How RJF and his probable psychiatric
problems got into this thread
is beyond me.

My point was to treat words with a due care,
to make a clear distinction between the two
words which unfortunately are confused in a
sloppy way: patriotism and nationalism.

(Of course, beside the patriots, nationalists
and chauvinists there are also plain idiots
like "anti-zionists", who tend to be prejudiced
mainly due to their cretinism rather than say
phiny "socialism", phony "liberalism", ...).

Wlod

..
No, I did not fail to notice the criticism of the chess community. But I
stand by my earlier assessment: IMO, Phil brings up "crimes" committed by the
USCF or others in order to justify or rationalize or minimize, the "crime" of
Fischer.
Sorry, but any actions by others can only be used to place Fischer's own
actions into perspective. They should not be used to justify, rationalize, or
excuse his actions. Doing that brings us right back to the title of this
thread.

Bobby could have played chess for big money anywhere, and at virtually any
time he wanted. But he *chose* to play when and where he did -- hence,
culpability.


Now it would seem that Fischer may fall into the hands of the U.S.
government, and many are assertting that we should all support him as some kind
of innocent victim of Big Brother, gone crazy with power.
But this is not really what happenned. Big Brother held back the big guns,
and utilized a wimpy economic embargo instead, which Bobby deliberately
ignored, calculating that he would be immune by staying just out of Uncle Sam's
reach.
Now it seems the long arm of the Law has caught our hero offguard, and his
gambit is about to be refuted, OTB. I sympathise, but I cannot just pretend
he did no wrong.




that no clinical opinion is worthwhile if the shrink cannot declare himself
disinterested from the result.


I do not regard Dr. Fine's examination or
credentials as sufficient proof of expertise in assessing such a "weirdo" as
Fischer. These book-learned shrinks try to classify people into neat,
predetermined pegholes -- a system better designed for sorting mail, not human
beings.

..
How RJF and his probable psychiatric
problems got into this thread
is beyond me.


IMO, the Fischer case is related to the title of this thread. Examine the
reactions of a typical American poster here and you will invariably find a
blinding pro-Fischer bias which has its roots firmly planted in one (or more)
of those three terms.



(Of course, beside the patriots, nationalists
and chauvinists there are also plain idiots
like "anti-zionists", who tend to be prejudiced
mainly due to their cretinism


Hmm -- if dullards are going to resort to puerrile name-calling, why not get
in three cheap shots instead of only one? Anti-zionists are then: idiots,
prejudiced, and cretinous, which clearly explains why they don't always agree
with the opinions of the sharp-witted,
triple-barrelled namecallers, like Wlod.



My point was to treat words with a due care,
to make a clear distinction between


"Due care" would seem to rule out the use of puerrile namecalling, IMO -- you
moron. :-)

On 18 Jul 2004 21:29:21 -0700, (Wlodzimierz
Holsztynski) wrote:

How RJF and his probable psychiatric
problems got into this thread
is beyond me.

My point was to treat words with a due care,
to make a clear distinction between the two
words which unfortunately are confused in a
sloppy way: patriotism and nationalism.

You have redefined the common meaning of the word 'patriotism' to suit
your purpose. I don't think that makes much sense. Of course, the
underlying emotion is a positive one: It causes individuals to take
risks in order to protect their clan. The negative effects of this
emotion are a result of its transfer to a large, abstract entity,
namely the nation, the country, the fatherland to which the individual
belongs. Patriotism is an essential ingredient of war.

Jürgen


(Of course, beside the patriots, nationalists
and chauvinists there are also plain idiots
like "anti-zionists", who tend to be prejudiced
mainly due to their cretinism rather than say
phiny "socialism", phony "liberalism", ...).

Wlod

"Jürgen R." wrote in message ...

You have redefined the common meaning of the word 'patriotism' to suit
your purpose. I don't think that makes much sense. Of course, the
underlying emotion is a positive one: It causes individuals to take
risks in order to protect their clan. The negative effects of this
emotion are a result of its transfer to a large, abstract entity,
namely the nation, the country, the fatherland to which the individual
belongs. Patriotism is an essential ingredient of war.

When there was no state of Israel some racists like e.g Goebbels spread
racial hatred directed against Jews accusing them of "cosmopolitism". Now
when Jews have their own country Israel, some people spread racial hatred
directed against Jews accusing them of "zionism".

Regards,
Jerzy

(Wlodzimierz Holsztynski) wrote in message . com...
snip

Patriotism, nationalism, chauvinism

Patriotism cf Nationalism is a distinction worth drawing

Patriotism
----------

Patriotism is a positive, constructive feeling and
attitude. A patriot is a person, who wishes everybody,
hence every country, every nation, every ethniv group
well. A patriot devotes her/his efforts mostly to
"her/his" country since it is the country which s/he
knows well, including the people, the language, the
culture, the political situation... where perhaps the
ancestors were buried. But patriot will be happy to
contribute to the wellbeing of any group of people,
not necessarily of her/his own country.

Since patriotism is a positive notion, one can be
a patriot of more than one country.

This seems a very loose and generous interpretation of patriotism and
the concluding sentence just plain wrong.

Maybe I'm against patriotism because my country is so spineless: if I
lived somewhere with something to be proud of then maybe I would feel
patriotic but AISI political argument tends to go from effect to cause
in an attempt to justify an agenda that has its origins elsewhere. Why
should I be any different?

Patriotism just makes no sense whatsoever. Walking round the richer
parts of, say, London: Mayfair, Kensington and the like, and seeing
the people there ISTM that I, and they, have far more in common with
people of a similar social class in another country.

AIUI historically the nation state is an impermanent feature of
political life. It's here today but it will be gone tomorrow. The
tribal instinct will remain.

Do I hate my country? I'm nine tenths of the way there and this seems
the only reasonable response to the way life is lived here. Give me
the chance (I reckon it would take about £10 000) and I would be off
like a shot. This seems like a completely reasonable pov. In the
circumstances patriotism would be insane.

My country right or wrong? Wrong.

cheers

dd

"DDEckerslyke" wrote in message
m...
(Wlodzimierz Holsztynski) wrote in message
. com...
snip

Patriotism, nationalism, chauvinism

Patriotism cf Nationalism is a distinction worth drawing

Tree. So is criminality and illegality.

Patriotism
snip

Since patriotism is a positive notion, one can be
a patriot of more than one country.

This seems a very loose and generous interpretation of patriotism and
the concluding sentence just plain wrong.

I don't know if the original writer was citing anyone, but he could have
been citing Mark Twain/Samuel Clemens, who said that he couldn't love his
own country unless he also loved other countries.

I wonder if that is a point that everyone can agree upon?

Cordially, Phil Innes

Maybe I'm against patriotism because my country is so spineless: if I
lived somewhere with something to be proud of then maybe I would feel
patriotic but AISI political argument tends to go from effect to cause
in an attempt to justify an agenda that has its origins elsewhere. Why
should I be any different?

Patriotism just makes no sense whatsoever. Walking round the richer
parts of, say, London: Mayfair, Kensington and the like, and seeing
the people there ISTM that I, and they, have far more in common with
people of a similar social class in another country.

AIUI historically the nation state is an impermanent feature of
political life. It's here today but it will be gone tomorrow. The
tribal instinct will remain.

Do I hate my country? I'm nine tenths of the way there and this seems
the only reasonable response to the way life is lived here. Give me
the chance (I reckon it would take about £10 000) and I would be off
like a shot. This seems like a completely reasonable pov. In the
circumstances patriotism would be insane.

My country right or wrong? Wrong.

cheers

dd

(DDEckerslyke) wrote in message om...

(Wlodzimierz Holsztynski) wrote in message . com...
snip

Patriotism, nationalism, chauvinism

Patriotism cf Nationalism is a distinction worth drawing

Patriotism
----------

Patriotism is a positive, constructive feeling and
attitude. A patriot is a person, who wishes everybody,
hence every country, every nation, every ethniv group
well. A patriot devotes her/his efforts mostly to
"her/his" country since it is the country which s/he
knows well, including the people, the language, the
culture, the political situation... where perhaps the
ancestors were buried. But patriot will be happy to
contribute to the wellbeing of any group of people,
not necessarily of her/his own country.

Since patriotism is a positive notion, one can be
a patriot of more than one country.

This seems a very loose and generous
interpretation of patriotism and
the concluding sentence just plain wrong.

Is plain right. Use Google and your local
bookstores and libraries. Read Josephs Brodsky's
biography and first of all his poems. Read about
Ignacy (Ignacio) Domeyko, about Tadeusz Kosciuszko...
or, going back to our chess neighborhood, check
on Mieczyslaw (Miguel) Najdorf.

Some issues were mentioned in this threat, which
I'd addressed in my articles in the past, especially
the difference between the "abstract" notion of the
"fatherland" by nationalists and the human notion
of their country by patriots. Recently a great man has
died in Poland, Jacek Kuron. He was a man of action
and a social thinker, pragmatic too. He didn't quite
verbalize to the end his profound insight but he
was very close, he practiced it too--it has three parts:
education, charity and compromise. Replace "compromise"
with "the art of agreeing" (or "the art of agreements")
-- which goes still further -- and you have it.

Wlod

"Jerzy" wrote:
"Jürgen R." wrote (to Wlodzimierz Holsztynski):
You have redefined the common meaning of the word 'patriotism'
to suit your purpose. I don't think that makes much sense.

But 'redefin(ing) the common meaning' of words could be useful for propaganda.

Of course, the underlying emotion is a positive one: It causes individuals
to take risks in order to protect their clan. The negative effects of this
emotion are a result of its transfer to a large, abstract entity,
namely the nation, the country, the fatherland to which the individual
belongs. Patriotism is an essential ingredient of war.

'Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.'
--Samuel Johnson (7 April 1775)

'Patriotism is not enough. I must have no hatred or bitterness towards anyone.'
--Edith Cavell (1915, shortly before her execution by the Germans)

When there was no state of Israel some racists like e.g Goebbels spread
racial hatred directed against Jews accusing them of "cosmopolitism".

By the way, Jerzy Ciruk's photograph (at ChessBase) shows him to be a
white European. I happen to *appear* much less than Jerzy Ciruk to be
like a Nazi 'superman' and much more like a 'subhuman' as perceived by
by some racists here.

Now when Jews have their own country Israel,

Does Jerzy Ciruk believe that the state of Israel should be *only* for Jews?
Would Jerzy Ciruk support 'transfer', the right-wing Israeli euphemism for
the proposed forcible mass expulsion of the Palestinians?

Many citizens of Israel (such as Arabs and Druze) are *not* Jewish.
The state of Israel *does* have many laws and policies that discriminate
against its non-Jewish residents, including its non-Jewish citizens.
That fact is common knowledge in Israel, but it tends to be *not* reported
widely in, for example, the 'mainstream' United States media.

some people spread racial hatred directed against Jews accusing them
of "zionism".

I already have explained this to Jerzy Ciruk many times, but he continues
to reiterate his deliberately ignorant or dishonest nonsense.

Being a Jew is *not* the same as being a Zionist.
There are some Jews (including some of my friends) who are *not* Zionists.
There are some Zionists (such as evangelical Christians in the United States)
who are *not* Jewish.

Again, Jerzy Ciruk evidently insists *wrongly* on equating opposing Zionism,
or even criticising the state of Israel for its oppression of the Palestinians,
with being anti-Semitic or having a 'racial hatred' of all Jews.

Why does Jerzy Ciruk evidently continue to insist that there must be one
Jewish 'race'? That does sound like a claim reiterated by Nazi propaganda.
Does Jerzy Ciruk know (I already have told him) that the Jewish people
could be of quite diverse evident 'racial' origins (such as Ethiopian Jews,
Chinese Jews, etc.)?

Again, Jerzy Ciruk evidently *dishonestly* refuses to acknowledge the fact
that there are some Jews, even including some citizens of Israel, who oppose
or are quite critical of Zionism. I personally know some Jews who consider
themselves 'anti-Zionist'. Indeed, some Israeli Jews (such as the eminent
historians, Ilan Pappe and Avi Shlaim) even support some kinds of international
boycott against the state of Israel today.

"*Looking at Zionism without taboos means seeing the hard reality of the
domination and oppression it has created.* Out of the original sins of the
world against the Jews grew the original sins of Zionism against the
Palestinians. The issues are often raised through a counting and recounting
of massacres and victims on both sides. The problem is one of principles,
not atrocities. Even if nobody died, *there is something wrong with Zionist
principles.* The problem is a moral one. Raising the moral question is not
a mark of idealism but of realism.
....
*Admitting the injustice done to the Palestinians is so terrifying that
Israelis will try to avoid it at all costs.* Their feeling is that if they
admit any guilt, they will be punished severely and mortally, as the magnitude
of their crime warrants. They are afraid of the natives' wish for revenge.
*But there will be no reconciliation without an open admission of the basic
injustice involved in Zionism.*"

--Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi (Original Sins: Reflections on the History of Zionism
and Israel)

Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi (whom I have met; yes, he's Jewish) is a professor
at Haifa University in Israel.

Would Jerzy Ciruk like to denounce Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi for being an
anti-Jewish racist because he has dared to assert that there *is*
'basic injustice involved in Zionism'?

Here's an article, "I would have done the same", by Yitzhak Frankenthal
in 'The Guardian' (7 August 2002):

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/st...770326,00.html

Yitzhak Frankenthal is an Israeli Jew whose son, Arik, a soldier in the
Israel Defence Force, was killed on 7 July 1994 by members of Hamas.

"Had I myself been born into the political and ethical chaos that is the
Palestinians' daily reality, I would certainly have tried to kill and hurt the
occupier (Israel); had I not, I would have betrayed my essence as a free man.
Let all of the self-righteous who speak of ruthless Palestinian murderers take
a hard look into the mirror and ask themselves what they would have done had
they been the ones living under (Israeli) occupation. *I can say for myself
that I, Yitzhak Frakenthal, would undoubtedly have become a freedom fighter
and would have killed as many on the other side as I possibly could.*
It is this depraved hypocrisy that pushes the Palestinians to fight us
relentlessly--our (Israel's) double standard that allows us to boast the
highest military ethics while the same military slays innocent children.
This lack of ethics is bound to corrupt us.

My son Arik was murdered when he was a soldier by Palestinian fighters who
believed in the ethical basis of their struggle against the occupation.
*My son Arik was not murdered because he was Jewish but because he is part
of the nation that occupies the territory of another.* I know these are
concepts that are unpalatable, but I must voice them loud and clear, because
they come from my heart--the heart of a father whose son did not get to live
because his people were blinded with power.

As much as I would like to do so, I cannot say that the Palestinians are to
blame for my son's death. That would be the easy wa out, but it is we,
Israelis, who are to blame because of the occupation. Anyone who refuses to
heed this awful truth will eventually lead to our destruction."

--Yitzhak Frankenthal (27 July 2002, from his speech in Jerusalem)

Would Jerzy Ciruk like to denounce Yitzhak Frankenthal for being an
anti-Jewish racist because Yitzhak Frankenthal has dared to express his
understanding of and sympathy for the Palestinian resistance to Israel?

For further reading:
"The Other Israel: Voices of Refusal and Dissent"
edited by Roane Carey and Jonathan Shainin (with a foreword by Tom Segev)

Although I expect that he would refuse to read that book, would Jerzy Ciruk
like to denounce the Jewish writers of "The Other Israel: Voices of Refusal
and Dissent" for being anti-Jewish racists?

As usual, it seems much easier for Jerzy Ciruk to continue making his
unwarranted accusations of anti-Jewish racism than for him to make any
reasoned arguments, citing specific evidence, to support his opinions
in favour of the state of Israel and, evidently, its policies against
the Palestinians.

--Nick

Jerzy wrote:

"Jürgen R." wrote in message ...

You have redefined the common meaning of the word 'patriotism' to suit
your purpose. I don't think that makes much sense. Of course, the
underlying emotion is a positive one: It causes individuals to take
risks in order to protect their clan. The negative effects of this
emotion are a result of its transfer to a large, abstract entity,
namely the nation, the country, the fatherland to which the individual
belongs. Patriotism is an essential ingredient of war.

When there was no state of Israel some racists like e.g Goebbels spread
racial hatred directed against Jews accusing them of "cosmopolitism". Now
when Jews have their own country Israel, some people spread racial hatred
directed against Jews accusing them of "zionism".

Regards,
Jerzy

Gobbles was a proper goose, I can hear him now - gobble, gobble, gobble
'rat' gobble, gobble, gobble 'vermin' gobble, gobble, gobble 'filth'
etc. In those early days of media mass-manipulation the un-free German
nation were subjected 24/7 to gobble radio..