Wednesday, October 29, 2008

Give as much as you get

Recently I got into an argument with some friends of mine about my cathegorical refusal to watch Serbian director Goran Marković's latest film "The Tour"("Turneja"). They could not understand the fact that I openly said that I wouldn't go and see the film because of the author's political views. "How could you, he is an artist, separate art from politics" came the cliches. I simply replied that I wouldn't and that was the end of it.

The thing is, I'd like to separate art from politics, it is Marković and his ilk that won't. He publicly bragged how the purpose of the movie is to "condemn politically all sides in the Bosnian conflict", and this in eurounionist'speak unmistakeably means a hit piece on the Serb people. I have no intention of spending my hard earned money on that.

Anzway, why is it so bad to attack a movie from a political standpoint, especially if it is admited it is supposed to spread a certain ideology and has heavz political conotations. Please, if you want to spread political ideas via a feature film, expect only attacks from those who do not share your worldview and do not ask that thez concentrate on formal matters such as acting, mimic, frame, lights etc. Nobody in his or her right mind when reviewing "Jud Süss" comments on how Veit Harlan did the exposition with the camera or the quality of Ferdinand Marian's acting. Instead, everybody, rightfully condemns the ideological message the film was spreading. And spare me the false indignant tone talke on how the two can not compare. You bet they can! Both use half-truths, fact-twisting, caricaturally negative approach and fabrications in order to advance a certain worldview. Yes, the former did have murderous consequences, but that does not mean that the latter, when put in appropriate context, could not.

Therefore, feel free to say: "I won't see a movie for political and ideological reasons", especially if it is made for the purpose of spreading liberal globalism. It is no different from switching channels when you see the hated politician on. And pay no attention to the quasisuperior remarks of liberals on how "close-minded" you are. You are more open-minded then they will ever be.

Friday, October 24, 2008

So, what are the new Serbian "progressives" like?

The long awaited and pompously announced foundation of the new Serb Progressive Party lead by former radical Tomislav Nikolić has come and it is time to give my impressions.

First of all the convention had no Serbian music, not even foreign classical music as a theme. In their stead was soundtrack from "Rocky", as a testimony how far they have "modernised" I suppose. Speeches were mostly empty, devoid of any substance or meaningful point, full of cliches about "better life", "bridge between east and west" and "battling crime". Not a word about the party platform, ideology or even vaguest ideas on how they were going to implement their ideas, whatever they may be. The atmosphere in the, it has to be said, fully packed Sava Centar was appropriate to it, lukewarm, faint, without any real enthusiasm expected from an occasion like this, especially since the heads of the new party have repeatedly been telling how glad they were to lose the "balast of radicalism". A friend of mine present at the convention put it best: "Sava Centar full, yet, somehow empty".

Perhaps the presence of the representatives from the embassies of the US, Britain and France had something to do with it. They were brought, according to Nikolić, in order to hear first hand what they have to say. I wonder if in their conversations they mentioned NATO agression, Milica Rakić, the recognition of Kosovo and Metohija and plenty more, or they did not want to spoil the subsequent coctail party. And how does Luka Karadžić, brother of Radovan, fit in the picture? Propably as an indicator that trying to be be all things to all people will be the hallmark of the new party.

When the split in the radicals occured I predicted that the new party of Tomislav Nikolić would be, at best, DSS(of Vojislav Koštunica) on steroids. That was an overly optimistic appraisal if there ever was one. What was seen in Sava Centar was pre-2006 DSS that urgently needs an injection of testosterone.

Wednesday, October 22, 2008

Forget Sarah Palin seeing Russia... you want this a heartbeat away from the White House?

And this one was just the latest! Remember when Biden said that Hillary would make a better VP nominee then him. Or a year or so ago when he praised Obama as the "first clean, articulate African-American"? And who could forget him plagiarising Neil Kinnock's speech? No wonder the Obama campaign decided to muzzle him!

Just what posessed Obama to take as his VP nominee this walking disaster who 90% of the time hasn't got his brain attached to his mouth and spends the remaining 10% shamelessly lying? I bet he is banging his head against the wall as we speak.

Tuesday, October 21, 2008

The people are a problem

So say EU occupation governers in Kosovo and Metohija. They express astonishment that Serbs still living over there do not recognize the illegal so-called state they are trying to establish.

So can we expect the EU to solve their "problem" the way Stalin did, by eliminating people? Don't bet against it, especially with the Serbian governement showing not so covert signals of indifference towards the fate of Serbs in Kosovo and Metohija.

Thursday, October 16, 2008

Couldn't have happened to a nicer bunch!

For some time now US establishment conservatives have embraced the bigoted, foul-mouthed, leftist-postmodernist(sorry for repeating myself), perpetually drunk excuse for a writer by the name of Christopher Hitchens. Sure, they all knew that this individual hates Christianity and Christians, religious Jews and Judaism, guns, morality, patriotism and just about everything else they claimed to hod dear but he "supports the global war on terror" so it was OK for them to gush all over him, shower him with praise and all that.

These days the vast majority of these establishment conservatives are engaged in helping John McCain, who, while not exactly their cup of tea, at least is a "supporter of the war" and "wants to get the job done in Iraq". Besides, Obama is in bed with some extremely foul people and could pose an existential threat against America. It was natural for them to expect that one of the original and most outspoken Iraq war supporters would join them.

So did Hitchens meet their expectations? Hell, no! He is endorsing Obama! Reason? "McCain's character", something the establicons repeatedly flaunted as his strongest point, and Sarah Palin being "a national disgrace" that "stirs up the whack-job fringe of the party's right wing".

The egg on the establicon's faces looks marvelous. It is no better then they deserve for replacing the age-old conservative moto "God, family, country" with "anything that politically expediates the current agenda".

Monday, October 13, 2008

Why are people surprised about McCain?

Less then a month until the elections and McCain's numbers are sinking like a rock. But that in itself is not what is driving the Republican base to despair. Three weeks, the time left until the elelctions, is a long time in politics, if one makes good use of it.

The question that not only conservative and pro-republican commentators are asking is does McCain actually want to?

The shortcomings of his entire presentation are now evident. Shades of what was coming were seen way back in spring when McCain reprimanded North Carolina Republicans for using ads criticising Obama for his association with Jeremiah Wright. But it is now, when McCain is holding back even his candidate for VP from attacking Obama and not only publicly chastises supporters from criticising his opponent but practically endorses him in the subsequent remarks!

What I can not understand is that people are surprised. McCain made a name for himself with the so-called bi-partisanship, unity seeking etc. The leitmotif of his entire career has been to avoid appearing "divisive" and "too partisan" and "nasty towards political opponents right up to the point of obsession, which in turn lead to his nastiness and divisiveness when it came to party colleagues and the republican base. What you see now is the REAL John McCain, the one that never really left, the one many pretended not to see a couple of months ago but who has come back to bite them at the worst possible moment.

So, does McCain actually want to become president? Perhaps the real question is "does he have it in him to do what it takes"? The answer seems to be a resounding "NO". That McCain's liberalism would eventually get the better of him was one of the safest political predictions anyone could make, along with the one that the media that he has been so cosy with during the republican primaries would eventually get in the tank with either Obama or Hillary.

What now for the republicans? I say they ought to start with small things. Repeat after me: president Barack Hussein Obama.

Friday, October 10, 2008

Don't blame Milo

What else could this rootless crime-lord do? Between the rock of the Albanian drug mob and and the hard place of a trial in Italy did you really exepct he would behave differently?

Blame those from Serbia. Blame those who glorified him as the "great white democratic hope". Blame those who were taking money from him in order to overthrow the Serbian governememnt. Blame those who were constantly warning that "the authorities in Serbia should not be involved in the processes in Montenegro". Blame those who listened. Blame those who based their referendum campaign on "eurointegrations", not on history and roots. Blame those who did not want to "get involved directly".

This is a logical consequence of their action, or lack thereof. Milo acted according to his anture. He can not go against it any more then a hyena can go against it's own.

Monday, October 06, 2008

"Being there"

Many do not remember this drama starring Peter Sellers(his penultimate film) even though he recieved the Academy Award nomination for Best Actor. But see if the plot and the main character remind you of somebody or something.

Sellers is in the role of a simple gardener called Chance who never left the estate of his employer and whose only knowledge of the outside world comes from television. When the owner of the estate dies he is thrown outside and has to cope with the real world for the first time. He accidentally gets hurt by the limousine of a wealthy and influential Washington business man Benjamin Rand who is dying of a blood disease. He takes him in, cares for him and soon befriends him, being under the impression that Chance is a down-on-his-luck business man and believing that Chance's simple sayings about gardening are alegories with profound wisdom. Soon enough, Rand introduces him to his friends which include among others, the President of the US and they too are won over by Chance's simple personality and sayings. Pretty soon, Chance becomes a star of his own making, appearing on TV shows and being roundly quoted by everyone. He captures the minds of so many with his seemingly wise words which are never seriosly analyzed by anyone, nor is anyone seriously engaged in investigating Chance's background, that he gets to run for president.

Sound like anyone you might know? And were the makers of the movie simply ahead of their time, or were telling it like it was even back then?

Friday, October 03, 2008