Everyone loves an underdog, and everyone loves an underdog that’s been consistently suppressed by an evil power-based entity. Any honest-to-god anti-nationalist would agree that the government is by far the most apt example of that sort of entity, hushing up controversies, favouring corporations, threatening minorities, the works. No story fits these two sets of circumstances- the underdog situation and the tyrannical government-much better than the Kashmir conflict, a story fully equipped with its own cast of characters across generations- traitors, tyrants, revolutionaries, puppets and villains. What makes the story even better, is that the characters interchange roles as you move from one narrator to the next- what you’ve been passionately taught in school is very likely to be passionately contradicted in another’s, as is the nature of most of these sort of stories.
state
The Conflict Motive and Human Nature
In the following article, we speak of and propose contradictory views on the collective motives behind armed conflicts that have occurred through history. We attempt to explain a society’s mass reasoning behind entering into war with another society and that reasoning’s direct source- human nature. As you will read on, Arnav proposes and backs the perspective that all human armed conflict is based on the idea that humans seek to propagate a core set of ideologies they believe in and seek to destroy any competing ideologies- they fight for what they believe in at the subconscious, very basic instinct level. Rahul proposes and backs the view that all human conflict is based on the desire for acquisition of power or resources-they fight for money.
The perspectives put forth below are not backed by hard research and are solely the opininons of the writers, contrary to most other literature on Atypical Rationale. There is no legitimate way to prove either and the choice between the two is purely subjective- both are equally plausible and the only way you can differentiate between their legitimacy is by your own discretion and beliefs about human nature.
Onward to Anarchy
Natural State. The State of the free men. A societal setup exempt of rules, devoid of laws and free from ‘constitutionalised’ concentration of power and public organization. Basically, in simple terms, a time when you could do whatever you wanted, whenever you wanted, and your freedom only ended where somebody else’s began.
Anarchy.
Atypical Rationale 