Sign Word for Procurement Now

Originally answered: What is the biggest scam you’ve ever seen?The sad irony of the Kargil Coffin Scam was that not even a single such transfer case was used to carry the slain soldiers during the Kargil war of 1999. Those transfer cases arrived much later.And they were Caskets, not Coffins. Thus ‘Kargil Coffin Scam’ is a misnomer.Caskets are rectangular boxes with hinged lids while the Coffins are tapered at the head and foot with unhinged lids.What Indian govt. at the time ordered was somewhat like this—In 2001, the Opposition, led by SoGa of Congress, disrupted the parliamentary proceedings accusing the BJP led NDA government of a major scam in a Defence equipment deal.The allegations were, primarily, on the basis of a CAG report that claimed that NDA government had purchased the reusable aluminium caskets from the US at an exorbitant rate of $2500 apiece when the actual price is just $172 per casket.The Opposition wasted no time in exploiting the erroneous report to its advantage.The Untold TruthHere’s the step-by-step development of the said (and sad) episode laid out in an in-depth investigative report by Chidanand Rajghatta, the TOI correspondent in Washington, dated Dec 13, 2001.Source: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.c...Origin:The alleged scam has its roots in Somalia where a large Indian contingent was on a UN peacekeeping mission.In 1994, seven Indian doctors of the said contingent were killed in a mortar attack in Mogadishu.Lt. Col. Danish, an Indian pathologist, and Victor Baiza, a US mortician, were tasked with the autopsies, the embalmment procedure and finally sending the mortal remains back to India.The caskets used for the purpose were US Army standard issue aluminium transfer cases along with the body bags.Here it must be noted that India at that time was, and still is, using wooden (and cardboard) boxes for the mortal remains of its martyrs minus the body bags.During long-distance hauls, the bodies, after the autopsy, would arrive in pretty bad shapes what with the decomposition process already set in owing to the time passed between a soldier’s death and his arrival back in the country. The insides of the wooden boxes, and sometimes the outside too, would become a mess drenched with the bodily fluids oozing out of the bodies.The shipment from Somalia carried a note from Victor Baiza that if the Indian govt. chooses to keep the caskets then the price per case would be $2000.The MoD (Ministry of Defence) sent them back. However, the reusable transfer cases had the curiosity of the Indian officials piqued. They were impressed. Victor Baiza was felicitated by the Brig. M.P. Bhagat for the job well done. He also received a letter of appreciation from the Indian government.Shortly afterwards, the quest for procurement of such transfer cases on a permanent basis began.In the period encompassing 1995-1998, Baiza received several letters from the MoD regarding the purchase of aluminium caskets.The involved officials, here, erred. Victor Baiza was only a retd. soldier-turned-mortician who owned a funeral parlour in Texas. He was not the casket manufacturer. The officials should’ve contacted the actual manufacturers directly.In anticipation of a potential deal on hand, Baiza started a new company, Buitron and Baiza Casket and Funeral Suppliers, with partner Fred Buitron.Baiza was now quoting a price of $2500 instead of the earlier $2000.The Indian end was adamant on the initial quoted price.Baiza argued that the US govt. has stopped all further orders of the caskets as they are overstocked. Now only one company is manufacturing them and it has increased the price at its end too.Baiza, here, was also considering the bureaucratic channels he’d have to navigate through as the Clinton administration has imposed sanctions on India post Pokhran nuclear tests of May 1998.The procurement thus underwent a period of lethargy only to be revived back with vengeance during the Kargil war of 1999. India was fighting a literal uphill battle and was taking in considerable casualties.In August 1999, Baiza finally visited India. The Kargil war had already ended by then. The new price he quoted was $2663 per case.A week of back and forth on the price with the MoD officials in New Delhi, he signed a deal of $1.5 million promising 500 aluminium transfer cases along with 3000 body bags at $2500 per case and $80 per body bag.The first consignment of 150 caskets and 900 body bags was scheduled to arrive on Feb. 22, 2000. The rest within eight months from the date of the contract.The first lot arrived on the said date. By which time, several months had passed since the Kargil war. The caskets, obviously, could not be used for the Kargil martyrs.A hitch in the dealA flaw in the arrived items is discovered soon. The MoD officials found out that each casket weighs 54 kg whereas in the contract the weight mentioned was 18 kg per casket.Baiza admitted it to be a secretarial oversight from his end. The specification offered by him was that all caskets would be made with an 18 gauge thick aluminium sheet. An 18-gauge casket. It erroneously got noted down as an 18-kg casket.The US standard issue casket weighs the same i.e. 54 kg apiece. The caskets sent earlier from Somalia were also of the same weight.Hence, he said it was impossible to bring down the weight to 18 kg.It, however, failed to convince the Indian officials. The entire deal was promptly scrapped.No army official was consulted before scrapping the contract. Otherwise, they would have sided with Baiza as they had better knowledge of the caskets than the obstinate MoD desk jockeys.The UproarThe fake allegation spree commenced in 2001, after the CAG report, with Congress party accusing the NDA govt. of skimming off millions in the said deal which also included hand-held thermal imagers and snowsuits.The major culprits, according to them, were the then Defence Minister George Fernandes and the Prime Minister A. B. Vajpayee.They, conveniently, ignored the fact that purchase orders under Rs. 5 crore do not signNow the Defence Minister’s desk for approval. Or that the ambassadors from India and US had already declared in writing that the caskets in question cost $2768 apiece.Kafan Chor (Coffin Thief) they would shout, including SoGa, whenever the Def. Min. tried to put forth the facts in the Parliament.The Case and AcquittalIn June 2006, the CBI registered a case.In August 2009, it filed a charge sheet against the three Army officers—Major General Arun Roye, Colonel SK Malik, and Colonel FB Singh—and the US supplier, Buitron & Baiza.In Dec 2013, a special CBI court found no evidence and discharged all the accused.On Oct 13, 2015, the Supreme Court gave a clean chit to the former Defence Minister George Fernandes and the then Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee of any misconduct in the fake Kargil Coffin Scam.ObservationChidanand Rajghatta in his report says—“In fact, the purported price of $172 for a coffin would be unbelievable in a country where death is a costly proportion.”His inquiries had further revealed that the normal casket price ranges from $500 to $2500 depending on the material used i.e. wood or metal.The reusable aluminium caskets India was interested in were the made-to-order ones designed as per US Army specifications. They are in the $2000-$3000 price range.The $172 per casket claim by the CAG in his report could actually be the rental price for a single casket.OutcomeThe entire exercise, over the years, with all its good intentions thus ended in futility as 150 top notch aluminium transfer cases still lie unused in some army warehouse instead of playing a role in imparting dignity to the final journey of a martyr.It is evident that the entire brouhaha over the fake Kargil Coffin Scam was actually the scam played by the SoGa led Congress on the NDA govt. and on the Indian public.The Real ScamCongress knew that by, falsely, dragging the plight of martyred Kargil War Heroes they could play with the sentiments of us Indians.It would tarnish the honest image of Late Shri A.B. Vajpayee and his govt. and thereby polish the image of Congress.It was one of the greatest scams they ever played on the Indian public.Present DayNow replace the word ‘Coffin’ with ‘Rafale’ and go through it again. You will find the beginning of the same false narrative being constructed around the French fighter aircraft deal.The focal point of the Opposition’s 2019 election campaign will be Rafale Scam and Lynchistan like narratives inflated with hot air.SoGa’s son, RaGa, is attempting to lead the charge this time. And failing thus far.As for BJP, it has failed to offer a forceful fact-based counter-narrative, to date even when it claims to have actually saved some Rs. 59 crores per (fully equipped) fighter jet in the deal.Nonetheless, it needs to act fast and sharp.NaMo wouldn’t want to repeat the same mistakes committed by Shri A.B. Vajpayee’s govt. and lose the chair.Source: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.c...; No scam called ‘coffingate’; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ka...

The question fills me with a grim sense of amusement because it gives me a chance to elaborate on one of the lessons I learned regarding military procurement during my service.You know the old saying “Amateurs talks strategy, professionals talk logistics?”.Well I have but one more phrase to add to it:“Amateurs talk strategy, professionals talk logistics. Bitter employees in the organization only talk bureaucratic politics.”Just one more thing to keep in mind when discussing what potential hardware a military could buy next.Take the 1980s for example, during the height of the cold war when the Indian Military was overhauling large amounts of equipment bought during the 50s and 60s and beginning a major military up gradation program that started somewhere in the late 70s and continued till the early 90s.This was matched by a Pakistani military up gradation that began with the US Aid package of $ 4 Billion of which $0.8 bill went to the nuclear program, $1.6 went to the economy and $1.6 b went to the military.Combined with the Siachen, Khalistan and Brasstacks tensions with an Afghan war in the background. all of this was a recipe for militarization.There was a flurry in the press back then and every military analyst went nuts trying to analyze who would purchase what and how that purchase would impact the South Asian military theater.There were two purchases of note that require examination: The Bofors artillery purchase by the Indian military and the potential purchase of M1 Abrams by the Pakistan army.When the Bofors artillery purchase was conducted by the Indian military from Swedish defense manufacturers, there was a flurry of interest in Pakistan that examined what could have motivated the Indian purchase of such an expensive and potentially game changing artillery piece. Officers would discuss the possibility of the Indian army completely overhauling their artillery set up and standardizing around this new piece of hardware, completely ditching their Soviet hardware. Others wrote fearful pieces about how the Pakistan army would face highly accurate western artillery all along the Western front and the Indians wouldn’t even need much of an air force if they had Bofors raining down accurate strikes on positions across the border. Lahore and the GHQ in Pindi being shelled were images that were considered.And what was the reality on the other side?The Swedish firm had bribed their way through the Indian defense ministry, providing major kickbacks to key players in order to secure the deal. Several Indian development projects had their funds diverted by key government officials to pay for this overly priced artillery piece.I remember several Indian officials being aghast at the purchase. The Indian army back then had been trying to phase out the different calibers in their army and standardize around the 155mm. The plan was to get rid of older calibers like 130 mm and have just one 155 mm caliber standardized as it would greatly simplify maintenance, training and operations.Instead, a completely new type of gun, the Bofors, was being forced on them with a massive part of the defense procurement budget gone and no resolution of the standardization issue.The Bofors would actually perform fairly well in the Kargil conflict, but the point here is how the bureaucratic politics behind the scene determined the procurement of defense equipment.The Pakistani side of the story revolves around the potential purchase of the M1 Abrams in the 1980s.This is again the good old times of the Afghan war with Pakistan being flushed with US military aid money and going on high tech shopping sprees.The sale of F-16s to Pakistan rattled Indian military analysts the same way Pakistan was somewhat rattled by the Bofors artillery purchase (just one of the many arms purchases made by the Indian military during the 80s arms overhaul campaign).The F-16 had been used in the Osirak reactor strike by Israel only a few years ago and its sale to Pakistan sent alarm bells in New Delhi over the potential capability of the Pakistani Airforce to carry out similar air strikes on Indian nuclear facilities.The US tried to downplay such fears by downgrading the radar of the F-16 and refusing to sell us the 1000 pound bombs needed to penetrate a nuclear reactors outer shell.The Pakistani Airchief refused to compromise on the radar and told the government that the F-16 was useless without its USAF radar and there was no point in buying it if the radar wasn’t the one the USAF used themselves.The US relented and kept the radar as it was (the F-15s sold to Saudi Arabia had the downgraded radar though). We never got the 1000 pound bombs though which was acceptable as Air Defence against Indian bombers and Soviet aircraft was the priority back then (especially over sensitive installations like Kahuta and Chashma which we feared would become the targets of a Osirak like strike).With the sale of the F-16s, suddenly the entire arsenal of the US military was potentially open to the Paks. So one can imagine how New Delhi was rattled when reports leaked that the Pakistan army was considering the purchase of M1Abrams tanks for its army as well.The same way Pakistan had freaked out over Bofors, the idea of M1 Abrams in the hands of the Pakistan army suddenly caused a flurry of scare mongering in Indian media. Scenarios of a second Operation Grand Slam and armored thrust towards Akhnur were drawn up. Other more fanciful ideas stemmed around the idea of a Sikh uprising in Punjab supported by Pakistani armored offensives, pushing first in a thrust outwards of the Sialkot sector and then swinging down for a pincer movement to trap Indian troops in the Punjab and avenging the 71 war etc.Yea I know. I think the Pakistanis were more surprised to hear about these plans to be honest.What was the end result of the entire episode?Literally nothing. The Pakistan Army muddled along, adding the occasional M48 Patton regiment or Chinese armor whenever they could afford it and focusing more on TOW anti tank weapons than anything.Turns out the Pakistanis had tried out the M1 Abrams but found it unsuitable for Pakistan. The Tank guzzled humongous amounts of fuel and would have drained the entire fuel supply for the Pakistani armored corp within a short while. The Pakistanis were hard pressed to stockpile enough fuel for 2–3 weeks of fighting, let alone armored thrusts into the Indian Punjab.Also, none of our bridges in the 80s could accommodate the weight and width of the M1 Abrams.A last story before we finish?I was lucky enough in my life to have met one of the Air Chiefs of the Pakistan Airforce at an event. This was back when Russia and Pakistan were undergoing a diplomatic thaw and Pakistan had begun its first forays into purchasing Russian hardware.A lot of our online forums had been speculating that Pakistan might purchase the Su-35 or something to replace the F-16 as the top of the line fighter jet for the PAF. Others speculated that it would be a European fighter like the Swedish Gripen instead.So here I was, lucky enough to meet the Chief of Air Staff back then. I asked him point blank whether there was any truth to the rumors of the PAF buying a Su-35 or Gripen or J-10 or ANYTHING really.He blinked in surprise.Apparently, all of the online theory crafting everyone had been doing about our next fighter aircraft was so far removed from the realities facing the Air Headquarters that my question surprised the ACM more than anything.He replied that the Airforce had no plans beyond upgrading and inducting incrementally improved blocks of the JF-17s and that the Airforce was quite happy with its performance and their needs were being met adequately.It was the M1 Abrams story all over again.People were speculating that some new technology advanced system would be inducted that would change the military balance and all that was happening was the Airforce was continuing to induct a standard workhorse (the JF-17) and slightly tweaking and improving the newer version Blocks.The F-16 wouldn’t be that easy to ditch. Decades had been spent building up its supporting eco system of training environments, maintenance and logistics supports, accompanying tactics and strategies. Armed forces don’t just throw out old systems like discarded tissue papers, there is an entire supporting network that needs to be overhauled using precious finite resources. Re-training all the ground crews to newer maintenance procedures alone would be hell.Also, the PAF has always supported a standardized force structure that’s built around a core of Top of the Line fighters performing advanced missions and with the best equipment supported by an outer shell of more mid-tier aircraft.This has been the standard model since the first armament campaigns of the 50s. A core of Top tier F-104s surrounded by an outer shell of F-86s.Sanctions and crippling resource shortages forced us to make do with whatever we had which is why we had 5–6 different fighter types by the 90s. But even in the 90s when the first Sabre 2 and Super Sabre plans were drawn up (predecessors of the Jf-17 program), the PAF’s long term vision was for a core of 100 F-16s surrounded by 200–400 JF-17s.It’s why the PAF ordered 12 F-16 B trainer aircraft in the first batch of 40 F-16s. 12 is a LOT of trainer aircraft for such a small batch, normally you’d get 4 F-16 B trainers for 36 F-16 A fighters. 12 only makes sense if your long-term plan is for 100 F-16s. Again, sanctions played havoc with that long-term plan.Currently, the PAF seems to have been locked into the F-16 by force of momentum, having invested too much into its infrastructure and maintenance to switch out that easily. We even imported special communication links and technology to allow our Western F-16s to collaborate with our Chinese AWACs.The only 2 contender aircraft that could have been inducted were the J-10s and the Swedish Grippens. The J-10’s induction would present an immense challenge to maintenance and logistical network of the PAF and to invest in such a maintenance channel for only 2 squadrons is not worth it for now. It only seems feasible if the supply lines for F-16 parts are threatened in a permanent manner.Despite our turn down in relations with US and their refusal to subsidize further F-16 sales, our logistical channels with the US are still open and spares/upgradation coming through. Alternative sources like Turkey are also opening up for our F-16 program in terms of upgradation and mid life upgrades.The Gripen purchase was heavily pursued at the time of the SAAB Eyerie purchase as the Gripen had the incredible ability to switch their radars off during Air Defense and rely on the Eyerie AEW platforms alone for interception and i think even missile guidance, making the Gripen aircraft very difficult to detect on radar in the meantime. The USAF F-15s and their AWACS have a similar capability. But again, that sale never went through due to logistical and maintenance costs.The F-16 and JF-17 alone are currently meeting the entire spectrum of the PAF’s requirements and doing so in a very optimized and cost-efficient maintenance and logistical framework. Why would anyone buy J-10s or Gripens, both mid weight TFL fighters when their capabilities already exist within the PAF is anyone’s guess. I would honestly look more closely at the combat drone program of Pakistan. Those Burraq UCAVs sure look like they could carry a few air to air missiles…The only online resource I’ve found that closely matches what my short talk with the Air Chief covered is this surprisingly excellent piece by Quwa:Analysis: Pakistan’s Fighter Modernization Roadmap (Part-1)QUWA’s reports on the Eyerie’s repair after the Kamra airbase attacks are also almost word for word what I’ve heard from top Airforce officials and I’m surprised at the excellent quality of their reporting. They are the only news source I would trust (I wonder who their sources are?). I have a good story about how the last Eyerie was repaired after the Kamra Airbase attack and will post it if I can find a matching question for it.For other references, Fizaya: Psyche of the Pakistan Airforce by Ravi Rikhe is a must read.My own time in service.The final nail in the coffin.It’s a mix between big-think questions and the politics of the organization.Big thinks:Who is willing to supply us?Is it sanction proof?Do we get tech transfers and training and maintenance support for a couple of years?Which country should we buy from and why is it China?Did we import a previous version before we have some familiarity with?Is it part of an integrated, pre-existing system?What’s our history of usage?Whats the current doctrine stemming from GHQ regarding procurement?Whose in control of the country at the moment?Whats the state of foreign relations?Who got bribed and by how much?And then of course, the politics.What’s the state of the civil-military tussle in the organization? Who’s at the top? Are they of good repute with their bosses in the GHQ and will they be staying on or are they getting booted soon? Who’s heading the procurement office right now? Whose heading central right now? Who’s heading the land-based segment recommendations?The weight of past decisions long decided before any of us even signed up and the flutter of miniscule but plenty decisions being made at the bottom drove organizational procurement. Several of our top brass inherited files and projects that had been dreamed up in the 1980s and were still in play. We’ve seen projects with life times stretching into the 2040s.One insider look into the bureaucratic, dull nature of paper-pushing military procurement is enough to dampen the heart and soul of every young lad banging on his keyboard about the PAF buying the J-20 stealth aircraft or Su-35 or whatever.References:Richard Rinaldi, Ravi Rikhye: Amazon.in: BooksFiza'ya

As other real estate agents have posted, it comes down to whether you had a formal buyer’s agent agreement with that agent. If you did, it isn’t a matter of etiquette. You have a contract. Unless there is a clause added to the contract that exempted certain properties, you agreed that any house purchased during the term of that contract was covered by the contract, regardless of whether that agent actually found the property for you.If you didn’t have a buyer’s agency agreement with that agent, then sure… go ahead and tell them. It will help them understand the importance of getting one signed with future buyers.If you have a buyer’s agency agreement in place, no matter how nicely you inform the agent of your private sale, you are informing them of a bsignNow of contract. You owe them commission. So, it’s probably best to avoid telling them at all.If you had informed your agent up front, that you are potentially negotiating a private sale, but the seller isn’t willing to pay any commission, your position could be quite different. Many agencies might simply let you out of the agency agreement. But if you don’t tell them until after closing… well… good luck.Perhaps as importantly, you are missing out on important services that they could have provided you at no cost to you, and that you may regret not receiving.If you saw a private sale opportunity (say on zillow), and you were interested in that property, you should have contacted your agent and had them arrange it for you. This process would vary by state, but in general, they would contact the seller, and work out a Right to Show agreement with them. That agreement would allow the agent to represent you, as per your buyer’s agent agreement. It would allow the seller to pay a buyer’s agent side commission only. Most “For Sale By Owner” sellers are happy to do this, because they are still paying only half of the usual commission.The result of this would be that you - as the buyer, retain all of the benefits of agent representation, and the seller still pays for it. The seller meanwhile, has essentially forgone their own right to representation as they didn’t list the house with an agent. So they ostensibly saved some money, but they have also put themselves in the position of an amateur dealing with someone represented by a professional. That may end up costing them in the end, but of course, that’s not your problem.There is a common misconception that the work of a real estate agent stops when the contract is signed. This is sooooo not true. Finding you the right property is a small part of what the buyer’s agent does. Especially for the buyer’s agent, the work truly begins when the contract is signed. If you have a professional agent, they will be doing all kinds of legwork on your behalf to ensure that the deal closes smoothly and your rights are protected. Here are just some of the things they should do on your behalf:Making sure you use state approved real estate contracts. These help protect your rights as a buyer.Helping you understand 100% of the contract to purchase. There are a lot of gotchas here. Your agent has been (or should have been) trained to make sure you understand every part of that.Helping you to understand the process of buying the house, the importance of getting a home inspected, what to expect in the loan process, etc.Making sure you stay on top of deadlines for inspections, getting homeowner’s insurance in place, applying for loans, filing addendums, etc. This helps to ensure you don’t forfeit rights or lose the contract altogether.Helping you to review the inspection report, and request necessary repairs.Ensuring that closing date modifications are requested, if something causes the date to change. This happens often with delays in getting loan appraisals done, especially when a government guaranteed loan is involved (FHA, RD, VA, etc.).Helping you avoid pitfalls with local ordinances that may result in extra costs to you after closing. There are sometimes upgrades that an existing owner is grandfathered from that a new owner may have to perform. Your real estate agent should be helping you navigate through those, if necessary.By going around your agent, you lost out on all that. You had to go it alone in the transaction. Maybe you did it all right. Then again, you may realize a year or so down the road that you have problems a real estate agent could have helped you avoid. On top of all that, you may end up having to pay for it.

A single-word answer would be Power but I’ll try to explain the controversy in as simple manner as possible. But it will be a long answer with the recent Lok Sabha debate (02/01/19) of Shri Rahul Gandhi.Rafale Deal Controversy is related with the purchase of 36 multirole fighter aircraft for the price of Rs 58,000 crore by Ministry of Defence from Dassault Aviation.TimelineJan 31, 2012: Indian Defence Ministry announced Dassault Rafale had won the MMRCA competition to supply Indian Air Force (IAF) with 126 aircraft along with an option for 63 additional aircraft. Rafale was chosen as the lo...

If you know what you are looking for the first thing you notice soon after you cross from one to the other by much the busiest crossing, the M6/West Coast Mail Line at Gretna, is a subtle difference in the pattern of fields. Each country’s agricultural practices were established while they were independent of each other. It’s hard to describe in words; you just know.What else even as you are travelling north? Not so much now that the motorway is continuous from Gretna to Glasgow but when the road was the old A74 there was a difference in road signage: the signs for a turn-off to a by-passed...

By remaining in the customs union.Labour are now committed to EU customs union membership. They have used wording which allows them to hold contradictory positions. Just like the Conservative government’s “frictionless trade” with the EU while having an independent trading policy.Turkey’s customs union agreement provides an unsatisfactory comparison. It only covers goods but not agriculture, services and public procurement. And it’s asymmetrical, with EU free trade deals with the third party countries also applying to Turkey. Crucially, the Turkish deal was agreed in anticipation of future EU membership.Labour will need to clarify how their proposal would work. But the solution would be for the UK to sign a treaty retaining customs membership exactly as it is now. Nothing changes and Labour’s proposal would meet international acceptance on the issue of the island or Ireland border.Voters now have a choice and Theresa May has another Brexit headache.For those who want a Brexit with a customs union, Labour appear to be the party of a choice. There’s now the possibility of a cross party parliamentary majority for customs union membership. Which explains why Mrs May has postponed a Commons vote on the subject by two months.But the government’s biggest problem is credibility at the EU negotiating table. Any British ministerial proposals on taking the UK out of the customs union is unlikely to be taken seriously by the rest of the EU and could be rejected by by the UK parliament.The Conservatives government’s insistence on combining both Brexit itself and the manner of Brexit’s terms into a single process, is leaving them exposed to domestic divisions, fewer options and increasingly tricky project delivery.Today’s announcement is the first step by Labour in distancing themselves from a increasingly troubled, troubling and troublesome undertaken.

Everybody has their own unique reason and purpose, we are are all unique. This is not like a group of people would be made miserable for us to learn anything. That would be a horrible thing if somebody would be forced to be ill or miserable to teach other people. People become ill or damaged because of the imperfection of our world.We are all here to explore and find who we are. Narcissist don’t know who they are. They real self was imprisoned by their false self. Their defence mechanism took over the real self. If anything…I think their purpose might be to free their self and find out who they really are. But that would still be a generalisation and would not work for all people with NPD. What they can teach us? They can teach us how it’s important to love your children and be kind to them so they don’t end up with a personality disorder. They can teach us that we still have to work to improve the world and find a way to help all people, including those with NPD. During our life path we can meet many different people that can give us a personal lesson. But this always works both ways. You learn something from the interaction with the person and they learn something too. This is never one sided.How we see the world is mainly defined by what we have inside. If you have unconditional love and compassion inside you, you won’t see the world as cold and indifferent place. Of course we are just humans and when we are hurt, abused, unhappy, ill, miserable, we might have no love inside or our love is very far from unconditional. I believe that the emptiness narcissists experience is caused by lack of love. They have no love for themselves and for others. Emptiness is lack, something that is missing. Idealization is not love. Love is compassionate.There's is an interesting spiritual idea that states that our souls choose the lessons they have to learn during each lifetime. According to the idea we all chose our hardships ourselves and we do this for our own soul evolution. But then of course while inside our physical bodies we don’t remember anything outside of this certain lifetime. But in-between lifetimes we must have the ability to remember all our experiences, otherwise it would be pointless. I don’t know if I believe in this, I’m rather an agnostic by nature, which means I see multiple possibilities and I can accept some of them unless I have a good proof that it can’t be true. But I do like the idea. It gives a hope that even those of us who never got a chance to live a happy and fulfilling life (and, unfortunately, there are millions of such people) don’t disappear in eternity and continue their path somewhere else.

Mandi, hello, thanks for your A2A.Due to their singular focus and one track mindedness, narcissists, at times, seem more reptilian than mammalian in nature.The Reptilian/Primitive BrainReptiles live instinctually from moment to moment. Whenever a reptile's instinctual drive pings its primitive reptilian brain, the reptile engages in whatever behavior the ping kicks off.The totality of the reptile's "brain power" is devoted to a reptiles fulfilling its primal base level functions such as.....•eating•drinking•procreating•turf protectingThe reptile never thinks let alone -- reflects on its behavior. Reptiles are in essence automatons with a heart and a nervous system. Reptiles do not think, they just do ---Reptilian Behavioral CharacteristicsReptiles.....•are driven by instinct•live moment to moment•do not indulge in executive functions/complex thinking•are formidable predators•devote virtually all their life energy to the fulfillment of their primal-basic needsIn many ways just as the reptilian brain provides the requisite brain power for reptiles to fulfill their instinctual primal needs, the narcissist similarly engages the reptilian portion of his or her brain regarding the fulfillment of the narcissist's base functions.For lack of a more suitable descriptor, a narcissist's behavior could aptly be designated "narctilian" in nature.Many Narcissists Seemingly Have Reptilian BehaviorsOne reason why some narcissists strike me as having some kind of kinship or connection with reptiles concerns how reptiles devote virtually all of their energy doing what reptiles do best-- predation and procreation.The Narcissist's Preoccupation with Attention ProcurementThe narcissist is not inclined to partake in activities that are not related to his or her be all and end all preoccupation with --- getting a adrenaline high during the pursuit and capture of self-esteem regulating supply, also known as ---attention.In other words, just as reptiles live from moment to moment in order to be fulfill their instinctual drives, narcissists seem to be perpetually on autopilot and virtually all of their life energy is focused on and devoted to supply procurement.Attention is as Important to Narcissists as Oxygen is as Integral to NTs SurvivalIt may be hard for neurotypicals (NTs) to appreciate how all encompassing obtaining attention is to a narcissist. Suffice it to say that supply is as important to narcissists as oxygen is to NTs.Narcissist's are not inclined to emphasize this aspect of their reality as they likely believe such information would somehow be a sign of...•vulnerability•weakness•emotional dependenceReptiles.....•are driven by instinct•live moment to moment•do not indulge executive functions/complex thinking•devote virtually all their life energy to the fulfillment of their primal needs•are Mother Nature's apex predators•prominent features of disposition and demeanor are…••jet black lifeless eyes••a malevolent deadpan look••a deep penetrating stare••muted facial expressions without the slightest hint of animation"Narctiles" too are formidable "supply procurement predators." Once either a shiny object or a prospective signNow other (ProSO) enters the narctile's field of vision, the narctilian brain kicks off a procurement protocol which is manifested by the narctile's penetrating stare."Narctilian" Behavioral CharacteristicsThe narctile.....•puts a premium on not wasting an iota of emotional energy on activities unrelated to attention procurement•is perpetually on “auto-pilot”•lives solely “in the now” — from moment to moment•does not consider desisting from engaging in reckless behaviors that had previously caused signNow wreckage•does not consider future consequences before impulsively acting out.•instant gratification trumps all other considerations•does not consider the emotions and feelings of others before doing whatever whenever•does not consider ethical implications of his or her actions•does not consider issues pertaining to moralityNarctililian Adages on Right Living•"If it feels good, do it!"•"It's a dog eat dog world -- so get as much as you can, as fast as you can."•"The ends justify the means"•"I was screwed over and abused so why should I not inflict the same damage my SO?"•"I take Nike's attitude when it comes to my hurting a SO who has been nothing but good to me -- I just do it."•"My misery loves my SO's company."•"If you need to make a splash to get ahead, who cares if people drown in the process -- poor suckers were in the wrong place at the wrong time!"•"Winning is not everything -- aside from exerting power and control, it's the only thing!"•"True happiness is found on the Dark Triad side of life."•"When it comes to the fulfillment of my needs--- I do so by any means necessary."The Narctile's Primary Life DirectiveThe Narctile does what he or she wants whenever the narctile wants to do it with whomever the narctile want to do it with.If a SO does anything that intrudes on the aforementioned directive, the narctile will deem the SO as being all bad.Thereafter, the SO will be summarily dispatched from the narctile's reality regardless of a history that speaks to a SO not only doing only good by the narctile but also (regardless of inconvenience or hardship) never forsaking the narctile.ConclusionBoth the reptile and narcissist appear to rely on their reptilian primitive brains when it comes it comes to fulfilling base life functions.•Anecdotal evidence supports the contention that the narcissist does not engage in complex thinking that is associated with one's prefrontal cortex.•Just as a snakes have no feelings or complex thoughts relating to the mouse it strangles and then devours, the narctile apparently does not have sentiments or thoughts akin to.....••"Maybe I should not have hooked up with my SO's good friend because on some level it's immoral. Come to think of it if my SO did that to me I would be devastated."••"I think I had an ethical lapse when I told my SO I was loyal to one SO at a time while in reality I was really sucking up to five different prospective SOs in order to see who would give me the best deal."••"If I am honest with myself, maybe it's wrong to pathologically lie to someone at every turn. If I knew somebody lied to me as much as I lie to my loved ones, I would feel like sh*t. Come to think of it , my sh*tty behavior lacks any semblance of integrity or right action. Perhaps, it would behoove me treat others the way I expect to be treated."••"Come to think of it, it was really cold of me to never have thanked my SO for giving me that really nice heartfelt gift which I pawned a few days later. Just thinking about my frighteningly callous behavior makes me feel a really terrible blend of negative emotions."••"I always cognitively knew that what I did behind my SO's back was wrong. Worse yet rather rather than own up to my cowardly and immoral actions, I simply picked a fight with my SO in order to foist the blame for my despicable and deplorable behavior on him or her.Now I am awash in guilt as well as thoughts about my lack of conscience and immoral behavior. I think I better try to do right by him or her because I know there is such a thing as karma so as of this moment I am basically f**ked."