't Trust Pakistani & Bangladeshi Muslims | J Sai Deepak

youtube.com

Unfortunately this guy is super popular in youtube podcasts and different 'think tank' dialogue and debates. (Which makes me depressed)

The bhakt ecosystem (the deepest parts of it driving it) is a toxic one. Its things I discuss and work upon with fellow Indians who have the good sense to be consistent and wise on these matters....to at least stem the damage these bozos and their useful lackey mobs do from charging, doubling down and then looking to grab even more for their never ending self-hating victimized psychological angst.

Airing it out too much with outsiders and public fora etc... makes things lot worse...but yes we are attuned to just the scale of what these people have developed, saddled greater India to and the challenge that lies in front of us. Its basic shoe on the other foot stuff I use as filter with Indians I feel can be reached to make something lot better again.....its our time and effort and results in the end.....no one else's.

@Jackdaws may also want to share what he thinks on these issues.

 

[Afif]

@Nilgiri @Ryder @Gary

Personally, i dont agree with the his assumption that, by and large USA is the only society that implemented the idea of an unified identity based on values rather than race and ethnicity. But, nevertheless interesting content.