Annual Leave Donation Direct Transfer Form: Fill & Download for Free

Strong and weak are comparative adjectives. It changes as the opponent changes. For example, the cat is stronger than the rat and the dog is stronger than the cat. A lion, we see most of the time, is the most powerful, but Hyena's herd can overcome him!!To assess the strength of any Prime Minister, we should see what his position was in front of his nearest and powerful opponent in such circumstances.I believe that no leader is ever a patriot or a traitor. But there comes a point when he has to choose how much risk he is willing to take to confront his strongest opponent. This ability to take risks makes an ordinary leader extraordinary.In this answer, first I will point out the crucial work of all the PMs after independence and on that basis, I will judge who was the strongest PM.Here, ‘crucial work’ means those work which might be a kind of work that not every other PM did or tried but was most beneficial for the country if compared to the work a PM can do.———(i) Prime Minister's most powerful opponent:It is a misconception that the most powerful and proximate opponent of the PM is the opposition. It is true that the opposition is the rival of the PM. But the source of the power of any political party is the rich class. If the rich classes start supporting the opposition, then the strength of the opposition will increase, and if the elites cooperate with the PM, the opposition or PM's political rivals will not be able to shake the PM.Rich class means - elite class, business elite, industrial houses, heads of business groups, etc. They are powerful because they have real and lasting power as well as money. To maintain their strength, they have to keep the PM under control.(ii) Why do elites want to control leaders?Because they want such laws so that they can make more money, and they do not want such laws to increase competition in their business. It is the job of the government to print the law. Therefore, they want their men in government. Either they will bring such people to power, by giving donations, who will give them laws in the Gazette for the benefit of their business or they will bribe the party in power.If they do not keep the settings from the government, then the introduction of certain laws will create free competition, and new traders will start competing in their markets. In other words, once a man makes enough money, he wants such laws in the country that a person with more money and more resources should have extra benefits. So that he does not have to face a fair Competition !!As long as there is a cooperation between the leader and the rich class, the politics flow, beyond the routine movements, like a calm river. But as soon as there is a conflict between the PM and the rich class, you will see the disturbance. And this disturbance is real, not a fake disturbance seen in paid media.It is not just about India. In all countries of the world, wealthy people live in an effort to control the politicians. The only difference is that in some countries the elites have less control over politics and in some countries more. The politics of some countries is controlled by the elites of their own country, and the politics of some other countries is controlled by foreign elites. This answer is written in the context of India, so I have included the reference only to India in it. And the biggest problem with India is that in our politics this class is foreigner elites !![Comment: The answer has 2 sections. Section-A is about the political equations of the wealthier class, and in Section-B, I have examined the Prime Ministers from 1947 to 2019 with the wealthier class. There are also many details in this which cannot be confirmed. It depends on the reader's argument as to what he draws from it.————Section-A————(1) The arrival of the owners of powerful companies in India:Due to the introduction of the jury system*, European countries developed rapidly in the technological and industrial revolution. Due to a large scale factory setting, the factory owners started making money fast. They needed cheap raw materials to make more profit. Raw material i.e. Minerals !!(*) Paid historians have removed the word ‘jury system’ from history textbooks — the main reason for the Industrial Revolution — and have imposed it on a fairly romantic theory called "Renaissance".When Europeans started making better goods, they started going to other countries to sell goods and also took control there to loot raw materials of such countries. The army was needed to take control. Therefore, the owners of European companies also started to keep their armies. They also used to pay the kings and hire armies, and give the king a share from the profits they made.Thus within 200 years of the arrival of the jury system, a completely new set up of business had been created in European countries.The setup* was that the owners of European companies were openly using the king's army to spread their business and loot minerals, and the king was giving his army to the merchants to make money !! This set up remains the same today, and the owners of British-American companies use their forces to increase business. For example, American companies used armies to loot Iraq's oil and now they will use armies to loot Iran's oil.(*) Paid historians have completely ignored this set up from textbooks, and even if written elsewhere, it is written in such an indirect language that it is equivalent to not writing.The First and Second World Wars were fought for coal, crude oil, and steel. The Gulf War also took place for crude oil. Minerals were also the cause of the British-France conflict. To rob this mineral, British-French companies established colonies all over the world. Whatever the British were looting from India were minerals. The British company came to India only for minerals. The size of the private army of the East India Company was then double that of the Royal Army of England!(2) Transfer of power by British elites:British were broken due to World War II and began to consolidate their colonies from all over the world. In this sequence, they also left India.Before leaving, in 1946, the British went to their loyalists (Tatas, Godrej, Birlas, Dalmia, Birlas, Sarabhai, etc.), giving them many additional benefits and security (mining rights, licenses, and land), etc., and it was decided that Jawaharlal will protect the interests of these industrialists.The dependence of Indian industrialists was that all their factories were running on the machines of British-American* elite men. If the British started sending these machines to other industrialists of India or stopped sending them spare parts, they would have incurred losses. Therefore, they needed the support of the British elite men. In this way, British elites and native elites of India were in the same court, and they had to control the PM of India for their own benefit. The native kings of India were also in the court of the British elites at the time of independence.British-American*: Now American elites also join British elites in Indian politics from here. When Britain was emptying its colonies, America started efforts to seize the market of these countries. But the US model was completely different. This includes everything from the World Bank to WTO, IMF, etc. I have explained this in detail in this answer: Kushagra Yadav's answer to What is FDI?(3) What kind of laws do the elites need in the country?The wealthier class has power because they are running factories to manufacture technical goods, which are in demand all over the world. They want to maintain their control over this technical production (monopoly). For example, India has oil reserves, but India does not have the technology to make oil extraction machines. Only 3 countries have the technology to extract oil:The US-Britain-FranceRussiaChinaSimilarly, the technique of making fighter planes, laser-guided bombs, drones, laser-guided missiles, etc. is also available only to the rich people of these 3 countries. And they have to spend a lot of money and resources to ensure that the factory owners of other countries cannot gather this technology.3.1 The laws which determine the competitive market for technical production:Law of courtsPolice lawLaw of the landTax lawsThey need such a system of police-courts that whenever they want, either they can throw money or suppress to buy judges. If they are not able to control the judge-police, then their business will end. Let us understand this with an example.Suppose X is an automobile engineer and invents a 1200 cc engine of the car that gives an average of 30. Now if Tata, Hyundai, and Maruti want to save their business, they have to stop this man from setting up the factory. If the system in the country is such that the police and judges cannot be bought or suppressed, then they will not be able to stop this man. They need such a system that they can prevent the inventor from patenting, purchasing land, raising funds, transferring land, obtaining necessary licenses for production, and taking clearance from various departments, etc.Actually they will not stop him directly at all. But in every government work, he will be so much obstructed that he will keep moving from here to there for years, and will never be able to build a factory. Due to the delay, its cost will start increasing and its investors will draw money from the project.For example, when the inventor would file a patent, Tata will ask another small factory owner or engineer to file a fake charge of patent theft against this man. After this, Tata will pay the judge and get the patent file stuck. And thus at every stage, he will have to fight with the police-judge-leaders. This battle is for the Tatas, but the Tatas cannot come forward and fight, so they need such a system that when they start throwing money, they can use police-judge-leaders and government officials for their own benefit.So if these companies have to save their business in India, then all such people have to be stopped, who can challenge them. And to stop these people, judges, police and other government high officials are used.So elites want the police and the courts to be under their decisive control. If the PM tries to print laws to make the police and judges accountable to the public, then all the judges, top police officers, all paid media persons, all intellectuals, all the elites, all the editors, all the politicians, all the political parties, all the ministers, all MPs, all MLAs, etc. will unite and go against PM !! The situation will become that PM will not be able to pass this law from his office to the printer office of Gazette !!3.2. And what interest do American-British elites have in the laws of India?See, if X sets up such a company that it starts to lead Tata-Mahindra-Hyundai, then to survive in the market, Tata-Mahindra-Hyundai would have to start buying engines from X and the engines of Fiat, Ford, etc. would become less valuable and lose the market. Currently, Fiat sells car engines to most companies. And if X becomes self-sufficient in technology, then after 10 years he will start making JCB (Crane) level engines and JCB will have the entire Indian market out of its hands !! JCB is a UK based company and currently, entire India is running on JCB.If the foundation to make an engine like JCB is formed in India, then the engines of high-speed trains will start being built in India in the next 10 years. And if the police-courts are reformed, then many such X's will come in the market and India will start making even the engine of the fighter plane.My point is that if the established wealthier loses control over the police-judge-officers, then in the next 10 years, many such companies will come in the market, which will start eating their market, and that is why they need full control over the judges-police of India. So these industrial houses you have been seeing since decades, they are not built on the top for unknown reasons. They have to invest heavily in politics to stay on top of the continent.But there are millions of people doing business in such a big country, and many of them can also become a challenge tomorrow. Now such a large number of people cannot be monitored. Its treatment is only the laws.They get such laws printed so that the judge, police and officer class can pull money from people irresponsibly. After making such a law, they never have to say anything to the judge and the police that you bribe this inventor or humiliate that entrepreneur, etc.Judge-police-officer will always be in the ambush of the money-makers and keep drawing money from them. In this way, these people spoil 90% competition in the first round itself. That means their feticide is killed.I call it spreading the snake. The way the snake bites in the board of snake-ladder and if the snake bites, the dice comes down, in the same way, they leave many kinds of legal snakes in the way of setting up and running the factory.If a man goes to buy the land, the prices are so high that most players will not be able to play. Then when he goes for commercial transfer of land, either he will have to feed hungry Sarpanch, Tehsildar, Collector for NOC, ExEN for electricity connection, NOC of Environment and so on. will go to all government officials, or the officials will give them dates after dates. These are the legal snakes of the system, who either keep biting the businessmen or keep their files and increase their costs. But if Tata-Batata works, he will get a call from the minister and work will be done immediately !! In this way, all this corruption of the system does not allow them to move forward by increasing the cost of small factory owners.And those who used to go up and challenge the top industrialists, judges and high officials are used to deal with them.In secretariats, in presidential buildings, in ministries, etc. the secretariat level officers are seated, they get a lot of money from Tata-Batata, etc. for getting work out and giving information. The wealthy class takes care of their loyal officers, and promotes them and appoints them to higher positions. Tata-Batata are business people and have been dealing with them continuously for the last 70 years. The leader only comes for 5 years and leaves by making money. But these officers remain. Therefore, the wealthier class continues to hold this entire system.(4) Control over the political community by the elites:Politics means printing the laws. The government does the work of printing the laws. In order to control the people who print the laws, the elites have to control the following classes:Political partiesPolitical activistcommon public4.1. Political parties:They try to control all mainstream political parties. Each and every one. Yes, incumbent and opposition both!! These are different parties for you, but for them, the opposition and incumbent all are one, and they have to control all the mainstream parties. Sometimes this control increases, sometimes it decreases. That's the only difference.They need centralization in the electoral process to keep the leaders under control. They want such a system that it becomes very difficult to form political parties and contest elections without a lot of money. This reduces the possibility of the emergence of leaders/activists who do not have the support of the wealthy class.Means, they want only big parties all over the country, and also the structure of these big parties they want to be such that the entire party can be controlled through a central leader or a dozen central leaders. Congress's CWC and BJP's Parliamentary Board are the institutions in which a dozen people sitting control the entire party. In all other parties in India, you will find the structure that only 100-50 people run the entire party. The rich class maintains an equal hold on these top people who form the party's policy.4.1.1. How are political parties so badly dependent on the wealthier class?Suppose X contests an election on an issue or forms a political party. Suppose, party X has some 1000 dedicated workers and all the workers come from middle-income groups. Suppose there are 20 lakh voters in a district. So the first condition is that X has to reach his agenda of 20 lakh people. X now has 2 routes to reach 20 lakh people in the entire district:4.1.1(a) Publicity without the aid of paid media:At the district level: X will have to distribute pamphlets, install several hoardings, banner-sign boards, etc. to reach out to all the legislatures, tehsils, panchayats and wards of the district. There should be a budget of at least 1 crore to do all this at the district level. And even then it will take at least 10 years to reach all voters.At the state level: if this information is to reach 5 crore citizens of the entire state, then at least 100 crore and 15 years are needed !! That too when X has at least 1000 unpaid activists to work in each district !!At the national level: 25-30 years and 5,000 crores are needed to reach 90 crore citizens of the whole country !! And with this about 1000 * 600 = 6,00,000 unpaid activists are also required to work in the country.Now suppose that all 1000 activists of Party X pay a monthly membership fee of Rs 100, then 1000 * 100 = 1 lakh months and 12 lakh rupees for a year. Meaning it will take you 10 years to raise a budget of 1 crore !! Now, this model has 2 major problems. First, finding 1000 political activists in a city, who are willing to work without money for 100 months is a very difficult task. If you are in the business of doing any charitable or social work (planting trees, tying birds, distributing blankets, etc.) then the activists will be found very easily. But it will take you at least a year to add 10 unpaid activists to a political agenda !!For example, how many such parties in India have 1000 such activists who give 100 rupees a month to their party? Zero !! There are not even 1000 such people in a national party like BJP !!! So from this, you can understand that working on this model is practically not possible.4.1.1b. With the help of paid media:At the district level: 2 newspapers with the highest circulation in the district require some paid news, article or advertisement every week. At the district level, the rate of advertisement of A4 size is not less than 1 lakh. Meaning you should have at least 5 crores for a year's budget.State and National level media: You do not need money to go to state and national level media. You need a sponsor there. Meaning, you cannot get coverage in state or national level media just by paying money. To get into the national level media, it is necessary that your agenda is not against those people who have been paying to run the media for the last several years. Meaning if you are working on the agenda to improve the courts-police and army, then the path of paid media is closed.Now the use of paid media in the way of publicity makes a big and decisive difference. Actually, when publicity is done through paid media, people start coming to join you, otherwise, you have to go to every person yourself.Means, by using paid media, in just 3 to 4 years, even a brand new party can create a national identity, and can also become the chief minister of a state. But if you have 10,000 crores but you do not have media access, then you will not be able to beat the party that has media access !!Because the speed media has, you cannot bring that speed by spending only money. Means, here is the role of technique. Paid media has such technology that if they want to send information to millions of citizens of the country, then they can do it immediately. And this technological edge cannot be met with money !!Now if the party also contests elections, then this entire budget will double or triple, and in every election, this budget will increase !!My point is that to create a situation like contesting in just one parliamentary seat, you should have a budget of crores annually. And unless you have people who can bear this expense continuously, the car cannot be driven forward !! And the point to note is that this is not an investment of crores of rupees. It's almost drowning money !! Because having 2–4 MPs, the law cannot be printed. You need at least 50 MPs to create pressure !! Therefore, you have to invest in at least 100–200 parliamentary constituencies !!Meaning, those who have the business of making an ocean of wealth, only can invest money in this game. Those earning Rs 2-4 crores annually cannot join this game. Meaning unless you have a wealthy class with you, no political choice can be made.4.1.2. Does a well-known leader also need a sponsor to build a party?No matter how famous the leader is, if he rallies 1 lakh people, he should have at least 25 lakh rupees. You will also have to invest money in running offices, pamphlets, banners, hoardings, etc. Even if a big leader forms a party, he will take donations from here and there anyhow for two months to publicize the party's agenda but will surrender in the third month.If the leader is big, then paid media will show his news 2-4 times to please his fans, but if you need continuous paid media support, then you have to spend money continuously. Coverage will not be available without money. Therefore, if the rich class is not ready to support the agenda of the big leader, then the big leader will soon be out of the race.For example, the ‘Aap ki Adalat’ interview rate is 5 crores. And the slot remains booked for the next 2 months. To show an interview without money means a loss of 5 crores !! And the rates of interviews in elections become 4 times more than the normal. Now, will you win the election through an interview? Need continuous airing !! Meaning, you cannot remain in politics until a man who floods you with money is standing behind you. In the last 70 years in India's politics, see how many leaders tried to build their own party and what happened to them.Nonetheless, political parties need a "constant" money supply to survive. So how many political parties of India are such that they are making money continuously by doing business or running an industry?Answer: Zero !!All parties run on donations. Even if we put the paid media expenses on the side, there is a need for several hundred crores annually to run a national / state level party. They get all this money from those who make several hundred crores of rupees a year.In a way, this is a propaganda war. And all methods of publicity require money. In other words, the party/leader to whom the wealthier class will begin to cooperate will have more of the publicity machinery and will become stronger rivals.4.1.3. Voting and counting:EVMs are opaque and centralized in the election process, and voting can be manipulated on a much larger scale using EVMs. Therefore, if the PM will publish the law to remove EVM from the election process, then the conflict between PM and elites will increase. Now it is important to note here that, leaders of big parties can oppose EVM, hold press conferences, debate, but if they are in government, they cannot bring the law to cancel EVM !!Please note it carefully that this whole game is about printing and not printing law. Therefore, I am not talking here about rhetoric, fake protest and similar drama activities, which you see in TV-newspapers and social media doing leisure. The richer class only looks at the Gazette, and they just keep an eye on it. What other leaders are talking about in a rally, interview, press conference or standing on the Red Fort does not make sense to them.4.2. Political Activist: In any country, there is a section of some 2 to 3%, who is interested in political developments, and keeps an eye on it. These (2-3%) people are called activists. It may have many big and small leaders, independent activists, or grass root activists. 98% of these (2–3%)people are in any political party.It is from this class that opposition and political parties are formed, there are movements, activities like dharna, jam, demands, advice, protest, hunger protest, etc. are also conducted by them. You can also call them political opinion-makers. Nowadays you can see most of these activists on social media making ruckus on issues that are fed to them by paid media on a daily basis.Elite men have to control the group of these 2 to 3% of people. If even 1% of these people start supporting or opposing any law, then these people can gather enough support of the public to force the PM to reverse the decision. In other words, these people can launch a movement against such a decision. This number of 2% sits around 2 crores in a country like India, meaning this number is so large that they can neither be suppressed, nor killed, nor can they be purchased.The manner in which they use to manage these millions of political activists across the country is a very broad topic. I have given some brief points below:They are divided: unity and organization is a divisive principle. Through paid textbooks, they have enshrined in the minds of 90% of the citizens of India that they should "unite" under some organization to bring any change or to gain power. Being "clone negative", most of these activists start working against each other's organizations and leaders in the name of saving the country.They are hanged behind big leaders: you will see the word "leadership" as a mantra in paid media and all textbooks. They incorrectly establish that a leader is needed to bring all kinds of changes. They establish leaders through paid media, and then the activists who have been made brain-dead in the name of unity and organization growth are employed to work in the publicized organization automatically by starting following these big parties and branded leaders.Their energy and time are wasted: it is the most tricky trick in politics. Through paid media, the activists are kept busy in debating on ideas, principles, debates, statements, speeches, etc. You will always find leaders and activists arguing on what is the ideology of such a party/leader, what statement he has made today, and what statement he had made yesterday. The main objective is to keep the workers busy in draftless discussions.In essence, leaders and political parties that support laws protecting their interests increase their stature by using funding + paid media and sticking millions of political activists behind them. The rich class ensures through paid media that the party/leader who opposes the agenda of the rich class never emerges, and more and more activists can be sent behind big political parties and branded leaders. In this way, they engage a large population of activists with branded leaders and branded parties instead of demanding the necessary laws !!You will find very few activists in India who discuss political issues to the point that which law will solve which problem of the country. You will always see them in this mode that such a leader or party is good and such a leader/party is a bastard. All these people are under the grip of paid media. However, they never realize this.4.3. Common citizens or the public:If the public understands that the PM is under the control of the elites, they will expel the PM using the election !! So the benefit of controlling the PM is only as long as the rich class is able to hide from the public that they are controlling the PM !! The public generally has no opinion or interest about politics. They come in the grip of publicity and form a rough opinion about the leader, and vote on that basis.The fundamental difference between an activist and a voter is that, despite the worsening condition of the political system, the public will choose only from the available options, but an activist starts working towards becoming a choice himself when all the available options are worse !!Paid media is mainly used to control public opinion.Elements of the paid media:All books of social science, history, economics, political science, public administration from class 1 to any higher level are paid media. (Except for the math and natural science like physics, chemistry, etc.)All films, tv series, documentary are paid media.All mainstream books written on socio-political-economics are paid books. If a book written on these subjects has received a prize, then it is double paid.All mainstream newspapers, entertainment channels, news channels are paid media.All intellectuals appearing in TV-newspapers are paid intellectuals. All journalists are paid journalists. All editors are paid editors. All law-constitution experts are paid experts.In other words, the basic supply line of basic ideas of all your socio-political discourse is paid media. They form a radius from the above sources and ensure that your political discourse remains within this scope. And being a central source, they are able to do this with crores of people.If the wealthier class does not have 100% control over the media of a country then the wealthier class will lose control. If the elites have control over paid media, then as the spread of paid media increases, the power of elites will increase, and they will easily control the public.(5) When will the clash between wealthier class and PM increase?5.1. Mineral and Natural Resources:In the end, the whole battle is about mineral and natural resources. Cheap prices for mining leases, free land for setting up factories, etc. If the PM prints the law to stop the loot of minerals, then it starts to damage immediately and directly to the elite class. Therefore, there will be an immediate confrontation of the elites and PM. And this confrontation will be quite serious !!Indonesia is an example that to save the country from the loot of the country's natural resources such as minerals and land from multinationals, what level of ire one has to face. The President of Indonesia, Sukarno, nationalized mineral assets and carried out land reforms in the following decade. He drove the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund out of the country and banned foreign investment.Between 1965 and 1966, the CIA and American multinational companies carried out the systemic massacre of one million Communist Party activists. By finding all the leaders, activists and supporters of the Communist Party opposing foreign companies, and killing was done at mass scale but secretly. This search and hunt operation carried out under the supervision of the US Army and CIA lasted for 4 years and none was left !!A forgotten genocide5.2. Weapon Manufacturing:This is the most sensitive case. With the improvement of courts, police and tax system, large scale factories get started in the country and technological development starts. And all types of technological development eventually turn to weapons technology. When there is a conflict between the wealthier class and the PM, the final decision is made by the actual war. Weapon manufacturing is the high point of technology. Multinational companies have control over other countries because of the world's most powerful weapon-making technology.There are only 2 ways to make weapons:PM prints such laws to improve courts, police and the tax system, so that free competition begins and indigenous companies muster the ability to manufacture weapons.Another way is that the PM starts using government machinery and government resources to make weapons.In the case of India, you must forget the first way. Now there is the other way. The PM can speed up the process of making weapons from government resources. But if the PM does this, then the wealthier class and the PM cannot co-opt. Then there is a decisive battle. No mercy, no exception, no compromise.If the PM starts making efforts to make the army self-sufficient, there will be only two things - either the PM should make his army so self-sufficient that the war will be averted, or else the PM will have to go to war.The rich class can loot the mineral and natural resources of a country only when the army of such a country is weak. If the PM makes his army self-sufficient, then the whole country will come out of their paws. Therefore, if a PM tries to produce complex weapons based on indigenous technology, then there will be a conflict between the PM and the rich class. And this conflict will not be avoided in any way.All the wars fought by American-British elites during the last 200 years have been more or less the same point — the PM of a country started making weapons to stop the loot of minerals and war broke out. Paid historians have written a lot of nonsense in history books to hide this straightforward matter and to explain the complex cause.In the next part of the answer, I have described how the various Prime Ministers of India were related to the rich class, and to what extent did they go to confront them.——————————Section-B————(A) Jawahar Lal (1947 to 1964)In 1947, Jawaharlal was appointed to the post of PM by the British + Indian elite men. If elections were to take place during Sardar Patel, then Jawahar Lal was not going to become PM. Hence elections were postponed. And for the first time elections were held in 1951 after Patel's assassination. Here Jawaharlal is not accused of killing Patel. Because the British + Indian elite men did not trust Patel. They believed that after becoming PM, they may have problems in controlling Patel. The way Patel performed as Home Minister, it became clear from the fact that if Patel persists till the elections, he will not be prevented from becoming PM.During Jawaharlal's time, British + American elite men were not directly controlling the politics of India. The intervention of foreigners was through indigenous elites (Tata-Batata etc.). But the hold of these native elites was very strong on politics.Status of paid media:Mainstream print media was fully occupied by the wealthy. But print media readership was not more than 7-8%.Due to illiteracy, there was also a very small population in the grip of paid textbooks. Later, through a campaign of "teach and educate everyone", a large number of students were given ideological opium through paid textbooks (except mathematics-science-commerce).Electronic media did not come until the time of Jawaharlal.(1) Relation of Jawaharlal to wealthy class:1.1. Police: Jawaharlal did not publish any law to reform the police. [0 out of 10]1.2. Courts: By 1958, some of the provinces of India had a weak jury system at a lower level. Jawaharlal ended the jury courts as an excuse from the Nanavati case. [negative score (- 4)]1.3. Laws to make land cheap: Jawaharlal tried his best to stop land reforms. And since the jury was protecting the movement of land reforms, he ended the jury system !! [Negative score (- 2)]1.4. Local Factory: Jawaharlal implemented license raj = permit raj to maintain a monopoly of Tata-Batata on technical production !! [Negative score (- 8)]What was the License Raj: To set up a factory in India, many licenses and permissions had to be obtained from the government. What will be the size of the factory, how much will you produce, what will you produce, etc. And even after setting up the factory, the government could regulate how much production the factory could do. Permission was usually required from 50 to 60 government departments to set up a factory, and the government could revoke the license at any time. It is not necessary to write that every officer had to be given bribes.1.5. Loot of the Minerals: Jawaharlal continued the mining rights of the British loyalists which were given by Britishers during the British Raaj. For example, the British had given rights to dig coal in Jharkhand at the rate of Rs 1 per acre annually. Jawaharlal also refused to do it 2 rupees !! The robbery of all other Minerals also continued [0 points]1.6. Tax system: American-British elite gave Jawaharlal an exemption in GST because Jawaharlal had printed the permit raj to spoil the local production. But Tata-Batata had persuaded Jawaharlal to print regressive tax like excise and sales tax to keep the vein tight of medium level factories. [Negative number (- 4)]1.7. Weapon manufacturing: Jawaharlal did not print a single law for the production of weapons. They imported weapons from Russia and Britain. [Negative number (-2)]1.8. National Property: Jawaharlal set up several public sector undertakings, which increased the wealth of India. For these technical ventures, we needed students who understood engineering. Therefore, he included translations of Science-Maths books in the course. At the time of Jawaharlal, the curriculum of Science-Maths of India was much better. Its simplification started from 1990 onwards.The flaw in this policy was that the public had no control over the minister + executive chairman of PSUs. These people were neither within the scope of the election and recall procedures nor under the purview of the jury. Therefore, corruption in these institutions had increased considerably, and most of these enterprises were making losses. Later, by making this deficit an excuse, later leaders started selling these ventures to foreigners by bribing them !! [+5 marks]2. Swatantra Party: In1959, Rajatopalachari founded the Swatantra Party against Permit Raj. Their main promise was to abolish the permit raj, so many businessmen of medium and small scale were supporting this party. But Jawaharlal's sponsors and India's top industrialists were not in support of this party. It was also supported by many landowners. Due to the many leaders, activists, and funding of the freedom movement, this party was growing rapidly. It was the largest opposition party in the 1967 Lok Sabha.This party was shut down in 1972 due to the death of C. Rajagopalachari and lack of funding. Since this party had never made the draft public what they would print in the Gazette to fix the economy, its activists had no idea what to do next after the leader died and the party closed. So they started supporting other parties here and there.Abstract: Jawaharlal and elite class had very good relations and they continued to maintain alliances. The only reason that Jawaharlal became the PM and remained the PM for 16 years without any resistance was for not making any conflict with the elites.(B) Lal Bahadur Shastri: (1964 - 1966)Shastri ji did not get much time. Under Shastriji's leadership, India defeated Pakistan, but due to pressure from America and Russia, we had to return the occupied territory. Shastriji stayed in Tashkent for 4 days. There were both American and Russian. It is widely believed that Shastri ji was murdered by the CIA. Now it has been directly written on Shastri ji's Wikipedia page without any confirmation that - Shastri ji was poisoned by KGB !!(which is total nonsense)(C) Indira Gandhi: (1966 -1984)The strength of all the Prime Ministers of India looks like that of a kid in front of the power that Indira Gandhi showed in making confrontation with the wealthy class. There was a long struggle between her and the wealthy class. During this period, the American-British elite men used all the methods for bringing down Indira ji.It is clear that Indira ji did not believe in giving strength in public hands. And because of this, she did not print any law to fix the police and the courts. She decided to fight the world's most powerful people without taking the support of the citizens. Which was a mistake.Police: Indira ji did not print any law to reform the police. [0 points]Courts: Jury System Abolition was written in CRPC even after Jawaharlal ended the jury system. Indira ji also removed these words in such a way that no mark giving information about the jury practice is left in the books !! [Negative number (- 2)]Laws to make land cheap: She did not print any law for this. [0 points]Local factory: She continued the license raj !! [0 points](1) Indira ji's decisions which led to her conflict with the elite men:1.1. Atomic Bomb: By 1966 India's nuclear research program was working towards achieving peaceful nuclear energy. Sarabhai was its head at the time of Shastri ji and he was ordered by Shastri ji to maintain it in a peaceful direction. A big reason was that the US was also supporting us in this, and their condition was that India would restrict its nuclear program to electricity only.In 1967, with Indira ji becoming Prime Minister, India's nuclear program was turned towards the military project. Then she went even further. She allowed using the heavy water technology which was demanded for peaceful purposes from the US in making nuclear bombs. By 1969, the United States had come to know that India was working fast towards making nuclear bombs.1.2. RAW: It is very risky to gain weapons’ manufacturing capability. For this, you have to deal with both internal and external enemies. Indira ji established a full-time intelligence agency in 1968 to strengthen her position. In 1969, its budget was increased by 15 times and the number of detectives was increased to thousands. Indira ji started setting her agents in East and West Pakistan. Weakening Pakistan was the primary agenda of Indira ji.RAW had informed Indira ji in 1969 that Pakistan could be divided if Bangladesh were to cooperate. Indira ji started working on increasing the army. Pakistan was a very close US partner at this time, and the CIA knew that India was interfering in East Pakistan.Two yrs before 1971 war, RAW's RN Kao told Indira Gandhi to be ready for Pakistan partition1.3. Partition of Pakistan: Indira ji attacked the forces of Pakistan in 1971 when the conflict between Pakistan and East Pakistan was going on and East Pakistan started losing. During this time, America had clearly told Indira ji that they should not interfere in Pakistan's case. But she did not want to miss this opportunity.Then America sent its army to attack India, but by the time their armies reached India, the war was over. The Pakistani prisoners were later released due to the intervention of the US and Russia.US forces had orders to target Indian Army in 1971 | India News - Times of India1.4. Pokaran I: In 1974, she carried out the nuclear explosion. After the nuclear explosion, America again asked them to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, but Indiraji turned down the proposal. After this, efforts were made by American-British elites to bring down Indira ji.1.5. Missiles, Combat Aircrafts, and Tanks: Apart from nuclear weapons, Indira ji also started the production of conventional weapons.Tejas: In 1970, Indira ji started the project of making fighter aircraft.Arjun: In 1972, Indira ji started the project of making indigenous tanks.Missile: Kalam had been brought by Indiraji from ISRO to DRDO. Indiraji boosted all projects from Earth to Agni.1.6. Preparation to break Pakistan: When Janata Party came to power with the support of Americans, Morarji Desai compromised RAW. It is in the Common Knowledge that Israel was about to attack to destroy Pakistan's nuclear program center, but Morarji Desai gave this information to Pakistan to save Pakistan's nuclear program.With the return to power in 1980, Indira ji planned to do this unfinished work. Very reliable sources indicate that Indira ji was about to attack Pakistan in 1981. The plan included the inclusion of Pak Occupied Kashmir into India, demolition of Pakistan's nuclear plant, and 3 more pieces of Pakistan.Indira Gandhi considered military strike on Pakistan's nuclear sites: CIA documentThe US was informed of the preparations for the attack, so the operation was postponed. When America saw that Indira ji was looking for a chance to attack Pakistan, they extended the military help of missiles, fighter aircraft, etc. to Pakistan. When America started sending arms to Pakistan, Indira ji had to retreat.1.7. Nationalization of Banks: It was a big decision. The entire economy of a country rests on banks. Banking companies are the most powerful companies in the world after arms companies. This decision turned many industrialists of India and all parties / MPs / leaders running on their funding against Indira ji.It is also a challenge in itself to bring such a law to the Gazette. The finance minister at that time was Morarji Desai. As you know, this man was openly an agent of Americans. The President of India Zakir Hussain died in June 1968. Indira ji made VV Giri the President at the same time. This was an emergency appointment to ensure that the post of the President does not remain vacant. Meaning VV Giri was like acting president. He now had to resign and file a nomination for president.So on the same day, VV Giri had to resign, Indira ji took out the ordinance of nationalization of 14 banks and got VV Giri stamped and printed it in the gazette. And after this VV Giri resigned. And Morarji Desai was not even informed about this whole incident !! Meaning the order was published without consulting the Finance Minister !!Then in 1980, Indira ji nationalized 6 other banks. Actually, when there is a conflict between the PM and elites, the bank is the most deadly weapon of the elites. They bring the economy to a standstill through banks, and the entire charge comes on the PM. The recession comes, the rupee blows up, prices go up in the sky, and the entire economy stops for a single time and disrupts the life of the common man. Then they use paid media to provoke the public that the PM has brought the country to a standstill.I sincerely believe that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. –Thomas Jefferson, 1816.1.8. Cancellation of the Maharaja's Privy Purses: At the time of independence there were some 565 Princely States in India. British had placed a condition in the transfer of power that the princely state would decide whether to merge them in India / Pakistan or to remain independent. This increased the negotiation power of these kings. Therefore, they were given some privileges by the Government of India. In this, they had provisions for pension, protocol, salute and title of Maharajadhiraja, etc. The price was 10 lakhs for big states and 1 lakh for small ones.Indira ji canceled the privy purses by publishing out a Presidential order, but the Supreme Court dismissed it as unconstitutional. Later, after changing the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, she brought this bill again in 1971 and the Constitution was amended and implemented. After being devoid of the benefits of privy purses, all the king turned against Maharaja Indira ji, and many of these kings contested against the Congress in the next elections. But most of them lost badly. In 1971, Indira ji started pension to freedom fighters. In this way, the pension of freedom fighters was started by closing the pension of Kings and Princes.( Jawaharlal was always opposed to starting the pension of freedom fighters. He thought that more freedom fighters would start joining politics after getting social security !! He even refused to give pension to freedom fighters like Ahinsamurthy Mahatma Batukeshwar Dutt !! Batukeshwar ji along with Bhagat Singh ji threw the bomb in the assembly and spent 16 years in jail. He got TB in jail and released at the age of 48, he got married and lived his life in independent India, selling vegetables and teaching tuition. He died an anonymous death in 1965)1.9. WTO Agreement Denied: US-British elites pressurized Indira ji to sign WTO agreement to open the Indian economy for foreign companies in India. WTO agreement is a complete package for technically backward countries. Once this agreement is reached, within a few years, American-British multinational companies gain strategic control in the second round after occupying the country's economy in the first round.In short, if you refuse the WTO agreement, you will have to go to war ultimately. Either sign this agreement with peace or fight the US military. You have to take either of these two. There is no escape route.To comfort you, see the list of wars fought by US forces from 1950 to 2020. The countries that did not open markets for American companies, the US Army attacked those countries with some excuse.1.10. Electronic Media: Then the print media of India was completely in the possession of American-British elites. Indira ji started Doordarshan in 1967 to create a parallel state-owned media. But due to lack of self-sufficiency in its technology, it was expensive and did not expand rapidly. Till 1974 it was telecast in only 7 cities and national broadcasting started in 1982. At the same time, American elites were pressurizing Indira ji to allow foreign investment in electronic media, so that American companies could open their channels in India. Indiraji turned down the offer.1.11. Law of Patents: American pharmaceutical companies wanted to have a patent law on medicines in India. Much pressure was put on Indira ji for this. When the pressure increased at the international level, Indira ji printed the law of process patents (not the law of patents) to compensate. Due to process patents, the Indian pharmaceutical companies started legally manipulating the formula to make medicines whose patents were with American companies.Pharmaceutical companies are the fourth most powerful companies in the world after arms, oil, and banks. Apart from this, Indira ji published many more laws due to which the demise of Indira ji had become the primary goal for American-British elites.The creation of infrastructure for high-speed trains (the project of Rajdhani Express was started by Indira ji) also increased tension with French and British elites.(2) Indira Gandhi Vs American-British elite classIndira Gandhi had activated the most powerful opponent by taking a decisive confrontation with American-British elite men. Her entire tenure of the next 15 years was the account of this fight. If it is written in detail, it will spread to hundreds of pages. Therefore, I have summarized some important events related below.2.1. Ban on wheat imports: The United States had interrupted the supply of wheat to India in order to provoke the public through a shortage of grain. India had been given the wheat under the Wheat Public Law-480, and the US could not stop it without any valid reason. Therefore, they broke the supply of the transport process. This led to a shortage of wheat in India. Under Public Law-480, India had to pay in rupees, not in dollars, to get this wheat.At this time America was dropping bombs on Vietnam, and Indira ji had criticized bombing in Hanoi. When Indira ji said that what India is saying is the same that the Pope and UN Secretary-General are saying, then America replied that - Pope and UN do not need our wheat !!If America had not given us wheat, India would not have had dollars to buy from elsewhere. So India had to be suppressed — Swallowing the humiliationPakistan also used to get wheat from America at that time.2.2. Presidential election: Most of the Congress leaders turned against Indira ji due to the nationalization of banks. Indira ji again renamed VV Giri for President but the Congress leaders were against VV Giri. The Congress passed its offer for Neelam Sanjeeva Reddy. If the President had gone out of her hands, the leaders of the Congress could have removed Indira ji from PM post by raising some squabble. Therefore Indira ji made VV Giri an independent candidate. VV Giri won as an Independent candidate in the presidential election and the Congress candidate lost !!2.3. Expulsion from the Congress Party: After this, the Congress Working Committee took the proposal by a majority and expelled her from the party. Indira now formed her new party called Congress-R. By this time, the election symbol of the Congress party was a pair of two bulls.Indira ji claimed this symbol, but the claim was rejected by the Election Commission. Then she chose the new symbol. Cow and calf.The Congress party was supported by American-British and top Indian industrialists. That means they had relatively more money for publicity and most importantly they had paid media. There was negative reporting about Indira ji in paid media. One of the lobbies of Indian industrialists was also supporting Indira ji at this time. And it was they who raised the funds for Congress-R.In 1971 elections Indira ji's party won 352 seats and she again became the Prime Minister.The only man in the cabinet !!2.4. Use of corrupt judges by elites: Apart from Rashtrapati Bhavan, there are 2 more institutions that can be used to topple the PM —Election Commission: The Election Commission is positioned in such a way that it is a constitutional body. If PM will tamper with this, then they use paid media to create propaganda that PM is interfering in democratic institutions. In the term ‘Constitutional Institution’, they have put a lot of sacredness. By using paid media, it has been well established in the public's mind that the constitutional body is always honest, and we should not doubt their decisions at all.High Court-Supreme Court: When there is a dispute between the Election Commission and the PM, the matter is heard by the High Court-Supreme Court. Therefore, if the Supreme Court judge has been compromised, he can compromise the PM. Apart from these 3 organizations, the PM has complete control over all the other institutions, and they cannot overthrow the PM. But if the Election Commission and Supreme Court judges together get hanged in the neck of the PM, they can also topple the PM who has 400 seats.Both these institutions of India have been in constant possession of the wealthy class. If the PM appoints the top officers of these two organizations against the elites, then the conflict immediately increases.Rajnarayan contested against Indira ji from Rae Bareli and lost the election. Rajnarayan pleaded in the Election Commission and High Court that Indira Gandhi misused the government machinery in Rae Bareli, people voted for liquor and money, and violated the election code of conduct by spending more than Rs 35,000 in the election !!You must have understood by looking at the allegations that it is a complete nonsense case. The nonsense in such a way it happens in all elections, and the judge does not take such complaints. But Jagmohan Sinha not only took the case but also canceled her election, blamed Indira ji and banned her from contesting any election for 6 years !!Technically, the matter was that Yashpal Kapoor, Chief Secretary of Indira ji resigned on January 11 and he started looking after the election work of Indira ji. He was the election agent of Indira ji. The election agent is empowered to withdraw the nomination of any candidate. Meaning the election agent should be a very loyal man, and it should also be a voter of the same parliamentary seat from which you have made the nomination.Indira ji had faith in Yashpal, so she asked him to resign and become an election agent. Yashpal had sent his resignation on 11 January but it was accepted on 23 January. Since the resignation was not accepted, the code of conduct was believed to have been violated. Nani Palkiwala fought Indiraji's case and Rajnarayan's case was fought by Shanti Bhushan. When the Janata Party government was formed, Shanti Bhushan became the minister and Nani Bhai was sent to the US as the ambassador!!2.5. Road protests by opposition parties: Indira ji went to Supreme Court for appeal. But the entire opposition came on the streets demanding her resignation. In the rallies that Jai Prakash Narayan was addressing, he was addressing the police and the army, saying that if the PM gives them any wrong order, they should refuse to obey it. And paid media started reporting it in a positive way. Meaning that all these people had no idea what the Supreme Court will give the verdict. According to them, Indira ji should resign !!Now the thing to note here is that, if the court had canceled the election on Rae Bareli seat, there would have been re-election and Indira ji would have won again. And if Sinha had banned her from contesting elections, she would have been nominated from the Rajya Sabha and became the PM !! But they did not want to give her any scope. Hence, Sinha banned her from holding any elected position. Meaning she could neither become an MLA nor be an MP or PM!Note that till this time Indira ji had not taken any decision that could be called undemocratic or worse. When JP started the movement on the issue of unemployment in 1974, Indira ji publicly told him that there is an election in 1976 and that the public will decide it in the elections. So, you come to the elections. What would you get by jamming the roads?Secondly, JP never put forward a draft of his demands to the PM. Meaning they never told what their demand was clearly, and what they wanted to be printed in the Gazette. They just had to make a revolution. But he never put forth the format of what to do after the revolution.Meaning, when JP started gathering people in Delhi by shouting "vacate the throne that the public comes", and "complete revolution", he had no demand. An elected leader who has created a new party with a mandate of 352 seats on the new election symbol is being told that you resign !! Why? Because the High Court Judge of Allahabad has said !! In this way, the judges rise above the PM and the public. And that's why the elites want the judge under their control.In other words, she was completely surrounded by the most powerful alliance of her time namely — American-British elites + country’s elites + royalty + election commission + judiciary + paid media + all paid intellectuals of her time. A reasonable way for PM to fight against such pressure groups is that he/she goes to the polls to show public support. But the High Court judge had also closed the way for elections.2.6. Emergency decision: On 25 June 1975, leaders from all over the country gathered in Delhi under the leadership of JP and a huge halt was made. From here, this group was supposed to encircle the PM's residence. Now, these 2 lakh people surrounded the PM's residence, the problem would have arisen. And from here, JP was also addressing the police and army, do not obey the orders of PM. Meaning, a big rebellion was being prepared. JP was completely adamant that he is not going to postpone Indiraji's resignation !!The plan of the American-British elites was to first indict Indira ji in the elections and hold a nationwide demonstration. And when it becomes an atmosphere that the PM is forcibly occupying power, then the army should approach. Indira ji began to suspect that if the US-British approaches the military, then the army can come forward to take over. The US uses the same method to topple established PMs elsewhere also.Now she had only 3 choices:Either she gets out of politics !!Or she publishes the jury court law in the gazetteOr she put the emergency to take full controlThe best way to deal with this situation was that she had printed the jury court law in the gazette. The jury would dismiss the High Court judge's decision and the case would be over. But Indira ji did not believe in giving strength to the people, so she rejected this proposal. That’s why she only had one way left - Emergency !!She opted for Emergency !!In India, you will find such a group of intellectuals who will convince you that Indira ji had strangled democracy, killed democracy, ruined the Constitution, etc. etc. by imposing emergency. But technically, it is absolutely illogical. See, it is written in the Constitution of India that PM can declare an emergency at any time. So when a man comes with a full majority, then the constitution of India gives him the full right to impose an emergency in certain situations.Constitution and democracy are killed when you take a decision that the constitution does not allow !! You first remove the provision of emergency from the constitution and after that, if the PM imposes emergency then it will be a murder of the constitution.But you would not have found a single intellectual in your entire life who has demanded the removal of the Article of Emergency from the Constitution. They always say that the provision of emergency should remain in the constitution, but PM should ask these intellectuals instead of the cabinet before imposing an emergency !! Because, in the end, intellectuals decide what is constitutional and what is unconstitutional !! Oh! God !!2.7. Emergency (1975 - 1977)Indira Gandhi ruled for 17 years, but paid media (books + movies + newspapers + TV + documentary + knowledge sharing professionals + paid intellectuals + political parties + leaders) would keep the topic of Indira ji around just 2 points — Emergency and Operation Blue Star !!On these 2 points, intellectuals have written tons of paper and thrown it in the market. Therefore, I will not go into its details except for the mentioning a few things like who implanted Subrahmaniam Swami in it and why, and what were the consequences of emergency that none of the paid intellectuals report. In my view, she did not have to impose an emergency, and it was a wrong decision. But if she were not to be brought the Jury Court law, then there was no way except to impose Emergency.2.7.1. The role of SS in the Emergency: SS did a very good job in aligning the paid media, leader, Judge, etc. to bring down Indira ji and to create synergy between them. This man taught economics at Harward. In 1970, Paid Amartya Sen * appointed him as Professor at Delhi University. Amartya Sen and SS believed that India should open its market to America. When many articles of these two started appearing in paid media, Indira ji expelled SS from the university. In 1974, he was nominated by the Jana Sangh Party directly to the Rajya Sabha and sent to Parliament.*Paid Amartya Sen is the son-in-law of the Rothschild family, married to Emma. The Rothschild family is the most powerful family holding banking companies.SS is also believed to have approached Sinha. Later SS formed his political party and worked to align all the leaders across the country against Indira ji. With the imposition of emergency, the SS went back to America and returned again in the 1977 elections. He was the Commerce Minister in the Chandrasekhar government and lobbied for the WTO to India open up markets for American companies.When the Vajpayee government conducted nuclear tests, he was given the responsibility of toppling the Vajpayee government. He successfully completed this work. It means that all credit to topple the Vajpayee government goes to him. You can google Sonia Gandhi's Tea Party for more information.2.7.2. Decisions during the Emergency:In my view, dictatorship means ultimate and total control with zero accountability over governance. Dictatorship comes for 2 reasons -Take control of power when the majority is against it.Creating complete control to deal with your opponentsIndira ji had the majority to remain in power till 1976. The court banned her from contesting elections, and in this situation, she could not go to the new elections. Meaning, if she did not impose an emergency, she could not deal with her rivals in any way.She amended the People's Representation Act from the previous date (retrospective) that the election of the Prime Minister cannot be challenged in the court. This was the main law she needed. If she would have printed this law while Parliament was in operation, the court would have rejected this law as opposed to the basic structure of the Constitution !! Therefore, she imposed the emergency first and then published this law.The High Court and the Supreme Court were locked.All opposition leaders were jailed.Paid media was censored.The most important institution in this is paid media. Paid media is always under the control of the wealthy class. Sometimes they are native, sometimes foreign and sometimes both. But overall it will always remain under elites’ control. Why this is so, I will again go into detail in an answer. On the whole, the paid media and democracy can never go together if the PM has taken a clash with the wealthier class. Then either the PM will fall or the paid media will have to be censored.The paid media of Russia and China remains under the control of the ruler, and therefore there is no democracy. In other words, the elite class controls people through paid media and controls PM through people. If the PM confronts the elites, they use paid media to attack the PM. PM cannot attack the elite class, because the elite class is out of the system. Therefore, PM has to censor ultimately the paid media.During the Emergency, Sanjay Gandhi took control and made many decisions that caused the public to face oppression. All this anger was seen in the 1977 general elections.2.8. General Election 1977: Indira ji announced General Elections in 1977 by ending Emergency. Indira ji was badly defeated in the elections. Janata Party got 295 seats and Indira ji got 152 seats. These people were agitating on the issue of unemployment, but after coming to power they did not print a single law to reduce unemployment !! JP also got busy doing gardening in the backyard lawn of his house. According to him, the entire revolution had taken place with Indiraji's defeat. Paid Media also removed his plug in the same way that the plug of The Anna was removed after Kejriwal formed the party !!The defeat of Indira ji was celebrated in America, China, and Pakistan. Relations with China and the US were improved during this time, US President Jimmy Carter also visited India.Morarji Desai called back all the RAW agents appointed in Pakistan and Bangladesh. By then Mujibur Rahman had been killed in Bangladesh, and the Pakistan-backed army rule was going on. India used to provide strategic and weapons support to the local fighters fighting against the army rule. This help had been stopped !! Morarji Desai was awarded the Nishan-e-Pakistan Award for all these works !! You can google to know more details of what they did and why they did.It needs to be noted here that no leader is anti-national forever. Their integrity and stand vary according to the circumstances. They do not leave any chance to move forward and at that time they do not care whether it will benefit or harm the country.But as time changes, they change their stand again. To keep hold of a leader one has to keep constant control over it. It is not the case that if a leader is loyal to a rich, he will always be loyal. He remains loyal to him(the rich) as long as he(the leader) is dependent on him. My point is: it is not that all the leaders of the Janata Party were anti-national. There were many leaders in that government who started running on their own after coming to power.For example, George Fernandes got the Ministry of Industry, and the Americans pressured him to amend the FERA Act. FERA Act was brought by Indira ji in 1974 and the law said that Indian shareholders should have 40% equity (up to 60% in pharmaceutical companies) in a foreign company doing business in India. Fernandes was the leader of the union and if he had made this amendment, his entire cadre would have been against him. Hence, George refused to amend FERA. Companies such as Coca-Cola and IBM were not interested to do business by making Indian companies an equity partner, and that is why they had to retreat their business.Similarly, Vajpayee was the foreign minister in the Janata government, and he upheld India's decision not to sign the NPT. There were many similar leaders in the Janata government; due to their cadre base, elites had no way to control them. And the ministers who were pro-American were printing laws according to American interests. People like SS and Morarji Desai were Complete Pro Americans. Because they did not have a cadre base. Without the help of paid media, these people could not even win their seats.2.9. The arrest of Indira Gandhi by the Janata Government: All laws made during the Emergency were repealed, and the Shah Commission was created to investigate this. She was put on trial that she had conspired to kill the leaders and activists of the opposition by putting them in jail. In 1978 she was arrested. Meanwhile, 2 Congress activists Bholenath and Devendra hijacked a plane of the Indian airline and demanded the release of Indira ji. They surrendered after a few hours. The trial was started on Indira ji.2.10. General Election 1980: Indian industrialists, American-British wealthy class, paid media, judiciary, complete opposition, paid intellectuals did not want to see her in politics again. But her car was running because the public was with her. The public had left her in 1977. Several big leaders and activists of the Congress left the Congress after the defeat in the 1977 elections. It was assumed that Indira Gandhi's political career was over, and her chances of survival were negligible. Her other rivals, including the government, were chasing her and the campaign was being called Witch-Hunting !!When several top Congress leaders left the Congress, the Congress was split again. Indira ji formed a new party - Congress-I, where ‘I’ meant ‘Indira’. In 1980 Congress-I won 353 seats and Indira ji returned to power again !!The results showed that voters had pardoned Indira ji for the emergency. It had never happened that the public would again give power to a leader who gave them an emergency. Due to less expansion of paid media, the citizens had realized from their instinctive understanding that the battle Indira was fighting was for the country, and all these goons were united only to come to power. She shrank the Janata Party to just 31 seats.2.11. Khalistani Movement: When all options were closed at the internal level, American-British elites had no way but to make an external military attack. The US was still entangled with the Soviet and Pakistan was being used in Afghanistan. Therefore, the US started sending funds and weapons to boost the separatist movement in India.To break this, Indira ji used Bhindranwale in the first round and Operation Blue Star in the second round.Operation Bluestar was also kept secret and President Giani Zail Singh was not informed about it.This was the second wrong decision of Indira ji. If she had printed the recall procedures and the jury court in the gazette, the people of Punjab would have solved this problem on their own without any bloodshed.2.12. Murder of Indira ji: With Indira ji coming to power, the nuclear program was started again. All the preparations for Pokaran-2 were done, but during this time she was killed. There is a fairly reliable indication that Indiraji's assassination was planned by the CIA, and was conducted by Sonia Gandhi. But without any investigation, the case was closed.I do not know if Sonia had a role in it. But the role is indicative, her role cannot be ruled out. In order to find out the truth, I propose that by reopening the investigation of Indira ji’s murder, the public narco test of the suspects is taken before the jury. But all BJP = RSS activists are against Soniaji's public narco test, so the possibility of truth coming out is almost zero.The period after Indira Gandhi:Since 1990, the course of Indian politics changes completely. After the assassination of Indira ji, there was no leader or political party in India that could prevent American-British elites from entering India. Rajiv Gandhi had a large majority from 1984 to 1989. But Rajiv Gandhi was not capable enough to fight a war of this scale.Means, the 1989 general election was again an opportunity for the second kind of leaders/parties to emerge. After this, new parties and leaders started coming forward with the help of American-British elites. By 1991, the US-British elites had been largely controlling the Congress. And by 2004 most of India's political parties and their top leaders had become dependent on the American-British. This control continued to increase since 2004.(D) PV Narasimha Rao: He signed the WTO agreement to open India's market for American companies. Well, the principal of this agreement was Dr. Manmohan Singh. Manmohan Singh used to work in the World Bank. Rao tried to do Pokaran-2. Indira ji had done all the preparations, and all he had to do was to press the button. However, the CIA was informed about the preparation of the test and therefore he decided to withdraw.US detected Indian nuclear test buildup at Pokhran in 1995(E) Atal Bihari Vajpayee: When Vajpayee took the oath, Rao told him that a work was incomplete, I had tried to do it but couldn’t do it. If possible, you can do it. BJP = Sangh promised nuclear tests in its manifesto. Vajpayee blasted the US in Pokaran by hiding from America. After this blast, SS had been sent to demolish Vajpayee's government and Vaajpayee’s govt was toppled successfully.Vajpayee returned to power again, so America sponsored the Kargil war. After the Kargil War, the US control over the top leaders of the BJP was greatly increased, and in his next term, Vajpayee published several laws to increase the control of American-British elites in India. During this time the media was allowed 100% foreign investment, and American companies started opening their channels in India. Due to the expansion of paid media, American-British elites became directly accessible to voters.(F) Manmohan Singh (2004 to 2020):For the US-UK elites, it is Manmohan Singh's tenure going on since 2004 !! This is Congress-BJP only for you. But it does not matter for them which party or leader is in power. They just make sure that whichever leader/party is in power continues to publish profit-making laws for them. Who sit in the PM’s chair does not affect them. Meaning they have complete control over all mainstream parties since 2004. Therefore, whichever the leader or party is in power, the laws are being printed what they need.Manmohan Singh ji had published 1-2-3 Agreement and stopped India's nuclear program forever !! Apart from this, he published a lot of laws that increased the control of American-British elites in India's economy. And the speed with which Manmohan Singh was handing over the military-economic system of India to American-British elites has been increased four times by PM Modi. Today the situation is that America has become more powerful in India than the Indian Government.———-After all this information and analysis, answer to the question that if NaMo is the strongest PM India ever had is a big NO!Indira ji was the strongest PM. And NaMo, like MMS, is a puppet of the US-UK elites.——-Solution?The problem is that until we improve the police-courts and tax system, technologically advanced weapon making techniques cannot be gathered. And unless we are self-sufficient in making weapons, the increasing domination of American-British elites cannot be stopped in any way.I have already explained in detail the solution in here Would India ever become clean and developed like the US?=======

CONFIRMED: Hillary’s Foundation Hid a $2.35 Million Foreign Donation from the Head of the Russian Govt’s Uranium Company that Had Business Before Hillary Clinton’s State Dept.—a Clear Violation of the Memorandum of Understanding with the Obama AdministrationThe New York Times has confirmed that Hillary Clinton violated the Memorandum of Understanding she signed with the Obama administration promising to disclose all foreign donations during her tenure as Sec. of State.As Clinton Cash reveals, Ian Telfer, the foreign head of the Russian-owned uranium company, Uranium One, which Hillary Clinton approved to acquire U.S. uranium, made four individual hidden donations to the Clinton Foundation totaling $2.35 million, none of which appear in Clinton Foundation disclosures.*Source* http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?_r=2CONFIRMED: Bill Clinton Bagged $500,000 for a Speech in Moscow Paid for by a Kremlin-linked BankThe New Yorker confirms that, as Clinton Cash claims, Bill Clinton made $500,000 for a Moscow speech that was paid for by “a Russian investment bank that had ties to the Kremlin” at the time of the Uranium One deal.“Why was Bill Clinton taking any money from a bank linked to the Kremlin while his wife was Secretary of State?” asks the liberal publication.*Source*http://www.newyorker.com/news/amy-davidson/five-questions-about-the-clintons-and-a-uranium-companyCONFIRMED: Hillary’s Brother Sits on the Board of a Mining Company that Scored an Extremely Rare “Gold Exploitation Permit” in Haiti as Hillary and Bill Clinton Disbursed Billions of U.S. Taxpayer Dollars in HaitiThe Washington Post confirms the accuracy of Clinton Cash’s revelation that Hillary Clinton’s brother, Tony Rodham, serves on the board of a mining company that scored a coveted and lucrative “gold exploitation permit” in Haiti as then-Sec. of State Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton were doling out billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars in the wake of the Haiti earthquake.According to the Post, Rodham’s mining company “won one of the first two gold-mining permits the Haitian government had issued in more than 50 years,” just as Clinton Cash reveals.*Source*https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/role-of-hillary-clintons-brother-in-haiti-gold-mine-raises-eyebrows/2015/03/20/c8b6e3bc-cc05-11e4-a2a7-9517a3a70506_story.htmlCONFIRMED: Hillary’s Foundation Hid a Foreign Donation of 2 Million Shares of Stock by a Mining Executive with Business Before Hillary’s State Dept.—a Clear Violation of the Memorandum of Understanding with the Obama AdministrationThe Wall Street Journal confirms the book’s revelation that another foreign donation, one by Canadian mining executive Stephen Dattels, made a hidden donation of two million shares in Polo Resources that the Clinton Foundation chose not to disclose in violation of the Memorandum of Understanding the Clintons signed with the Obama administration.“About two months later, the U.S. ambassador to Bangladesh pushed the energy adviser to that nation’s prime minister to allow ‘open pit mining,’ including in Phulbari Mines, where Polo Resources has a stake,” reports the Journal.*Source*http://www.wsj.com/articles/gifts-to-hillary-clintons-family-charity-are-scrutinized-in-wake-of-book-1429754883CONFIRMED: Hillary’s Approval of the Russian Takeover of Uranium One Transferred 20% of All U.S. Uranium to the Russian Govt.The New York Times confirms, “The sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States.”The Times also verifies the book’s reporting that Hillary’s uranium transfer to Russia represented, at the time, a projected 50% of all U.S. uranium output.*Source*http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?_r=0CONFIRMED: Bill Clinton was Paid by a For-Profit Education Company Laureate While the Company Benefitted from an Increase in Funding from Hillary’s State Dept.Bloomberg has confirmed that, as reported in Clinton Cash, Bill Clinton was paid by “Laureate International Universities, part of Laureate Education, Inc,” a position he abruptly resigned from on Friday.Bloomberg’s examination confirms that “in 2009, the year before Bill Clinton joined Laureate, the nonprofit received 11 grants worth $9 million from the State Department or the affiliated USAID. In 2010, the group received 14 grants worth $15.1 million. In 2011, 13 grants added up to $14.6 million. The following year, those numbers jumped: IYF received 21 grants worth $25.5 million, including a direct grant from the State Department.”The company nor the Clintons will release the exact amounts Bill received for working for the controversial for-profit education company.*Source*http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-04-25/author-alleges-bill-clinton-just-quit-education-company-because-of-clinton-cash-CONFIRMED: The Clinton Foundation has Been Forced to Refile at Least 5 Years of Annual Tax Returns and May Audit Other Clinton Foundation ReturnsReuters has confirmed that “Hillary Clinton’s family’s charities are refiling at least five annual tax returns” as “the foundation and its list of donors have been under intense scrutiny.”*Source*http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-clinton-taxes-exclusive-idUSKBN0NE0CA20150423CONFIRMED: At Least $26 Million of the Clintons’ Wealth Comes from Speaking Fees by Companies and Organizations that are Also Major Clinton Foundation DonorsThe Washington Post has confirmed in an article based on Clinton Cash that, according to the Post’s independent analysis, “Bill Clinton was paid more than $100 million for speeches between 2001 and 2013, according to federal financial disclosure forms filed by Hillary Clinton during her years as a senator and as secretary of state.”Of that, reports the Post, “Bill Clinton was paid at least $26 million in speaking fees by companies and organizations that are also major donors to the foundation he created after leaving the White House, according to a Washington Post analysis of public records and foundation date.”*Source*https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/for-clintons-speech-income-shows-how-their-wealth-is-intertwined-with-charity/2015/04/22/12709ec0-dc8d-11e4-a500-1c5bb1d8ff6a_story.htmlCONFIRMED: Clinton Cash author, Peter Schweizer, is Currently Conducting a Deep Dive Investigative Report on Republican Presidential Candidate Jeb Bush’s Financial DealingsCBS News has confirmed that author Peter Schweizer is working on a similar investigation into GOP presidential candidate Jeb Bush’s financial records and relationships.“The wide-ranging examination will appraise the possible 2016 contender’s involvement in Florida real estate deals, an airport deal that involved state funds while Bush was Florida’s chief executive, and Chinese investments in Bush’s private equity funds,” reports CBS News.*Source*http://www.cbsnews.com/news/who-will-clinton-cash-author-peter-schweizer-target-next/

Imagine walking along a narrow path, lined with black and red stones, with sand the color of parchment. But intersecting the path is a narrower fence. The fence is something new, and something better than this constricting path. As playful childlike curiosity gives way, you take a step and stand atop the fence and start walking. It’s blissful to dance on the narrow edge. You’re braver and better than those who chose to stay on the ground because look where they are now. It’s better up here. You have a higher vantage and can see far into a bright and optimistic future.But from up here, you experience new challenges you weren’t prepared for. The fence is getting higher as you progress, making the fall all the more dangerous should you slip. As the fence gets higher, the integrity of the fence starts to wobble and you first start to question this path.You’re undeterred. You have a vision, and all you have to do is put one foot in front of the other. Unbeknownst to you many things conspire to test you. The rail ahead is not so solid and an invisible gale wind is coming for you. But worse, someone somewhere is jealous, and plots to knock you from the high fence.While things seem nice for now, staying on the narrow ledge will become more and more difficult. Eventually, you’re almost certain to fall. Everyone else has, and when you fall, you’ll fall like everyone else has before you, either to the right or the left. You see those two extremes on either side of you. They’re terrible to be sure, but you say to yourself, “no, not me. I’m fine so long as I keep walking.But then, a crack gives way, the wind blows hard, and the villain smiles as they smash your fence with hammers and fire. You’re falling, and as you do, you look back and think of how it wasn’t so bad before, had you simply stayed on the path.But going back is too difficult. You don’t want to admit the error in judgement. Besides, the fence is strewn and broken, so you can’t head back. You don’t know the way. Instead you will rebuild the fence, better and stronger than before, one which nothing can knock down. You gather up the fragments of fence and stones from around you. They aren’t enough. You start searching for more, but all you see are other stones and other paths. You tear them down to help build your own. Countless paths are destroyed to gather the stone for your new fence. Then one day, you notice something. Some of the stones you’ve gathered are red, and some are black, and some are the color of parchment. These stones were from the path you used to walk. You don’t remember where or when you tore them up, but now they’re here. So you grind them to dust to make the mortar for your fence.And oh what a grand fence it has become, but as you build you run into a river. You think you’ll build over it, but the river degrades your foundations. You say you’ll build through it, but the waters swell and push it away. You say you’ll divert the river, but the river goes where the river wills. The river doesn’t care about your fence.You can go no further. The river wins. Looking back at all you’ve done, you look back in disgust. With regret, you lay down in the river and allow it to take you away.Let’s start by defining terms, because neither conservatives nor Socialists, seem to agree on what Socialism is.Socialism - a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.[1]This isn’t what most people who advocate for socialism really seem to mean.In popular politics, many people treat socialism as if it is just an organized form of being nice or working together. For example, a young CEO, Morgan Zegers has recently launched a new non-profit aimed at educating young people about socialism from the other side of the discussion (it’s not favorable). Part of her campaign involved asking for donations from supporters. For that, she was mocked and ridiculed. Apparently, asking for donations, to some people is socialism.It isn’t. In no way does asking people voluntarily to donate to something which they have no ownership of fit a socialist model. It’s charity. Charity doesn’t equal socialism. This is why we need to define terms.Another example from a recent answer, the question was asked about farmer’s co-ops, as they are “examples of pure socialism”. As someone who lives a very rural agricultural town, I disagreed. To me, something like a farmer’s co-op is an entrepreneurial business model where many local farmers realize that by creating a shared common resource (a farmer’s market) and agreeing to sell at specific times, (every other Tuesday afternoon) they create a time and place where they minimize their labor, by selling products and maximizing their returns. They sell more produce even though they set up stall right next to their local competition.I placed this aspect on display by discussing how the famous “Got Milk” campaign was created by a group representing many dairy farmers just to promote milk in general, as that, in turn, promoted each of the dairy farmers.I don’t see this as socialism. The farmers are still taking advantage of capitalistic resources and using cooperation to be able to compete and sell their goods. I see little comparison to this and actual socialism, but if you do, fine, but to help us answer the question and define some terms, I don’t view this as socialism. To that end, I do not view any situation in which competitors work together in some way as “socialized”, which many people seem to.Moving on, another argument is that Police and Firefighters are examples socialism. From a capitalist’s perspective, that’s receiving a good taxpayers paid for which they have a right to. Few capitalists, save for the true anarcho-capitalists, are against such services.Most view taxation the way I do, that if you are forced to pay taxes to provide goods and services to other people which you are not allowed to take part in, there’s a word for that — theft. But taxes going towards goods and services you have a right to and which you choose to invest in, that’s not socialism but fair exchange. The key point in this model is that I get the benefit of my taxes and people I elect have power over them. For those services I absolutely agree we all need and which I cannot provide for myself, I am willing and happy to pay for those taxes. The key example of this is the military. The military needs to exist and needs to be strong enough to ensure that any fighting we need to do, we do in other people’s countries rather than our own. The alternative is to fight them here, as insurgent militias, and I am well read enough on military history to know that it is much more preferable to not fight defensive wars.If the argument that many people make is that these services — roads, infrastructure, police, fire, and military, are all socialized institutions — that any civil service institution is socialism, then that is simply too broad a definition for me. We can agree to disagree on whether or not they are socialized but most of us will agree that with those specific instances, what we have works best.I say that because purely private examples of these service don’t work well. There’s a funny history of how, prior to the system we have today, firemen in the country were actually more like gangs, paid per the fires they put out. When you create incentives poorly, bad things happen, such as fire departments setting the fires to get paid or even competing fire departments showing up to a fire, then beating each other up to claim the fire as the building burned to the ground. [2]What we have today works better.Continuing further, there are services many socialists, particularly democratic socialists, argue for. They believe that creating more civil services where resources are pooled will make a better society with a higher quality of life. That, however, doesn’t seem to be the case. There seems to be two qualifiers that make the examples of civil service positions work best where others don’t.They are services I as a private individual cannot provide for myself due to concrete realities.When they fail, people’s lives are at risk, both those who rely on them and those of the actual civil servants.Now, I’m not quite certain why this is, but it seems that as these two realities diminish in a civil services, the more corruption and failure the service produces. To be clear all organizations suffer some level of corruption, but it seems to be greater if a service is forced on you that you could otherwise do yourself (i.e. you can’t be the military, but you can provide your own health insurance) and where there is danger from failure for both the service providers and the people they serve (police officers and fire-fighters as compared to government bureaucrats.)I’ll attack one of the sacred cows to set things off: public schools.My wife and I have both worked as public school teachers. Most historians will agree that society started progressing rapidly when all students were schooled by the state. This may be true, but given my experience, I wonder if there is a point of diminishing returns on our model and that we may have already passed it. Here is a disturbing little fact that doesn’t surprise me in the slightest — public school teachers are some of the most likely people to want their kids in private schools.In many ways, United States public schools are corrupted by their structure. This doesn’t mean that your average school teacher is corrupted, but it does mean that her job is made infinitely harder by mismanagement and failed systemic processes incapable of reform. Because the funding for public schools comes from a combination of mostly state and local tax sources, the stakeholders most impacted by the poor performance of a school (the children as represented by their parents) are distant from the actual decision making processes of what affects the curriculum and key decisions that are made, as compared to private schools. When failure in a private school takes place, they feel it immediately by tuition leaving their system and are forced to adapt, evolve, and correct themselves to improve some measurable aspect of the children’s academic performance. Or, the school simply dies and the kids go to others that are run at least a little better.Public schools, however, rely on public funding. When public funding is your metric, people game the system. As a teacher, I’ve seen situations where it was far easier to game the system by manipulating head counts, over-reporting homelessness, or over-diagnosing children with special needs, to get more funds rather than actually working to improve education.How does a school do something like over-represent homelessness to affect school funding? By a state where bureaucratic law making bodies have made some rulings that make little sense. We all have an idea of what homelessness looks like, but in my town there are programs that define “homelessness” as “living with a grandparent.” By that metric, I (who was raised poor, but comfortable) would have been technically homeless, and more to the point, so are the majority of our Hispanic students in our town, which now make up at least half the student body. I’m fairly certain that tax-payers would not approve that level of their funds going to relieve “homelessness”, given how little of their funding goes to people they thought they were helping.Rather than a school experiencing the necessary audits that organizations must undergo to determine if they are successful, a failing school will usually demand more money, leverage their failure for more benefits and moneys. This is also true of the school system in general. If the schools are failing, it must be from greedy people who won’t pony up the money, often whoever a tax is being imposed on. Usually, as is said of schools in my state, this is just pouring more water into a leaky bucket.America spends more money per student than almost any other Western nation, but return some of the poorest results in student performance.More money isn’t going to solve the problem. What is needed are actual audits, actual forced adaptation, and a system willing to punish failure rather than reward it. The civil service model, one many consider socialistic, so old that it has become axiomatic in the United States, no longer works here. As I said, maybe there was a point where it is necessary, but we passed that point, as well as a point where more of it fails.Schools are a case study in why they fail as a civil service in the US, but the military doesn't.Schools perform a service I could technically provide myself, and as many charter schools and home schools have shown, often provide better.What is missing is choice. While many on the left argue that they “pro-choice” in some regards, they work in other places to limit the choices, namely of parents. Most of America makes it very difficult for parents to choose the type of education their children receive, even preventing them from sending their kids to objectively better performing schools because the legal system makes it difficult to transfer kids from failing schools. Instead, you are trapped to the school in which your residence is located. Many places also will not allow parents to use their own tax payer dollars to support their efforts to home school their kids or funnel it towards tuition at a charter school. So here, the only reality that says I can’t provide my kids with a quality education is a bureaucratically derived reality.It’s pretty hard to die as a teacher or as a student owed to normal operations of a school. Because of this, many teachers, by my experience, don’t take their jobs as seriously as they should.This is absolutely not a criticism of all teachers. My wife, for example, was destined to teach. It seems, for all intents and purposes, like it was her purpose in life. There are many teachers like her who would deal with any problem given her to continue teaching and no matter what the burdens, she will do an amazing job or die trying. She’s a great teacher.But there are others. There are teachers whose real passion revolves around failed sports careers and others who have no passion for educating kids, but who teach as a last resort. On paper, they look the same as my wife. Many of these people are often many of the first to support more benefits for teachers and pay, but offer little real benefit for what taxpayers have asked of them. I believe, and that is all it is is a belief, that if more teachers felt personally invested in the long term success of their students, given some incentive towards their retirement based on the success of their students by measurements of the parents, then things might be different. That said, being a teacher is safe. Many aspire to it, but just as many fall into the profession. Likewise, it’s hard for a teacher to affect the literal safety of children, baring freak incidents like a tornado or a random shooting.I can’t help but wonder if the reality that schools do not have a realistic need to worry about safety in the ways that police, firemen, and the military do, that that contributes to why they don’t look harder for internal failures (failures they can control) but instead look to external sources of additional funding.A Marine can’t do this. They could petition for more money and resources. Sure, this is true. But if they truly feel unsafe doing what they do, and how could they not, then they will probably look to local solutions and ask questions about how they can adjust their own behaviors to maximize both mission accomplishment and safety. They simply don’t have time to do things other ways. But this constant quest to look inward for solutions to problems means that the military evolves and becomes highly adaptable, constantly increasing its capability even with minimal resources in the field. This is further internalized by the Marines’ constant drive to train and improve themselves.Being both a Marine and a teacher, it was a bit annoying to listen to the whining that often took place around annual required training to be a teacher. Of course, the teachers have a point. Their training wasn’t built around observable realities that would improve their ability to do their jobs or survive. It was a mandatory training instituted by the state because special interest groups demanded training over sensitivity, and lawyers demanded they know their school’s blood-born pathogen policy.Civil service works in some areas, and if that is your definition of socialism, which many people have told me it is, then fine, but you have to accept the failures in civil service and work to understand that often private solutions are better and return better results to the people receiving the service. Many conservatives trust private institutions more than civil service institutions because their success is more often built around reality based results of the primary stake holders, as opposed to bureaucratic impositions. Private institutions must answer to the real stakeholders involved, being the people receiving the service and the people who are giving it. Few other people are involved. They very rarely need to bend to the will of “public interest groups”, groups which leverage tremendous power for those they represent, which is far too often not the people receiving a service or those providing it.Continuing in that direction, let’s take other initiatives that are pushed by democratic socialists — free healthcare for all and free college for all. If we apply the criticism and concern which myself and others have towards this civil service model, we see why conservatives are so nervous about more socialism. Giving away services which I am capable of earning and paying for myself (I served in the military and graduated with zero student debt) and which don’t have some element of felt risk, seems to create a recipe for failure.If we look at the higher education system in the United States, incentives to make college more affordable, namely through needs based grants rather than merit based, have simply bloated colleges with people who don’t take the effort seriously, and colleges that lower the bar to make more money by filling seats with more people using these grants. This leaves us with a system we’ve been facing for many years, where students who only have a college degree aren’t useful to the workforce. Likewise, this has had monstrous inflationary effects on increasing the costs of college, which led to another problem, ballooning student loan debt. While this is hard, even stifling, the debt serves as a warning to students entering colleges that they should pick degree plans that at least return on the degree. Not all degrees are made equal, and it should be a very important decision.Remember, college isn’t free and it shouldn’t be easy — it’s a filter. I’m very happy with merit based scholarships, even at taxpayer expense. If there are brilliant people raised in the bottom 10% of households, we need to find them, put them in our academies and make them into our future leaders. It shouldn’t just be a right of the rich. But kids who are given an education for free suffer the system because they don’t take the opportunity seriously. Their education is a right so it is up to other people to provide it, as opposed to something they earned and must cherish and maintain. That schools must adapt by lowering standards for these kids is equally tragic. College should be hard, so that not even the rich can pass if they lack talent and the necessary skills. Now our “leaders” are not challenged, and college simply becomes a rite of passage where everyone, rich and poor, must endure to go on and enter the world unchanged… maybe even worse off.Forgiving that debt, and signal to other generations that college should be free will make college worthless. College is a filter to find our best and brightest. If it is too hard, then even the rich kids fail out, and if access is based on merit, then the brilliant poor kids are able to supply their talents to all the rest of us, rather than remain trapped. Remember, a right in this way is a liability to everyone else. Where we support grants and state scholarships, that shouldn’t be a means of redistribution, but an investment into our collective future. As it stands, we are failing at that following all the recommendation mostly from socialist aligned policies.Apply this to the concept of the “nanny state”, where one of two things happen, usually both:The social safety nets provided become massive, meaning you have unchecked attempts at redistribution of wealth.To make people “safer”, the restrictions on liberties will be stifling.Speaking on the subject of inequality and redistribution of wealth, the liberals have a point: when you have huge local inequalities, you get a lot of other problems, such as higher rates of crime. Interestingly, many societies which have almost no wealth have lower rates of crime than very rich countries where the poor are far wealthier, but seeing the inequality seems to drive people crazy. We also need to acknowledge that most of the wealth is owned by a small proportion of Americans, ridiculously small.So there’s that. We should work together to fix inequality. What that doesn’t mean is that a) punishing the rich should solve this and b) the government should solve this.Let’s talk about punishing the rich. The mentality of the United States is to borrow from thinking of two centuries ago that said that the poor are only poor because the rich robbed them. That’s like looking at a fat kid and a skinny kid on the playground and assuming the only explanation for this is that the fat kid must have stolen the skinny kid’s food. That isn’t how it works. Wealth isn’t something that should be punished just because inequality is bad.But taking from the rich to solve the problem of poverty doesn’t solve poverty. Here’s why.The rich aren’t rich because they stole, but because they make more economically advantageous decisions than other people. Say if you figure out how to make widget that people happily pay $10 for for only $5. Then you charge $9 for it. Now, say you figure out how to do that again, and again, and again. You’re going to be making $4 dollars many, many times. Compare that to someone who places a dollar amount next to the value of their time. They will never be able to sell their time for more than the guy who figures out to get everyone to buy his $9 widget. The guy who started the widget company didn’t rob the worker. They are just participating in different activities, one that will make people rich and one that won’t.But punishing the guy who started the company won’t solve poverty either. Treating the $4 dollars profit he made as if he stole it from other people misses the point that now everyone can buy something they wanted for 10% less than before he came along. When we have a highly competitive environment (one where there are few barriers to joining the competition) then you have an economy where all products are constantly being made either better or cheaper than the generation before it. Because of that affect alone, America is a place where the “poor” have a car, a house, an iPhone, a game-console, air conditioning, and where the sign of poverty isn’t starvation, but obesity. Taxing the $4 until the cost of the good goes from $9 to $11 does literally no good for anyone, as it puts him out of business and they now have to pay more for the things they need.It also doesn’t show much understanding for how wealth works. People treat the wealthy as if they are hording all their money in large towers of gold bullion, just swimming around like greedy Scrooge McDuck. That’s just not how it works.When Jeff Bezos, the founder of Amazon, became the wealthiest man alive, he didn’t do it because he just decided to start keeping all the money that Amazon made. He owned the most shares of a company that suddenly became far more valuable according to what other people were willing to pay for individual shares of his company. Through the market, they all agreed that one share of his company was worth $X and he has Y shares, ergo… he’s worth a ton of money. His wealth is real, but it’s also imaginary, meaning he can sell it or borrow against it for whatever he wants (like philanthropic goals or starting other companies), but he doesn’t just walk around with billions of dollars in his personal bank account that can be redistributed to others.That being the case, we need to agree that even if you could just take all of Bezo’s billions and give it to whichever group has the best claim of victimhood at the moment, that may not be the best thing to do — for them.There is a psychological condition known as learned helplessness discovered accidentally by Martin Seligman and Steven F. Maier. The two social scientists performed a series of experiments on dogs.In group one, the dogs were strapped into harnesses for a period of time and then released.The dogs in the second group were placed in the same harnesses but were subjected to electrical shocks that could be avoided by pressing a panel with their noses.The third group received the same shocks as those in group two, except that those in this group were not able to control the shock. For those dogs in the third group, the shocks seemed to be completely random and outside of their control.[3]What they found was that dogs in group 3, even after shown how to stop the shocks, they wouldn’t. They believed that there was nothing they could do to change their situation. This persisted even after other dogs were introduced that showed them how to prevent the shocks, they merely attributed the reprieve to the other dogs, but that they had no power.With people, this is more dangerous. Thanks to an ideology that tells people that they have no agency in their lives, the hardships they experience are owed entirely to insurmountable privilege and oppression. They become like the 3rd group. I want to be clear, equality doesn’t exist and there are people with harder situations than others, but learned helplessness is the situation where any help that is given, even an infinite amount of help, a beneficiary's situation won’t improve. They won’t learn the skills necessary to take advantage of your help, and will continue to make bad decisions. Eventually, they will become dependent and live off the government when reasonably, they have the ability to work and contribute to society instead of enthralled to a social “safety” net.That’s not saying all people who receive some form of government assistance will become wards of the state. Our history is filled with stories of people who did not become ideologically possessed with a pathological sense of victimhood, some who went on to become ridiculously wealthy. But those who are ingrained with a mentality of helplessness, they’re only going to get worse, that thinking will spread to others, and they will continue to be an increasingly burdensome drain on the society that tells them they are victims in need of help from others.Socialized safety nets built on the concept of class redistribution as some sort of “balancing the scales of history” are exactly the worst thing to give people, in these situations. It’s a toxic practice on top of a toxic ideology. It simply makes people more dependent. Case in point, the story of Kiara, the story of a 30 year old woman with four kids, and on welfare for 12 years. She lives in public housing and doesn’t feel any need to work.Is her case isolated? No, it’s growing. How do we know? Because poverty was on the way out in the United States following World War II. Then Great Society initiatives began in the mid 60’s pushed to have a “war on poverty.” By the time they took effect, the decline in poverty pattern in America stopped and even reversed before flat-lining; all the while, government well-fare spending continued to rise with no measurable benefit.As for making people “safer”, there is a never ending assumption that some central government authority should be held responsible any time someone feels unsafe. The government has a mandate to provide a reasonable amount of safety, but there comes a point. If the government has the power to prevent every source of unsafety, as in the ability and willingness to mitigate every single instance to every person who says or thinks something that someone can claim makes them feel unsafe… that government is more dangerous than any would-be criminal. There’s a conservative argument that asks why there is so much hate for the police, (and no, it isn’t hate for cops who are bad, but the police in general) but such a strong push for them to be the only people with the power to use a gun. Gun controls rise when you have more centralized socialist governments.That matters with my next point.In a socialist society, there is no one else to blame but the state.Say you run this grand experiment. You and your constituents believe with all your heart that you will make life better for “the people”. You institute “fairer” reforms, and redistributive measures to ensure the people “oppressed” at the bottom are no longer repressed. Key corporations charging unfair prices are nationalized and price controls are instituted. Then what?From this point, a few things usually happen.The first is that you have to deal with the massive power you’ve given to the government, because the next guy in charge of it… won’t be you. Democrats now understand this far better after the election of Donald Trump. If you make something very powerful, knowing the rules require handing that power over to someone you don’t know, and may loathe, then that’s a dangerous proposition to place upon yourself.You’ve nationalized the businesses, that’s fine… well, sort of. You see, rarely is a business more profitable as a result of nationalization. Usually, they are raided and milked for money to “give back” to the people. It’s hard to imagine many businesses staying competitive when they aren’t just responsible for maintaining, but fulfilling the needs and wishes of a whole nation.Take Venezuela.Venezuela sits on some of the largest and highest quality oil reserves in the world. Because of them, the Venezuelan government became very rich. For a time, that was great. Then the oil companies in Venezuela were nationalized and the proceeds distributed out to the people in the many very generous programs that Venezuela instituted. This wasn’t a one time thing. Venezuela was now married to success of their oil in the worst way possible.I say that because, for a time, it was good. Then it wasn’t.Because so much of the profits weren’t put into investment and growth, but rather on food subsidies and social programs, their industries weren’t able to adapt. Venezuela had amazing oil reserves… given the technology of the late 2000’s. There was a change, however — the discovery of new methods for drilling shale oil. The Shale Oil Boom meant that the United States was now not only buying less oil internationally, but also contributing to the market as well, for the first time in decades becoming a net oil exporter. The market was eroding out from under the Venezuelans. But then, the death knell. Through fears of what this American Shale Oil Boom could mean, around 2015, the Saudis tried to play a hand only they could. The Saudis sit on the largest reserves of the highest quality oil in the world. They were wealthy beyond measure, but the success of the United States meant that their wealth and power would be diminished. So they flooded the market, so to speak. They radically slashed their own prices in an attempt to bankrupt the fledgling American businesses. Only they could, as their oil was easier to extract than even the Americans. Sucks for America, right?But it sucked more for Venezuela. You see, when the Saudis attacked the whole market to take out the Americans, all other players were hurt too. American oil was such that it weathered the crisis. Other energy producing countries weren’t so fortunate, and countries that locked their entire economy onto that one commodity were in major trouble. For Venezuela, this was especially true. They had married their economy, and their very generous social economic policy to the price of oil, which they assumed would be a general constant for all time. This was foolish.Along with the collapse in the economy from oil, the over presumptuous government also instituted price controls. Price controls are a scheme whereby one can say that they are ensuring that the people aren’t exploited by profit seeking corporations for necessary items. The problem is that it requires massive tables to be kept by a bureaucratic office whose job is to determine the price of things based on metrics that may or may not reflect true supply and demand. At the very least, it doesn’t move very quickly, and fails to adapt to the kinds of problems we saw with the oil example with the speed and efficiency of capitalist based solutions.Many who advocate for socialist policies don’t truly appreciate the utility of price. It’s a form of knowledge. A person has a limited amount of resources. They try to spend those resources in the best way they can. People want to exchange their resources for the greatest return and pay the least they can for what they need. When a buyer and seller agree to an exchange, it is to mutual benefit. It doesn’t matter that one might benefit more. Both are better off before the exchange. If something is selling for more than they are willing to part with, then the sale doesn’t happen. Both the seller and buyer walk away with nothing. Instead, the buyer will seek an alternative. The seller better listen to that and lower prices, or add value in some way. Through this process repeated billions of times daily across all people in all resources, the market learns what the value of what things are. Those who listen to this closely understand the value of worth. They understand how the wealth available within a given population, they understand the supply, and the demand for goods. The moment that they recognize that something is over or under-priced, they’ve discovered an opportunity that they can use to either lower prices for everyone involved, or buy up cheap resources to distribute to places and times where and when they will be needed.Price is a record of intrinsic value of a resource in a given time and a given place. It isn’t an artificial construct of exploitative corporations. The only time it is, is when competition is prevented through manipulation of the market, such as price fixing or other means. For this reason, you simply can’t outpace the adaptability of free people who don’t have to ask anyone for permission to move on opportunities they see, set prices how they see fit, or offer something in place of the nothing delivered by a government that said they would take care of you. Price fixing schemes always result a reality that is divorced from people’s real needs, the real costs of resources that can be given, and how and when to distribute what is collected.And this is the last point on this matter — when times are good, socialism works great. When the rich can afford to carry the poor, times are great. When there are no sudden upsets, times are great. When there is peace, and the economy is working, socialism is great. But, when the decisions of anyone, anywhere can affect the realities of people half a world away… nothing can be predicted for long. Add to this the threat of natural disaster, climate change, or pestilence, and commodities we took for granted suddenly stop coming. The bureaucrats aren’t suited to adapt to that as fast as some guy who comes up with an idea to relieve the pressure of a collapse. But, as we sacrifice more and more power over our choices to the government, providing for them the means and responsibility to ensure our health, wealth, and happiness, when there is a full scale collapse… there is no one else to blame.That’s why, invariably, whenever socialism stops being great… there is violence and unrest.Now, here’s another truth. Once the government has the means of production and distribution, there’s nothing that says it has to distribute it the way that is good for the people. The power has been given over on the promise of providing a certain good, but when some new regime decides that other issues take priority, how exactly do you get that power back? When that violence starts, socialist governments rarely adopt austerity proposals or relinquish the power over choice that has been afforded them. Instead, they have the power to take that wealth and apply it however they feel is necessary to continue on, which may very well mean funding a military police force to keep the peace, rather than fulfill their generous promises from a decade before. Far, far too often, it’s simply a matter of putting down the violence with state violence.So an important point to now realize is that I, as a conservative, don’t hate socialists. I hate socialism. I think it is a failed series of policies, that only work in very narrow situations, advocated by nice people who think that if only they were in charge, all the problems of the past could be solved. Many, many people have thought that and each has brought devastation when allowed to. There is no one smart enough and good enough to do all that socialism requires it to do, and no tools intelligent enough to know all that socialism must know to get it right. This was true when Hayak wrote Road to Serfdom, where he was actually being critical of the socialist policies of the German’s as they were falling under the sway of Nazism.And yes, I’m saying it, the Nazis were socialists. It’s in the name, the National Socialist German Workers Party. They were, in fact, Socialists. They were. Own it.How specifically? Remember the definition of socialism — control of the means of production and distribution? The Nazis had capitalism, but for its key production needs, it created state run monopolies that allowed zero competition. Thanks to a culture of extreme efficiency, this worked for the Germans in ways no other people people could. But times got tougher, they got a little more power, and there came a time where they made choices that redefined who they would become. Among this is learning a bit more about the Final Solution of the Nazi Regime. It wasn’t just executing millions of people for joy of white supremacy. Yes, German supremacy was involved, but the rationale was slave labor. What you see below is the sorting lines of Auschwitz, the infamous death camp where hundreds of thousands of Jews met a horrific fate.In the image, you can the two lines being sorted into healthy men, and all else. Healthy women without children were then pulled from the other line. The sick, the old, children, and the women with children were left in the other line. Why? Because these were people who couldn’t be made to work. Healthy childless women could do various maid duties, while healthy men were sent to mine for ore, salt, and lie needed to make things like food preservatives, raw metals, and rubber for the war effort. The Nazis, efficient as they were, could not win the war without slavery. No other rationale makes sense for why such a massive network was built to funnel Jews and other people from around Europe when you could have simply shot them in the fields, which the Nazis also did (see Einsatzgruppen in Eastern Europe). The Final Solution was to produce slaves for the war effort.But remember the other line? The children, the sick, the elderly, the women with children? Now you understand the pattern and how only a ruthlessly efficient culture with a system that placed the needs of the many over the needs of the few could have created. The other line are people would couldn’t be made to work, so they weren’t worth feeding and keeping alive. The ruthlessly efficient solution was to kill them quickly and cleanly, then incinerate the bodies. Below is an image of scratch marks made by the countless victims of the gas chambers as they attempted to claw their way out once they realized their fate, each of whom, were sorted in this way perhaps only minutes before.The fascists are socialist. Likewise, they could have become communists. I’m not saying that the Germans specifically would have ever embraced Communism, but what I am saying is that it always starts with socialism.There’s a political theory called horseshoe theory, which basically argues that there is a far left and a far right, but that at the extremes, the line bends back, where the two extremes start to resemble one another outwardly. It makes sense enough, as where the places where we have had actual fascism and actual communism, the only way to maintain power and order were through overwhelming domination of people’s daily lives… that and genocide. But I think that most people aren’t honest with themselves about the horseshoe, or really don’t understand the terms described.Below is a horseshoe model very flattering to liberals. I’m not bashing liberals here, but it isn’t accurate. It acts as if Liberalism is the benign center.That part is only true if you’re following the schools of “more freedom is better”; such as the writings of noted capitalist author Ludwig von Mises, the author of Liberalism and one of the founders of that ideology as well as the Libertarians. I know. Surprised me, too. The problem with this model, however, it doesn’t answer many questions, such as why there is far more overlap between fascist policies that are shared with socialists and communists, and why so much of this is completely absent among the conservatives and the liberals.The truth is that liberals, at least in the classical sense, and conservatives do not belong on the horseshoe, at all. And something even more honest is that the horseshoe, often applied to Americans to paint conservatives as nearly fascists already, doesn’t apply to the Americans at all. This horseshoe more readily applies to Europeans, where socialistic polices are far, far more pronounced and even the so called “right leaning” parties are to left of where the American Democrats were only a few years ago. It’s simply two systems that don’t possibly align.That said, what appears to be far more accurate, is that a system which balances liberal adaptability with conservative preservation of what works creates a situation of profound wealth and prosperity, but also thanks to liberalism’s openness to new ideas, socialism finds a way into the system. But from there, we arrive at the horseshoe. For a system that gives itself over to socialism it’s very, very hard to return back to more austere measures of self-reliance. Take American Social Security. There are many, many people who are against it, representing a huge chunk of our income tax burden for a system that most Americans today fear will completely collapse by the 2030’s — right about the time I am set to retire. We’ve talked about reforming it for years, but right now the push seems to instead be to have Medicare-for-All. I’m sure that will work just great.No, the horseshoe seems to apply to systems that are distinctly not American and which weren’t founded with many of America’s particular values such as an almost religious push for self-reliance and rebellious independence. No, I think the horseshoe is wholly one of socialists.There is a time when things are good, for socialists, maybe it feels like things are better. But then there comes a point where things get hard, too hard to continue simply being a nanny-state offering endless hand outs. It’s taking massive amounts from those who have it, but to “get through the hard times” uses that wealth to do things that are abhorrent. For the fascists, they adopted an ethnic nationalist claim to oppression and used the might of the government to stamp out and steal from their alleged oppressors. For the communists, they adopted a class based claim to oppression and used the might of the government to stamp out and steal from their alleged oppressors. I don’t care if that abhorrence is fascism or communism. After their implementation, it didn’t get much better. Fascism, in particular Nazism, wiped out millions in campaigns of ethnic cleansing for a master race. The Communists wiped out many millions more as they decimated churches, wiped out whole populations, subjugated dissidents with oppressive reeducation, and persecuted anyone with any accusation of privileged. Cultures and populations were shattered on both sides of that divide, but at the center of it were people who thought they were the heroes in their own story.They both look pretty similar from where I sit.The difference between their vanity and ours is that theirs was empowered by a state with too much control and ability to do harm to the people. How the state got that way had a lot to do with good people thinking too often that someone should do something about bad things. Rather than doing something about it themselves, or with their households, or with their local communities… they decided to make a government both responsible for and empowered to do it, and many of them lived to regret that decision as their culture was eroded, their children were killed in horrific wars, and they would pass on a legacy of regret for generations to come.Rather than a horseshoe, I prefer to think of socialism as walking on a fence. Someone built the fence. Someone else taught you the fence was there, but neither knew why the fence was there. Through their efforts you climb the fence and start walking along it. Things are going well. You see far into the horizon, looking forward, and hyper-focused on your next step. You assume every step will be just as easy as the last. But maybe the board isn’t so sturdy up ahead. Maybe a brisk wind kicks up. Maybe someone comes and pushes you. At some point, you’re going to fall off the fence. You’re either going one way, or another. From there, it’s very hard to ever get to a place that was as good as it used to be, a place and time you only appreciate once it’s gone.It’s my opinion, that looking at history, we only have these two models — ethnic nationalism and class based strife. One leads to fascism the other and the communism. People like to think that democratic socialism is the third way. I simply view that such a system, particularly for the Europeans who are saying it works so well, grants people many luxuries, but hasn’t been tested in a world without the United States to support it through an advanced protected world spanning economy or military and defense, both of which European social democracy is completely unable to provide for itself. The European model doesn’t seem to account for the United States at all, but believes very highly in things remaining unchanged forever. We’re seeing a time where the United States is looking to itself and its own needs more and more, and becoming more and more self-reliant as it does. This means that the time of a world where the United States removes itself from the entanglements of neighbors who have benefited far more from our relationship than we have, may be coming to an end. To put it simply, I don’t believe the democratic socialists of Europe have ever actually been tested. When they are, I think we may see a time where history repeats itself to devastating ends.Maybe I’m wrong — but maybe I’m not.I would just rather not go that route. I think other ways are better, namely such as more freedom to choose, which creates more opportunity and affords more choices to others and rely on more social institutions to solve social problems, such as the family, church, and other community based organizations. It seems to be more stable over the long run than a politician making promises of eternal prosperity once we “balance the scales of history” for some “oppressed people” who never knew they should have been angry until someone wanted power. I also don’t like relying on others to ensure that I survive tomorrow, the next day, or sixty years from now when it is my daughter and her children who must live the bad choices I made. What happens if we become too dependent on this wonderful country that gives us everything… directly… that we don’t know how to manage when something goes wrong?I don’t want to find that out. I would rather have small handouts from a small government. It just seems the safer option than trusting a government I can’t trust to be:Perfectly moralPerfectly competentPerfectly able to withstand unforeseen disasterFor all time.Relaxed. Researched. Respectful. - War ElephantFootnotes[1] Definition of socialism | Dictionary.com[2] When Firefighters Were Actually Violent Gang Members - KnowledgeNuts[3] What Causes Learned Helplessness?