The chief on the fireplace

Can a person holding a picture of a war criminal and Nazi leader be said to be a moron?

Not necessarily. If we exclude a) collectors, b) historians or c) researchers, and we obviously didn't even think of them - the picture of a war criminal and Nazi leader can be held by d) a moron, for example, and e) a surviving ex-Nazi with an excess of sentiment, f) a member the family of a former Nazi with an excess of sentiment, g) an active neo-Nazi, h) a sympathizer of the Nazi movement, or simply some kind of i) immature brainless teenager under the pernicious influence of contemporary Nazi influencers. The fact that persons from e) to i) are Nazis, relatives or sympathizers does not in itself make them morons, and the fact that they hold the picture of a war criminal and Nazi leader does not make them morons either.

Very well. However, can a person who keeps a picture of a war criminal and Nazi leader prominently displayed in his house be called a moron?

Not necessarily even then. A surviving ex-Nazi or a member of his family may keep a picture of a war criminal and Nazi leader above his bed precisely as a measure of that surplus of private Nazi sentiment, and some active neo-Nazi, sympathizer of the Nazi movement or an immature brainless teenager will put it above his desk, or on the wall of his children's room. room, as an accurate measure of one's intellectual or social maturity. Such a person can theoretically be a moron, most often he is, but - I said - he doesn't have to.

Can a person who keeps a picture of a war criminal and Nazi leader in a visible place in his house, say in the living room or dining room, be called a moron?

Actually, not even then. The living room or dining room are public spaces within the private, territory of controlled social interaction, so a picture of a war criminal and a Nazi leader in a prominent place with a surviving ex-Nazi or a member of his family, an active neo-Nazi, a sympathizer of the Nazi movement or an immature bare-headed teenager, in the living room or dining room - in the space of dialogue with the inhabitants of one's own private public - signifies only clear identification and belonging to the tribe. Yes, sometimes a clear identification of belonging to the tribe of morons, but still not necessarily: the matter can even be, say, pragmatic.

Can a person be called a moron in this sense who keeps the picture of a war criminal and Nazi leader in the private-public space of his house in the kind of visible place that petty-bourgeois social conventions provide for photos of members of the closest family, for example above the fireplace?

Theoretically it can, but with a statistical margin of error that could lead us in the wrong direction. If a picture of a war criminal and a Nazi leader in a prominent place near a surviving former Nazi or a member of his family, an active neo-Nazi, a sympathizer of the Nazi movement or an immature bare-headed teenager, in the living room or dining room - a space of dialogue with the inhabitants of one's own private public - signifies only identification, then the same picture in the place that the canons of bourgeois feng shui provide for photos of members of the closest family can also mean a particularly strong identification, a literal familiarization with a war criminal and a Nazi leader.

Exactly as much as such a public attitude is more transparent compared to an ordinary picture on the wall, one should be more careful in diagnostics: that area of ​​statistical error is probably a fine measure that separates the morons from the pragmatists. Anyone who puts a picture of a war criminal and a Nazi leader, for example, in a family photo album - if we exclude his immediate family, and we obviously didn't even think of them - is a moron, but not everyone who puts a picture of a war criminal and a Nazi leader above the fireplace is necessarily a moron .

Can a person be called a moron who keeps a picture of a war criminal and Nazi leader above the fireplace, i.e. in the kind of visible place that is provided by social conventions for photos of members of the immediate family, in the dining room of a house that he planned and arranged for commercial activity, i.e. - tourism ? So in the space of social dialogue with complete strangers, the business space of a pure economic relationship devoid - indeed, necessarily devoid - of any political, um, controversies? In a space, in short, in which a guest can theoretically not only be of different political and ideological leanings, but also a victim of a war criminal and a Nazi criminal?

We're pretty close now: the statistical margin is narrower, but still there. That margin is only as narrow as the chance that the country where it happens is - why not? - the Nazi state, which would certainly exclude any potentially sensitive guest from the margin. As long as there is such a chance, as long as there is a chance and the possibility that in the same house next to the picture of a war criminal and a Nazi leader, a ban on the entry of Jews, Serbs, anti-fascists or homosexuals is displayed and certified with the state seal, a man who on the fireplace in the dining room of a house for rent to tourists put a picture of a war criminal and a Nazi leader is not by default a moron.

Can we then call a moron a person who keeps the picture of a war criminal and Nazi leader in the kind of visible place that is provided by petty-bourgeois conventions for photos of members of the closest family - for example, above the fireplace - in the dining room of a house that is not a private space, but a space intended for tourist activity and arranged to be rented out to unknown people, a full seventy-five years after the Second World War, in a modern, democratic European state, a member of the European Union under the pro-European government of a prime minister politically matured in the backrooms of Brussels, even a member who will preside over the European Union next year, to be even more so a country that lives almost exclusively on tourism? Believe it or not, even that is not enough to call him a d) moron. Namely, that we could qualifiedly call him a moron who puts a picture of a war criminal and Nazi leader on the fireplace of the dining room in the house he rents out to tourists seventy-five years after the Second World War, in a modern and democratic, and at the same time, touristic state - a member of the EU that next year presides over the Union, under the pro-European government of a prime minister politically matured in the Brussels corridors - said person should not be just some e) surviving former Nazi with excess sentiment, f) family member of a former Nazi, g) active neo-Nazi, h) sympathizer of the Nazi movement, or simply some kind of i) immature brainless teenager, but a respectable, active protagonist of the executive power, from j) deputy mayor or k) mayor himself to p) prefect, r) ambassador or, as I know, s) chief of staff of the President of the Republic.

In order to be completely sure that we are talking about a moron, he should be a member of the pro-European government, so if not the prime minister himself, then at least the minister of administration. Can we finally call the minister of administration in the pro-European government of the presiding member of the European Union and a European tourist power a moron, who puts a picture of a war criminal and a Nazi leader on the fireplace of the house he rents to tourists?

You may be surprised, but not even then. It is, namely, an unscientific replacement of theses: the minister of administration in the pro-European government of a tourist country, the presiding member of the European Union, who rents out a house to tourists with a picture of a war criminal and a Nazi leader on the fireplace, is not a moron, but a tourist country and the presiding member of the European Union which the minister of administration rents a house to tourists with a picture of a war criminal and a Nazi leader on the fireplace, actually - a stupid state.

HR.N1INFO.COM