 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
page 1
page2
page3
page4
page5
page6
page7
page8
page9
page10
page11
page12
page13
page14
page15
page16
page17
page18
page19
page20
page21
page22
page23
page24
page25
page26
page27
page28
page29
page30
page31
page32
page33
page34
page35
page36
page37
page38
page39
page40
page41
page42
page43
page44
page45
page46
page 47
page48
page49
page50
page51
page52
page53
page54
page55
page56
page57
page58
page 59
page59
page 60
page61
page62
page 63
page 64
page 65
page66
page67
page 68
page 69
page 70
Page 71
page 72
pare 73
page 74
page 75
page76
page 77
page 78
page 79
page 80
page 81
page 82
page 83
page 84
page 85
page 86
page 87
page 88
page 89
page 90
page 91
page92
page93
page 94
page 95
page 96
page 97
page98
|
|
| QUOTATIONS 2071-2088 |
| ||||||
| 2071. Thou shalt not kill. July 29,2006. Here we go again. An Israeli bomb hits the wrong building and all the hell breaks loose. Arabs, and apparently the rest of the world, firmly believe that the 6th Commandment –"Thou shalt not kill"– since it was addressed by God to the Jews should guide them exclusively as well. Everyone else appears to feel free to go on killing, but the world is dismayed and outraged when the Jews do the same. They seems to be the only people to whom "license to kill" is denied. Every day in Iraq 100 Arabs are killed by other Arabs. In the mosques, in the markets, on the streets, at the funerals, at the weddings. And not accidentally, but intentionally. Where is the "arab street" then? Where are the outraged, frenzied crowds on the streets of the Islamic world burning the effigies of Bin Laden and Zarchavi? Nowhere to be seen. Where were they when Saddam Hussain killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi Arabs, when Algerian fundamentalists killed tens of thousands of Algerian Arabs? Nowhere to be heard. For its not who and how many that is getting killed, it is who does the killing. When Arabs do it, when Muslims do it, there is no reason to make a fuss about it. That's the way things are. Regrettable, but understandable. But when the Jews kill this is the end of the world, this is outrage of the cosmic proportions. But what with "proportionality" everybody is clamoring about? Like a soldier for a soldier, a woman for a woman, a child for a child? Looks fair enough, until one considers demographics. There are 5 millions Jews in the Middle East surrounded by 100 millions Arabs. Following the rules of proportionality, so much beloved by all fairminded people, by the time all 5 million Jews killed there will be still 95 millions Arabs. And not a single Jew left. Is that what you want? Another Holocaust. And this is not a rhetorical question. There are plenty of people today who would sacrifice the Jews to achieve "peace in our times" in the Middle East and elsewhere. But the Jews, this universal Lamb, are refusing to be sacrificed for the common good of humanity. Which is rather selfish on their part, but then they always think about themselves only. But more than that. The lambs have turned into the wolves ( though still with some traces of lambishness left –the old habits die hard) and demand their pound of flesh. The unthinkable. The world simply cannot deal with it. It upsets the nature of things, it turns them upside down. Couldn't the Jews do us all a favor and turn back into the lambs, like they used to be. Then we may start killing them again, with impunity, and spill crocodile tears feeling sorry for this unfortunate race. It would be so relaxing. Like in the good old days of pogroms, when the lambs were lambs, and the wolves wolves. Not likely, but one should be forgiven for being nostalgic, it is only human. To end on a personal note, every time I hear "women and children" I feel somewhat uncomfortable. Does it mean that life of a man is less important than life of a woman? Does it mean that life of an adult is less valuable than life of a child? I'm an adult male. Does it mean I am disposable, without a second thought? Does anyone care whether I live or die? 2072. Ever wonder why so many academics take such a special pride in admitting to not owning a TV set? I always did, but due to the prolong exposure, grew to accept it as a given, without attempting to find a reason, or several of them, for such a uniformity in rejecting the most popular medium of our times. Then, one day I decided to give it a try. Here are the results. First, and the most obvious, the very popularity and easy accessibility of television to many makes it exceedingly unappealing to a select few. Joining the unwashed masses in front of TV screen would clearly(at least in their minds) compromise their lofty position vis-a-vis the rest of us. Second, as far as the academics are concerned, what they already know is more than sufficient, and certainly vastly superior to anything additional they may learn by watching TV, this purveyor of everything which is substandard, tedious or simply superfluous. And they accept it as self-evident truth, period. No but's or if's. Third, being accustomed, as university professors, to the role of one who imparts his vast knowledge to many, they cannot see themselves as the viewers and recipients of some one else wisdom emanating from TV. They wouldn't mind, if invited, to use it as a podium to enlighten the multitudes, but to be a part of the audience as a humble and anonymous viewer is below their dignity. They are the stars, not the extras. Forth, an average academic nowadays is invariably a specialist in this or that area of knowledge and therefore is interested not just primarily but often exclusively in his subject. TV, on the contrary, is a heterogeneous medium, with the great variety being its main attraction. Therefore, it is extremely rare for the interests of this or that particular academic to coincide with this or that particular TV program to make its viewing a worthwhile expenditure of his highly valuable time. Not to abuse the patience of a reader any farther I'd leave it at that. For surely, anyone familiar with this phenomenon may come up with a hypotheses or two of his own regarding its causes. 2073. Though there is next to zero probability for me to ever find out whether it is true or not, I personally have no doubt at this moment that being recognized at the beginning (and later on) of my writing career would have been detrimental, both to quality and to quantity, of what I've accomplished so far. For besides the innate urge to contemplate life in all its complexities, I, to be perfectly honest, was also driven by the irresistible desire to break down the prison's walls of spirit stifling obscurity so many are condemned to spend their lives in, by the inalienable need to make the world know that I do exist and that I am worth its attention. 2074. Though a historian and a philosopher look at the same world they see it with somewhat different eyes. A historian's main concern is with events and people, and how they relate to each other. A philosopher uses them as a raw material to be distilled into general laws governing both, the laws which are sufficiently universal to help us understand the past and predict the future. Of course, the historical and philosophical approaches are not mutually exclusive, as Gibbon so magnificently demonstrated. And yet it cannot be denied that each of us displays certain inherent tendencies when reflecting on what life presents us with. For whether or not one has made history or philosophy one's main preoccupation, some are primarily interested in "what," "when" and "how," the others in "why." On the other hand, though the questions are different they relate to the same object of enquiry and thus are inseparable if a fully comprehensive answer is to be obtained. The historical and the philosophical are in perpetual dialectical process of give and take, feeding of and symbiotically depending on each other. They are two faces of the same coin, different but indivisible. 2075. Everyone needs his significance to be acknowledged by others. And whether it is done for one's pedigree, talents, position, appearance, etc. is secondary. What we seek, primarily, is attention and respect of others and everyone assumes to have some qualities which entitle one to get it. And no matter how low, by commonly accepted standards, one is, both personally and socially, no matter how many failures and disappointments one experienced in life, a belief in possessing something, anything to justify pride in himself and to distinguish one favorably from the others is never fully extinguished. Anyone has pride, everyone has vanity, no matter how insignificant one is in the eyes of the others. For pride in oneself, regardless of how little to support it is objectively evident, seems to be absolutely essential to remain fully human. When this pride is lost, nothing is left to live for. Therefore, you may deprive a man of anything with impunity, but try to take his pride away and he'll become your mortal enemy. And it is often amazing how little people need to maintain their pride and self-respect. Where nothing seems to be available they still manage to find something to support it. And perhaps they're right. Everyone must have something to distinguish himself from the rest, to feel unique. A plain looking woman may be proud of her legs, or hands, or eyes. She may be proud of her character, brain, ability to dress, to cook, to speak, to work, etc., etc. A weak man may be proud of being street smart, resourceful, agile, foresighted, diplomatic, having sense of humor, etc., etc. We all need something to survive and we all have it, otherwise we wouldn't be here. The proud take pride in being proud, the humble in being humble. Of all ingenuities man possesses the ingenuity to find something in himself to be proud of must be the greatest. 2076. The line between use and abuse is not fixed, but constantly shifting, making it difficult to say with certainty where the use ends and the abuse begins. This vagueness of differentiation is also exacerbated by the natural desire of the abuser to present abuse, which is universally condemned, as use, which is morally acceptable, since it lies at the foundation of all human relation and is practiced by everyone. The task of the abused, to the contrary, is to make the distinction clear and then try to avoid being abused as much as possible. And believe me I know what I am talking about from personal experience. For as long as I remember in any relationship I've ever entered into with anyone I would soon offer myself to be used and there were never a shortage of the takers. And invariably the use would quickly turn into abuse. And despite being fully aware of it, despite being angry and frustrated by repetition of the same, again and again, I am incapable to break the pattern. Whether it is a man or a woman, adult or a child, one or many, I make myself a valuable slave and them the abusive masters. I guess I am seduced by all these nice qualities of being kind, helpful, supportive, accommodating, obliging, pleasing, etc., etc. And I want to be thought of ( it's all vanity, I suppose)as one who possesses them all in abundance. Oh, well, most of the people wouldn't mind to acknowledge what a nice fellow I am. And then proceed to abuse me even more. Haven't I asked for it myself? 2077. The sad but inescapable truth is that a hero, a leader, a liberator, a redeemer has very little in common with the hero worshipers, the led, the liberated, the redeemed. They may gratify his ego but wouldn't relieve his loneliness. 2078. The time spent wondering what the future will bring may be more productively employed looking back into the past for some clues. 2079. Having to rely for the past 2000 years on "the kindness of strangers," kindness meaning in their case not being totally annihilated but only continuously subjected to humiliation, insults, dispossession and occasional mass killings in relatively small numbers, the Jews grew overly preoccupied with what these dreadful and dangerous strangers think of them, which may result in even greater than "normal" persecution. This excessive regard for opinions of the others, the opinions which were less than favorable to begin with, makes Jews highly vulnerable to the point that they would rather suffer more than to give anyone the reason (as if any reason was ever needed) for hating and harming them more than usual. And this paralyzing fear of offending those who have power of life and death over them has proven to be detrimental to their welfare and sometimes very existence. What the Jews have to learn, individually and collectively, is how to stop worrying about what the other think of them. They also have to stop being "nice" and learn to hate with the same viciousness and irrationality as the world hates them. In a word, they have to become like everybody else, and then perhaps they will be welcomed into human family as "one of our own." They have been good, understanding, forgiving, reasonable, humane for too long. The time has come for them to realize that it didn't work, because it couldn't work. Remember the tale of "prodigal son" and his goodish brother? Remember who was embraced by anxious father, who was given a welcoming party? If you forget, go and read it again. It will tell you, black on white, that being good will get you nowhere. People will use you, and those who are used are inevitably abused. People are driven not by gratitude( let's admit it, everyone hates to be grateful) but by fear. Make people fear you, and they will treat you well, so that you wouldn't hurt them more. But if you are good, then you are not a threat. And if you aren't a threat, at best you are ignored, but more likely mistreated without a fear of retaliation. So, don't get mad, get even. When amongst the wolves, do as the wolves do. Don't offer the other cheek. Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. Death for death. "For only those merit life and freedom Who battle each and every day for them." Goethe 2080. Call me too categorical, even absolutist, but when faced with preponderance of bad cases and a few which are good I don't hesitate to use a word "All." For the qualifying terms "almost all," "majority," "most, but not all," etc. are just confusing the issue, without contributing anything of value, except making one who uses them feel pleased with himself for being so broad-minded and evenhanded. 2081. Yes, size does matter Above the average makes an attractive target The bigger a heart the easier to stab it The greater a soul the easier to spit into it. 2082. It is not the actual physical place (for it is less than negligible) that Israel fills in the midst of Arab, and by extension Muslim, lands, but psychological space the Jews occupy in Arab's and Muslim psyche that seems enormous, for it is all out of proportion to their actual significance in Arabs' and Muslims' lives. For in truth, the lives of Arabs in particular, and Muslims in general would have been neither better nor worst if the Jews had never existed. Which was and still is a position of Jews amongst the European Christians. For their prominence was nothing but the figment of feverish Christian imagination, caused by indestructible virus of Christian antisemitism, which then infected Arabs and Muslims, and eventually spread all over the world. And so far there is no drug against it, for nobody is actually looking for it. 2083. A Jew, not as a private individual, but as a Jew, a member of worldwide Jewish community, cannot be a racist. Racism presupposes prejudice, dislike, animosity and hate against a particular group. A white against the Blacks, a black against the Whites. A German against the Poles, a Pole against the Germans. A European against the Asians, an Asian against the Europeans. But a Jew, who as a member of Jewish race is subjected to ubiquitous dislike, animosity and hate of the Whites as well of the Blacks, of the Germans as well of the Poles, of the Europeans as well of Asians, has thus the legitimate grievances against the rest of humanity, not just against this or that part of it. Therefore the Jewish response, when it is expressed, to antisemitism is not racist. Strictly speaking it should be called misanthropic, i.e. distrust, resentment and bitterness, toward humankind at large, and not against any particular group. For as far as the Jews are concerned, they all, in their uniform mistreatment of the Jews, are the same. 2084. It is quite popular to see the humanity's relentless quest for happiness against all odds, and unbreakable will to survive at any price as life-affirming. As for me it looks absolutely horrifying. 2085.People who accuse me of being too hard on mankind, invariably suggest (out of compassion, no doubt) that it will pass. But I am afraid my misanthropy is not temporary, at least no more temporary than life itself. One who starts life as an excessive idealist is condemned to end it as no less extreme nihilist. Taking life as it is was never easy for me, and if this is an essence of wisdom I could neither adopt it nor find it within myself. The blood of Hebrew prophets must be flowing in my veins, and nothing could change it. As they I am driven to despise and denounce human frailty and imperfection, sins of commission and omission, evil visible and hidden. It is all in vain, of course, like fighting the windmills. But some people at the moment of birth are sentenced to it and only death can stop it. In the meantime I'm feeling pretty good being so superior to all those poor wretches, except the moments when I suspect being one of them. Then it is not so good. So, it is either blame yourself or everybody else. Most of the time the choice is obvious. But not always... 2086. Yes, your average minister, rabbi, mullah can do a lot of good, if so inclined, considering the high authority he enjoys among his flock. But this exalted status comes at a price – a necessity to repeat the same fantastic tales no thoughtful person can really believe nowadays, again and again. One wonders how a typical member of the clergy survives this perpetual assault on his intelligence. Perhaps he does it by treating his position of spiritual leadership , and all it entails, as simply a job, when having never to tell what you really think is the prerequisite to being employed, not an uncommon condition imposed on other professionals. 2087. In the beginning there was The Bible, one of the world greatest literary masterpieces. And then there were all those who through the ages would interpret, and imitate it, and try to extrapolate, elaborate, and extemporize on it, all with more or less the same appalling results which are usually produced when the ordinary worship the genius in their customary clumsy and mediocre manner. 2088. When I was young my favorite pastime was to discuss all kind of things with my friends, to debate and even to engage into heated argument when our opinions clashed. Due to strength of my convictions and force of my inherent logic I usually emerged as a winner of those verbal battles, which must have contributed to no small measure to my addiction to them. Only later, much later I realized that those were the empty victories. For my intellectual opponents despite obvious failure to demonstrate in fair and open debate the validity of their opinions never actually changed their minds about anything and continue to persist in their own views as if the argument when they were proven to be wrong never took place. Needless to say, whenever we met again all has to be repeated anew, and with the same results. So, nowadays I don't argue anymore. I just say, if given an opportunity, what I think, listen to response, if it is proffered, and leave it at that. |
 Sign Guestbook |
 View Guestbook |
|
. |
| Visitors: 00035 |