Someone should dare call it treason

Allegations that the contemporary European ruling classes have conspired to destroy and/or disenfranchise native indigenous European populations and supplant them with third world peoples were at best laughed off as paranoid conspiracy theories and at worst branded as rantings of racist, neo-nazi maniacs. Now we see they were anything but.

Vindication is, however, scant consolation for those who have been sounding warning bells the past several years, knowing that governement immigration policies were simply too awkward to be a product of simple ignorance or opportunism. The damage is not only done it is almost irreversible. Major political parties have already either subscribed to multiculturalism or were bullied into it and the media have long since been under control of the very people who are architects of this conspiracy. Hence the mumbled reaction by what is left of the Tories and the deafening silence of the major papers and TV outlets.

Britain and other European countries are in a need of a complete makeover, even revolution, if they are to survive as distinct nations and cultures. And the first step towards that would be calling this act by the governement of the UK(I don't call them "British governement" since there is nothing remotely British about that sorry lot) by it's real name: treason. Heck, there are also elements of ethnocide here! And warn that this deed will not go unpunished. Yes, the perspective of that seems remote now, but one day...Yes, one day..

What did they expect?

Russian president Dmitriy Medvedev came and went. The media have already reported about his visit to Serbia extensively and analysts as well as "analysts" gave their views which covered just about every aspect of the visit so I wouldn't want to repeat their words here.

I would just like to give my take on the reactions of the patriotic part of the public. Many have expressed their disappointments over this visit, in particular Medvedev's speech to the parliament, namely the part where he stated how they have nothing against our membership in the EU. It was immediately interpreted as the Russians pushing us towards Brussels so we could act as their pawn there. The idea of the "new system of collective security" that Medvedev stated was even seen, God only knows how, as a "green light" for a NATO membership. Even the billion euro loan was seen as a stab in the back to the patriotic sector.

Such reactions are largely fueled by totally unrealistic expectations as well as utter lack of comprehension of foreign policy. Those who'd like the Russian state to support the patriotic oposition should ask themselves some questions...For example, what opposition? Nikolić, Vučić and the newly-formed progressives who are trying to out-Tadić Tadić more by the day? Koštunica who is largely responsible for the fact that the current governement is ruling in the first place? Radical party? Their EU policy is neither here or there at the moment. At one point they are anti-EU, at another they are not sure, at the third they won't say...What did they actually do to raise the public consciousness about the dangers of euroutopia? Did they organize seminars, for example, with western eurosceptics as participants, which would have explained the true nature of the EU benemoth? how about articles, papers and other publications about the detrimental influence of the EU from a national, economic, political, cultural or civilizational point of view?

How about smaller patriotic NGOs and organizations? First of all there is far too many of them and they all operate independantly of one another, and second, more important, they themselves are not sure how to proceed. Do they want to be a fully fledged political movement acting proactively on a daily basis or are they content with ad-hoc activities?

Any way you look at it, we do not have a serious anti-EU organization, which is somewhat of a tragedy since even according to the most EU-slanted opinion polls the number of opponents of Serbia joining the Union is around 30% which is a starting point any newly formed political party would kill for. Until such a party is formed, however, nobody has the right to be "disappointed" with Russia. And only then we will know whether the Russian interest is indeed to have us as it's pawn within the Union or are they just attempting to get out the maximum out of a bad internal situation in Serbia.

Until then I suggest you re-read the reports of Dmitriy Medvedev's visit and take pleasure in seeing Tadić and his people kissing up to him whereas scarsely a year ago they used to treat with disdain anything Russian.

"There...are...four...lights"

"At the end, he gave me a choice - between a life of comfort... or more torture. All I had to do was to say that... I could see five lights, when in fact there were only four."
"You didn't say it?"
"No. No... But I was going to. I would have told him anything... anything at all. But more than that - I believed that I could see five lights."

I haven't blogged often these days for personal reasons and because I lacked inspiration. Not that there haven't been enough subjects to blog about, it's just that they mostly comment themselves and the purpose of this blog is not to provide a daily chronicle. Therefore I only make an entry if I have a larger philosophical idea to accompany the current events. And so it happens that I do now...

The above quote is from yet another episode of "Star Trek - The Next Generation", "Chain of Command", a two-part episode from Season 6. In it captain Picard was sent on a secret mission to destroy a Cardassian compound. Unfortunately, Picard was caught and the Cardassian commander subjects him to torture. Torture scenes are an hommage-remake of Orwell's "1984", specifically the part where O'Brien asks Winston Smith how many fingers he is holding up. Series creators even managed to cast a duo of Patrick Stewart - David Warner which gave a performance (almost) at the level of John Hurt and Richard Burton.

The dialog above happens at the very end, after Picard safely returned to the Enterprise(sorry about the spoiler) and recounts his traumatic experience to Counselor Troi. In the safety of familiar surroundings and free of torment, Picard remembered what was the most terryfying thing about it.

Nine years ago a lot of Serbs after almost a decade of torture were ready to say anything to make it stop. After it didn't many turned to despair repeatedly asking why the torture continues in spite us telling the torturers what they wanted to hear. Their goal, however, is not that we say what they want to hear but that we truly believe it in our hearts. Until that happens they will never have completely conquered us. That is why they continue to torment us. Until we actually believe we could see five lights and begin loving our Big Brother.

Need more proof that the Nobel Peace Prize is a politicized sham and a joke?

Here it is!

As if there wasn't enough of American "obamania", now we have to endure sycophancy from overseas. But that's not the worst part, far from it. This "prize" will now be flaunted by Obama minions as an official seal of infailability as well as a stick to beat all those who question his policies(so much for dissent being patriotic). Then again, the prize being awarded to an awowed chauvinist Ahtisaari, nothing should surprise us.

Depressing, truly depressing, in several ways...

Last anniversary, hopefully

It is now 9 years since we "established democracy". News and TV in Serbia will dedicate due attention to this, in between hysterical tirades against "hooligans", so I won't bother you much with it.

I can not help but notice, though, that the reflections on that date are dominated by a sense of surprise that not all had turned out as imagined. Everyone is shocked, shocked that nothing really changed and that hardly anything positive happened to us.

I myself am not the least bit surprised. On the contrary, this is exactly what I expected because I did not imagine like John Lennon, I watched reality occur and the outcome could never have been any different then this.

I hope that this is the last time this sorry date is being marked in any significant way.

"Human rights" against national rights

Our "old friend" Richard Goldstone has caused a lot of controversy with his latest "human rights" report about the Middle East. The Governement of Israel, as well as ordinary Israelis and Jews were first shocked and then livid, to say the least. Had they been paying attention to what has been going on in the world in the past decades, they wouldn't have been either. Goldstone and his report are just a logical consequence of the ideological shift that has been going on in our civilization, one that threatens it's very existence. Melanie Phillips provides a good explanation on what the "human rights" ideology has turned into:

...‘human rights’ has become an Orwellian synonym for an attack on human rights. It has become a judicial wrecking ball which is being deployed to shatter the fundamental principles of both western civilisation and national identity.

This is almost wholly obscured by the fact that it was western civilisation which produced the concept of human rights in the first place -- the sacredness of human life, the equality of all people, the seminal importance of freedom, law and justice – and declared these to be universal principles. That’s why ‘human rights’ lawyers protest that their doctrine cannot possibly constitute an attack on western civilisation, because it is rooted in that civilisation’s own foundational principles.

The crucial point, however, is that these were not universal principles but – very different, this – culturally particular principles to be applied universally. They derived from a particular set of religious ethics which gave rise to western civilisation -- principles promoted through Christianity but deriving from the Hebrew Bible. Without that Biblical moral underpinning, there can be no basis for freedom or equality or respect for life.

Phillips' claim that these are "culturally particular principles to be applied universally" is rather dubious, in my opinion, since they were never called as such. The UN has adopted "The Universal Declaration of Human Rights" in which it claims human rights stated within it as universal. It could have been that the authors had something different in mind, something aching to Phillips' assertion, and which would be far more sensible, but the wording of the declaration does not support that. Rather, it vindicates the position of Goldstone and his ilk. By formulating "The Universal Declaration of Human Rights" as such, we have sown the seeds of our destruction and we are now reaping it, as Melanie Phillips herself shows:

Arising from the contemporary cult of individuality which repudiates all external authority as unjustified constraints on self-actualisation, ‘human rights’ culture claimed that these ‘rights’ were indeed universal – principles that transcended all cultures and therefore laid claim to superseding them. It took the principle of ‘universality’ and radically dislocated it from the unique Biblical tradition from which such ethics had sprung. ‘Human rights’ thus became free-floating axioms, deriving from no higher authority than the vagaries of judicial assumptions, prejudices and whims.

In wrapping itself in the mantle of universality, ‘human rights’ culture became an explicit attack on the very notion of the particular. Religious tradition therefore was directly in its sights – particularly Christianity and the Hebrew Bible upon which it drew, even though these were the foundation of those rights. That’s why, for example, Christians are no longer allowed to uphold their belief that same–sex relationships are sinful; if they protest against same-sex adoptions, for example, on the grounds that a child has the right to a mother and a father figure, they are vilified as bigots and lose their professional position.

The rights of Christians count for nothing. As the beliefs of a particular, discrete tradition they are trumped by ‘universal rights’. And these are whatever 'human rights' lawyers deem them to be, through institutions such as' human rights' law or supra-national courts – such as the International Criminal Tribunals of which Judge Goldstone was such an ornament. This ‘transnational progressivism’ holds that the nation and the culture that made that nation must yield to the diktats of ‘universal’ principles – which are not universal at all but spring from the minds of western ‘human rights’ lawyers intent on promoting a secular agenda which kicks away all those tiresome Biblical constraints, to be replaced by their own formulae for controlling human behaviour.

Moreover, because ‘human rights’ is the legal engine of self-actualisation, it is also the legal engine of moral and cultural relativism – the doctrine that values are all subjective, that there can therefore be no hierarchy of values and that no culture can have superiority over any other culture. This turned ‘human rights’ into a battering ram against the very idea of a majority culture.

And if I may add, this, by extension, also turns the "human rights" ideology into a tool of the destruction of nation-states, national cultures and national and state rights as such since "majority culture" is but a product of the aforementioned concepts.

Melanie Phillips, however, does not offer a solution to this problem. Perhaps because it is much easier to state it then to actually do it. Let me start with the former: one must either reform or abolish altogether the UN human rights declaration.

And now, for the hard part...I'm sure that the very proposal might raise quite a few eyebrows. Non-western countries will propably dismiss this out of hand because on the surface it might look as if someone would try to remove the legal obstacle for conquest and re-colonization. However, if they look closely into recent history, they will find out that the Declaration, or some of it's stated principles, has, in fact, quite often been used as a pretext for an invasion of a sovereign country by the powers governed by the universalist transnational-progressivist ideology, all in the name of "universal human rights". Which brings me to my next point...

A far greater obstacle to the Declaration's reform will be, in fact, in the ruling establishment in the West. Not only were entire political and other careers forged around the so-called "human rights" industry in the US and Europe, but transnational progressivism has over the years, in fact, cleverly supplanted traditional societies there, leaving the impression that they always were the true representatives of the West. It will not give up it's position easily.

The conditio sine qua non of any Declaration reform is that such ideology as well as all of it's off-shoots in the form of "nation-building" and "spreading of democracy" are curtailed and marginalized and that their proponents are exposed and ostracized. Europe and America must do that for their own sake first. Only this can open the door to a Declaration more in the mould of Melanie Phillips' claim, one that will be applicable only to countries and peoples that wish to belong to a certain civilizational circle but which will simultaniousely forgo any universalist claims or pretends of expanding beyond it's realm or imposing itself on those who reject it. This will, in turn, create a much healthier and more sincere foundation in international relations, something that is sorely needed in these times.

"If we ever want to leave..."

Freelance columnist and reporter Diana West was present at a symposium discussing the war in Afganistan and how should America win it. Present there were the usual suspects, the nation-and -democracy-buliders, the conquerors of hearts and minds and the discussion was basicaly revolved around these cliches. Unsuprissingly, the participants were either ignorant or dismissive about the history an present day reality of Afganistan, avoided mentioning the "I" word like the plague and simultaniousely completely entrenched in their belief that "every human beings desire for freedom and democracy" overcomes all obstacles. Yet, even such tedious gatherings produce something for the ages, such as this assertion from John Nagl, co-author of the U.S. Army's counterinsurgency manual and fellow of the Center for a New American Security:

"If we ever want to leave, we have to build an Afghan government that can accomplish those goals (of good government) on its own."

There was a joke about the late Yugoslav leader Tito that went like this:

Q:"How does Tito's last will and testament begin?"
A:"If I ever die..."

Reality is at times more comical then jokes, or in the case of US involvement in Afganistan, tragicomical.

It's not about rights, it never was

Thankfully, Serbia has been spared the so-called "gay pride" event. All the brainwashing coming from the NGO sector, the media and governement officials had the opposite effect on the public, already vastly opposed to the gay agenda. Not only football fans and memebers of patriotic organizations but also ordinary people were in fact galvanized into opposition to this shameful occurence.

However, a golden opportunity was missed to expose the gay agenda, it's goals and the people who stood behind the "gay rights" organizations in Serbia, an opportunity that might not present itself again.

The phrase "gay rights" is highly misleading in the first place. Nobody ever asked them what rights guaranteed by the consitution of Serbia were they denied exactly. Political rights? They have the right to vote and be voted into office. A right to life, to have free sexual relations with whom they please? Again, nobody denies them that. Their right to work, right to legal protection, right to health-care(Serbian constitution gurantees that right, whether health-care is a "right" or not, is another story) are all protected. They claim they can not get married. They can, but with the person of opposite sex. They also complain that they are not allowed to adopt children. Well, I have news for them: adoption is not a constitutional right but a privilege. And finally, they claim they can not express their sexual orientation freely. So which governement organ or agency is impeding them from doing that? None whatsoever.

So what is this all about? Well gay activists themselves are letting the cat out of the bag as soon as any serious discussion about what really bothers them gains some momentum. Very soon they begin to complain and whinge how they have to deal with scornful remarks on the streets and mockery, how "gay" is still a dirty word etc. They pretty much start resembling children complaining about the teasing they get in the schoolyard during the break. They claim it is tormenting them and they want it to stop.

But gays' own chief argument about homosexuality being a choice in fact vindicate those who scorn them. We can all agree that animosity towards someone because of something one can not choose, such as race and ethnicity, is reprehensible. But if belonging to a certain group is a matter of choice then it is concievable that many people, as well as the society as a whole will not approve of such a choice and that they might voice such disapproval in one way or the other. It is a natural right. But gay activists want such vocal dissaproval to stop, one way or the other and are ready to go as far as destroying the traditional society of a nation in order to achieve this. So who is in fact curtailng whose rights here?

In the case of Serbia, there is an additional factor to weigh in. Gay activists in Serbia, whether consciously or not, found themselves on the same task of destroying the traditional Serbian society that transnational progresivist governements and institutions have been trying to accomplish in the past 9 years. Thus the opposition to "gay pride" got an additional dimension in the defense of nationhood. There is no better evidence of that then various EU institutions and ambassadors of EU countries expressing their disappointment that the gay manifestation did not take place.

"Gay pride" was a litmus-test of how far the annihilation of the remains of the traditional Serbian society has gone. Had it succeeded, additional demands for the introduction of other post-modernist multi-culti measures aimed at dismantling of everything that makes Serbs Serbs would have followed suit. Fortunately, it turned out there is still a healthy core in the nation ready and unashamed to express their will to defend their heritage. I doubt, however, it will be tha last time they will be called upon to do that.