Wednesday, December 30, 2009

All the best in 2010

Events in my private life have again influenced my blogging. My wife had to spend the last couple of weeks in the hospital due to some complications in her pregnancy which, as it turned out, were less serious then thought at first. You can imagine, though, that after initially hearing the news of her complications, updating my blog was bumped far down my list of priorities. She will spend the New Year and Christmas at home which I hope is a good omen for next year.

I wish you all the best in 2010.

Monday, December 07, 2009

Can't happen in America? Yeah, right!

One of the myths spread around the world about America is that it is not possible for a personality cult to develop there. Explanations went from the allegedly superior character of the political system to the supposedly "democratic" character of the Americans themselves.

The advent of "Obamania" more or less refuted such claims. Still, lightning does not strike twice in the same spot, does it? Actually, it does. Check out the reactions to Sarah Palin's visit to the ill-fated Fort Hood:

FORT HOOD — Rebecca Dalberg's excitement over Sarah Palin's book signing Friday night was so intense, she wanted to spend the night in a parking lot to assure a front-row seat.

Her retired military husband, Sonny Dalberg, quashed that idea because the Copperas Cove couple live less than five minutes away from the sprawling Army post where the former Alaska governor signed about 1,000 copies of her new book, Going Rogue.(Still believe women are just as smart as men? - WKoA)

The Dalbergs, who arrived 11 hours before the event, were among the first people to navigate a maze of meandering lines at the post exchange before reaching last year's GOP vice presidential candidate.

The crowd greeted her entry with a boisterous “Sar-ah, Sar-ah” chant.

“She's human. She listens to people. She doesn't think that she's better than anyone,” Rebecca Dalberg said. “She's all-American. That's Mom, apple pie and John Wayne.”


Theresa Cockran of nearby Nolanville came away convinced she had just met the next president of the United States.

“She's like me. She's got a heart and a soul,” said Cockran, wife of a military retiree. “I am so happy I almost wet my pants.”

The last quote is the best ever argument against women having a right to vote I've ever seen. If that didn't make you cringe, I don't know what will! Perhaps this last sentence:

“She doesn't make mistakes. She doesn't do wrong,” Rebecca Dalberg said.

Now, where have we heard simillar things before? Take your pick.

Tuesday, December 01, 2009

Revolutionary instead of conservative

Though I promised a month ago that I will be blogging some more, my company had other ideas and obligations at work prvented me for fulfilling my promise. That will teach me, I suppose.

Still, I had enought time to stumble on to some interesting stuff along the way. What particullarly caught my eye is this text from the blogger Sultan Knish which, in my opinion, using the Republican Party of the US, accurately diagnoses what is wrong with national patriotic movements around the world that oppose the transantional progressivist agenda. Indeed, too many of them identify and behave as "conservative", which is a label and MO completely inappropriate considering the political moment. Without the complete rollback of the progressivist measures the societies of Europe and America will not heal from the ills of today nor will simple election victories mark the defeat of globalist liberailsm.

This goes as much for Serbia as for anyone else. Lately, there has been a lot of talk about a "united opposition" against the Tadić regime. All I can say to that is "what's the point?" The parties that would make up such an organization by and large would follow the paradigm set up by progressivist ideologies, they themselves say as much. What we need is a revolutionary organization, one that would dedicate itself to repealing the disastrous acts of the previous 9 years. Until then, we'll be stuck in this mire.

Sunday, November 15, 2009

Vyechnaya pamyat - memory eternal

Patriarch of the Serbian Orthodox Church, Pavle, 1914 - 2009.

May the Good Lord grant His servant and our Patriarch the Kingdom of Heaven!

Tuesday, November 10, 2009

So, who does our gevernememnt take after?

It's an old saying that the dog and it's master start to look alike over time, some say even phisycally, but they certainly begin to expose similar traits. For years now Serbia is being ruled by a conglomerate of suicidal post-modern ideologies whose frontmen have been going out of their way to cause detriment to Serb people and express devotion to their utopian ideology. We often asked ourselves is there such a governement anywhere else in the world.

The reactions to the Fort Hood massacre that came from American authorities and the mainstream media show us that such behaviour is hardly our invention. The perpetrator Nidal Hasan has given numerous indications that he's able and willing to commit such an act as well as the motive. He all but purchased air time on local TV stations! In spite of this, neither security agencies or military brass reacted, and many who witnessed Nidal Hasan's behaviour did not even report it out of fear of being branded "racists" and "islamophobes". After the incident has happened, everyone has been trying to obscure the real reason for Hasan's murderous rampage, using various psycho-babble in which they even invented new diseases(anyone hear of pre-traumatic stress syndrome?).

Army Chief of Staff, General Casey, was the one that went furthest, though. Here is his pearl of wisdom:

Our diversity, not only in our Army, but in our country, is a strength. And as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that’s worse.

That is globalist liberalism and progressivism in a nutshell. "Diversity" is the highest and only value, the one on whose altar sacrifices must be made, even human ones. Who cares about the victims and their families, who, by the way, not a single media outlet interviewed until now because they are too busy "searching for the real motive", i.e. covering it up.

Lawrence Auster compared this statement with Goneril using overly excessive terms to describe her love towards her father, King Lear. The difference is that Goneril, as it turned out, was insincere, whereas Casey actually believes what he says. And that's the worst part!

We should not, therefore, be surprised by the behaviour of Tadić and his clique. After so many years serving the "progressives" how could they act in any other way?

EDIT: So many typos! I've corrected them now but it was embarassing! My apologies to the readers. I did write this somewhat in a hurry but that's no excuse. I'll pay more attention in the future.

Wednesday, October 28, 2009

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..

Friday, October 23, 2009

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.

Thursday, October 15, 2009


"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.

Friday, October 09, 2009

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...

Monday, October 05, 2009

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.

Tuesday, September 29, 2009

"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.

Tuesday, September 22, 2009

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.

Friday, September 18, 2009

It's not as if the blogosphere does not have it's fair share

Gray Falcon explained why, in spite of his writing prowess, never went into journalistic business. And the example he provided is just the pick of the bunch.

However, the realm of superficiality, ignorance and pure, downright malice is not contained within the fields of mainstream journalism. The blogosphere has it's pearls of wisdom as well, like the opening of this piece that goes like this:

In 1939, Hitler sold out Poland.

You have to stop reading right there, if you have any decency and common sense, really.

Wednesday, September 16, 2009

Well, so much for the post-racial era..

Over the years the word "racist" has been misused to the point where it has been reduced to a mere label against anyone who opposes the liberal-progressive agenda. And just when you think it is consigned to the dustheap of over-used canards, somebody manages to retrieve it.

Lately, it is the unhinged Obamaniacs who, in absence of sound arguments, pulled the race card from their sleeve. Apparently, it is now enough to simply say that somebody is lying and it's open season on you declared by a variety of race-hustlers and demagogues with aid and comfort given to them by the sycophantic mainstream media.

Far from ushering a "post-racial" world, the election of Obama has brought in a revival of racially charged political rhetoric in the USA not seen or heard since George Wallace. And it is coming from Obama supporters, which was expected in a way, because deep down even they are aware of the lack of substance that is the Obama administration. So to compensate, and/or keep the focus away from that fact, they resort to heated, emotional ethno-racially charged accusations.

Sound familiar? I thought so. Let's hope that the saying that history only repeats itself as a farce is true.

Tuesday, September 15, 2009

Are you quite sure it was off the record?

Kanye West's outburst caught attention of the Obamessiah himself, as he, allegedly off-the-record, remarked that West behaved like a "jackass".

Let us disregard for a moment that Obama was chanelling Captain Obvious there and the banality of the President of the USA commenting on what is a celebrity incident and ask whether he really meant the remark to be private. After the fiasco of the "Gates affair" where he managed to allianate not only every cop in the country regardless of race(who said Obama is not a uniter) but also a large portion of people who voted for him, Obama needed something to patch up the image of someone who transcends race and the Kanye West incident was a tailor-made occasion(pun unintentional): a black artists steals the stage from a white one in order to support a fellow black, gets widely condemned and in comes the Annointed One to offer his perspective, this time siding with the white girl to show everyone just how righteous he is. I wonder if there are going to be any beer summits over this on the White House lawn any time soon?

American economy may be tanking, unemployment is on a record level, hundreds of thousands are protesting in Washington, Afganistan is a mess but Obama has his priorities in order, as we can see. What was that about the people having the leader they deserve? It sure does apply to America which propably has irretrievably sunk into triviality and shallowness. Then again, I'm not sure I'm the one who should offer lessons on that.

Wednesday, September 02, 2009

We are all dispensable to them

Lawrence Auster from the blog View from the Right gives us a column from Mark Steyn in which the latter gives the lowlights of the sycophancy-fest that was the coverage of Ted Kennedy's death and funeral. Some of the things written there are just beyond belief. At least nazi and communist propagandists had the good taste to hide and deny the darker aspects of their rule.

And it wasn't just Mary Jo Kopechne that was dispensable, we all are...Anything for their imagined "greater good" to be achieved.

Monday, August 31, 2009

Should we attempt to change others?

I've been on vacation for the past couple of weeks. And on vacation you get to catch up with some of the leisures you miss during the year such as watching your favourite TV shows. So I decided to play some of my "Star Trek: The Next Generation" DVDs. I already said that "Star Trek" is somewhat an exception from American pop-culture since it is not shallow like most of it's products and some of it's episodes truly makes you pause and think. Such was the clifhanger between the 6th and 7th season "Descent".

The episode is a sort of a follow-up to the fifth season episode "I, Borg". For those unacquainted with "Star Trek", Borg are the chief antagonists of the Federation in this series. They are automated cybernetic organisms, connected into the Borg Collective. They have no individuality and their sole purpose is to assimilate other species and races into their Collective. In "I, Borg", the crew of the "Enterprise" captures one of the Borg who influenced by them develops individuality. This Borg, named Hugh, was later returned to the Collective in hope that his sense of individuality will spread around it thus causing the Borg race to be changed forever.

In "Descent" we see that the plan to infect the Borg with individuality worked but the results were far from those expected. The infected Borg were severed from the Collective, and among the outcasts began to reign chaos. Since they had no previous sense of individuality the cast-away Borg had no idea what to do with it, what kind of community to create, or give themselves a purpose for their existence.

As such, they became prey of Lore, the evil twin of the android officer of the "Enterprise", Lt.Commander Data. As Hugh, whom we meet again in this episode, recounted, it was not hard for Lore to seize power over the Borg:

"...we had no idea even how to operate our vessel. When Lore came we were ready to listen to anyone that had promised change and a way out of this situation. We all gladly followed at first his promises of a glorious future. When it became clear he had no idea how to fullfill these promises, he began talking of sacrifice..."

Lore had managed to find a purpose and meaning to the cast-away Borg. Instead of assimilating species like they used to do, the new Borg, which became more agressive and skillful, began destroying them. In short, the new Borg became a more deadly and vicious enemy then the old Borg ever were.

I believe you already recognized some similar situations from human history. Traditional society torn apart, disorianted population, unaware of it's role in the world and in history, brought to the point when they are ready to follow anyone that promises redemption. But this episode is more then a simple warning against false messiahs...

This episode is propably the best argument in favour of the so-called "prime directive" and the principle of non-interfierence into traditional societies of other nations and cultures, even those hostile to our own. As one could see, even if one manages to initiate changes within the enemy it is by no means a guarantee that this change will be for the better. And we need not go too far in tha past to confirm it. All that it takes is to see in whose hands Iraq ended up after Saddam Hussein was deposed.

Contemporary generations in the west, even the elite, are more versed into pop-culture then in classical sciences. Unfortunately, most have picked wrong films and series to shape their worldview. This is why we are in such a sorry state...

Sunday, August 30, 2009

"Inglorious basterds" - review

Having read several reviews of Quentin Tarantino's latest work "Inglorious basterds" I had thought that Hollywood had finally managed to brainwash him and was fully prepared to see something like "Rambo meets Dirty Dozen" on steroids along with historical revisionism to boot. After actually seeing the film I'm glad to say I was wrong.

"Inglorious basterds" are on one hand classic Tarantino, and on the other hand they are not. There is the wanton violence and foul language brought to the absurd sometimes as well as the synopsis formed as a sort of an omnibus consisting of seemingly unrelated yet strangely interweened stories, but there are also hommages to earlier works of other authors as well as short narated flashbacks when introducing new characters in the "Lock, stock and two smoking barrels" mould.

The film begins in occupied France in 1941 when SS standartenfuhrer Hans Landa(Cristopher Waltz) finds a Jewish family Dreyfuss hiding in a cattle farm and brutally murders them. Only the daughter Shoshana survives miracolously. Three Years later Lt. Aldo Raine(who would have thought that Brad Pitt coul do a Southern accent so well) forms a small unit of American Jewish servicemen in order to drop behind enemy lines into France and literaly terrorize the Germans. At the same time Shoshana gets a chance for revenge and starts planning it...

Much praise was given to the opening scene of the film, or rather the first chapter, when the aforementioned murder of the Jewish family occurs. I can tell you that it fully lives up to the hype and is almost worth the price of admission alone. It is a fantastic hommage by Tarantino to Segio Leone's spaghetti-westerns all along with the musical score that mixes Beethoven and Ennio Moricone. The quasi-philosophical pleasant-toned conversation Landa engages in with the owner of the farm that hides the Jews only completes the sinisterness of the character, and the pipe gesture that some have interpreted as a comical or even pharsical undercut enhances the impression even further. Whether the director meant it or not, the whole thing strikingly resembles that statement of one of Isreali reporters from the Eichmann trial that the most terrifying fact about Eichmann is that he is not terrifying at all.

From there it is a bit of a roller coaster rhytm-wise, with action and violence interchanging with conversations that at times seem pointless but whose purpose is revealed very soon and the director and writer manage to stop them just at the moment when the viewer is tempted to look at his watch. Tarantino should also be praised for having his characters speak in their proper languages, not ridicolously accented English as it is custom in Hollywood, although it somewhat defies belief to see some of the characters as bilingual.

As usual with Tarantino, the seemingly separate stories eventually confluate into one. Just like the beggining, Tarantino's end is an hommage, this time to "The Dirty Dozen" and "Raiders of the Lost Ark". It is the end that was deemed most controversial. Tarantino was accused of re-writing history but the film itself has a perfect answer to that charge. The re-writing of history by the powers-that-be ready to do anything to achieve their goal goes on within Tarantino's alternate reality itself, abd Brad Pitt and one of his men manage only partly to tell the world the real truth through a symbolic(literally) gesture. After that, you can not help but wonder whose revisionism is more dangerous? And who the real "inglorious basterds" refered to in the title?

Thursday, August 13, 2009

No sooner said then done

Couple of weeks ago I said that islamists were overstepping the line with their going against football and that such actions will more then anything else create a backlash(since the mental state of Europe is such).

That didn't take long, didn't it?

Tuesday, August 11, 2009

It's standard MO

Gray Falcon has recorded yet another case of unbelievable hipocricy manifested by the New York Times. Notihing ne in that, this is a case of "dog bites man" kind of news. The Times has been for decades the media forefront of the liberal progressive behaviour which can be described shortly in the maxim that good is when they rob the neighbouring village and evil when the neighbouring village robs them.

What is new is the ever-more blatant such behaviour of the elected officials. Spurred on by the Times and the like they now feel free to drop anylabel they deem necessary in order to discredit people that hold opposing views. Didn't they use to say that "dissent is patriotic"? It depends against whom you are dissenting, I guess.

We may have 21st century technology but morally we are descending towards the Stone Age. The worst scenario imaginable...

Thursday, August 06, 2009

Health care - is there a "right" prescription for it?

I usually enjoy reading the works of Ilana Mercer on any subject, however I can not say that about her latest column that criticizes Obama's attempt at health-care reform.

Firstly, her piece is almost entirely based on anegdotal evidence. While I'm not attempting to belittle her obviously traumatic experience described in it, anegdotal evidence is not reliable standing ground. There are personal stories, legitimate just as much as that of Mercer, which tell exactly the opposite: that American health-care system is inhumane and inefficient while having only praise for the Canadian one. In her coulmn Mercer provides almost no independent research to back-up her thesis, we only have her personal experience as an indicator of what the entire hoopla is all about.

Second, I feel that Ilana Mercer has adopted a completely dogmatic approach to health-care, comparable to the one of neo-liberal economists towards economy, both fields that simply can not tolerate any dogmae. No social area, and health-care is certainly one of the most important ones, can be treated as an exact science, there is no universal formula that provides the right solution. The "right" health-care system depends on the society as a whole and almost all of it's factors, which include national tradition and culture and the state and structure of the economy as a whole, contribute to it's creation and it's functioning.

Ilana Mercer can do better, I've read enough of her works to know that for a fact.

Wednesday, August 05, 2009

They are pushing it a bit too far now

First they go after Man United and now they want to change Schalke's traditional fan song because it offends them. Islamists are seriously stretching beyond their reach now. These guys don't know what they are messing with.

This I write only partly tongue-in-cheek. I know it says a lot about the state of which European peoples are in, but anyone who knows the menatlity of the current population can confirm I speak the truth. People in Europe may be totally indiferent to their cultural, historical and religious heritage, mildly concerned about their political rights, but if someone touches their football team all hell breaks loose!

I'll never forget one TV documentary I watched which was dedicated to the Hillsborough disaster. Liverpool's center-forward at the time John Aldridge visited the injured fans in hospital. They asked him to talk to one comatose fan. As he stood by the bed the man woke up, and one of the first things he asked was: "Could you get me tickets for the Final?" Unbelievable, he just miracoulously escaped death and all he thought about is getting to Wembley. And he is the rule, not the exception.

If the islamist infringement with football continues, it very well could produce a monumental backlash. And if it doesn't...Well, Europe is truly a dead continent, then.

Thursday, July 23, 2009

When you think about it a little...

Hillary Clinton's statement that hints at the US resigned to a fact of a nuclear armed Iran caused quite a stir. Clinton also asserted that America will „extend a defence umbrella over the region“ in such an event. Isreal, who conseders a nuclaer Iran an existential threat, reacted sharply to these latest statements.

When you think about it a bit, however, this should not be so shocking. While I admit that this line of thinking escaped me in the past, as it did many professional analysts, it nevertheless has a sound logic of self-interest within. A nuclear armed Iran is not that detrimental to US interests after all. You see, Isreal is not the only one in the Middle East fearful of Iranian newly-acquired power. Equally as fearful, if not more,(thought they do not say it in public) are Saudi Arabia, Egypt, UAE and almost all Sunni states in the Arabian peninsula. Since neither of those countries, or Israel, are capable of producing the means for the „defence umbrella“ Clinton is talking about, they will have to buy them from someone. And they can only buy them from the USA or Russia. By making these assertions, Hillary Clinton wants to ensure that it is the USA that profits from the new arms race in the Middle East that is certain to come if Iran obtains a nuclear weapon. This will reboot the American military industrial complex which has suffered badly under the economic crisis(as the recent cancellation of the F22 shows).

War against Iran, which never looked like a likely option, in spite of all that was written in tha past years, is off the table, it would seem, since, among other reasons, the US have neither the will or the means to wage it. Subversion of the Iranian system from the inside has little chance of success, regardless of the present events in Iran(which have all but disappeared from the headlines). America was left only with the option of containment and decided to use it to the fullest(though thinking about it now, I believe that was the plan all along).

What remains to be seen is how will this apparent shift influence the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Will Americans pursue a solution, any kind of solution in order to curtial Iranian influence? Will it blackmail Isreal with military aid? How will the US react to a possible Israeli attempt to solve the Iranian nukes issue their own way? Or will they have the Saudis get rid of Iranian agents among the Palestinians one way or the other? And did we recently get an indication of how will it all go?

Wednesday, July 22, 2009

Our "antiamericanism"

Gallup has recently published an opinion poll(sorry, coudn't find a link for the life of me) according to which Serbia is second only to Pakistan when it comes to the number of people with negative feelings towards the USA. Considering what has happened it is hardly a surprise, though one would never have guessed it judging by the results of recent elections. Never underestimate the inconsistency of the average voter!

Belgrade daily "Politika" made a botched attempt at explaining this phenomenon through a parellel interview with an American ex-pat living in Serbia and political analyst Branko Radun. Radun made an attempt at explaining the evolution of the average Serb's attitude towards America from largely positive until the 1990-ties to animosity and bitterness in the latter years while emphasizing that anti-US feelings largely stopped at criticism of American policy and never boiled over into nastiness towards ordinary Americans as such, an assertion that was affirmed by the American interviewee based on his experiances. Radun also explained that general negativity by Serbs towards America is not just poison fruit of the actions of the American governement but also that of it's media and part of the cultural elite.

Still, Radun does not attempt to answer the question how the whole thing came to be. Why did the US decide on a hostile policy towards the Serbs in spite of them never having been enemies of America as a country nor having been hostile as a population?

In the root of it all is the transformation of America from a nation-state with distinct culture, customs and tradition into a multi-culti mixture of just about anything and a paradigm of the globalist and transnational-progressivist ideology that was to be spread by any means necessary, including the sword. It is a vision straight out of Trotsky's playbook, an equivalent of his theory of "permanent world revolution" with the old USSR as it's spiritus movens. We were simply victims of this expansionist project because we could not accept effectively renouncing what we are.

Sadly, very few people understood the change USA underwent. While that is understandable when it comes to the average Jovan, it is an unforgiveable omission on the part of our political elites. As a result, their view of America is quite superficial. Patriotic movements often tend to look upon the US as a malevolent monlith, concieved as such and having reached it's natural stadium of growth, a grinding force driven by one goal only, conquest and assimilation, and is beyond reasoning or redemption(*). Civilizational values America created and upheld throughout historyt which were until recently considered undisputable were subject to relativism and even denied right up to the point where it became acceptable honouring some of the most retrograde and totalitarian movements and ideologies in the world(Hamas, Hezbollah) just because they are in a state of confrontation with America for one reason or another. This is the closest it gets to the "antiamericanism" that can be seen in Pakistan and other Moslem countries. Nevertheless, such attitudes drive Serbia away from the civilizational circle it belongs to even though America and it's allies decided to reliquish it.

What about those others, the non-patriotic part? They can de divided into two categories. The first consists of proud followers of the ideology of the American progressivist establishment, people who do not hide that their loyalties lie in the "international community". Everything has been said already about how much they despise the Serb people and it's culture and tradition. The second category are the "useful idiots", those who pay lip-service to Serbian traditions and still see America in the context of "fight against communism" and which complement the former category by giving them the cloak of acceptability. Trapped in their mythical world, they are unable to accept that their "beacon of liberty" is simply in the wrong and forcefully look for faults in their own country and people. Both not only actively work in undermining the interest os Serb people but are also, considering the character of the ideology they serve, an existential threat.

How do we get out of this situation? First of all by seeing America as a whole, it's good and bad sides and recognizing the negative change it has been going through and is still going through. That way, not only will we see that presently we are going through a process they already passed, we will also be able to predict what awaits us in the future. Another good aspect of that course of action is the separation of the traditional America and the present one. Who knows, we might just manage to educate one of the "useful idiots"(whereas domestic transnational progressivists should be curtailed whenever, wherever). The knee-jerk, pavlovian "antiamericanism" which declares anybody who burns an Americam flag for any reason a comrade-in-arms isn't going to bring us any good.

(*)footnote: This is a paraphrase of an actual quote from one of Star Trek series about the Borg. Not that I think that transnational progressivists are dissimillar to them, quite the opposite.

Thursday, July 16, 2009

So the sun does not shine brighter after all

The news of the European comission recommending the abolition of entry visas for Serbian citizens did not create the effect in the public that EU enthusiasts in Serbia desired. The only ones gushing over this are governement officials and their sycophantic media. It is by no means topic of conversation by ordinary people, in fact you would struggle to find a passing reference to it. It seems it has finally dawned on the population that their standards are so low they could barely afford a trip across town, let alone abroad. Until that gets better this is the governement's way of telling them to eat cake if they lack in bread.

But for Serbs in Kosovo and Metohija there is not even this cake. By accepting the visa measure being valid only for those living outside of Kosovo and Metohija the governement has formally made them second-class citizens. And that's not the worst part. In order to have the decision formally accepted by the Council of Ministers Serbia would have to "control the borderline between Serbia and Kosovo in cooperation with EULEX and Kosovo police", which makes governement proclamation of "never recognizing Kosovo" ring hollow.

Still, the general indifference of the Serbian public to this event gives hope that something is changing for the better. All that is needed now is that the "fine print" concerning Kosovo and Metohija and the fact that the final decision on visas will only be made in November or December gets widely publicized and we may see the end of the scourge that rules Serbia now. The question is whether there are people capable of doing it.

Monday, July 13, 2009

Sign of the coming times?

The visit od the President of the Palestinian Authority Mahmoud Abbas to Serbia passed somewhat unnoticed by analysts in Serbia and elsewhere. This visit is unusual for a couple of reasons.

Firstly, it came somewhat out of the blue. In the previous years Serbian governements payed very little attention to the Middle East, the highest contact with interested parties over there having been on the ministerial level and no more. Now, Abbas comes to visit for no less then two full days, longer then US Vice-president Biden, for example. The governement went as far as proposing him the sponsorship of Palestinian students for them to study in Serbia's state-funded universities(while at the same time Serbian students are getting slapped with outrageously high tuition fees).

The second reason has a lot to do with the character of Boris Tadić and his regime. They do nothing on their own and even less according to their personal convictions(in the unlikely event that they have any to begin with). As much as such people are contemptible, there is a certain usefullness in them because you can deduce by their behaviour which way the wind is blowing. This cozying with Abbas was done under orders. From whom? Well, I don't think you need many guesses to figure out.

I'm not saying it is certain to happen, but do not be suprised if you see major events coming the way of Israel real soon.

Wednesday, June 17, 2009

Not that it matters who really won

The uproar over the Iranian elections is, in effect, a storm in a teacup. Why? Because the real power is concentrated within the clique of Shi'a ayatollahs headed by the Grand Ayatollah Rafsanjani. It is they who ultimately decide which candidates are eligible in the first place. Make no mistake, if a candidate posed as much as a whim of a threat to them he'd have been cast out. So, whether Ahemdinejad or Mousavi have actually won, very little is going to change, and whatever change becomes it will be in form not in substance. Kind of like the elections in the two-party systems in western countries of today...

There is but one cause for concern, as Gray Falcon explains it:

You see, it looks very much like a "color revolution" scenario: the US-favored candidate contests election results, claims victory, and his supporters riot till the government caves in. But then, couldn't the incumbent actually steal the election knowing full well that he can paint the resulting opposition protests as a CIA/NED coup attempt, whether that is actually true or not?
The fact remains, however, that the technique of "democratic coup" pioneered by the Empire in Serbia - and applied elsewhere since - has made it effectively impossible to judge whether any election, anywhere, is actually legitimate.

In any case, the reports of the death of the Islamic Republic are greatly exaggerated.

Wednesday, June 10, 2009

Call their bluff

French mind games concerning the upcoming FIFA World Cup qualifier against Serbia in Belgrade in September have already started. Allegedly spurred by the jeering of the Austrian anthem by the Serbian crowd last Saturday, they threaten to abandon the pitch if the same thing happens to the Marselliaise. The heads of the Serbian FA, emulating similar behaviour of the governement, rushed to "educate" the fans in sporting culture(which our fans do lack, but not in the sense it is suggested).

Well, I say, let them go! FIFA rules explicitly forbid the abandonment of games without the accord of the officials and even they can allow it only under clear circumstances. Why are we under any obbligation to accomodate the French? If they leave we win by forfeit, but that would not be the real benefit of calling the French bluff. It would put a stop to any further similar attempts to obtain special conditions, ones they would not dream of asking from anybody else. If we kow-tow to French demands, the next thing would be someone asking that we cancel any kind of support from the stands altogether.

As for what the empty shell that is the France of today deserves, that is another story...

Tuesday, June 09, 2009

So, who cares about the EU elections?

Not the citizens of EU countries, that's for sure. The turnout is just over 30% meaning that the only ones who voted were party activists and their family members.(A similar percentage voted in the extraordinary local elections in two municipalities in Belgrade last weekend, but I digress...)

The reasons for this are several. First, the people are generally speaking sick of political parties, especially the major ones. On the other hand, they still do not have faith in the new upcoming ones, for various reasons that include fear of the unknown as well as a knee-jerk reaction to the demonization some of them. Secondly, it is by now clear that the European parliament has no real authority and that the power resides in the unelected European comission and the national governements and parliaments. While the latter are formally elected bodies, the election rules in most EU contries are set in such a mode that the two-party political monopoly is all but impossible to break and the feeling from national elections that nothing really changes transfers on to the European ones.

Still, these elections did give a chance for some form of a protest vote. UK for Independence Party came in second in it's country and the British National Party will have representatives in the European parlaiment for the first time. Elsewhere, in Holland, Geert Wilders' Freedom party also made big gains. These results will give some better media exposure to the newcomers and if they are smart enough to use it appropriately it could result in something much bigger then these measly elections.

But as ancient Spartans once remarked to Phillip of Macedonia:"If..."

Tuesday, May 26, 2009

Feel safe in this world of ours?

The world(it's sane part, at least) was shocked when the full story of the kidnapping, captivity and death of Ilan Halimi, a French Jew, came to light. This young man was abducted by an Islamic gang called The Barbarians, an apt name if there ever was one, and then tortured, humiliated and abused solely for the pleasure of his captors.

If you thought it could not get any worse then this, think again. Now we learn that the family of the victim was and still is under orders to be quiet about the whole aspects of the crime. The trial is held behind closed doors because some of the perpetrators were minors. And to top it all the magazine which published a photo that depicts the full horror of the ordeal Halimi has been through has been ordered off the shelf. I bet this reinforces faith in modern law enforcement and judicial system, doesn't it?

But when you think about it, it is logical that the authorities act in this way. There is more at stake then just the Ilan Halimi case itself. Should the public get to know all the aspects and the full context of this crime it just might start asking a question or two. Such as, how could such violent people live among them? What kind of culture breeds such cruel murderers? Why was it left to fester and why was there no meaningful attempt to curtail it? And where is the present course of the society, which evidently tolerates such phenomenons until it's too late, leading us?

The answers the these questions are obvious and very dangerous to the transnational-progressive establishment. And so they must prevent them from being asked and if the cost is inconveniance and injustice to the victims and their families, so be it. And you could very well be the next Ilan Halimi.

Tuesday, May 19, 2009

If they won't, we must

Of all the Serb-haters in the US establishment, the current vice-president of the US Joseph Biden was the worst. The filth he uttered is to horrid for me to repeat them here but if you have the stomach, try here. So how can he now come to Serbia for an official visit?

The governement will obviously give the excuse that Biden was duly elected but rest assured that they don't care about Biden's words or misdeeds towards our people. They are even acquiescing to his demand that he does not meet the foreign minister Vuk Jeremić who at least wants to make it appear that he actually wants to protect Serbia's interest.

So it was left up to Serbia's patriotic organizations and common people to voice the real mood of the country. Several of them announced demonstrations for today, because all gatherings for tomorrow, the day Biden's visit is scheduled, are forbidden. Which, incidentally, proves the point I made about the governement attitude far exceeding common diplomatic courtesy.

Wednesday, May 13, 2009

This is the world they are trying to create

It's been a while since the now infamous Miss California incident happened. At the time I thought it was much ado about nothing but now not only did the thing take a life of it's own, it has also become the showcase of the kind of a society the "progressives" have envisioned for humanity.

Since Carrie Prejean gave the oh-so-outrageous and politically incorrect answer that marriage should be between a man and a woman she was subject of a chorus(or rather a cacophony) of threats, libels, snide name-calling and other wonderfully tolerant actions from the usual self-proclaimed beacons of diversity. The latest attempt at a public media lynching was the lame release of some photographs where she appears partially topless in hope she would be stripped of her title. Fortunately, the goal was so blatantly obvious it achieved the opposite effect as the pageant organizer Donald Trump stood by Prejean and even chided the progressive mob with the best line possible:"The president of the United States gave the same answer!"

Don't expect however that the "enlightened ones" will ever try to character-assasinate someone their own size or, Heaven forbid, someone truly powerful.

Make no mistake about it: all their proclamations of diversity and tolerance are lies, plain and simple! In the mind of the progressive there is no room for different opinions and lifestyles. It's high time they be confronted with that and exposed as a totalitarian cult that they are.

Friday, May 08, 2009

Panem et circenses

I am the first one in favour of getting to the bottom of a historical mystery, so in principle, I am supportive of the Serbian govenrnements latest efforts of finding the grave of Draza Mihajlović, the leader of chetniks, WWII Serbian Royalist guerillas. Mihajlović was executed by the Yugoslav Communist governement having been previously hauled before a show-trial on trumped-up charges(sound familiar?).

There is a time and a place for everything though. In a moment when people are on hunger strikes, or plain striking, when the unemployment is sky-high, when people are mutilating themselves in order to enforce their basic rights, should this be the public's primary concern? Seems to me that the authorities kept this in the dark for a while for it to serve as a means of diverting the public's attention from the burning issues. I could be wrong, it could be that they have truly decided to unveil the mystery once and for all but the timing is simply too conveniant and I have long since stopped believing in coincidences.

Tuesday, May 05, 2009

So, now she sees it?

Caroline Glick's latest column is dedicated to the overall context of the seemingly inevitable takeover of Lebanon by Hezbollah via free elections. In it she shows how elections in just about every Muslim country brought islamist parties to power, or at the very least, gave them significant gains. The part that caught my eye was when Glick describes the behaviuor of US authorities in reactions to these events:

...successive administrations in Washington have been unable to provide an accurate explanation of what drives the populations of these countries, and increasingly of the Islamic world in general to support Islamist parties and movements.

In the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, the Bush administration came to the conclusion that it isn't that these parties and movements are popular. It is just that people are intimidated into supporting them. Were the people given the freedom to choose, they would choose to be led by liberal political forces interested in living at peace with the West. For former president George W. Bush and his advisers, the root of Islamic extremism was authoritarianism and the solution was Westernization through open elections.

When time after time the citizens of these countries or societies voluntarily elected jihadists, the Bush administration was confounded. Rather than seek an alternative explanation to understand what was happening, the administration alternatively denied reality - as in the case of Turkey where it pretended that the AKP was a moderate, pro-Western Islamist party in the face of incontrovertible evidence to the contrary. Or they claimed that the people were simply voting against corruption and showered them with money - as has been the case with the Hamas-supporting Palestinians. Or, as in the case of Egypt and Iran, they have simply ignored the fact that elections took place.

All that is true and reasonably outlined by Glick. But what took her so long to realize it? As I recall she was quite enthusiastic about Bush's ideas of bringing democratic elections to the Muslim world. I could be mistaken about it, but this is certailnly the first time I read such criticism against the Bush administration. Why did she wait until he left the White House to point out these serious shortcomings to Bush's plans? Wouldn't it have been better if she had said back then what she is saying now? There was certainly some chance, however slim, of those words having effect. Now, it's all water under the bridge. And the consequences of Bush's ill-concieved theories could be disastrous for many more in years to come.

Wednesday, April 29, 2009

It's not just land they are trying to steal

Desperate to obtain anything resembling a legitimacy for the so-called "Republic of Kosovo" Albanian separatists and their EU and NATO sponsors have imbarked on a new plundering expedition. This time their prey are the Serbian Orthodox churches and Monastaries as well as history in general.

Well, March 2004 has shown just how much they care about their supposed cultural heritage. That is argument enough to put the entire issue to rest and shut it's initiators up for good. Or rather, it would ne in a sane world...The current governement of Serbia expresses only timid, general reaction and one can rest assured that they will not dare mention Albanian vandalism of 2004.

We need not worry that our people in Kosovo and Metohija will throw these so-called history books in the bin. But word of such actions sponsored by EU officials must reach the general public in order to reveal the true nature of this creation, one that is bent on robbing people not only of their land but of their culture and history. This should be the first and basic step towards thwarting EU propaganda in Serbia and turning the tide of public opinion against it.

Friday, April 24, 2009

What else was left for them?

Gray Falcon has an interesting piece about the mixed marriages in pre-war Bosnia. We were long lead to believe that there was no way there was going to be a war in Bosnia because the three peoples had supposedly lived in harmony as was testified by an alleged large number of people of different ethnic backgrounds marrying(a myth later readily scooped by western globalists in their portrayal of Bosnia as a mulitculutural paradise). As we later learned, the number of those marriages was a bit overblown and they were heavily concentrated in the urban areas of Sarajevo and Banja Luka. In the rural areas and small towns mixed marriages were few and far between and such pratice was generally speaking unheard of in all of Bosnia and Hercegovina before 1945. Not to mention the fact that being in a mixed marriage is no guarantee that a person won't become a national extremist...

The point of this entry is the last paragraph of Gray Falcon's text:

After the war, there were several immigration programs (notably in the U.S. and Canada) favoring mixed-marriage families. Not surprisingly, most people seized the opportunity. There is still some intermarriage in Bosnia. By and large, however, for those who found a mate in a different community it was much more bearable to become Americans, Canadians, or Australians than to be strangers in their own land.

First there is one question that begs asking: if Bosnia and Hercegovina was such a wonderful, harmonious and multicultural place before the war why were mixed-marriage families given priority in immigration? Shouldn't they have been in the forefront of rebuilding the country?

Still, these immigration programs were the right thing albeit for the wrong reasons. Right next to those who were actually killed and their loved ones, mixed marriage families, especially children coming out of those, were the greatest victims of the war. The country they used to live in was unrecognizable after it all ended, most were viewed with suspicion by all three sides. They may have retained their lives but lost their homeland and anything resembling an identity. There was very little option for them but to find another place to live, and start rebuilding from scratch, not only in a material but in spiritual sense as well.

Tuesday, April 14, 2009

And he is still in Belgrade

The USA continues to poke Serbia in the eye, this time from the mouth of their ambassador in Belgrade, Cameron Munter, who insists that it will be his country that will file a brief with the International Court of Justice at the Hague in support of the illegal declaration of independence of Kosovo and Metohija.

But in the end, why shouldn't he, when he has on the oppostite side(at least techincally, if not substantially) a governement spineless enough not to even make his post merely a theoretical concept until his country makes certain remedies? I also hope that those who voted for the current ruling coalition in Serbia would at least spare me their false indignation which are frankly worse then Munter's rantings. Be honest with yourselves for once in your life.

Thursday, April 09, 2009

Resentfull? McCain? Who would have thought?

John McCain spent a large part of his campaign trying to woo Hispanic voters with his policies on immigration that were, to say the least, somewhat different then the platform of his party. He also tried to change that platform, and had limited success in such an enterprise, arguing that thus the GOP will capture more Hispanic votes.

Needless to say, this baldrickesque plan failed, as Obama beat McCain in the Hispanic vote by a margin of 2:1. And McCain did not take it all to well, according to this report:

John McCain sounds angry and frustrated that, despite the risks he took in pushing immigration reform, Hispanic voters flocked to Democrat Barack Obama in last year's presidential contest. McCain's raw emotions burst forth recently as he heatedly told Hispanic business leaders that they should now look to Obama, not him, to take the lead on immigration.
"He was angry," one source said. "He was over the top. In some cases, he rolled his eyes a lot. There were portions of the meeting where he was just staring at the ceiling, and he wasn't even listening to us. We came out of the meeting really upset."

McCain's message was obvious, the source continued: After bucking his party on immigration, he had no sympathy for Hispanics who are dissatisfied with President Obama's pace on the issue. "He threw out [the words] 'You people--you people made your choice. You made your choice during the election,' " the source said. "It was almost as if [he was saying] 'You're cut off!' We felt very uncomfortable when we walked away from the meeting because of that."

Well, that's typical John McCain for you, angry, bitter and resentful when things do not go his way. Now that McCain's master plan did not bring the expected results, he feels betrayed and lashes out at those whom he sees as ungrateful. All I can say about the matter is that it couldn't have happened to a nicer guy! For years McCain has been stabbing GOP in the back, consorted with their political oponents, thrashed his party's ideology and for all his troubles he didn't even get a lousy T-shirt!

On a genral note, the issue with McCain's temper is hardly news. Yet, similar to people ignoring worrying signs about Obama, stories of McCain being mentally unfit for the job he sought to undertake were never seriously considered by the voters and the pundits alike. It's amazing just how deficient the two candidates were, as if it was the "may the worse man win" sort of competition. Somebody said last autumn that the 2008 campaign was the one for the worst US president in history. Indeed.

Tuesday, April 07, 2009

We knew that already, but it's good that he admitted

For years holocaust deniers claimed they were simply "dedicated to the truth", that they are solely motivated by "intellectual honesty" and that they bear no ill feelings towards the Jews as such. Well, those of us who knew better have just been vindicated by one of their most prominent spokesmen, Mark Weber. In his latest article he all but admits that the entire holocaust denial enterprise was a ruse in order to achieve a concrete political goal, namely to weaken the alleged "Jewish-Zionist power". Not only that, Weber, albeit using euphemisms, finally comes out with the admission that the holocaust did, in fact, happen. First, he quotes a couple of entries from the Goebbels diaries and then continues:

No informed person disputes that Europe's Jews did, in fact, suffer a great catastrophe during the Second World War. Millions were forced from their homes and deported to brutal internment in crowded ghettos and camps. Jewish communities across Central and Eastern Europe, large and small, were wiped out. Millions lost their lives. When the war ended in 1945, most of the Jews of Germany, Poland, the Netherlands and others countries were gone.

Given all this, it should not be surprising that even well-founded revisionist arguments are often dismissed as heartless quibbling.

Errrm, no Mark...They were dismissed because they consisted of speculation, sophistry and outright falsehoods.

So, now that Weber has seen the light he will withdraw from public light and seek to atone for his misdeeds? Don't bet on it!

Jewish-Zionist power is a palpable reality with harmful consequences for America, the Middle East, and the entire global community. In my view, and as I have repeatedly emphasized, the task of exposing and countering this power is a crucially important one.7 In that effort, Holocaust revisionism cannot play a central role.
Setting straight the historical record about the wartime fate of Europe’s Jews is a worthy endeavor. But there should be no illusions about its social-political relevance. In the real world struggle against Jewish-Zionist power, Holocaust revisionism has proved to be as much a hindrance as a help.

There it is, straight out of the horse's mouth: the real motive behind the actions of Weber and his ilk is indeed their animosity towards the Jews and a wish to do them harm. And if the means is falsifying history while presenting oneself as a supposed "truth-seeker" then so be it. When it comes to Jews all bets are off, Weber's MO is typical that of a pathological antisemite(which we now have the confirmation that he is).

All these years Weber, Irving et al claimed that the holocaust is a hoax. But they were projecting. The only hoax was their so-called movement.

Monday, March 30, 2009

Quod licet Iovi...

Brazilian president Lula has found the scapegoat for the current economic crisis. It's the bankers who are "white and blue-eyed".

Can you imagine what would happen if a head of an European state saying that the problem of terrorism is caused by "dark-skinned, dark-eyed nomads"? We would never hear the end of the calls for his ousting, every Tom, Dick and Harry would join the mob in order to hound out the nazi and the racist. Yet, the remark barely caught the attention of the media and the boneless wonder that is the current PM of the UK, in whose presence the words were uttered, just let it pass him. Apparently, there is racism and there is racism, one is politically correct the other isn't.

But one shouldn't be astonished. This fits perfectly in the liberal, progressive orthodoxy. Anything is permitted to the group identified as a "minority" or "oppressed" and standards to which the "oppressors" are rigoruosly upheld to cease to apply on the "oppressed group". It is a view so entrenched in the consciousness that few people question it privately and even fewer say it out loudly. That line of thinking is one of many that is in the roots of the malaise affecting modern European civilization and it's offshoots on other continents. As long as it exists, salvation and rebirth is but a distant dream.

Thursday, March 26, 2009

Guess who's making a profit of the economic crisis!

You propably did not need more then one go at it, but just in case anyone still wonders it's George Soros, of course. And he is hardly feeling guilty about it, on the contrary:

And while the financial crisis continued to deepen across the globe, the 78-year-old still managed to make $1.1 billion last year.

'It is, in a way, the culminating point of my life’s work,' he told national newspaper The Australian.

Culmination for him is the low point of millions. It was like that in Eastern Europe and Southeast Asia in the 1990s, and in the new millenium he decided to go global in his profiting on misfortunes of common people.

The article also dubs him as the man who predicted the present economic meltdown. One has to wonder, given Soros' MO, whether it was not a self-fullfilling prophecy...

The question that bears asking is where he will spend his newly-earned money? Countries that pretend to have independent economic and any other policies, BE AWARE!

Tuesday, March 24, 2009

10 years

That much has passed since the NATO war of agression against the Serbian people in 1999. The agression is still going on, this time against our memories and our souls, perpetrated not only by foreign enemies but those from within as well. This blog was, among other reasons, established as a means of fighting and defeating the agressors. We must never forget this crime against us! And always, always call it by it's proper name, a crime...

Friday, March 20, 2009

The more he talks of change...

I stumbled across an interesting article on Obama published at American Thinker. The main theme is that for all talks of change the Obama administration changes very little, but it is told from an original angle. The analyis of the political moves made by Obama so far shows that the "new policies" are actually carbon-copies of those enacted years even decades ago. The piece ends with an intrigueing historical comparison:

People worry that Barack Obama is an American Lenin. No: Barack Obama is an American Konstantin Chernenko, a very dull man with very tired programs. The invented giddiness which Obama gets from the mainstream media is already getting tedious to the public. Pravda reports of addresses by General Secretary Chernenko invariably informed readers of the "prolonged, stormy applause" which followed. That is the banality of Obama.

Chernenko was, indeed, so dull, rigid and vapid that he with his appearance single-handeldy stripped down the cloak over the Soviet system and exposed it's complete lack of fresh ideas, solutions and policies adequate for the day and age for all the world to see. It was then that the system began to crumble in the eyes of Soviet citizens and eventually collapse completely. Is Obama going to do the same to liberalism-progressivism? There is no way of knowing that for certain, especially since he's been in office for only two months and may yet come up with something, but at this rate there is every reason to believe that he will be the Konstantin Chernenko of American liberalism, especially since he is considered liberalism's apotheosis whereas Chernenko was just an aparatchik. With that in mind, using the same historical parallels, it seems that US liberalism will not get a chance to have it's Gorbachev.

Wednesday, March 18, 2009

The key for revival

I've stumbled onto an interesting comment by Takuan Seiyo on Brussels Journal where he says:

In my view, however, it’s not Freedom of Speech that’s the most important one but the Freedom of Inequality. There are people whose speech ought not to be heard. Not just because of an intellectual judgment as to its substance, but a moral judgment as to its form.

And indeed this is the crux of the problem of the modern world: moral relativsm. Civilisation as we know it began it's collapse when the attitude that all opinions and ideas are equally worthy of hearing became prevalent. At that moment all core values were whisked away and in their place naturally came it's abhorrent antithesises having been on the margins for so long and waiting for the moment to take revenge. As a result we now live in a bizzaro-world in many aspects at best, or in an Orwellian world at worst and any debate is being either drowned in a see of trivialities and irrelevancies or simply supressed. There can be no revival of European civilisation and it's offshoots on other continents until this trend is reversed. This does not mean that people are not entitled to their opinions, it means that that they don't have a divine right to their opinions being taken seriously.

And it seems Mr.Seiyo and myself are in good company because Jacob Burckhardt warned what would happen if moral relativism took over a society(courtesy of Dr.Andrew Bostom):

...while Burckhardt affirmed the irreducible nature of freedom, and upheld equality before the law, he decried the notion—a pervasive, rigidly enforced dogma at present—that all ways of life, opinions, and beliefs were of equal value. Burckhardt argued that this conceptual reductio ad absurdum would destroy Western culture, heralding a return to barbarism.

And it is a logical conclusion to make. If absolute equality is to be achieved and maintained in a collective body, all individual members must be stripped down to the lowest common denominator, thus exibiting only it's characteristics and curtailing any tendency of one rising above the mass and, God forbid, taking it in his direction while leaving behind those unable to keep pace. It would be judgemental, you see...And we can not allow that in our happy post-modern world.

Monday, March 16, 2009

Now THIS is tough defending!

You think Norman Hunter and "Chopper" Harris were hardmen?

Those two had nothing on these guys!

Monday, March 09, 2009

They shouldn't have, end of story!

Serbian public was rocked to the core after finding out that Serbia's two best female tennis players Ana Ivanović and Jeena Janković met and photographed themselves with former American president Bill Clinton, the same man that planned and executed US and NATO war of agression against Serbia. While a vast majority condemns such a move, there are also those that defend them under the mantra that "sports and politics should not mix".

Those who say that are, plainly and simply, even dumber then those two. It was they who started mixing sports and politics by agreeing to meet him. Knowing what this man symbolizes for the Serbs and what he had done to the Serb people, they had to refuse to meet him. Thousands of Serbs were murdered and hundreds of thousands were forcibly driven away from their homes on Clinton's orders. All of them have families which are rightfully mortified over this. There were dozens of excuses they could make up, if they did not want to be honest. And even if they were, what aould have happened? The media would have scorned them? Sponsors would cancel their contracts? Possibly, but even under the worst case scenario they would have been better off then those left without families and homes as a direct result of clinton policies.

Before this Ana and Jelena had every Serb behind them, now a large part would despise them, and rightfully so. A high price to pay for a photo-op, but it's their own fault. Their gesture is injustifiable and undefensible. I only hope they won't try to buy forgiveness with any "humanitarian work".

Friday, March 06, 2009


Even Obama's media cheerleaders could no longer hide the issue of him having a teleprompter virtually everywhere, though, predictably, they scorn and dismiss out of hand any suggestions that this is an indication that all is not completely rosy with their idol.

To us who have retained the ability to think for themselves the teleprompter is the ultimate proof that the Obama fenomenon is as fake as his oratory and strips it right down to it's bare essential as a vapid personality cult. The question is, when do others start noticing the same? I suppose when the socialist handout...erm, stimulus package bankrupts what is left of American economy...

Thursday, February 26, 2009

It's always someone else's fault

"Spiegel" has on it's enlish site a report on the "islamic revival" in Sarajevo in which they allegedly express concern about such development. If we leave out the fact that the magazine is some 20 years behind the facts on the field, the article does have it's interesting parts. One of it is that for the first time a mainstream paper jettisoned the cliche' about "200.000 murdered Muslim civilians" during the war and gave the correct assesment of 100.000 people killed without giving the nationality thereby implicitly admitting the number refers to all three sides of the conflict(with the obligatory additon of "80% civilian casualties being muslims"). In the paragraph that talks about it there are also a couple of sentences that describe fairly accuratly the mentality of Bosnian Muslims:

Many Bosnians have despised "the West" since 1992, when the United Nations arms embargo seriously impeded the military resistance of the Muslims in their war against the Serb aggressors. It wasn't until four years later, and after 100,000 people had died, that the international community -- at the urging and under the leadership of the US -- finally put an end to the slaughter. Over 80 percent of the dead civilians in the Bosnian War were Muslims.

This traumatic experience left a deep mark on the traditionally cosmopolitan Muslim Bosnians -- and opened the door to the Islamists.

You see, the bad behaviour of Bosnian muslims is always somebody else's fault. They are God's gift to humanity and even when they do bad things it is always a reaction to what they see as evil inflicted upon them or because they are not given what they see is rightfully theirs or because they do not recieve the debt they believe somebody owes them.

I would like to know where was their "traditional cosmopolitanism" when they overwhelmingly vote in 1990 for a party headed by a man who publicly supported the institution of sharia law and which made historical revisionism in the form of representing the Ottoman empire as a paragon of tolerance and enlightenment it's platform and which in it's pre-war rallies waved waved the traditional islamic symbol of crescent(something that blows the thesis of "islamic revival" being a recent phenomenon right out of the water). And don't get me started about the Hanjar SS division or the period of the Ottoman Bosnian vilayet. At the end of ends, didn't the leader of the party publicly state that he would "sacrifice peace for the sake of Bosnian unity". Is that too the fault of the west? And what does the west(or anybody else outside of Bosnia and Hercegovina for that matter) owe the Bosnian muslims and what kind of obligations does it have for them to despise it so much? Bosnian muslims elected people whose symbolic and rhetoric antagonized Orthodoy Serbs and Roman-catholic Croats. That combined with the inability of Bosnian muslim leadreship to recognize the legitimate interests of others brought the inevitable war with all of it's consequences. Why should anybody outside of Bosnia and Hercegovina feel that they are in anyway indebted to it or it's population?

Unfortunately, the story of the "debt" the west allegedly has towards Bosnia fell on fertile ground in the globalist, post-modern establishment. Unfortunate for Serbs foremost, and soon, it seems, for western countries as well. But no matter how hard they try to prove their "enlightenment" and "objectivity" it will always be their fault why "cosmopolitan" Bosnian muslims accepted "islamism".

Wednesday, February 25, 2009

Down with "hate speech"!

The laws criminalizing so-called "hate speech" are propably the pinnacle of the post-modernist ideologies' achievement. By curtailing freedom of expression with the broadest possible definition of the concept of "hate speech", usually that being any sort of oposition or criticism of the pillars of their ideology, truth-telling about it or adherence to traditional values, along with the infiltration they have acheived in the media, post-modernists have set the genral tone of the political debate as well as political dynamic. Such situation renders any kind of public offensive against post-modern transnational ideologies all but impossible. Patriotic forces are either unprepared for an uphill battle or to timid to take one up, because anyone that dares challenge the prevailing orthodoxies is subjected to a barrage of media criticism not at all unlike a medieval witch-hunt. Against those people no means is off-limits, even violence and death threats and not only against them personally but against their families and friends as well.

Repealing these laws in every place they exist and putting an end to the "hate speech" industry should be the first and foremost task of any reawakening movement in Europe. It is a necessary pre-condition for any step further taken against post-modernists. These laws are in place only in order to keep those who would speak out against the unbearable social situation in line.

The powers-that-be will naturally oppose this, but on what grounds? What are they going to say? That people do not need free speech? That they are so evil that the elite needs such laws to keep them down? Their arguments in favour of "hate speech" laws are on thin ice at best, preposterous and offensive at worst.

A battle against "hate speech" laws must begin. Even if we do not manage to take them down at the first attempt, the very thing that they will become an issue could well turn the tide and usher a whole new era on the political scene.

Thursday, February 19, 2009

That's the way!

The new US Attorney General Eric holder has caused quite a stir with his latest remarks on inter-racial relations in America. Not only did he call his country "a nation of cowards" but also stepped into the realm of people's private lives by stating that "he workplace is largely integrated but Americans still self-segregate on the weekends and in their private lives."

You know this is wonderful, in it's own perverse way. This, ladies and gentlemen is globalist liberalism stripped right down to it's subtext. Finally we see it for what it really is. Behind all it's professions of freedom and tolerance it is in essence the first ideology outside the novels of George Orwell that seeks to implement thoughtcrime. No, not only are you not allowed to express negative feelings in public, you can not even choose your friends associates freely, you have to get the seal of approval of "anti-racist" NGOs and governement agencies for integration. All that so you could "face your past sins".

The fact that it took this for some people to see what's going on is proof that sometimes it is needed to borrow a page from the bolsheviks' books and behave according to Lenin's moto "the worse, the better". It seems the only way of giving sufficient proof to some people and springing them into action. Now that Holder has begun giving it to us, we want more! Hell, yes! Give us more bright ideas such as "two-minute hate" rituals, so we can finally have a backlash of freedom loving people that we have been waiting for so long, a backlash that will not only stop the progress of but also curtail globalist liberalism for good.

And don't for a moment believe this is "only in America"! It's coming to a country near you, in fact, it's already there in most of them.

Tuesday, February 17, 2009

Thursday, February 12, 2009

Who threatens what harmony?

Geert Wilders has been banned from entering the UK. The reason stated is that Wilders' "presence in the UK would pose a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat to one of the fundamental interests of society" and that his "statements about Muslims and their beliefs, as expressed in
(film) Fitna and elsewhere, would threaten community harmony and therefore public security in the UK."

What interests would Wilders threaten? And in what way? Is he truly more threatening then somebody with links to Hezbollah, whom the UK considers a terrorist organization? Is Wilders truly a bigger danger to the British realm then one of it's peers that openly threatened with mob violence should the House of Lords screen Wilders' movie and discuss it? Apparenlty the latter are OK, it's Wilders who is the problem, the clear and present danger.

What was that song? "There'll always be an England"? I very much doubt it...