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.