|
|
|
Re-Armenians Next Serbs? ..., Chinese Muslim Alliance ..., Female Circumcision... How Many Jews...
(Tom Svobodny responds to WM's remarks in last month's Communication Page: "What is the Armenians' sin -- too friendly to Russia?"}
For a long time I didn't understand. But I am starting to get it. (I didn't understand why the Serbs were so demonized either.)
Main reasons are:
1. Oil. Azerbaijan has lots of it and wants to sell it to western transnational oil "companies." The main competitors for Caspian Sea oil are Russia and Iran. Armenia is the enemy of Axerbaijan. First, it is in the way of a proposed Baku to Ankara pipeline. Second, there is an enclave of ethnic Armenians inside of Azerbaijan [Krajina] that both countries claim as their own, and presently under the control of the Armenians.
2. Islam. [But this is just #1]. Azerbaijan is Moslem, Armenia is Orthodox. [But in case of conflict, choose #1: see below]
I think the US and NATO have made a few keystone-cops mistakes [at least from US point of view --- but NATO is perhaps more important to Clinton than US] lately (including the bombing of Serbia). During the bombing (early on), feeling strong, Clinton offered to press for NATO membership to Azerbaijan and Georgia.
Georgia, I don't get, since it is a traditional ally of Armenia, and is also Orthodox. Feeling threatened, Russia has started to pay more attention to the Kavkaz. It has also started talking about military cooperation with India and China.
And now this:
http://www.stratfor.com/SERVICES/GIU/070199.ASP that I just noticed.
Thus: Russia is big daddy to
1. China -- India
2. Greece -- Armenia -- Iran
3. Serbia -- Libya -- Iraq.
You know, maybe Russia is behind the NATO bombing.
Is Russia still Big Daddy to anybody? WM
(Tom Svobodny's response to WM's second comment: "This reminds me of the phrase of a few Germans in Toronto who told me that 'Hitler wasn't dangerous.'")
I don't know when they said this, and I can't imagine how that statement has any meanings unless it was said in the early 30s and they were making a bad prediction, but if I can get at what they might mean, it is that Hitler and his Nazis were not just Goose-stepping, Jack-booted Jew-Haters. This is what comes down to us in the popular view of history and this is what Neo-Nazis are. But this could only appeal to a very small minority (in any society). In fact, like modern politicians, Hitler tried to be as many things to as many people as possible. Liberals thought he might be something to work with, labor leaders thought he was a socialist )after all, his party was the "worker's party"). It was a liberal who first pointed out: "at least Mussolini got the trains to run on time." But most importantly, the international bankers {mostly american and british} found him someone who would deliver a return on their investment. Without the continual supply of loans, Hitler would have been stopped even before he began. [the IMF would have liked his "reforms"] The symbiotic relationship between Hitler and the bankers fueled the conquest of europe (each new country meant hard assets (gold) and cheap labor (in fact it was free).
I don't think that a true "Nazi" today would get anywhere by passing himself off as a mean, tough, nationalist, racist, etc. Rather, he would disguise himself as the opposite: caring, empathetic, globalist, multicultural, feminist.
Enough of politics. Back to the real world of mathematics.
Best Wishes,
Tom Svobodny
svobodny@euler.math.wright.edu
The 'empathetic' Nazis of today - excellent Tom, excellent!
I met those Germans I wrote about a few months ago. The German 'silent majority' -- Aryan, heterosexual, apolitical -- did not consider Hitler dangerous. I have more about the subject in this issue in "Shaping Past History" WM
Hi Bill..
No offence.. but your subject article is full of crap!!..
How do you expect Chinese to form such alliance with Muslims?.. They have different religion, civilization, traditions, etc. or just because Mr. Jerenovski said so the 21st century prophet !!..
You believe that Muslims are the only religion that kills others based on religion/ethic reasons? How do you explain the last war in Balkan?!! Don't you think that your cousins, the Yugoslavs took Europe back to the Middle Ages by doing what they did in Kosovo?!.. I don't know why you have such a "black picture" about Muslims? Just because few people made mistakes doesn't mean that Islam is bad, or bloody religion. You need to correct this picture.
Finally.. the German/ Chinese comparison(!!) Obviously you don't know what the hell you were talking about.. How can you compare these two nations/ideology in this ridiculous way? German Nationalism by Hitler was based on the idea that German race is the highest and it should rule the whole world, whereas the Chinese revolution by Mow Tsi Tong (if you heard of this name before!) was based totally on the Communism theory, which is totally different.. I bet you are a Jew.. that's why you wanted to relate the Chinese to the Germans (the Holocaust.. remember?)..
Little advice.. read the history first before putting such crap in the Internet!.. People know more than what you can expect !!.. and by the way.. your grand grand father, Mr. Nostradamus, seems to me as a big liar !..
Take care..
"J.KuKu" kukuj@hotmail.com
I wrote my article at a time when nobody yet knew where the NWO was heading and how fast. Today aside from the unfortunate Saddam Hussein and a few on the fringes, the Muslim world is on good terms with the NWO and Russia and China huddle together in an attempt to protect each other from the NWO's choking grip. So, this article is outdated and has only archival value.
With Jihad and Mujahadeen, Islam is the only warrior religion among major religions in modern times. I discussed the topic in dialogues with Muslims on the Communication Pages of October 95 and June 98.
In Kosovo the NWO reversed roles and from victims made perpetrators and vice-versa. It's impossible to have a picture of hundreds of years of history in reading the prostitute media from the last couple of years.
'Nostradamus' -- refer to the article in last month's Vagabond. WM
To William,
I have read bits and pieces of your online magazine. At this point in my life I am trying to find my place and discover some truths. I like to think I am a little like Gilgamesh or Sidhartha (Buddha) trying to find the meaning of life, but I am also trying to figure out the grey areas of right and wrong. I think that in some ways what people say is right or wrong is artificial because we determine it. Well I didn't mean to spout off like that but there are so many ideas inside that it becomes hard to process it all. This is why I wrote:
I live in Maine just outside the city of Portland. Many refugees come here and with them come their ideas and individual cultures. Should the United States impose on their cultures? One of the first reactions would be no because they should have freedom but it isn't as simple as that.
We have many Muslim political refugees. In this particular culture (not Muslim in general but specific Muslim sects) they circumcise young women.
I am not sure if you know what that entails exactly. In short, a special Muslim doctor snips off the clitoris and sews up the young girls vagina and everything basically comes out of one hole. They use goat pee to sanitize it but most times it becomes infected and is extremely painful. When the female gets married it is removed, so that she belongs to the male that she has married and no one else. Some people view it as a way to oppress females but the women that go through this strongly believe that this is right. Now, the question is should the United States not let them do this.
Isn't it the United States job to protect the weak (the young women in this case) But then again these refugees didn't move here by choice and accept the United States. The children however are citizens of the US and should be protected by its country. What can you make of this? What can other readers make of this?
Love Kate
katekipp@yahoo.com
Kate -- 'the grey areas of right and wrong' may remain grey forever. Rationality and faith are brothers/enemies that mingle constantly and it will always be so. I'm opposed to female circumcision because it is a sex pleasure killer, but customs based on faith, no matter how shocking for nonbelievers, are here to stay. Perhaps a way could be found to inform the girls that they have a right to go to court against their parents. But in patriarchal families it may be next to impossible for them. Perhaps at least the safety of this operation should be legally enforced. WM
Dear Mr. Markiewicz:
I refer to your article and wish to discuss the following:
- How is it possible to discuss the disappearance of "the Jews"? Certainly, the Yiddish-based shtetl culture of the Ashkenazi was all but annihilated, but that does not equal Jewish "disappearance."
- There are numerous generalizations about "the Jews" as a whole that are really insupportable or irrelevant. I'm not sure there was any population of peasants during the middle ages that was "armed" enough to resist the military oppression you describe. Remember that the Jews of Eastern Europe were primarily poor farmers, trades people, and minor merchants.
- Your claims about numbers of Jews being unknown is suggestive but not correct. Jews throughout the middle ages and renaissance were subject to census and specific punitive taxation that has left excellent records. Martin Gilbert's book _Exile and Return_, for example traces the demographics and history of the diaspora.
- Finally, you seem to generalize the notion of Juiciness ('Jewishness'? WM) out of usefulness as a specific term. Are non practicing Jews who don't identify with Jewish secular culture and who have intermarried down through several generations still usefully to be described as "Jews"? You seem to suggest than anyone with Jewish ancestry anywhere in theory genealogy should be considered somehow Jewish. This too is suggestive, but not really accurate in terms of how ethnicity is understood by individuals of the society they live in.
Please feel free to respond to my concerns.
Shammy
shammy@bigfoot.com
The "Yiddish based Shtetl culture" was the only Jewish culture and it's gone. 'Culture' means when language and all its attributes - slang, literature, theatre, popular songs and music -- persist and develop their treasures naturally. Now Yiddish, like Latin , is a dead language and Jews in their respective countries are part of the melting pot. Because of this, the Jews are no longer a 'people' but communities. In Israel, the Jews are the majority in the Israeli nation and it takes hundreds of years to develop a specific ethnic/national culture and become a people.
As far as I know, only Jews and Gypsies didn't use self-defense as a survival tool and they could have gone on like this for a long time but without any guarantee of survival.
("NATO came and then came KLA. They all have guns, machine guns, pistols and knives in their hands. They know: the Romanies have no arms." Quote from testimonies which the Association of Romany of Croatia is submitting to the NATO embassies.)
Other potentially threatened minorities adapted different ways: the surviving Moors, after being defeated by Charlemagne at Poitiers, sought refuge in Alpine strongholds and became the Valaisans in today's Switzerland. They lost their identity but saved their lives. The Druze, over one thousand years ago, went to Lebanon at more or less the same time the Jews went to Poland. They didn't go to ghettoes, didn't try to coexist side by side with the general population, but enclosed themselves in mountain strongholds and became successful farmers, merchants, warriors. They knew how to keep the money bag in one hand and the sword or gun in the other. And being only ten percent of the general population, they gained respect and power. Force is the ultimate response for survival in the Darwinian universe. Today, unfortunate Yugoslavia is a blatant example.
Martin Gilbert's book is an interesting piece of information. You mention specific punitive taxation that left excellent records. It still doesn't give a count of the Jewish population, only of individual merchants, nothing about the size of their families of course.
I didn't refer to those with some Jewish blood as 'Jews.' WM
Back to the index of the Vagabond
William Markiewicz