Preface: I had written a long article along the
lines below in 1980 but it got... censored.
I've published a short verion of it some
twelve to sixteen years later in an emag
"Spojrzenia". I like a good usage of words,
so that words are not wasted.

----------------------------------------------


Wlodzimierz Holsztynski,


Patriotism, nationalism, chauvinism
===================================

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.

Nationalism
-----------

Nationalism is egoistic. A nationalist, like a patriot,
loves her/his own country but doesn't care about the
rest of the world. Thus a nationalist, in a contrast
to a patriot, would gladly accept or promote an action
which seems to benefit her/his country, even at the
expense of another. Here a patriot and a nationalist
differ in their understanding of what is good for
their country. In patriots' view an action which
harms another country is also to a disadvantage,
not to the advantage, of their own country. The
nationalists and the patriots differ fundamentally
in their view on their nation interest. This causes
the public many misunderstandings, because the
two groups use the same words with drastically
different meanings.

Thus one may be a patriot of two and more different
countries but one cannot be a nationalist of more than
one country.

Chauvinism
----------

Chauvinism is a radical form of nationalism.
While nationalists understand the national
interest in an egoistic (thus often harmful)
way, the chauvinists equate "patriotism"
with the *hate* for other countries, nationalities,
ethnic groups, races, religions. While a nationalist
would hurt others "accidentally", a chauvinist
would do it on purpose, would consider it her/his
"patriotic contribution and duty".

==========

Regards,

Wlod

Wlod, I see you avoid the usual routine

I note that elsewhere people diagnose 'mental illness'. I would say that RJF
is instead emotionally wounded and his views predictably reactive when
confronted with the perceived cause of his wound.

Of course, this will not deter the chess commuity from a real mental
illness; proscribing for a subject personally unknown to them clinical terms
which they do not understand, and for which they have the slightest
qualifications to pronounce.

The 'better' sort of posters here have avoided inflammatory talk and
restrict themselves to legal issue and tokenism [cigars] and the 1,2,3
process of; Distant Indictment, Political Trial, Gulag.

________
Many people do not appear to understand what chess is. It is a ritual
conflict such as cultures employ and actually encourage to offset dangerous
aggressive instincts such as real wars. People might read Konrad Lorenz, On
Aggression.

A few years ago the whole world reported on a little ice-island in the
Atlantic and 2 people playing chess there during a much bigger war, the Cold
War, when their parent continents threatened each other for 50 years with
global thermonuclear warfare and mutually assured destruction.

It is instructive to read 'Bobby Fischer Goes To War' then attempt to
separate the contestants from their respective warring parano cultures.

Then, what Fischer and Spassky achieved was more than all the politicos put
together, they achieved a meeting!

Not that politics took any part in the American side of these proceedings
either, beyond patriotic public speeches on the superiority of American
spirit by President Nixon, and a couple of direct re-inforcing nationalistic
calls on the same theme from H. Kissinger.

What would anyone here understand of the effect of becoming a world icon
amid a world living in fear of it's very existance?

Fischer has evidently taken on a Plutonic, dark and despicable role we dared
not own in ourselves. Of course, to venture in these realms stirs up all the
dregs which are not polite to mention or usually publicly avowable. Equally
evidently he has not got threw his ordeal ~ no Dostoyevski him! He has not
got through a realm of projecting these dregs from the bottom of his psyche
onto other people, the same as with Dostovevski, Jews in both cases.

Perhaps what is most frightening to everyone is the potential that they too
could be exposed to some meta~world event which shakes them to their core,
then they will have to explore their own Underground.

Meanwhile we have only read of Fischer-as-icon, not Fischer as human being.

Phil Innes

"Chess One" wrote ...

Fischer has evidently taken on a Plutonic, dark and despicable role we
dared
not own in ourselves. Of course, to venture in these realms stirs up all
the
dregs which are not polite to mention or usually publicly avowable.
Equally
evidently he has not got threw his ordeal ~ no Dostoyevski him! He has not
got through a realm of projecting these dregs from the bottom of his
psyche
onto other people, the same as with Dostovevski, Jews in both cases.

Phil Innes

C'mon, Phil, cut the crap. Fischer is a nut with despicable views and we all
know it.

Tim Hanke

Fischer has evidently taken on a Plutonic, dark and despicable role we
dared not own in ourselves.

Um., excuse me....that's MY role, here on this board. Just for the record...

The Masked Bishop

"Tim Hanke" wrote in message
newsWeKc.101247$MB3.86106@attbi_s04...
C'mon, Phil, cut the crap. Fischer is a nut with despicable views and we
all
know it.

C'mon Tim, cut the point. You are no authority on who is a nut, or have you
taken on this ex-official role at USCF? Please to say your credentials, or
is 'nut' just someone who is not so squeaky clean any more? Like whom for
example?

On the other hand USCF traded with the enemy to the tune of $300,000 worth
of informants, no? Why not mention it yourself?

Heuch! Would you leave a man on the field Tim, even though he is injured, or
'nuts' because of shelling?

You tell me the difference and I'll assess if /you/ are nuts.

Phil


Tim Hanke

"The Masked Bishop" wrote in message
.. .
Fischer has evidently taken on a Plutonic, dark and despicable role we
dared not own in ourselves.

Um., excuse me....that's MY role, here on this board. Just for the
record...

You are just a boy making boyish comments.

Phil

The Masked Bishop

..
Fischer has evidently taken on a Plutonic, dark and despicable role we
dared not own in ourselves.


Um., excuse me....that's MY role, here on this board. Just for the record...

The Masked Bishop


Phil, quit talking to yourself! If people find out you have a split
personality your "true identity" will be revealed to all, and your ability to
fight villains at night, disguised as "The Masked Bishop," will come to an end.
Some Penguin or Riddler will put an untimely end to your Immesian charitable
works, and Gotham City will be over-run by quirky goons, dressed in green
tights....

..
Phil (among others) has now resorted to using the fallacy of two wrongs
making a right. :-(

Just because the USCF purchased Informants during the embargo (purportedly,
without actually paying for them until afterward), in no way excuses Bobby's
"crime." Two wrongs do not add up to a right. (Do the math. Hint: use the
plus key!)

By the same token, the fact that Spassky has not been persecuted -- er, I
meant prosecuted! -- in no way excuses Fischer for what he did.
Heck -- why not also drag the chess journalists into this fallacy? Seirawan
and many others went to cover the match, and this makes them "accessories" to
the "crime."
The worst "criminal" of all may be the organiser and financier of that
"illegal" event, for without both him and Fischer, it could never have taken
place, where and when it did.

------------------------------------

Who's a nut? Many have branded Fischer as a mental fruitcake because of his
behavior pattern, which seems to fit their idea of what a luny acts like.
Phil wants no part of this -- only a Ninja can kill a Ninja! Only a trained
psychiatrist can pronounce judgement as to whether or not Fischer is legally
insane. Fair enough. But being ruled legally insane is not the same as being
called a nut by laymen who *think* you are nuts because of the way you act.

BTW, certain comments by Dr. Fine could very well be interpretted as
indicating he thought Bobby had (at the time of his "examination") mental
problems and was in need of professional help.
OTOH, Fine's over-reaction to having his skittles game against Bobby
published could be interpretted as indicative of a superiority complex; later
to be followed by an irrational desire to be recognised as a world chess
champion, despite having never won that particular title OTB.
If only a Ninja can kill a Ninja -- if only a trained psychiatrist can
pronounce someone luny, what happens when a "pixilated" shrink examines a
borderline nutcase and makes his pronouncement in somewhat vague terms? And
what if another liscensed shrink would have come to a completely different
conclusion about the same case?


-- Dr. nomorechess

..
Some Penguin or Riddler will put an untimely end to your Immesian charitable
works,


*Innesian* -- not Immesian! I was typing in the dark. Or under the
influence of plum brandy.

"NoMoreChess" wrote in message
...
.
Phil (among others) has now resorted to using the fallacy of two wrongs
making a right. :-(

Just because the USCF purchased Informants during the embargo
(purportedly,
without actually paying for them until afterward), in no way excuses
Bobby's
"crime." Two wrongs do not add up to a right. (Do the math. Hint: use
the
plus key!)

If you have completely mastered your own keyboard, cite '2 wrongs make a
right' citizen. You do not seem to have noticed that I am not talking about
USCF's actions or Fischer's, but about ours in the chess community.

The rest of your opinions seem to be an ideational argument with yourself -
good luck!

You complete your message below with a point of interest which I paraphrase:
that no clinical opinion is worthwhile if the shrink cannot declare himself
disinterested from the result.

Cordially, Phil

PS: green tights?
You are confused! This must be how your own cultural heros like to dress up.
If you look closely at Braveheart I don't think Mel or anyone else wore
tights. No offence intended to any blokes here who like to wear 'em.

By the same token, the fact that Spassky has not been persecuted -- er,
I
meant prosecuted! -- in no way excuses Fischer for what he did.
Heck -- why not also drag the chess journalists into this fallacy?
Seirawan
and many others went to cover the match, and this makes them "accessories"
to
the "crime."
The worst "criminal" of all may be the organiser and financier of that
"illegal" event, for without both him and Fischer, it could never have
taken
place, where and when it did.

------------------------------------

Who's a nut? Many have branded Fischer as a mental fruitcake because of
his
behavior pattern, which seems to fit their idea of what a luny acts like.
Phil wants no part of this -- only a Ninja can kill a Ninja! Only a
trained
psychiatrist can pronounce judgement as to whether or not Fischer is
legally
insane. Fair enough. But being ruled legally insane is not the same as
being
called a nut by laymen who *think* you are nuts because of the way you
act.

BTW, certain comments by Dr. Fine could very well be interpretted as
indicating he thought Bobby had (at the time of his "examination") mental
problems and was in need of professional help.
OTOH, Fine's over-reaction to having his skittles game against Bobby
published could be interpretted as indicative of a superiority complex;
later
to be followed by an irrational desire to be recognised as a world chess
champion, despite having never won that particular title OTB.
If only a Ninja can kill a Ninja -- if only a trained psychiatrist can
pronounce someone luny, what happens when a "pixilated" shrink examines a
borderline nutcase and makes his pronouncement in somewhat vague terms?
And
what if another liscensed shrink would have come to a completely different
conclusion about the same case?


-- Dr. nomorechess