Fascism Anyone?
Riain Y. Barton
Laurence W. Britt
The following article is from Free Inquiry magazine, Volume 23, Number 2.
Free Inquiry readers may pause to read the “Affirmations of Humanism: A
Statement of Principles” on the inside cover of the magazine. To a secular
humanist, these principles seem so logical, so right, so crucial. Yet, there
is one archetypal political philosophy that is anathema to almost all of
these principles. It is fascism. And fascism’s principles are wafting in the
air today, surreptitiously masquerading as something else, challenging
everything we stand for. The cliché that people and nations learn from
history is not only overused, but also overestimated; often we fail to learn
from history, or draw the wrong conclusions. Sadly, historical amnesia is
the norm.
We are two-and-a-half generations removed from the horrors of Nazi Germany,
although constant reminders jog the consciousness. German and Italian
fascism form the historical models that define this twisted political
worldview. Although they no longer exist, this worldview and the
characteristics of these models have been imitated by protofascist1 regimes
at various times in the twentieth century. Both the original German and
Italian models and the later protofascist regimes show remarkably similar
characteristics. Although many scholars question any direct connection among
these regimes, few can dispute their visual similarities.
Beyond the visual, even a cursory study of these fascist and protofascist
regimes reveals the absolutely striking convergence of their modus operandi.
This, of course, is not a revelation to the informed political observer, but
it is sometimes useful in the interests of perspective to restate obvious
facts and in so doing shed needed light on current circumstances.
For the purpose of this perspective, I will consider the following regimes:
Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Franco’s Spain, Salazar’s Portugal,
Papadopoulos’s Greece, Pinochet’s Chile, and Suharto’s Indonesia. To be
sure, they constitute a mixed bag of national identities, cultures,
developmental levels, and history. But they all followed the fascist or
protofascist model in obtaining, expanding, and maintaining power. Further,
all these regimes have been overthrown, so a more or less complete picture
of their basic characteristics and abuses is possible.
Analysis of these seven regimes reveals fourteen common threads that link
them in recognizable patterns of national behavior and abuse of power. These
basic characteristics are more prevalent and intense in some regimes than in
others, but they all share at least some level of similarity.
1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism. From the prominent
displays of flags and bunting to the ubiquitous lapel pins, the fervor to
show patriotic nationalism, both on the part of the regime itself and of
citizens caught up in its frenzy, was always obvious. Catchy slogans, pride
in the military, and demands for unity were common themes in expressing this
nationalism. It was usually coupled with a suspicion of things foreign that
often bordered on xenophobia.
2. Disdain for the importance of human rights. The regimes themselves viewed
human rights as of little value and a hindrance to realizing the objectives
of the ruling elite. Through clever use of propaganda, the population was
brought to accept these human rights abuses by marginalizing, even
demonizing, those being targeted. When abuse was egregious, the tactic was
to use secrecy, denial, and disinformation.
3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause. The most
significant common thread among these regimes was the use of scapegoating as
a means to divert the people’s attention from other problems, to shift blame
for failures, and to channel frustration in controlled directions. The
methods of choice—relentless propaganda and disinformation—were usually
effective. Often the regimes would incite “spontaneous” acts against the
target scapegoats, usually communists, socialists, liberals, Jews, ethnic
and racial minorities, traditional national enemies, members of other
religions, secularists, homosexuals, and “terrorists.” Active opponents of
these regimes were inevitably labeled as terrorists and dealt with
accordingly.
4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism. Ruling elites always
identified closely with the military and the industrial infrastructure that
supported it. A disproportionate share of national resources was allocated
to the military, even when domestic needs were acute. The military was seen
as an expression of nationalism, and was used whenever possible to assert
national goals, intimidate other nations, and increase the power and
prestige of the ruling elite.
5. Rampant sexism. Beyond the simple fact that the political elite and the
national culture were male-dominated, these regimes inevitably viewed women
as second-class citizens. They were adamantly anti-abortion and also
homophobic. These attitudes were usually codified in Draconian laws that
enjoyed strong support by the orthodox religion of the country, thus lending
the regime cover for its abuses.
6. A controlled mass media. Under some of the regimes, the mass media were
under strict direct control and could be relied upon never to stray from the
party line. Other regimes exercised more subtle power to ensure media
orthodoxy. Methods included the control of licensing and access to
resources, economic pressure, appeals to patriotism, and implied threats.
The leaders of the mass media were often politically compatible with the
power elite. The result was usually success in keeping the general public
unaware of the regimes’ excesses.
7. Obsession with national security. Inevitably, a national security
apparatus was under direct control of the ruling elite. It was usually an
instrument of oppression, operating in secret and beyond any constraints.
Its actions were justified under the rubric of protecting “national
security,” and questioning its activities was portrayed as unpatriotic or
even treasonous.
8. Religion and ruling elite tied together. Unlike communist regimes, the
fascist and protofascist regimes were never proclaimed as godless by their
opponents. In fact, most of the regimes attached themselves to the
predominant religion of the country and chose to portray themselves as
militant defenders of that religion. The fact that the ruling elite’s
behavior was incompatible with the precepts of the religion was generally
swept under the rug. Propaganda kept up the illusion that the ruling elites
were defenders of the faith and opponents of the “godless.” A perception was
manufactured that opposing the power elite was tantamount to an attack on
religion.
9. Power of corporations protected. Although the personal life of ordinary
citizens was under strict control, the ability of large corporations to
operate in relative freedom was not compromised. The ruling elite saw the
corporate structure as a way to not only ensure military production (in
developed states), but also as an additional means of social control.
Members of the economic elite were often pampered by the political elite to
ensure a continued mutuality of interests, especially in the repression of
“have-not” citizens.
10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated. Since organized labor was seen
as the one power center that could challenge the political hegemony of the
ruling elite and its corporate allies, it was inevitably crushed or made
powerless. The poor formed an underclass, viewed with suspicion or outright
contempt. Under some regimes, being poor was considered akin to a vice.
11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts. Intellectuals and
the inherent freedom of ideas and expression associated with them were
anathema to these regimes. Intellectual and academic freedom were considered
subversive to national security and the patriotic ideal. Universities were
tightly controlled; politically unreliable faculty harassed or eliminated.
Unorthodox ideas or expressions of dissent were strongly attacked, silenced,
or crushed. To these regimes, art and literature should serve the national
interest or they had no right to exist.
12. Obsession with crime and punishment. Most of these regimes maintained
Draconian systems of criminal justice with huge prison populations. The
police were often glorified and had almost unchecked power, leading to
rampant abuse. “Normal” and political crime were often merged into
trumped-up criminal charges and sometimes used against political opponents
of the regime. Fear, and hatred, of criminals or “traitors” was often
promoted among the population as an excuse for more police power.
13. Rampant cronyism and corruption. Those in business circles and close to
the power elite often used their position to enrich themselves. This
corruption worked both ways; the power elite would receive financial gifts
and property from the economic elite, who in turn would gain the benefit of
government favoritism. Members of the power elite were in a position to
obtain vast wealth from other sources as well: for example, by stealing
national resources. With the national security apparatus under control and
the media muzzled, this corruption was largely unconstrained and not well
understood by the general population.
14. Fraudulent elections. Elections in the form of plebiscites or public
opinion polls were usually bogus. When actual elections with candidates were
held, they would usually be perverted by the power elite to get the desired
result. Common methods included maintaining control of the election
machinery, intimidating and disenfranchising opposition voters, destroying
or disallowing legal votes, and, as a last resort, turning to a judiciary
beholden to the power elite.
Does any of this ring alarm bells? Of course not. After all, this is
America, officially a democracy with the rule of law, a constitution, a free
press, honest elections, and a well-informed public constantly being put on
guard against evils. Historical comparisons like these are just exercises in
verbal gymnastics. Maybe, maybe not.
Note
1. Defined as a “political movement or regime tending toward or imitating
Fascism”—Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary.
References
Andrews, Kevin. Greece in the Dark. Amsterdam: Hakkert, 1980.
Chabod, Frederico. A History of Italian Fascism. London: Weidenfeld, 1963.
Cooper, Marc. Pinochet and Me. New York: Verso, 2001.
Cornwell, John. Hitler as Pope. New York: Viking, 1999.
de Figuerio, Antonio. Portugal—Fifty Years of Dictatorship. New York: Holmes
& Meier, 1976.
Eatwell, Roger. Fascism, A History. New York: Penguin, 1995.
Fest, Joachim C. The Face of the Third Reich. New York: Pantheon, 1970.
Gallo, Max. Mussolini’s Italy. New York: MacMillan, 1973.
Kershaw, Ian. Hitler (two volumes). New York: Norton, 1999.
Laqueur, Walter. Fascism, Past, Present, and Future. New York: Oxford, 1996.
Papandreau, Andreas. Democracy at Gunpoint. New York: Penguin Books, 1971.
Phillips, Peter. Censored 2001: 25 Years of Censored News. New York: Seven
Stories. 2001.
Sharp, M.E. Indonesia Beyond Suharto. Armonk, 1999.
Verdugo, Patricia. Chile, Pinochet, and the Caravan of Death. Coral Gables,
Florida: North-South Center Press, 2001.
Yglesias, Jose. The Franco Years. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1977.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Laurence Britt’s novel, June, 2004, depicts a future America dominated by
right-wing extremists.
Dave Gower
"Riain Y. Barton" <ri...@riain.us> wrote
> Fascism Anyone?
...big waste of bandwidth snipped...
> Does any of this ring alarm bells? Of course not. After all, this is
> America, officially a democracy with the rule of law, a constitution, a
> free
> press, honest elections, and a well-informed public constantly being put
> on
> guard against evils. Historical comparisons like these are just exercises
> in
> verbal gymnastics. Maybe, maybe not.
Yawn. As if you and this author you crib from are fit to teach the rest of
us about history. The fact that there are imperfections in current American
society does not make it fascist.
Riain Y. Barton
"Dave Gower" <davegow.r...@magma.ca> wrote in message
news:LoednSaiDIv...@magma.ca...
Dave Gower
"Riain Y. Barton" <ri...@riain.us> wrote in message
news:EcCdnSzDn-e...@comcast.com...
> Not yet... and how the fuck would you know, your in Canada?
I read (and I know how to abbreviate). And I do not need to use obscenities
to attempt to bully other newsgroup participants.
ThrowAwa...@isd.net
"Riain Y. Barton" <ri...@riain.us> wrote in message news:78Cdnf-C0qN...@comcast.com...
> 2. Disdain for the importance of human rights. The regimes themselves viewed
> human rights as of little value and a hindrance to realizing the objectives
> of the ruling elite. Through clever use of propaganda, the population was
> brought to accept these human rights abuses by marginalizing, even
> demonizing, those being targeted. When abuse was egregious, the tactic was
> to use secrecy, denial, and disinformation.
>
> 3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause. The most
> significant common thread among these regimes was the use of scapegoating as
> a means to divert the people’s attention from other problems, to shift blame
> for failures, and to channel frustration in controlled directions. The
> methods of choice—relentless propaganda and disinformation—were usually
> effective. Often the regimes would incite “spontaneous” acts against the
> target scapegoats, usually communists, socialists, liberals, Jews, ethnic
> and racial minorities, traditional national enemies, members of other
> religions, secularists, homosexuals, and “terrorists.” Active opponents of
> these regimes were inevitably labeled as terrorists and dealt with
> accordingly.
>
> identified closely with the military and the industrial infrastructure that
> supported it. A disproportionate share of national resources was allocated
> to the military, even when domestic needs were acute. The military was seen
> as an expression of nationalism, and was used whenever possible to assert
> national goals, intimidate other nations, and increase the power and
> prestige of the ruling elite.
>
> national culture were male-dominated, these regimes inevitably viewed women
> as second-class citizens. They were adamantly anti-abortion and also
> homophobic. These attitudes were usually codified in Draconian laws that
> enjoyed strong support by the orthodox religion of the country, thus lending
> the regime cover for its abuses.
>
> 6. A controlled mass media. Under some of the regimes, the mass media were
> under strict direct control and could be relied upon never to stray from the
> party line. Other regimes exercised more subtle power to ensure media
> orthodoxy. Methods included the control of licensing and access to
> resources, economic pressure, appeals to patriotism, and implied threats.
> The leaders of the mass media were often politically compatible with the
> power elite. The result was usually success in keeping the general public
> unaware of the regimes’ excesses.
>
> 7. Obsession with national security. Inevitably, a national security
> apparatus was under direct control of the ruling elite. It was usually an
> instrument of oppression, operating in secret and beyond any constraints.
> Its actions were justified under the rubric of protecting “national
> security,” and questioning its activities was portrayed as unpatriotic or
> even treasonous.
>
> 8. Religion and ruling elite tied together. Unlike communist regimes, the
> fascist and protofascist regimes were never proclaimed as godless by their
> opponents. In fact, most of the regimes attached themselves to the
> predominant religion of the country and chose to portray themselves as
> militant defenders of that religion. The fact that the ruling elite’s
> behavior was incompatible with the precepts of the religion was generally
> swept under the rug. Propaganda kept up the illusion that the ruling elites
> were defenders of the faith and opponents of the “godless.” A perception was
> manufactured that opposing the power elite was tantamount to an attack on
> religion.
>
> 9. Power of corporations protected. Although the personal life of ordinary
> citizens was under strict control, the ability of large corporations to
> operate in relative freedom was not compromised. The ruling elite saw the
> corporate structure as a way to not only ensure military production (in
> developed states), but also as an additional means of social control.
> Members of the economic elite were often pampered by the political elite to
> ensure a continued mutuality of interests, especially in the repression of
> “have-not” citizens.
>
> 10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated. Since organized labor was seen
> as the one power center that could challenge the political hegemony of the
> ruling elite and its corporate allies, it was inevitably crushed or made
> powerless. The poor formed an underclass, viewed with suspicion or outright
> contempt. Under some regimes, being poor was considered akin to a vice.
>
> 11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts. Intellectuals and
> the inherent freedom of ideas and expression associated with them were
> anathema to these regimes. Intellectual and academic freedom were considered
> subversive to national security and the patriotic ideal. Universities were
> tightly controlled; politically unreliable faculty harassed or eliminated.
> Unorthodox ideas or expressions of dissent were strongly attacked, silenced,
> or crushed. To these regimes, art and literature should serve the national
> interest or they had no right to exist.
>
> 12. Obsession with crime and punishment. Most of these regimes maintained
> Draconian systems of criminal justice with huge prison populations. The
> police were often glorified and had almost unchecked power, leading to
> rampant abuse. “Normal” and political crime were often merged into
> trumped-up criminal charges and sometimes used against political opponents
> of the regime. Fear, and hatred, of criminals or “traitors” was often
> promoted among the population as an excuse for more police power.
>
> 13. Rampant cronyism and corruption. Those in business circles and close to
> the power elite often used their position to enrich themselves. This
> corruption worked both ways; the power elite would receive financial gifts
> and property from the economic elite, who in turn would gain the benefit of
> government favoritism. Members of the power elite were in a position to
> obtain vast wealth from other sources as well: for example, by stealing
> national resources. With the national security apparatus under control and
> the media muzzled, this corruption was largely unconstrained and not well
> understood by the general population.
>
> 14. Fraudulent elections. Elections in the form of plebiscites or public
> opinion polls were usually bogus. When actual elections with candidates were
> held, they would usually be perverted by the power elite to get the desired
> result. Common methods included maintaining control of the election
> machinery, intimidating and disenfranchising opposition voters, destroying
> or disallowing legal votes, and, as a last resort, turning to a judiciary
> beholden to the power elite.
>
> Does any of this ring alarm bells? Of course not. After all, this is
> America, officially a democracy with the rule of law, a constitution, a free
> press, honest elections, and a well-informed public constantly being put on
> guard against evils. Historical comparisons like these are just exercises in
> verbal gymnastics. Maybe, maybe not.
>
>
Riain Y. Barton
"Dave Gower" <davegow.r...@magma.ca> wrote in message
news:no2dnQzT2-U...@magma.ca...
Riain Y. Barton
be taking medication it is yourself.
Now why don't you write the author, Laurence W. Britt?
<ThrowAwa...@isd.net> wrote in message
news:10ssd9q...@corp.supernews.com...
ThrowAwa...@isd.net
2) But, YOU clearly are a "wank"
And a stupid one at that.
3) Why should I write the author ?
4) YOU clearly posted this to get responses.
5) But considering the your unthinking, knee-jerk responses to those who
had something to say about your post, it is clear that you're just a stupid
troll
So with this, I will stop feeding you, you stupid ignorant troll.
"Riain Y. Barton" <ri...@riain.us> wrote in message
news:sdKdnU3N0NM...@comcast.com...
Riain Y. Barton
imperialist fascist bastards like you.
<ThrowAwa...@isd.net> wrote in message
news:10sseov...@corp.supernews.com...
Rafael Block
Uh, hasn't the current administration suspended the rights of thousands in Gitmo,
thrown out the Geneva conventions and begun using torture? There's #2 met....
>
> > 3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause. The most
> > significant common thread among these regimes was the use of
> scapegoating as
> > a means to divert the people’s attention from other problems, to
> shift blame
> > for failures, and to channel frustration in controlled directions. The
> > methods of choice—relentless propaganda and disinformation—were usually
> > effective. Often the regimes would incite “spontaneous” acts against the
> > target scapegoats, usually communists, socialists, liberals, Jews,
> ethnic
> > and racial minorities, traditional national enemies, members of other
> > religions, secularists, homosexuals, and “terrorists.” Active
> opponents of
> > these regimes were inevitably labeled as terrorists and dealt with
> > accordingly.
> >
> So what exactly are the scapegoats ?
The Democrats for starters...and lawyers from Oregon.... there's #3 met.
> The Islamic terrorists ?
> They're not scapegoats..
> They're actual ennemies who have sworn themselves to the destruction of
> the US and it's allies
> And they've made specifc acts to do so...
>
> Contary to what happened in the facists countries that you cite, NO US
> RESIDENTS and/OR CITIZENS have yet been targeted as you claim
>
>
> There's condition # 3 not met..
>
>
> > 4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism. Ruling elites always
> > identified closely with the military and the industrial
> infrastructure that
> > supported it. A disproportionate share of national resources was
> allocated
> > to the military, even when domestic needs were acute. The military
> was seen
> > as an expression of nationalism, and was used whenever possible to
> assert
> > national goals, intimidate other nations, and increase the power and
> > prestige of the ruling elite.
> >
>
> That's not the case in the US.
Really? Like when the president dresses up as a military man? Or when all our
national treasure goes to the Pentagon while thousands starve and millions go
without adequate health care? There's #4 met.
> Unlike the facists countries you cite, there are no great military
> parades and assemblies to pump up tee masses.
> And footbal, basketball, baseball and hockey games are NOT military
> activities.
> With maybe the exception of the Army-Navy Football annual
>
> There's condition # 4 not met..
>
> > 5. Rampant sexism. Beyond the simple fact that the political elite
> and the
> > national culture were male-dominated, these regimes inevitably viewed
> women
> > as second-class citizens. They were adamantly anti-abortion and also
> > homophobic. These attitudes were usually codified in Draconian laws that
> > enjoyed strong support by the orthodox religion of the country, thus
> lending
> > the regime cover for its abuses.
> >
>
> The only sexists in the coutry are the people insisting on political
> correctness to the point or ramapant stupidity.
How PC is the "protection of marriage act" or proposed Constitutional ammendments
banning gay marriage?
> And last time I checked, no "Draconian laws" have been enacted to limit
> civil rights
Oh, the patriot act I and II and the rest of the so-called war on terror laws
aren't draconian enough, eh? I say, #5 met....
> And by the way, since there is also NO "orthodox religion of the country".
>
> There's condition # 5 not met..
>
>
> > 6. A controlled mass media. Under some of the regimes, the mass media
> were
> > under strict direct control and could be relied upon never to stray
> from the
> > party line. Other regimes exercised more subtle power to ensure media
> > orthodoxy. Methods included the control of licensing and access to
> > resources, economic pressure, appeals to patriotism, and implied
> threats.
> > The leaders of the mass media were often politically compatible with the
> > power elite. The result was usually success in keeping the general
> public
> > unaware of the regimes’ excesses.
> >
>
> What "controlled mass media"
> The "mass media" controlled by the Lib-Dems"
That's so funny, it qualifies as an automatic #6 met. Oh yeah, the liberal media
owned and run by GE...funnnnnny! I mean, funny in a fascist way....
, like CBS, ABC, NBC and
> others ?
> The bloggers demonstrated that whatever control anyone had on the mass
> media could be by-passed to the point of making any such control moot.
>
>
> There's condition # 6 not met..
>
> > 7. Obsession with national security. Inevitably, a national security
> > apparatus was under direct control of the ruling elite. It was
> usually an
> > instrument of oppression, operating in secret and beyond any
> constraints.
> > Its actions were justified under the rubric of protecting “national
> > security,” and questioning its activities was portrayed as
> unpatriotic or
> > even treasonous.
> >
>
> Please give us SPECIFIC examples of such occurrences with citizens ?
Gitmo, Brandon Mayfield, etc etc etc. #7, met!
> I doubt that you can find any that you present that will stand up to
> any scrutiny and meet your standards.
>
> There's condition # 7 not met..
>
> > 8. Religion and ruling elite tied together. Unlike communist regimes,
> the
> > fascist and protofascist regimes were never proclaimed as godless by
> their
> > opponents. In fact, most of the regimes attached themselves to the
> > predominant religion of the country and chose to portray themselves as
> > militant defenders of that religion. The fact that the ruling elite’s
> > behavior was incompatible with the precepts of the religion was
> generally
> > swept under the rug. Propaganda kept up the illusion that the ruling
> elites
> > were defenders of the faith and opponents of the “godless.” A
> perception was
> > manufactured that opposing the power elite was tantamount to an
> attack on
> > religion.
> >
>
> There is a cabla between religion and the ruling elite ?
> Which "religion" ?
Bushism. #8, met.
> The jews ? The Catholics ? Any flavors of the Protestants ?
>
> There's condition # 8 not met..
>
>
> > 9. Power of corporations protected. Although the personal life of
> ordinary
> > citizens was under strict control, the ability of large corporations to
> > operate in relative freedom was not compromised. The ruling elite saw
> the
> > corporate structure as a way to not only ensure military production (in
> > developed states), but also as an additional means of social control.
> > Members of the economic elite were often pampered by the political
> elite to
> > ensure a continued mutuality of interests, especially in the
> repression of
> > “have-not” citizens.
> >
>
> Riiiight..
> That's why the AG of the State of NY has been going after various
> industries quite successfully.
> Because he's protecting them...
Tokenism. #9, met.
>
> There's condition # 9 not met..
>
>
> > 10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated. Since organized labor
> was seen
> > as the one power center that could challenge the political hegemony
> of the
> > ruling elite and its corporate allies, it was inevitably crushed or made
> > powerless. The poor formed an underclass, viewed with suspicion or
> outright
> > contempt. Under some regimes, being poor was considered akin to a vice.
> >
>
> Actually, labor is failling on it's own because of its nasty reputation
> for corruption and fraud.
Really? Like those air traffic controllers, a bunch of corrupt, fraudulant
failures? I'd say that was an example of labor suppressed then eliminated, at
taxpayer expense no less. Condition #10, met.
> The government had nothing to do with it.
RR wasn't the government?
>
> There's condition # 10 not met..
>
> > 11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts.
> Intellectuals and
> > the inherent freedom of ideas and expression associated with them were
> > anathema to these regimes. Intellectual and academic freedom were
> considered
> > subversive to national security and the patriotic ideal. Universities
> were
> > tightly controlled; politically unreliable faculty harassed or
> eliminated.
> > Unorthodox ideas or expressions of dissent were strongly attacked,
> silenced,
> > or crushed. To these regimes, art and literature should serve the
> national
> > interest or they had no right to exist.
> >
>
> If this is an example of the work of alleged intelectuals
> Then they deserve all the scorn and disdain the public heaps on them
Seen Noam Chomsky on the big three, let alone the 'fair and balanced' fascist news
networks on cabal, I mean _cable_?
>
> There's condition # 11 ... met..
>
> > 12. Obsession with crime and punishment. Most of these regimes
> maintained
> > Draconian systems of criminal justice with huge prison populations. The
> > police were often glorified and had almost unchecked power, leading to
> > rampant abuse. “Normal” and political crime were often merged into
> > trumped-up criminal charges and sometimes used against political
> opponents
> > of the regime. Fear, and hatred, of criminals or “traitors” was often
> > promoted among the population as an excuse for more police power.
> >
>
> The police may have a lot more power than most people may be comfortable
> with.
> But the have as of yet, not reached the levels earned by
> organizations like the Gestapo, the KGB or the STASI, to name of few.
You weren't in Seattle for the WTO police riot, were you? Condition #12, met!
>
> There's condition # 12 not met..
>
> > 13. Rampant cronyism and corruption. Those in business circles and
> close to
> > the power elite often used their position to enrich themselves. This
> > corruption worked both ways; the power elite would receive financial
> gifts
> > and property from the economic elite, who in turn would gain the
> benefit of
> > government favoritism. Members of the power elite were in a position to
> > obtain vast wealth from other sources as well: for example, by stealing
> > national resources. With the national security apparatus under
> control and
> > the media muzzled, this corruption was largely unconstrained and not
> well
> > understood by the general population.
> >
>
> Actually, the US is quite low compared to most other countries on this
> scale.
Which means, what, the US is a kinder, gentler fascism? #13, met
> A great majority of European coutries are way ahead of this compared
> to the US.
>
>
> There's condition # 13 not met..
>
> > 14. Fraudulent elections. Elections in the form of plebiscites or public
> > opinion polls were usually bogus. When actual elections with
> candidates were
> > held, they would usually be perverted by the power elite to get the
> desired
> > result. Common methods included maintaining control of the election
> > machinery, intimidating and disenfranchising opposition voters,
> destroying
> > or disallowing legal votes, and, as a last resort, turning to a
> judiciary
> > beholden to the power elite.
> >
>
> Ah, the LIb-Dem claims of election fraud that are TOTALLY unsupported by
> the facts.
Fact: Florida 2000, stolen.
Fact: Ohis 2004, stolen.
Fact: Washington state 2004 Guvner, NEARLY stolen by fascist, restored by
patriotic Republican! Yeah!
> Been disproved so often that it's becoming BORING..
I know, boring that #14 met!
>
> There's condition # 14 not met..
>
> > Does any of this ring alarm bells? Of course not. After all, this is
> > America, officially a democracy
Where does it say that? The US has never been and for the foreseeable future will
not be a democracy.
Dave Gower
"Rafael Block" <raf...@NOSPAMearthlink.net> wrote
<... The US has never been and for the foreseeable future will not be a
democracy.
In other words, until someone you approve of takes power. There's a good
excuse to attack the legal democratic structure. A certain "democrat" with
the first name of Adolph used the same tactic some 70 years ago.
Nice try loser.
D. Spencer Hines
The word _FASCIST_ today has been rubbed smooth and totally confused in
meaning ---- because the Left-Wing simply uses it as a term of abuse for
ANYONE to the RIGHT of them whom they HATE, such as President Bush,
Attorney General Ashcroft or Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld ---- and the
poguenoscenti have taken that meaning to be the "true" one."
Quod Erat Demonstrandum.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"Riain Y. Barton" <ri...@riain.us> wrote in message
news:78Cdnf-C0qN...@comcast.com...
| Fascism Anyone?
| Laurence W. Britt
| The following article is from Free Inquiry magazine, Volume 23, Number
| 2.
<twaddlesnip>
Doug McDonald
> I Say Again:
>
> The word _FASCIST_ today has been rubbed smooth and totally confused in
> meaning ---- because the Left-Wing simply uses it as a term of abuse for
> ANYONE to the RIGHT of them whom they HATE, such as President Bush,
> Attorney General Ashcroft or Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld ---- and the
> poguenoscenti have taken that meaning to be the "true" one."
>
> Quod Erat Demonstrandum.
>
I've never been able to get a definition of "Fascist"
as an adjective. I do know that "Fascists" as a noun
existed, and sort of what they stood far, because
Mussolini was clear a Fascist. I've never ever been clear
how Hitler became one, other than by simple association.
Doug McDonald
Julian Richards
<davegow.r...@magma.ca> wrote:
>Yawn. As if you and this author you crib from are fit to teach the rest of
>us about history. The fact that there are imperfections in current American
>society does not make it fascist.
You are quite right that the USA is a long way removed from being a
fascist state. However to say that Hitler and other fascists are not
of the far right is dangerous. The modern day far right seek to
absolve themselves from any association with the Holocaust so as to
make their own particular brands of antisemitic, antiblack,
antimuslim, anti-just about anyone else philosophy untainted by
history.
--
Julian Richards
medieval "at" richardsuk.f9.co.uk
Usenet is how from the comfort of your own living room, you can converse
with people that you would never want in your house.
THIS MESSAGE WAS POSTED FROM SOC.HISTORY.MEDIEVAL
Robert Mulain
> A yank or a British twat, all the same difference, both countries have many
> imperialist fascist bastards like you.
Fascism Anyone? Not for Xmas thank you...
You are on *horribly* thin ice here Riain sweetie... as one who exhibits all the
extremism, prejudice, arrogance, bias, intolerance, ignorance and viciousness of
that filthy, misguided creed in so many ways!
Here, catch this massive rock to help you find dry land, you sad, pathetic fool.
Maybe those big fat chips on your shoulders will help you to swim....
Robert Mulain
"Doug McDonald" <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:cqmvht$mld$2...@news.ks.uiuc.edu...
He copied Mussolini and added some very nasty bits.
Il Duce copied Ancient Rome and left out most of the good bits.
The Romans copied the Greeks a bit and left out some good bits.
The Greeks were democrats with slaves....
It's all very confusing. I think the safest thing to do (for most purposes) is
to replace 'fascist' with 'bastard' or something stronger if you like, which
basically sums up the current use of the word. (If you want to get 'political',
you can add 'authoritarian')
Cheers
Martin
Robert Mulain
"Doug McDonald" <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:cqmvht$mld$2...@news.ks.uiuc.edu...
He copied Mussolini and added some very nasty bits.
Dave Gower
"Doug McDonald" <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> wrote
>...Mussolini was clear a Fascist. I've never ever been clear
> how Hitler became one, other than by simple association.
Hitler's agenda went far beyond what was normal at the time for Fascism.
Franco is often considered the archetypal fascist, but in comparison he was
simply a conservative with a strong authoritarian bent. Mussolini is known
to have cringed at the Holocaust, and his regime was always reluctant to
hand over Italian Jews for murder. Certain officials of the Vichy regime did
do this, but the Hungarian government, an ally of Hitler, protected its
Jews until the German-engineered takeover by local Nazis in 1944.
The term fascist was a handy propaganda catch-phrase in WW2, but I think you
are right that it has little explanatory value today.
Martin Reboul
"D. Spencer Hines" <pogue...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c2Dzd.145$lO1....@eagle.america.net...
> I Say Again:
>
> The word _FASCIST_ today has been rubbed smooth and totally confused in
> meaning ---- because the Left-Wing simply uses it as a term of abuse for
> ANYONE to the RIGHT of them whom they HATE, such as President Bush,
> Attorney General Ashcroft or Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld ---- and the
> poguenoscenti have taken that meaning to be the "true" one."
>
> Quod Erat Demonstrandum.
Take it from a Fool who knows!
Omega
"D. Spencer Hines" <pogue...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c2Dzd.145$lO1....@eagle.america.net...
:
: The word _FASCIST_ today has been rubbed smooth and totally confused in
: meaning ---- because the Left-Wing simply uses it as a term of abuse for
: ANYONE to the RIGHT of them whom they HATE, such as President Bush,
: Attorney General Ashcroft or Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld ---- and the
: poguenoscenti have taken that meaning to be the "true" one."
:
: Quod Erat Demonstrandum.
:
: DSH
:
: Lux et Veritas et Libertas
:
: Vires et Honor
In reality, fascism is just a more "liberal" version of socialism. It is a
partnership of government and business, much like the US democrats do (look
at all the rich guys now in the democrats).
The true liberals are libertarians. the far right is about individualism
Omega
: > > I Say Again:
The German Nazis patterned their government after the ancient Romans. They
used their symbols, their type of government. Hitler was even a god-king
like the Roman emperors. For some reason, Europe has long had a love affair
with restoring the Roman Empire.
William Black
"Omega" <2121(d)@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:lOVzd.571884$wV.16429@attbi_s54...
> In reality, fascism is just a more "liberal" version of socialism. It is
a
> partnership of government and business, much like the US democrats do
(look
Take a pill
Lie in a darkened room
Try and adjust so that your view of the world intersects with reality at
least once every week...
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe
Barbeques on fire by chalets past the headland
I've watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off Newborough
All this will pass like ice-cream on the beach
Time for tea
William Black
. For some reason, Europe has long had a love affair
> with restoring the Roman Empire.
Cite please.
Dallas Patterson
William Black wrote:
> "Omega" <2121(d)@insightbb.com> wrote in message
> news:sQVzd.643987$D%.232038@attbi_s51...
> . For some reason, Europe has long had a love affair
>
>>with restoring the Roman Empire.
>>
>
>
> Cite please.
>
>
See the Byznatine empire. Carolingian Empire, Holy Roman Empie,
Napoleonic empire, Austro-Hungarian Empire, Russian Empire, and
Mussolini's Italy.
am...@hotmail.com
"Ancient Romans" had a variety of the political systems from various
modifications of republic to various modifications of authoritarian
rule.
Which of them was copied by the Nazies? I suspect, none.
> They
> used their symbols,
The Italian Fascists did use Roman symbols but a direct link with the
Nazies is less obvious. Except for an eagle, I'm not aware of the
direct
borrowings and the eagles were overused over the history (by Napoleon,
for example and, anyway, there was "German Eagle").
>their type of government.
It would be REALLY nice if you can clarify which of the Reich's
institutions
corresponded to Roman Senate.
> Hitler was even a god-king
> like the Roman emperors.
Very interesting but, AFAIK, he never claimed any divine status.
> For some reason, Europe has long had a love affair
> with restoring the Roman Empire.
Are you talking about Roman Empire or Holy Roman Empire of German
Nation?
They had very little in common. Hitler's claims and ambitions had been
clearly related to HRE (3rd Reich, etc. with emphasis on "German") but
they
hardly had anything practical in common with RE (this was Mussolini's
domain).
am...@hotmail.com
Dallas Patterson wrote:
> William Black wrote:
>
> > "Omega" <2121(d)@insightbb.com> wrote in message
> > news:sQVzd.643987$D%.232038@attbi_s51...
> > . For some reason, Europe has long had a love affair
> >
> >>with restoring the Roman Empire.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Cite please.
> >
> >
>
> See the Byznatine empire.
Sorry, but Bizantian Empire WAS Roman Empire and they did not have
to "restore" anything except lands earlier owned by this empire.
>Carolingian Empire,
In practical terms had, AFAIK, very little to do with the Roman
Empire.
> Holy Roman Empie,
Even less in common, especially geographically and culturally.
Never went beyond some claims to maintain "imperial legitimacy".
> Napoleonic empire,
I'm not sure that at any point Napoleon seriously claimed any
"Roman Legacy".
>Austro-Hungarian Empire,
What A-HE had to do with the Roman Empire in any form and shape
except for the fact that at the time of its creation, this
empire still owned small pieces of Italian territory?
>Russian Empire, and
Tzardom of Moscow (which is different from "Russian Empire")
claimed "Byzantian Legacy" but it did not ever try to "restore"
Roman Empire in any form or shape by the obvious geographic
reasons.
Russian Empire at various points of its existence was making
some fuss related to Byzantium but most of the time an issue
was not a restoration of anything but an attempt to grab the
straits. Of course, Catherine II had been considering an
option of creating a new "Byzantian Empire" with her grandson as
a ruler but this never got to any prqactical stage. BTW, Peter's
reforms were supposed to be "anti-Byzantian" (aka against the
old Byzantian legacy and related obsolete habits). The Empire
itself had been established as a completely new entity, not as
a heir of any old empire.
The only, AFAIK, force that was working consistenntly within
a framework of "Byzantian Legacy" were the Ottomans.
> Mussolini's Italy.
Yes, but in a very abridged form: minust France, minus Britain,
minus Spain, etc. Not sure that Italy could pass as equivalent of
"Europe" and that Mussolini's rule was very long in historic
retrospective.
am...@hotmail.com
William Black wrote:
> "Omega" <2121(d)@insightbb.com> wrote in message
> news:lOVzd.571884$wV.16429@attbi_s54...
>
> > In reality, fascism is just a more "liberal" version of socialism.
It is
> a
> > partnership of government and business, much like the US democrats
do
> (look
This is, of course, a somewhat unusual analogy but there is something
to
it... :-)
>
> Take a pill
>
> Lie in a darkened room
>
> Try and adjust so that your view of the world intersects with reality
at
> least once every week...
Be fair. This interpretation _is_ in a circulation and I recently read
an article (IIRC, it was in NYT but can't guarantee) where author was
pontificating on a political future of Russia and remarked that it is
moving toward fascism, which was not so bad in author's opinion because
this would mean law and order, relatively stable economy (under state
control), people being fed, etc. Author clearly had Mussolini's version
in mind and, IIRC, also mentioned Franco and Pinochet (why Pinochet
ended up as a "fascist" I can't tell but it is routinely referenced as
such by the "left").
I could be wrong on the details (it was few weeks ago) but not on a
general idea.
David C. Pugh
news:1104166523.2...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > Napoleonic empire,
>
> I'm not sure that at any point Napoleon seriously claimed any
> "Roman Legacy".
Look again at the imperial portrait, what is he wearing on his head? Not
that I'm a big expert on Napoleon, but it was my impression that the whole
visual language of his Empire was that of Rome. Since it's Art, I shall
appeal to Eve for more.
Legitimising propaganda, of course, but I thought that was the point.
And everyone's been at that game, down to the Treaty of Rome with the
Charlemagne Prize.
Detail of possible interest: there are columns in the Palatine Chapel at
Aachen that Napoleon took back to Paris, and that the Germans then stole
back again in 1870-1. Of course, Charlemagne had stolen them from some Roman
site (Ravenna? Just guessing), and that Roman site had stolen them from
somewhere else, bound to be the Greeks. Sometimes I get the feeling that no
one made nice porphyry columns after about 200 BC, because everyone gets
them by looting.
--
David C. Pugh
Philosophers have sought to explain the world, and Marxists to change it;
the point, however, is to blame someone else for it.
To mail me, replace biblical character with his dad.
am...@hotmail.com
David C. Pugh wrote:
> <am...@hotmail.com> skrev i melding
> news:1104166523.2...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > Napoleonic empire,
> >
> > I'm not sure that at any point Napoleon seriously claimed any
> > "Roman Legacy".
>
> Look again at the imperial portrait, what is he wearing on his
head?
This would depend on a portrait.
>Not
> that I'm a big expert on Napoleon, but it was my impression that the
whole
> visual language of his Empire was that of Rome.
To a certain degree and, I suspect that this was mostly heritage of the
French Revolution: all this copying of the "Ancient" style in clothes
(female clothes, to be sure) and furniture, David's paintings (and not
only his), etc. But Nappy had a proper crown (extremely tastless one,
IMO),
don't you worry. My impression was that during his reign he was moving
further from these presumably Roman images to his own, more and more
pompous and tastless "Empire" style. What's left besides the eagles?
Associations with the antiquity were nothing new and you can find them
all around Europe in all more or less "civilized" times. But I'd not
qualify Chellini's attempt to make a huge statue of Mars as an attempt
to rebild a Roman Empire.
>Since it's Art, I shall
> appeal to Eve for more.
>
> Legitimising propaganda, of course, but I thought that was the
point.
IMO, there are two different things:
1. Unquestionable historic heritage - Western civilization was based on
the earlier Greek and esp. Roman culture and "borrowing" various
aspects
of these cultures is too obvious to deny: Mars, Venus, Jupiter, Apollo,
etc. were all over the place, just as traditions of the "classic" Greek
drama (which resulted in Shakespeare's "barbarism" being acknowledged
even in England until Garrick's times and French not having a "modern"
drama until mid-XIX).
2. Claim that Europe was consistently trying to rebuild "Roman Empire".
In practical terms it did not and the references were just for "legacy"
sake. It is just as the Imperial court in Vienna was uneasy with
Peter's
idea to claim Russia an Empire. With HRE being a ...er... "heir" of the
Western Roman Empire and Ottoman Empire - of the Eastern one (but they
would not count, being Muslims, so the Emperor was the only
"legitimate"
heir of <whatever>), the Austrians were afraid of a competiting claim
to
this legacy and got relaxed only when it became clear that Peter is
talking about _Russian_ Empire. This was OK. But I'll be very obliged
if anybody will tell me how Habsburgs of early XVIII had been trying to
rebuild "Roman Empire".
> And everyone's been at that game, down to the Treaty of Rome with the
> Charlemagne Prize.
>
By the names only.
> Detail of possible interest: there are columns in the Palatine
Chapel at
> Aachen that Napoleon took back to Paris, and that the Germans then
stole
> back again in 1870-1. Of course, Charlemagne had stolen them from
some Roman
> site (Ravenna? Just guessing), and that Roman site had stolen them
from
> somewhere else, bound to be the Greeks. Sometimes I get the feeling
that no
> one made nice porphyry columns after about 200 BC, because everyone
gets
> them by looting.
Similar to the "venetian horses" stolen by Nappy and then happily
returned to Venetia who stole them from Constantinople.
Cultural ties can't be denied but political are different story.
David C. Pugh
news:1104175566.1...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > > I'm not sure that at any point Napoleon seriously claimed any
> > > "Roman Legacy".
> >
> > Look again at the imperial portrait, what is he wearing on his
> head?
>
> This would depend on a portrait.
I'm not well, haven't the energy to google for pictures, but I'm
thinking of that one with a gilded chaplet of leaves, presumably laurel.
> >Not that I'm a big expert on Napoleon, but it was my impression that the
> whole visual language of his Empire was that of Rome.
>
> To a certain degree and, I suspect that this was mostly heritage of the
> French Revolution: all this copying of the "Ancient" style in clothes
> (female clothes, to be sure)
Now Napoleon in Greek athlete's dress would be something, perhaps we'd
get to see what all the fuss was about ;-)
and furniture, David's paintings (and not
> only his), etc. But Nappy had a proper crown (extremely tastless one,
> IMO),> don't you worry.
Well, they were possibly the most spectacular bunch of parvenus in
history, no? (By the way, did you see the two-part film about Napoleon,
with Depardieu as wossname the police chief (F-something) and Malkovich as
Talleyrand? I saw the first half and elected not to continue. The film tried
to bring the mafia family aspect out.)
My impression was that during his reign he was moving
> further from these presumably Roman images to his own, more and more
> pompous and tastless "Empire" style. What's left besides the eagles?
But surely this is a matter of two competing *sets* of "Roman" imagery,
the Republican and the Imperial? After all, what sense of "Roman Empire" are
we talking about -- (1) a lot of red on the map, or (2) the political form
post Augustus (or post Domitian or whoever if we call post-Augustus the
Principate). Republican imagery should overlap considerably on (1), since
most of the unification-of-everywhere-under-the-eagles thing happened under
the Republic.
> Associations with the antiquity were nothing new and you can find them
> all around Europe in all more or less "civilized" times. But I'd not
> qualify Chellini's attempt to make a huge statue of Mars as an attempt
> to rebild a Roman Empire.
No, as I'm sure Eve will explain in more detail, he was simply earning
his living by doing what his patron told him to. :-) But see also below.
> > Legitimising propaganda, of course, but I thought that was the
> point.
>
> IMO, there are two different things:
> 1. Unquestionable historic heritage - Western civilization was based on
> the earlier Greek and esp. Roman culture and "borrowing" various
> aspects of these cultures is too obvious to deny: Mars, Venus, Jupiter,
Apollo, etc. were all over the place, just as traditions of the "classic"
Greek
> drama (which resulted in Shakespeare's "barbarism" being acknowledged
> even in England until Garrick's times and French not having a "modern"
> drama until mid-XIX).
>
> 2. Claim that Europe was consistently trying to rebuild "Roman Empire".
> In practical terms it did not and the references were just for "legacy"
> sake. It is just as the Imperial court in Vienna was uneasy with
> Peter's> idea to claim Russia an Empire. With HRE being a ...er... "heir"
of the> Western Roman Empire and Ottoman Empire - of the Eastern one (but
they> would not count, being Muslims, so the Emperor was the only
> "legitimate"> heir of <whatever>), the Austrians were afraid of a
competiting claim> to> this legacy and got relaxed only when it became clear
that Peter is> talking about _Russian_ Empire. This was OK.
Which may be a certain parallel to the problems in my own period with
one Roman Emperor sitting in Constantinople and one, er, wandering round the
dense forests of Germany ;-) Michael Kuttner made a good case to me last
year that Charlemagne didn't conceive of himself as taking the Byzantine
one's job away from her, but for most of the twelfth century, which I know
better, that was not so, both emperors were definitely saying to one
another, "I'm the only Roman Emperor, you're just a king" -- of the Germans
or Greeks respectively.
Incidentally, the kings of Leon(-Castile) in the 12th century called
themselves emperors, but of "Hispania" -- which meant basically a claim of
lordship over, and a promise/threat of reconquest of, Andalucia. Like I
understand Russia was at one point, moreover, Spain was plural -- in fact,
formally it still is, Juan Carlos is King of the Spains.
But I'll be very obliged> if anybody will tell me how Habsburgs of early
XVIII had been trying to> rebuild "Roman Empire".
I'm really wobbly on this period, but I understand that the Spanish
Hapsburgs of a little earlier had seriously tried to unify Europe under
themselves, using the Roman legacy thing. Charles V?
> > And everyone's been at that game, down to the Treaty of Rome with the
> > Charlemagne Prize.
> >
> By the names only.
I would say that the names the architects of the EU chose are a
deliberate attempt to suggest a rebuilding of the Roman Empire, in the (1)
sense above of territorial unity, rather than the sense of a crazy emperor,
drinking from lead pipes, boffing his sisters, throwing Christians to the
lions and so forth (a problem I had with the Russell Crowe film is that we
never really saw the 'good' Rome that RC wanted to restore). Or rather, they
are a deliberate attempt to suggest the restoration of the Empire under
Charlemagne, and funnily enough, what used to be called the Inner Six (as
opposed to the Outer Seven of EFTA) pretty well coincides with Charlemagne's
piece of territory.
I would say that the dream of reunification of and peace in Europe has
never disappeared, and it seems not unreasonable to describe this in terms
of restoration of the Empire in the sense of the Pax Romana. Of the
multitudinous projects advocated for this down the centuries, including by
people with no political power at all, some involved various kinds of
federation, while others wanted one of the big cats of the jungle to become
even bigger. Because that is a way to get peace, of course, provided that
everyone accepts the big cat's rule, which they don't. As Napoleon said, and
he should know, the conqueror is a man of peace, he seeks to enter his
enemy's capital unopposed.
> > Detail of possible interest: there are columns in the Palatine
> Chapel at Aachen that Napoleon took back to Paris, and that the Germans
then stole back again in 1870-1. Of course, Charlemagne had stolen them
from some Roman site (Ravenna? Just guessing), and that Roman site had
stolen them from somewhere else, bound to be the Greeks. Sometimes I get
the feeling that no one made nice porphyry columns after about 200 BC,
because everyone gets them by looting.
>
> Similar to the "venetian horses" stolen by Nappy and then happily
> returned to Venetia who stole them from Constantinople.
Yes indeed.
> Cultural ties can't be denied but political are different story.
No one disagrees about the cultural ties, but these turn into political
propaganda -- not the Fifth Column but the Marble Column -- and so you can't
separate the two arenas.
I'm not at all sure what your position is. What, in your view, would
*count* as a real ("practical) European attempt to resurrect the Roman
Empire? Then we can discuss whether such a thing happened or not.
Martin Reboul
Um... not really, he just pinched a lot of ideas from Mussolini, and extended
them ( the Praetorian Guard, SPQR on banners etc.)
A strange, kinky and disturbed fellow, who loved symbolism, fairy tales,
romantic legends and mythical 'history' and twisted them to his sick ends. He
wasn't very knowledgeable, just made it up as he went along. Unfortunately he
did a good job, and was born into a time of opportunity.
Nazi symbology and 'tradition' is all pinched from somewhere else - even
anti-semetism (which I suspect started off in his forgotten youth as some silly
'personal' issue with someone who happened to be Jewish, and became an
obsession).
Born later, Hitler might have made a reasonably good artist, perhaps even a rock
star (despite his looks), or maybe a successful 'cult' leader in California -
who knows? Born earlier he would have made a good forelock tugging peasant,
doing what he was told - providing he never discovered amphetamines....
Cheers
Martin
Martin Reboul
<am...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1104175566.1...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> David C. Pugh wrote:
> > <am...@hotmail.com> skrev i melding
> > news:1104166523.2...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > > > Napoleonic empire,
> > >
> > > I'm not sure that at any point Napoleon seriously claimed any
> > > "Roman Legacy".
> >
> > Look again at the imperial portrait, what is he wearing on his
> head?
>
> This would depend on a portrait.
> >Not
> > that I'm a big expert on Napoleon, but it was my impression that the
> whole
> > visual language of his Empire was that of Rome.
>
> To a certain degree and, I suspect that this was mostly heritage of the
> French Revolution: all this copying of the "Ancient" style in clothes
> (female clothes, to be sure) and furniture, David's paintings (and not
> only his), etc. But Nappy had a proper crown (extremely tastless one,
> IMO),
> don't you worry. My impression was that during his reign he was moving
> further from these presumably Roman images to his own, more and more
> pompous and tastless "Empire" style. What's left besides the eagles?
The adoption of the title 'emperor' is surely the biggest giveaway? Surely the
grandest title one can ever pretentiously claim on earth? How the little sod
ever summoned up the nerve and cheek is a remakable feat on its own!
> Associations with the antiquity were nothing new and you can find them
> all around Europe in all more or less "civilized" times. But I'd not
> qualify Chellini's attempt to make a huge statue of Mars as an attempt
> to rebild a Roman Empire.
That was an attempt to outdo Michaelanglo's David... see his autobiography.
Napoleon was of course an Aries, born under the same sign as Hitler, Bismarck,
Kruschev, Leonard Nimoy, Charlie Chaplin and D Spencer Hines... and myself,
ahem. You can see the clear obsession with Mars?
I don't think so. Let's face it, the Romans had (and still have) 'style'! What
does any self-respecting despot, mighty leader, empire builder etc require?
Answers...
1) A ruthless 'inner echelon' bodyguard, preferably dressed in black with cool
uniforms.
2) A good symbol that can be put on flags or sprayed on walls.
3) A really flash hat or crown... laurel will do at a pinch
4) A tough salute (essential!)
5) A love of stadiums and theatre.
6) Statues and pics to aggrandize properly.
7) Arrogance in extremis.
With none of these you are lost - adopt any three and you're already going
Roman...
> > And everyone's been at that game, down to the Treaty of Rome with the
> > Charlemagne Prize.
> >
>
> By the names only.
>
> > Detail of possible interest: there are columns in the Palatine
> Chapel at
> > Aachen that Napoleon took back to Paris, and that the Germans then
> stole
> > back again in 1870-1. Of course, Charlemagne had stolen them from
> some Roman
> > site (Ravenna? Just guessing), and that Roman site had stolen them
> from
> > somewhere else, bound to be the Greeks. Sometimes I get the feeling
> that no
> > one made nice porphyry columns after about 200 BC, because everyone
> gets
> > them by looting.
>
> Similar to the "venetian horses" stolen by Nappy and then happily
> returned to Venetia who stole them from Constantinople.
> Cultural ties can't be denied but political are different story.
Very few things are ever really *new*....
Cheers
Martin
>
Julian Richards
<ab...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Omega" <2121(d)@insightbb.com> wrote in message
>news:lOVzd.571884$wV.16429@attbi_s54...
>
>> In reality, fascism is just a more "liberal" version of socialism. It is
>a
>> partnership of government and business, much like the US democrats do
>(look
>
>Take a pill
>
>Lie in a darkened room
>
>Try and adjust so that your view of the world intersects with reality at
>least once every week...
Anything nasty is of the left. Nazis were leftist. So was Mussolini
and Franco. The Black Death was brought to Europe by socialists
stowing away on ships. Global warming is the result of flatulence in
the Democratic Party etc etc etc.
Hitler was a liberal socialist? If he were alive today in the USA, he
would be a Democrat?
am...@hotmail.com
Julian Richards wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 15:52:12 -0000, "William Black"
> <ab...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Omega" <2121(d)@insightbb.com> wrote in message
> >news:lOVzd.571884$wV.16429@attbi_s54...
> >
> >> In reality, fascism is just a more "liberal" version of socialism.
It is
> >a
> >> partnership of government and business, much like the US democrats
do
> >(look
> >
> >Take a pill
> >
> >Lie in a darkened room
> >
> >Try and adjust so that your view of the world intersects with
reality at
> >least once every week...
>
> Anything nasty is of the left.
Not always but quite often
> Nazis were leftist.
"A good Nazy must be like a steak: brown outside, red inside".
>So was Mussolini
> and Franco.
No, Franco was into "moral values" and, BTW, who said that he was
"nasty"?
But you forgot few really BIG-SCALE nasty guys like Lenin, Stalin, Mao,
Pol Pot, Kim Il Seng, etc.
>The Black Death was brought to Europe by socialists
> stowing away on ships.
Now, when you mentioned it..... :-)
> Global warming is the result of flatulence in
> the Democratic Party
To be more precise, by all these Hollywood celebs driving their
SUV's...
>etc etc etc.
>
> Hitler was a liberal socialist?
No, he was, by his own definition, a National-Socialist, a leader of
National-Socialist _Workers_ Party with, at least initially, strong
left wing. "Left" does not always a synonym to "liberal" because
in the Soviet political slang(hopefully nobody will deny that _they_
were left), "liberal" was associated with "rotten capitalist
liberalism".
>If he were alive today in the USA, he
> would be a Democrat?
>
Of course, not. But he would not fit as a Republican as well so the
question does not make any sense.
hippo
"William Black" wrote in message
> "Omega" wrote in message
> > In reality, fascism is just a more "liberal" version of socialism. It
is
> a
> > partnership of government and business, much like the US democrats do
> (look
>
> Take a pill
>
> Lie in a darkened room
>
> Try and adjust so that your view of the world intersects with reality at
> least once every week...
He's right. Fascism, as practiced in Germany and Italy, and propounded by
the Falange in Spain (but not put into effect by Franco), was a State
Socialist system with production left in the hands of the private sector but
closely controlled by the State. Socially it was secular, revolutionary and
egalitarian with individualism suppressed for the common (state) good. It
was neither a free market (because of government controls at all levels of
production, the access to capital, and consumption, and direct government
control over communications and the education systems), nor democratic. The
only things 'right wing' about it was its professed nationalism as opposed
to the internationalism of the Communists and other radical Socialists, and
its opposition to Communism with which it was in competition. This later was
also a characteristic of the capitalist democracies and Anarchists of the
period so hardly unique. -the Troll
Martin Reboul
<am...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1104184511.7...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
There is no 'right' and 'left' - just a big circle, they join up together at the
back. That's the bit to trample on...
William Black
"hippo" <hi...@southsudan.net> wrote in message
news:ReOdnaG1lLx...@giganews.com...
>
> He's right. Fascism, as practiced in Germany and Italy, and propounded by
> the Falange in Spain (but not put into effect by Franco), was a State
> Socialist system with production left in the hands of the private sector
but
> closely controlled by the State.
Bollocks.
This fallacy is trotted out by the more insane elements of the US right in a
desperate attempt to justify letting poor people die of disease and banning
unions and letting their great corporations despoil the world in pursuit of
tawdry profit.
Capitalism isn't necessarily right wing, neither is freedom.
There is an obvious way to explain this to the hard of thinking who trot out
'It must be Socialist, the S in NSDAP stands for Socialism...' You have to
explain to them that the D in GDR stands for Democratic and that Germans do
stuff like that, not because they're liars, but because they're German...
Riain Y. Barton
"Omega" <2121(d)@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:lOVzd.571884$wV.16429@attbi_s54...
|
Riain Y. Barton
"Omega" <2121(d)@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:sQVzd.643987$D%.232038@attbi_s51...
Riain Y. Barton
THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM IS NOT LINEAR BUT CIRCULAR, THEREFORE AT ONE POINT ON
THE CIRCLE THE FAR-LEFT AND THE FAR-RIGHT MEET!!!!
<am...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1104184511.7...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
|
Riain Y. Barton
THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM IS NOT LINEAR BUT CIRCULAR, THEREFORE AT ONE POINT ON
THE CIRCLE THE FAR-LEFT AND THE FAR-RIGHT MEET!!!!
"Omega" <2121(d)@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:lOVzd.571884$wV.16429@attbi_s54...
|
hippo
"William Black" wrote in message
> "hippo" wrote in message
> > He's right. Fascism, as practiced in Germany and Italy, and propounded
by
> > the Falange in Spain (but not put into effect by Franco), was a State
> > Socialist system with production left in the hands of the private sector
> but
> > closely controlled by the State.
>
> Bollocks.
>
> This fallacy is trotted out by the more insane elements of the US right in
a
> desperate attempt to justify letting poor people die of disease and
banning
> unions and letting their great corporations despoil the world in pursuit
of
> tawdry profit.
>
> Capitalism isn't necessarily right wing, neither is freedom.
>
> There is an obvious way to explain this to the hard of thinking who trot
out
> 'It must be Socialist, the S in NSDAP stands for Socialism...' You have
to
> explain to them that the D in GDR stands for Democratic and that Germans
do
> stuff like that, not because they're liars, but because they're
German...
You have gone back to mum again, Sir William, as you always do when politics
is being argued. I am not desperate, trying to justify letting poor people
die of anything, advocating the banning of unions, or marshalling my vast
corporations to despoil the world. If I were I would be far too busy to post
here. This is an history NG and you should know better than to try
hysterical propaganda as an argument.
Capitalism isn't exclusively right wing but it certainly isn't at all
Communist, Anarchist, or radical Socialist. 'Freedom' is a relative term and
open to interpretation. To me it means the greatest possible freedom from
state control which is the center of modern conservative doctrine in this
country. It probably means something different to you and that's fine.
Fascism of the '20s - '40s was a socialist revolutionary movement whether
you like it or not. It tore down the old political and social orders, free
market capitalist system, and effectively brought the Church under
government control. It took direct control of education, communications, and
transportation. Private property was no longer sacrosanct and individual
freedoms were limited 'for the common good'. Capital and capitalist
enterprises were heavily controlled by the government both directly and
through heavy taxation. If that's 'right wing' I'll eat it. -the Troll
hippo
"Riain Y. Barton" wrote in message
> POLITICAL SCIENCE 101:
>
> THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM IS NOT LINEAR BUT CIRCULAR, THEREFORE AT ONE POINT
ON
> THE CIRCLE THE FAR-LEFT AND THE FAR-RIGHT MEET!!!!
Then you should sign up tomorrow at the latest. Anarchism on the far left is
very different from objective libertarianism on the far right no matter how
similar they look to someone not having taken PS 101. -the Troll
Rick B
"Martin Reboul" <martin...@SPAMFUKvirgin.net> wrote in message
news:1B%zd.4777$SF1....@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net...
left. Wahabi Islamists, for example. As opposed to the Shiites like the
Ayatollah Khomeni.
Right and left are limited to Europe after the French Revolution, and even
then only to the industrialized parts of Europe.
Rick B
>
>> "Omega" wrote in message
>
>> > In reality, fascism is just a more "liberal" version of socialism. It
> is
>> a
>> > partnership of government and business, much like the US democrats do
>> (look
>>
>> Take a pill
>>
>> Lie in a darkened room
>>
>> Try and adjust so that your view of the world intersects with reality at
>> least once every week...
>
> He's right. Fascism, as practiced in Germany and Italy, and propounded by
> the Falange in Spain (but not put into effect by Franco), was a State
> Socialist system with production left in the hands of the private sector
This is a contradiction to socialism. Ownership mattered, and the Nazis
didn't disturb it.
>but
> closely controlled by the State.
>Socially it was secular,
If anti-Christian was secular, that is true. Italian fascism was
non-religius but Germn fascism developed a specific anti-Christian religion.
I don't consider that secular.
>revolutionary and
> egalitarian
Disagree here also. The leadership principle was inherently
anti-egalitarian.
>with individualism suppressed for the common (state) good. It
> was neither a free market (because of government controls at all levels of
> production, the access to capital, and consumption, and direct government
> control over communications and the education systems), nor democratic.
There were no economies involved in WW II which did not become
government-controlled. That is a characteristic of total war. It cannot be
usd to define the nature of the government involved.
>The
> only things 'right wing' about it was its professed nationalism as opposed
> to the internationalism of the Communists
>and other radical Socialists, and
How do you define 'radical Socialists?'
> its opposition to Communism with which it was in competition.
It was also right-wing in its' adherence to mythical aspects such as the
traditional aspects of Germanic religion.
>This later was
> also a characteristic of the capitalist democracies and Anarchists of the
> period so hardly unique. -the Troll
>
>
The anarchists in general were closer to the communists in their acceptance
of internationalism. The position of the Anarcho-syndaclists of Barcelona
and Catalonia can't be taken as the position of the anarchists generally.
Dave Gower
"Riain Y. Barton" <ri...@riain.us> wrote in message
news:U4KdncW7hN2...@comcast.com...
> POLITICAL SCIENCE 101:
>
> THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM IS NOT LINEAR BUT CIRCULAR, THEREFORE AT ONE POINT
> ON
> THE CIRCLE THE FAR-LEFT AND THE FAR-RIGHT MEET!!!!
PS 201: political thought is far too complex to be represented by a simple
geometric shape
PS 301: truth is not established by playing games with fonts, caps and
exclamation points
Rick B
Of course, according to Marx Capitalism is _prior_ to communism, and
anarchism is anti-capitalist in that it opposes the power of the managers. I
have yet to determine what you mean by 'radical Socialist.' Since Capitalism
is an element of liberalism (and anthetical to aristocracy or feudalism)
your view of it as to some extent right-wing seems confusing at best.
>'Freedom' is a relative term and
> open to interpretation. To me it means the greatest possible freedom from
> state control which is the center of modern conservative doctrine in this
> country. It probably means something different to you and that's fine.
Then your view of freedom is the Libertarianists view of freedom. Since that
means the destruction of all society and all corporations, it is really
quite unattainable - as well as extremely dangerous to any form of stable
society.
>
> Fascism of the '20s - '40s was a socialist revolutionary movement whether
> you like it or not. It tore down the old political and social orders, free
> market capitalist system, and effectively brought the Church under
> government control. It took direct control of education, communications,
> and
> transportation. Private property was no longer sacrosanct and individual
> freedoms were limited 'for the common good'. Capital and capitalist
> enterprises were heavily controlled by the government both directly and
> through heavy taxation. If that's 'right wing' I'll eat it. -the Troll
These are only free-market libertarians, and all who oppose them are radical
socialists, communists, or fascists - all of them the same thing. Franco was
a feudalistic militarist and aristocrat, not a fascist. Mussolini, Hitler,
and Stalin were all Communists - or maybe radical socialists, whatever that
is.
But as you have already described it, the meaning of right-wing is -- well,
meaningless. There is no such thing.
Conservatives or right wingers are feudalists and aristocrats, and any who
oppose the French Revolutionists. The French Revolutionists themselves
(liberals) are the left-wing. This was, however, true in 1792, 1832, and
1848 (perhaps). After that?? Not really. In industrial nations what we mean
by right-wing was no longer aristrocratic and feudalistic. The
revolutionists had broken up into the communists, the liberals, and the
proto-fascists. Communists were left wing, the liberals were the centerists,
and the protofascists were the right-wing-to-be.
-----------------------------------------------------
Apparently capitalism (according to you) is corporations that have no
outside controls and are totally free from any social responsibility.
I'm sure that you will understand (if not accept) that I don't buy that. In
my opinion, capitilist organizations require both ownership and government
regulation - if for no other reason than the fact that owners do not
understand all the needs for controls. Government provides the default
controls, and the owners make the changes needed to meet current
requirements within the limitations allowed by government. (The government
is setting rules that prevent theft or criminal actitiies.) Government
provides routine, security and honesty, and the owners make the changes for
new conditions. This is a requirement of bounded ratinionality. (See Herbert
Simon - no understanding of modern society is adequate without consideration
of Simon's Bounded Rationality.)
>
>
Dave Gower
"hippo" <hi...@southsudan.net> wrote
> Fascism of the '20s - '40s was a socialist revolutionary movement whether
> you like it or not. It tore down the old political and social orders, free
> market capitalist system, and effectively brought the Church under
> government control. It took direct control of education, communications,
> and
> transportation. Private property was no longer sacrosanct and individual
> freedoms were limited 'for the common good'. Capital and capitalist
> enterprises were heavily controlled by the government both directly and
> through heavy taxation.
Exactly right. This illustrates one of the most important things about this
discussion. To understand the Fascist movements of the early 20th Century or
any other movement it is absolutely vital to understand the social context
in which it was created and against which it is rebelling (or toward which
it was moving). That's why our juvenile anti-Bushites are making such fools
of themselves in attempting to compare Bush to Hitler. The Nazis wanted to
harness a unified German "Volk" (which of course excluded certain
undesirables) to their dreams of conquest. Nothing could be more
fundamentally different that the basic and most sacred tenets of current
western conservatism.
The fact that certain elements such as nationalism can be found in the
abstract in both societies is irrelevant. Both Hitler and Bush ate, slept,
read, spoke and put on their pants one leg at a time. That does not make the
two men moral equals.
BTW if I had been eligible to vote in the recent U.S. election I would have
voted for Kerry, so this is not a paid Republican message.
Rick B
>
> THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM IS NOT LINEAR BUT CIRCULAR, THEREFORE AT ONE POINT
> ON
> THE CIRCLE THE FAR-LEFT AND THE FAR-RIGHT MEET!!!!
POLITICAL SCIENCE 102 - THE ABOVE IS ONLY TRUE IN INDUSTRIALIZED EUROPE.
SOMETIMES.
Dave Gower
"Rick B" <jjay...@hotmail.com> wrote
> Disagree here also. The leadership principle was inherently
> anti-egalitarian.
This illustrates another level of complication. While you are quite right
that the Nazis had a strict hierarchy of command, with Hitler at the top,
socially there WAS quite a strong element of egalitarianism in Germany and
other Fascist societies. For example, the military officer class was much
more open to non-aristocrats than under the Kaiser. Many senior Nazis,
including Hitler himself, came from humble background and boasted about it.
Indeed, people with "von" in front of their name had in fact to overcome
some reverse discrimination, although many succeeded.
This egalitarianism was celebrated in Nazi publicity. The "Great German
Volk" produced "superior people" from within its ranks who were destined to
rule the world. The "race soul" guided the leaders to this conquest. That in
turn gets into the myth of the Aryan, which was a quasi-spiritual concept
that is a separate topic. So in a twisted way so typical of the Nazis, the
leadership principle had strongly egalitarian conceptual roots.
Martin Reboul
> POLITICAL SCIENCE 101:
>
> THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM IS NOT LINEAR BUT CIRCULAR, THEREFORE AT ONE POINT ON
> THE CIRCLE THE FAR-LEFT AND THE FAR-RIGHT MEET!!!!
I just said that dear boy, do pay attention. And there's no need to shout...
Vaughan Sanders
Yep, Big People, Little Government, as apposed to William's and
Adolph's, Little People, Big Government.
But then I know nothing about Mermaids in Art so could be wrong :-))
Jamie
William Black
"Vaughan Sanders" <ja...@chalkwell-windsurfing.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cqran6$b5e$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Yep, Big People, Little Government, as apposed to William's and
> Adolph's, Little People, Big Government.
> But then I know nothing about Mermaids in Art so could be wrong :-))
For a man to admit to knowing nothing of mermaids in art is a dreadful
thing, but I am sure you will be forgiven...
Think about it, what can't mermaids do?
Why is this relevant to Elizabeth of England?
Vaughan Sanders
"William Black" <ab...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cqrk21$qrb$1...@news.freedom2surf.net...
Presumably you think it was a sneaky way of having a go at her for being
barren?
Shakespeare does not appear to have looked on mermaids in this way.
Comedy of Errors for example III. ii, Antipholus of Syracuse to Luciana.
"O, train me not, sweet mermaid, with thy note,
To drown me in thy sister's flood of tears:
Sing, siren, for thyself and I will dote."
Jamie
am...@hotmail.com
I can't agree more. The whole terminology and its applications start
making less and less sense. "Right" in Russia is (AFAIK) something
associated with the democratic reforms, while "left" is not. The
nationalist movements are routinely labeled as "democratic", providing
they are "our SOB's", etc.
Following (misleading) political analogies, we can sometimes get
something
really entertaining. Franco was convicting Republicans to hard labor,
which is exactly what Madonna offered to do to Newt Gingrich. Does this
make Franco an ultra-liberal Democrat or does this make Madonna a
phalangist? :-)
William Black
>
> "William Black" <ab...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:cqrk21$qrb$1...@news.freedom2surf.net...
> >
> > "Vaughan Sanders" <ja...@chalkwell-windsurfing.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in
> message
> > news:cqran6$b5e$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
> >
> > > Yep, Big People, Little Government, as apposed to William's and
> > > Adolph's, Little People, Big Government.
> > > But then I know nothing about Mermaids in Art so could be wrong :-))
> >
> > For a man to admit to knowing nothing of mermaids in art is a dreadful
> > thing, but I am sure you will be forgiven...
> >
> > Think about it, what can't mermaids do?
> >
> > Why is this relevant to Elizabeth of England?
>
> Presumably you think it was a sneaky way of having a go at her for being
> barren?
Goodness no.
It represents her virginity.
Remember the mermaids are on her dress.
This is (unfortunately) about imagery in renaissance painting.
The one thing you must always remember when discussing the portraiture of
powerful people in that period, and the one thing many people forget, is
that these pictures were paid for by rich and important people, and always
have a message.
The mermaid represents the virginity of the queen, but without a Marian
aspect.
Anyone trying to have a 'sneaky go' by intellectual means at the best
educated woman in Europe was always going to get their fingers burnt.
am...@hotmail.com
>
> > > > I'm not sure that at any point Napoleon seriously claimed any
> > > > "Roman Legacy".
> > >
> > > Look again at the imperial portrait, what is he wearing on
his
> > head?
> >
> > This would depend on a portrait.
>
> thinking of that one with a gilded chaplet of leaves, presumably
laurel.
IIRC, this portrait depicts him as Jupiter.
>
> > >Not that I'm a big expert on Napoleon, but it was my impression
that the
> > whole visual language of his Empire was that of Rome.
> >
> > To a certain degree and, I suspect that this was mostly heritage of
the
> > French Revolution: all this copying of the "Ancient" style in
clothes
> > (female clothes, to be sure)
>
> Now Napoleon in Greek athlete's dress would be something, perhaps
we'd
> get to see what all the fuss was about ;-)
I'm sure that it would be done in a way that both assured necessary
degree of likeness with an original AND preserved imperial dignity. :-)
I'd say that portraying Emperor Paul with a "classic" nose was a task
of comparable difficulty but it was done.
>
> and furniture, David's paintings (and not
> > only his), etc. But Nappy had a proper crown (extremely tastless
one,
> > IMO),> don't you worry.
>
> Well, they were possibly the most spectacular bunch of parvenus
in
> history, no?
Indeed. Out of this crowd I prefer Bernadotte.
> (By the way, did you see the two-part film about Napoleon,
> with Depardieu as wossname the police chief (F-something)
Depardieu is "D-something" but you are talking about Fouchet, one
of the most interesting figures of this period.
Teacher of mathematics, deupty of Convent, one of the cruelest
comissars
of Convent (dealt with counter-revolution in Lyon), at some point close
to extreme left in preaching "republican virtues" and hate to the rich,
Robespierre's personal enemy (but when confronted with a question "what
about Fouchet?", R avoided a clear answer), for a short time President
of Jacobin Club, one of the behind-the-screen movers of Termidor,
Minister of Police under Termidor, by the time of Bonapart's plot one
of
the most powerful figures _inside_ France, Minister of Police under
Napoleon (probably "father" of the modern police). One of the richest
people in France, Minister of Police under Louis XVIII (eventually,
pushed into a retirement because he voted for Louis XVI death).
Had a reputation of the most efficient Minister of Police and one of
the
most dishonest and disloyal people of his time.
>and Malkovich as
> Talleyrand?
I tried towatch one with Armand Asante (sp) as Napoleon and
J.Bisset as Josephine. Don't remember who else was involved but
this was boring.
>I saw the first half and elected not to continue. The film tried
> to bring the mafia family aspect out.)
>
> My impression was that during his reign he was moving
> > further from these presumably Roman images to his own, more and
more
> > pompous and tastless "Empire" style. What's left besides the
eagles?
>
> But surely this is a matter of two competing *sets* of "Roman"
imagery,
> the Republican and the Imperial?
During the Revolution the Republican style was in fashion. I'm not sure
if Roman Imperial style was _intentionally_ in fashion under Nappy.
Of course, antiquity WAS fashionable and there were numerous borrowings
from here and there, esp. from Italy (Greece was less accessible).
[]
>
> > Associations with the antiquity were nothing new and you can find
them
> > all around Europe in all more or less "civilized" times. But I'd
not
> > qualify Chellini's attempt to make a huge statue of Mars as an
attempt
> > to rebild a Roman Empire.
>
> No, as I'm sure Eve will explain in more detail, he was simply
earning
> his living by doing what his patron told him to. :-)
Actually, Chellini wrote that this was his personal idea: Francouis I
gave him practically a free hand.
> But see also below.
> Which may be a certain parallel to the problems in my own period
with
> one Roman Emperor sitting in Constantinople and one, er, wandering
round the
> dense forests of Germany ;-)
I can see some similarities. :-)
>Michael Kuttner made a good case to me last
> year that Charlemagne didn't conceive of himself as taking the
Byzantine
> one's job away from her, but for most of the twelfth century, which I
know
> better, that was not so, both emperors were definitely saying to one
> another, "I'm the only Roman Emperor, you're just a king" -- of the
Germans
> or Greeks respectively.
>
AFAIK, this did not stop at XII.
[]
>
> But I'll be very obliged> if anybody will tell me how Habsburgs of
early
> XVIII had been trying to> rebuild "Roman Empire".
>
> I'm really wobbly on this period, but I understand that the
Spanish
> Hapsburgs of a little earlier had seriously tried to unify Europe
under
> themselves, using the Roman legacy thing. Charles V?
Charles V was trying to create Habsburg Empire that will be the most
powerful state in Europe (as opposite to France being the one). I don't
think that he ever intentionally tried to "unify" Europe. He made some
attempts to strenghten his position in Germany (as Emperor) but most of
his time and effort was spent elswhere. In Germany his attempts ended
as
a spectacular failure. To think about it, it was rather pathetic. A
ruler
strong enough to defeat French in Italy could not bring up enough force
in Germany to deal with the local princelings.
>
> > > And everyone's been at that game, down to the Treaty of Rome with
the
> > > Charlemagne Prize.
> > >
> > By the names only.
>
> I would say that the names the architects of the EU chose are a
> deliberate attempt to suggest a rebuilding of the Roman Empire,
>in the (1)
> sense above of territorial unity, rather than the sense of a crazy
emperor,
> drinking from lead pipes, boffing his sisters, throwing Christians to
the
> lions and so forth
With me being rather sceptical about EU and its leaders, I can't
seriously
look for the analogies with any empire of the old. Not to mention that
the whole situation is somewhat reversed: instead of a conquest by one
power, they join together on their own will.
> (a problem I had with the Russell Crowe film is that we
> never really saw the 'good' Rome that RC wanted to restore).
A problem that I had with this movie is that it is a complete and total
nonsense from the very beginning to the very end. And this (PC)
nonsense is going on _all_ levels of this movie.
[]
>
> I would say that the dream of reunification of and peace in
Europe has
> never disappeared, and it seems not unreasonable to describe this in
terms
> of restoration of the Empire in the sense of the Pax Romana.
Roman world was dominated by a single culture. Not the case with EU.
[]
>
> I'm not at all sure what your position is.
Simple: what author of the initial post wrote is not (IMO) historically
correct. Or "factually" correct.
>What, in your view, would
> *count* as a real ("practical) European attempt to resurrect the
Roman
> Empire?
I don't think that anything of the kind was/is realistically possible
and this is why I said that I did not see any such attempt.
All these new empires and unions were creations of their own times and
circumstances even if they used some references to legitimize their
existence.
hippo
"Rick B" wrote in message
> "hippo" wrote in message
> > Capitalism isn't exclusively right wing but it certainly isn't at all
> > Communist, Anarchist, or radical Socialist.
>
> Of course, according to Marx Capitalism is _prior_ to communism, and
> anarchism is anti-capitalist in that it opposes the power of the managers.
I
> have yet to determine what you mean by 'radical Socialist.' Since
Capitalism
> is an element of liberalism (and anthetical to aristocracy or feudalism)
> your view of it as to some extent right-wing seems confusing at best.
'Radical Socialists' were the pre-war era folks who, like the Trotskyites,
were extreme Socialists but disagreed with some fundamentals advocated by
the Comintern Communists. Since they anti-dated the Communists they did not
call themselves Communists but by various other distinguishing names. Most
were splinter groups. Aristocracy and Feudalism are not ideologies just as
Monarchism isn't. They are systems of government and not based upon ideas.
Capitalism is not antithetical to aristocracy or feudalism which are
pre-industrial systems wherein control of the land meant control of
production and wealth. In more modern times an aristocracy may be one of
wealth and not lineage or class. It simply means 'government by the best'.
> >'Freedom' is a relative term and
> > open to interpretation. To me it means the greatest possible freedom
from
> > state control which is the center of modern conservative doctrine in
this
> > country. It probably means something different to you and that's fine.
>
> Then your view of freedom is the Libertarianists view of freedom. Since
that
> means the destruction of all society and all corporations, it is really
> quite unattainable - as well as extremely dangerous to any form of stable
> society.
No, the key word here is 'possible'. In my view Libertarians are too
radical. There must be government of some sort because only government can
protect society from itself and individuals from one another. I do believe
in social welfare to an extent limited to those unable to work or care for
themselves. Libertarianism only works if all men are Renaissance men like
Ayn Rand's heroes which is biologically impossible. There is a strong streak
of Libertarianism in US Conservatism.
No, I agree corporations must have ownership and some government controls
(the laws of the land). In Nazi Germany they ceased to be independent, and
therefore dynamic, because controls were pervasive. In Nazi Germany capital
became a tool of government control rather than fuel for a Capitalist
system.
The term 'right wing' is misused in the post-industrial era having become
only a meaningless pejorative used by the Left. I understand it to mean
generally conservative which in turn means 1) conserving the extant
political and economic systems, 2) permitting only evolutionary social
change, 3) and reacting against social revolutionary ideologies. -the Troll
hippo
"Rick B" wrote in message
> "hippo" wrote in message
> > He's right. Fascism, as practiced in Germany and Italy, and propounded
by
> > the Falange in Spain (but not put into effect by Franco), was a State
> > Socialist system with production left in the hands of the private sector
>
> This is a contradiction to socialism. Ownership mattered, and the Nazis
> didn't disturb it.
Not hardly. The Nazis left control in private hands for the cynical reason
experienced managers could do a better job than party hacks like in the
USSR. In fact Capitalist enterprises were heavily controlled by the state
from access to capital, resources, and labor to production contracts and
distribution of goods, not to mention intervention by the legal arm of the
state against any manager who crossed the line.
> >but
> > closely controlled by the State.
>
> >Socially it was secular,
>
> If anti-Christian was secular, that is true. Italian fascism was
> non-religius but Germn fascism developed a specific anti-Christian
religion.
> I don't consider that secular.
Secularism for the Nazis meant the complete removal of church as a power
center, base of opposing opinion, and from the national intellectual
process. They achieved that quite easily and early on by imprisoning priests
and pastors who disagreed with them, removing the church from the education
process, and through the use of effective propaganda. They were cleverer
than the Soviets because open Soviet anti-clericalism frightened the Western
Democracies and coalesced opposition against them.
> >revolutionary and
>
> > egalitarian
>
> Disagree here also. The leadership principle was inherently
> anti-egalitarian.
By egalitarian I mean the stratification of society into classes. The new
'ruling class' in Nazi Germany was to be from the 'people' and based only on
Germanness, brains, education, capability, and purity of ideology. In
practice members of the old ruling classes were excluded except in the
military which was to be a temporary inconvenience and even then only where
there were no other viable candidates for the job. In other words except for
blood purity, the temporary exclusion of the military, and slight
differences in ideology, the Nazi ruling class was to be exactly like the
Soviet.
> >with individualism suppressed for the common (state) good. It
> > was neither a free market (because of government controls at all levels
of
> > production, the access to capital, and consumption, and direct
government
> > control over communications and the education systems), nor democratic.
>
> There were no economies involved in WW II which did not become
> government-controlled. That is a characteristic of total war. It cannot be
> usd to define the nature of the government involved.
Government controls over the means of production were well in hand before
the war as were the mechanics of achieving and maintaining them.
> >The
> > only things 'right wing' about it was its professed nationalism as
opposed
> > to the internationalism of the Communists
>
>
> >and other radical Socialists, and
>
> How do you define 'radical Socialists?'
Socialists who would have been Communists but for some disagreement in
detail with dogma put out by the Comintern.
> > its opposition to Communism with which it was in competition.
>
> It was also right-wing in its' adherence to mythical aspects such as the
> traditional aspects of Germanic religion.
The concept of racial superiority had nothing to do with conservatism then
or now except that it might be seen as an extreme of nationalism. More than
anything else it was a tool of government control which is not conservative.
> >This later was
> > also a characteristic of the capitalist democracies and Anarchists of
the
> > period so hardly unique. -the Troll
> >
> >
> The anarchists in general were closer to the communists in their
acceptance
> of internationalism. The position of the Anarcho-syndaclists of Barcelona
> and Catalonia can't be taken as the position of the anarchists generally.
They were also strongly anti-Communist (in Spain and Russia) just like the
Trotskyites, Falange, and radical and moderate Socialists. Anti-Communism is
not a unique feature of conservatism and not a legitimate reason to label
Fascists as reactionary or 'right wing'.
FYI Anarcho-syndicalists were not limited to Catalonia. They were the
largest Popular Front party in Spain by far in 1936 and were probably
strongest in Andalusia and the south until the early campaigns of the Civil
War put them out of business there. -the Troll
William Black
> 'Radical Socialists' were the pre-war era folks who, like the Trotskyites,
> were extreme Socialists but disagreed with some fundamentals advocated by
> the Comintern Communists. Since they anti-dated the Communists they did
not
> call themselves Communists but by various other distinguishing names. Most
> were splinter groups.
Calling the "Left SR's" splinter groups plays a very nasty Leninist game.
They weren't.
They were a cohesive group that was liquidated by the Bolsheviks.
am...@hotmail.com
William Black wrote:
> "hippo" <hi...@southsudan.net> wrote in message
> news:htGdnSgwipm...@giganews.com...
>
> > 'Radical Socialists' were the pre-war era folks who, like the
Trotskyites,
> > were extreme Socialists but disagreed with some fundamentals
advocated by
> > the Comintern Communists. Since they anti-dated the Communists they
did
> not
> > call themselves Communists but by various other distinguishing
names. Most
> > were splinter groups.
>
> Calling the "Left SR's" splinter groups plays a very nasty Leninist
game.
>
> They weren't.
>
> They were a cohesive group that was liquidated by the Bolsheviks.
Of course the Left SR's were not a faction of the Russian
Social-Democratic Party, especially of the faction of this party known
as
"Bolsheviks". They were an independent party with its own following
until mid-1918.
Martin Reboul
<am...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1104257329.1...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
I thought the SR's were 'Social(ist) Revolutionaries' (as opposed to Social
Democrats)?
am...@hotmail.com
Exactly. The "Left SR's" were a faction of the SR's (not of SD's).
Big enough to form a powerful party on its own right. After the Coup of
October (November) of 1917 Russia had been ruled by coalition of the
SD(b)' and the Left SR's until the SD(b)'s figured out how to get rid
of their partners.
am...@hotmail.com
> > >
> > > > > Napoleonic empire,
> > > >
> > > > I'm not sure that at any point Napoleon seriously claimed any
> > > > "Roman Legacy".
> > >
> > > Look again at the imperial portrait, what is he wearing on
his
> > head?
> >
> > This would depend on a portrait.
> > > that I'm a big expert on Napoleon, but it was my impression that
the
> > whole
> > > visual language of his Empire was that of Rome.
> >
> > To a certain degree and, I suspect that this was mostly heritage of
the
> > French Revolution: all this copying of the "Ancient" style in
clothes
not
> > only his), etc. But Nappy had a proper crown (extremely tastless
one,
> > IMO),
moving
> > further from these presumably Roman images to his own, more and
more
> > pompous and tastless "Empire" style. What's left besides the
eagles?
>
You mean as moving away from the revolutionary ideals? One of his
generals
remarked on this after coronation:
-How did you like it?
-I'd like it more if there was no <forgot a number> thousands people
killed to make this ceremony impossible.
>Surely the
> grandest title one can ever pretentiously claim on earth?
Martin, dear, you are falling into "eurocentrism" :-)
I'm sure that The Great Khan or something claiming a direct descendance
from the Heaven are at least just as exciting. Not to mention titles
like
"Tzar of the Tzars", Shah-in-Shah (which is probably the same?), etc.
>How the little sod
You Brits are too free with the allegations: AFAIK, Nappy was all for
the "family values" and decency. I also was told that "little" was a
misunderstanding caused by the difference between size of English and
French inch. :-)
> ever summoned up the nerve and cheek is a remakable feat on its own!
Well, to think about it, what was a problem after assigning himself the
1st Consul for life? Just a little bit more of gold braid here and
there
and emlpoyment for few more people.....
>
> > Associations with the antiquity were nothing new and you can find
them
> > all around Europe in all more or less "civilized" times. But I'd
not
> > qualify Chellini's attempt to make a huge statue of Mars as an
attempt
> > to rebild a Roman Empire.
>
> That was an attempt to outdo Michaelanglo's David... see his
>autobiography.
The point was that he was not told _exactly_ by his employer what to
do.
>
> Napoleon was of course an Aries, born under the same sign as Hitler,
Bismarck,
> Kruschev, Leonard Nimoy, Charlie Chaplin and D Spencer Hines... and
myself,
> ahem.
You are in an interesting company. Should I congratulate you or rather
not?
>You can see the clear obsession with Mars?
Errrrrr...... I did not know that a ram passes as an extremely
bellicose
animal but if you said so...... To think about it, there are _some_
important characteristics: thick skull, stubborness, moderately
developed
mental abilities.... Nothing in common with you, of course! :-)
>
> > >Since it's Art, I shall
> > > appeal to Eve for more.
> > talking about _Russian_ Empire. This was OK. But I'll be very
obliged
> > if anybody will tell me how Habsburgs of early XVIII had been
trying to
> > rebuild "Roman Empire".
>
> I don't think so. Let's face it, the Romans had (and still have)
'style'! What
> does any self-respecting despot, mighty leader, empire builder etc
require?
> Answers...
> 1) A ruthless 'inner echelon' bodyguard, preferably dressed in black
with cool
> uniforms.
AFAIK, the Habsburgs were sorely lacking in this area. Even when they
finally managed to raise some money to provide their troops with the
uniforms, color was wrong and the uniforms were distinctively not cool.
OTOH, uniforms of Nappy's army were acknowledgedly coolest of the time
(black was not favoured color for XIX "cool").
> 2) A good symbol that can be put on flags or sprayed on walls.
In this sense a 2-headed eagle is convenient: you are guaranteed from
painting it looking in a wrong direction (which may count as a high
treason).
> 3) A really flash hat or crown... laurel will do at a pinch
I saw the imperial crowns in Vienna. Except for a historic value of the
old crown of HRE, "unimpressive" is a mild word for them. Nothing on
a scale of those worn by the Russian emperors and (after all these
Hindu
and Zulu figured out what is best for them) by the British monarchs or
by the Shahs of Persia.
I heard that the crown of Bohemia has the best set of saphires in
Europe
but unfortunately it is not shown to a general public and the replica
was in repair (?) when I was visiting Prague (fortunately, at the same
time there was a display of the replicas of the famous crowns in one
of the Viena's stores). Hungarian crown is also not impressive.
Nappy, IIRC, ordered a huge crown with a lot of golden eagles (can't
tell if they were in full scale or not) and other thingies on it. Guy
at least _tried_ to work things up to the requirements, which was
rather
difficult in the time and place when/where David was passing for a
leading painter.
> 4) A tough salute (essential!)
More points for Nappy.
> 5) A love of stadiums and theatre.
Well, Habsburgs probably had a better opera and French theater of this
time
was unbearably "classic" (Nappy approved only of the 3rd part of Figaro
trilogy which tells something about his taste).
> 6) Statues and pics to aggrandize properly.
Numerous monuments in Vienna but all of them are lacking something.
Probably size necessary to make them really impressive. With their
being
generally ugly, increased size would make them really "monumental".
Nappy at least built a huge column in Paris so he had size counting in
his favor.
Of course, it is very difficult to beat the Soviet ...er... "monumental
art" in a combination of these two crucial parameters.
> 7) Arrogance in extremis.
>
A lot of it on both sides. Nappy simply had it more concentrated, while
Habsburgs had it spreaded over few centuries.
> With none of these you are lost - adopt any three and you're already
going
> Roman...
Not sure about Roman, but you are definitely going imperial...
hippo
"William Black" wrote in message
> "hippo" wrote in message
> > 'Radical Socialists' were the pre-war era folks who, like the
Trotskyites,
> > were extreme Socialists but disagreed with some fundamentals advocated
by
> > the Comintern Communists. Since they anti-dated the Communists they did
> not
> > call themselves Communists but by various other distinguishing names.
Most
> > were splinter groups.
>
> Calling the "Left SR's" splinter groups plays a very nasty Leninist game.
>
> They weren't.
>
> They were a cohesive group that was liquidated by the Bolsheviks.
In Spain the SR's (Besides the Communists of both flavors and Anarchists)
were the PSOE which became increasingly bolshevized but didn't at first have
any alignment outside of Spain as far as I can see beyond its general
association with the Popular Front in Spain which had an association with
left coalitions elsewhere including France. I call it a splinter because it
was a stand alone party until absorbed later.
We don't have to worry about playing a Leninist game anymore 'cause the
bastards are all pushing up begonias and no longer a threat even to
themselves. -the Troll
David C. Pugh
news:1104246729.6...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> > Now Napoleon in Greek athlete's dress would be something, perhaps
> we'd get to see what all the fuss was about ;-)
>
> I'm sure that it would be done in a way that both assured necessary
> degree of likeness with an original AND preserved imperial dignity. :-)
>
> I'd say that portraying Emperor Paul with a "classic" nose was a task
> of comparable difficulty but it was done.
So what did they have to work with, nasally speaking?
> > Well, they were possibly the most spectacular bunch of parvenus
> in history, no?
>
> Indeed. Out of this crowd I prefer Bernadotte.
Me too, not least because I know him a little as king of my adopted
country. And a good king he was too, despite, or because of, not having a
common language with 99.9% of the population. :-)
There's a nice story about him when he was sick. A Swedish courtier
tried to express a hope that His Majesty would feel better today, but what
his French actually came out as was a hope that HM would behave better
today. Bernadotte said, "I will try, my friend, I will try".
> > (By the way, did you see the two-part film about Napoleon,
> > with Depardieu as wossname the police chief (F-something)
>
> Depardieu is "D-something" but you are talking about Fouchet, one
> of the most interesting figures of this period.
Tip of my tongue -- as I said, I'm not well. But I didn't know as much
about him as you did, so thank you!
> Teacher of mathematics, deupty of Convent, one of the cruelest
> comissars
> of Convent (dealt with counter-revolution in Lyon)
Saw a museum about that in Lyon.
> the most powerful figures _inside_ France, Minister of Police under
> Napoleon (probably "father" of the modern police). One of the richest
> people in France, Minister of Police under Louis XVIII (eventually,
> pushed into a retirement because he voted for Louis XVI death).
An example of the principle that the personnel of the secret police is
never affected by changes of regime? I heard that most of the early Chekists
were former Okhrana employees.
> Had a reputation of the most efficient Minister of Police and one of
> the most dishonest and disloyal people of his time.
Wow. Doesn't do things by halves, does he?
> I tried towatch one with Armand Asante (sp) as Napoleon and
> J.Bisset as Josephine. Don't remember who else was involved but
> this was boring.
Not the same one. Mine was:
http://imdb.com/title/tt0253839/?fr=c2l0ZT1kZnxteD0yMHxzZz0xfGxtPTIwMHx0dD1vbnxwbj0wfHE9bmFwb2xlb258aHRtbD0xfG5tPW9u;fc=2;ft=139;fm=1
Yours was: http://imdb.com/title/tt0092411/
I won't watch yours if you don't watch mine :-)
> > But surely this is a matter of two competing *sets* of "Roman"
> imagery,
> > the Republican and the Imperial?
>
> During the Revolution the Republican style was in fashion. I'm not sure
> if Roman Imperial style was _intentionally_ in fashion under Nappy.
> Of course, antiquity WAS fashionable and there were numerous borrowings
from here and there, esp. from Italy (Greece was less accessible).
He was certainly mucking about with Antique symbolism down in Egypt.
> Actually, Chellini wrote that this was his personal idea: Francouis I
> gave him practically a free hand.
ooops!
> >Michael Kuttner made a good case to me last
> > year that Charlemagne didn't conceive of himself as taking the
> Byzantine
> > one's job away from her, but for most of the twelfth century, which I
> know
> > better, that was not so, both emperors were definitely saying to one
> > another, "I'm the only Roman Emperor, you're just a king" -- of the
> Germans or Greeks respectively.
>
> AFAIK, this did not stop at XII.
Oh no. I tend to talk most about the period I know best, I'm aware
history didn't come to a screeching halt afterwards ;-)
> > I'm really wobbly on this period, but I understand that the
> Spanish Hapsburgs of a little earlier had seriously tried to unify Europe
> under themselves, using the Roman legacy thing. Charles V?
>
> Charles V was trying to create Habsburg Empire that will be the most
> powerful state in Europe (as opposite to France being the one). I don't
> think that he ever intentionally tried to "unify" Europe.
That was the impression I got from an exhibition on him in Toledo. Like
I said, not my period.
> strong enough to defeat French in Italy could not bring up enough force
> in Germany to deal with the local princelings.
It's all those Mongolproof castles and ravines :-)
> > I would say that the names the architects of the EU chose are a
> > deliberate attempt to suggest a rebuilding of the Roman Empire,
> >in the (1) sense above of territorial unity, rather than the sense of a
crazy
> emperor, drinking from lead pipes, boffing his sisters, throwing
Christians to the lions and so forth
>
> With me being rather sceptical about EU and its leaders, I can't
> seriously look for the analogies with any empire of the old.
Whether the early leaders deliberately manufactured such analogies is
one issue; whether you or anyone else personally finds them convincing is
quite a different issue. You can't argue from your not being impressed to
Schumann & Co. not trying to evoke these echoes.
Not to mention that the whole situation is somewhat reversed: instead of a
conquest by one power, they join together on their own will.
I did mention the centuries of schemes for a united Europe, some of
which were for conquest but others for a voluntary congress or federation. I
remember reading a book about them, thirty years ago..... The EU is in the
latter tradition, which is quite venerable, and not even a new idea -- just
the sole occasion in which it made it off the paper.
> A problem that I had with this movie is that it is a complete and total
> nonsense from the very beginning to the very end. And this (PC)
> nonsense is going on _all_ levels of this movie.
I shall not defend that movie, I disliked it greatly, but out of
curiosity, what do you mean by its being PC? They didn't hurt enough
animals or something?
> > I would say that the dream of reunification of and peace in
> Europe has never disappeared, and it seems not unreasonable to describe
this in terms of restoration of the Empire in the sense of the Pax Romana.
>
> Roman world was dominated by a single culture.
Greek culture was pretty dominant yes, but I wonder about this: we don't
really know how much Celtic, Iberian, Thracian etc. culture was still going
strong because the Roman writers aren't about to tell us, not directly, and
anything these guys wrote (in Greek) hasn't survived.
> >What, in your view, would
> > *count* as a real ("practical) European attempt to resurrect the
> Roman Empire?
>
> I don't think that anything of the kind was/is realistically possible
> and this is why I said that I did not see any such attempt.
I think that's a fallacy -- to argue from "X is not realistically
possible" to "No one ever attempted X". I mean, all you need is to read the
Darwin Awards to get a sense of the difference. :-)
> All these new empires and unions were creations of their own times and
> circumstances even if they used some references to legitimize their
> existence.
Yes, I'd agree with that, but I think people have been using "reviving
the Roman Empire" as a kind of shorthand for "creating a unified, peaceful
Europe" or "creating a European superstate". Perhaps they shouldn't, and if
you think that's a silly usage, fair enough, but I think that's what the
argument has actually been about.
In China, there is an oscillation between a centralised empire and
periods of "warring states". Although each new unification is "a creation of
their own times and circumstances", it is my impression that Chinese
consider their history as a whole, so that each dynasty that suppresses the
warlords and the warring states doesn't think of itself as doing anything
new.
To put it another way, when people talk about our wars as "European
civil wars", that phrase makes no sense except as part of a normative
discourse about European unity rooted in the legacy of Rome.
--
David C. Pugh
Philosophers have sought to explain the world, and Marxists to change it;
the point, however, is to blame someone else for it.
To mail me, replace biblical character with his dad.
Michael Martin-Smith
of the ordinary population, fascism and socialism/communism are the same
thing - an excess of bossy interference and hyper-regulation at best and
organised homicide at worst. The ideology is mere window dressing .
The truth - that it takes humanoid s..t to make a revolution - is the only
enduring truth in politics.
The Greeks knew that Cerberus, the canine guardian of the Underworld, had
three heads - a useful metaphor in this context!news:-NCdnUDWSIB...@giganews.com...
hippo
"Michael Martin-Smith" wrote in message
> I think we have known for several generations that, from the point of
view
> of the ordinary population, fascism and socialism/communism are the same
> thing - an excess of bossy interference and hyper-regulation at best and
> organised homicide at worst. The ideology is mere window dressing .
> The truth - that it takes humanoid s..t to make a revolution - is the
only
> enduring truth in politics.
> The Greeks knew that Cerberus, the canine guardian of the Underworld,
had
> three heads - a useful metaphor in this context!
You are probably correct that there is little effective difference in how
these regimes acted. The differences between them are important to
historians and social philosophers who want to sort out the roads we took as
a race to get there and why. -the Troll
Soren Larsen
>
>>> Napoleonic empire,
>>
>> I'm not sure that at any point Napoleon seriously claimed any
>> "Roman Legacy".
>
> Look again at the imperial portrait, what is he wearing on his
> that the whole visual language of his Empire was that of Rome.
Roman symbols were important but not everything.
The golden bees he adopted as his symbol were taken straight out of
Childerich I's tomb and pointed back to the Franks and the Merovingians.
Cheers
Soren Larsen
afro...@yahoo.com
other messages as I'm in a rush, so forgive me if I'm repeating
anything already said.
Soren is right about the Frankish and Merovingian images. No expert
here, but wasn't Napolean's coronation based on Charlemagne's? Oops!
Dangerously heading on topic here! ;-)
There were a lot of symbols used for Napolean's propaganda. Even
Christian iconography! Of course, Roman images were already popular as
part of pre-Revolutionary neo-classical trend. Look at David's early
works prior to Napolean, and David was just following a general trend.
So though the whole wasn't based on Roman models, one still saw it in
use.
The bees, BTW, also symbolize industry, which was appropriate to show
what a hard worker he was on behalf of France.
JMHO,
Eve
David C. Pugh
news:33eftrF...@individual.net...
I remember an interesting essay on the dual French identity in
connection with the Clovis baptism anniversary some years back. Clovis was
code for being against the Revolution. Republicans emphasised the Gallic
roots, Asterix and all that, while Catholic monarchists hailed the
Merovingian legacy. So Napoleon's bees would carry an anti-Jacobin message?
am...@hotmail.com
David C. Pugh wrote:
> <am...@hotmail.com> skrev i melding
> news:1104246729.6...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > Now Napoleon in Greek athlete's dress would be something,
perhaps
> > we'd get to see what all the fuss was about ;-)
> >
> > I'm sure that it would be done in a way that both assured necessary
> > degree of likeness with an original AND preserved imperial dignity.
:-)
> >
> > I'd say that portraying Emperor Paul with a "classic" nose was a
task
> > of comparable difficulty but it was done.
>
> So what did they have to work with, nasally speaking?
Close to nothing, size-wise. Just enough material to support two big
upturned nostrils.
>
> > > Well, they were possibly the most spectacular bunch of
parvenus
> > in history, no?
> >
> > Indeed. Out of this crowd I prefer Bernadotte.
>
> Me too, not least because I know him a little as king of my
adopted
> country. And a good king he was too, despite, or because of, not
having a
> common language with 99.9% of the population. :-)
>
This usually helps, providing one has a competent translator.
My "attraction" probably started after reading "Desire" and then I
found that
he was probably the only Napoleonic marshal who had mind of his own
(politically)
and abilities of both diplomat and administrator.
> There's a nice story about him when he was sick. A Swedish
courtier
> tried to express a hope that His Majesty would feel better today, but
what
> his French actually came out as was a hope that HM would behave
better
> today. Bernadotte said, "I will try, my friend, I will try".
_I_ was going to tell you this story! :-(
How about tatoo "Death to the kings!" on his chest?
>
> > > (By the way, did you see the two-part film about Napoleon,
> > > with Depardieu as wossname the police chief (F-something)
> >
> > Depardieu is "D-something" but you are talking about Fouchet, one
> > of the most interesting figures of this period.
>
> Tip of my tongue -- as I said, I'm not well. But I didn't know as
much
> about him as you did, so thank you!
Anytime. Taleirand said about him: "Fouchet despices people so much
because he
knows himself so well."
One of the stories about him as a Minister of Police: One of Napoleon's
generals
wanted to give a banquet to his friends but, according to the rules, a
police agent
must be present at the gatherings of more than certain number people.
General went
to F and asked him to revoke this rule, just for the ocassion. F
expressed a lot
of sympathy but refused. Conversation went nowhere and then F, as if by
inspiration,
asked to see a list of the guests. After glancing at the very beginning
of this list
he said: "Well, there is no need to send an agent!"
List of the people on his salary included Josephina.
>
> > Teacher of mathematics, deupty of Convent, one of the cruelest
> > comissars
> > of Convent (dealt with counter-revolution in Lyon)
>
> Saw a museum about that in Lyon.
>
> > the most powerful figures _inside_ France, Minister of Police under
> > Napoleon (probably "father" of the modern police). One of the
richest
> > people in France, Minister of Police under Louis XVIII (eventually,
> > pushed into a retirement because he voted for Louis XVI death).
>
> An example of the principle that the personnel of the secret
police is
> never affected by changes of regime? I heard that most of the early
Chekists
> were former Okhrana employees.
Not sure about "most" but "some" is probably a fair estimate. There is
also a
strong suspicion that "some" of them (and of the Party leaders) were
both
BOlsheviks AND Okhrana agents before revolution. One of the 1st things
done by the
commies was a destruction of the Okhrana's and police archives. I
wonder why....
>
> > Had a reputation of the most efficient Minister of Police and one
of
> > the most dishonest and disloyal people of his time.
>
> Wow. Doesn't do things by halves, does he?
>
Indeed. But he was not simply a police figure. He was responsible for
Bernadotte's
last assignment in France: when the Brits landed (at Flissingen? I may
be wrong on
the place), Nappy was out and F was practically the most senior figure
in the goverment
(or the only one capable of an action). He immediately appointed B as a
commander of
the French forces (knowing pretty well that Nappy will not like this, B
was in a retirement
and out of favor after Wagram). English desant was defeated, F became
Duke of Otranto
(IIRC) AND was reprimanded for excessive activities, Bernadotte got
nothing.
> > I tried towatch one with Armand Asante (sp) as Napoleon and
> > J.Bisset as Josephine. Don't remember who else was involved but
> > this was boring.
>
> Not the same one. Mine was:
>
http://imdb.com/title/tt0253839/?fr=c2l0ZT1kZnxteD0yMHxzZz0xfGxtPTIwMHx0dD1vbnxwbj0wfHE9bmFwb2xlb258aHRtbD0xfG5tPW9u;fc=2;ft=139;fm=1
>
> Yours was: http://imdb.com/title/tt0092411/
>
> I won't watch yours if you don't watch mine :-)
Deal! :-)
>
> > > But surely this is a matter of two competing *sets* of
"Roman"
> > imagery,
> > > the Republican and the Imperial?
> >
> > During the Revolution the Republican style was in fashion. I'm not
sure
> > if Roman Imperial style was _intentionally_ in fashion under Nappy.
> > Of course, antiquity WAS fashionable and there were numerous
borrowings
> from here and there, esp. from Italy (Greece was less accessible).
>
> He was certainly mucking about with Antique symbolism down in
Egypt.
>
Even got himself a personal Mameluk.
> > Actually, Chellini wrote that this was his personal idea: Francouis
I
> > gave him practically a free hand.
>
> ooops!
>
> > >Michael Kuttner made a good case to me last
> > > year that Charlemagne didn't conceive of himself as taking the
> > Byzantine
> > > one's job away from her, but for most of the twelfth century,
which I
> > know
> > > better, that was not so, both emperors were definitely saying to
one
> > > another, "I'm the only Roman Emperor, you're just a king" -- of
the
> > Germans or Greeks respectively.
> >
> > AFAIK, this did not stop at XII.
>
> Oh no. I tend to talk most about the period I know best, I'm
aware
> history didn't come to a screeching halt afterwards ;-)
>
It did not? I wonder why. :-)
> > > I'm really wobbly on this period, but I understand that the
> > Spanish Hapsburgs of a little earlier had seriously tried to unify
Europe
> > under themselves, using the Roman legacy thing. Charles V?
> >
> > Charles V was trying to create Habsburg Empire that will be the
most
> > powerful state in Europe (as opposite to France being the one). I
don't
> > think that he ever intentionally tried to "unify" Europe.
>
> That was the impression I got from an exhibition on him in
Toledo. Like
> I said, not my period.
>
> > strong enough to defeat French in Italy could not bring up enough
force
> > in Germany to deal with the local princelings.
>
> It's all those Mongolproof castles and ravines :-)
>
Interesting observation. :-)
IIRC, the Germans distinctively disliked presense of the Spanish troops
on
German soil (and, in general, considered them cruel barbarians).
Probably,
with all these bizzare mechanisms of the HRE (from succession to
getting money)
he could not simply shrug this off and neither were his purely Spanish
resources
adequate to establish Habsburg hegemony in Germany.
IIRC, even in Italy the German troops were not always under his
control.
Especially when he did not have enough money to pay them.
> > > I would say that the names the architects of the EU chose are
a
> > > deliberate attempt to suggest a rebuilding of the Roman Empire,
> > >in the (1) sense above of territorial unity, rather than the sense
of a
> crazy
> > emperor, drinking from lead pipes, boffing his sisters, throwing
> Christians to the lions and so forth
> >
> > With me being rather sceptical about EU and its leaders, I can't
> > seriously look for the analogies with any empire of the old.
>
> Whether the early leaders deliberately manufactured such
analogies is
> one issue; whether you or anyone else personally finds them
convincing is
> quite a different issue. You can't argue from your not being
impressed to
> Schumann & Co. not trying to evoke these echoes.
>
I know that such attempts had been made and that selection of the
"noncontroversial"
figures was a problem. I can't figure out why Charlemagne made into the
list:
his dealings with the Saxons were not, after all, up to the modern
standards.
> Not to mention that the whole situation is somewhat reversed: instead
of a
> conquest by one power, they join together on their own will.
>
> I did mention the centuries of schemes for a united Europe, some
of
> which were for conquest but others for a voluntary congress or
federation.
Well, you can consider things like Congress in Vienna as an attempt to
provide
at least some european forum for finding the peaceful solutions of the
international
problems.
>I
> remember reading a book about them, thirty years ago..... The EU is
in the
> latter tradition, which is quite venerable, and not even a new idea
-- just
> the sole occasion in which it made it off the paper.
>
Well, my dislike of the EU is based on their foreign policy, not on
their
internal affairs: they are too anti-American and too actively pushing
eastward
with what looks to me as a disregard of their own proclaimed standards.
But this is neither here not there.
> > A problem that I had with this movie is that it is a complete and
total
> > nonsense from the very beginning to the very end. And this (PC)
> > nonsense is going on _all_ levels of this movie.
>
> I shall not defend that movie, I disliked it greatly, but out of
> curiosity, what do you mean by its being PC? They didn't hurt enough
> animals or something?
'Good' Emperor planning to establish republic in Rome, wise _black_
sidekick
and some other details that I simply don't remember. Of course, PETA
and
CEASE should not be happy with this movie.
>
> > > I would say that the dream of reunification of and peace in
> > Europe has never disappeared, and it seems not unreasonable to
describe
> this in terms of restoration of the Empire in the sense of the Pax
Romana.
> >
> > Roman world was dominated by a single culture.
>
> Greek culture was pretty dominant yes, but I wonder about this:
we don't
> really know how much Celtic, Iberian, Thracian etc. culture was still
going
> strong because the Roman writers aren't about to tell us, not
directly, and
> anything these guys wrote (in Greek) hasn't survived.
>
I meant a little bit different thing: Rome conquered all these
territories and
established Roman administration and, to a lesser degree, Roman way of
life
everywhere. In this sense "Roman culture" was dominant even in the
areas where
the local culture, laws, etc. still were in an existence. Of course,
today's
Europe is much more uniform culturally so one may say that everything
is unified
by "european culture".
> > >What, in your view, would
> > > *count* as a real ("practical) European attempt to resurrect the
> > Roman Empire?
> >
> > I don't think that anything of the kind was/is realistically
possible
> > and this is why I said that I did not see any such attempt.
>
> I think that's a fallacy -- to argue from "X is not realistically
> possible" to "No one ever attempted X". I mean, all you need is to
read the
> Darwin Awards to get a sense of the difference. :-)
>
Well, did anybody seriously try to resurrect _Roman_ Empire (at least
after
Justinian)? The new formations could use some paraphernalia,
demagoguery
or even some of the old laws but they were distinctively different.
> > All these new empires and unions were creations of their own times
and
> > circumstances even if they used some references to legitimize their
> > existence.
>
> Yes, I'd agree with that, but I think people have been using
"reviving
> the Roman Empire" as a kind of shorthand for "creating a unified,
peaceful
> Europe" or "creating a European superstate".
The Roman Empire was European superstate but it did not represent
"unified"
Europe in the modern sense of this geographic term: the Romans reached
some
"defensible perimeter" and stopped there.
HRE was not (AFAIK) intended as something that embrases the whole
Europe
(even the whole Western Europe). Areas conquered or acquired by various
members
of HRE tended to stay out of HRE (Prussia, Hungary, etc.).
Napoleonic Empire came somewhat closer to _this_ idea but, IMO,
"peaceful"
was not something routinely associated with this particular personage.
In certain
sense, there was a greater similarity with the Roman Empire because
everything was
dominated by a single military superpower, which also had a strong
cultural
(including laws) influence on the "peripheral" areas.
Russian Empire clearly had nothing to do with 'unified Europe' and
neither did AH.
This is why I considered list given in an initial post as a wrong one.
>Perhaps they shouldn't, and if
> you think that's a silly usage, fair enough, but I think that's what
the
> argument has actually been about.
>
> In China, there is an oscillation between a centralised empire
and
> periods of "warring states". Although each new unification is "a
creation of
> their own times and circumstances", it is my impression that Chinese
> consider their history as a whole, so that each dynasty that
suppresses the
> warlords and the warring states doesn't think of itself as doing
anything
> new.
>
> To put it another way, when people talk about our wars as
"European
> civil wars", that phrase makes no sense except as part of a normative
> discourse about European unity rooted in the legacy of Rome.
>
Well, with all their ethnic and cultural diversity, "Chinese" are more
or less
a monolith nation that stayed united for a big part of its history. I
can't
say the same about Europe and, IMO, "european unity" applied
retroactively is
a typical historical revisionism. References to Rome are fine but how
would
they apply to Germany with its "legacy" being distinctively not-Roman?
afro...@yahoo.com
on Merovingian subject matter based on his nationalistic sentiments.
At the time it was also considered very anti-French as the French style
was neo-classical.
Eve
David C. Pugh
news:1104331562.9...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > > I'd say that portraying Emperor Paul with a "classic" nose was a
> task of comparable difficulty but it was done.
> >
> > So what did they have to work with, nasally speaking?
>
> Close to nothing, size-wise. Just enough material to support two big
> upturned nostrils.
Romanov version of Miss Piggy?
> > Me too, not least because I know him a little as king of my
> adopted country. And a good king he was too, despite, or because of, not
> having a common language with 99.9% of the population. :-)
> >
> This usually helps, providing one has a competent translator.
Bernard Shaw suggested in one of his plays (Back to Methusaleh) that the
essence of justice being impartiality, the most impartial being imported
foreigners, all the world should be ruled by Englishmen, except for England,
which should be ruled by Chinamen*. :-)
*Not a PC term now, but that's the way he wrote it.
> My "attraction" probably started after reading "Desire" and then I
> found that> he was probably the only Napoleonic marshal who had mind of
his own> (politically)> and abilities of both diplomat and administrator.
I know him better as king than as marshal, and I concur.
> > There's a nice story about him when he was sick. A Swedish
> courtier> > tried to express a hope that His Majesty would feel better
today, but> what> > his French actually came out as was a hope that HM would
behave> better> > today. Bernadotte said, "I will try, my friend, I will
try".
>
> _I_ was going to tell you this story! :-(
Just call me Lucky Luke :-)
> How about tatoo "Death to the kings!" on his chest?
Wow! That I didn't know. What an irony, eh?
> Anytime. Taleirand said about him: "Fouchet despices people so much
> because he knows himself so well."
Cf. Father Brown, who understood the mind of the criminals he detected
because he knew his own sins.
> > An example of the principle that the personnel of the secret
> police is never affected by changes of regime? I heard that most of the
early Chekists were former Okhrana employees.
>
> Not sure about "most" but "some" is probably a fair estimate. There is
> also a
> strong suspicion that "some" of them (and of the Party leaders) were
> both
> BOlsheviks AND Okhrana agents before revolution. One of the 1st things
> done by the
> commies was a destruction of the Okhrana's and police archives. I
> wonder why....
Might be apocryphal, but I heard about a meeting of the Bolshevik CC, at
which, owing to sickness, the only people present were the police agents.
Again, Chesterton uses this in "The Man Who Was Thursday" or perhaps he
wrote it first and life imitated art, I don't know. Malcolm Muggeridge, who
like so many other writers served in wartime intelligence, said that the
double agent simply doesn't *know* what side he's on, the game itself
becomes the whole thing. Wasn't it a police agent who shot Prince Stolypin,
the man who might have prevented the Revolution? If so, was he acting as a
policeman, or a policeman pretending to be a revolutionary, or a
revolutionary pretending to be a policeman, or a policeman pretending to be
a revolutionary pretending to be a policeman, or.....?
> > Oh no. I tend to talk most about the period I know best, I'm
> aware history didn't come to a screeching halt afterwards ;-)
> >
> It did not? I wonder why. :-)
Didn't see you coming, I guess :-)
> IIRC, the Germans distinctively disliked presense of the Spanish troops
> on
> German soil (and, in general, considered them cruel barbarians).
Look who's talking, remember the "furor teutonicus"........
> I know that such attempts had been made and that selection of the
> "noncontroversial"
> figures was a problem. I can't figure out why Charlemagne made into the
> list: his dealings with the Saxons were not, after all, up to the modern
> standards.
Very good point, I shall try to remember to annoy people with that one.
> Well, you can consider things like Congress in Vienna as an attempt to
> provide at least some european forum for finding the peaceful solutions of
the international problems.
That's more like a predecessor of the OSSE, isn't it? Then there was the
Holy Alliance too (the coalition of the willing).
> Well, my dislike of the EU is based on their foreign policy, not on
> their internal affairs: they are too anti-American and too actively
pushing
> eastward with what looks to me as a disregard of their own proclaimed
standards.But this is neither here not there.
Disagree on the first, agree on the second. Backing Yushchenko so hard
was really reckless, and the bill hasn't come due yet. If I were Monsieur
Europe, I would have given the whole east and south-east Associate Member
status, like Finland had when the Soviets still had to be taken into
account, and helped them develop the appropriate economic and political
institutions within that status for some decades.
> > I shall not defend that movie, I disliked it greatly, but out of
> > curiosity, what do you mean by its being PC? They didn't hurt enough
> > animals or something?
>
> 'Good' Emperor planning to establish republic in Rome, wise _black_
> sidekick> and some other details that I simply don't remember.
The first isn't PC, it's simply ignorant. Graves could play around with
that idea for the fifties AD, but after Marcus Aurelius it's absurd.
> I meant a little bit different thing: Rome conquered all these
> territories and established Roman administration and, to a lesser degree,
Roman way of> life> everywhere. In this sense "Roman culture" was dominant
even in the> areas where> the local culture, laws, etc. still were in an
existence.
Yes. Baths-forum-theatre-hippodrome-amphitheatre package. I wonder what
an Iberian city, for instance, was like before the Romans came. Did they
perhaps have baths and whatnot and the Romans just pretended to have introdu
ced them? We'll probably never know.
Of course,> today's> Europe is much more uniform culturally so one may say
that everything> is unified> by "european culture".
Which we're going to spend the next hundred years arguing about. Maybe
the Romans did too. "Very nice piece of bloodshed, but is it really *us*?
OK, I'll add some more lions."
> Well, did anybody seriously try to resurrect _Roman_ Empire (at least
> after Justinian)? The new formations could use some paraphernalia,
> demagoguery> or even some of the old laws but they were distinctively
different.
I would say it was paraphernalia, demagoguery and a genuine vision
thing. But obviously not in the same sense as Justinian's effort.
> > Yes, I'd agree with that, but I think people have been using
> "reviving the Roman Empire" as a kind of shorthand for "creating a
unified,
> peaceful Europe" or "creating a European superstate".
>
> The Roman Empire was European superstate but it did not represent
> "unified" Europe in the modern sense of this geographic term: the Romans
reached some "defensible perimeter" and stopped there.
The Rhine-Danube line wasn't perhaps as defensible as they would have
liked. But otherwise yes, the Fathers of the EU seemed to have Charlemagne
more in mind, as we mentioned -- the notion of the unification of France and
Germany was so revolutionary in terms of recent history that invoking
Charlemagne was the best shorthand demagoguery if you like -- invoking
Augustus and Herman would definitely have been "off-message", even worse
than the thing with the Saxons :-)
> HRE was not (AFAIK) intended as something that embrases the whole
> Europe> (even the whole Western Europe).
I'm not so sure about that -- while in my period HRE had zero control
over e.g. France, I think there was nevertheless the perception of the
Empire as pre-eminent in dignity, the summit of the pyramid (saving the
pope, which is a whole different ball game), a sort of formal Mr. Europe.
Except that the medievals may have preferred the term "Christendom",
which brings us back to the EU and its expansionist dilemmas :-)
Areas conquered or acquired by various members of HRE tended to stay out of
HRE (Prussia, Hungary, etc.).
Yeah, later than my speciality though.
> Napoleonic Empire came somewhat closer to _this_ idea but, IMO,
> "peaceful"> was not something routinely associated with this particular
personage.> In certain> sense, there was a greater similarity with the Roman
Empire because> everything was> dominated by a single military superpower,
which also had a strong> cultural> (including laws) influence on the
"peripheral" areas.
Yes. It might be worth remembering how much of the Augustan settlement
was demagoguery and propaganda too. Same with Elizabeth I -- the most
important tools of government are smoke and mirrors?
> Russian Empire clearly had nothing to do with 'unified Europe' and
> neither did AH.
Right.
> This is why I considered list given in an initial post as a wrong one.
I've forgotten where all this started now, but it's been fun. :-)
--
David C. Pugh
Philosophers have sought to explain the world, and Marxists to change it;
the point, however, is to blame someone else for it.
To mail me, replace biblical character with his dad.
>
Omega
: >
: > THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM IS NOT LINEAR BUT CIRCULAR, THEREFORE AT ONE
POINT
: ON
: > THE CIRCLE THE FAR-LEFT AND THE FAR-RIGHT MEET!!!!
: Then you should sign up tomorrow at the latest. Anarchism on the far left
is
: very different from objective libertarianism on the far right no matter
how
: similar they look to someone not having taken PS 101. -the Troll
The left defines the spectrum narrowly, with communism on the left and
fascism on the right, thus leaving out any form of thought that would be
about freedom or individuality.
On a single axis, it is totalitarianism on the left and radical
individualism on the right. There are metrics that have more axis.
hippo
"Omega" wrote in message
I know and the whole exercise is rather silly. -the Troll
Martin Reboul
<am...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1104264455.9...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Obviously - I think it is clear to all how highly developed my mental abilities
are?
Let's not dwell on that subject however....
I thought the Prussians looked particularly good at that time. Rather dapper
goths, skulls and xbones, the works - seeing Blucher and his men about to attack
in the film 'Waterloo' always makes my spine tingle, even though it's a naff
picture.
> > 2) A good symbol that can be put on flags or sprayed on walls.
>
> In this sense a 2-headed eagle is convenient: you are guaranteed from
> painting it looking in a wrong direction (which may count as a high
> treason).
Tricky to spray quick without a stencil though?
> > 3) A really flash hat or crown... laurel will do at a pinch
>
> I saw the imperial crowns in Vienna. Except for a historic value of the
> old crown of HRE, "unimpressive" is a mild word for them. Nothing on
> a scale of those worn by the Russian emperors and (after all these
> Hindu
> and Zulu figured out what is best for them) by the British monarchs or
> by the Shahs of Persia.
> I heard that the crown of Bohemia has the best set of saphires in
> Europe
> but unfortunately it is not shown to a general public and the replica
> was in repair (?) when I was visiting Prague (fortunately, at the same
> time there was a display of the replicas of the famous crowns in one
> of the Viena's stores). Hungarian crown is also not impressive.
> Nappy, IIRC, ordered a huge crown with a lot of golden eagles (can't
> tell if they were in full scale or not) and other thingies on it. Guy
> at least _tried_ to work things up to the requirements, which was
> rather
> difficult in the time and place when/where David was passing for a
> leading painter.
I'm not a great fan of royal trinkets I'm afraid - I always feel uneasy looking
at things I will never be able to afford or steal! The British ones are
absolutely gross IMO, as many and as much expensive ostentatian as can be
stuffed onto one head without breaking the neck. They sparkle and gleam
wonderfully, and look unbelievably expensive... but then, so did Barbera
Cartland.
> > 4) A tough salute (essential!)
>
> More points for Nappy.
He was a military man of course - the symbolic cap doff was enough.
> > 5) A love of stadiums and theatre.
>
> Well, Habsburgs probably had a better opera and French theater of this
> time
> was unbearably "classic" (Nappy approved only of the 3rd part of Figaro
> trilogy which tells something about his taste).
Didn't he have a row with Beethoven? A man of poor taste perhaps, yet I bet he'd
have loved Wagner...
born a little too early.
> > 6) Statues and pics to aggrandize properly.
>
> Numerous monuments in Vienna but all of them are lacking something.
> Probably size necessary to make them really impressive. With their
> being
> generally ugly, increased size would make them really "monumental".
> Nappy at least built a huge column in Paris so he had size counting in
> his favor.
>
> Of course, it is very difficult to beat the Soviet ...er... "monumental
> art" in a combination of these two crucial parameters.
Quite right! I'd love to have one of those statues of Lenin hailing a cab in the
garden (though Stalin would be even better). How Karl Marx would have
disapproved... or would he? His ghastly monument in Highgate Cemy is a
masterpiece of grandiose ugliness, unbelievable. It may once have looked better
(when he had a neck), but had to be chopped down as he was too big for cemetary
regulations... now he looks very out of place, and rather silly... as he often
was, and would be in Highgate these days.
> > 7) Arrogance in extremis.
> >
>
> A lot of it on both sides. Nappy simply had it more concentrated, while
> Habsburgs had it spreaded over few centuries.
I'm not well up on the Habsburgs I'm afraid, but it seems most European
monarchies at that time were vain, greedy, arrogant, stupid, selfish,
insensitive, unattractive and frequently unhinged. Interbreeding them all did
little good other than spreading haemophilia. At least Napoleon was 'new blood'.
> > With none of these you are lost - adopt any three and you're already
> going
> > Roman...
> Not sure about Roman, but you are definitely going imperial...
Well, even they had it re-invented by Julius Caesar I suppose. Where did he
pinch his symbology from?
Cheers
Martin
am...@hotmail.com
David C. Pugh wrote:
> <am...@hotmail.com> skrev i melding
> news:1104331562.9...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > > I'd say that portraying Emperor Paul with a "classic" nose was
a
> > task of comparable difficulty but it was done.
> > >
> > > So what did they have to work with, nasally speaking?
> >
> > Close to nothing, size-wise. Just enough material to support two
big
> > upturned nostrils.
>
> Romanov version of Miss Piggy?
Yes, but piggy with an ideology: "In Russia only those people
metter to whom I'm talking and they matter only as long as I'm
talking to them."
>
> > > Me too, not least because I know him a little as king of my
> > adopted country. And a good king he was too, despite, or because
of, not
> > having a common language with 99.9% of the population. :-)
> > >
> > This usually helps, providing one has a competent translator.
>
> Bernard Shaw suggested in one of his plays (Back to Methusaleh)
that the
> essence of justice being impartiality, the most impartial being
imported
> foreigners, all the world should be ruled by Englishmen, except for
England,
> which should be ruled by Chinamen*. :-)
Well, Catherine II managed to make 4 mistakes in Russian
3 letters' word and this did not prevent her from being
"matushka". :-)
>
> > > An example of the principle that the personnel of the secret
> > police is never affected by changes of regime? I heard that most of
the
> early Chekists were former Okhrana employees.
> >
> > Not sure about "most" but "some" is probably a fair estimate. There
is
> > also a
> > strong suspicion that "some" of them (and of the Party leaders)
were
> > both
> > BOlsheviks AND Okhrana agents before revolution. One of the 1st
things
> > done by the
> > commies was a destruction of the Okhrana's and police archives. I
> > wonder why....
>
> Might be apocryphal, but I heard about a meeting of the Bolshevik
CC, at
> which, owing to sickness, the only people present were the police
agents.
I did not get "only" part. :-)
> > IIRC, the Germans distinctively disliked presense of the Spanish
troops
> > on
> > German soil (and, in general, considered them cruel barbarians).
>
> Look who's talking, remember the "furor teutonicus"........
There was something similar for Spanish ...er... "self expression"
and reputation of the French was not a single bit better. One wonders
who _did_ have a good reputation at this time?
>
> > I know that such attempts had been made and that selection of the
> > "noncontroversial"
> > figures was a problem. I can't figure out why Charlemagne made into
the
> > list: his dealings with the Saxons were not, after all, up to the
modern
> > standards.
>
> Very good point, I shall try to remember to annoy people with
that one.
You can pass it as your own brainchild (my New Year present to
you :-)).
>> > Well, my dislike of the EU is based on their foreign policy, not
on
> > their internal affairs: they are too anti-American and too actively
> pushing
> > eastward with what looks to me as a disregard of their own
proclaimed
> standards.But this is neither here not there.
>
> Disagree on the first,
With Shroeder winning elections on anti-American rhetorics and
Shirac ....well... being Shirac, I disagree with your disagreement.
>agree on the second. Backing Yushchenko so hard
> was really reckless, and the bill hasn't come due yet.
Ah, these elections. "Democracy" in action. Rejection of the results
that does not suit you, use of the mobs as intimidation tool, change
the election laws in a process of elections, financing one of the
competing sides, claiming that 90+% vote in favor of one candidate is
a patent fraud but accepting the same for another, etc. The funny
part is that it is pointless to talk about the "bill": unless a
winner (does not matter who) is ready to do really "interesting"
things to the population, his/her/its actions would be greately
determined by the fact that Ukraine's deopendency on Russian gas and
oil is something like 70-80% with no feasible substitute anywhere
in sight AND no ability to pay market price even to Russia. Somehow
I don't think that anybody is ready to give them subsidies on a
necessary scale (country's population is over 45 millions). Putin
was, of course, an idiot to show any preference to any of these
two bandits but "we" are not much better.
>If I were Monsieur
> Europe, I would have given the whole east and south-east Associate
Member
> status, like Finland had when the Soviets still had to be taken into
> account, and helped them develop the appropriate economic and
political
> institutions within that status for some decades.
It looks like MR. Europe is obsessed with eastward expansion no
matter what.
>
> Of course,> today's> Europe is much more uniform culturally so one
may say
> that everything> is unified> by "european culture".
>
> Which we're going to spend the next hundred years arguing about.
Of course, this issue is anything but clear but arguing about it
looks much more attractive than most of the subjects presently
argued on shm.
>Maybe
> the Romans did too. "Very nice piece of bloodshed, but is it really
*us*?
> OK, I'll add some more lions."
>
Much more probable than tigers? :-)
> >
> > The Roman Empire was European superstate but it did not represent
> > "unified" Europe in the modern sense of this geographic term: the
Romans
> reached some "defensible perimeter" and stopped there.
>
> The Rhine-Danube line wasn't perhaps as defensible as they would
have
> liked.
_Any_ defensive line of this size is not really defensible. But at
least Romans tried.
>But otherwise yes, the Fathers of the EU seemed to have Charlemagne
> more in mind, as we mentioned -- the notion of the unification of
France and
> Germany was so revolutionary in terms of recent history that invoking
> Charlemagne was the best shorthand demagoguery if you like --
invoking
> Augustus and Herman would definitely have been "off-message", even
worse
> than the thing with the Saxons :-)
BTW, do I remember correctly that all this EU thingy started when
the Saxons (most of it) were on a wrong side of a different defensive
perimeter?
>
> > HRE was not (AFAIK) intended as something that embrases the whole
> > Europe> (even the whole Western Europe).
>
> I'm not so sure about that -- while in my period HRE had zero
control
> over e.g. France,
Which, as I understand, was the case in all post-Charlemagne's times.
>I think there was nevertheless the perception of the
> Empire as pre-eminent in dignity, the summit of the pyramid (saving
the
> pope, which is a whole different ball game), a sort of formal Mr.
Europe.
AFAIK, the Emperor was (in theory) the most preeminent secular figure
but, as you know, preeminence without backing strenght is not
something of a great practical value.
It does not look like the Kings of France considered themselves
inferior to the emperors and Louis XIV clearly considered himself
superior. I think that the same goes for the Habsburg Kings of
Spain.
>
> Except that the medievals may have preferred the term
"Christendom",
> which brings us back to the EU and its expansionist dilemmas :-)
Ah, yes.
>
> I've forgotten where all this started now, but it's been fun. :-)
Which is much more important. :-)
am...@hotmail.com
> > > Napoleon was of course an Aries, born under the same sign as
Hitler,
> > Bismarck,
> > > Kruschev, Leonard Nimoy, Charlie Chaplin and D Spencer Hines...
and
> > myself,
> > > ahem.
> >
> > You are in an interesting company. Should I congratulate you or
rather
> > not?
> >
> > >You can see the clear obsession with Mars?
> >
> > Errrrrr...... I did not know that a ram passes as an extremely
> > bellicose
> > animal but if you said so...... To think about it, there are _some_
> > important characteristics: thick skull, stubborness, moderately
> > developed
> > mental abilities.... Nothing in common with you, of course! :-)
>
> Obviously - I think it is clear to all how highly developed my mental
abilities
> are?
Indeed. Didn't I comment on this issue more than once over the
years? :-)
> Let's not dwell on that subject however....
>
Why? It looks very promising......
> > > Answers...
> > > 1) A ruthless 'inner echelon' bodyguard, preferably dressed in
black
> > with cool
> > > uniforms.
> >
> > AFAIK, the Habsburgs were sorely lacking in this area. Even when
they
> > finally managed to raise some money to provide their troops with
the
> > uniforms, color was wrong and the uniforms were distinctively not
cool.
> >
> > OTOH, uniforms of Nappy's army were acknowledgedly coolest of the
time
> > (black was not favoured color for XIX "cool").
>
> I thought the Prussians looked particularly good at that time.
Indeed. Did not know that they had been trying to pass as an
Empire at this time.
>Rather dapper
> goths, skulls and xbones, the works - seeing Blucher and his men
about to attack
> in the film 'Waterloo' always makes my spine tingle, even though it's
a naff
> picture.
Sure, with Blucher being played by a Georgian actor the whole
thing looks absolutely creepy.... :-)
>
> > > 2) A good symbol that can be put on flags or sprayed on walls.
> >
> > In this sense a 2-headed eagle is convenient: you are guaranteed
from
> > painting it looking in a wrong direction (which may count as a high
> > treason).
>
> Tricky to spray quick without a stencil though?
>
Easy: you just have to use a template.
It was just an attempt to evaluate relativwe values.
>- I always feel uneasy looking
> at things I will never be able to afford or steal!
This was, of course, an upsetting part of it...
>The British ones are
> absolutely gross IMO,
Thingies with the diamonds of THIS size can't be "gross" even if
they are (and they are) absolutely tastless.
> as many and as much expensive ostentatian as can be
> stuffed onto one head without breaking the neck.
Crown that crushes bearer's neck is, of course, an interesting
idea.
>They sparkle and gleam
> wonderfully, and look unbelievably expensive... but then, so did
Barbera
> Cartland.
?
>
> > > 5) A love of stadiums and theatre.
> >
> > Well, Habsburgs probably had a better opera and French theater of
this
> > time
> > was unbearably "classic" (Nappy approved only of the 3rd part of
Figaro
> > trilogy which tells something about his taste).
>
> Didn't he have a row with Beethoven?
IIRC, it was rather other way around....
>A man of poor taste perhaps, yet I bet he'd
> have loved Wagner...
> born a little too early.
>
> > > 6) Statues and pics to aggrandize properly.
> >
> > Numerous monuments in Vienna but all of them are lacking something.
> > Probably size necessary to make them really impressive. With their
> > being
> > generally ugly, increased size would make them really "monumental".
> > Nappy at least built a huge column in Paris so he had size counting
in
> > his favor.
> >
> > Of course, it is very difficult to beat the Soviet ...er...
"monumental
> > art" in a combination of these two crucial parameters.
>
> Quite right! I'd love to have one of those statues of Lenin
Those are child play. The monstrosities built at Stalingrad
were real beauties. Ditto for extremely ugly (and huge) statue
of "Ukraine" (or whatever it was suppossed to mean) in Kiev, etc.
>hailing a cab in the
> garden
Why would he hail a cab? He had a good one of his own....
> (though Stalin would be even better). How Karl Marx would have
> disapproved... or would he?
He got his share of monuments in the SU. Usually he looks like a
very hairy missing link.....
>
> > > 7) Arrogance in extremis.
> > >
> >
> > A lot of it on both sides. Nappy simply had it more concentrated,
while
> > Habsburgs had it spreaded over few centuries.
>
> I'm not well up on the Habsburgs I'm afraid, but it seems most
European
> monarchies at that time were vain, greedy, arrogant, stupid, selfish,
> insensitive, unattractive and frequently unhinged.
Sounds like a comprehensive list....
>Interbreeding them all did
> little good other than spreading haemophilia. At least Napoleon was
'new blood'.
Married to the old one...
>
> > > With none of these you are lost - adopt any three and you're
already
> > going
> > > Roman...
> > Not sure about Roman, but you are definitely going imperial...
>
> Well, even they had it re-invented by Julius Caesar I suppose. Where
did he
> pinch his symbology from?
Did he add something seriously new?
David C. Pugh
news:1104597637.6...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
(Almost total snippage)
> Those are child play. The monstrosities built at Stalingrad
> were real beauties. Ditto for extremely ugly (and huge) statue
> of "Ukraine" (or whatever it was suppossed to mean) in Kiev, etc.
It's a vexed question what she ('the Iron Lady', as the locals call her)
was originally supposed to mean, although in hindsight it seems prophetic.
Because, although erected (does one erect ladies?) in the Soviet period, she
is brandishing her sword and shield *eastwards*. Perhaps they should now
call her 'Tymoshenka'? ;-)
David C. Pugh
news:1104596404.6...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Yes, but piggy with an ideology: "In Russia only those people
> metter to whom I'm talking and they matter only as long as I'm
> talking to them."
Didn't know the Emperor Paul was a film star. Did he win any awards?
> Well, Catherine II managed to make 4 mistakes in Russian
> 3 letters' word and this did not prevent her from being
> "matushka". :-)
It can be a great advantage to be a foreigner, if there aren't too many
of you, because then everyone indulgently attributes your personal
weirdnesses to your national culture. :-)
> There was something similar for Spanish ...er... "self expression"
> and reputation of the French was not a single bit better. One wonders
> who _did_ have a good reputation at this time?
If reputation means reputation with foreigners, surely no one. And why
should invading armies of any nationality be popular?
> With Shroeder winning elections on anti-American rhetorics and
> Shirac ....well... being Shirac, I disagree with your disagreement.
I didn't say the EU was not anti-American, I just think it ought to be
much more so. No, I don't expect you to agree :-)
> Ah, these elections. "Democracy" in action. Rejection of the results
> that does not suit you, use of the mobs as intimidation tool, change
> the election laws in a process of elections, financing one of the
> competing sides, claiming that 90+% vote in favor of one candidate is
> a patent fraud but accepting the same for another, etc.
Yup. At least BBC World gave the Russians in Donetsk a voice, and
explained their point of view. I am not sure that all the Western media were
so broad-minded.
The funny
> part is that it is pointless to talk about the "bill": unless a
> winner (does not matter who) is ready to do really "interesting"
> things to the population,
what I was thinking of was an escalation of the Russians' perception
that we are out to get them (from "really out to get them" when Poland
joined the EU/NATO via "really, really out to get them" when the Baltics
did, to "really, really, really out to get them" with the Ukraine thing).
his/her/its actions would be greately
> determined by the fact that Ukraine's deopendency on Russian gas and
> oil is something like 70-80% with no feasible substitute anywhere
> in sight AND no ability to pay market price even to Russia.
I guess their industrial production is of a quality not saleable to the
EU, tariffs apart?
Somehow
> I don't think that anybody is ready to give them subsidies on a
> necessary scale (country's population is over 45 millions). Putin
> was, of course, an idiot to show any preference to any of these
> two bandits but "we" are not much better.
Once you get those two candidates, and identify the one with the EU and
the other with Russia, you've already painted yourself into a horrible
corner. It seems to me that Ukraine doesn't make much sense as a
state-formation; the Westerners don't want anything to do with Russia, but
how are they going to make their living? Alone, they'd be another Moldova. I
don't have any answers.
The *medieval* thing to do would now be for Yushchenko to be king and
make Yanukovych Duke of the East, like Henry the Lion ;-) Seriously, the
medievals didn't seem to understand our funny notions that 51% of the vote
(talking in general here) means you can do whatever you like, while 49%
means you're chopped liver. And what medieval ever said "We shall never
negotiate with rebels!"? Au contraire, as often as not you besieged their
castle for a bit then kissed and made up and gave them a job. (Unless you
were Vlad Tepes or some other exceptional character.) In the same way, much
medieval justice was about finding solutions that everyone could live with.
> It looks like MR. Europe is obsessed with eastward expansion no
> matter what.
Yes, except that he's either willing to have Ukraine as a member or is
irresponsibly arousing expectations, while Russian membership is never going
to happen. And are those two countries really from two different worlds?
> Of course, this issue is anything but clear but arguing about it
> looks much more attractive than most of the subjects presently
> argued on shm.
That's not very difficult......
> BTW, do I remember correctly that all this EU thingy started when
> the Saxons (most of it) were on a wrong side of a different defensive
> perimeter?
Yes. I wonder if anyone commented on the Charlemagne rhetoric on those
grounds at the time?
> >I think there was nevertheless the perception of the
> > Empire as pre-eminent in dignity, the summit of the pyramid (saving
> the pope, which is a whole different ball game), a sort of formal Mr.
> Europe.
>
> AFAIK, the Emperor was (in theory) the most preeminent secular figure
> but, as you know, preeminence without backing strenght is not
> something of a great practical value.
I was just reading that Philip II asked Henry VI to arrest Richard I as
a contumacious vassal. Now, if Richard is a contumacious vassal of Philip,
how is this Henry's business, unless you have some residual concept of the
Emperor as ultimate arbiter, entitled to discipline someone else's vassal if
that vassal is also a powerful king? If not, just what was Henry's legal
reason for arresting him? I've always found this unclear.
am...@hotmail.com
David C. Pugh wrote:
> <am...@hotmail.com> skrev i melding
> news:1104596404.6...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Yes, but piggy with an ideology: "In Russia only those people
> > metter to whom I'm talking and they matter only as long as I'm
> > talking to them."
>
> Didn't know the Emperor Paul was a film star.
He was simply stating an obvious fact while the personalities you
mentioned are dwelling in a fantasy world.
>Did he win any awards?
Shall we say that he was on a distributing side?
>
> > Well, Catherine II managed to make 4 mistakes in Russian
> > 3 letters' word and this did not prevent her from being
> > "matushka". :-)
>
> It can be a great advantage to be a foreigner, if there aren't
too many
> of you, because then everyone indulgently attributes your personal
> weirdnesses to your national culture. :-)
I understand that this is not "your period" but you almost managed to
beat Catherine's record on a number of errors. :-)
Should I list them?
>
> > There was something similar for Spanish ...er... "self expression"
> > and reputation of the French was not a single bit better. One
wonders
> > who _did_ have a good reputation at this time?
>
> If reputation means reputation with foreigners, surely no one.
And why
> should invading armies of any nationality be popular?
The answer to the last question is: sometimes they are but they should
not be.
Really, the "accepted norms" of the time look a little bit peculiar
from
a modern perspective. I remember one episode of the Italian Wars
described
by Gizout. French were invading <whatever> and in a process Bayard was
wounded. A local family offered their hospitality, healed him and they
all got really friendly. When Bayard recuperated, head of the family
had a conversation with his wife: in his (and her) opinion, Bayard had
a right to expect a ransom from _them_ because his presense saved their
house from being looted. So, on his departure, they presented him with
a considerable sum of money. Being an ideal knight, Bayard refused to
take them and both sides were arguing for a while until Bayard took the
money and gave them back as a dowry to the daughters of the family.
In return, the girls presented him with a number of the expensive
souvenires and everybody was happy ever after. At no point an idea that
Bayard was owing something to the family entered anybody's mind.
>
> > With Shroeder winning elections on anti-American rhetorics and
> > Shirac ....well... being Shirac, I disagree with your disagreement.
>
> I didn't say the EU was not anti-American, I just think it ought
to be
> much more so. No, I don't expect you to agree :-)
Actually, this is perfectly OK with me as long as they stop pretending
being "allies", etc.
>
> > Ah, these elections. "Democracy" in action. Rejection of the
results
> > that does not suit you, use of the mobs as intimidation tool,
change
> > the election laws in a process of elections, financing one of the
> > competing sides, claiming that 90+% vote in favor of one candidate
is
> > a patent fraud but accepting the same for another, etc.
>
> Yup. At least BBC World gave the Russians in Donetsk a voice, and
> explained their point of view. I am not sure that all the Western
media were
> so broad-minded.
When the dust settled, The Boston Globe posted an article about some of
the winner's supporters: a nationalistic paramilitary group in the
camouflage uniforms with Iron Cross-like insignias and clearly spelled
hate to non-Ukrainians (as I understand, they are not the most extreme
of his supporters). BTW, they don't plan to disband.
>
> The funny
> > part is that it is pointless to talk about the "bill": unless a
> > winner (does not matter who) is ready to do really "interesting"
> > things to the population,
>
> what I was thinking of was an escalation of the Russians'
perception
> that we are out to get them (from "really out to get them" when
Poland
> joined the EU/NATO via "really, really out to get them" when the
Baltics
> did, to "really, really, really out to get them" with the Ukraine
thing).
AFAIK, this is exactly what their perception is. And, while I don't
feel any unnecessary sympathy to Putin & Co, I can't completely
disagree
with this perception: EU/NATO push eastward is proclaimed more or less
openly and is going on with a very relaxed attitude toward assumed EU
principles.
>
> his/her/its actions would be greately
> > determined by the fact that Ukraine's deopendency on Russian gas
and
> > oil is something like 70-80% with no feasible substitute anywhere
> > in sight AND no ability to pay market price even to Russia.
>
> I guess their industrial production is of a quality not saleable
to the
> EU, tariffs apart?
>
I suspect so. The Eastern Ukraine is economically tied to Russia (with
the lower standards, etc.), while the Western Ukraine (AFAIK) does not
have too much in the terms of industry, etc. (with a high % of the
locals
working outside the country, joining EU may benefit _this_ region
because
of the relaxation of visa/work rules). As I understand, for Eastern
Ukraine joining EU probably means _massive_ unemployment with a very
questionable security net.
AFAIK, Latvia simply abandoned most (if not all) of their industry and
tries to be a big EU resort. The funny thing is that, with their
openly proclaimed hate to the Russian speakers, they have nothing
against
the Russian-speaking tourists from Israel: money are obviously more
important than principles.
> Somehow
> > I don't think that anybody is ready to give them subsidies on a
> > necessary scale (country's population is over 45 millions). Putin
> > was, of course, an idiot to show any preference to any of these
> > two bandits but "we" are not much better.
>
> Once you get those two candidates, and identify the one with the
EU and
> the other with Russia,
Putin did not have to show preference to any of them because almost
inevitably the winner would come to Russia hat in hand: they can't pay
market price for the gas and oil and they can't stop buying them from
Russia.
>you've already painted yourself into a horrible
> corner. It seems to me that Ukraine doesn't make much sense as a
> state-formation;
It never had: big chunks of it had been "assigned" by Stalin or
Khruschev and another big chunks had been "russified" over the last
centuries. The Western parts became a part of it only (in practical
terms) after WWII and in the late 80's Lwow was distinctively different
from even Kiev.
>the Westerners don't want anything to do with Russia, but
> how are they going to make their living?
Simple: by sucking money from the rich EU members. Didn't you notice
that each and every movement of this type starts with the promises
that "West will help us"?
To think about it, Russia actually can benefit from EU backing of
Ukraine: if EU is going to pay the bill, Russia will start getting
real money (instead of "compensation in goods", etc.) for gas and oil
they are supplying.
>Alone, they'd be another Moldova.
To say that I feel sorry for them would be a plain lie.
> I
> don't have any answers.
>
> The *medieval* thing to do would now be for Yushchenko to be king
and
> make Yanukovych Duke of the East, like Henry the Lion ;-)
Well, the problem is that EU (and US) support the separatist movements
only when they consider them "our SOB's": it was OK in Yugoslavia but
we _had_ to support a territorial integrity of Bosnia where 3 major
ethnic entities clearly hated each other's guts. We are talking about
"Chechen separatists" but a simple idea to break Iraq into 3 pieces is
a taboo, etc.
> Seriously, the
> medievals didn't seem to understand our funny notions that 51% of the
vote
> (talking in general here) means you can do whatever you like, while
49%
> means you're chopped liver.
Except the cases when 51% managed to make a chopped liver out of 49%.
:-)
>And what medieval ever said "We shall never
> negotiate with rebels!"? Au contraire, as often as not you besieged
their
> castle for a bit then kissed and made up and gave them a job. (Unless
you
> were Vlad Tepes or some other exceptional character.
In a context, "modern" would be more appropriate. :-)
>) In the same way, much
> medieval justice was about finding solutions that everyone could live
with.
Very few interfering international bodies with a little responsibility
and a lot of energy....
>
> > It looks like MR. Europe is obsessed with eastward expansion no
> > matter what.
>
> Yes, except that he's either willing to have Ukraine as a member
or is
> irresponsibly arousing expectations, while Russian membership is
never going
> to happen. And are those two countries really from two different
worlds?
>
I don't think so. And this difference in attitude creates certain
perceptions you mentioned earlier. Who is trying to gain and what?
> > AFAIK, the Emperor was (in theory) the most preeminent secular
figure
> > but, as you know, preeminence without backing strenght is not
> > something of a great practical value.
>
> I was just reading that Philip II asked Henry VI to arrest
Richard I as
> a contumacious vassal. Now, if Richard is a contumacious vassal of
Philip,
> how is this Henry's business, unless you have some residual concept
of the
> Emperor as ultimate arbiter, entitled to discipline someone else's
vassal if
> that vassal is also a powerful king?
The whole thing clearly did not work out and boiled down to a simple
extortion.
>If not, just what was Henry's legal
> reason for arresting him? I've always found this unclear.
>
R was initially arrested by Archduke of Austria who did not have
any rights at all.
When it came to "imperial part" of this business, R was, IIRC, accussed
of betraying a Crusading cause or something of the kind. This, of
course,
could qualify as everybody's business and emperor would be a fitting
judge.
But in the late XVII an argument over a precedence was between Spanish
and French ambassadors.
David C. Pugh
> > > Well, Catherine II managed to make 4 mistakes in Russian
> > > 3 letters' word and this did not prevent her from being
> > > "matushka". :-)
> >
> > It can be a great advantage to be a foreigner, if there aren't
> too many of you, because then everyone indulgently attributes your
personal weirdnesses to your national culture. :-)
>
> I understand that this is not "your period" but you almost managed to
> beat Catherine's record on a number of errors. :-)
Should I list them?
What, in the above sentence? In a Russian three-letter word?
> Really, the "accepted norms" of the time look a little bit peculiar
> froma modern perspective. I remember one episode of the Italian Wars
> described by Gizout. French were invading <whatever> and in a process
Bayard was> wounded. A local family offered their hospitality, healed him
and they
> all got really friendly. When Bayard recuperated, head of the family
> had a conversation with his wife: in his (and her) opinion, Bayard had
> a right to expect a ransom from _them_ because his presense saved their
> house from being looted. So, on his departure, they presented him with
> a considerable sum of money. Being an ideal knight, Bayard refused to
> take them and both sides were arguing for a while until Bayard took the
> money and gave them back as a dowry to the daughters of the family.
> In return, the girls presented him with a number of the expensive
> souvenires and everybody was happy ever after. At no point an idea that
> Bayard was owing something to the family entered anybody's mind.
It used to be the case in for instance the UK that a gentleman had to
pay his gambling debts or face social ostracism, while he was under no
particular obligation to pay tradesmen, for example his tailor. The
gentleman felt that being known as the man who had cut his suit should be
adequate recompense for the tailor. Going back to film stars, I'm not sure
that these actually pay their bills either, for the same reason; the
restaurant will get increased custom from being known as the place where
they eat. As you may have noticed, this doesn't work for you and I.
Someone once told me that the way to get rich is very simple: never pay
your bills but demand that everyone pay theirs to you. Certainly, if you can
get away with it sufficiently to become a little bit rich, then there seems
to be a positive-feedback process that takes over and then it's plain
sailing.
> Actually, this is perfectly OK with me as long as they stop pretending
> being "allies", etc.
Yes, strangely enough I agree with you on this. <takes pulse>
> > Yup. At least BBC World gave the Russians in Donetsk a voice, and
> > explained their point of view. I am not sure that all the Western
> media were so broad-minded.
>
> When the dust settled, The Boston Globe posted an article about some of
> the winner's supporters: a nationalistic paramilitary group in the
> camouflage uniforms with Iron Cross-like insignias and clearly spelled
> hate to non-Ukrainians (as I understand, they are not the most extreme
> of his supporters). BTW, they don't plan to disband.
When I visited some friends in Kiev in the second (?) year of
independence, I found a funny emblem all over the place -- on the pins they
were selling to Ukrainian-Canadians in Independence Square, on the tails of
the aircraft etc. You could see it as either a bird diving downwards, or as
a trident sticking up. Might be the insignia you saw on the paramilitaries.
My friends, born in the Brezhnev era, didn't know what it was. Later I
found, on my own, that it was something called the Bendera, which had been
the emblem of the militias collaborating with the Nazis; the symbol is
probably something from the Rurikid past or even before, just as I think
that the Norwegian equivalent, Quisling's "sun-cross", was related to St.
Olav. So, its emergence as the symbol of the new state paralleled the
revival of the Ustasha in Croatia, except less well known. Oh dear. As I
said, my young Kievan acquaintances had no idea about this.
> AFAIK, this is exactly what their perception is. And, while I don't
> feel any unnecessary sympathy to Putin & Co, I can't completely
> disagree with this perception: EU/NATO push eastward is proclaimed more or
less openly and is going on with a very relaxed attitude toward assumed EU
principles.
ITA. Maybe they want a bigger variety of mafioso. Or it's an Italian
mafia takeover of the Russian mafia. Or the other way round.
> I suspect so. The Eastern Ukraine is economically tied to Russia (with
> the lower standards, etc.), while the Western Ukraine (AFAIK) does not
> have too much in the terms of industry, etc. (with a high % of the
> locals
> working outside the country, joining EU may benefit _this_ region
> because
> of the relaxation of visa/work rules). As I understand, for Eastern
> Ukraine joining EU probably means _massive_ unemployment with a very
> questionable security net.
Apparently in his time as PM (like in the US, the insiders have learnt
to pose as jes' folks?) Yushchenko stabilised the currency at the price of
not paying the miners and factory workers. Not too hard to imagine why they
might not have enjoyed the experience.
> AFAIK, Latvia simply abandoned most (if not all) of their industry and
> tries to be a big EU resort. The funny thing is that, with their
> openly proclaimed hate to the Russian speakers, they have nothing
> against the Russian-speaking tourists from Israel: money are obviously
more important than principles.
Didn't know the fact, the moral is no big surprise.
> Putin did not have to show preference to any of them because almost
> inevitably the winner would come to Russia hat in hand: they can't pay
> market price for the gas and oil and they can't stop buying them from
> Russia.
How important is it as a market for Russia?
> It never had: big chunks of it had been "assigned" by Stalin or
> Khruschev and another big chunks had been "russified" over the last
> centuries. The Western parts became a part of it only (in practical
> terms) after WWII
Transcarpathia, right?
and in the late 80's Lwow was distinctively different
> from even Kiev.
Lwow had been Hapsburg IIRC.
> Simple: by sucking money from the rich EU members. Didn't you notice
> that each and every movement of this type starts with the promises
> that "West will help us"?
Ah yes. Looks like even Monsieur Europe is losing his appetite when
faced with this; of course Turkey is even bigger but has a lot more to
offer, grand-strategywise.
> To think about it, Russia actually can benefit from EU backing of
> Ukraine: if EU is going to pay the bill, Russia will start getting
> real money (instead of "compensation in goods", etc.) for gas and oil
> they are supplying.
So Putin is just playing to the gallery, he wouldn't mind as much as he
pretends?
> To say that I feel sorry for them would be a plain lie.
Of the people I knew there then, one was a nationalist of the type I
distrust, an Old Slavic philologist (and physicist simultaneously) far too
interested in racial history issues; but the others weren't, and they were
also ethnically mixed, typically with one Ukrainian parent and one Russian.
Just like people were in Sarajevo; it doesn't take that many ethnic-purity
assholes to make trouble anywhere.
> > The *medieval* thing to do would now be for Yushchenko to be king
> and make Yanukovych Duke of the East, like Henry the Lion ;-)
>
> Well, the problem is that EU (and US) support the separatist movements
> only when they consider them "our SOB's": it was OK in Yugoslavia but
> we _had_ to support a territorial integrity of Bosnia where 3 major
> ethnic entities clearly hated each other's guts. We are talking about
> "Chechen separatists" but a simple idea to break Iraq into 3 pieces is
> a taboo, etc.
Oh, tell me about it! The list could be lengthened indefinitely. Of
course, the old Soviet Union did the same thing. Movements of National
Liberation, but not in Western Ukraine, the Caucasus, Central Asia etc.
China similarly.
> I don't think so. And this difference in attitude creates certain
> perceptions you mentioned earlier. Who is trying to gain and what?
Wasn't it Sun Tzu who said that you should give your enemy a Golden
Bridge to retreat over? This "encirclement" of the Bear ten times tighter
than in the Cold War will end in tears: it's like sticking your nose in the
Russian face and saying, "Wanna make something of it?" If they ever get the
opportunity, they might indeed be tempted to make something of it.
> R was initially arrested by Archduke of Austria who did not have
> any rights at all.
Right: he said that Richard had murdered Conrad of Monteferrat, but I
never heard of any trial.
> When it came to "imperial part" of this business, R was, IIRC, accussed
> of betraying a Crusading cause or something of the kind. This, of
> course, could qualify as everybody's business and emperor would be a
fitting judge.
Whereas Philip, who left the Crusade to go home and attack Richard's
lands, didn't count as a betrayer. :-)
You confirm my point for me, anyway: there was *some* residual
pan-European authority vested in the Emperor.
am...@hotmail.com
David C. Pugh wrote:
> <am...@hotmail.com> skrev i melding
>
> > > > Well, Catherine II managed to make 4 mistakes in Russian
> > > > 3 letters' word and this did not prevent her from being
> > > > "matushka". :-)
> > >
> > > It can be a great advantage to be a foreigner, if there
aren't
> > too many of you, because then everyone indulgently attributes your
> personal weirdnesses to your national culture. :-)
> >
> > I understand that this is not "your period" but you almost managed
to
> > beat Catherine's record on a number of errors. :-)
> Should I list them?
>
> What, in the above sentence? In a Russian three-letter word?
Nope. You simply managed to make it ALL wrong.
1. It was not an advantage to be a foreigner on Russian throne, esp. at
this
time. Peter III died from a hemmoroidal attack just because he (50%
Romanov)
was considered a foreigner.
2. There was many of foreigners in Russia at this time and being a
foreigner,
in general, did not give any specific advantage. Usually, one had to
have
some talents, like Osterman or Munich. Or Sophia-Frederica of Anghalt
Zerbst.
3. At least as far as position of Emperor/Empress was involved,
tolerance
to a "foreign culture" was very low: ruler was supposed to be "Russian"
in
these respects and Catherine made a great show of her being "more
Russian
than the native Russians". OTOH, Peter's neglect to the specifics of
the
local culture (which, by default, included religion) was one of the
decisive
factors in his downfall.
4. Indulgence to a personal weirdness was rather high as long as this
weirdness could be considered as "truly Russian". For example, sending
people to an exile on a whim (with or without cutting off their noses
and
tongues) was "truly Russian" while an attempt to introduce a freedom of
religion was clearly "evil foreign influence".
This was the case everywhere, including Russia.
>
> > Actually, this is perfectly OK with me as long as they stop
pretending
> > being "allies", etc.
>
> Yes, strangely enough I agree with you on this. <takes pulse>
So now we are in a perfect accord....
>
> > > Yup. At least BBC World gave the Russians in Donetsk a voice,
and
> > > explained their point of view. I am not sure that all the Western
> > media were so broad-minded.
> >
> > When the dust settled, The Boston Globe posted an article about
some of
> > the winner's supporters: a nationalistic paramilitary group in the
> > camouflage uniforms with Iron Cross-like insignias and clearly
spelled
> > hate to non-Ukrainians (as I understand, they are not the most
extreme
> > of his supporters). BTW, they don't plan to disband.
>
> When I visited some friends in Kiev in the second (?) year of
> independence, I found a funny emblem all over the place -- on the
pins they
> were selling to Ukrainian-Canadians in Independence Square, on the
tails of
> the aircraft etc. You could see it as either a bird diving downwards,
or as
> a trident sticking up.
Oh please, this WAS a trident. How come that your friends did not
explain
you? It is an old Ukrainian symbol (definitely was in use in 1918).
> Might be the insignia you saw on the paramilitaries.
>
_I_ did not see it on the photos and just referenced to what BG's
correspondent
wrote. IMHO, trident has to be REALLY stylized to look similarly to the
Iron Cross. Or the BG's correspondent has to be really imaginative
(which is
possible).
> My friends, born in the Brezhnev era, didn't know what it was.
Should I comment on their level of <whatever>? I know this and I was
born
and educated in a different place.
>Later I
> found, on my own, that it was something called the Bendera,
Bendera was a person, a (spiritual) leader of the Ukrainian
nationalists
at the time of WWII.
>which had been
> the emblem of the militias collaborating with the Nazis; the symbol
is
> probably something from the Rurikid past or even before,
History and paraphernalia as represented by the Ukrainian "patriots"
are a little bit too bizzare for me to know in depth or to comment
upon.
Ditto for the "Russian patriotic" school.
> > AFAIK, this is exactly what their perception is. And, while I don't
> > feel any unnecessary sympathy to Putin & Co, I can't completely
> > disagree with this perception: EU/NATO push eastward is proclaimed
more or
> less openly and is going on with a very relaxed attitude toward
assumed EU
> principles.
>
> ITA. Maybe they want a bigger variety of mafioso. Or it's an
Italian
> mafia takeover of the Russian mafia. Or the other way round.
AFAIK, the Italians are _not_ the major force behind this drive so I'd
look for other candidates. IIRC, even before this 3rd round of
elections
there were photos of Yuschenko with the Polish PM (and President?).
>
> > I suspect so. The Eastern Ukraine is economically tied to Russia
(with
> > the lower standards, etc.), while the Western Ukraine (AFAIK) does
not
> > have too much in the terms of industry, etc. (with a high % of the
> > locals
> > working outside the country, joining EU may benefit _this_ region
> > because
> > of the relaxation of visa/work rules). As I understand, for Eastern
> > Ukraine joining EU probably means _massive_ unemployment with a
very
> > questionable security net.
>
> Apparently in his time as PM (like in the US, the insiders have
learnt
> to pose as jes' folks?) Yushchenko stabilised the currency at the
price of
> not paying the miners and factory workers.
This clearly puts him into a "progressive reformer" category...
>Not too hard to imagine why they
> might not have enjoyed the experience.
What an ingratitude!
>
> > AFAIK, Latvia simply abandoned most (if not all) of their industry
and
> > tries to be a big EU resort. The funny thing is that, with their
> > openly proclaimed hate to the Russian speakers, they have nothing
> > against the Russian-speaking tourists from Israel: money are
obviously
> more important than principles.
>
> Didn't know the fact, the moral is no big surprise.
Cousin of my wife regularly spends his vacations near Riga and praises
the
local massage services. AFAIK, he does not take his wife on these
vacations.
He lives in Israel and (according to my wife) does not speak Latvian,
which
leaves Hebrew and Russian as exchange languages. Somehow, I don't
expect
Hebrew being a popular option....
Something to consider: 1. It is almost impossible to swim in the sea on
the Riga resorts (you have to walk forever to get deep enough and the
water
is very cold even in summer). 2. Even with their milk products being
(presumably) back, I don't think that Israelies can find something they
did
miss at home.
Which leaves ....er... massage.
>
> > Putin did not have to show preference to any of them because almost
> > inevitably the winner would come to Russia hat in hand: they can't
pay
> > market price for the gas and oil and they can't stop buying them
from
> > Russia.
>
> How important is it as a market for Russia?
>
Have no clue, esp. now. They were important part of it within the SU
but
I don't think they can sell too many things except for some
agricultural
products (personally, I prefer Ukrainian vodka to the Russian ones) and
I'd assume that there is still some mutual interest in the area of a
heavy
industry, chemical products, etc. Which means mostly Eastern Ukraine.
Crimea was a popular resort area, can't tell how things are now.
> > It never had: big chunks of it had been "assigned" by Stalin or
> > Khruschev and another big chunks had been "russified" over the last
> > centuries. The Western parts became a part of it only (in practical
> > terms) after WWII
>
> Transcarpathia, right?
"Western Ukraine" (Galicia)
>
> and in the late 80's Lwow was distinctively different
> > from even Kiev.
>
> Lwow had been Hapsburg IIRC.
Yes. While I did not have any noticeable problems with communications
in
Kiev (Ukrainian used there was more or less rudimentary in this time),
I hardly could communicate in Lwow: their Ukrainian was too heavily
Polish
for me.
>
> > Simple: by sucking money from the rich EU members. Didn't you
notice
> > that each and every movement of this type starts with the promises
> > that "West will help us"?
>
> Ah yes. Looks like even Monsieur Europe is losing his appetite
when
> faced with this;
Which leaves "pro-westerners" with alot of promises to fulfil....
>of course Turkey is even bigger but has a lot more to
> offer, grand-strategywise.
Keeping Russia off the Straits... :-)
>
> > To think about it, Russia actually can benefit from EU backing of
> > Ukraine: if EU is going to pay the bill, Russia will start getting
> > real money (instead of "compensation in goods", etc.) for gas and
oil
> > they are supplying.
>
> So Putin is just playing to the gallery, he wouldn't mind as much
as he
> pretends?
>
I have no clue what are his intentions and considerations. It is quite
possible that they are utterly absurd, just as those of the US and EU:
thanks to the wise policy of Halfbright (and Powell), Russia is
turned distinctively anti-American so doing something just out of spite
(would pass for "saving the face", etc.) is not out of question. OTOH,
it
looks like EU's and US motivations are often just the same. Of what
practical
use Ukraine could be to the US? Hopefully, Powell is not imagining it
as
an oncoming bastion of a democracy?
> > To say that I feel sorry for them would be a plain lie.
>
> Of the people I knew there then, one was a nationalist of the
type I
> distrust, an Old Slavic philologist (and physicist simultaneously)
far too
> interested in racial history issues; but the others weren't, and they
were
> also ethnically mixed, typically with one Ukrainian parent and one
Russian.
> Just like people were in Sarajevo; it doesn't take that many
ethnic-purity
> assholes to make trouble anywhere.
I wish I could share your optimism but, as I said, I really don't care.
>
> > > The *medieval* thing to do would now be for Yushchenko to be
king
> > and make Yanukovych Duke of the East, like Henry the Lion ;-)
> >
> > Well, the problem is that EU (and US) support the separatist
movements
> > only when they consider them "our SOB's": it was OK in Yugoslavia
but
> > we _had_ to support a territorial integrity of Bosnia where 3 major
> > ethnic entities clearly hated each other's guts. We are talking
about
> > "Chechen separatists" but a simple idea to break Iraq into 3 pieces
is
> > a taboo, etc.
>
> Oh, tell me about it! The list could be lengthened indefinitely.
Of
> course, the old Soviet Union did the same thing. Movements of
National
> Liberation, but not in Western Ukraine, the Caucasus, Central Asia
etc.
Indeed.
> China similarly.
>
> > I don't think so. And this difference in attitude creates certain
> > perceptions you mentioned earlier. Who is trying to gain and what?
>
> Wasn't it Sun Tzu who said that you should give your enemy a
Golden
> Bridge to retreat over? This "encirclement" of the Bear ten times
tighter
> than in the Cold War will end in tears: it's like sticking your nose
in the
> Russian face and saying, "Wanna make something of it?" If they ever
get the
> opportunity, they might indeed be tempted to make something of it.
>
Exactly. Especially if you take into an account that, while the Western
Europe depends on the Russian gas and oil supplies "only" in 20-25%
range,
dependencies of the former Russian sattelites (and the most rabid
anti-Russian places) is in the range of 60-100% with no alternatives in
sight.
Add to this old Russian "connections" on the Middle East and we have
nice
potential for an interesting life.
> > R was initially arrested by Archduke of Austria who did not have
> > any rights at all.
>
> Right: he said that Richard had murdered Conrad of Monteferrat,
but I
> never heard of any trial.
No, he transfered R to the Emperor: Conrad was not Archduke's subject
so
he formally did not have any excuse.
>
> > When it came to "imperial part" of this business, R was, IIRC,
accussed
> > of betraying a Crusading cause or something of the kind. This, of
> > course, could qualify as everybody's business and emperor would be
a
> fitting judge.
>
> Whereas Philip, who left the Crusade to go home and attack
Richard's
> lands, didn't count as a betrayer. :-)
>
IIRC, Richard started publically accussing his accussers and this more
or less brought trial to a speedy end and down to an issue of ransom.
> You confirm my point for me, anyway: there was *some* residual
> pan-European authority vested in the Emperor.
Indeed, this was a prestigious title. Otherwise, why would anybody want
it? A lot of trouble, no money, no real power..... There must be
something
to compensate.
David C. Pugh
news:1104775914.1...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > > > It can be a great advantage to be a foreigner, if there
> aren't too many of you, because then everyone indulgently attributes your
> > personal weirdnesses to your national culture. :-)
> Nope. You simply managed to make it ALL wrong.
(snip Russia)
Alex, this was a total misunderstanding of my point, which wasn't
actually about Russia, but a diversion or riff -- into a tease about
expatriates/immigrants and their adopted countries, for example Alex Milman
and David Pugh. I should have made that clear, I admit! Go read my paragraph
again in that light, and forgetting XVIII Russia. :-)
(Copying to mail in case of server no-show, I would be distressed if you
were to go to your grave thinking I meant that remark to be about Catherine
& co.)
> > It used to be the case in for instance the UK that a gentleman
> had to pay his gambling debts or face social ostracism, while he was under
> no particular obligation to pay tradesmen, for example his tailor.
>
> This was the case everywhere, including Russia.
Suspected as much...... Aristocracy: "an international cartel of bad
payers".
> > Yes, strangely enough I agree with you on this. <takes pulse>
>
> So now we are in a perfect accord....
What's the next sign of the End Times?
> > When I visited some friends in Kiev in the second (?) year of
> > independence, I found a funny emblem all over the place -- on the
> pins they were selling to Ukrainian-Canadians in Independence Square, on
the tails of the aircraft etc. You could see it as either a bird diving
downwards, or as a trident sticking up.
>
> Oh please, this WAS a trident. How come that your friends did not
> explain you? It is an old Ukrainian symbol (definitely was in use in
1918).
Because they genuinely didn't know. It was *they* who thought it was a
bird -- *I* said to them, "looks more like a trident to me, maybe some
pre-Christian god was waving it about?" and they thought this sounded more
likely than an avian.
> > Might be the insignia you saw on the paramilitaries.
>
> _I_ did not see it on the photos and just referenced to what BG's
> correspondent wrote. IMHO, trident has to be REALLY stylized to look
similarly to the Iron Cross. Or the BG's correspondent has to be really
imaginative (which is possible).
There's no telling, then, is there?
> > My friends, born in the Brezhnev era, didn't know what it was.
>
> Should I comment on their level of <whatever>? I know this and I was
> born and educated in a different place.
Yes, their level of <whatever> may have been defective. It was
particularly odd in view of the fact that one of these guys had done Old
Slavic or something at university. I found it strange then, even stranger in
retrospect and the light of your comments.
You're a different generation, may have something to do with it. Perhaps
the school material on the Fascist Collaborators had dropped out by their
time.
> >Later I found, on my own, that it was something called the Bendera,
>
> Bendera was a person, a (spiritual) leader of the Ukrainian
> nationalists at the time of WWII.
Thanks! I'd assumed the name was ancient, as well as the trident. All
this happened several years before I got on the Net, and I haven't had
occasion to reflect on the matter recently.
> History and paraphernalia as represented by the Ukrainian "patriots"
> are a little bit too bizzare for me to know in depth or to comment
> upon. Ditto for the "Russian patriotic" school.
I have no problem with that attitude, especially as it's even-handed.
In the course of the same journey, involving Hungary, Romania and
Ukraine, I was told that the <nai> was the deepest, ancientist and folksiest
Romanian musical instrument and then that the <similar name> was the
deepest, ancientist and folksiest Ukrainian musical instrument. In fact the
<ney> is known from Morocco to Persia at least, and I think the name is
Persian. If Yusuf is reading this, he'll tell us more about the <ney> (in
variant spellings) in Turkey, and one of the best ways to piss off a
Romanian is to find any Turkish cultural influence there. Same thing
happened with my nice peasant straw hat, which I still wear -- big mesh, so
inbuilt air-conditioning -- that I bought in the Carpathians between
Transylvania and Moldova, and was later told is typical Ukrainian peasant
straw hat, couldn't possibly be bought in Romania. The same sort of attitude
was also quite strong in Norway and Sweden -- everything has to be from
native roots, and nothing is borrowed or imported or common with anyone
else -- I fancy you've encountered things along these lines too. So when the
Rhubarbian catches a cold, he may be comforted that it's an autochtonic
Rhubarbian cold and therefore superior, no?
> > ITA. Maybe they want a bigger variety of mafioso. Or it's an
> Italian mafia takeover of the Russian mafia. Or the other way round.
>
> AFAIK, the Italians are _not_ the major force behind this drive so I'd
> look for other candidates.
I just mentioned that because I have a Sicilian neighbour who thinks
that his compatriots took over first the Italian state and from there the
EU. :-)
IIRC, even before this 3rd round of elections there were photos of Yuschenko
with the Polish PM (and President?).
Yes indeed.
> > Apparently in his time as PM (like in the US, the insiders have
> learnt to pose as jes' folks?) Yushchenko stabilised the currency at the
> price of not paying the miners and factory workers.
>
> This clearly puts him into a "progressive reformer" category...
"Shock tactics". Like being thrown into a shark tank to cure the
hiccups?
> Cousin of my wife regularly spends his vacations near Riga and praises
> the local massage services. AFAIK, he does not take his wife on these
> vacations.
There are lot of Baltics being trafficked to Norway. Other nationalities
in the same profession are definitely volunteer immigrants, but there seems
to be evidence that the some Baltics may be arriving in handcuffs. :-(
> Something to consider: 1. It is almost impossible to swim in the sea on
> the Riga resorts (you have to walk forever to get deep enough and the
> water> is very cold even in summer). 2. Even with their milk products
being> (presumably) back, I don't think that Israelies can find something
they
> did> miss at home.> Which leaves ....er... massage.
Well, they sell it to the Nordics (when the wives are listening) as
quaint unspoiled medieval Hanseatic cities and good beer. Also they're
Protestant like us (yes yes, I know about the Lithuanians, but they don't)
and so deserving. :-/
> Have no clue, esp. now. They were important part of it within the SU
> but> I don't think they can sell too many things except for some
> agricultural> products (personally, I prefer Ukrainian vodka to the
Russian ones) and> I'd assume that there is still some mutual interest in
the area of a
> heavy> industry, chemical products, etc. Which means mostly Eastern
Ukraine.> Crimea was a popular resort area, can't tell how things are now.
The other resort area, Abkhazia, would be even more out of luck these
days.......
> "Western Ukraine" (Galicia)
Oops, not thinking there. Something really bad happened to me about the
time I was writing last. Got distracted.
> Yes. While I did not have any noticeable problems with communications
> in> Kiev (Ukrainian used there was more or less rudimentary in this time),
> I hardly could communicate in Lwow: their Ukrainian was too heavily
> Polish> for me.
Interesting. I expect that there are new generations of schoolchildren
speaking Ukrainian as their mother tongue, even though their mothers don't
speak it. :-)
On the one hand I like linguistic diversity, the more languages we have
the more ways of viewing the world we have -- if we meet E.T.s and their
language is structured like a language that went extinct last week, then
this could be inconvenient. On the other hand, I am rendered uneasy when
people inform a population that they are 'really' X, then use the schools to
teach them the X language, and make them do X cultural things, so that after
one generation they really *are* X -- and maybe hate the Ys next door. We've
had two big waves of this, one the National Romantic movement that
ultimately led to the Nazis, and the other one starting ca. 1989.
"Folk" "or "People" has two meanings, the ethnic and the class, so when
a peasant dance becomes the official (Olympic Games) emblem of the country,
what is actually happening is that the historic urban culture is being
denied, just as the peasant culture was once ignored by the Enlightenment
cosmopolitans. Why can't we have a colourful demonstration of traditional
programmers' and translators' dances? :-)
Some of my friends have danced Bharat Natyam, which is very beautiful to
watch, and so I hardly ever point out that in its original cultural context
it was danced by devadasis (temple prostitutes), so how about an act of
private devotion backstage? :-)
> > Ah yes. Looks like even Monsieur Europe is losing his appetite
> when faced with this;
>
> Which leaves "pro-westerners" with alot of promises to fulfil....
Which they will fulfil in their usual way. After all, making promises to
easterners and then dumping them is an Authentic Cultural Practice of
Westerners, is it not? So we have to continue and the victims have to accept
it.
> >of course Turkey is even bigger but has a lot more to
> > offer, grand-strategywise.
>
> Keeping Russia off the Straits... :-)
Dire or otherwise......
> I have no clue what are his intentions and considerations. It is quite
> possible that they are utterly absurd, just as those of the US and EU:
> thanks to the wise policy of Halfbright (and Powell), Russia is
> turned distinctively anti-American so doing something just out of spite
> (would pass for "saving the face", etc.) is not out of question.
That's what I had in mind, yes. I am so glad I didn't draw "President of
Russia" in the big online realtime multiplayer tournament........
OTOH,> it> looks like EU's and US motivations are often just the same. Of
what> practical> use Ukraine could be to the US? Hopefully, Powell is not
imagining it> as> an oncoming bastion of a democracy?
I am afraid that they're zero-sum players: if what I gain is your loss,
it follows that everything you lose must be my gain, even if I can't see how
right now. Ergo, I shall take as much off you as I can, just because.
> Exactly. Especially if you take into an account that, while the Western
> Europe depends on the Russian gas and oil supplies "only" in 20-25%
> range, dependencies of the former Russian sattelites (and the most rabid
> anti-Russian places) is in the range of 60-100% with no alternatives in
> sight.Add to this old Russian "connections" on the Middle East and we have
nice potential for an interesting life.
Yes, and for the years the journalists have been yammering about the
resumption of Kipling's "Great Game". That wasn't so funny at the time, was
it?
> No, he transfered R to the Emperor: Conrad was not Archduke's subject
> so he formally did not have any excuse.
Maybe we'd better send some modern lawyers back by time machine, I think
they could find some procedural holes in this :-)
> > You confirm my point for me, anyway: there was *some* residual
> > pan-European authority vested in the Emperor.
>
> Indeed, this was a prestigious title. Otherwise, why would anybody want
> it? A lot of trouble, no money, no real power..... There must be
> something to compensate.
I wonder, it's just possible that, with the post-Westphalian European
State System in their minds, some historians may have neglected the extent
to which the 12th really did conceive of their continent as ruled by an
emperor via subordinate kings. Of course, they would have to admit that this
subordination didn't work as well as it might, but I suspect that they
thought of it as something that was bust and needed fixing rather than
something that didn't exist at all. Which is not to say that we have to
believe them; people can be wrong about their own period -- look at this
newsgroup, we can't all be right, can we?
David
am...@hotmail.com
David C. Pugh wrote:
> <am...@hotmail.com> skrev i melding
> news:1104775914.1...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > > > It can be a great advantage to be a foreigner, if there
> > aren't too many of you, because then everyone indulgently
attributes your
> > > personal weirdnesses to your national culture. :-)
>
> > Nope. You simply managed to make it ALL wrong.
>
> (snip Russia)
>
> Alex, this was a total misunderstanding of my point, which wasn't
> actually about Russia, but a diversion or riff -- into a tease about
> expatriates/immigrants and their adopted countries, for example Alex
Milman
> and David Pugh.
Well, the foreigners are NOT really rare in MA but there is a high
tolerance
to the "foreign" culture here. I'm not sure that this is necessarily
true
in other places.
>I should have made that clear, I admit! Go read my paragraph
> again in that light, and forgetting XVIII Russia. :-)
How can I ever forget it? :-)
>
> (Copying to mail in case of server no-show, I would be distressed
if you
> were to go to your grave thinking I meant that remark to be about
Catherine
> & co.)
>
I sincerely wish that I'd not have greater reason for grievance than
this one..
> > > It used to be the case in for instance the UK that a
gentleman
> > had to pay his gambling debts or face social ostracism, while he
was under
> > no particular obligation to pay tradesmen, for example his tailor.
> >
> > This was the case everywhere, including Russia.
>
> Suspected as much...... Aristocracy: "an international cartel of
bad
> payers".
>
> > > Yes, strangely enough I agree with you on this. <takes pulse>
> >
> > So now we are in a perfect accord....
>
> What's the next sign of the End Times?
Perhaps. Over the last 2 or 3 months I found myself more than once in
an
agreement with Soren on non-Inger related issues.......
>
> > > When I visited some friends in Kiev in the second (?) year of
> > > independence, I found a funny emblem all over the place -- on the
> > pins they were selling to Ukrainian-Canadians in Independence
Square, on
> the tails of the aircraft etc. You could see it as either a bird
diving
> downwards, or as a trident sticking up.
> >
> > Oh please, this WAS a trident. How come that your friends did not
> > explain you? It is an old Ukrainian symbol (definitely was in use
in
> 1918).
>
> Because they genuinely didn't know.
Well, by now they probably learned.
>It was *they* who thought it was a
> bird
You should show them what the "bird" looks like. :-)
>-- *I* said to them, "looks more like a trident to me, maybe some
> pre-Christian god was waving it about?" and they thought this sounded
more
> likely than an avian.
>
> > > Might be the insignia you saw on the paramilitaries.
> >
> > _I_ did not see it on the photos and just referenced to what BG's
> > correspondent wrote. IMHO, trident has to be REALLY stylized to
look
> similarly to the Iron Cross. Or the BG's correspondent has to be
really
> imaginative (which is possible).
>
> There's no telling, then, is there?
>
Not at all.
> > > My friends, born in the Brezhnev era, didn't know what it
was.
> >
> > Should I comment on their level of <whatever>? I know this and I
was
> > born and educated in a different place.
>
> Yes, their level of <whatever> may have been defective. It was
> particularly odd in view of the fact that one of these guys had done
Old
> Slavic or something at university.
Now you got me really impressed with a level of selectivity in their
education.
> I found it strange then, even stranger in
> retrospect and the light of your comments.
>
> You're a different generation, may have something to do with it.
Perhaps
> the school material on the Fascist Collaborators had dropped out by
their
> time.
It was not taught at my time either but reading sometimes can be quite
educational....
>
> > >Later I found, on my own, that it was something called the
Bendera,
> >
> > Bendera was a person, a (spiritual) leader of the Ukrainian
> > nationalists at the time of WWII.
>
> Thanks! I'd assumed the name was ancient, as well as the trident.
All
> this happened several years before I got on the Net, and I haven't
had
> occasion to reflect on the matter recently.
Why would you have any reason to do such a thing? As I understand, it
is
seriously out of your main area of interest. I just "happened" to be
around
geographically.
>
> > History and paraphernalia as represented by the Ukrainian
"patriots"
> > are a little bit too bizzare for me to know in depth or to comment
> > upon. Ditto for the "Russian patriotic" school.
>
> I have no problem with that attitude, especially as it's
even-handed.
>
AFAIK, both schools claim a direct descendance from the most superior
ape
on a tree and the following purity all the way to the present times.
The
<whoever> are supposed to be the most proud, honest, freedom-loving,
peace-loving, brave, militant and friendly group of the primates
(except,
perhaps, for the baboons). The details are different but substance is
the
same.
> In the course of the same journey, involving Hungary, Romania and
> Ukraine, I was told that the <nai> was the deepest, ancientist and
folksiest
> Romanian musical instrument and then that the <similar name> was the
> deepest, ancientist and folksiest Ukrainian musical instrument. In
fact the
> <ney> is known from Morocco to Persia at least, and I think the name
is
> Persian.
Why Am I not surprised?
>If Yusuf is reading this, he'll tell us more about the <ney> (in
> variant spellings) in Turkey, and one of the best ways to piss off a
> Romanian is to find any Turkish cultural influence there. Same thing
> happened with my nice peasant straw hat, which I still wear -- big
mesh, so
> inbuilt air-conditioning -- that I bought in the Carpathians between
> Transylvania and Moldova, and was later told is typical Ukrainian
peasant
> straw hat,
Of course. I know this artifact.
>couldn't possibly be bought in Romania. The same sort of attitude
> was also quite strong in Norway and Sweden -- everything has to be
from
> native roots, and nothing is borrowed or imported or common with
anyone
> else -- I fancy you've encountered things along these lines too. So
when the
> Rhubarbian catches a cold, he may be comforted that it's an
autochtonic
> Rhubarbian cold and therefore superior, no?
>
Exactly.
> > > ITA. Maybe they want a bigger variety of mafioso. Or it's an
> > Italian mafia takeover of the Russian mafia. Or the other way
round.
> >
> > AFAIK, the Italians are _not_ the major force behind this drive so
I'd
> > look for other candidates.
>
> I just mentioned that because I have a Sicilian neighbour who
thinks
> that his compatriots took over first the Italian state and from there
the
> EU. :-)
>
Ah!
> IIRC, even before this 3rd round of elections there were photos of
Yuschenko
> with the Polish PM (and President?).
>
> Yes indeed.
"Polish intrigue"? :-)
>
> > > Apparently in his time as PM (like in the US, the insiders
have
> > learnt to pose as jes' folks?) Yushchenko stabilised the currency
at the
> > price of not paying the miners and factory workers.
> >
> > This clearly puts him into a "progressive reformer" category...
>
> "Shock tactics". Like being thrown into a shark tank to cure the
> hiccups?
They played it in Russia and the emerging result is a "strong hand" and
shrinking multi-party system. Appreciation of a democracy often goes
AFTER
a good dinner.
>
> > Cousin of my wife regularly spends his vacations near Riga and
praises
> > the local massage services. AFAIK, he does not take his wife on
these
> > vacations.
>
> There are lot of Baltics being trafficked to Norway. Other
nationalities
> in the same profession
You mean massaging?
> are definitely volunteer immigrants, but there seems
> to be evidence that the some Baltics may be arriving in handcuffs.
:-(
Isn't it a little bit unfriendly toward the new EU members? :-)
Why such an attitude?
>
> > Something to consider: 1. It is almost impossible to swim in the
sea on
> > the Riga resorts (you have to walk forever to get deep enough and
the
> > water> is very cold even in summer). 2. Even with their milk
products
> being> (presumably) back, I don't think that Israelies can find
something
> they
> > did> miss at home.> Which leaves ....er... massage.
>
> Well, they sell it to the Nordics (when the wives are listening)
as
> quaint unspoiled medieval Hanseatic cities and good beer.
Riga and vicimities are hardly "unspoiled" (too many things had been
built
sinse the Hanseatic times). Can't comment on beer but is there a
shortage
of it elsewhere? (well, in the US there are limitations on how strong
it can
be but, AFAIK, not in Europe).
> Also they're
> Protestant like us (yes yes, I know about the Lithuanians, but they
don't)
> and so deserving. :-/
>
This is an argument.
> > Have no clue, esp. now. They were important part of it within the
SU
> > but> I don't think they can sell too many things except for some
> > agricultural> products (personally, I prefer Ukrainian vodka to the
> Russian ones) and> I'd assume that there is still some mutual
interest in
> the area of a
> > heavy> industry, chemical products, etc. Which means mostly Eastern
> Ukraine.> Crimea was a popular resort area, can't tell how things are
now.
>
> The other resort area, Abkhazia, would be even more out of luck
these
> days.......
Abkhazia as a resort always was a riddle to me: climat is terrible (hot
AND
a high humidity) and too many stones on the beaches and in the water.
Good wine.
>
> > "Western Ukraine" (Galicia)
>
> Oops, not thinking there. Something really bad happened to me
about the
> time I was writing last. Got distracted.
>
> > Yes. While I did not have any noticeable problems with
communications
> > in> Kiev (Ukrainian used there was more or less rudimentary in this
time),
> > I hardly could communicate in Lwow: their Ukrainian was too heavily
> > Polish> for me.
>
> Interesting. I expect that there are new generations of
schoolchildren
> speaking Ukrainian as their mother tongue, even though their mothers
don't
> speak it. :-)
Possible. IMO, multilingual model popular in Western Europe is
healthier.
Esp. in the places with 50/50 split.
>
> On the one hand I like linguistic diversity, the more languages
we have
> the more ways of viewing the world we have -- if we meet E.T.s and
their
> language is structured like a language that went extinct last week,
then
> this could be inconvenient. On the other hand, I am rendered uneasy
when
> people inform a population that they are 'really' X, then use the
schools to
> teach them the X language, and make them do X cultural things, so
that after
> one generation they really *are* X -- and maybe hate the Ys next
door. We've
> had two big waves of this, one the National Romantic movement that
> ultimately led to the Nazis, and the other one starting ca. 1989.
>
AFAIK, the Latvians are trying to do this "X" thing now.
> > > Ah yes. Looks like even Monsieur Europe is losing his
appetite
> > when faced with this;
> >
> > Which leaves "pro-westerners" with alot of promises to fulfil....
>
> Which they will fulfil in their usual way. After all, making
promises to
> easterners and then dumping them is an Authentic Cultural Practice of
> Westerners, is it not? So we have to continue and the victims have to
accept
> it.
Interesting angle.
>
> > >of course Turkey is even bigger but has a lot more to
> > > offer, grand-strategywise.
> >
> > Keeping Russia off the Straits... :-)
>
> Dire or otherwise......
>
> > I have no clue what are his intentions and considerations. It is
quite
> > possible that they are utterly absurd, just as those of the US and
EU:
> > thanks to the wise policy of Halfbright (and Powell), Russia is
> > turned distinctively anti-American so doing something just out of
spite
> > (would pass for "saving the face", etc.) is not out of question.
>
> That's what I had in mind, yes. I am so glad I didn't draw
"President of
> Russia" in the big online realtime multiplayer tournament........
Well, food and arrangements are probably not bad. :-)
>
> OTOH,> it> looks like EU's and US motivations are often just the
same. Of
> what> practical> use Ukraine could be to the US? Hopefully, Powell is
not
> imagining it> as> an oncoming bastion of a democracy?
>
> I am afraid that they're zero-sum players: if what I gain is your
loss,
> it follows that everything you lose must be my gain, even if I can't
see how
> right now. Ergo, I shall take as much off you as I can, just because.
How can anybody expect any cooperation against what is supposed to be
a common enemy, radical Islam?
>
> > Exactly. Especially if you take into an account that, while the
Western
> > Europe depends on the Russian gas and oil supplies "only" in 20-25%
> > range, dependencies of the former Russian sattelites (and the most
rabid
> > anti-Russian places) is in the range of 60-100% with no
alternatives in
> > sight.Add to this old Russian "connections" on the Middle East and
we have
> nice potential for an interesting life.
>
> Yes, and for the years the journalists have been yammering about
the
> resumption of Kipling's "Great Game". That wasn't so funny at the
time, was
> it?
>
"This was worse than a crime. This was a mistake" Taleyrand.
> > No, he transfered R to the Emperor: Conrad was not Archduke's
subject
> > so he formally did not have any excuse.
>
> Maybe we'd better send some modern lawyers back by time machine,
I think
> they could find some procedural holes in this :-)
NOt mine: it will cost us.... :-)
>
> > > You confirm my point for me, anyway: there was *some*
residual
> > > pan-European authority vested in the Emperor.
> >
> > Indeed, this was a prestigious title. Otherwise, why would anybody
want
> > it? A lot of trouble, no money, no real power..... There must be
> > something to compensate.
>
> I wonder, it's just possible that, with the post-Westphalian
European
> State System in their minds, some historians may have neglected the
extent
> to which the 12th really did conceive of their continent as ruled by
an
> emperor via subordinate kings.
I'm not sure that the King of France was considered a subordinate to
anybody.
>Of course, they would have to admit that this
> subordination didn't work as well as it might, but I suspect that
they
> thought of it as something that was bust and needed fixing rather
than
> something that didn't exist at all.
Perhaps, as long as it was understood that all this subordination
exists
mostly in theory.
>Which is not to say that we have to
> believe them; people can be wrong about their own period -- look at
this
> newsgroup, we can't all be right, can we?
No comment on this one.
David C. Pugh
news:1104786099.5...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Well, the foreigners are NOT really rare in MA but there is a high
> tolerance> to the "foreign" culture here. I'm not sure that this is
necessarily
> true in other places.
Well, an Englishman abroad is expected to be eccentric. You can get away
with a lot.
> I sincerely wish that I'd not have greater reason for grievance than
> this one..
Oh, I have greater griefs, but none that I intend to inflict on the
Group.
> > What's the next sign of the End Times?
>
> Perhaps. Over the last 2 or 3 months I found myself more than once in
> an agreement with Soren on non-Inger related issues.......
A big rock beyond the orbit of Pluto hears you, and its orbit slowly
begins to decay.......
> It was not taught at my time either but reading sometimes can be quite
> educational....
Well, my main pal there was a specialist in French and English language,
it's the Slavic studies guy who has no excuse. The alternative is that he
did know, but found it embarassing.
> Why would you have any reason to do such a thing? As I understand, it
> is seriously out of your main area of interest. I just "happened" to be
> around geographically.
Well, my trip to Kiev was not primarily for my history project, though
of course it counts; I hope I'm not a complete monomaniac :-)
> AFAIK, both schools claim a direct descendance from the most superior
> ape on a tree and the following purity all the way to the present times.
> The> <whoever> are supposed to be the most proud, honest, freedom-loving,>
peace-loving, brave, militant and friendly group of the primates
> (except,> perhaps, for the baboons). The details are different but
substance is> the same.
I once perused an atlas made in Nazi times showing the old, discredited
Jewish theory of the origin of Man in the African Rift Valley, and the new,
scientific knowledge of the origin of Man on the North German Plain.
> Exactly.
You've said "exactly" to me so often lately that the big rock must
surely be picking up speed........ :-)
> "Polish intrigue"? :-)
As opposed to a rough and grubby one?
> They played it in Russia and the emerging result is a "strong hand" and
> shrinking multi-party system. Appreciation of a democracy often goes
> AFTER a good dinner.
Spoken like a true gastro-Marxist: the superstructure of ideology
reflects the relationships of digestion.
> > There are lot of Baltics being trafficked to Norway. Other
> nationalities in the same profession
>
> You mean massaging?
In your Rigan sense, yes.
> > are definitely volunteer immigrants, but there seems
> > to be evidence that the some Baltics may be arriving in handcuffs.
> :-(
>
> Isn't it a little bit unfriendly toward the new EU members? :-)
>
> Why such an attitude?
I meant the Eastern mafias are supposed to be doing the smuggling and
the unpleasant coercive practices. The Swedes made a film called "Lilja
4ever" about a Russian teenager kidnapped, tortured and trafficked to
Sweden.
> Riga and vicimities are hardly "unspoiled" (too many things had been
> built sinse the Hanseatic times). Can't comment on beer but is there a
> shortageof it elsewhere?
Only after Scandinavians have passed through.......
> Possible. IMO, multilingual model popular in Western Europe is
> healthier. Esp. in the places with 50/50 split.
Yes. A conflict elsewhere about which I know something started when one
ethnicity decided that its own language would be the sole official language,
started to squeeze the other guys out of the government jobs and also
renamed the state for itself. If you can imagine the English Canadians
abolishing Quebec's language rights and also renaming the country something
like "Glory of the Anglos"......? The results were not good.
> AFAIK, the Latvians are trying to do this "X" thing now.
Another Master Race in the making?
> > I am afraid that they're zero-sum players: if what I gain is your
> loss, it follows that everything you lose must be my gain, even if I can't
> see how right now. Ergo, I shall take as much off you as I can, just
because.
>
> How can anybody expect any cooperation against what is supposed to be
> a common enemy, radical Islam?
Good question. Unless the so-called war against the common enemy is just
a smokescreen for several things, of which the tighter encirclement of
Russia might be one.
am...@hotmail.com
David C. Pugh wrote:
> <am...@hotmail.com> skrev i melding
> news:1104786099.5...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Well, the foreigners are NOT really rare in MA but there is a high
> > tolerance> to the "foreign" culture here. I'm not sure that this is
> necessarily
> > true in other places.
>
> Well, an Englishman abroad is expected to be eccentric.
Ah yes, Englishman - eccentric, French - womanizer, German - pedantic,
Russian - drunkard (or a jelly-like creature that passes for
"Chekhovian
Intelligent" with a mysterious soul), etc.
>You can get away
> with a lot.
In most cases only when you are rich enough. AFAIK, this is how the
Brits were getting away with their eccentricities in XIX - early XX.
After WWI most of the eccentricities had been scaled down to the
"stupid
habits" (except when person in question was rich).
>
> > > What's the next sign of the End Times?
> >
> > Perhaps. Over the last 2 or 3 months I found myself more than once
in
> > an agreement with Soren on non-Inger related issues.......
>
> A big rock beyond the orbit of Pluto hears you, and its orbit
slowly
> begins to decay.......
How boring.... All these rocks are routinely dealt with by Robert
Duval,
or by Bruce Willis, or by 5th Element (with BW's help)....
I'd prefer something like a Pointless Doom invoked by Ultimate
Absurdity
or whoever was responsible for all this Creation thingy and our roaming
with the dynosaures. At least you know where you are staying with these
Ultimate things: one moment you are there and the next Universe ceased
to
exist. Deluge story shows an annoying lack of imagination: if all the
animals had to perish, why not the sharks and jellyfish? Why Noah had
to
build the Arc? Couldn't <whoever> provide him with a ready one? BTW,
the water-dwelling dynosaures should still be around.
>
> > It was not taught at my time either but reading sometimes can be
quite
> > educational....
>
> Well, my main pal there was a specialist in French and English
language,
> it's the Slavic studies guy who has no excuse. The alternative is
that he
> did know, but found it embarassing.
I don't see anything specifically embarassing in a trident, it is just
a
symbol. Can't testify if the legend is correct but some (at least
Ukrainian) sources claim that it was used as a coat of arms by St.
Vladimir
before he converted into Christianity.
>
> > AFAIK, both schools claim a direct descendance from the most
superior
> > ape on a tree and the following purity all the way to the present
times.
> > The> <whoever> are supposed to be the most proud, honest,
freedom-loving,>
> peace-loving, brave, militant and friendly group of the primates
> > (except,> perhaps, for the baboons). The details are different but
> substance is> the same.
>
> I once perused an atlas made in Nazi times showing the old,
discredited
> Jewish theory of the origin of Man in the African Rift Valley, and
the new,
> scientific knowledge of the origin of Man on the North German Plain.
All great minds tend to think almog the same lines....
> > "Polish intrigue"? :-)
>
> As opposed to a rough and grubby one?
Ah, ...er.... sure....
>
> > They played it in Russia and the emerging result is a "strong hand"
and
> > shrinking multi-party system. Appreciation of a democracy often
goes
> > AFTER a good dinner.
>
> Spoken like a true gastro-Marxist: the superstructure of ideology
> reflects the relationships of digestion.
Well, Marxism has to be right at least about something...
>
> > > There are lot of Baltics being trafficked to Norway. Other
> > nationalities in the same profession
> >
> > You mean massaging?
>
> In your Rigan sense, yes.
What do you mean by "Rigan sense"? I was talking about massaging and
the
rest (whatever it amounts to) is a product of your imagination.... :-)
>
> > > are definitely volunteer immigrants, but there seems
> > > to be evidence that the some Baltics may be arriving in
handcuffs.
> > :-(
> >
> > Isn't it a little bit unfriendly toward the new EU members? :-)
> >
> > Why such an attitude?
>
> I meant the Eastern mafias are supposed to be doing the smuggling
and
> the unpleasant coercive practices.
With the EU borders open for the members, smuggling from where to
where?
>The Swedes made a film called "Lilja
> 4ever" about a Russian teenager kidnapped, tortured and trafficked to
> Sweden.
To which end?
>
> > Riga and vicimities are hardly "unspoiled" (too many things had
been
> > built sinse the Hanseatic times). Can't comment on beer but is
there a
> > shortageof it elsewhere?
>
> Only after Scandinavians have passed through.......
Do you think that the Latvians have some extra capacities of beer
production?
>
> > Possible. IMO, multilingual model popular in Western Europe is
> > healthier. Esp. in the places with 50/50 split.
>
> Yes. A conflict elsewhere about which I know something started
when one
> ethnicity decided that its own language would be the sole official
language,
> started to squeeze the other guys out of the government jobs and also
> renamed the state for itself. If you can imagine the English
Canadians
> abolishing Quebec's language rights and also renaming the country
something
> like "Glory of the Anglos"......? The results were not good.
>
> > AFAIK, the Latvians are trying to do this "X" thing now.
>
> Another Master Race in the making?
Looks like that. Of course, it is difficult to judge based on the
Russian
reports but some things do not look nice at all: denial of a
citizenship
to the people born in Latvia based on language principle, language
policy
in schools, glorification of the former Latvian SSmen as the heroes,
etc.
>
> > > I am afraid that they're zero-sum players: if what I gain is
your
> > loss, it follows that everything you lose must be my gain, even if
I can't
> > see how right now. Ergo, I shall take as much off you as I can,
just
> because.
> >
> > How can anybody expect any cooperation against what is supposed to
be
> > a common enemy, radical Islam?
>
> Good question. Unless the so-called war against the common enemy
is just
> a smokescreen for several things, of which the tighter encirclement
of
> Russia might be one.
To which end? A moronic doctrine pushed by the idiots like Bjezinsky &
Co?
Paranoya like that already led to WWII.
David C. Pugh
news:1104862865....@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > Well, an Englishman abroad is expected to be eccentric.
>
> Ah yes, Englishman - eccentric, French - womanizer, German - pedantic,
> Russian - drunkard (or a jelly-like creature that passes for
> "Chekhovian Intelligent" with a mysterious soul), etc.
Yes, you can have a lot of fun living up to their expectations.
A Russian girl once asked me whether I had a "Russian soul" like her If
it happens again, any suggestions for a reply? :-)
> >You can get away with a lot.
>
> In most cases only when you are rich enough. AFAIK, this is how the
> Brits were getting away with their eccentricities in XIX - early XX.
> After WWI most of the eccentricities had been scaled down to the
> "stupid habits" (except when person in question was rich).
Definitely. Really poor eccentrics used to be called "inmates", before
they evicted them all onto the streets. But my point is, the property
qualification for tolerated English eccentricity may be lower abroad.
> > > Perhaps. Over the last 2 or 3 months I found myself more than once
> in an agreement with Soren on non-Inger related issues.......
> >
> > A big rock beyond the orbit of Pluto hears you, and its orbit slowly
begins to decay.......
>
> How boring.... All these rocks are routinely dealt with by Robert
> Duval, or by Bruce Willis, or by 5th Element (with BW's help)....
Robert Duval? Which big rock did he have? Bruce Willis' rock I know.
> I'd prefer something like a Pointless Doom invoked by Ultimate Absurdity
> or whoever was responsible for all this Creation thingy and our roaming
> with the dynosaures.
Ah yes, demolition to make way for the hyperspace bypass that never got
built in the end.
Did you ever see the Hubble photograph of the nebula that could be
appropriately titled "God's Message to His Creation"? If not, I could mail
it to you.
> I don't see anything specifically embarassing in a trident, it is just
> a symbol. Can't testify if the legend is correct but some (at least
> Ukrainian) sources claim that it was used as a coat of arms by St.
> Vladimir before he converted into Christianity.
Thanks again, I thought it might be from that period, but didn't know.
The embarassment I meant was over the symbol's previous use by the fascist
collaborators; but that he knew it and didn't want to talk about it is, of
course, pure speculation.
> > I once perused an atlas made in Nazi times showing the old,
> discredited Jewish theory of the origin of Man in the African Rift Valley,
and the new, scientific knowledge of the origin of Man on the North German
Plain.
>
> All great minds tend to think almog the same lines....
Not sure I understand how that observation applies.......
> What do you mean by "Rigan sense"? I was talking about massaging and
> the rest (whatever it amounts to) is a product of your imagination.... :-)
Yeah, right. :-)
> > I meant the Eastern mafias are supposed to be doing the smuggling
> and the unpleasant coercive practices.
>
> With the EU borders open for the members, smuggling from where to
> where?
I might well be wrong, but I don't think that Baltics enjoy the Free
Movement thing to the EU yet, and they certainly aren't in Schengenland.
And, if the reports are accurate, "abduction and enslavement" would have
been a more accurate term than smuggling, from the point of view of the
goods being smuggled past the authorities, my apologies there.
> >The Swedes made a film called "Lilja
> > 4ever" about a Russian teenager kidnapped, tortured and trafficked to
> > Sweden.
>
> To which end?
Involuntary prostitution.
> > Only after Scandinavians have passed through.......
>
> Do you think that the Latvians have some extra capacities of beer
> production?
They'll need to open a few extra plants, I guess. Estonia has long been
where Finns go to get even drunker than at home, if such a thing is
possible.
> > > AFAIK, the Latvians are trying to do this "X" thing now.
> >
> > Another Master Race in the making?
>
> Looks like that. Of course, it is difficult to judge based on the
> Russian reports but some things do not look nice at all: denial of a
> citizenship to the people born in Latvia based on language principle,
language policy in schools, glorification of the former Latvian SSmen as the
heroes, etc.
Oh dear.
> > Good question. Unless the so-called war against the common enemy
> is just a smokescreen for several things, of which the tighter
encirclement
> of Russia might be one.
>
> To which end? A moronic doctrine pushed by the idiots like Bjezinsky &
> Co?
I can't spell him either, you mean Jimmy Carter's old national security
adviser with the vowel shortage?
> Paranoya like that already led to WWII.
Indeed.
am...@hotmail.com
David C. Pugh wrote:
> <am...@hotmail.com> skrev i melding
> news:1104862865....@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > Well, an Englishman abroad is expected to be eccentric.
> >
> > Ah yes, Englishman - eccentric, French - womanizer, German -
pedantic,
> > Russian - drunkard (or a jelly-like creature that passes for
> > "Chekhovian Intelligent" with a mysterious soul), etc.
>
> Yes, you can have a lot of fun living up to their expectations.
>
> A Russian girl once asked me whether I had a "Russian soul" like
her If
> it happens again, any suggestions for a reply? :-)
Something along the lines: "shut up and get undressed" (age and
appearences permitting)?
All this "mysterious Russian soul" business applied to the Russian
intelligencia of the late XIX - early XX, people with enough income
and free time to contemplate what they want more: strudgeon with a
horseradish or reforms.
Another variation of this soul usually was related to the rich
merchants. It was, indeed, a mystery for the visiting foreigners
who were trying to figure out where is the fun in smearing caviar
over waiter's face or throwing the champaign bottles into the
mirrors.
I doubt very much that too many species of the 1st variety survived.
OTOH, I suspect that 2nd one is still alive and kicking (with some
appropriate modifications).
Do you feel any strong similarities with any of them?
>
> > >You can get away with a lot.
> >
> > In most cases only when you are rich enough. AFAIK, this is how the
> > Brits were getting away with their eccentricities in XIX - early
XX.
> > After WWI most of the eccentricities had been scaled down to the
> > "stupid habits" (except when person in question was rich).
>
> Definitely. Really poor eccentrics used to be called "inmates",
before
> they evicted them all onto the streets. But my point is, the
property
> qualification for tolerated English eccentricity may be lower abroad.
You mean they still would be considered rich in some 3rd world
countries? :-)
>
> > > > Perhaps. Over the last 2 or 3 months I found myself more than
once
> > in an agreement with Soren on non-Inger related issues.......
> > >
> > > A big rock beyond the orbit of Pluto hears you, and its orbit
slowly
> begins to decay.......
> >
> > How boring.... All these rocks are routinely dealt with by Robert
> > Duval, or by Bruce Willis, or by 5th Element (with BW's help)....
>
> Robert Duval? Which big rock did he have?
AFAIK, he had two. He dealt with a bigger one and let the smaller
one to hit the Earth so that the authors could use all this computer
graphics...
> Bruce Willis' rock I know.
>
> > I'd prefer something like a Pointless Doom invoked by Ultimate
Absurdity
> > or whoever was responsible for all this Creation thingy and our
roaming
> > with the dynosaures.
>
> Ah yes, demolition to make way for the hyperspace bypass that
never got
> built in the end.
Are you talking about our Big Dig?
>
> Did you ever see the Hubble photograph of the nebula that could
be
> appropriately titled "God's Message to His Creation"? If not, I could
mail
> it to you.
>
> > I don't see anything specifically embarassing in a trident, it is
just
> > a symbol. Can't testify if the legend is correct but some (at least
> > Ukrainian) sources claim that it was used as a coat of arms by St.
> > Vladimir before he converted into Christianity.
>
> Thanks again, I thought it might be from that period, but didn't
know.
Of course, the Ukrainian patriots traced its origins directly to
this superior ape they descended from or at least to Poseidon.
> The embarassment I meant was over the symbol's previous use by the
fascist
> collaborators; but that he knew it and didn't want to talk about it
is, of
> course, pure speculation.
>
It was adopted by the Ukrainian national goverment in 1918 (IIRC).
The Bendera's guys used it as well but by this time it was just
something associated with the independent Ukraine (AFAIK).
> > > I once perused an atlas made in Nazi times showing the old,
> > discredited Jewish theory of the origin of Man in the African Rift
Valley,
> and the new, scientific knowledge of the origin of Man on the North
German
> Plain.
> >
> > All great minds tend to think almog the same lines....
>
> Not sure I understand how that observation applies.......
All the nationalistic minds are equally great. At least from their
own perspective.
>
> > What do you mean by "Rigan sense"? I was talking about massaging
and
> > the rest (whatever it amounts to) is a product of your
imagination.... :-)
>
> Yeah, right. :-)
Now, I can't be held responsible for the products of your
imagination.... :-)
>
> > > I meant the Eastern mafias are supposed to be doing the
smuggling
> > and the unpleasant coercive practices.
> >
> > With the EU borders open for the members, smuggling from where to
> > where?
>
> I might well be wrong, but I don't think that Baltics enjoy the
Free
> Movement thing to the EU yet, and they certainly aren't in
Schengenland.
But aren't some of them in the EU already? I could be a little
bit confused with the candidacy/full membership thing.
> And, if the reports are accurate, "abduction and enslavement"
Wow! You are going to get really interesting people in the EU!
>would have
> been a more accurate term than smuggling, from the point of view of
the
> goods being smuggled past the authorities, my apologies there.
And the smuggled people (females?) are used for what you are
thinking I was thinking when talking about massage?
>
> > >The Swedes made a film called "Lilja
> > > 4ever" about a Russian teenager kidnapped, tortured and
trafficked to
> > > Sweden.
> >
> > To which end?
>
> Involuntary prostitution.
Just nice....
>
> > > Only after Scandinavians have passed through.......
> >
> > Do you think that the Latvians have some extra capacities of beer
> > production?
>
> They'll need to open a few extra plants, I guess. Estonia has
long been
> where Finns go to get even drunker than at home, if such a thing is
> possible.
I thought that Leningrad/Peterburg was a traditional outlet but
probably they have to have more than one place: drinking in one
while another is getting cleaned from the last visit, etc. :-)
>
> > > > AFAIK, the Latvians are trying to do this "X" thing now.
> > >
> > > Another Master Race in the making?
> >
> > Looks like that. Of course, it is difficult to judge based on the
> > Russian reports but some things do not look nice at all: denial of
a
> > citizenship to the people born in Latvia based on language
principle,
> language policy in schools, glorification of the former Latvian SSmen
as the
> heroes,
Parade in the uniforms with Nazy regalia....
> etc.
>
> Oh dear.
>
...Deporting (born in Latvia) Russian-speaker because he was
protesting against single language school policy, etc. Does not
look nice but does not create visible problem within EU (AFAIK).
> > > Good question. Unless the so-called war against the common
enemy
> > is just a smokescreen for several things, of which the tighter
> encirclement
> > of Russia might be one.
> >
> > To which end? A moronic doctrine pushed by the idiots like
Bjezinsky &
> > Co?
>
> I can't spell him either, you mean Jimmy Carter's old national
security
> adviser with the vowel shortage?
And brain shortage as well. He and his school (Halfbright, etc.)
still think in the terms of encirclement, further partition of
Russia, etc. Without any regard to the obvious results like a
massive world instability.
Wistful Bryn
<solom...@online.no> writes
><am...@hotmail.com> skrev i melding
>news:1104862865....@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
>> > Well, an Englishman abroad is expected to be eccentric.
>>
>> Ah yes, Englishman - eccentric, French - womanizer, German - pedantic,
>> Russian - drunkard (or a jelly-like creature that passes for
>> "Chekhovian Intelligent" with a mysterious soul), etc.
>
> Yes, you can have a lot of fun living up to their expectations.
>
> A Russian girl once asked me whether I had a "Russian soul" like her If
>it happens again, any suggestions for a reply? :-)
>
Play it by ear, ask if she has a friend or sister...
--
Bryn
Remove the gremlins to email me...
David C. Pugh
news:1104934998....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> > A Russian girl once asked me whether I had a "Russian soul" like
> her If it happens again, any suggestions for a reply? :-)
>
> Something along the lines: "shut up and get undressed" (age and
> appearences permitting)?
It worked for that guy in "The Unbearable Lightness of Being".
However......
> All this "mysterious Russian soul" business applied to the Russian
> intelligencia of the late XIX - early XX, people with enough income
> and free time to contemplate what they want more: strudgeon with a
> horseradish or reforms.
>
> Another variation of this soul usually was related to the rich
> merchants. It was, indeed, a mystery for the visiting foreigners
> who were trying to figure out where is the fun in smearing caviar
> over waiter's face or throwing the champaign bottles into the
> mirrors.
>
> I doubt very much that too many species of the 1st variety survived.
> OTOH, I suspect that 2nd one is still alive and kicking (with some
> appropriate modifications).
>
> Do you feel any strong similarities with any of them?
Much more with the first than the second. I have a reasonable income and
free time in which to ponder reforms, though caviar and horseradish don't
greatly excite me. The smearing the waiter's face and throwing champagne
bottles at the mirrors business is definitely not "me". (At Oxford that was
the difference between an oik and a nob -- the oik threw a brick through
your window and ran away, the nob threw a magnum through it and
contemptuously proffered payment.) Those in your second category, I would
prefer them to play Pierre Bezhukov's drinking game, repeatedly until they
get it right.
> AFAIK, he had two. He dealt with a bigger one and let the smaller
> one to hit the Earth so that the authors could use all this computer
> graphics...
"Deep Impact." I'd forgotten he was in it.
> > Ah yes, demolition to make way for the hyperspace bypass that
> never got built in the end.
>
> Are you talking about our Big Dig?
woss?
> Did you ever see the Hubble photograph of the nebula that could
> be appropriately titled "God's Message to His Creation"? If not, I could
> mail it to you.
> at alexm...@msn.com
Coming up.
> Of course, the Ukrainian patriots traced its origins directly to
> this superior ape they descended from or at least to Poseidon.
Yah, Poseidon was a newcomer, I'm descended from the Titans! :-)
> All the nationalistic minds are equally great. At least from their
> own perspective.
Ah! Quite so.
> > I might well be wrong, but I don't think that Baltics enjoy the
> Free Movement thing to the EU yet, and they certainly aren't in
> Schengenland.
>
> But aren't some of them in the EU already? I could be a little
> bit confused with the candidacy/full membership thing.
Me too. Anyway, there are still rules and regulations and conditions and
caveats and forms to be filled, AFAIK it's not just like moving from
Manchester to London to get a job. And you certainly can't put "brothel" in
the rubric for Employer on your form applying for various kinds of residence
status. I have the impression that some of these ladies have come to the
country under their own steam -- "Go West, young woman" -- in the same way
as (I presume) you came to Massachusetts, others are dumped or runaway
wives, others again are smuggled in by organised gangs, subdivided into
voluntarily and (allegedly) involuntarily.
> And the smuggled people (females?) are used for what you are
> thinking I was thinking when talking about massage?
Yup.
> > They'll need to open a few extra plants, I guess. Estonia has
> long been where Finns go to get even drunker than at home, if such a thing
is possible.
>
> I thought that Leningrad/Peterburg was a traditional outlet but
> probably they have to have more than one place: drinking in one
> while another is getting cleaned from the last visit, etc. :-)
You know the joke about the two country Finns who came to Helsinki the
day before the Russian bombing? They went out on the town, and slept it off
all day. When they woke up, towards evening, they looked out of the window
at the devastation and said, "We'd better go home before they ask us to pay
for it!"
> Parade in the uniforms with Nazy regalia....
Urghhhhh.
> ...Deporting (born in Latvia) Russian-speaker because he was
> protesting against single language school policy, etc. Does not
> look nice but does not create visible problem within EU (AFAIK).
People assume that victims of something are always nice people. Like the
Aztecs.......
> And brain shortage as well. He and his school (Halfbright, etc.)
> still think in the terms of encirclement, further partition of
> Russia, etc. Without any regard to the obvious results like a
> massive world instability.
Virgil said that the Roman (hey, back to square one) thing should be "to
spare the conquered, and war down the proud" (standard translation, odd
phrase to get the metre right). I would have said to the encirclement
school, if they had asked me, "Enough already, you won, now make a friend".
I have my own beef with Halfbright from when she condemned the Tamil
Tigers as "Hindu fundamentalists". Funny that, considering that most of the
Tiger supporters I know are Roman Catholics, and the USA had been backing
the Sinhalese side from the beginning because they thought the Tigers were
Commies. She backtracked afterwards, which suggests that her officials knew
what was what but she hadn't read her briefing papers.
Speaking of ignorance of who's who, yesterday I heard Colin Powell in
Indonesia, and I *thought* I heard him say that "most of the affected
countries are Muslim". Did I badly mishear him or did he really say that?
Because Indonesia is, of course, the only Muslim-majority country affected
by the tsunami, albeit the worst-hit.
am...@hotmail.com
Caviar with a horseradish would be a little bit too eccentric
(and probably mysterious). However, I was referenced to a strudgeon
itself (broiled, boiled, smoked), a popular item of the Russian
traditional cuisine.
>The smearing the waiter's face and throwing champagne
> bottles at the mirrors business is definitely not "me".
Why? Income is not high enough?
> (At Oxford that was
> the difference between an oik and a nob -- the oik threw a brick
through
> your window and ran away, the nob threw a magnum through it and
> contemptuously proffered payment.) Those in your second category, I
would
> prefer them to play Pierre Bezhukov's drinking game, repeatedly until
they
> get it right.
Sorry, wrong social class. The guys I was referencing to were not
aristocrates and prefered games which involved minimal personal
harm and maximal expences.
>
> > AFAIK, he had two. He dealt with a bigger one and let the smaller
> > one to hit the Earth so that the authors could use all this
computer
> > graphics...
>
> "Deep Impact." I'd forgotten he was in it.
>
> > > Ah yes, demolition to make way for the hyperspace bypass that
> > never got built in the end.
> >
> > Are you talking about our Big Dig?
>
> woss?
>
The most expensive hole in the earth in American history.
It was digged in Boston and involved more demolition and expences
and considerably less sense than a project you described. Formally,
it is over (almost) but most of the area still looks like this
post-meteor landscape and the whole thing is already leaking...
> > Did you ever see the Hubble photograph of the nebula that
could
> > be appropriately titled "God's Message to His Creation"? If not, I
could
> > mail it to you.
>
> > at alexm...@msn.com
>
> Coming up.
Is it just me or is he really upset with something?
>
> > Of course, the Ukrainian patriots traced its origins directly to
> > this superior ape they descended from or at least to Poseidon.
>
> Yah, Poseidon was a newcomer, I'm descended from the Titans! :-)
Well, I don't know _ALL_ the theories involved...
> > > I might well be wrong, but I don't think that Baltics enjoy
the
> > Free Movement thing to the EU yet, and they certainly aren't in
> > Schengenland.
> >
> > But aren't some of them in the EU already? I could be a little
> > bit confused with the candidacy/full membership thing.
>
> Me too. Anyway, there are still rules and regulations and
conditions and
> caveats and forms to be filled, AFAIK it's not just like moving from
> Manchester to London to get a job.
I wonder why.
>And you certainly can't put "brothel" in
> the rubric for Employer on your form applying for various kinds of
residence
> status.
You can't? Strange...
>I have the impression that some of these ladies have come to the
> country under their own steam -- "Go West, young woman" -- in the
same way
> as (I presume) you came to Massachusetts,
I sincerely hope that your analogies are not going any further... :-)
> > Parade in the uniforms with Nazy regalia....
>
> Urghhhhh.
>
> > ...Deporting (born in Latvia) Russian-speaker because he was
> > protesting against single language school policy, etc. Does not
> > look nice but does not create visible problem within EU (AFAIK).
>
> People assume that victims of something are always nice people.
Like the
> Aztecs.......
Good point. :-)
>
> > And brain shortage as well. He and his school (Halfbright, etc.)
> > still think in the terms of encirclement, further partition of
> > Russia, etc. Without any regard to the obvious results like a
> > massive world instability.
>
> Virgil said that the Roman (hey, back to square one) thing should
be "to
> spare the conquered, and war down the proud" (standard translation,
odd
> phrase to get the metre right). I would have said to the encirclement
> school, if they had asked me, "Enough already, you won, now make a
friend".
>
> I have my own beef with Halfbright from when she condemned the
Tamil
> Tigers as "Hindu fundamentalists".
Really?
>Funny that, considering that most of the
> Tiger supporters I know are Roman Catholics, and the USA had been
backing
> the Sinhalese side from the beginning because they thought the Tigers
were
> Commies. She backtracked afterwards, which suggests that her
officials knew
> what was what but she hadn't read her briefing papers.
Too busy selecting jewelry to wear....
>
> Speaking of ignorance of who's who, yesterday I heard Colin
Powell in
> Indonesia, and I *thought* I heard him say that "most of the affected
> countries are Muslim". Did I badly mishear him or did he really say
that?
I didn't listen: my opinion of him as State Secretary is very low
but kissing the Muslims' butts looks like on of his favorite
occupations. He also has a theory that if we somehow create
prosperity in Indonesia, they would be less prone to listen to
the Islamic extremists.... How he plans to achieve this prosperity
is anybody's guess. Make them 51st state of the US and put all
population on welfare? Move all remaining US industry in Indonesia?
Sheila J
What is the saying ...'only mad dogs and Englishmen go out in the July
(or August) sun...." I can't remember it.
My husband and I aspire to be eccentric old military history profs at
RMC, sharing an office, wearing mis-matched socks and tatty cardigans,
wolseley sleeping in a leather armchair and us being the strangest (but
most loved) couple on campus. There is a certain romantism to that!
adamadamant
news:aMXCd.717357$%k.384863@pd7tw2no:
> Wistful Bryn wrote:
>
>> In article <zTPCd.2957$Sl3....@news4.e.nsc.no>, David C. Pugh
>> <solom...@online.no> writes
>>
>>><am...@hotmail.com> skrev i melding
>>>news:1104862865....@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Well, an Englishman abroad is expected to be eccentric.
>>>>
>>>>Ah yes, Englishman - eccentric, French - womanizer, German -
>>>>pedantic, Russian - drunkard (or a jelly-like creature that
>>>>passes for "Chekhovian Intelligent" with a mysterious soul),
>>>>etc.
>>>
>>> Yes, you can have a lot of fun living up to their
>>> expectations.
>>>
>>> A Russian girl once asked me whether I had a "Russian soul"
>>> like her If
>>>it happens again, any suggestions for a reply? :-)
>>>
>>
>>
>> Play it by ear, ask if she has a friend or sister...
>>
>
>
> What is the saying ...'only mad dogs and Englishmen go out in
> the July (or August) sun...." I can't remember it.
It was 'Mad Dogs and Englishmen (go out in the midday sun)' by Noel
Coward:
In tropical climes there are certain times of day
When all the citizens retire to tear their clothes off and
perspire.
It's one of the rules that the greatest fools obey,
Because the sun is much too sultry
And one must avoid its ultry-violet ray.
The natives grieve when the white men leave their huts,
Because they're obviously, definitely nuts!
Mad dogs and Englishmen go out in the midday sun,
The Japanese don´t care to, the Chinese wouldn´t dare to,
Hindus and Argentines sleep firmly from twelve to one
But Englishmen detest-a siesta.
In the Philippines they have lovely screens to protect you from the
glare.
In the Malay States, there are hats like plates which the
Britishers won't wear.
At twelve noon the natives swoon and no further work is done,
But mad dogs and Englishmen go out in the midday sun.
It's such a surprise for the Eastern eyes to see,
that though the English are effete, they're quite impervious to
heat,
When the white man rides every native hides in glee,
Because the simple creatures hope he will impale his solar topee on
a tree.
It seems such a shame when the English claim the earth,
They give rise to such hilarity and mirth.
Ha ha ha ha hoo hoo hoo hoo hee hee hee hee ......
Mad dogs and Englishmen go out in the midday sun.
The toughest Burmese bandit can never understand it.
In Rangoon the heat of noon is just what the natives shun,
They put their Scotch or Rye down, and lie down.
In a jungle town where the sun beats down to the rage of man and
beast
The English garb of the English sahib merely gets a bit more
creased.
In Bangkok at twelve o'clock they foam at the mouth and run,
But mad dogs and Englishmen go out in the midday sun.
Mad dogs and Englishmen go out in the midday sun.
The smallest Malay rabbit deplores this foolish habit.
In Hong Kong they strike a gong and fire off a noonday gun,
To reprimand each inmate who's in late.
In the mangrove swamps where the python romps
there is peace from twelve till two.
Even caribous lie around and snooze, for there's nothing else to
do.
In Bengal to move at all is seldom ever done,
But mad dogs and Englishmen go out in the midday sun.
====
Andy.
afro...@yahoo.com
Eve
Martin Reboul
"David C. Pugh" <solom...@online.no> wrote in message
news:zTPCd.2957$Sl3....@news4.e.nsc.no...
> <am...@hotmail.com> skrev i melding
> news:1104862865....@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > Well, an Englishman abroad is expected to be eccentric.
> >
> > Ah yes, Englishman - eccentric, French - womanizer, German - pedantic,
> > Russian - drunkard (or a jelly-like creature that passes for
> > "Chekhovian Intelligent" with a mysterious soul), etc.
>
> Yes, you can have a lot of fun living up to their expectations.
>
> A Russian girl once asked me whether I had a "Russian soul" like her If
> it happens again, any suggestions for a reply? :-)
What a question! Probably means 'do you blub during concerts?', though it could
be to do with suicidal tendencies. Depending on the 'circumstances', a good
reply might be "maybe - try your Russian body on me and see what you think?"
David C. Pugh
> > A Russian girl once asked me whether I had a "Russian soul" like her
If it happens again, any suggestions for a reply? :-)
>
> What a question! Probably means 'do you blub during concerts?', though it
could be to do with suicidal tendencies.
Or declaiming poetry when drunk instead of smashing the place up like a
good Briton?
Depending on the 'circumstances', a good reply might be "maybe - try your
Russian body on me and see what you think?"
If it ever happens again, I shall steal that line, thanks!
a.spencer3
<am...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1104947923....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Someone said something like that - I thought it was Bush. I remember
thinking at the time - 'Sorry, all you Buddhists, Christians, Hindus!'.
If the USA is going to try to be a world power, it ought to get its
education sorted appropriately, let alone much else.
UK TV is even re-running Bush's amazing interviews showing his ignorance of
current international Heads of States' names now, too!
Surreyman
David C. Pugh
news:EKwDd.319$gy1...@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
(Alex' post never showed up at my end, just as well that Surreyman
replied!)
> > > Much more with the first than the second. I have a reasonable
> > income and free time in which to ponder reforms, though caviar and
horseradish don't greatly excite me.
> >
> > Caviar with a horseradish would be a little bit too eccentric
> > (and probably mysterious). However, I was referenced to a strudgeon
> > itself (broiled, boiled, smoked), a popular item of the Russian
> > traditional cuisine.
Is that a misspelling for sturgeon -- or perhaps a sturgeon in high
dudgeon?
> > >The smearing the waiter's face and throwing champagne
> > > bottles at the mirrors business is definitely not "me".
> >
> > Why? Income is not high enough?
If you can't think of any other reasons, it says more about you than
about me :-)
> > > (At Oxford that was
> > > the difference between an oik and a nob -- the oik threw a brick
> > through
> > > your window and ran away, the nob threw a magnum through it and
> > > contemptuously proffered payment.) Those in your second category, I
> > would prefer them to play Pierre Bezhukov's drinking game, repeatedly
until they get it right.
> >
> > Sorry, wrong social class. The guys I was referencing to were not
> > aristocrates and prefered games which involved minimal personal
> > harm and maximal expences.
I see, different stupid games for different stupid classes.....
> > The most expensive hole in the earth in American history.
> > It was digged in Boston and involved more demolition and expences
> > and considerably less sense than a project you described. Formally,
> > it is over (almost) but most of the area still looks like this
> > post-meteor landscape and the whole thing is already leaking...
Do they charge for admission? It's a long way to the Grand Canyon.
> > > > Did you ever see the Hubble photograph of the nebula that
> > could be appropriately titled "God's Message to His Creation"? If not, I
> > could mail it to you.
> > Is it just me or is he really upset with something?
Perhaps he's really upset with just you?
> > > Speaking of ignorance of who's who, yesterday I heard Colin
> > Powell in Indonesia, and I *thought* I heard him say that "most of the
affected countries are Muslim". Did I badly mishear him or did he really say
> > that?
(...)
Surreyman:
> Someone said something like that - I thought it was Bush. I remember
> thinking at the time - 'Sorry, all you Buddhists, Christians, Hindus!'.
Too right.
> If the USA is going to try to be a world power, it ought to get its
> education sorted appropriately, let alone much else.
Well, in our day we thought Latin and Greek was the correct preparation
for being a district officer and hanging insubordinate natives in Asia and
Africa, so maybe we shouldn't talk? :-)