Thursday, December 29, 2011

Not just Christmas

Srdja Trifković gives a depressing account of the wave of violence Christians in the Middle East have been subjected to over Christmas time. And while Trifković does not say it directly, the implications in the article are clear enough in stating that the worst is yet to come.

Trifković also describes what would happen if the shoe was on the other foot:

If the Jewish or Muslim population of America or Western Europe were to start declining at the rate at which Christian communities are disappearing in the Middle East, there would be an outcry from their coreligionists all over the world. There would be government-funded programs to establish the causes and provide remedies. The endangered minority would be awarded instant victim status and would be celebrated as such by the media and the academy. By contrast, when the President of the United States visited Jerusalem in October 1994, he was steps away from the most sacred Christian shrines but did not visit any of them. He did not meet a single representative of the Christian community, which remained invisible to him. A decade later, as busloads of American evangelicals stare at the Western Wall dreaming of a rebuilt temple that will provide an eschatological shortcut through history, the remnant of that community is on the verge of extinction—unseen and unlamented.


Trifković implicitly blames modern liberalism and progressivism of the political elites and their hostility to Christian tradition of theirt lands for the lack of support and protection from the nominally christian states of Europe and America towards their Middle East co-releigionists. He omitts, however, another reason for this indifference: that it was the European and American governements who largely contributed to this orgy of bigotry and they naturally do not want unsettling questions asked about a whole number of things. Such as, why such animosity towards Christianity and Christians? What motivates it? Why did the Western governements support the toppling of regimes who gave at least basic protection to Middle East Christians? And in light of all this, what is the true nature of the so-called "Arab spring" and what will it lead to?

The answers to those might bring consequences that reach much further then a few governement resignations and/or terimnations of someone's career as a political commentator.

Wednesday, December 21, 2011

There's always a new low

The mass outpouring of histerical grief seen these days is almost unprecedented as one after another eulogy is piling up, each seeking to outdo the previous in it's praise for the deceased.

No, this is not the description of North Corea after the death of Kim Jong Il but rather the summary of reactions of the so-called mainstream right-wing commentators and other prominent figures to the death of Cristopher Hitchens. The man hated God, family and country (not necessarily in that order) things the pseudo-conservatives of today profess to so dearly love so what was there not to like about him, indeed?

Caroline Glick is one of the rare dissenting voices in that area. I would just like to add that Hitchens hated Christinity as much, if not more, then Judaism and he kept writing anti-christian diatribes even while the so-called conservatives and rightists, especially in America, were gushing about him.

But, in the end, all this says more about the present state of the "conservative" movement then about Hitchens. It's simply a logical outcome of replacing the moto of "God, family, country" with "Anything or anyone that expediates the current agenda" and when worship of power replaces principle.

The people in North Corea are likely either brainwashed or coerced into their mourning, what's the excuse of the so-called conservatives?

Friday, November 25, 2011

Just for the record

I've been quite busy this month both at work and at home so very little time was left to blog. This entry is posted to infrom you that I'm still around and so that I don't skip an entire month. :-)

I've written a couple of essays on Wagner on my Serbian language blog, I'll translate them and put them on here in due time. And if I see something really important comes up or I see a particularly interesting article by the end of the month I'll post it.

Catch you all later.

Thursday, October 27, 2011

Andrew McCarthy - the sanest and bravest person in America

Sorry, Michele, but Andrew upstaged you, and deservedly so, because he dared in his column at National Review(brought by Ruthfully Yours) go where you didn't.

Honestly, everything that needed to be said, that Michele Bachmann had the chance to say, was said by McCarthy:

1) The final result of the Lybia war is disastrous. It would have been better of if Ghadafi had stayed in power.

2) The war against Lybia was not only illegal but also deeply unethical and immoral. There was not as much as a shadow of a threat to the USA coming from Ghaddafi or anything remotely resembling a justifiable casus belli. Lockerbie, cited often as an excuse by the war-mongers, has been settled by a treaty Ghadafi made with US and Britain in 2004, the latter thereby having forfeit all further claims concerning the incident. Same goes for the Berlin disco bombing and other events involving Ghaddafi's Lybia.

3) The whole business about "responsibility to protect civilians" is hogwash, plain and simple.

4) Those most gung-ho for the war were fawning over Ghaddafi in his tent only a year earlier. McCarthy mentions Lindsey Graham, and I would also like to give John McCain a dishonourable mention.

5) America will reap what she has sown in Lybia soon enough.

Be sure to read the whole article and conserve it. It is rare to see a pull-no-punches criticism mostly devoid of standard cliches of American action abroad in a mainstream publication. And stand by for a torrent of character assasinations on McCarthy from party hacks from both "left" and "right".

Monday, October 24, 2011

Michele Bachmann: the sanest and bravest person in America

Would you believe it? The woman the media often represented as a crazy redneck is so far the only prominent personality that spoke with a voice that differs from the bloodthirsty celebratory choir over Ghaddafi's death consisting of officials, politicians and pundits, the voice of sanity. Not that it took much, just a bit of common sense and human decency but those qualities have long since vacated the brains of the American political and media establishment hacks.

Here's what Bachmann had to say about Lybia(via Lawrence Auster):

WALLACE: Congresswoman, from the very start, you are a strong opponent of any U.S. military involvement in Libya. Here's what you told me in May.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BACHMANN: This is a disaster in the make why President Obama's policy of leading from behind is an outrage and people should be outraged at the foolishness of the president's decision.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: Question--if President Bachmann had been in charge, wouldn't Muammar Qaddafi still be in power?

BACHMANN: Well, he may be. But I stand by that decision. I think it was wrong for the United States to go [into] Libya.


BACHMANN: Look where we're at today. Remember, again, Barack Obama said we were going into Libya for humanitarian purposes. It wasn't humanitarian purposes. It was regime change.
And what's the result? We don't know who the next leaders will be. Sure, there is a transitional council, but who will the real leader should be that takes over and runs Libya? It could be a radical element. It could be the Muslim Brotherhood. It could be elements affiliated with al Qaeda. We don't know yet who that regime will be.

But worse, we've seen the MANPADS go missing, and the shoulder-fired rockets that are very dangerous, that can fit in the trunk of the car. And there are some reports out there that they have perhaps even gone as far as Gaza. And, of course, that could be used to bring down a commercial airliner. This is a very bad decision and it's created more instability in that region, not less.

WALLACE: I'm a little bit confused though. Are you suggesting that we would be better off with Qaddafi's dictatorship still in effect?

BACHMANN: The world certainly is better off without Qaddafi. I agree with Lindsey Graham. The world is better off without Qaddafi.

But consider what the cost will be. We are only looking at a snap shot today. We're not--the last chapter hasn't been written in on Libya.

And, again, we have to recognize that there are missing today chemical weapons, the shoulder-fired missile launchers, this is very serious. This could risk more human life because they're missing, and we also don't know who the next regime will be that will be taking over Libya. We knew who the devil was that was running, we don't know the next one.

And, again, this was leading from behind on the part of the administration.

And, remember, there was no clearly identifiable American vital interest that was ever designated. That needs to be our basis for putting any American in harm's way.


Bachmann unfotunately caved in under pressure from Wallace when he asked whether the world is a safer place without Ghadafi and also blatantly contradicted herself in that passage as well as failed to outright condemn the lynching of Ghaddafi by Lybia's NTC savages but this in no way undercuts the title of this post of mine. As the saying goes, in the land of the blind the one-eyed man is the king. Bachmann deserves kudos for sticking to her guns and refusing to jump on this particularly loathsome bandwagon. Just by doing that and saying the things above she set herself up for a media equivalent of what was done to Ghaddafi, there is no need to fuel the rage of NTC's fellow barbarians in America any further.

Still, Michele Bachmann is a very small silver lining in a dark, sinister cloud. The whole affair over the murder of Ghaddafi is extremely disheartening in several ways, so much so it requires a separate post. I hope I'll make something out of it in the next few days.

PS The title of the post is an out-take on Lawrence Auster again, namely his blog entry of August 27th of that year, titled "John McCain -- the worst man in America". Be sure to read it and try not to weep.

Thursday, October 06, 2011

More on the subject of forgetting and learning nothing

Yesterday I posted a link on the story about a man seeking to renew the Jewish community of Lybia after the fall of Ghaddafi. I admit I only casually glanced on the story and assumed that he had learned his lesson. Was I wrong about that!

You see, the man in question, a certain David Gerbi, even after the slap in the face he recieved has gone straight back to the dreamworld. Not only does he still believe the official slogan of the so-called rebels that harps on about "freedom" and "democracy" he actually wanted to be part of their "governement"! Whatsmore, he is actually amazed that they wouldn't have him!

As one of the commenters on the JihadWatch site, where this story appeared, wrote:"There is no nice way of putting this: the man is an idiot!" While one can excuse his blanket dismissal of warnings sober man have sounded about the "rebels" of Lybia, to persist in the erroneous ways even after paying the full tuition fee to the teacher called Experience is a hallmark of astounding stupidity. At this point, any sympathy one struggled to find for Mr.Gerbi should be foregone and in fact, replaced by a perverse sensation that anything that might happen to him he will have richly deserved.

Sort of tells you how the western establishment types came to be, does it not?

Wednesday, October 05, 2011

They do indeed play it

Someone once said that in international policy Americans play checkers while the Russians play chess. There can hardly be a better confirmation of this adage then the current events surrounding the upheaval in the Arab world.

Eyebrows were raised when Russia abstained from voting on the resolution on Lybia and many were disappointed with the move. In light of yesterday's joint Russo-Chinese veto on the sanctions against Syria the decision makes perfect sense. It was a calculated sacrifice of a pawn in order to protect the rook or the bishop. The Russians knew that NATO will exceed it's authority and turn the so-called mission to protect civilians into a full blown war against Ghaddafi and his supporters. Just like the scorpio from the famous story, they couldn't help it, it is in their nature. Russian ambassador to the UN Vitaliy Churkin said as much during the debate in the Security Council.

This, of course, drew a predictable hissy-fit from the west all with the standard cliches about "freedom, human rights and democracy". Just like the Burbons of France, NATO countries forgot nothing and learned nothing. Just like in Lybia, little is known about the so-called Syrian opposition. Just like in Lybia, some less then complimentary facts emerge from behind the wall of mystery. And just like in Lybia the warnings are ignored or shrugged off. Because, in any event they are not ignoring them at their own (immediate) peril but at that of the country in the region they proclaim to be allies with and to whose security they claim to be dedicated to.

Yes, that is Israel I'm talking about and yes that is the people in it longing for Assad's fall I'm warning here, because unlike their western counterparts, they might actually listen. The caution you displayed in the case of Egypt was admirable, as well as the same about Lybia(even if it was to a smaller extent). Don't throw it away because of personal animosity towards Assad, justified as it may be. You think anything is an improvement over Assad? Many of your people originating from Lybia thought the same about Ghaddafi and daydreamed of renewing the Jewish presence in that country but they were quickly slapped back into reality. Stay awake. You won't always have the Russians and the Chinese indirectly saving you from yourselves and your supposed allies.

Tuesday, September 13, 2011

It’s amazing where one can find trash

No, I’m not talking about the untidyness of my hometown, although that does warrant a blog post of itself. This one will be about hoe everybody seems to have his or her memories of 9/11 and how writing about them is not for everyone, especially not if you have major ideological monkey to get off your back.

Paul Krugman’s name is propably on everyone’s mind as they read the words above, but this is not about him. He is a certifiable nutjob, taken seriously only by his fellow nutjobs and I don’t understand why he’s generated so much undeserved reaction. Instead, I’d like to share a text that is in the same mould and in a way arguably worse.

Surfing around some tennis sites, for reasons you propably imagine, I came across, among other texts, of this diatribe against Republicans, conservatives, Tea-partiers and middle America in general by the site’s regular contributor Steve Tignor that purported to pass for a 9/11 rememberance column. Instead of this 888-word tripe, Tignor should have simply written „Thanks for the sympathy, but I still think you are ignorant, uneducated, inbred, low-life bunch of red-necks unworthy to tread on the same ground with us enlightened New York liberals.“ That would have at least been honest in it's intent and purpose. What amazes most of all is the article’s tone of bemusement as to why middle America is not too fond of people like Tignor! Honestly, after you read this condescending, holier-than-thou liberal pamphlet you can not help wondering what is there to like about them?

And in the typical hypocritical fashion, and just like his fellow liberal boor Krugman, Tignor declared he won’t take comments on this article instead inviting people to e-mail him about it. That’s right, conceal negative reaction and responses, in the perfect Soviet-era Pravda fashion.

A particularly low and sinister article, even by the gutter standards of New York liberal press corps.

Monday, September 12, 2011

10 years on

It's one of those days you remember what you did no matter how much time has passed. It was around 3 PM in Serbia and I was beggining to cap off my day at work(while the workday on the US East Coast was just about to begin) when I saw a hyperlink on one of Serbian news portals that simply said:"Plane hits World Trade Center in New York". I thought it was some cesna-type training or advertising planes that went out of control and did not even click on the link. It was my colleagues who alerted me about half an hour later of the extent of what was going on.

I'll readily admit that I felt no sympathy at all for America. The US/NATO war of agression was still fresh in memory. Still, I knew it was inappropriate of a civilized human being to feel joy or satisfaction, so I did not succumb to that, even though many around me did(yet a great many of those gleefully casted up until recently, at least, their votes for the treasonous pro-NATO parties that form the current governement of Serbia. Go figure!). You know how they say that the real oposite of love is indifference? Well, that is what I felt about 9/11 back then: indifference. Indifference about the act, the perpetrators, the consequences, everything, even the victims...

Later, of course, I learned much more and better. I've seen that there is much more to America then it's ruling ideology and establishment and that this other part is not necessarily ill-disposed towards the Serb people. Due to history, recent and otherwise, I did have a reflexively negative view of islam before 9/11 but it was only after that I learned extensively about it from various sources. All this and much more made me a substantially different person then the one 10 years ago.

Which is why I can not agree with the assesment that nothing has changed. While it is true that the establishment is authistically trying to continue to hold the course, they are having more and more trouble in doing so. It is because us regular people have changed. I certainly am not the only one who has gained new, previously concealed knowledge of the world. Yes, we may look irrelevant now, but in the long run we are the ones that truly matter. Just as Hans Sachs sings in "Meistersingers von Nurnberg", what remains is the holy art, i.e. the spirit of the people(and in case you are wondering, yes, I am a Wagnerian). Or if you dislike the master of Bayreuth, here's a quote from George Orwell:

"If there was hope, it must lie in the proles, because only there, in those swarming disregarded masses, eighty-five percent of the population of Oceania, could the force to destroy the Party ever be generated."


I do not believe, for various reasons, that I should apologize for my sentiments 10 years ago, but I will say this: knowing what I know now, I most certainly would not have felt as I did.

Friday, September 09, 2011

This time maybe nothing will be left

Imperialism is eventually a self-defeating strategy since sooner or later an empire comes across a culture it can not hope to dominate, assimilate or eradicate. Such an event shakes it right down to the core because the one thing an empire can not imagine is that there are groups that it can not explain and/or mould it it's own ideological terms. Thus begins their decline that leads to the inevitable fall.

Daniel Greenfield explains how both former Cold War empires reacted to islam in the past and now.

The Soviet Union and the Pax Americana both attempted to win the allegiance of the Muslim world with money, weapons and technology.


Micheal York in "Cabaret" springs immediately to mind:"You still think you could control them?" Apparently they still do because:

...And they are still at it today internationally and domestically. America, Russia and Europe all keep dividing ‘good’ Muslims who are loyal citizens or allies from ‘bad’ Muslims who set off bombs in schools and buses.


And the joke is, in fact, on the empires:

Russia’s ‘good’ state controlled mosques preach Jihad against the West, just as our ‘good’ Muslims were the ones who killed Russians. But we’re not the ones playing divide and conquer, they are.


But the delusion that they will be able to control islam is by no means the worst part, according to Greenfield, but rather the extent to which both empires are ready to go in order to prove that it is in fact attainable:

Russian leaders, like their European counterparts, act as if the rising Muslim population is nothing to worry about. So long as they remain loyal citizens of Mother Russia, it will make no difference if Moscow ends up with more mosques than churches. But what exactly is Russia, if it is not the land of the Russian people?

...What exactly are Russian Muslims to give their allegiance to besides the broken symbols of the Czarist and Soviet eras that have become kitsch in a vulgar oligarchy? The same question can easily be asked of the United Kingdom or America who have discarded their heritage and culture for political correctness and cheap consumer goods.

Can there be a Russia without Russians, or an England without the English or France without the French? In the same way that there can be a Constantinople without the Greeks. The buildings can remain, but without the people, there is no nation. National cultures are elastic, but not infinitely so. Immigrants can be absorbed or accommodated, but it is a two way street, and when the majority is too different from the people who defined the nation, then Constantinople becomes Istanbul.


Usually, even falling empires left behind them a nucleus, however tiny, of a people that lives on in a different form of a state buth with it's culture mostly intact. Greenfield is not optimistic when it comes to what will remain once contemporary empires crumble:


If the Cold War tested our determination to exhaustion, then the exhaustion has left us too weak to stand up for ourselves anymore. One empire has fallen and the other is falling swiftly into the ocean. And when it’s gone there will be nothing but the ragged edge of civilization, fallen skyscrapers, burning books and mosques on every corner.

We haven’t lost yet, but that’s only because of the weight of resources on our side lends us an inertia that will not last forever. But the real problem isn’t that we’re losing, it’s that we have forgotten how to fight. Worse, we have forgotten what fighting even means.


There are other topics discussed in Greenfield's article, some of which you might agree or disagree with, but he gets the fundamental point spot on. Civilization will not survive this disastrous course because on it it destroys everything of value it has created all allegedly in it's own name and in the name of misguided quasi-altruism.

Oddly enough, as I was typing this I was listening to the finale of Wanger's opera "Meistersinger von Nurnberg" which contains this warning from the main Character Hans Sachs:

Beware! Evil tricks threaten us:
if the German people and kingdom should one day decay,
under a false, foreign rule
soon no prince would understand his people;
and foreign mists with foreign vanities
they would plant in our German land;
what is German and true none would know,
if it did not live in the honour of German Masters.
Therefore I say to you:
honour your German Masters,
then you will conjure up good spirits!
And if you favour their endeavours,
even if the Holy Roman Empire
should dissolve in mist,
for us there would yet remain
holy German Art!


This part had sinister conotations in the past, but still it's appropriate in this moment, maybe more then ever. Here's the clip, if you're interested, Bayreuth prodiction of 1984 with Bernd Weikl as Hans Sachs:

Monday, September 05, 2011

Wilders goes one step further

Whether emboldened by his acqiutal bofore Dutch courts in spite of the deck being stacked against him or by realization that reflexive rhetoric that just speaks "against" something(whether it's multiculturalism or islamisation) can only get you so far, Geert Wilders has decided to go where hardly a politician in Europe dared go in the past two decades, namely to take on the idea of the EU itself. His speech in Berlin on September 3rd is the most riveting condemnation of the Brussels Leviathan told by a significant mainstream politician. Here are some noteable excerpts:

...Last year, I urged you: Stop being ashamed of Germany. It is unfair to reduce German patriotism to national-socialism, just as it is unfair to reduce Russia to Stalinism. Be proud of your country. Only if the Germans have pride in Germany, they will be prepared to stand for Germany and to defend Germany. And you must stand for Germany, just as the Party for Freedom in the Netherlands stands for the Netherlands. We must all stand for the survival of our nation-states because our nation-station states embody the democratic liberties which we enjoy.

Without the nation-state there can be no real national political freedom. That is why we must be good patriots. Patriotism is often branded as fascism. But patriotism is no fascism. On the contrary. Every democrat and defender of freedom must by definition be a patriot. A soul needs a body. The spirit of political liberty cannot flourish outside the body of the nation-state. The nation-state is the political body in which we live. That is why we must preserve and cherish the nation-state. So that we can pass on the liberty and the democracy which we enjoy to our children.
...
Dear friends, we urgently need a new blossoming of the German spirit. For decades, the Germans have been ashamed of themselves. They preferred to be Europeans rather than Germans. And they have paid a heavy price for it. We have all paid a heavy price for it.

Europe is not a nation; it is a cluster of nations. The strength of Europe is its diversity. We are one family but we live in different bodies. Our cultures are branches of a common Judeo-Christian and humanist culture, but we have different national cultural identities. That is how it should be.


It is doubtful that any man has spoken of "Germans taking pride in Germany" in such a context since 1945. These words will either cause a storm or the establishment, in light of the recent Wilders trial fiasco, will go out of it's way to cover the whole thing up.

Further on, Wilders is unambiguous in it's assesment of the EU not as a noble idea gone awry but as an entity rotten to it's core right from the beggining:

When I was here last year, I spoke a length about the threat of Islam. Today, I want to draw your attention to the threat of Europeanization. By Europeanization I mean the ideology which posits that our sovereign nation-states have to submerge in a pan-European superstate.

The European Union’s Founding Fathers held that in order to avoid a future war in Europe, Europe’s nations, and especially Germany, had to be encapsulated in what the Rome Treaty called “an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe.” Robert Schuman said that the EU’s aim was – I quote – “to make war not only unthinkable but materially impossible.” – end of quote.

The Eurocrats think that nation states in general – and especially Germany, Europe’s largest nation-state – are the problem. They are wrong. The real cause of the Second World War had not been the German nation state – it had been Nazi totalitarianism.
There is nothing wrong with Germany. The cause of the war was the Nazi ideology. The remedy against totalitarianism is not building a superstate. The remedy is introducing more direct forms of democracy at the lowest possible levels. Instead of depriving Germany and other nation-states of their sovereignty, the post-war leaders should have introduced a Swiss-like system in our countries. Small units should have a large degree of local sovereignty. The individual citizen should be given a direct democratic say over his own fate and that of his community.

Instead, the peoples of Europe were robbed of their sovereignty, which was transferred to far-away Brussels. Decisions are now being taken behind closed doors by unelected bureaucrats. This is not the kind of government we want!
We want less bureaucracy! We want more democracy!
We want less Europe! We want to hold on to our sovereignty. We want home rule! We want to remain independent and free! We want to be the masters in our own house!


Read it all! And make sure that these truths that are supposed to be self-evident are heard all over.

Friday, August 26, 2011

Not over until it's over



While the so-called rebels managed to deal a great blow to Gaddafi, one should not be too quick to declare Lybia a finished article. As long as Gaddafi is at large the war will go on, since it is by now clear he will fight to the bitter end and that the base of his support is much wider then previously thought.

And save for the usual US governement sycophants and star-eyed, head-firmly-in-the-clouds ignoramuses, there is little jubilation going on about the fall of Gaddafi. It seems, amazingly enoguh, that people outside the governement circles have actually learned something from the past cases of Afganistan, Iran, Egypt...Took them long enough, mind you.

As for the establishment, they are like the old Burbon dynasty of France, they have forgotten nothing and have learned nothing, just as the above cartoon shows.

Friday, August 12, 2011

Will there be an England?

Difficult to answer that. The reasons that lead to the recent riots are much more complex then those that lead to simmilar incidents in France 2005 and other parts of Europe recently. In France the criminal anti-social culture is limited by and large inside the community of unassimilable immigrants. The fact that the French mainstream culture and native population still either have serious delusions about their society or are afraid to say the truth is another matter altoghether. In the UK things are much worse. Ignorance, disrispect for authority, welfare parasitism and criminality have all but become mainstream.

Exaggeration? Not at all. Max Hastings and Melanie Phillips give exact data that proves this. The only question now is have things gone beyond repair? Has England irredeemably sunk into the depths of social breakdown? As I said, it's difficult to answer that. However, I do believe that the point at which it was possible to reverse course by elections has long since passed and that a full-scale revolution is the only hope.

You know things are really, really bad when an England football game gets cancelled and when the Premier League contemplates postponing the start of the season(in the end only Spurs-Everton is called off for now). The last time that happened was in 1939. Need I state the reason?

Talking of which, Ann Coulter is right on the money with this:

If Britain of 1939 were composed of the current British population, the entirety of Europe would today be doing the "Heil Hitler" salute and singing the "Horst Wessel Song."


Is there a surviving British WWII veteran not asking himself now:"Is this what we fought for?"

Wednesday, August 10, 2011

Kosovo and Metohija overview

It is little wonder that the Belgrade regime has betrayed the Serbs in Kosovo and Metohija and left them in the lurch. Ironically, this may be for the better. Anything Boris Tadić has touched turned into dust so far, so the further he is kept away from Kosovo Serbs the more chance they will have of achieving something.

Something has already been achieved. The regime is now utterly exposed in it's treason. No amount of spin can hide the fact that Tadić is no longer even a passive accesory but an active participant in the process of carving up of Serbia. Again ironically, it may be for the worse because now it will cling on power by any means necessary and might make peaceful change impossible.

As for the Serbs in Kosovo and Metohija it is very difficult to advise them what to do. Is is their lives that are on the line after all. As they say, damned if they do, damned if they don't. The best service we could give them is by toppling the Tadić regime. In fact, that should have been done by the proverbial yesterday.

Tuesday, July 26, 2011

The shortest answer is the best

Predictably, as soon as the background of the Norwegian murderer Anders Breivik was released into the general public, the mainstream media, finally having found the elusive white, European, christian terrorist that fits their ideological matrix, went into a fit of frenzy. The usual suspects began their usual orgy of smears, libels and character assasinations in order to silence anyone opposing their view of the world.

How to respond to this onslaught? Certainly not by watering down or giving up your truthful views on the matters of globalist liberalism, progressivism, global jihad and other issues. Nor does one need to ceaselessly keep condemning the act or stipulating how one "does not advocate violence". In my humble opinion the Robert Spencer came up with the best possible answer, something along the lines of:"Now I know how the Beatles felt when they heard Charles Manson had said he has been inspired by their music."

That won't shut them up for long, they will come up with a new sophistry to attack their opposition. But the bombastic effect of the attacks will be defused. Anything they come up with afterwards simply won't stand the "shock value" test, nor even basic logic. Sometimes, less is truly more.

Friday, July 08, 2011

Off again!

Haven't been to the seaside in 4 years. We'll be going tommorow for two weeks, for the first time as a family of three. No blogging until we return. Stay safe.

Friday, July 01, 2011

When will someone in Serbia write something with a similar title?

Caroline Glick's latest article is headlined "Unmasking the international community". Whether you agree with the specific points made in it is a separate matter but the general thesis is abslutely sacrosant: the "international community" is at best an abstraction.

What post-modern liberals and their media hacks have for the past 20 years represented as the "international community" is nothing more then a collection of individual states with it's interests that sometimes converge, sometimes do not. And when enough of them find themselves on one side(or are coerced or bribed to pick one) one gets the illusion one country defying a supposedly reasonable world with it's stubborn irrationality.

It's a shame, though, that this is a fallacious asrgument. The truth is not a matter of numbers or masses behind it. Otherwise, we'll need to re-write history books in order to set the record straight because it is true that Socrates was corrupting the youth of Athens, that Copernicus was a crackpot and 80 million Germans could not have possibly been wrong about Hitler.

Part of the problem of defending Serbia during the 1990-ties was the unwillingness of even those in official capacity to tackle this issue as well as, propably unconsciously, accepting the terminology which included the phrase "international community". I believe it was Orwell who explained the importance of controlling the language and that once you begin speaking like the enemy you implicitly admit that his cause, and not yours, is just. Thus, with seemingly innocent slips of tongue we were undermining our position.

It is time someone in Serbia, even if belatedly, exposes what really stands behind this abstract, ambiguous term "international community" as well as the real meaning of other post-modern terms.

Friday, June 24, 2011

Remember the good old days when dissent was patriotic?

Well, it ain't no more!

It was never a matter of principle but always a question whose dirty little war is it. Or rather, it is not war when they do it.

Just for the record, this is in no way an endorsement of Bush policies, especially not the war in Iraq. And it still remains to be seen how much the new-found peacefullness of the Republicans is principled and how much opportunistic. Still, it's so great to see Obama, Clinton and co. exposed as the frauds that they are and that they did it on their own.

Massive ownage

This urban dictionary term is the only one adequate to describe the tearing down of John McCain by George Will(hat tip, Ilana Mercer). When the quintessential establishment Republican commentator like Will turns anti-war, things are really going bad for the interventionist crowd.

I'd just like to call your attention to the last paragraph:

Regarding Libya, McCain on Sunday said, “I wonder what Ronald Reagan would be saying today.” Wondering is speculation; we know this:

When a terrorist attack that killed 241 Marines and other troops taught Reagan the folly of deploying them at Beirut airport with a vague mission and dangerous rules of engagement, he was strong enough to reverse this intervention in a civil war. Would that he had heeded a freshman congressman from Arizona who opposed the House resolution endorsing the intervention. But, then, the McCain of 1983 was, by the standards of the McCain of 2011, an isolationist.


That must've hurt...

Tuesday, June 14, 2011

So ridiculous it isn't even funny

The absurdity of modern globalist liberalism will never cease to amaze me. What never? Well, hardly ever...Because the latest incident, or rather the details of it, in the UK of which I learned from Lawrence Auster's blog left me, for a moment at least, dumbfounded.

The story seems simple enough: a black activist Shirley Brown from Bristol got in a heated argument with a town's council member of Hindu origin over a project that was supposed to have the city atone for it's role in slave trade some three centuries ago and used an ethnic slur in the process. She was investigated, dragged to court, found guilty of "hate speech" and sentenced. So far, so good, at least the law, no matter how bad and preposterous is applied consistently(or so it would seem).

Then Mrs. Brown begins shooting her mouth off. Get this gem of a quote:

"It was a mistake. Everybody makes mistakes though, and I feel the price I've paid for mine has been too great. I've been publicly humiliated and my reputation has been ruined. I'm devastated that after all my hard work for the community I've got a criminal record for racism."


Leaving aside the fact that Mrs. Brown's peers(not just in Britain) never hesitated to "humiliate" and "ruin the reputations" of others accused of the same "crime", there is a strong touch of irony in the whole thing, one that was not lost on View from the Right's commenters:

So wait, the person who demanded 750,000 pounds of taxpayers' money "to atone for Bristol's historic role in the slave trade" wants forgiveness for past mistakes? How come the white people of Bristol don't get forgiveness for past mistakes, especially for mistakes committed centuries ago, that nobody alive today had anything to do with? How come the white people of Bristol don't get any credit for Britain abolishing the slave trade?


Re-read the last quote and tell me: what's wrong with this picture?

And it does not end there. Commenters also wondered whether the law would have been applied if the offended party was a white man. The answer, sort of, comes from Mrs.Brown, again:

"Of course I shouldn't have used that word, but to me it meant that she was denying her cultural roots, rather than anything racial. It wasn't about the colour of her skin, or about her behaving in a white way."


So, while expressing that she expects forgiveness for using an ethno-racial slur Brown uses a racial stereotype against whites. You couldn't make this up!

One wishes it was made up, though. Because once the initial, natural "couldn't have happened to a more deserving person" sentiment subsides, one is left with a sickening feeling that such absurdities are the norm of the society. Norm that is a seed of it's inevitable destruction.

Monday, June 13, 2011

Anti-interventionist right: new principled policy or hyperpartisan anti-Obamaism?

Pat Buchanan's latest column gives some interesting insights into how the debate about the wars in Afganistan and Lybia(the latter which is slowly sliding into oblivion with the former all but there already) in the US Congress and in the public in general has shaped up and gives us some amazing, not too well known facts.

One could hardly imagine a Dennis Kucinich resolution getting "Yays" in double figures so the news that 148 members of the house voted in favour of it certainly gets attention, to say the least. That the majority of those were Republicans propably left most people speechless. And when they heard that among those Republicans were people such as Allen West and Michele Bachmann they almost certainly went to their windows to check if there is a pig or two flying by. Who says Obama can not produce miracles?

As if that was not enough of a surprise, Buchanan also tells us that finally a prominent relatively mainstream politician decided to openly advocate a full and complete withdrawal from Afganistan. The politician in question? Sarah Palin. It seems that her firing of McCainite foreign policy advisers and replacing them with more realistic people was not just for show. I suppose that jumping early-on and without thinking on the anti-Ghaddafi bandwagon was a bit imprudent, especially while ignoring the precarious financial state of America as well as the fact that even her supporters were far from gung-ho for that war. Oh, and there was the small matter of some unsavoury facts about Lybian "rebels" surfacing in the meantime...Now, in the true fashion of a politician, she tries to tiptoe away from the issue hoping that the public will forget her initial belligerent enthusiasm(and sadly, a great many will). Come on, Sarah, how difficult is it to say:"I made a mistake, we should never have gotten involved"?

In all this some questions loom large: how much of this new-found Republican/right anti-war sentiment is a result of a thought process based on principles and how much is it simply knee-jerk opposition to President Obama? Would we see something similar happening if McCain were elected in 2008? The answer to the latter is most likely "no way". But paradoxically this does not mean that pure partisanship motivates the Republican opponents of war. Quite the opposite, released from the obligation of having to support "their man", many Republican congressman opened their eyes for facts that have been suppressed by the establishment and saw that the picture of the world was far from simple and straightforward. Besides, time has not stood still and many things that have happened over the past decade contradicted the elated mood policymakers in Washington tried to exibit when describing the results of their adventures in Iraq and Afganistan. Ideology was at total odds with reality and no amount of canard-repeating could change that.

While it may be to early to state it for sure, it is likely that the anti-war sentiment grasping the GOP is more of a principled then partisan nature, especially since many of the Republican House members that voted for the Kucinich resolution would not be elected or would not have gained prominence had John McCain won in 2008.

One thing is sure though, just like the issue of excess governement spending, principled opposition to war has gained momentum and entered the mainstream of the US politics. It is important to keep it going and drag as many people in it as it is possible. And converts, such as the above mentioned Sarah Palin, should be welcomed. Yes, I might have sneered somewhat at her apparent change of heart, but it was about the fact that she would not admit the error of her ways, not the conversion itself. In fact, having been a close associate of one of the ultimate proponents of perpetual war and bearing in mind her popularity, she has the potential to utterly crush the pro-war establishment if she would openly refudiate(pun intentional) their position.

As I started this entry with surprises, I'll end it with one. The pioneering anti-war sentiments among Republicans began almost a year ago when an author wrote this:

But now I hear it is the official policy of the Republican Party to be for all wars, irrespective of our national interest.
...
Nonetheless, Bill Kristol and Liz Cheney have demanded that Steele resign as head of the RNC for saying Afghanistan is now Obama's war--and a badly thought-out one at that. (Didn't liberals warn us that neoconservatives want permanent war?)

I thought the irreducible requirements of Republicanism were being for life, small government and a strong national defense, but I guess permanent war is on the platter now, too.


Who was this? Ron Paul? Nope. It was Ann Coulter, believe it or not!

Monday, June 06, 2011

That's the way it works

I haven't blogged at all about the arrest of general Mladić since there is only so much vile hate-propaganda against one's own people that a person can take. Because that was what the mainstream "reporting" about it consisted of, both in Serbia and outside.

Now that things have cooled down somewhat, I can recommend an article by Julia Gorin that doesn't deal directly with the issue itself but does say a lot about the surrounding stuff. It gives out the mindset and the thought-process(so to speak) of the anti-Serb media and establishment as well as the Hague tribunal modus operandi.

Aren't you relieved you are part of such a civilization?

Tuesday, May 24, 2011

I believe this is only fair

Julia Gorin has an interesting article about activists from Serbia who helped the Egyptian "revolution" using the October 2000 coup as a model.

Well, I hope they are proud of their achievement which consists moslty of the rise of the Muslim Bortherhood and it's agenda, persecution of Christians and threats of war and genocide against neighbours.

The only just reward for this feat would be to have future refugees from now all but inevitable Muslim Brotherhood regime in Egypt as well as a likely war in the Middle East settled in the houses and flats of these useless idiots and have all their other property confiscated and handed over as compensation for other losses Egyptian christians, secular Muslims and basically all sane people living there are likely to suffer. It is about time they suffer consequences for bringing calamity on whole countries and it's peoples, with Serbia being their first victim.

Pipe dream? Perhaps. But stranger things have happened indeed.

Friday, May 20, 2011

Obama to Israel: drop dead!

And it well may be literally if Hamas, as of late participant of the Paelstinian "unity givernement", has anything to say about it.

Although Obama is not the first US president to call Israeli presence in the West Bank/Judea and Samaria "occupation" or the first to endorse openly a Palestinian state the direct mentioning of the "1967 borders" is indeed a watershed. It also follows the standard MO of American diplomacy wherever it engages itself as a supposed mediator: initially feign impartiality by paying lip service to it with a couple of washed up frases, gradually insert the general direction in which the supposed "open negotiations" should be going and then drop the bombshell of what they see as a solution and imply that it's the only acceptable outcome while simultaniously shamelessly denying that you are trying to impose a solution. And if one of the sides refuses to cooperate, there will always be a torrent of abusive labels directed at it such as "intrasigent", "uncooperative", "hard-lined", uttered first by the US governement sycophants, it's ideological fellow travelers, useful idiots and, in Israel's case, plain old-fashioned Jew-haters and then, as a crescendo, by US governement spokesmen themselves. We Serbs felt it on our own skin, and still feel it.

And I'm sorry to say this but this situation is in good part of Israel's own making. For quite some time it has been putting all it's diplomatic eggs into the American basket. Israel has been declaring itself America's staunchest ally, professing undying loyalty and extolling America's values and virtues up to the point of almost elevating it to the level of idol-worship. By doing this, it has not only painted itself into a diplomatic corner but has also played right into the propaganda hands of it's enemies who have been falsely portraying it as an American client-state, or even worse, as a center from which the "Jewish conspiracy controls America". Sane voices who warned agianst such behaviour and what consequences it might have were all to often sneered at with the usual canard of "It can not happen to us". Famous last words...

What now? Israel's rejection of Obama's proposal is a foregone conclusion but it is also only the first step. The question is how does Israel cope with the inevitable Obama diplomatic onslaught afterwards? Breaking of with America completely? It would not be prudent unless there is another powerful ally waiting in the wings to take over America's place. EU? They are on board with Obama on this. Russia? Lieberman made some overtures and some of it was reciprocitated but it's not likely that anything meaningful will come out. China? It's got strong interests in Arab countries it would not want to jeopardize. India? Could be, but it's not strong enough.

Which leaves us with the option of Israel hoping that Obama is voted out of office in 2012 and a more sympathetic person replaces him. On the face of it, this seems to be Israel's best bet. Once you scratch the surface, however, a much murkier picture emerges. Leaving aside the quality of GOP candidates, the question remains whether once they get hold of the office they will transform their professed simpathy for the Jews and the Jewish state into concrete action. Will they roll back Obama's policies? It may not be as simple as it looks. A great power is a benemoth that often acts on inertia and is too proud to admit it made a mistake. Thus, it's actions become an end to itself rather then instrument of it's interests and the abstract notion of it's "credibility" becomes more important then any benefit or even damage the erroneous action might cause. There will be powerful forces in Washington who will resist any change in course Obama has set, you can rest assured on that.

And even if the new president does overcome internal opposition to the new course the question is juct how much will the restored US support be effective on the international scene. America has a lot of internal and foreing problems on it's hands as it is and it's power is on the wane it could be that it simply will not have the means to help Israel. Besides, some of the damage Obama can do might be beyond repair.

And another thing: what if Israel does throw it's lot with the GOP and Obama wins nevertheless? All of a sudden the notion that Libya is a blueprint for Israel does not seem so far-fetched after all.

As it stands now, literally all bets are off and there is no unified action which can be pointed as the solution to the situation Israel is in. It must combine elements of all the suggested courses of action above and more as well as be prepared for anything, even what it deemed as unthinkable only 24 hours ago.

Tuesday, May 17, 2011

You just knew that this was coming, didn't you?

The spectacular failure of the western intervention in Lybia has reached it's nadir. Acting as "rebel" air force has produced little result in reversing the fortunes of war so the decision is to step it up:

General Richards, chief of the defense staff in Britain, spoke in an interview at NATO's southern headquarters in Naples, Italy, which has served as a command center for the attacks. "The vise is closing on Qaddafi, but we need to increase the pressure further through more intense military action," he said in the interview, published in The Sunday Telegraph. "We now have to tighten the vise to demonstrate to Qaddafi that the game is up."

He added that the bombing campaign, which has involved more than 2,500 sorties since it began March 19, had been "a significant success." But he added: "We need to do more. If we do not up the ante now there is a risk that the conflict could result in Qaddafi clinging to power."

The general suggested NATO should be freed from restraints that have precluded attacking infrastructure targets; other NATO officials have suggested in recent weeks that these could include elements of the electrical power grid in government-held areas, and fuel dumps.


How does bombing Lybian infrastructure conform with the goal of "protecting civilians"? Does anyone intend to ask these people that? Aren't Lybians who support Ghaddafi also civilians? Or are some civilians more equal then others? I know that nobody will ever ask these questions, but I'm still dying to hear what kind of insult to intelligence and common sense will they give as an answer!

Then again, the whole war in Lybia is an insult to intelligence and common sense...

Tuesday, May 03, 2011

Bin Laden dead, delusions are still alive

Took them long enough, almost 10 years, but America finally got Bin Laden. And it's not as if he was hiding in the remote caves Pakistan, as it was assumed, so while this in itself is a great success for the USA the time it took to achieve it, during which Bin Laden almost became an afterthought, takes some shine off it. In any event, good riddance to bad rubbish.

But while Osama is in for a nasty surprise as he is learning his maker is not what he believed he was, the delusions that have dominated the public discourse when it comes to global jihad are still very much alive. The biggest of which is the one that the US and it's allies are winning "the war", or if they were not winning it up to this point they have turned the tide.

Nope, none of it is true. Things are, in general, going very badly for the west. While even Barack Obama noted that it is far from over, it's the reasons why it is so that escape him and mainstream pundits. Osama Bin Laden did not invent jihad, it did not begin with him and it is not going to end with his death. Western officials not only deny this, they deny that the very nature of the conflict is in fact global jihad against non-muslims. Instead the enemy is still portrayed in abstract terms such as "evil" and "totalitarianism". Under such circumstances, any real, sincere defense of civilization, providing the fact that current US and European leaders actually want tto defend it, is impossible. Fighting a war is much more then just military action, it is also preparing the nation for the conflict mentally. How can one be prepared for a conflict that has been falsely identified right from the begining? Not only that, the officials went out of their way to dispel any notion that 9/11, Bin Laden, Al Qaeda had anything to with islam. Bearing that in mind, it is no wonder that the ideology that has driven Osama and his actions is making steady and ever faster inroads in America and Europe. Until that changes killing a 1000 Bin Ladens will not matter in the grand scheme of things.

As a final note I can not help but agreeing with Ilana Mercer's take on people hitting the streets to celebrate Bin Laden's death. Sorry, but I do not recall rallies in honour of Hitler's death, coincidentially announced on the same date, May 1st, as that of Bin Laden. Back then, people rejoiced not for the death of the Fuhrer, a figure much more murderous then Osama, but for the end of the war. Another reminder of how much America has fallen spiritually.

Monday, April 25, 2011

Out of town

I'm off on a week's vacation/holiday(depending on your prefered version of English) and thus will not blog. See you all in the first week of May.

Sunday, April 24, 2011

Christ is Risen!

Indeed He is Risen!



Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live - John 11:25

Tuesday, April 19, 2011

That's the way

Two months ago a laughably misnamed "Institute for the Research of Genocide Canada", a Bosnian Muslim shill organization managed, through a combination of smears and intimidation, to ban Srdja Trifkovic from entering Canada.

Little did they know that this only made Trifkovic even more eager in his quest for the truth. Soon himself and Julia Gorin exposed this "institute! for what it really is: a vile Serb-hating, Jew-hating organization. The expose' was sent on various adresses including that of Elie Wiesel, who sat on the "institute's" international board of experts. In the face of these damning, irrefutable facts, Wiesel, a man sympathetic to the Bosnian Muslim cause in the 1990s promptly resigned from the board. One hopes that this will not end here and that the expose' on the "institute" and it's head Emir Ramic will be sent to other people and organizations associated with it resulting in it's banishment from decent society where it should never have been in the first place.

There is a lesson to be learned from all this. When confronted with enemy smears that appear to be succesful we should not wallow in self-pity and lament the injustice of it all and instead we should act, fight lies with the truth. Most people, even with pre-concieved notions as we see, will not be willing or able to defy stone-cold facts nor suspend logic and reason. Those are powerful allies and are both on our side, all we need to do is look out for them. Kudos to Srdja Trifkovic for doing so.

Friday, April 15, 2011

The forgotten crisis

Obscured by the war in Lybia, civil war in Ivory Coast passed by largely unnoticed by the mainstream media. On the rare occasion that they did give some news it was given within the typical democratist cliche': sitting president won't cede power in spite of having lost the election. Scratch, the surface, however, and a somewhat different picture appears, as Steven Plaut tells us:

The background to the civil war and the current constitutional crisis is the massive in-migration of Muslims from the countries neighboring the Ivory Coast, mainly from Burkina Faso. The infiltrators settled in the northern half of the country, and also in pockets in the south, including in some neighborhoods inside the country’s largest city, Abidjan. Today Muslims, including illegals, are almost 40% of the population of the country (although Muslim and other sources claim they are really considerably higher), the remainder being a mixture of Christians (mainly Roman Catholics) and animists.

Tensions between the immigrant population and the indigenous Ivorians goes back to the 1960s. Successive governments there have regarded the immigrants to be “circumstantial Ivorians” (their term), as opposed to the “pure Ivorians,” who are the natives. The illegal “aliens” constitute more than a quarter of the current population of the country. The alien-native dichotomy overlaps to a large extent with the divisions between non-Muslims and Muslims, and is the most important background factor in explaining the ongoing civil war.


Te parallels with our situation are not lost on Plaut:

Nevertheless, the conflict in the Ivory Coast shows what happens when massive illegal immigration leads to the demographic eclipse of a native population. The same Western powers so ready to strip the Serbs of their heartland to create a second Albanian nation-state in Kosovo have been unwilling to sustain any nation-state for indigenous Ivorians, and indeed have backed the aliens.


Plaut did not mention other facts which make the Ivory Coast situation even more sinister, such as allegations of massive vote fraud in the north of the country where Gbabo people basically had no access to polling stations and ballot boxes, intimidation and murder of Gbabo loyalists etc. You won't see any of this on BBC or CNN though. Why let facts get in a way of a perfectly good propaganda? Nor will any western governement take notice lest it spoils their ideological matrix. Besides, it can not happen to them, right?

Wrong. It's coming to a country near you, inevitably. Decades of uncontrolled immigration and multiculturalist madness made sure of that.

Friday, April 08, 2011

Bitter and twisted: open season on Wayne Rooney

You would think by the histeria surrounding him lately that Wayne Rooney has done something really, really awful. Like starting a war against Lybia or murdering a mother, father and their three children(including a 3-month old baby). Instead, we learn a few swear-words coming from his mouth happened to be caught on camera.

Cue the histerical phone-ins, moralizing, lecturing columns and a two match ban from the increasingly incompetent FA. Meanwhile other players of lesser quality can get away with assaults on fellow teammates(using potentially deadly weapons at times) without as much as a slap on the wrist coming from the official bodies and with the press corps mentioning nary a word.

Or is it incompetence? Because these words coming from the chairman of the FA leave room for all kinds of thoughts:

“I would like to thank our wonderful fans for their backing. They have been fantastic in their support, which has never wavered even during the most difficult times. I have been touched by their kindness and enthusiasm. I have supported Manchester City since I was a boy and I am desperate for us to succeed.”


Just how desperate are you, Mr. Bernstein? Desperate enough to arrange the suspension of your team's opponent's star player?

And I thought football in Serbia was corrupt.

As for those press hacks piling up on Rooney, the them I say: go play a game of football, even 5-a-side, because you've obviously never done that before. If you had, you wouldn't be so eager to jump on the Rooney bandwagon.

Wednesday, April 06, 2011

April 6th 1941, NEVER FORGET

Today is the 70th anniversary of the Nazi agression against the Kingdom of Yugoslavia that started with aerial bombing of Belgrade in the early morning hours of April 6th 1941. Over 3000 people lost their lives and the damage caused was incalculable. The direct perpetrators were sentenced to death for this crime, while the ones who gave the order managed to cheat the hangman by swallowing cyanide.

I doubt that even in their wildest fantasies they could imagine that they would have their apologists in Serbia, those who relativize their crime and at times even express some form of understanding for their postition.

Am I being too harsh? Not at all. There is no other way to describe those who prefer to concentrate their venom against those who took up arms against the Nazis by calling them "irresponsible" and accusing them of "being the cause of our misfortune by provoking the Germans". What is particularly disheartening is that a large portion of these people think of themselves as patriots and in this day and age they advocate resistance against EU/NATO and accuse Tadić and his governement of being "quislings". The schizofrenic nature of their position is lost on them, as well as the irony of them parroting the propaganda line of the current regime that seeks to portray opposition to Euro-atlantic forces as ultimately pointless. And when confronted with those facts, they just begin to repeat the mantra "That's not the same thing", more in an attempt to convince themselves then to convince others. And why is it not the same? Because they say so.

Perhaps this is one of the reasons why parties and movements opposed to Euromadness have been unsuccessfull up to date. Until basic consistency is established between judging the past and the present a future that includes freedom will continue to elude us.

Monday, March 28, 2011

Has the turnaround begun already?

In my previous entry I expressed hope that David Horowitz's abandonment of the "democracy project" would go further then just one statement and that it would spur a debate on the virtues of the idea not just among bloggers but mainstream commentators as well. It seems that at least on one of Horowitz's affiliates, Jihad Watch, things are beggining to move in the right direction.

For a few months now there is a new commentator on that site going by the assumed name of Roland Shirk who has been offering his views on islam(ideology and current events) and how the non-muslim world should interact with it. While I can not say I agree with all of Mr. Shirk's suggestions and ideas, his writings are on the whole a welcome breath of fresh air, especially in one aspect.

Roland Shirk has on the pages of Jihad Watch finally, openly and unequivocally, subjected neoconservativism, it's ideological postulates, it's view of the islam and the Middle East, it's role in the making of the US foreign policy to long overdue criticism. Neoconservativism has, of course, been attacked before but the vast majority of those attacks came either from the transantional and radical left, which saw neoconservatives as American imperialist nationalists bent on conquering the world and siezing all it's natural resources, especially oil, or from the hard-right which believed they are a secret, conspirational circle whose goal is to use American power to do the bidding of Israel and the Jews(awful old "Jewish conspiracy" canard). Both of them misrepresent what neoconservatives stand for, and unfortunately, both have dominated the neocon-critical scene over the years, which made possible for the neoconservatives to dismiss most of their critics as "loons" and "bigots" and those who they could not smear as such were given the "guilt by association" treatment. Roland Shirk, however, lays out what neoconservatives really believe and how their ideology which has driven their action is detrimental to our entire civilization. By doing this via Jihad Watch, Shirk ensures that it does not remain merely as a musing of an anonymous blogger and that he and the site that has given him a forum for his thoughts can not be labeled as "anti-American leftists" or "haters"(or, at least, that nobody in his/her right mind would take these labels seriously).

To be fair, Jihad Watch founder Robert Spencer was never an enthusiast for the democracy project, but his opposition to it was rarely expressed openly and even when it was he did it in mild terms. Roland Shirk, however, does not shirk(pun intentional) from heavy words and scatching qualifications. In one of his first columns Shirk says:

Neocons cannot face the truth about Islam--and indeed are as likely as liberals to demonize us when we try to tell it. Why? Because we are attacking all their most cherished illusions. We're insisting that human affairs are not a chess problem, or a really thorny edition of the Sunday Times crossword puzzle.


Shirk is even more ruthless towards the neoconservatives' darling, George W. Bush:

If there is a stupider, more insane speech in American presidential history than George W. Bush's neo-Trotskyite Second Inaugural, I haven't found it.


Roland Shirk's most riveting article so far critical of neoconservativism came yesterday, as a medical metaphore describing how foreign interventionism has become an addiction in American foreign policy, one that will not be shaken off easily. Neosconservatives did not invent interventionism, of course, but it is one of the pillars of their ideology.

Neoconservatives are not the only target of Shirk's criticism. As a self-described "paleoconservative with a libertarian streaks" he is not shy from pointing out egregious tendencies among his ideological brothers or their inability to rise above personal petty resentment. That he is not blind to the shortcomings of paleoconservativism and libertarianism when it comes to islam and the Middle East strongly enforces Shirk's credibility as a thinker and a writer.

I can only hope that there will be more writers like Roland Shirk and articles in the mould of his columns on Jihad Watch that will be given space on web sites close to the mainstream conservative right(seeing that, IMO, the left and liberalism are almost beyond redemption) and that the movement for more reality-based policies and solutions is getting under way.

Friday, March 25, 2011

If they lost him...

Reality has finally bitten David Horowitz as he announced that he is no longer a believer in the "neoconservative democratization project". Or rather, that he never really was one...He certainly supressed his scepticism quite well, as Lawrence Auster aptly put it. Horowitz, however, stopped short of saying how he was always at war with Eastasia...

Cynicism and joking aside, this is a welcome turn of events in several aspects. First, it might finally insert into the mainstream the notion of the existance of differences between cultures, peoples and civilizations, differences that sometimes make them incompatible with one another. And that some are even patently malevolent and hostile to others...

Second, it will begin dispell the delusion dominating American policy-making circles that the world can be shaped according to the American model and that this, instead of old-fashioned self-interest, should be the driving force of US foreign policy. There is a quote from Stanley Kubrick's "Full Metal Jacket" that perfectly captures such a mentality: "...inside every gook there is an American trying to get out." Kubrick did not prophecize, it is a malaise that has been in existance for quite some time now, one that predates the rise of neoconservativism.

Third and perhaps most important, no longer will it be possible to force upon people the false choice between neoconservativism and transnational progressivism, two seemingly different roads that both lead to perdition. Nor will it be possible for those ideologies to maintain their current percieved strangle-holds on anti-jihadism and anti-imperialism respectively which has permitted them to smear and defame those who oppose them from both left and right with near impunity. Common people will finally get a realistic, fact-based explanations for many of the things going on in the world, not oversimplified cliches and heated, emotional rhetoric full of gratuituos ideological labeling.

As you read this, you propably think I am being overly optimistic, that I am making to much from a statement of one man an you may well be right. But it would not be the first time an individual statement swayed, if not public opinion, then certainly public debate. Remember Walter Cronkite's editorial on Vietnam? If neoconservativism lost Horowitz, it is likely to lose the entire American right. Hopefully, Horowitz will not stop at this one statement and will in the coming days further elaborate on the moral and intellectual bancrupcy of neoconservativism as well as their separation from real world, as well as introduce viable, reality-based ideas on how to confront the dangers our world is facing.

UPDATE: Lawrence Auster reproduced this entry on his blog. However, he took exception to my reference of the quote from "Full Metal Jacket". I would like to point out that it was in no way meant either as a "cheapshot" or an endorsement of Stanley Kubrick's political views and I'm sorry that Mr. Auster saw it that way. I emailed him a more detailed explanation of what I meant to express with the reference and I might elaborate further on this in another entry.

Thursday, March 24, 2011

24.3.1999,NEVER FORGET



Things may seem bleak now, but as long as we do not begin to love our Big Brother, he will never fullfill his goals.

Memory eternal to all our victims of the NATO war of agression.

Wednesday, March 23, 2011

On behalf of whom?

To paraphrase an old saying, nobody has ever gone bankrupt by betting on the lack of common sense of the American and western political elite. In defiance of all logic and common sense, not to mention internationa law, they began a military campaign against Lybia whose purpose and objective even they can not figure out. Prior to the air-strikes, there was the usual media preparation with well-known canards of the "evil dictator" murdering "peaceful demonstrators" who, after rumours of Ghadaffi's imminent demise proved to be exaggerated, became "rebels" all of a sudden.

Even if this sounds all eeriely familiar, the Lybia reporting also brought, even by the lowlife standards of today's mainstream media, an astonishing novelty. More then a month after the Lybian conflict started, not a single media outlet asks, let alone gives an answer to a very important question...

"Lybian rebels", who are those people?

It beggars belief that in the era of internet, satellite and mobile phones virtually nothing is known about one side of a conflict that threatens an entire region. If one can understand why the media won't cover the story much, bearing in mind their ant-Ghaddafi agenda, why aren't "rebels" themselves making an effort to present themselves to the world? Where are their sites, blogs, Facebook profiles and groups? Have they got something to hide, perhaps, and if so, what?

Teh answers to all these questions are given by the Nolan Chart columnist Andy Stone. Stone has discovered that the revolt against Ghaddafi, that started in Benghazi, was lead by an organization with the seemingly inoccuous name of National Conference of the Libyan Opposition. As it turns out, this group has it's internet site, but only in Arabic(why?). From it, Stone translated the organization's main grievances with Ghadaffi, which are:


•Qaddafi has closed an Islamic university and a seminary, has forbidden some Islamist publications, and has thrown thousands of Islamist activists into jail.

•Qaddafi has urged to put the Qur'an on the shelf, as no longer appropriate for this age.

•Qaddafi has made fun of the Islamic veil, calling it a "rag" and a "tent".

•Qaddafi has dared to say that Christians and Jews should be allowed to visit Mecca.

•Qaddafi has rejected the Hadith and Sunnah, and said he follows the Qur'an alone.


Besides this, Stone also quotes a Wikileaked State department document from 2008 which describes eastern Lybia(also known as Cyrenaica), the epicenter of the anti-Ghaddafi revolt, as an area of fervent Islamic sentiment, where "a number of Libyans who had fought and in some cases undergone 'religious and ideological training' in Afghanistan, Lebanon and the West Bank in the late 1970's and early 1980's had returned [...] in the mid to late 1980's". There they engaged into "a deliberate, coordinated campaign to propagate more conservative iterations of Islam, in part to prepare the ground for the eventual overthrow by the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) of Muammar Qadhafi's regime, which is 'hated' by conservative Islamists". While Qaddafi's position was perceived to be strong, the East Libyans sent jihadis to Iraq, where "fighting against U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq represented a way for frustrated young radicals to strike a blow against both Qadhafi and against his perceived American backers".

In light of all this, it is understandable why western governements and the media are trying to conceal all relevant information about the "rebels" and demonize Ghadaffi as much as possible. My impression, however, is that the population of USA and Europe is largely beyond such propaganda. There is a growing consciousness among common people about the dangers that islamist movements represent to their countries and way of life. In this day and age, it would be impossible to sell te reasons of goint to war on behalf of islamists, no matter how much politicians and the media try to villify Ghadaffi, not only attributing alleged "attrocities towards his own peolle" to him but also by dragging out "past sins" that they said they have put behind them when it suited them so.

It remains to be seen yet where this latest NATO-islamist alliance will lead to. The precedents teach us we can expect nothing good to come out of it.

UPDATE: Literally as I was typing this, I saw an article on Yahoo with the headline:"Who are the Lybian rebels". My mistake was to expect to find some substantial information in it. It is simply a littany of over-used propagandist canards fitting the "evil-dictator-versus-unarmed-peaceful-people" narrative. There is one small exception though: the writer describes the statement by the so-called Interim national council, the only known official body of the "rebels", as "reassuring buzzwords the West would like to hear". Meaning, "I might have to write this propagandist piece but I don't have to believe it". Also, the comments on the article are a true silver lining and confrim my thesis that westerners are largely beyond such propaganda.

Monday, March 14, 2011

Japan



Just as I announced my return, a small illness prevented me from continuing to blog...For the time being, this is my modest way of supporting the people of Japan and their efforts to overcome multiple catastrophes that have befallen on them these days.

Thursday, March 10, 2011

I'm back at last!

Took me long enough, but here I am...There are various reasons for my almost year-long hiatus.

Most important are those personal. A child changes your life, it turns it around completely, especially a firstborn...Priorities change, and dramatically so. Thus blogging descended on my list of priorities.

Besides, there was very little to blog about, really. The reality was grim, almost everything transpired in the horrible way I had forseen and I did not fancy writing something resembling a chronicle of a downfall.

In the past months things began to change though, in Serbia and the world. Here, the people are finally starting to sober from euro-insanity and the hangover is not pretty. It seems, also, that we finally have seeds of new parties and movements forming, people unwilling to settle for unprincipled comprimises, accept existing rotten and out-dated ideological matrixes and willing to speak and tackle real problems.

Elsewhere, in America, such a movement finally brought the issue of national debt to the forefront (with the latter staying there for the forseeable future) as well as the collapse of HopeAndChange. Now, will they have the guts to push it all the way? That would mean a reassesement of many assumptions represented as sacrosant by the establishment...

And last but not least, we have the upheaval in the Arab/Muslim world...Is it over? Hardly. How will it bode for the future? Nobody knows for sure but there are worrying indicators...

More on all of this later. Suffice to say for the time being that I will be more active from now on.