In 1961, Yevgeny Yevtushenko wrote a poem about the people who were killed in the long gloomy ravine in the northeast of Dnieper River:
Yevtushenko is not Jewish. The poem, "Babi Yar," stated, "In me there's no Jewish blood". But he sued to what happened in that place as a ferocity that was being forgotten, and thus also the ferocity in the past that is not recognized.
The Russian poet wrote his poem after Stalin died, and people can read it as a reminder of the atrocities that have occurred in the past itself, as I will be able to read it here with similar memories.
Naturally, the German slaughter of Jews was incomparable, because in fact each of cruelty can not be compared. As in the Babi Yar. A German army truck driver who was on the spot told his testimony:
After they were stripped, the Jews were herded into a ravine, through two or three entrance slit. When they arrived at the base, the Schutzpolizei officers encouraging them to lie on the bodies of people who had just been shot. It all happened quickly. The body was layered. A policeman came and shot each Jew's neck with semi-automatic rifles. Once the Jews were killed, the shooter would walk across the dead man's body to shoot the others. It was seemingly endless, and all -- men, women, children -- were killed. Children laid near their mother and shot together."
But, with a cruelty that nearly 34 thousand were killed in two days, incomparable, still caught us with questions about men in general: How wild was the creature?
From Germany history, the answer can vary. There's hatred of people of different racial, and since so many centuries ago, what's different means Jewish. There's a feeling of humiliated nation and the people who suffered after the defeat in World War I, accompanied by a strong desire for the country, a strong leader with a raging vengeance.
But, with Germany's typical causality, Hitler and his regime still wanted to be recognized as part of something universal. The Führer believed that life was essentially violent. "The law of life in the world", Hitler said in a banquet during the October 10, 1941, "Requires continuous murder, so that those with better can live".
What is troubling is that the killing occurs in other places, done by other nations, as if history can't be changed, humans are naturally violent and Hitler brought the correct normative system: "his law" is worth as law, eternal and applies anywhere. But we remember, he called "life". Life is change. Some of the atrocities are not just new versions of the same themes. Hitler himself was in another era from the time of Genghis Khan, for example, with another ambition and desire and ways to implement another passion, too.
So when he suggested that the killing was a "law of life", he was actually trying to justify cruelty and destruction that was designed and implemented by him. He as if to say, "I'm innocent, I just run what is out there and there will be continued in human history."
What is not recognized by him is that he needs to apply for the apology (in the name of "law of life") because there is something else, which is outside the "life" is seen: there is a different normative system, something that has not been conquered.
And that is later proved. Hitler normative system can't survive, not just because he lost the war. Yevtushenko poem said, "When atrocities find their allies in other times, in other places, then so does the victims. "I" -- who feel kinship with them who were slaughtered at Babi Yar ravine -- also see myself in a far murder place, at a distant day:
***
Olala... my dear handsome bald,
If you want to express through writing, of course, you do not just write whatever all you want. If you have any ideas or thoughts you want to convey to others, then of course you also need to first think about whether others can just understand what you say in your writing, because if you are wrong in conveying or wrong way, then your reader will not understand you. It can be a misinterpretation. Maybe there will be the readers who will protest against you, even going to argue your opinion.
Criticism, rebuttal, and even criticism of the readers have become your risk as a writer. But everything should have been contemplated and anticipated before writing. Positive criticism and praise will be nice. Conversely, negative criticism can indeed make the writers become desperate. All this can be avoided by prior arrangements. You must have responsibility for your writing. If you intend to express your opinions, ideas, thoughts, and feelings, of course it's because you are sure that everything will be beneficial to others, right?
Writing about health problems in the medical journal, for example, must have strong foundations to be justified scientifically, likewise, themed social writing, religious, modern technology, economics, and so forth. The author must master the material presented.
At least, there are three elements as author's code of ethics, namely: elements of information, education and entertainment. Awareness of responsibility should exist in the soul of every writer. Your courage to express your opinion and freedom of expression in the arena of writing will be appreciated by the reading public, if you do have the ability to account for the benefits as well as the truth. Moreover, if your books are able to move the conscience of your readers and then create an opinion in the community. This is your success as an author, even your books can change the world's view. O Yes, why not?
After all, some of famous novels have changed the world's opinion. For example, "Uncle Tom's Cabin" by Harriet Beecher Stowe which told about cruelty of inhuman business of black people's enslavement. Not only America was shaken, but the worldwide also stunned to read a book that boldly open the sores in business with great advantages. One more example of the author's courage in exposing the hidden ugly facts, that is, when the French author, Emile Zola defended Alfred Dreyfus, a French military member who was thrown into prison for defamation case. Hearings on this horrendous case proved that Dreyfus was innocent. Therefore, he decided to open a scandal involving the key people in French military service in early 19th century. He wrote an open letter to the President through L'Aurore newspaper under the headline "J'accuse". The great novelist dared to risk going to jail for the sake of truth believed. And this was not in vain, because Alfred Dreyfus was later released. Imagine how great he was. Alone, armed only with pen and ink, Emile Zola managed to uncover the corruption scandal behind the shocking events.
Well, the footage stories about the courage of Harriet Beecher Stowe and Emile Zola are just two of thousands of brave authors scattered in various countries around the world. Everywhere, at all times, there will keep popping those who faithful to their conscience and convey their experiences, ideas, and what they feel through writing. For the sake of truth and justice, the authors are willing to face the risk of anything. They are heroes who do not expect anything but a gift of expression to their reader for lofty goals. And this is -- of course -- quite different from those who just want to take advantage of professional writing for purposes related to self-interest.
Mmm ... you look like a famous celebrity, damn it! Ahahaa ... why do not you explain the continuous humiliation by Jews against Christians, hm? Or about Piss Christ, for example?
But I know one thing for sure, let's say you are ugly, then, are you ready to accept the fact, that you're so ugly? Yeah? And you are not angry? Yeah? But instead you thank the people who criticize you, assuming that it can be a good message to improve your appearance? Yeah? To be better, not to get angry because they say you're ugly ... ahahaa ... Yeah?
Similarly, I've been saying "I love you", but only in my heart. Ultimately, no one knows about it. It's the most safe action, is not it?
... Ehehee ... thus, even if there's any apocalypse in your heart, please do not tell them, okay? Your "Shhh" gesture in court was very enjoyable to be watched, but sure enough the gesture is not good for your authorial career, right? Shhh. Well, you will only be silent when you are dead, right? Shhh. Even in your dreams you will not be silent, right? Shhh. Well, hopefully forever God will always bless you, my handsome bald man. Shhh. Do not "shhh" me for this hope, okay? Shhh.
What? Shhh is very noisy, right?... ahahha ...
***
[CZ-101814]
I was every parentTwenty years earlier, in Babi Yar, almost 34 thousand Jews -- including children, the elderly, women -- were killed by German troops in just two days, 29-30 September 1941.
who here
shot dead.
I was every child
who here
shot dead
Yevtushenko is not Jewish. The poem, "Babi Yar," stated, "In me there's no Jewish blood". But he sued to what happened in that place as a ferocity that was being forgotten, and thus also the ferocity in the past that is not recognized.
The Russian poet wrote his poem after Stalin died, and people can read it as a reminder of the atrocities that have occurred in the past itself, as I will be able to read it here with similar memories.
Naturally, the German slaughter of Jews was incomparable, because in fact each of cruelty can not be compared. As in the Babi Yar. A German army truck driver who was on the spot told his testimony:
After they were stripped, the Jews were herded into a ravine, through two or three entrance slit. When they arrived at the base, the Schutzpolizei officers encouraging them to lie on the bodies of people who had just been shot. It all happened quickly. The body was layered. A policeman came and shot each Jew's neck with semi-automatic rifles. Once the Jews were killed, the shooter would walk across the dead man's body to shoot the others. It was seemingly endless, and all -- men, women, children -- were killed. Children laid near their mother and shot together."
But, with a cruelty that nearly 34 thousand were killed in two days, incomparable, still caught us with questions about men in general: How wild was the creature?
From Germany history, the answer can vary. There's hatred of people of different racial, and since so many centuries ago, what's different means Jewish. There's a feeling of humiliated nation and the people who suffered after the defeat in World War I, accompanied by a strong desire for the country, a strong leader with a raging vengeance.
But, with Germany's typical causality, Hitler and his regime still wanted to be recognized as part of something universal. The Führer believed that life was essentially violent. "The law of life in the world", Hitler said in a banquet during the October 10, 1941, "Requires continuous murder, so that those with better can live".
What is troubling is that the killing occurs in other places, done by other nations, as if history can't be changed, humans are naturally violent and Hitler brought the correct normative system: "his law" is worth as law, eternal and applies anywhere. But we remember, he called "life". Life is change. Some of the atrocities are not just new versions of the same themes. Hitler himself was in another era from the time of Genghis Khan, for example, with another ambition and desire and ways to implement another passion, too.
So when he suggested that the killing was a "law of life", he was actually trying to justify cruelty and destruction that was designed and implemented by him. He as if to say, "I'm innocent, I just run what is out there and there will be continued in human history."
What is not recognized by him is that he needs to apply for the apology (in the name of "law of life") because there is something else, which is outside the "life" is seen: there is a different normative system, something that has not been conquered.
And that is later proved. Hitler normative system can't survive, not just because he lost the war. Yevtushenko poem said, "When atrocities find their allies in other times, in other places, then so does the victims. "I" -- who feel kinship with them who were slaughtered at Babi Yar ravine -- also see myself in a far murder place, at a distant day:
And here, on the cross, they destroy me in torment,In other words, there will always be a new lawsuit to new atrocities. Also those who say "no" in a new way.
And the rest of the nails in my body is still there,
***
 |
| Alain Soral is very inspiring to my mind. Is he also an admirer of Tolstoy like me?  |
Olala... my dear handsome bald,
If you want to express through writing, of course, you do not just write whatever all you want. If you have any ideas or thoughts you want to convey to others, then of course you also need to first think about whether others can just understand what you say in your writing, because if you are wrong in conveying or wrong way, then your reader will not understand you. It can be a misinterpretation. Maybe there will be the readers who will protest against you, even going to argue your opinion.
 |
What the heck? ...  An unrelated photo already inserted here?
Haiyaaa ... this must be your doing, Cisca!  |
Criticism, rebuttal, and even criticism of the readers have become your risk as a writer. But everything should have been contemplated and anticipated before writing. Positive criticism and praise will be nice. Conversely, negative criticism can indeed make the writers become desperate. All this can be avoided by prior arrangements. You must have responsibility for your writing. If you intend to express your opinions, ideas, thoughts, and feelings, of course it's because you are sure that everything will be beneficial to others, right?
Writing about health problems in the medical journal, for example, must have strong foundations to be justified scientifically, likewise, themed social writing, religious, modern technology, economics, and so forth. The author must master the material presented.
At least, there are three elements as author's code of ethics, namely: elements of information, education and entertainment. Awareness of responsibility should exist in the soul of every writer. Your courage to express your opinion and freedom of expression in the arena of writing will be appreciated by the reading public, if you do have the ability to account for the benefits as well as the truth. Moreover, if your books are able to move the conscience of your readers and then create an opinion in the community. This is your success as an author, even your books can change the world's view. O Yes, why not?
After all, some of famous novels have changed the world's opinion. For example, "Uncle Tom's Cabin" by Harriet Beecher Stowe which told about cruelty of inhuman business of black people's enslavement. Not only America was shaken, but the worldwide also stunned to read a book that boldly open the sores in business with great advantages. One more example of the author's courage in exposing the hidden ugly facts, that is, when the French author, Emile Zola defended Alfred Dreyfus, a French military member who was thrown into prison for defamation case. Hearings on this horrendous case proved that Dreyfus was innocent. Therefore, he decided to open a scandal involving the key people in French military service in early 19th century. He wrote an open letter to the President through L'Aurore newspaper under the headline "J'accuse". The great novelist dared to risk going to jail for the sake of truth believed. And this was not in vain, because Alfred Dreyfus was later released. Imagine how great he was. Alone, armed only with pen and ink, Emile Zola managed to uncover the corruption scandal behind the shocking events.
Well, the footage stories about the courage of Harriet Beecher Stowe and Emile Zola are just two of thousands of brave authors scattered in various countries around the world. Everywhere, at all times, there will keep popping those who faithful to their conscience and convey their experiences, ideas, and what they feel through writing. For the sake of truth and justice, the authors are willing to face the risk of anything. They are heroes who do not expect anything but a gift of expression to their reader for lofty goals. And this is -- of course -- quite different from those who just want to take advantage of professional writing for purposes related to self-interest.
Mmm ... you look like a famous celebrity, damn it! Ahahaa ... why do not you explain the continuous humiliation by Jews against Christians, hm? Or about Piss Christ, for example?
But I know one thing for sure, let's say you are ugly, then, are you ready to accept the fact, that you're so ugly? Yeah? And you are not angry? Yeah? But instead you thank the people who criticize you, assuming that it can be a good message to improve your appearance? Yeah? To be better, not to get angry because they say you're ugly ... ahahaa ... Yeah?
Similarly, I've been saying "I love you", but only in my heart. Ultimately, no one knows about it. It's the most safe action, is not it?
... Ehehee ... thus, even if there's any apocalypse in your heart, please do not tell them, okay? Your "Shhh" gesture in court was very enjoyable to be watched, but sure enough the gesture is not good for your authorial career, right? Shhh. Well, you will only be silent when you are dead, right? Shhh. Even in your dreams you will not be silent, right? Shhh. Well, hopefully forever God will always bless you, my handsome bald man. Shhh. Do not "shhh" me for this hope, okay? Shhh. What? Shhh is very noisy, right?... ahahha ...
***
[CZ-101814]
... and no one asks me whether I also like them. 
