Ian Buruma, die als mainstream-opiniemaker ervoor pleitte dat 'we must share America's dirty work' en 'take the risk of being held accountable' voor deze oorlogsmisdaden, blijft zelfs als auteur over zijn jarenlange verblijf in Japan, een gesloten man. Tegenover een journaliste van The Observer verklaarde hij:
'I feel that most memories are embarrassing: you remember things that still make you wince, and you’re sort of glad some people are dead because at least they don’t remember. But there’s another side to this, which is that the only way to write this kind of book -- it’s a bit like fiction -- is to turn yourself into a character. That gives you a certain distance.' Necessity was perhaps the mother of this invention, for he kept no diary in the period covered by the book. 'It all had to come out of my head. You have all these snippets and impressions, and you have to make them into a coherent story. It is partly out of your imagination. Of course, memory works that way anyway. You’re always re-editing it subconsciously.'
En zo is zijn memoir A Tokyo Romance (2018) -- de stad waar hij vanaf 1975 tot 1981 leefde -- geen weergave van de werkelijkheid, maar een serie 'flarden' van telkens opnieuw 'onbewust geredigeerde' herinneringen, zoals hijzelf verklaart. Omdat hij geen 'dagboek' had bijgehouden, was hij noodzakelijkerwijs aangewezen op vage herinneringen en dus op zijn geheugen, waarover Buruma zelf stelt 'dat het geheugen volstrekt onbetrouwbaar is, je stelt het de hele tijd bij.' Om dit nog eens te benadrukken voegde hij eraan toe dat hij zich hiervan 'heel goed bewust' is. Aangezien hij 'de meeste'van zijn 'herinneringen' als 'beschamend' ervaart en hij als het ware 'blij' is dat 'sommige mensen dood zijn' omdat 'tenminste zij zich dit niet meer kunnen herinneren,' laat staan anderen erover kunnen vertellen, zal Buruma zelf over die 'herinneringen' zwijgen of ze zo presenteren dat hij er als 'coherente' persoonlijkheid uit te voorschijn komt. Vandaar ook zijn opmerking: 'You’re always re-editing it subconsciously.'
Daarnaast dwingt de eerlijkheid ons een andere kanttekening te maken. Alleen een groot schrijver is in staat om van de anekdotiek in zijn persoonlijke leven iets universeels te maken dat ons allen aangaat, niemand uitgezonderd. Welnu, mijn oude vriend Ian is geen groot schrijver, met alle schadelijke gevolgen van dien wanneer hij 'snippertjes' herinnering als 'coherente' werkelijkheid presenteert, fiction als non-fiction. Niet voor niets constateerde de Observer-journaliste dat hoewel 'A Tokyo Romance seems, at first, to stand apart from Buruma’s other books,' waarin hij de rol van koele intellectueel speelt, en ondanks 'all its loucheness' van zijn Tokyo-memoir, 'there is again a sense, as one American reviewer noted, that he would rather drop you at the kerb (stoeprand. svh) than open a door to you, when it comes to his inner feelings.' Buruma blijft voor de buitenwereld een gesloten boek, hij slaagt er niet in tot zijn eigen kern door te dringen, wat nu juist toch het doel is van een autobiografisch verslag. Hij blijkt wel in staat te zijn zichzelf 'into a character' te veranderen, door een valse identiteit aan te nemen, in dit geval een typetje met een zekere 'loucheness,' wiens'picaresque (schelmachtige. svh) adventures' in Japan de bourgeois hoofdredacteur van The New York Review of Books de glans van een bohémien geven. En aangezien Buruma, volgens eigen zeggen voortdurend 'gedachteloos' allerlei 'rollen speelt,' en al deze 'maskers' een onlosmakelijk 'deel'van hemzelf zijn, weet hij zich moeiteloos te verkopen in onze identiteitsloze cultuur waarin, aldus de van origine Joods-Israelische auteur en saxofonist Gilad Atzmon, 'the West and America in particular have been led into a disastrous Identity clash.' In zijn boek Being in Time – a Post Political Manifesto (2017) toont Atzmon overtuigend aan dat
the transition from traditional Left ideology into New Left politics can be understood as the aggressive advocacy of sectarian and divisive ideologies. While the old Left made an effort to unite us all: gays, blacks, Jews or Whites into a political struggle against capital, the New Left has managed to divide us into ID sectors. We are trained to speak ‘as a…’: ‘as a Jew,’ ‘as a black,’ ‘as a Lesbian.’ The new left has taught us to identify with our biology, with our gender, sex orientation and our skin colour, as long as it isn’t ‘White’ of course.
Tragically, ID politics is a vey dangerous political game. It is designed to pull people apart. It is there to introduce conflict and division. ID politics doesn’t offer a harmonious vision of society as a whole. Quite the opposite, it leads to an increasingly fractured social reality. Take, for instance, the continuous evolution of the LGBT group. It is constantly expanding to include more and more sectarian sexually oriented social subgroupings (LGBTQ, LGBTQAI and even LGBTQIAP).
In the New Left social reality, we, the people are shoved into ID ghettos that are defined by our biology: skin colour, sexual orientation, the Jewish mother, etc.
Instead of what we need to do: fight together against big money, the bankers, the megacorporations, we fight each other, we learn to hate each other. We even drive our cars over each other.
I am opposed to all forms of ID politics, whether it is White, Black, Jewish, Gender or sex oriented. But, obviously if Jews, Gays and others are entitled to identify with their ‘biology’, white people are entitled to do the same. I think that universalism is what we used to call it when we still cared about intellectual integrity.
The problem created by ID politics is extremely grave. ID politics doesn’t offer a prospect of peace and harmony. Within the context of ID politics, we cannot envisage a peaceful resolution of the current ID clash. Can anyone foresee the LGBT community embracing KKK activists into their notion of ‘diverse society?’ The same can be said about the KKK, are they going to open their gates to cultural Marxists?
ID politics equals ID clash, an irreconcilable conflict with no end, the complete destruction of American and, to a certain extent, Western civilisation. This may explain why George Soros and his open society are invested in this battle. As long as the working people are fighting each other, no one bothers to challenge the root cause of our current dystopia, namely the banks, global capitalism, wall street, Mammonism and so on.
https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017/08/28/gilad-atzmon-expains-murder-west-identity-politics/
Terecht verklaarde Buruma tegenover een Volkskrant-journaliste over zijn eigen identiteit: 'Ik denk niet dat er binnen je geest een soort essentieel zelf is; je verandert de hele tijd.' Vandaar dat hij op zijn 66ste jaar nog steeds probeert een nieuwe identiteit aan te nemen. Ditmaal een Joods-slachtofferistische identiteit. Ontmaskerend is tevens het feit dat mijn oude vriend juist George Soros zo bewondert en over deze, wegens voorkennis, veroordeelde speculant schreef dat hij
might be described as the personification of ‘the West.’ He is everything that nativists and anti-Semites hate: rich, cosmopolitan, Jewish, and a liberal dedicated to what Karl Popper, yet another child of Jewish origin from the Austro-Hungarian Empire, called ‘the open society.’
https://www.independent.co.ug/comment-war-west/2/
De speculant George Soros als representant van het jodendom en ‘de open samenleving.’ Maar hoe ‘open’ is de ‘samenleving,’ die de getrukeerde ‘Soros’ voor ogen staat? Daarvoor dient men zich te verdiepen in wie Soros werkelijk is. Op 20 december 1998 zond het bekende CBS-programma 60 Minutes een onthullend interview uit met Soros, dat de onderzoeksjournalist Steve Kroft als volgt inleidde:
When the Nazis occupied Budapest in 1944, George Soros’ father was a successful lawyer. He lived on an island in the Danube and liked to commute to work in a rowboat. But knowing there were problems ahead for the Jews, he decided to split his family up. He bought them forged papers and he bribed a government official to take 14-year-old George Soros in and swear that he was his Christian godson. But survival carried a heavy price tag. While hundreds of thousands of Hungarian Jews were being shipped off to the death camps, George Soros accompanied his phony godfather on his appointed rounds, confiscating property from the Jews.
KROFT: You’re a Hungarian Jew… who escaped the Holocaust… by posing as a Christian.
Mr. SOROS: Right.
KROFT: And you watched lots of people get shipped off to the death camps.
Mr. SOROS: Right. I was 14 years old. And I would say that that’s when my character was made.
KROFT: In what way?
Mr. SOROS: That one should think ahead. One should understand and anticipate events and when one is threatened. It was a tremendous threat of evil. I mean, it was a very personal experience of evil.
KROFT: My understanding is that you went out with this protector of yours who swore that you were his adopted godson.
Mr. SOROS: Yes. Yes.
KROFT: Went out, in fact, and helped in the confiscation of property from the Jews.
Mr. SOROS: Yes. That’s right. Yes.
KROFT: I mean, that sounds like an experience that would send lots of people to the psychiatric couch for many, many years. Was it difficult?
Mr. SOROS: Not – not at all. Not at all. Maybe as a child you don’t see the connection. But it was – it created no – no problem at all.
KROFT: No feeling of guilt?
Mr. SOROS: No… Well, of course I could be on the other side or I could be the one from whom the thing is being taken away. But there was no sense that I shouldn’t be there, because that was – well, actually, in a funny way, it’s just like in markets -- that if I weren’t there -- of course, I wasn’t doing it, but somebody else would be taking it away anyhow. And -- whether I was there or not, I was only a spectator, the property was being taken away. So I had no role in taking away that property. So I had no sense of guilt.
https://www.activistpost.com/2016/11/george-soros-forgotten-interview-cannot-not-look-social-consequences.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUdosc33eSE
Het is dit slag mensen die de identiteitsloze Ian Buruma ziet
als de personificatie van 'het Westen.'
Ik vrees dan ook dat Gilad Atzmon gelijk heeft wanneer hij schrijft dat:
Within the ID political cosmos, newly emerging ‘tribes’ (gays, lesbians, Jews, Blacks, Whites, vegans, etc.) are marched into the desert, led towards an appealing ‘promised land,’ where the primacy of the symptom (gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, skin colour etc.) is supposed to evolve into a world in itself. But this liberal utopia is in practice a sectarian and segregated amalgam of ghettos that are blind to each other. It has nothing in common with the promised universal, inclusive cosmos.
Meer hierover, en over Buruma's rol hierbij, later.
Daarnaast dwingt de eerlijkheid ons een andere kanttekening te maken. Alleen een groot schrijver is in staat om van de anekdotiek in zijn persoonlijke leven iets universeels te maken dat ons allen aangaat, niemand uitgezonderd. Welnu, mijn oude vriend Ian is geen groot schrijver, met alle schadelijke gevolgen van dien wanneer hij 'snippertjes' herinnering als 'coherente' werkelijkheid presenteert, fiction als non-fiction. Niet voor niets constateerde de Observer-journaliste dat hoewel 'A Tokyo Romance seems, at first, to stand apart from Buruma’s other books,' waarin hij de rol van koele intellectueel speelt, en ondanks 'all its loucheness' van zijn Tokyo-memoir, 'there is again a sense, as one American reviewer noted, that he would rather drop you at the kerb (stoeprand. svh) than open a door to you, when it comes to his inner feelings.' Buruma blijft voor de buitenwereld een gesloten boek, hij slaagt er niet in tot zijn eigen kern door te dringen, wat nu juist toch het doel is van een autobiografisch verslag. Hij blijkt wel in staat te zijn zichzelf 'into a character' te veranderen, door een valse identiteit aan te nemen, in dit geval een typetje met een zekere 'loucheness,' wiens'picaresque (schelmachtige. svh) adventures' in Japan de bourgeois hoofdredacteur van The New York Review of Books de glans van een bohémien geven. En aangezien Buruma, volgens eigen zeggen voortdurend 'gedachteloos' allerlei 'rollen speelt,' en al deze 'maskers' een onlosmakelijk 'deel'van hemzelf zijn, weet hij zich moeiteloos te verkopen in onze identiteitsloze cultuur waarin, aldus de van origine Joods-Israelische auteur en saxofonist Gilad Atzmon, 'the West and America in particular have been led into a disastrous Identity clash.' In zijn boek Being in Time – a Post Political Manifesto (2017) toont Atzmon overtuigend aan dat
the transition from traditional Left ideology into New Left politics can be understood as the aggressive advocacy of sectarian and divisive ideologies. While the old Left made an effort to unite us all: gays, blacks, Jews or Whites into a political struggle against capital, the New Left has managed to divide us into ID sectors. We are trained to speak ‘as a…’: ‘as a Jew,’ ‘as a black,’ ‘as a Lesbian.’ The new left has taught us to identify with our biology, with our gender, sex orientation and our skin colour, as long as it isn’t ‘White’ of course.
Tragically, ID politics is a vey dangerous political game. It is designed to pull people apart. It is there to introduce conflict and division. ID politics doesn’t offer a harmonious vision of society as a whole. Quite the opposite, it leads to an increasingly fractured social reality. Take, for instance, the continuous evolution of the LGBT group. It is constantly expanding to include more and more sectarian sexually oriented social subgroupings (LGBTQ, LGBTQAI and even LGBTQIAP).
In the New Left social reality, we, the people are shoved into ID ghettos that are defined by our biology: skin colour, sexual orientation, the Jewish mother, etc.
Instead of what we need to do: fight together against big money, the bankers, the megacorporations, we fight each other, we learn to hate each other. We even drive our cars over each other.
I am opposed to all forms of ID politics, whether it is White, Black, Jewish, Gender or sex oriented. But, obviously if Jews, Gays and others are entitled to identify with their ‘biology’, white people are entitled to do the same. I think that universalism is what we used to call it when we still cared about intellectual integrity.
The problem created by ID politics is extremely grave. ID politics doesn’t offer a prospect of peace and harmony. Within the context of ID politics, we cannot envisage a peaceful resolution of the current ID clash. Can anyone foresee the LGBT community embracing KKK activists into their notion of ‘diverse society?’ The same can be said about the KKK, are they going to open their gates to cultural Marxists?
ID politics equals ID clash, an irreconcilable conflict with no end, the complete destruction of American and, to a certain extent, Western civilisation. This may explain why George Soros and his open society are invested in this battle. As long as the working people are fighting each other, no one bothers to challenge the root cause of our current dystopia, namely the banks, global capitalism, wall street, Mammonism and so on.
https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017/08/28/gilad-atzmon-expains-murder-west-identity-politics/
Terecht verklaarde Buruma tegenover een Volkskrant-journaliste over zijn eigen identiteit: 'Ik denk niet dat er binnen je geest een soort essentieel zelf is; je verandert de hele tijd.' Vandaar dat hij op zijn 66ste jaar nog steeds probeert een nieuwe identiteit aan te nemen. Ditmaal een Joods-slachtofferistische identiteit. Ontmaskerend is tevens het feit dat mijn oude vriend juist George Soros zo bewondert en over deze, wegens voorkennis, veroordeelde speculant schreef dat hij
might be described as the personification of ‘the West.’ He is everything that nativists and anti-Semites hate: rich, cosmopolitan, Jewish, and a liberal dedicated to what Karl Popper, yet another child of Jewish origin from the Austro-Hungarian Empire, called ‘the open society.’
https://www.independent.co.ug/comment-war-west/2/
De speculant George Soros als representant van het jodendom en ‘de open samenleving.’ Maar hoe ‘open’ is de ‘samenleving,’ die de getrukeerde ‘Soros’ voor ogen staat? Daarvoor dient men zich te verdiepen in wie Soros werkelijk is. Op 20 december 1998 zond het bekende CBS-programma 60 Minutes een onthullend interview uit met Soros, dat de onderzoeksjournalist Steve Kroft als volgt inleidde:
When the Nazis occupied Budapest in 1944, George Soros’ father was a successful lawyer. He lived on an island in the Danube and liked to commute to work in a rowboat. But knowing there were problems ahead for the Jews, he decided to split his family up. He bought them forged papers and he bribed a government official to take 14-year-old George Soros in and swear that he was his Christian godson. But survival carried a heavy price tag. While hundreds of thousands of Hungarian Jews were being shipped off to the death camps, George Soros accompanied his phony godfather on his appointed rounds, confiscating property from the Jews.
KROFT: You’re a Hungarian Jew… who escaped the Holocaust… by posing as a Christian.
Mr. SOROS: Right.
KROFT: And you watched lots of people get shipped off to the death camps.
Mr. SOROS: Right. I was 14 years old. And I would say that that’s when my character was made.
KROFT: In what way?
Mr. SOROS: That one should think ahead. One should understand and anticipate events and when one is threatened. It was a tremendous threat of evil. I mean, it was a very personal experience of evil.
KROFT: My understanding is that you went out with this protector of yours who swore that you were his adopted godson.
Mr. SOROS: Yes. Yes.
KROFT: Went out, in fact, and helped in the confiscation of property from the Jews.
Mr. SOROS: Yes. That’s right. Yes.
KROFT: I mean, that sounds like an experience that would send lots of people to the psychiatric couch for many, many years. Was it difficult?
Mr. SOROS: Not – not at all. Not at all. Maybe as a child you don’t see the connection. But it was – it created no – no problem at all.
KROFT: No feeling of guilt?
Mr. SOROS: No… Well, of course I could be on the other side or I could be the one from whom the thing is being taken away. But there was no sense that I shouldn’t be there, because that was – well, actually, in a funny way, it’s just like in markets -- that if I weren’t there -- of course, I wasn’t doing it, but somebody else would be taking it away anyhow. And -- whether I was there or not, I was only a spectator, the property was being taken away. So I had no role in taking away that property. So I had no sense of guilt.
https://www.activistpost.com/2016/11/george-soros-forgotten-interview-cannot-not-look-social-consequences.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUdosc33eSE
Het is dit slag mensen die de identiteitsloze Ian Buruma ziet
als de personificatie van 'het Westen.'
Ik vrees dan ook dat Gilad Atzmon gelijk heeft wanneer hij schrijft dat:
Within the ID political cosmos, newly emerging ‘tribes’ (gays, lesbians, Jews, Blacks, Whites, vegans, etc.) are marched into the desert, led towards an appealing ‘promised land,’ where the primacy of the symptom (gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, skin colour etc.) is supposed to evolve into a world in itself. But this liberal utopia is in practice a sectarian and segregated amalgam of ghettos that are blind to each other. It has nothing in common with the promised universal, inclusive cosmos.
Meer hierover, en over Buruma's rol hierbij, later.
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten