Why Hindus In India Behave Like Muslims Now - Fight Or Flight?

A friend sent me this article and said that it explains why Hindus are behaving like Muslims. I thought of something else.

Both Muslims - let's not leave Catholics, they are also similar. Recently I read an article that explained why northern Europe was more advanced and richer than countries in Southern Europe. The author suggested that it was because the south was and is predominantly Catholic while the north is largely Protestant - and Ayn Rand have one thing in common. 

Neither could stand people who were different. Both wanted people to convert to their religion. Ayn Rand's religion was of course Laissez Faire Capitalism. But there was one difference. Rand would never use force. While Muslims (and Catholics) use force.

What makes one set of people use force while another party doesn't? Is it that Ayn Rand was intelligent and hence never needed to use force? Does it mean that people use force largely because they can't get their desires met any other way?

No. Physical force (that an alpha male uses) is but one way to get what you want but can't get through other peaceful and fair means. Emotional and verbal bullying (that feminine people indulge in) is another way to achieve it. Neither I think was Ayn Rand's way.

She insisted on fair play, in every transaction, devoid of physical aggression or emotional manipulation. And her heroes in Atlas Shrugged refused to have anything to do with the "non-Rands" (Jim, Lilian, Philip Rearden etc.). They hid out in Galt's Gulch. It was a peaceful war without physical force or manipulation. They let the world realize what it would be like with them not around. 

Was Ayn Rand's war more like Gandhi's Satyagraha? I do not think so. Satyagraha was emotional manipulation. "I will fast until death and my death will be on your hands" is not the kind that Ayn Rand would subscribe to. She (by her I refer to her heroes) would just leave and never be part of anything low class. Remember how John Galt quit the 20th Century Motor Company when the company announced socialistic policies.

So when confronted with stuff we can't stand what are our options? 

• Kill, convert or rape like how Muslims and Catholics did and like how Hindus are doing now as my friend pointed out. 
• Escape to Galt's Gulch and wait for the propitious time to return. Is this escapism? A refusal to deal with reality or with unpalatable options? A friend asked me - How can these people just run away leaving everything behind? Don't they covet material things and wealth? My answer follows. It is slightly long. No, they covet or embrace something else, their ideas and ideals which are much more important to them. They are passionate but not ambitious Galt hated to negotiate with Mr Thompson, the President of USA while the latter insisted on negotiating with Galt. Imagine how Galt would have felt negotiating with the Starnes heirs about their new HR policy and his revolutionary motor. Only if you are like Galt can you imagine the sickness you would feel having to discuss with Mr Thompson or with Starnes heirs. Can you imagine Gail Wynand discuss some serious stuff with the girl (not Dominique) he was engaged to? When Wynand told her that he was dedicating to her not his wealth and power but that quality in him that gave him his power and wealth, the girl responded to him asking him how her dress was. While discussion or negotiation is an important tool in today's world to use with opposing parties, Ayn Rand's heroes never could use it. They would rather leave or vanish. Wynand gave Peter a contract that he (Peter) wanted desperately and in return Wynand took Peter's wife. Read that passage in Fountainhead to understand how much Wynand hated even having to communicate this barter to Peter. Incidentally, while Franciso gave a long lecture about how money was not the root of all evil, he was NOT avaricious. He lived the idea of money but not about hording money itself. Quote from the acne link "Only the man who does not need it,  is fit to inherit wealth – the man who would make his own fortune no matter where he started." 
• Show the other cheek like Gandhi suggested hoping to embarrass the opponent. As the poet Thiruvalluvar suggested 2000 years back "Inna cheidharai oruthal avarnaana Nannayam cheidu vidal" - the way to hurt someone who wronged you is to be nice to them. This probably is or includes passive aggression. There is another type where people are so naive they either don't understand what others are doing or too nice to bother about it. 
• Is there any other way to handle this? Appoint a commission, negotiate a settlement? - probably this is the way that most of the developed world would operate. Muslims are under attack because they choose an unacceptable mechanism to deal with unpalatable things. Are there any Gandhis and Galts left? 

When you can't show the other cheek like Gandhi did, when you aren't competent and passionate and unambitious as Galt was and hence can't afford to walk away leaving everything behind and if you can't stand the idea of negotiating with people who are unlike you then you have no other option than to behave like Muslims.

Additional reading:

http://vbala99.blogspot.com/2016/05/aphorisms.html