I’m impressed. To have someone on the other side of the hemisphere havin’ a clear understandin’ of things.

Just as today ordinary Indonesians, Malaysians, etc, (falsely) believe that their Chinese minorities have undue influence over their countries because of their (real) disproportionate wealth, so many people throughout the world – especially in places where a rich Jewish presence is more visible, and amongst those who don’t think they benefit from the current internationalist world order (e.g. low-income white males from Omsk to Ohio) – start believing in some kind of Jewish conspiracy / ZOG, which is necessarily global in character.

1) May the best kitsch win! That’s my attitude towards the diaspora/ nationalism dichotomy. I wear a Scottish lapel badge because it is a navy blue background with a white cross. Oddly our flag is not standardised and there is a sky blue one as well, which I would not wear. For me that sums it up pretty well. If the Scottish flag was salmon and beige, no-one, not even the kilt and glengarry crowd, would wear it. People will peddle all sorts of reasons to feel proud for having been born on a particular piece of earth: basking in credit for the achievements of people you’ve never met, singing about warfare and freedom, values, electing the right politicians, good relations with the USA etc. All bullshit: but it is the aesthetic that wins in the end and whether there are differences in mindset. I will probably vote SNP because England is turning into a weird blend of Yeltsinist plutocracy and North Korea surveillance: not because I think I deserve some credit for Stevenson/ Watt/ Maxwell’s achievements.

2) As for diaspora, there are cliques even within that. I’ve met Cypriots from as diverse areas as Northern Scotland and South Africa: and they’ve all shared a taste for self-help books and a sentimental, yet materialistic, outlook. This is just a subjective observation, which doesn’t refer to every single individual Cypriot, but as a people they are far removed from the Thessalonikan (REAL Makedonian) peasant gravitas. Or the Athenian individualism or the fascinating Cretan mix of cultured butchness.

3) Patriotism is near impossible to define: if you are governed by someone like Tony Bliar ‘all I know is what I believe’, then opposing the nation’s agenda separates bright people from idiots irrespective of birth.

Those who have already gone to serve in the armed forces are different. An Afro-Carribean Brit is the most decorated soldier of modern conflicts. Good on him; though our arm chair warriors notably failed to form an international brigade and their patriotism only exists in the plains of hyper-reality; so the whole thing gets a bit Borgesian here.

4) Politicians try to create identities for diaspora peoples, or so I think. Maybe that’s a bit of Orthodox paranoia, but it seems superbly summed up when I saw an Orthodox publication with an article by Christopher Hitchens. The logic seemed to be this: Balkan Orthodox have been in a savage conflict with Muslims: Christopher Hitchens supports wars against Muslim countries. That Christopher Hitchens is a propagandist for the fascist Kosovan state has no place in this logic.

Anyway, the point is that an onlooker may think that Orthodox people have a tendency to neo-conservatism, whilst with the exception of Georgia this is unlikely to be the case. It seems that a very few diasporan spokespeople try to claim that their culture has a deep affinity to whatever political movement is popular, but it is all nonsense.

5) Whilst you use the Jews as an archetype of the diaspora, I think that they are deeply atypical. I don’t think even the worst tin-foil-hat weirdo in Turkey has ever suggested that the Greeks are plotting world domination. Alternatively, the term ‘Phil-Hellene’ refers almost entirely to either classicists or nationalists. I read one Jewish person who said they thought philo-Semites and anti-Semites had similarities. I couldn’t comment, but I do find the Christian Zionists really creepy and am sort of pleased that there is no major Greek lobby.

On the issue of mass media sensitivity to the concerns of other countries: a few years back, an editor of a prominent venue told me that he/she was of Slavic Orthodox Christian background and wrote the (as he/she described it) critical editorials on Israel and Russia.

In reply, I noted how the stated criticism of Israel was nowhere near as hard-hitting/unfair in relation to what has been said of Russia. As for the presented Slavic Orthodox Christian description, I wryly added decaffeinated to that characterization.

The matter of selective sensitivity remains an ongoing issue.

The referred to “Slavic Orthodox Christian” should read as “Russian Orthodox Christian.”

On ethnic lobbying, some years back, I recall (on a Pacifica Radio show) an Azeri official claiming that an Armenian lobby in Russia has influenced Russian policy on Azeri-Armenian matters.

Regarding the reference to pro-Israeli lobbying clout is this piece, which made the major newswires:

http://www.counterpunch.org/shamir10222009.html

I wonder if it made a certain US based venue?

I post it knowing that a number of court appointed Russia friendly types (no doubt) find it too provocative.

I can’t say that I’m in complete agreement with it as well.

At the same time, venues like The Weekly Standard and Pajamas media have posted questionable (put mildly) commentary on Russia from another political slant.

In a certain sense, the greater censorship is the one not getting discussed.

Among Israelis in Israel, one can find stern criticism of that country, whereas some Jews abroad take a more Roman than the Romans approach.

The diehard pro-Israeli Jews outside Israel try to make up for the self-loathing naturally coming out of having a diasporic mentality by anchoring themselves to a real culture – Israel – that they feel they can be a part of (to some extent this applies to all un-assimilated ethnic groups within the US, e.g. Armenians, West Ukrainians, etc), and serve that culture – via lobbying, aid collection, etc – even when doing so runs contrary to America’s national interests (see The Israeli Lobby by Walt & Mearsheimer).

Same in European nations, so no surprise that, “A majority of those surveyed across Europe, 51%, believe that Jews are more loyal to Israel than to their own country, with a majority of respondents in Spain, Poland and Germany saying they believe that this statement is “probably true.” “.

Of course, a Jew supporting Israel from a foreign country is entirely rational and understandable. Who would command your ultimate loyalty in their shoes – the descendants of peoples who stood by, or actively collaborated, in the extermination of 1/3 of your ethnicity, or your own folks who are building up a physical and cultural haven for you? Tough choice… not.

Re-internal Israeli criticism of Israel. That simply demonstrates a society with a rational, liberal, “argumentative” tradition, that nonetheless strongly believes in itself (i.e. is in a state of sobornost) – i.e., a society firmly entrenched within the liberty cycle of the bottom-right of a Belief Matrix.

Russian born Russians in Russia can be quite realist in contrast to some of their brethren abroad and vice-versa.

This applies elsewhere. Among Israelis in Israel, one can find stern criticism of that country, whereas some Jews abroad take a more Roman than the Romans approach. A reverse pattern exists as well.

In short, a given person’s views should IMO be ideally replied to on substance, with a possible pscycho-analysis at the end. At times, I’ve often found the latter to be off the mark, due to some overly presumptuous, if not arrogant/ignorant overview.