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...

Monday, February 09, 2009

And what are the Kaylans of this world offering?

For decades Soviet analysts were more desiring then predicting the demise of the USA and adjusted the relevant data accordingly in order to give the aura of inevitability to their forecasts. Talk about blowback...

The looming economic crisis, along with the decades long destruction of the moral and social fabric of the USA , gave those and a bit more recent similar analysis a bit more credibility. Igor Panarin's prediction of the US demise is the latest. Most commentators either dismiss it out of hand or deem it unrealistic but not entirely impossible. Melik Kaylan's column is particularly scornful.

But the subject of this entry won't be Panarin's writings or Kaylan's response as such, but rather a couple of sentences from them which perfectly captures the thinking of transnational globalists, whether from the right or the left of the political spectrum:

Let us say that the U.S. falls apart and Russia becomes the sole superpower and model for other nations worldwide. What sort of a model would that be? What exactly should other countries emulate?


But why does there always have to be a model to follow? Why must 189 countries around the world always seek to emulate something? Why must they be a carbon-copy of a certain system, why couldn't states create the societies that best suite the historical and cultural development of their peoples?

Such a world is unthinkable to people like Kaylan. The world projected by transnational globalists can not exist without a center, without indispensable factors, without a world leader. It is inconcievable to them that different entities live side by side, staying out of each other's back yard, there has to be an "international community" and "collective progress", regardless whether the subjects like it or not. With all the proclaims of freedom and democracy, transnational globalist attack the fiercest and deny the most the basic element of a free society: individualism.

We have no way of knowing what Russia could offer if it was to remain the solitary super-power, but we know what the US ruling elite, to which Kaylan is ideologically very close has offered in the past decade or so. I'm sorry if I bore you with Star Trek parallels but this one has been going on in my head for quite some time. In Star Trek world, one of the most coveted dream of transantional globalists, a global governement, comes to be. The basis of it, however, is radically different then what the one-world palladins of our reality have in mind. In Star Trek, species and individuals fully retain their characteristics. The suppression of individualty, demands of unconditional obediance and emulation of the central authority, which the Kaylans of the world envision as their ideal, and which are the unavoidable condition of today's "integrations", are not the characteristics of the Federation but rather of the Borg collective. And I don't want to be assimilated.

Friday, February 06, 2009

Still have any doubts about the EU?

Even now, as their parliament supported the independence of Kosovo, and called on the member states who have not recognized it to do so?

Jeemić reacted, all right, but this reaction is as hollow as it is indignant-sounding. The part where the Serbian governement is praised for accepting EULEX is quite telling. It communicates, not even so much between the lines, that Serbia has, indirectly, acquiesced to EU policies on Kosovo and Metohija and that others should be aware.

So much for the "great diplomatic success" that was the acceptance of a "status neutral EULEX". Then again, we knew that already, did we not?

Tuesday, February 03, 2009

The folly and paradox of "international justice"

John Laughland explains quite eloquently the fallacies of the concept of the "international community" on the example of so-called international criminal courts, specifically Sudan. His article takes on legal as well as philosophical arguments, even though on this issue the two are very inter-weaved. While reminding us that Sudan has not consented to the authority of the ICC, Laughland says:

The first question is: “Who has the right to rule?” Do international judges in The Hague have the right to say who is a criminal in Sudan? More generally, is it better that international organisations have the right to rule, or should nation-states have this right? The question has to be decided one way or another because although there can be much interpenetration of international and national law, on all sorts of issues, the normal basis for this is consent by the nation-states concerned, who express their consent in the form of treaties. States can consent to very intrusive international regimes, for instance the European Union or the World Trade Organisation, but the ICC represents something qualitatively different – an international regime which exercises power outside the territory of those states which have consented to it.

The second question is, “When is it right to use force?” We normally take it for granted that force is justified to prevent crimes. But to what extent is the criminal law an appropriate conceptual instrument for analysing war? There may, I suppose, be some cases in which it is excusable for a policeman not to act when he sees a crime being committed, but they are marginal exceptions. By contrast, it is very easy to envisage cases in which the cessation of hostilities is preferable to continuing violence in the name of justice. Indeed, peace treaties are often signed between former enemies which precisely contain clauses drawing a line under any future prosecutions.

In the Bosnian civil war (1992-1995) the numerous attempts to broke a peace agreement were attacked by human rights activists in the name of justice. Politicians who accepted their arguments scuppered these agreements saying that aggression should not be rewarded. Eventually, when everyone was exhausted, a peace agreement was signed along the very lines proposed and rejected at the beginning of the conflict. In other words, the war was prolonged needlessly for three years and tens of thousands of people were killed for nothing. “Justice”, in other words, can be a very poor guide in wartime.


And to show where the individual perception of "justice" and the desire of it's radical enforcement can lead, Laughland continues:

This basic structural problem causes international organisations to go slightly mad. We are all familiar with the lunatic policies which emerge from the Berlaymont building in Brussels but ideas which emerge from the glass and steel offices of the ICC in The Hague are no less daft and repellent. An excellent example of this was provided before Christmas by David Scheffer, Bill Clinton’s former Ambassador at Large for War Crimes Issues and a firm advocate of military and judicial interventionism. Scheffer wrote (“Rape as genocide”, International Herald Tribune, 4 December 2008) that the centrepiece of the indictment against President Bashir of Sudan for genocide is the claim that Sudanese forces or their proxies are practising mass rape and that this is wiping out ethnic groups. Scheffer writes,

Babies born following the rapes are called ‘Janjaweed babies’ who rarely have a future in the mother’s ethnic group. Infanticides and abandonment of such babies are common. One victim explained, “They kill our males and dilute our blood with rape.”


Just pause for a moment and let the enormity of this sink in. A leading human rights activist, a former diplomat and now a law professor, a man who presumably thinks of himself as the epitome of liberalism, is aligning himself formally, in public, and on a matter of law, with perhaps the most radically tribal conception of human identity one can imagine. He is saying that miscegenation should be regarded as equivalent to murder. He is arguing that a “people” is defined by bloodlines and racial purity, and that a group whose women give birth to miscegenated children is thereby being eradicated.

Since the signature of the genocide convention in 1948, the charge of genocide has been ridiculously abused, for instance in 1988 when a former Bolivian president was convicted of genocide on the basis of a shoot-out which killed twenty people. The “rape as genocide” charge, however, which the ICC prosecutor has brought and which David Scheffer supports, puts even these in the shade. It draws its inspiration not from the legal principles we associate with the Nuremberg trials of 1945 but instead from those formulated in the so-called Nuremberg race laws of 1935, which also legislated against miscegenation. What an ironic turn of events.


So there you have it! What seems to be a shoe-in for the supporters of "international humanitarian interventionism" at first glance, turns out to be a very strong case for the application of the "prime directive". And all that while scarcely discussing whether the governement of Sudan is really guilty or the number of times that those who are most voiciferous about the Sudan intervention have cried "wolf" already.

The notion of "international justice" is too a complex matter, involving not only legal but moral and philosophical issues as well, to be left to narrow-minded professors who never left their campuses or bureaucrats looking to spice-up their dull and dreary CVs, and least of all to legacy-seeking politicians.