Thursday, 26 November 2015

LIMITS AND LIMITERS TO KNOWLEDGE


The man is bound by the limits of nature itself. To know the universe from outside, man will have to be outside the universe. But nothing natural or physical can exist outside the universe. Hence the knowledge of the universe from without is not possible. Also to know the internal workings of the universe or its part, man's frame of reference should be less than or within the system of his observation. But to observe the internal workings of the smallest indivisible substance, man's frame of reference will have to be smaller than the smallest substance possible, which in itself is a contradiction. Hence man can neither know the true world from within and neither the true world from without. This means that man can only know all the possibilities within the two ultimate ways of perceiving the truth but not the truth itself. Yet we deceive ourselves in believing that we are only a little away from the transcendental reality which appears to be distant no matter how close we get to it.


But there may be a different way of thinking about this demarcation. Man can know the whole Universe from within and the smallest particle from without. So by changing the approach we find that by being equal to or greater than the smallest particle possible we can observe its outer workings. Also by being equal to or lesser than the universe, that is, the biggest natural existence, we can understand it from within.


But to know a substance completely we need to know that substance from within as well as without, which seems not to be possible when we reach the lower infinity and the upper infinity. Hence man will always be trapped between these infinities. He may know everything, from within and without, between these infinities but will always be left one step behind in understanding of the true reality.


It is like integration and differentiation. In calculus, we always tend to reach 0 or 1 but we never do reach them. The real answers are always like 0.00000000000000000001 or 0.999999999999999.  This leads me into believing that the fundamentality of my understanding to the limits of knowledge has put limits to mathematics itself. Mathematics then cannot justify itself to be an absolute and independent source of knowledge. It then becomes only a highly advanced way of almost reaching the fundamental truths without ever reaching them. How scary and insane is that? It is these times that lead me into believing, it is only human belief and conviction in something higher than his understanding of the universe that can truly save him from pure skepticism.


Wednesday, 19 August 2015

Economics or Satanomics?

Economics or Satanomics?




It is fairly known and evident that the world has never been just and egalitarian. There has always been a sort of class struggle based on different ideologies and interests. The powerful have always abused the weak and the weak have always fought for their rights but without any true change. Before the advent of free markets there was domination of feudal lords within the dimension of economics who controlled much of the wealth of their nations. But this system was soon challenged by the likes of Adam Smith who revolutionized the sphere of wealth and trade and became the messiah of the common man. He glorified the concepts of free trade and markets in the 18th Century Europe. Smith’s magnum opus became the unrivalled gospel for the classical economists like Ricardo and Say; for common man it was the Bible that promised them a future full of riches and leisure.


But what Smith failed to mention in his Wealth of Nations was that ‘wealth begets wealth’ and the wealth in the 18th Century Europe was distributed as such that it remained in the hands of the same Aristocrats and Feudal lords from whose clutches Smith promised to save common men from. Smith’s old Aristocrats became the new Capitalists who used the wagon of Industrial Revolution to speed up the process of accumulation of wealth. The free hand mechanism of the market that Smith propounded turned out to be the puppet used by despotic capitalists. History repeated itself and the Father of Economics was fooled by the exploiters of economics. In the end the wealth in the society was further redistributed in a way that the rich became richer while the poor starved to death. The only transition that happened was that the former slaves of the kingdom were turned into slaves of the industry.


The messiah had failed but the hope never died. This hope took an entirely new form when common men were overwhelmed and intimidated by the powerful phrases of The Communist Manifesto so much so that it became the new Bible, its ideology became the new religion and its author Karl Marx the new Prophet. There was a new impetus pumped in by the words of Karl Marx and Fredrick Engels from which the ever existing society of proletariats extracted their zeal to fight against the so-called Bourgeois, the ruling class. The promised system of classless society only proved to be more futile as it gave birth to more suppressive states where even the right to think was imprisoned behind the bars of censorship developed for the protecting the State. Communist nations became the apparatus for exploitation of Human Rights and the vehicle for ambitious leaders to fulfil their heinous dreams.  



But what has become more dangerous in the 20th and 21st Centuries is the absolute supremacy of the style of economics what I call 'Satanomics'  over all other spheres of life. Democracy that owes its birth for the need of equality has failed to prove to be an institution that safeguards the interests of every citizen of the society. It has rather become the instrument for the majority to exploit the minorities. In the realm of economics or business, majority takes the shape of the individuals who own the major chunk of the wealth. These individuals affect the policies of their countries to favor themselves in ways we have just started to understand. Media which should have been our biggest aid in preventing our exploitation has become our greatest adversary. It has become the illegitimate mistress of the corporates and hides all their dirty work behind the veil of their false information. It has fallen down so much so that it pledges its loyalty to its highest bidders.


These highest bidders remain to be the controllers of the engine that drives the economic wagon, which is in modern times is called money. And these controllers are the so called bankers and their commercial banks. They have developed such fine tools of exploitation that leaves only little trail of loot behind. But their biggest weapon remains to be Fractional Reserve Banking System through which they have been digging ever deeper graves of debt for common men. They simply create money out of thin air without any asset backing it and then further worsen the situation by repeatedly giving loans to businessmen. These businessmen invest this money in ever riskier avenues and stock markets eating away most of the profit like hungry wolves if they win, but sharing the risk of losing equally with the depositors of the real currency. This process has led to the creation of ever increasing mountain of debt as it was used to be called in Florence during the time of the first bankers, the Medici. And if these institutions are on the verge of bankruptcy they are saved by the tax payer’s money since these banks are termed as ‘too big to fail’, a concept designed by the economists on the payroll of these banks in order to save them even during the gravest dangers. The concept is justified by saying that these institutions are so extensively connected throughout the economy that if they fail the whole economy would go into a state of recession through the domino effect. But instead if the government bailouts the very people whose wealth these banks have risked, then it would send out a bigger message to these investment banks that would prevent them to take actions that can lead the economy into recession in the future.


Founder of the self-styled "New Austrian School", Professor Antal E. Fekete, has stated the following in relation to the current monetary system:


“The world economy, sagging as it is under the weight of its debt tower and fast depreciating irredeemable currencies, is clearly on its way to self-destruction. The forcible elimination of, first, silver and then a hundred years later of gold, from the monetary system removed the only ultimate extinguishers of debt we have. In consequence, total debt can only grow, never contract. The process is hidden since the unpaid and unpayable debt is accumulating as sovereign debt of governments. The world is deluding itself that sovereign debt can increase indefinitely as governments can extend its maturity indefinitely. In 2008 we had the wake-up call that it cannot. Unless we stop the proliferation of debt, the world is facing prolonged deflation, depression, continuing capital destruction, bankruptcies and unprecedented unemployment. It is leading to a breakdown of law and order. It could spell the end of our civilization.”



I am afraid that even India is walking the path that led to the western countries into the 2008 crisis. The schemes like Jan Dhan Yojna and new stock investment scheme for EPFO under the present government are only channels of upward flow of money to be available for use by the corporate lobby. If any serious attempt is to be undertaken, then the effort should be made within the area of micro-financing. Only then can the poor be made truly eligible to benefit from the schemes like Jan Dhan Yojna when they can themselves take loans from the central system. But for me the very system of promoting loans on everything except for assets like land and precious metals is doomed to lead the people to crisis under the burden of their own debt.


The reason why there is a lack of consensus for the change in the working of the system is practically due to the lack of relevant information available to the people. They only receive whatever information is fed to them by the mainstream Media, which is unfortunately the side business owned by the corporates in order to influence the thinking of the common men in accordance with their needs. The information that is available through the statistics of indicators like GDP and HDI are unfortunately not comprehensive enough to shed light on the reality. These indicators are mere failures like the institutions that use them; IMF, EU, Federal Reserve et cetera.


There should be an effort by the governmental agencies to first find out the exact distribution of wealth based on the comparison between nation to nation, state to state, nation to state, region to region, city to city, city to state, community to community and on any other relevant ground in order to draw a complete and true picture of the division of wealth. After this efforts should be made to design policies in such a way that money flows more toward the areas where it is most needed by the poor. Also there should be reconsideration on how profit should be shared amongst different levels of production. It has been found that all the production processes below the level of the company’s final selling of the product into the market is taken care of by a small fraction of the MRP. This means that the trickling effect that is said to occur in a capitalist society occurs for that fraction of that MRP. The major chunk of the profit goes to the owners of the corporation and the top most managerial employees. This process has been fundamentally responsible for the ever increasing difference in the distribution of wealth. A recent report by the BBC Corporation states that under a research it was found that the richest 1% of the individuals own more wealth than the other 99%. These figures serve my argument for the failure of the economic system of the New World Order which has systematically and lawfully seized more and more wealth from the poor. Here the word ‘lawfully’ is used in order to show that even the present world order’s laws are made by the influence of these top most corporatocrats. They have made the Judicial System itself a cripple who cannot serve justice right  They have made their oppression legal through their influence over the governments.


What mainstream economists are always trying to prove is that capitalism is the best possible option we have. Although it has its own problems, but it is still better than the other options that are available. One such recent attempt has been by Paul Mason who in his latest book ‘Post-capitalism’ has tried to show that the era of resource sharing is inevitable now. He tries to show this by giving the example of the spread of information technology in past decade. He writes that a huge amount of content available on the net is free. He gives the example of Wiki Media project along with social networking platforms that are giving their services free of cost. He says that these services are only going to increase in the near future and people will be able to share more relevant information freely. This concept will then flow from the virtual world of the internet to the physical world where the material sources will shared according to the need of the people. What Mason is trying to do here is to save Capitalism by reconciling it with Socialism. He is trying to give a positive picture of the path present day capitalistic societies are on. But this writer believes that this is the advent of a new era of absolute capitalism where rather than the use of traditional methods of marketing, more sublime and sophisticated use of targeted consumerism has been developed. What we see today on the home screens of our Facebook profile are the advertisements of the products that are best sold to the individuals of our exact profiles. We would see ads of so many sunglasses every day that we end buying one of them on some online store, even if we already have sunglasses to use. We are now using multiple smartphones, tablets and laptops when the real need would have been fulfilled by smartphone and a laptop. They are created demands and then targeted towards a category of consumers that have the highest probability to consume it. These free social networking platforms serve as a sophisticated database of centralized information on a plethora of individuals. This information is then used by these websites themselves and also sold to other private enterprises that have use for them. I mean is it the end of capitalism as Mason put it in one of his articles or a beginning of a highly evolved form of it. Paul Mason in his article ‘the end of capitalism has begun’ writes
“Without us noticing, we are entering the postcapitalist era. At the heart of further change to come is information technology, new ways of working and the sharing economy. The old ways will take a long while to disappear, but it’s time to be utopia”
Mason here talks about a Utopia that is inevitable. Whenever we talk about Utopia the first name that comes across our mind is of Sir Thomas More.   


More in his famous book "Utopia" tries to define his version of the perfect society. He says;


"There are in Utopia fifty-four towns, all on the same plan, except that one is the capital. All the streets are twenty feet broad, and all the private houses are exactly alike, with one door onto the street and one onto the garden. There are no locks on the doors, and everyone may enter any house.


The roofs are flat. Every tenth year people change houses—apparently to prevent any feeling of ownership. In the country, there are farms, each containing not fewer than forty persons, including two bondmen; each farm is under the rule of a master and mistress, who are old and wise. The chickens are not hatched by hens, but in incubators (which did not exist in More's time). All are dressed alike, except that there is a difference between the dress of men and women, and of married and unmarried. The fashions never change, and no difference is made between summer and winter clothing. At work, leather or skins are worn; a suit will last seven years. When they stop work, they throw a woolen cloak over their working clothes. All these cloaks are alike, and are the natural color of wool. “Each family makes its own clothes. Everybody—men and women alike—works six hours a day, three before dinner and three after. All go to bed at eight, and sleep eight hours. In the early morning there are lectures, to which multitudes go, although they are not compulsory. After supper an hour is devoted to play. Six hours' work is enough, because there are no idlers and there is no useless work; with us, it is said, women, priests, rich people, servants, and beggars, mostly do nothing useful, and owing to the existence of the rich much labor is spent in producing unnecessary luxuries; all this is avoided in Utopia. Sometimes it is found that there is a surplus, and the magistrates proclaim a shorter working day for a time.”

I ask my readers if they see any Utopia even at a distance. The proponents of such ideologies say that because now even a middle class man can own a car, we are moving towards Utopia but they fail to mention that the poorest do not even have a bicycle and the richest fly in their lavish private planes. Basing your Utopia on standards of the past century is most foolish thing to do. Utopia should be a system of the present and neither of the past and future. It is now that we need Utopia and so now is the change needed for it. A Utopia is based on equal and egalitarian distribution and not on the distribution of resources for the benefit of selected few.

To be continued...

Wednesday, 5 August 2015

Stop The Porn!

ABOUT THE AUTHOR


Ali Javed
Student

    

  

Apollo 440- Stop the Rock(Porn!)


College students and young employees display their new found pride in supporting homosexuality and pornography as if they are natural part of human behaviour. With the banning of porn sites in India, Social networks were full with articles and personal opinions until the government changed its stance and made the porn sites live again, keeping only the websites hosting child pornography shutdown. Most of my colleagues in my college were celebrating the restart of these websites as if our country suddenly turned into true democracy, where only people’s opinions matter. My friends and all the other people who celebrated this move by government were silly to believe that the government took the step for them. The only reason for the change in the government’s decision was because the corporate lobby it so much relied on to come to power was unhappy with this move. And why wouldn’t they be unhappy when it is the indirect and direct source of a big part of their earnings. Richard Alleyne in his article “Pornography is just 'advertising' for prostitution, claims Louis Theroux” for the Telegraph on 6th June 2012 wrote


“Pornographic films have become adverts for the real business of many of their performers which is prostitution, claims the documentary maker Louis Theroux.”

In an article on Business Pundit called “The World’s Most Lucrative Business Markets”, the top estimated markets for businesses are mentioned with rank as follows;


  1. Drugs
  2. Defence
  3. Prostitution
  4. Oil
  5. Counterfeits
  6. Sports
  7. Gambling
  8. Banking
  9. Alcohol
  10. Pornography
  11. Pharmaceuticals
  12. Entertainment and
  13. Human Trafficking  

That means that the world’s biggest businesses are also the biggest source of all human problems. Pornography that lies at 10 supports its mother business ‘Prostitution’ which lies at no. 3.
The above discussion was related to economic aspect of pornography which is an industry that was estimated to be $10 billion in 2001.

Next I would like to talk about the social impacts of watching porn.

Puberty hits males and females from around 11yrs of age to 14yrs. This is the time when there is start of the transition of a boy to a man and that of a girl to a woman. There is so much radical change in the biology of both males and females that they become conscious of their appearance. The build of the body suddenly changes, there is a change in voice, and hair on face and other parts of the body starts to grow. With all this there is also a radical change in the behavior of these young individuals. They try to seek knowledge of what is happening to them and understand it so that they become comfortable with it. Today from a very early age the children in urban cities are well acquainted with the use of internet. When puberty strikes they find it easier to search for their issues on Google rather than feeling embarrassed around parents and friends. This is also the time that they are most vulnerable to the flood of pornography that is waiting for them on the internet. The information regarding their issues that must have been revealed to these young people in a span of time from puberty to their late teens appears in front of them in a single video. Initially these youngsters are extremely embarrassed after watching the porn, but in due course of time they acquire the strength to discuss about this with their friends. In no time the embarrassment turns into the pride of becoming an adult earlier than other students.

This is also the time when distinction between a male and a female is understood by these young children. They start to engage with opposite sexes in what we call relationships. The irony that lies deep within this is that although marriage is not allowed at this age by constitution, there is no provision against pornography which can lead to everything that is done after the marriage.

Supporters and promoters of homosexuality and pornography raise similar kinds of arguments. One of the most used arguments is that these exercises are natural to the human behavior. They are part of the human psychology and cannot be treated to be fundamentally against nature. They argue that it is retrograding to think otherwise. The recent support from the media to them has successfully been able to make this argument an intellectual worldview. To the general public, anything spoken against these practices is labelled as unscientific.

To completely destroy the validity of this argument I am going to use neuro-scientific insights into the human brain. I have frequently mentioned in my previous writings that it is very easy to manipulate human consciousness through elaborate schemes that penetrates the human psyche. In the realm of neuroscience this phenomenon of the brain being able to be rewired is known as plasticity. According to Wikipedia,

“Neuroplasticity, also known as brain plasticity, is an umbrella term that encompasses both synaptic plasticity and non-synaptic plasticity—it refers to changes in neural pathways and synapses due to changes in behavior, environment, neural processes, thinking, and emotions – as well as to changes resulting from bodily injury. The concept of neuroplasticity has replaced the formerly-held position that the brain is a physiologically static organ, and explores how – and in which ways – the brain changes in the course of a lifetime.”

This means that the once held view of the localizationists that the human brain is hardwired to perform certain functions is obsolete and recent researches have proved that the neuronal network within the brain and its processes can be significantly altered. I am going to reproduce some excerpts from one of the greatest books on neouroscientific discoveries by Norman Doidge. The book is called ‘The Brain That Changes Itself”. The excerpt I am reproducing has direct relevance to pornography and its addiction.
Doidge writes

“The current porn epidemic gives a graphic demonstration that sexual tastes can be acquired. Pornography, delivered by high-speed Internet connections, satisfies every one of the prerequisites for neuroplastic change. Pornography seems, at first glance, to be a purely instinctual matter: sexually explicit pictures trigger instinctual responses, which are the product of millions of years of evolution. But if that were true, pornography would be unchanging. The same triggers, bodily parts and their proportions, that appealed to our ancestors would excite us. This is what pornographers would have us believe, for they claim they are battling sexual repression, taboo, and fear and that their goal is to liberate the natural, pent-up sexual instincts.

 He continues and talks about pornographic addiction,


“The addictiveness of Internet pornography is not a metaphor. Not all addictions are to drugs or alcohol. People can be seriously addicted to gambling, even to running. All addicts show a loss of control of the activity, compulsively seek it out despite negative consequences, develop tolerance so that they need higher and higher levels of stimulation for satisfaction, and experience withdrawal if they can’t consummate the addictive act. All addiction involves long-term, sometimes lifelong, neuroplastic change in the brain. For addicts, moderation is impossible, and they must avoid the substance or activity completely if they are to avoid addictive behaviors. Alcoholics Anonymous insists that there are no “former alcoholics” and makes people who haven’t had a drink for decades introduce themselves at a meeting by saying, “My name is John, and I am an alcoholic.” In terms of plasticity, they are often correct.

But this phenomenon is not all too new to the human understanding of sexual preferences. The sexual instincts,” wrote Freud, “are noticeable to us for their plasticity, their capacity for altering their aims.” Freud was not the first to argue that sexuality was plastic—Plato, in his dialogue on love, argued that human Eros took many forms—but Freud laid the foundations for a neuroscientific understanding of sexual and romantic plasticity.

Doidge further writes about the sexual plasticity,

“But in fact the content of pornography is a dynamic phenomenon that perfectly illustrates the progress of an acquired taste. Thirty years ago “hardcore” pornography usually meant the explicit depiction of sexual intercourse between two aroused partners, displaying their genitals. “Softcore” meant pictures of women, mostly, on a bed, at their toilette, or in some semiromantic setting, in various states of undress, breasts revealed.Now hardcore has evolved and is increasingly dominated by the sadomasochistic themes of forced sex, ejaculations on women’s faces, and angry anal sex, all involving scripts fusing sex with hatred and humiliation. Hardcore pornography now explores the world of perversion, while softcore is now what hardcore was a few decades ago, explicit sexual intercourse between adults, now available on cable TV. The comparatively tame softcore pictures of yesteryear—women in various states of undress—now show up on mainstream media all day long, in the pornification of everything, including television, rock videos, soap operas, advertisements, and so on.

Pornography’s growth has been extraordinary; it accounts for 25 percent of video rentals and is the fourth most common reason people give for going online. An MSNBC.com survey of viewers in 2001 found that 80 percent felt they were spending so much time on pornographic sites that they were putting their relationships or jobs at risk. Softcore pornography’s influence is now most profound because, now that it is no longer hidden, it influences young people with little sexual experience and especially plastic minds, in the process of forming their sexual tastes and desires. Yet the plastic influence of pornography on adults can also be profound, and those who use it have no sense of the extent to which their brains are reshaped by it.   



During the mid-to late 1990s, when the Internet was growing rapidly and pornography was exploding on it, I treated or assessed a number of men who all had essentially the same story. Each had acquired a taste for a kind of pornography that, to a greater or lesser degree, troubled or even disgusted him, had a disturbing effect on the pattern of his sexual excitement, and ultimately affected his relationships and sexual potency.

Typically, while I was treating one of these men for some other problem, he would report, almost as an aside and with telling discomfort, that he found himself spending more and more time on the Internet, looking at pornography and masturbating. He might try to ease his discomfort by asserting that everybody did it. In some cases he would begin by looking at a Playboy-type site or at a nude picture or video clip that someone had sent him as a lark. In other cases he would visit a harmless site, with a suggestive ad that redirected him to risqué sites, and soon he would be hooked.

A number of these men also reported something else, often in passing, that caught my attention. They reported increasing difficulty in being turned on by their actual sexual partners, spouses or girlfriends, though they still considered them objectively attractive. When I asked if this phenomenon had any relationship to viewing pornography, they answered that it initially helped them get more excited during sex but over time had the opposite effect. Now, instead of using their senses to enjoy being in bed, in the present, with their partners, lovemaking increasingly required them to fantasize that they were part of a porn script. Some gently tried to persuade their lovers to act like porn stars, and they were increasingly interested in “fucking” as opposed to “making love.” Their sexual fantasy lives were increasingly dominated by the scenarios that they had, so to speak, downloaded into their brains, and these new scripts were often more primitive and more violent than their previous sexual fantasies. I got the impression that any sexual creativity these men had was dying and that they were becoming addicted to Internet porn.

The changes I observed are not confined to a few people in therapy. A social shift is occurring. While it is usually difficult to get information about private sexual mores, this is not the case with pornography today, because its use is increasingly public. This shift coincides with the change from calling it “pornography” to the more casual term “porn.” For his book on American campus life, I Am Charlotte Simmons, Tom Wolfe spent a number of years observing students on university campuses. In the book one boy, Ivy Peters, comes into the male residence and says, “Anybody got porn?”

I hope I am able to convince my readers about the shift in socio-economic phenomenon that is taking place right now and destroying millions of lives. Also pornography, prostitution and homosexuality more than being fight for individuality is an underlying fight to exploit human weaknesses to make profit.


  • Ali Javed is a student of Amity University and can be reached at javed.ali12123@gmail.com


Monday, 3 August 2015

Against Homosexuality



Man has always strived for freedom, but it has received shackles in the form of illusory freedom. He has continuously been deceived and tamed by the resourceful. As a man who yearns true freedom and not its multifarious mirages, i feel suffocated breathing in the heavy air of false idols, my heart weeps watching blood on the hands of philanthropic saints, my consciousness craves to somehow become unconscious of the cruel reality. I demand to see justice or be completely absorbed by the oblivion. A state where i be in peace with nothingness. At Least then there would be nothing to be aware of. Man is a witness of his time. But he is no passive observer. He exists to observe the world unfold from various quantum possibilities and actively makes efforts to chose among those possibilities, ceasing to exist while doing the same. The process keeps on repeating itself without fail through future generations. In all his efforts throughout ages, with great grief, the freedom remains still to be found. 

Unfortunately the real freedom has been monopolized by a few to force their worldview over the masses. They have become the uncanny masters of the human psychoslaves for those who do not understand them completely; but to others who managed to retain command of their freedom of thought, are cognizant of their tyranny and much more terrorism. Man is continuously fed false ethics through their false Messiahs. The False Messiahs of Human Rights, Liberty, Individuality, liberalism, utilitarianism, ethical code of conduct, law and jurisprudence and every other domain of human life they can affect. The negative role of negative part of the Media which this writer merely thinks as submissive Mistress to the resourceful has exponentially aggravated these problems. The globalized world has globalized evil very cunningly by keeping it behind the veil of the New World Ethics. But this writer does not find any rational grounds for most of this ethical framework. It has failed its own harbinger which was used to justify its emergence, the scientific method of thought. The method that believes only in empirical relevance of a hypothesis. If theory can be aided by facts, then it has the right of Supremacy over all other theories. This writer believes in the validly of this method as any sane man would. But the disappointment surfaces when one finds the misuse of this method through tampered and partially revealed, partially concealed facts.


Homosexuality's justification employing this method is the most absurd attempt to reconcile theory with facts. That reconciliation that never existed and would never exist. America that boasts its advanced civilization and technical advancement has yet again demonstrated the lack of any concrete ground for their claim. On the contrary they have openly admired their barbaric intellectual and social capacities. They are now in peace with their concomitant demise. They just fail to perceive it due to the development of thick layers of rationality repellents in their mind. But this writer feels more grief in seeing the men of his culture being engulfed in this barbaric and stone age intellectualism. It appears that the same disease has taken root in the nation of proud people of the Vedas, the Qur'an, the Budhdha, The Mahavira, Guru Nanak. It makes this writer deeply sad that the nation that is often considered to be the cradle of civilizations has fallen prey to such thinking. This is a reminder of your great origins. Wake up from your deep slumber and become conscious of the dangers that even the existence of such thoughts possess, no less the laws that support them. 

The proponents of homosexuality defend it on the grounds of individualism, freedom of thought and choice, its existence from time immemorial, existence of promiscuity, Human Rights, Liberty, etc. None of these reasons justifies its acceptance no less legality. Time and again throughout history it has been abundantly evident that human freedom of choice has not particularly reaped good fruits. It has been most often that the fruits so grown have been sour and poisonous. Wrong choices have entailed otherwise unnecessary wars, crimes, genocides, tyranny and terrorism. And the heart's discontent most choices that men have are between the bad and the more bad.  The good is almost always missing. What surety or rationality does thus the freedom of choice promise. Choice if given should only be between good and good, and neither between good and bad and bad and bad. But in the face of bad choices the only option that should be taken is not to make a choice at all. Then only can this chain of wrong choices can end. But to the advantage of the resourceful, it is easier to exploit human weaknesses. Easy money involves the introduction of wrong choices. Hence the support of the Media, Corporate Houses, Politicians, Celebrities to them. 

The present day order fulfills its agenda in the name of human rights and the freedom of choice. But at the same time they fail to define that good and between them. Actually it would be wrong on my part to say that they fail to define. But it is more appropriate to say that they do not want to define the good and the bad. They say that man is rational by nature and he will choose what is best suited for his needs. Dr Javed Jamil shows the role of media in helping these forces in his book "The Devil of Economic Fundamentalism" as follows;

"To justify and perpetuate its style of functioning, the media has discovered the “freedom of expression” that has lately assumed notorious proportions. To traduce anybody, to malign religions and religious figures, to describe and exaggerate the most private areas of the life of any celebrity, to portray or publish anyone in the nude, to film the lewdest forms of sexual relations and to engage in disinformation for the furtherance of the desired objectives--all these have become great symbols of freedom of expression for them. Liberty has turned into liberating and license to express has resulted in licentiousness. Any attempt to censor or curb such vagrancy attracts virulent condemnation by the media all over the world. Those who advocate some control on expression are booed down as the enemies of freedom, civilization and development. To give further credence to its licentiousness, the media has used the “right to know” as an instrument to defend itself."

The above excerpt shows that what the forces that control the present order say is the freedom of choice is actually the choice imparted by the media. Man has been so much captivated by its glamour that he stops caring whether the choice is good for him or not. He sees his favorite celebrity taking drugs in a movie and greatly influenced by him, he makes his choice of trying the drug. He then tries to enjoy it as his favorite celebrity in the movie did and in no time without even realizing it, he becomes addicted to it. Similarly homosexuality has been given the rights in the constitution of various countries. Dr. Jamil in his book "Muslims Most Civilized and Yet Not Enough" on homosexuality says;

"The attempt to legalize Homosexuality is nothing but the continuation of the same series of worldwide strategies of “development” in which every human susceptibility is first given a legal and social sanction, then it is glorified in the media as a victory of “Freedom of Choice” and “Human Rights” and then with all the obstacles removed it is commercialized at huge level.It is needless to say that the rise in the demand of legalizing homosexuality in the world has intensified with the rising fortunes of gay market. It is already a big market in western countries. The truth is that Sex market as a whole is the largest growing market, and gay market is the largest growing sex market."

A report entitled, “Gay-Friendly Vancouver as a Billion Dollar Industry”, which appeared before 2010 Olympics, says:
“At present, Vancouver is hyping the 2010 Olympics above all. The pride of a city has turned into its most lucrative business. Now the tourism industry has found a new market, which has always existed but its potential as a distinct market was not realized: the “gay market,” According to Canada.com, gay tourism in Vancouver has been a lucrative and loyal sector within recent years. Gay tourism in the U.S. alone is estimated to be $55 billion annually (Constanineau, 2007)A survey conducted by San Francisco-based Community Marketing Inc, ranked Vancouver as the fourth most popular gay destination outside of the U.S., ranking Montreal and Toronto fifth and sixth respectively, which shows how well Canada’s gay tourism industry is doing overall (Constanineau, 2007). Constanineau also says that tourism Vancouver uses media to draw in a lot of its gay market from U.S. locations such as New York, San Francisco, and Los Angeles. One of the possible reasons suggested for Vancouver’s gay tourism industry is due to the fact that BC legalized same-sex marriage in July of 2003.”

It is clear that the human rights that are being given to the homosexuals is part of the bigger plan of the economic forces to earn profits from human weaknesses. This institutionalization and commercialization of homosexuality has resulted in the increase in the trend of straight men trying homosexuality. This has resulted in the increase in the percentage of homosexuals which is only going to increase further in future. But these economic forces and the media at the same time do not expose man to the side effects of homosexuality, how it is the biggest source of aids and how it is ruining millions of life throughout the globe. Same is the case with the problem of smoking, alcohol, drugs, pornography, prostitution. A woman who sits back home and takes care of her children is today tagged as unemployed and unproductive and at the same time the prostitutes are being labeled as sex workers. All being the part of the greater plan of exploiting the human weaknesses to their benefits in the name of an egalitarian society.

Although the freedom of choice and human rights have helped the society in numerous ways but at the same time due to the lack of fundamental prohibitions in the working of the state there has been even greater misuse of these powerful tools. 
Prohibitions in stark contrast with the Rights is a more fundamental phenomenon. One should only enjoy Rights when he has understood the importance of Prohibitions. A man is prohibited to kill other persons, keeping the fact in mind, that only then can he himself enjoy the freedom to live. But more than freedom to live, I believe freedom to life is a more important phenomenon.  Only that has life, lives. Homosexuality is clearly devoid of that most fundamental right. All other rights come forth from the right of life. To strive to create progeny is the most essential principle of the existence of the living. If the living lose the purpose of creating life, civilization itself faces potential extinction. Some people may receive this point to be extreme, but a logical mind can only perceive similar ends. 

Yes to Religion, No to Communalism





" It has become a common practice to view people with contempt if they speak for their community, even if what is said is true. This is specifically true of the people belonging to minority. It is sad to know that individuals derive their conclusions from incomplete facts and information that is being fed to them in the mainstream media. We talk about democracy and freedom of thought and yet it is them that we have sacrificed in the process of creating the mirage of a secular nation. Secularism which was originally devised as a tool to combat religious intolerance has become a tool for greater biasness against religions. An atheist can today easily speak against religion but a religious person has no right to speak publicly against atheism. A feminist is glorified for fighting against the oppressions by men, but, a man cannot stand with confidence against a woman if she is wrong, he is then branded as a male chauvinist. There have been laws created in the country against early marriage but sex and live-in relationships before the legal age have been decreed legal. I do not understand any sane logic behind the law which is meant to protect young people but unfortunately makes the same young people vulnerable to unwarranted problems. How are we supposed to believe in such a crippled system of justice where pressure from western culture and countries has made them to create laws that are fundamentally against the culture of this country.

The problem is now fundamentally deep rooted within the minds of the common people, it has infiltrated and hacked their sense of wisdom and has become a disease that needs immediate attention.

The process of this diabolical change started as a fight against the priestly system that had established under the umbrella of religions and had against the principles of its proprietor oppressed the people it governed. To fight a system that was believed to be backed by religion had to be a difficult task, hence it was thought that the easiest way to fight this system was by propagating contempt against the religion itself. A standard strategy used very often; if a building is to be completely destroyed then destroy the pillars it stands on, religion was that pillar. But the common people that were brainwashed to become the part of this propaganda failed to realize that destroying the pillar itself will also destroy the sense of all their morality; since their morality was derived from the ethical code of the religious scriptures. Hence to change the system the whole humanity was drowned into anarchy and were promised a new Utopia of liberal ideals. But what was disguised was that liberalism could never survive without the support from socialist ideals. For more than three centuries now man is being slowly and steadily consumed by these liberal ideals, meanwhile, growing distant from religious and spiritual values. To people who do not take events as it is but analyses the background of its occurrence, have lucid understanding of the vicious and elaborate scheme that has been in work constantly in order to create a world exactly like the world we presently live in, the world lacking Humanism and Justice. Ironically Justice was what this world was created for, or at least that was what the common people were informed. It is now a common knowledge that the world is now more unequal and unjust than it ever was any time in the past.

What worries me the most is the realization of the ideological enslavement of most individuals in accepting the worldview propagated by the select few that profit from it. To kill an evil that was not religious but exploited religion for its purpose, another evil was created that was far more destructive than its predecessor. What we failed to realize is that it was not the religion which was at fault but the people who exploited the religion for their benefit. These same people became the leading proponent of this new evil because only they were the ones who were resourceful enough to benefit from it. Man was put into new chains and these chains were created by his own willing support. This New World Order reminds me of the quote by Rousseau,

“Man is born free, but everywhere he is in chains.”
But why did men consent to this unfortunate state of affairs?

Homo sapiens are the species of animals that happen to possess freewill. This means that man is free to take his own decisions conscious of its effects. This part of humanity is what was twisted and presented in a way that seemed to philosophically synchronize with the liberal doctrine. Although man is free by will but that freedom has ways to be unconsciously imprisoned. Man has the freedom to choose between various choices, but what if those choices have been devised to deceive him. This is exactly what happened to him. He was given the choices that were beneficial to the designers of the liberal doctrine. Media played the role of creating the consent among the people that the choices provided to them were the best possible. Noam Chomsky has vividly described the process of ‘Manufacturing Consent’ by the media in his book by the same name. He has shown that the mainstream media that is controlled by the people who control the present world order only shows those views regarding events that are beneficial to the propagation of this world order. This displays the elaborate plot that has been laid and employed to control the minds of the common people by rewiring their tastes according to their doctrine, where the value of an action is determined economically and not morally.

This doctrine became so successful because the biggest threat to its existence was dealt with from the very moment of its conception; the threat was religion. Homosexuality, live-in relationships, alcohol, drugs, gambling, prostitution and other vices could never have been institutionalized to the scale they have been now. Anyone who would now speak for the religion would be branded communal and anybody who would fight against the liberal values would be declared obsolete in his thinking. The intellectualism would be dominated by the propagated doctrine in any field be it science, literature, politics philosophy, economics et cetera. This is what Thomas Kuhn calls irrationality in science where the solutions to the problems are not derived objectively as science proposes, but within the paradigm that exists.

The reason I described the above historical analysis was because of my recent experience, the experience that left me deeply saddened. I was branded communal due to my voice for my community. I was asked to leave my country because I raised my voice for my community. I was questioned whether I had my allegiance to my country or my religion. The question itself is absurd because if people have their allegiance only to their country, religions would cease to exist and there would be wars and crimes without any responsibility towards any other country. I was asked whether I was first a human being or a Muslim. The question was again absurd because I am a Muslim that believes in one God who has created me and all the other human beings. So all humans are practically kin. But do kin not fight based on selfish interests. They do, and they do it often. I am then a human being who is an Indian Muslim who believes that he has the right to fight for himself and others who are being oppressed or not given proper justice because they belong to certain community. I am also human enough to fight against the Indian Muslims and Muslims from other countries who falsely employ Islamic Principles for the suppression of others. I am also equally vigorous to fight against the people from other religions who misuse their religious values in order to suppress others. My ultimate fight is against the oppression of minorities in all the countries of the world. In the sphere of violence my fight is for the punishment of same scales of violence with same scales of punishment be it from any religion, community, region, caste et cetera. My fight is for true egalitarian society where justice is itself free and not imprisoned.

I would now quote from two different scriptures from, two different religions that make me fearless for my fight against the above vices.

“If anyone slays a person, it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people.”
Qur'an

Silence, it is said, is better than speech, if speak you must, then it is better to say the truth; if truth is to be said, it is better to say what is agreeable; and if what is agreeable is to be said, then it is better to say what is consistent with morality.
The Mahabharata of Krishna-Dwaipayana Vyasa"

Ali Javed is a student of Amity University and can be reached at javed.ali12123@gmail.com 

Egalitarianism and Idealism in the New Economic Order



Introduction

The developments since the beginning of industrial revolution have not only been fast but also profound. From philosophy to economics and from society to politics everything has undergone massive transformation. This period has also witnessed a keen ideological debate. Not only the two major economic ideologies namely Capitalism and Socialism have been at loggerheads with each other but also there has been a permanent tussle between the new ideologies and the traditional ideologies. The new forces of economics introduced the concept of egalitarianism which primarily meant political and social equality of all human beings but had wider implications. In some ways these have been extra ordinarily rewarding for mankind but it has also proved disastrous in many ways. 

Egalitarianism

The definition of egalitarianism according to the oxford dictionaries is "Believing in or based on the principle that all people are equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities." The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines egalitarianism as "a trend of thought in political philosophy. An egalitarian favors equality of some sort: People should get the same, or be treated the same, or be treated as equals, in some respect." Egalitarianism is then the doctrine of equality of all in different contexts under consideration. These context may be law, justice, opportunities, gender, morals etc. John Locke holds that everyone at all times and places has equal natural moral rights that all of us ought always to respect (Locke 1690). Also according to Walzer "Democratic egalitarianism becomes a requirement of justice in modern societies, because this egalitarianism is an underlying important element of people's shared values and cultural understandings (Walzer 1983)." This shows that during different times in the human history the egalitarian approach has been utilized to defend the equality of all in the contested fields. This in the course of time has helped the human civilization to grow from slavery to universal human suffrage. It has established equality of all before the law. Equal opportunities to all the section of the society weather high or low has been made more possible. Equality to life, one of the fundamental requirements of a developed society has been universally established. Even after considering all the benefits of this doctrine we have found that there has actually been a rise in economic disparity. More and more wealth has come under the control of lesser and lesser people. Few of the human rights that have been reserved for certain sections of the society are proving to have bad impact on the society. Problems regarding health have actually increased even when the standard of living of the people has risen. We will take in consideration various impacts of the egalitarian approach-good and bad over the society and will try to find out the reasons behind it. We will discuss the benefits and drawbacks of the approach of egalitarianism in the light of the new economic and political systems. 

Capitalism vs Marxism on Egalitarianism 


Both the capitalist as well as the marxist system of economy has failed to generate equality in the society and on the other hand have aggravated disparity among various classes of people. The founders of these systems Adam Smith and Karl Marx had deviced their philosophies solely for the purpose of eradicating these inequalities in the society. Smith advocated the principle free hand that results in the formation of free market economy. He argued that in this free nature of market there will be complete competition that will lead to the diffusion of economic power throughout the economy. Whereas Marx was a propounder of no private property. He believed that due to the existence of the private ownership of property, men act selfishly for their self advantage. He believed that if there will be no private property, there will be an egalitarian distribution of the resources within the economy which will lead to reduction and further complete eradication of disparity. Smith's magnum opus the Wealth of Nations was his fight against the then existing system of mercantilism. But without realizing he himself helped establishing it's substitute. The aftermath of his capitalist revolution helped establish a new class of economic exploiters called the capitalists and turned the forms of governments into corporatocracy. The byproducts of his revolution were the new aristocrats of the money market called the capitalists. It was only till the time of the great depression that the capitalist nations realized that the form of government and economy capitalism created was far from being perfect. Similarly Marx's whole revolution was against the Smith's capitalists. Marx once wrote of the Paris Commune (in The Civil War in France): “They have no ideals to realize, but to set free the elements of the new society with which old collapsing bourgeois society itself is pregnant. In full consciousness of their historic mission, and with the heroic resolve to act up to it, the working class can afford to smile at the coarse invective of the gentlemen’s gentlemen with the pen and inkhorn, and at the didactic patronage of well-wishing bourgeoisdoctrinaires, pouring forth their ignorant platitudes and sectarian crotchets in the oracular tone of scientific infallibility.” And yet his revolution helped to produce the likes of Hitler, Stalin and Lenin who established the absolute dictatorship. What was his communist movement turned out to be nationalistic movement for the above mentioned people. Both Smith and Marx established their doctrines with the sole purpose of establishing equality in the society. And yet these were the last things that were achieved.

Although Smith theoretically propounded egalitarian approach and yet it was never emphasized. In The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759), which Smith himself saw as his more important book, Smith asks, in effect, "How do we recognize something as being a moral sentiment." In a nutshell, his answer is that we ask ourselves how an "impartial observer" would see it. That terrifying impartial observer constrains ourselves. As Smith put it, "If we saw ourselves in the light in which others see us, ... a reformation would generally be unavoidable." Smith had also written against the contemporary fashion of trade. In his own words he said that "People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices." He was clearly stating the disadvantages of the control of trade in advantage of the traders and not of the consumers. Yet his system of economy turned into chronic capitalism. Alexander Stille in his article "The Paradox of the New Elite" writes; "in economic terms, the United States has gone from being a comparatively egalitarian society to one of the most unequal democracies in the world." The foremost example of a capitalist nation is itself not free of its vices. Professor Becker, a celebrated free-market conservative, wrote his Ph.D. dissertation (and first book, “The Economics of Discrimination”) to demonstrate that racial discrimination was economically inefficient. The american capitalists must have realized this and thought that the exclusion various groups was not profitable for them and decided to exploit them by giving them some rights.

Describing the impact of the forces of economics and their ideology of economic fundamentalism on the diverse affairs of the world in different fields, Dr. Javed Jamil in his book "The Killer Sex" says;

"The think-tank of the world of economic fundamentalism has taken innumerable steps to strengthen their hold. They have sacrificed the goddess of justice before the eyes of the Statue of Liberty. They have transformed through political maneuvers the state into their estate. They have incessantly and relentlessly been trying to organize a grand farewell for religion. They have captivated the people’s imagination through the media. They have got the attire of society redesigned so that it looks gorgeous and inviting to their eyes. They have industrialized sex, in which they have discovered the hen that always lays golden eggs. They have relocated the entire educational set-up on the Wall Street. They have monopolized the tree of economy whose fruits and shadows are only theirs; others can only admire its beauty from a safe distance. They have taken science and technology as their mistresses who are always keen to offer their glorious best to them. They have nipped all the challenges in the buds by masterminding popular movements. They have lynched the ‘civilization’, which has been given a new incarnation; and now Bohemians are called civilized. Last but not the least, they have been busy colonizing the good earth in the name of globalization." 

In short the existent new systems of economies has proved to create even more disparity in terms of the new kind of slavery. This is the slavery to money and the people who control the money. However this kind of slavery is not that evident on the surface as compared to its older definitions but it sure shows its effects.

Idealism vs Egalitarianism 

The first name that strikes my mind when i speak about idealistic society is Sir Thomas More. More in his famous book "Utopia" tries to define his version of the perfect society. He says; 

"There are in Utopia fifty-four towns, all on the same plan, except that one is the capital. All the streets are twenty feet broad, and all the private houses are exactly alike, with one door onto the street and one onto the garden. There are no locks on the doors, and everyone may enter any house. The roofs are flat. Every tenth year people change houses—apparently to prevent any feeling of ownership. In the country, there are farms, each containing not fewer than forty persons, including two bondmen; each farm is under the rule of a master and mistress, who are old and wise. The chickens are not hatched by hens, but in incubators (which did not exist in More's time). All are dressed alike, except that there is a difference between the dress of men and women, and of married and unmarried. The fashions never change, and no difference is made between summer and winter clothing. At work, leather or skins are worn; a suit will last seven years. When they stop work, they throw a woollen cloak over their working clothes. All these cloaks are alike, and are the natural colour of wool. “Each family makes its own clothes. 

Everybody—men and women alike—works six hours a day, three before dinner and three after. All go to bed at eight, and sleep eight hours. In the early morning there are lectures, to which multitudes go, although they are not compulsory. After supper an hour is devoted to play. Six hours' work is enough, because there are no idlers and there is no useless work; with us, it is said, women, priests, rich people, servants, and beggars, mostly do nothing useful, and owing to the existence of the rich much labour is spent in producing unnecessary luxuries; all this is avoided in Utopia. Sometimes it is found that there is a surplus, and the magistrates proclaim a shorter working day for a time.”

Excerpt From: Bertrand, Russell. “History of Western Philosophy.” 

The above paragraph vividly depicts the idealist form of society and its features. Its most common criticism is that this kind of utopian world is impossible to form. But I believe that if the state tries to form a social and economical order on the utopian ideal it will yield results that will be far better then the ones existent now. 

Idealism related to the supremacy of ideals in the face of comforts and entertainment. Idealism had several sources of inspiration including religion and other traditional philosophical ideals. Egalitarianism was primarily an answer by the newly emerging forces of economics against idealism. These forces which had big ideas of economic globalization felt that the real ideology is in the concept of social and economic equality. But in truth they had started feeling that the old concepts of morality will be a hurdle in their march towards economic glory. They tried to prove that idealism is utopianism which is impossible to achieve. It is therefore better to develop a practical concept of idealism where individuals had the right to chose what is right or wrong. The system will not bind anyone to any specific course of action but will allow them to chose their own destination. If they want to avoid certain practices it is their choice. If they chose the other way they alone will be responsible for whatever happens to them. 

From the above writing on egalitarianism it has already been shown that the forces of politics and economics has failed to establish an egalitarian society. They have even failed to defend their own answer to idealism.

Freedom of Choice and Human Rights 


The present day order fulfills its agenda in the name of human rights and the freedom of choice. But at the same time they fail to define that good and between them. Actually it would be wrong on my part to say that they fail to define. But it is more appropriate to say that they do not want to define the good and the bad. They say that man is rational by nature and he will choose what is best suited for his needs. Dr Javed Jamil shows the role of media in helping these forces in his book "The Devil of Economic Fundamentalism" as follows; 

"To justify and perpetuate its style of functioning, the media has discovered the “freedom of expression” that has lately assumed notorious proportions. To traduce anybody, to malign religions and religious figures, to describe and exaggerate the most private areas of the life of any celebrity, to portray or publish anyone in the nude, to film the lewdest forms of sexual relations and to engage in disinformation for the furtherance of the desired objectives--all these have become great symbols of freedom of expression for them. Liberty has turned into liberating and license to express has resulted in licentiousness. Any attempt to censor or curb such vagrancy attracts virulent condemnation by the media all over the world. Those who advocate some control on expression are booed down as the enemies of freedom, civilization and development. To give further credence to its licentiousness, the media has used the “right to know” as an instrument to defend itself." 

The above excerpt shows that what the forces that control the present order say is the freedom of choice is actually the choice imparted by the media. Man has been so much captivated by its glamour that he stops caring whether the choice is good for him or not. He sees his favorite celebrity taking drugs in a movie and greatly influenced by him, he makes his choice of trying the drug. He then tries to enjoy it as his favorite celebrity in the movie did and in no time without even realizing it, he becomes addicted to it. Similarly homosexuality has been given the rights in the constitution of various countries. Dr. Jamil in his book "Muslims Most Civilized and Yet Not Enough" on homosexuality says; 

"The attempt to legalize Homosexuality is nothing but the continuation of the same series of worldwide strategies of “development” in which every human susceptibility is first given a legal and social sanction, then it is glorified in the media as a victory of “Freedom of Choice” and “Human Rights” and then with all the obstacles removed it is commercialized at huge level. It is needless to say that the rise in the demand of legalizing homosexuality in the world has intensified with the rising fortunes of gay market. It is already a big market in western countries. The truth is that Sex market as a whole is the largest growing market, and gay market is the largest growing sex market." 

A report entitled, “Gay-Friendly Vancouver as a Billion Dollar Industry”, which appeared before 2010 Olympics, says:

“At present, Vancouver is hyping the 2010 Olympics above all. The pride of a city has turned into its most lucrative business. Now the tourism industry has found a new market, which has always existed but its potential as a distinct market was not realized: the “gay market,” According to Canada.com, gay tourism in Vancouver has been a lucrative and loyal sector within recent years. Gay tourism in the U.S. alone is estimated to be $55 billion annually (Constanineau, 2007). A survey conducted by San Francisco-based Community Marketing Inc, ranked Vancouver as the fourth most popular gay destination outside of the U.S., ranking Montreal and Toronto fifth and sixth respectively, which shows how well Canada’s gay tourism industry is doing overall (Constanineau, 2007). Constanineau also says that tourism Vancouver uses media to draw in a lot of its gay market from U.S. locations such as New York, San Francisco, and Los Angeles. One of the possible reasons suggested for Vancouver’s gay tourism industry is due to the fact that BC legalized same-sex marriage in July of 2003.” 

It is clear that the human rights that are being given to the homosexuals is part of the bigger plan of the economic forces to earn profits from human weaknesses. This institutionalization and commercialization of homosexuality has resulted in the increase in the trend of straight men trying homosexuality. This has resulted in the increase in the percentage of homosexuals which is only going to increase further in future. But these economic forces and the media at the same time do not expose man to the side effects of homosexuality, how it is the biggest source of aids and how it is ruining millions of life throughout the globe. Same is the case with the problem of smoking, alcohol, drugs, pornography, prostitution. A woman who sits back home and takes care of her children is today tagged as unemployed and unproductive and at the same time the prostitutes are being labeled as sex workers. All being the part of the greater plan of exploiting the human weaknesses to their benefits in the name of an egalitarian society. 

Although the freedom of choice and human rights have helped the society in numerous ways but at the same time due to the lack of fundamental prohibitions in the working of the state there has been even greater misuse of these powerful tools. 

Individualism and the Role of System


The seventeenth century saw an increase in individualistic role of man in the society. According to britannica individualism is " the political and social philosophy that emphasizes the moral worth of the individual." The doctrine emphasizes the importance of an individual in a society over the collective whole. This egalitarian approach which expressed equality of each individual was a product of the lassez faire philosophy where every individual was driven towards his best when pursuing his selfish desires. It advocates that the interests of an individual should come before that of the state or a group. The French aristocratic political philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville (1805– 59) described individualism in terms of a kind of moderate selfishness that disposed humans to be concerned only with their own small circle of family and friends. Richard Koch in his article "Is Individualism Good or Bad" has written; 

"The practical result of individualism has been the explosion of wealth that the world has seen since the eighteenth century. Before then, the great majority of people suffered malnutrition and disease, when they did not actually starve to death. Individualism has fuelled invention, the agricultural revolution, the industrial revolution, and all the enterprise that has led to cheap necessities and fairly cheap luxuries - decent clothes, affordable housing, abundant food, and the mobility brought by bicycles, cars, trains and planes. None of this was possible before there was a cadre of highly creative inventors, engineers, entrepreneurs, and knowledge-workers, before people were allowed and encouraged to create, and allowed to keep some of the wealth that they generated." 

Being self reliant and not to follow the herd to create your own path is good. But following the extremes of this is really harmful. The above description of individualism describes the positive sides of the doctrine. But as we have discussed earlier that what appears to be a good side also has greater bad side of the story. We will try to discuss the demerits of individualism over collectivism and the role of system in establishing collectivism. Dr. Javed Jamil in his book "Muslims Most Civilized and Yet Not Enough" describes the impact of individualism over health system; 

"The above definitions clearly demonstrate the impact of the economic fundamentalism, which have been stressing the inclusion of "socially and economically productive life" without insisting the adoption of a health protective socio-economic system. Economic fundamentalism relies on the promotion of individualism and the negation of family and society. In their view it is individuals that form society rather than that society comprises individuals. Market forces advocate the importance of absolute individual freedom, and strongly resent any suggestion that the demands of society in general and the demands of family in particular must guide individual choices. It is therefore necessary to restrict the definition of health to an individualistic notion. If “social well being” is talked of, it means how an individual acts within society and not how society protects the individual. This definition is thus a passive proposition where the onus to maintain health falls on the shoulders of individuals themselves; family and society are not largely responsible to protect the health. If society comes into action, it is invariably when a particular program has the blessings of the market forces. If some hue and cry is raised by certain quarters to correct the ecology and environment, these are diplomatically tackled. Some of these demands have in fact the blessings of the big industries in order to fail the small-scale industries. And whatever the force behind these demands, environment to them just means air and water free of pollution; it has nothing to do with social practices and systems that are dangerous for health, unless they have a scope for commercial use at a larger level. We will discuss later how and why only secondary preventive measures are advocated and primary preventive measures ignored."

The new economic dispensation felt that the absolute rights of individuals will be in conformity with their concept of egalitarianism. They felt that this would help the business also in a big way. They felt that the system did not have any right to impose choice on individuals. The absoluteness of the rights of individuals made the system almost non existent. Individuals started dong what they liked. This helped their business and the variety of choices soon gave birth to variety of markets. With the passage of time the moral boundaries were demolished. Even dangerous choices were now welcomed. Alcohol, smoking, gambling and sex-all became big markets. This has continued to get worse every day. And now we are faced with a situation where individualism has led to disastrous consequences.

Individualism to a certain extent is productive. But at the same time extreme measures in it prove to be futile. The complete focus of man on individualism is the reason of most of his problems. As some of the proponents of collectivism put; “spontaneous collaboration of free men often creates things which are greater than their individual minds can ever fully comprehend." For the greater good of the society a protective system against human weaknesses needs to be established and the philosophy of individualism be constrained to private life.

Conclusion

Evolution is unfortunately not always beneficial. The industrial revolution and the ideologies enforces that it spawned went awry in many ways. Slowly but steadily the role of certain economic forces became too overwhelming to be comforting. The difference in market forces in particular were always involved in sordid machinations to monopolize wealth. They did not shy away from using human strengths, human needs and human weaknesses for their economic aggrandizement. This had disastrous consequences in the fields of health, family values and social cohesion. The economic disparity has continued to rise, alcohol, gambling and sex related diseases have become the major killers; the family system is becoming increasingly defunct with dangerous effects and women and children, exploitation of human beings in various branches of market and huge increase in crimes. If mankind is to be saved from the impending doom, morality based on the impact on health an
d peace has to be revived. Religion can also play an important role in strengthening human conscience and inculcating spiritual values. Economy is an important constituent of organized human existence but care has to be taken not to allow economics to become a devil.