Friday, April 16, 2010

Arundhati Roy - an unlikely love letter

I am constantly beset by women. They won't leave me alone - my life is a perpetual series of Hard Day's Nights with me chased hither and yon by hordes of screaming chicks. Sure enough I always say no (politely, since I'm a polite chap) because truth be known, I'm saving myself. There's only one gal for me and that's the mighty Arundhati Roy.

Just lately a friend of mine pointed me at the following long article which the fabulous Roy wrote for the English language Outlook of New Delhi. It details the time she spent with the Maoist Naxalite rebels in Central India. Anyone who wants to find out what's going on there, read this, it's a cracker. It's a discussion of Indian, um... what do you call 'politics' when you're at the pointy end of the stick?
They described a police raid: they come at night, 300, 400, sometimes 1,000 of them. They lay a cordon around a village and lie in wait. At dawn they catch the first people who go out to the fields and use them as human shields to enter the village... Once the police enter a village, they loot and steal and burn houses. They come with dogs. The dogs catch those who try and run. They chase chickens and pigs and the police kill them and take them away in sacks. SPOs [Special Police Officer = informer] come along with the police. They’re the ones who know where people hide their money and jewellery. They catch people and take them away. And extract money before they release them. They always carry some extra Naxal ‘dresses’ with them in case they find someone to kill. They get money for killing Naxals, so they manufacture some. Villagers are too frightened to stay at home.

Welcome to the world beyond your living room. With this as your daily lot is anyone surprised that people don't seize whatever option is available? Marxism, Maoism, as if anyone can tell the difference? Certainly not the villagers who can only count to twenty. No doubt the pointy end of this Naxalite pyramid will know what's what, but will the base be privy to such knowledge? Not bloody likely. Knowledge equals nobility (seriously, check out your dictionary) and a knowledge shared is a nobility shared, which is no nobility at all. Not if you groove on servants, that is.

But never mind, the genius of the nobility-obsessed Jews in contriving their Marxist-Leninist alternative to a Brando-esque what-have-you-got was in the packaging. Marxism is to other political possibilities what McDonalds is to 'a healthy alternative'.
Mum - "I'm too tired to cook, let's eat out. What do you kids want?"
Kids - "Yay! We want a healthy alternative!"
Yeah right. Crowds follow banners and the truth can go to hell - a tuppence for sugar, salt, cholesterol, hormones, and preservatives, and likewise for the vicious truth of Marxism with its leaders as their own messiah.

But you never know. In amongst the truth of Lenin and the Cheka, and Mao and the Great Leap Forward (which never mind Billy Brag was the greatest mass starvation in history), there's also the possibility of Che and Castro. You could do a lot worse. Only a motherfucker would wish the Cubans' erstwhile whoredom upon anyone and there's a case to be made that the villagers of Central India have got that beat. Besides which, with every major government and opposition beholden to the death cult, the Indian government not least amongst them, and with a demonstrably false al Qaeda as a death cult conjured bogeyman, what are we to make of the Naxalites?

It's curious how the media seems to spend no time on them at all. And then there's the fact that they seem completely penniless, ie. unbankrolled. Think about that. This may come as something of a shock to the hard-bitten habitu├ęs of this blog, but what if I said the Naxalites were for real? What if they were what they said they were - truly concerned with the downtrodden and oppressed and with no hidden agenda? The more I turn the Naxalites around in my head, the more likely that seems.

Okay - Three cheers for the Naxalite revolution!

But waitaminute... Where's Gandhi in amongst all this? Roy, sure enough, could hardly not mention him but sadly it's in the standard less-than-useful context of non-violence as a thing existing in isolation. As I wrote in this piece, Bloody Sunday, any discussion of non-violence that doesn't give equal time to its media depiction isn't worth much. Go watch Attenborough's Gandhi again and keep an eye out for the role played by the media, ie. Martin Sheen. Then ask yourself: How successful would Gandhi have been if a bloc-media had treated him like they treated Scott Ritter? Between Scott Ritter and Iraq's WMD's only one of them was true and it wasn't Scott Ritter. A click of the fingers. A piece of piss. The easiest thing in the world. With the bloc-media singing from their thoughtfully provided Rothschild songbook, Gandhi could starve to death and we'd all be nodding and mumbling along - ♫Something, Something, Terrorists, Martyrs, and Good Riddance♫.

Did somebody say media? Speaking of which, in amongst her piece the winsome Roy has fallen upon a true philosophical genius, the Superintendent of Police in Dandakaranya -
He was a candid man, the SP: “See Ma’am, frankly speaking this problem can’t be solved by us police or military. The problem with these tribals is they don’t understand greed. Unless they become greedy, there’s no hope for us. I have told my boss, remove the force and instead put a TV in every home. Everything will be automatically sorted out."
Actually, let's replace the word 'philosophical' with 'evil' given that what the SP is proposing here is precisely what was done to the Bhutanese by that vicious ratfuck Rupert Murdoch. The SP, Murdoch, his Rothschild masters, they all get it. They know that nothing can compete with the television. There is no argument it cannot win. Paraphrasing Frank Zappa - If it's you against the TV, bet on the TV.

And anyone looking for the proof of that particular pudding needs only to look to the hundreds of comments following the splendid Roy's article. A handful of dissenting voices aside, it's an ugly torrent of TV scripted soundbites from an aghast middle class. Clearly the government that's attempting to exterminate the 'tribals' has done alright by them and who the hell is this slut Roy to break in upon their Ikea dreams? Fuck her and the little motorcycle she rode in on! Doesn't she know that it was built from the minerals that these tribal scum are squatting on? Shit happens and if that shit involves thousands being shat on, raped, and killed, well... they're TERRORISTS! Everyone knows that the only good terrorist is a shat on, raped, and killed one.

Yay. God speed you, you clueless army of media drones.

Arundhati Roy, my wordsmith Minerva: may I as humble petitioner make a suggestion? Your candid SP has leapt right to the heart of the matter. Seize upon his dictum and turn it on its head - get the Naxalites to blow up the TV stations. Without that being done they'll forever be battling against their own inverted depiction. Have them imagine a Tet offensive with nowt but TV towers the target. Cue the screams of the fear-filled middle classes - I WANT MY MTV! Ha! It'd be worth it for that alone.

As for me, ardent admirer, I'll just have to go on fending off the dreary pursuing hordes with nothing more than a cherished image of the angelic Arundhati to sustain me.

Oh Arundhati... a sigh, a smile, a look to the heavens...


su said...

the beauty of the beloved
can only be witnessed by the
beauty of oneself.

Anonymous said...

'It all began in the village called Naxalbari (Dt.Darjeeling, State of West Bengal) in 1967.

A dalit youth, armed with a court order, went to till his land. He was killed by a group of landlords who hired hooligans. The dalits, and the poor and actual tillers rose up in revolt.'


There's a formula to all of this isn't there? And because of our natures wtp drop right into the equation - no worries. Monkeys!
Oh! I think someone has used that description this week already - sorry.


kikz said...

a love note from a friend:)

thought the implications of 'tracks' might interest you :)

p.s. great online mag, btw..


Hei Hu Quan said...

Greetings Nobody,
Just found this video work entitled "We: Arundhati Roy" where the producer has interspersed archival footage to dramatise a 64 minute speech by the good lady Roy. Check it here: We: Arundhati Roy

Miraculix said...

I too have been smitten with Ms. Roy and her sensibilities for many years. However, much like Mahatma G., I have come to suspect that she is allowed as much mainstream media attention only because she goes JUST SO FAR with her damnations of the ruling class -- and no further.

Like Noam Chomsky or Naomi Klein, she is full of pointed ideas and observations, but short on acknowledgement of the real puppetmasters having their way with the world. As such, I strongly suspect this lovely lady of the lower castes is serving as yet another guardian of the borders of acceptable dissent.

So long as "reform the system" is as far as they go, these media darlings provide the appearance of both genuine dissent (which it may well be in some cases) and a clear delineation of what subject matter is allowed to enter the public "debate".

If/when she eventually goes far enough "off message", ala Herr Ritter, just watch how fast her ability to publish in such prominent mainstream circles vanishes.

For example, how long do you think she would last if she began connecting the root causes of the Naxalites with their sources at the top of the pyramid?

For mine, I have long suspected that any persona maintaining a persistent presence in the mainstream media eye is there for a reason. I am also quite certain that "free press" is just as oxymoronic as "military intelligence".

Arundhati is a fine and resonant instrument, but in the end her affect on the public consciousness still leaves me feeling as if I'm being played like a cheap fiddle.

As it stands, I simply no longer trust the media writ large. Knowing how compromised their art truly is and the "mass mind management" role it was created to serve, I've come to the conclusion that any and all who are given the podium there are -- to various degrees -- guilty by association.

Anonymous said...

Orwell concludes “1984” with a denial that the victims of the World Order have any hope. He claims the World Order will always triumph, which is a great propaganda achievement for the hegemony of parasitism. He writes, “If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face – forever.” He disposes of his “hero”, a citizen who had vainly tried to oppose the Party, by ending the book with the “hero” whimpering that “He loved Big Brother”.

nobody said...

Su, wrong blog but who cares? Very nice. Frankly it confuses me but don't explain it because I quite like not knowing what a thing means. It's the logic of the Pixies if you know what I mean.

Hullo Tony, nice of you to pop in. Thanks for the link mate. I've whacked it on the desktop.

Hey Kikz, Interesting! I only read the first dozen paras but that looks very good.

Thanks Hei, um... sixty four minutes is a bit of a tough gig for me but I'll have a look.

And Mir - I know! There are no heroes. I get it. Can't you even leave a fellow his romantic daydreams? Aargh! Speaking of which, Pilger's piece before last was some guff about 'Israeli Heroes'. To be honest I didn't even read it. And it came out in the same week that Gideon Levy wrote that there has never been an Israeli Peace Camp. Dear oh dear, unfortunate timing. Anyway Mir, I think it reflects poorly upon you to speak disparagingly of the clearly very beautiful Ms. Roy. Tut Tut.

And thanks Anon. How come no one ever blames the Victory Gin? It's possible Winston could've just been drunk. Honestly! Go read that last page again - he spends the whole time drinking ;-)

slozo said...

Nice post, Nobody - I didn't know much about the Naxalites at all actually, was nice to get a peek at something the west sees nothing of. Well said though, Miraculix - I agree wholeheartedly on the "limited hangout" . . . although this lady could be an entirely sincere person who genuinely works to help the plight of the downtrodden.

(As opposed to Chomsky, who I think is a total plant to sway and divert opinion)

Hard to not be so jaded when at every turn you realise you've not only been lied to, but that you have constantly been deceived into supporting actions which tighten the noose of control on all of us.

Also . . . she's pretty. If she were a fat ugly cow, she'd get a lot more traction with me.

Just sayin'.

nobody said...

Okay Slozo, that's you on notice mate. You're clearly biased against beautiful people and I just won't have that. Not that anyone here is particularly beautiful (apart from Gallier) but that's not the point. Beautiful people are like fragile flowers and we the unattractive are like the compost to allow them to thrive.

Anyway, yellow card and the sin bin for you matey!

Anonymous said...


So you find Gallier beautiful, I am not saying he isn't a lovely person but, hmm.
Does Gallier know about this attraction or is it going to be as much a shock for him as it was for me (swt)? But now it's out of the closet it brings me on to the point of what would you rather be, beautiful or attractive – and you may answer (as Bamber Gascoigne was want to say).

Away with the fluff and onto the subject of the post, like Slozo I was completely unaware of the Naxalites or their plight but now I am, I am right down the line with Mir on this one.

the Silverfish said...

Miraculix I couldn't agree with you more, in a nutshell well said.

Whilst the womans intentions may well be noble, her actions will be for naught. At the end of the day nothing will have changed.

Anonymous said...


Apologies for the double posting. I put the above comment up and then there I was cleaning my bathroom, musing on the proposition that it is only dirty people that ever need to wash and if we weren't such a dirty lot it would never get into such a state. When it suddenly hit me, the similarity of Mr N's comment on said Ms Roy and the world reaction to Leila Khaled. Yes I know they were different kinds of protesters but what a hot doll our Leila was. No matter that there were hundreds of millions of commercial aircraft bits littering Tel Aviv runway, there were MP's standing up in the House of Commons saying they were sure she didn't really mean it. Patty Hearst on the other hand was by no means a dragon but her natural attributes were not in the same league as Leila's and nobody stood up and apologised for her actions. So there you have it, attracting a following to your cause it would seem, is in direct proportion to your beauty – or is it attractiveness, you tell me. Anyway Mr N, you saw her first so you can have first pop, what a gentleman I am.

Roy said...

hey now nobody...

excellent piece, i will go read her article now.

speaking of India, and all things fucked up in this prison,

two things i have to share...

1. Revelations of an elite family insider. You tube it, and

2. Dirt - The movie. seriously check it out.

both can be found on the con central torrent site( ). The full text of the revelations are there along with dirt the movie.

the you tube of the revelations is interesting.( )

keep writing... we keep reading, thanks.

oh, a 420 shout to the late jack herer.

a tribute i made.

Miraculix said...

Daydreams? I've nothing at all against daydreams! Especially of the romantic variety.

I suppose if one was to partake of such lucid moments, Arundhati would be welcome company in the Land of Winkin', Blinkin' & Nod. A great conversationalist, I'll wager... =)

The lead track of Asian Dub Foundation's 1998 Rafi's Revenge album is titled 'Naxalite'.

Another fine cause necessarily radicalized.

Technically, each and every day we break regulations and laws in our acquisition and consumption of raw milk. The stripes in the sky are in plain sight, but the Kool-Aid is habit forming. Legit cancer meds with healing properties, rather than recycled mustard gas (chemo) injections, are illegal in many jurisdictions.

Speaking of such heresy will get you exactly nowhere with any and all who still suckle too innocently at the media teat.

As I eventually ask any and all individuals who seem truly interested in how deep the rabbit hole goes when speaking of their relationship with media and sources: "have you examined YOUR filters today?"

Either they are a) capable of recognizing the strata involved, or b) they are best left fending for themselves in the wet paper sack they call home.

Orwell? He offered some large insights worth absorbing, but he was also a Fab Social hater with some axes to grind. Though it's not conclusive, I like Prof. John Dolan's spit take on Eric Arthur Blair.

Slo, my parenthetical after the word "dissent" above ...(which it may well be in some cases)... was meant to address the fact that many who are ALLOWED mass media access are acting genuinely, as what we might unflatteringly describe as "dupes", unaware that the specific agenda they hammer away at dovetails with larger, longer-term plans that often run counter their own personal objectives.

Have you ever wondered, in a world where words like "compartmentalized" rub shoulders with "terrorist" and "classified" on a daily basis, how authorities who guard a network of facilities full of documented (and UN-documented) secrets can claim with a straight face that conspiracy only exists "in the wild", on the "revolutionary" side?

To wit, direct from

con·spir·a·cy [kuhn-spir-uh-see] –noun, plural-cies.

1. the act of conspiring.

2. an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.

3. a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose: He joined the conspiracy to overthrow the government.

nobody said...

Sorry I lost the plot on this page. When there's a new piece I tend to get distracted.

Anyway, are there people out there who don't find Gallier gorgeous? With that cherubic face? Tell me you don't want to pinch his cheek, and I'll call you a liar. Besides which, he's one of the very few who has a pic at all, and pretty much on his ownsome in that he's smiling. And yeah yeah, AP is smiling but she's so clearly blessed in the looks department that to comment on it is a statement of the bleeding obvious. (She won't be reading here will she? Nah...)

Otherwise thanks Roy for those tips. English John, prompted by your mention, sent me the elite insider thingy. I'm still wondering what to make of it. If it's true, it's extraordinary, a thing that changes everything. Maybe I should discount it solely on the basis that if it's real I have to throw out everything I ever wrote. Maybe I'll just write about it anyway and ask the question, ie. what does everyone else think?

And Dirt the movie? Your link was confusing and otherwise IMDB lists any number of flicks called 'Dirt'. Which one is yours?

Thanks FB, you're a gentleman and a scholar. And sure, good looking people always have that leg up. I doubt that there's a single aspect of anything whereby being good looking isn't a plus. As for me, I'm beyond such things. A beautiful girl is no more likely to turn my head than a beautiful work of art or gorgeous scene of nature. Ha!

And thanks Mir. Excellent article on Orwell and Hitchens. I actually bought that book believe it or not. Mind you I didn't know who Hitchens was at that point. Mind you I do wonder at the writer for thinking Hitchens is dazzling. I've always viewed him as a hack. I could barely finish his Orwell book on account of it reading like some undergraduate paint-by-numbers, if you know what I mean.

Roy said...

hey nobody

go to

for the trailer.

i found the full movie @

as far as the revelations go...

my heart says yes there is great truth there that we are being given. but it is up to each of us to find the gems.

i do wholeheartedly agree with the insider in that a "being" with a given name ain't the being we are really trying to know and understand.

i.e. "the one that brings the good", "that which is" "divinity/divine". along with the two most important thing we should be involved with...

"knowing WHO we are and WHERE we are. (reminds me of avatar the film eh?)

i don't fully understand it, but i can see that this world has been entwined in apparent horrors that are unspeakable, and it is difficult to choose which battle we should engage in, they all seems SO very real and worth our time. but as i grow older, i continually return to the teachings of the heart sutra,

form is emptiness and emptiness is form.

gate' gate' parasamgate' bhodi svha.

in the meantime, no more names or label for this old mountain man, only praise for "that which brings the good".

and as sri krishna said in the gita, where your last thought is at death will determine the circumstance of the next life.

this is why DAILY and moment to moment recollection of our roles as Instrument of that which is, and to remember that THIS is not REAL. again, sri krishna does expound on what is real and un real in the gita, he say that real means UNCHANGING, always the same. of course dictionary has a plethora of definitions, but not one that address the real of real.

we know that the only thing that is real is that which is, the great i am manifesting through each quark, atom and molecule of existence. every thing else, every thing is in a state of flux and change, how can this be real?

i, personally am ready to go home and allow the illusion of suffering to dissolve into the bliss of the one.

good to have a quality conversation. thank you.
let me know if you can't find the movie.


gallier2 said...

Hey, if I put a new photo up, you will have me with red cheeks. You make me blush.
And concerning the smile of that picture, it's incredible what two weeks of unbrideld sex can do to ones mood, doesn't it?
And, furthermore, that pic was taken the morning of the day I met my wife. It was so to say, my last smile ;-)

nobody said...

Gallier, crack me up. Er... your wife doesn't read here does she? I won't tell if you won't tell.

And Roy, that's more than a bit spooky mate. The 'where we are' thing, that is. The new piece (which I'll have to post tomorrow what with the net here running like cack) starts out precisely in that, um... territory. My expression is 'of-a-place'. Which I'm not, by the way. But you never know, fingers crossed and one day I will be. Otherwise nice one. pop in here anytime.