Wednesday, May 22, 2013

200 years of Richard Wagner

Today is the 200th birthday of Richard Wagner. In the 70 years that he lived he changed the course and the history of music, not only in a tonal sens but also in the way that is composed and put on stage. Once can with almost absolute certainty say that not only music but film and theatre as well, would not be the same if it hadn’t been for him, and some of the things in those art forms which we today considered natural, such as the dimming of lights in the audience and highlighting of the stage, were in fact his inventions.

Although his concept of „gesamtkunstwerk“ never really realized itself in the full sense, modern art, especially film, is steadily moving in that direction. Before Wagner, opera was dominated by singers and orchestras would adjust themselves to them. With Wagner, they were on equal footing, and each got it’s chance to shine during the performance, in a way a well structured sports team enables individual players to truly stand out.

Wagner was a controversial figure even in his lifetime, with many polemics going on about him, not only in the field of music and art. Perhaps his most notorious move was the publication of the essay called „Jewishness in Music“ ("Das Judenthum in der Musik") in which he attacks composers Mendelsohn and Meyerbeer on ethno-religious basis, generalizing what he saw as their flaws as artists onto the Jewish people as a whole, adding nasty and venomous remarks against Jews for good measure, all the while trying to represent this text as cultural and social critique. This earned him a reputation of a notorious antisemite. What happened in his lifetime, however, would be nothing compared to what was to come after his death.

Adolf Hitler was a notorious fan of Wagner, a fact he had never hidden. Wagner family helped the nazis from early on and racial theorist Houston Stewart Chamberlain, an undoubted intellectual pre-cursor of the Third Reich, married Wagner daughter Eva 24 years after the composer’s death. Together with Cosima, Wagner’s widow, he formed the so-called „Bayreuth circle“ which tried to connect Wagner’s art with the racist and chauvinist politics they promoted. All this created the perception of Wagner as the artistic prophet of nazism.

This perception, hovewer, is utterly incorrect. Chamberlain and Cosima Wagner twisted Wagner’s art and his prose writings(even „Jewishness in music“) for their own ends in a way simillar to Elisabeth Nietche and her apropriation of her brother’s work. Also, Wagner was misrepresented as an imperial German nationalist, whereas, in fact, he had been a socialist-anarchist who despised militarism and imperialism. And contrary to the popular belief that Wagner was the official composer of the Third Reich, the number of his performances declined by more then a third on the period from 1933 to 1939 with a further decline to come during the war. All this I will discuss in detail in some future entries. Today is the day to enjoy the music.

Herzliche  Gluckwunscen zum Geburtstag, Meister!

Friday, April 12, 2013

Food for thought over the weekend of April 13th and 14th

Jewish Nationalists understood what was coming last time. They understand what is coming this time. Yet no matter how many times they are proven right, the beautiful dreamers refuse to listen to the history which proves them wrong. They're still waiting for the European Union, the United Nations, for the dead hand of history to let go and the better world to be born out of the ashes of the old.

Daniel Greenfield, Sultan Knish

Any simmillarity to Serbia is purely...

Wednesday, April 10, 2013

And now a bit of wisdom from the patriotic side

Well, it took them 7 days of listening to the people who overwhelmingly demanded a rejection of the Brussels ultimatum to make the only possible decision, but at least they actually made it. And while they are, in their own words, trebling from fear now, that too might stop soon.

And we must help them at that. They are what they are, what is done is done, but if the west won't give them an exit out of this, we must do so, in spite of everything. We will reap no benefits from incessantly reprimanding our "leaders" for the mistakes they made or from repetitions of the mantra that "treason is only postponed".

The traitor clique in Serbia that has been created in the 1990-ties went into full standard mode during last week in order to squeeze out the one, final act of high treason. And in the process they used just about every cliche' in order to either seduce or intimidate the population into submission. If we agree their will be goods galore, if we refuse there will be isolation, poverty, wars...But now that it did not work it is necessary that Serb patriotic organizations employ a simmilar mode of putting pressure on the rulers. We can not and must not, of course, invoke powerful masters from abroad like the traitor coalition does but we can count on the will of the people which, as I already wrote, were overwhelmingly in favour of rejecting the ultimatum, so much so that even deputy PM Aleksandar Vučić publicly stated he feared the reaction on the streets.

It is, naturally, difficult to promise support to people who stated, wrote and even did scandalous and extremely detrimental things, but there appears to be little realistic alternative on the horizon. The only way nationalist and patriotic forces can take over the state is through a popular uprising or a coup and both of those are only possible after the treason actually occurs. Persistent attacks on Nikolić, Dačić and Vučić can only push them to the dark side. Whether one likes it or not, these three occupy Serbia's most prominent political offices and it is necessary to influence them in order to prevent them from making any more detrimental political moves. If they do not see a way out of this situation, it is us who must provide it, especially if it leads towards national liberation. 

On the other hand, we must be vigilant and not allow an acceptance of an "agreement" that is essentially the same with some cosmetic changes. This includes constant exposure of the so-called negotiations as a sham as well as what would be the consequences of a "reached settlement". That way we could pull the ruling trio away from the Brussels trap, where they, at least intimately do not want to be in the first place.

And let me finish as I began, with fear, but also with some hope added. The rulers of Sebia might still be trembling but more out of fear from their people then from EU and US. Contrary to what Stalin said, fear, however, is not eternal and ruling through it is tricky. It is therefore necessary to give hope to these Serbian rulers who have, however timidly, re-ignited the flame of resistance to EU and America, that in this course of action they will have the support of all of us who have decided to resist years ago and those who never stopped. They must be told that a potential U-turn on their part will not be used to settle old scores, personal or political. Serbia and it's people could only be damaged through such actions and their interests come first, don't they?

Monday, April 01, 2013

Lawrence Auster RIP

This morning I learned that Lawrence Auster, author and founder of the blog View From the Right passed away last Friday after a long battle with pancreatic cancer.

Even though I did not agree with Auster on some issues, he opened up for me a unique perspective on many issues. I am particularly grateful for his insight on American politics and how he eviscerated not only the liberal left but also the "establishment right" and their both intellectual and especially in the case of the former, moral bancrupcy, as well as showing me, along with other authors, a part of America I did not know even existed. I will miss him and his texts which were unique in their originality and their astute analysis.

May The Lord grant him His Kingdom.

Friday, March 29, 2013

Food for thought over the weekend of 30th and 31st of March

"The idea of Peace in Our Time was conceived in Paris shortly after the Liberation..... I began to suspect that the physical effect of four years intermittent bombing is far less damaging to the intrinsic character of a nation than the spiritual effect of four years enemy occupation."

Noel Coward on the inspiration for one of his plays, Peace In Our Time, that depicts an alternate history scenario of Nazi Germany occupying Great Britain .

Again, it's up to you to choose whether any similarity to the situation of Serbia is coincidential or not.

Tuesday, March 26, 2013

Could it have happened to a nicer guy? Absolutely not!

No, not even Barack Obama, Hilary Clinton, John McCain or Lindsey Graham are as deserving as Bernard Henry Levy of this fate. The former at least have the excuse of being politicians. But hey, he got off lightly, unlike ambassador Stevens who was on the receiving end of full-blown gratitude on behalf of Lybia's jihad. 

Now that Levy has been demoted from useful idiot to useless nuissance(copyright: Daniel Greenfield) you'dcthink  he learned something? No way. He is still gushing over "free Lybia" and it is difficult to see which part of his paean to this fictional entity is more absurd. Is it his lavish praise to the  "leaders" that are "masters of all Lybia's parts", that in reality can barely master the buildings of their own so-called governement and which note as the official reason for banning Levi their inability to gurantee him safety from "islamists" which both Levy and the governement claim are "marginal"? Or the lavish praise heaped upon  the "moderate Islam of Benghazi  practiced by the people" which includes destroying churches and torturing priests and ordinary christian believers and, as previously noted,  killing from time to time the odd American ambassador?

But then, Levy himself in an absurd character who, presumably with a straight face, told Benyamin Netanyahu that those same people who won't grant him entry to Lybia would recognize Israel. And at least equally absurd is the fact that high-ranking officials are lending an ear, however unwilling, to this charlatan.

Now he wants to take his absurd act to Syria. With his track record, what could possibly go wrong? 

Friday, March 22, 2013

Food for thought over the weekend

War has an endpoint. Peace does not. A peace in which you are constantly at war can go on forever because while the enthusiasts of war eventually exhaust their patriotism, the enthusiasts of peace never give up on their peacemaking. Warmongers may stop after a few thousand dead, but Peacemongers will pirouette over a million corpses. 

Daniel Greenfield, Sultan Knish

Any similarity to the Serbian situation is purely...Well, you choose...

PS: I might make "Food for thought" a permanent feature on this blog.

Thursday, March 21, 2013

Wrecking the world? Actually yes, but...

David Goldman aka "Spengler" has the latest column on world affairs and America's role in it, as well as the Russian perspective of it. I have to say I'm a bit ambivalent as to it's worth because while it hits the nail on the head on some important points, I believe it dramatically misses it on some others.

In the begining Goldman presents how Fyodor Lukyanov laments what he sees as an overestimation of US capabilities and "conspiracy theories" that emerge from them, and the rest of the article is a littany of blunders America made in the world and their consequences as well as an attempt to see them all from the point of view of the Russian leaders. Spengler is sympathetic to those who reason that these foreign policy blunders can not be that but are in fact smoke-and-mirrors made to cover up a master plan(or rather, sympathetic as to why others might see it that way) but he firmly rejects the possibility that such plan exists and concludes:"I wish it were a conspiracy. The truth is that we really are that dumb."

It is at the word "dumb" that I have to first part company with Mr.Goldman since it definitely is not adequate and does not describe the state of mind of the American establishment. Some time ago a Serbian Orthodox monk taught me that the sin from which all others originate is pride. It is this pride, or rather it's most excessive variety, hubris, that is also fons et origi of every disaster created by US foreign policy. From this hubris came self-absorption and narcissism(and a bit of naivete') that had policy makers believe that "all people have the same desire for freedom that Americans do" and that with the removal of "tyrants" all problems will go away. From this hubris came the cognitive dissonance when it comes to the consequences of the "support for democracy" and with it a complete lack of the ability to learn on one's mistakes(how could they, indeed, when they do not see mistakes as such?). All this gives the average observer the impression of either incredible stupidity or incredible deviousness, depending on the point of view.

Another point where I have to diverge from Goldman is his rejection of the existence of a "master plan". There is one, actually, but it is indeed nowhere near as elaborate and cunning as the "paranoid Russians" believe it is. In fact, it is based on the wishful thinking stemming from the state of mind I described above and which even Goldman himself in his text noted via the exchange between Bush and Putin. As a result, while the actions themselves are planned, their consequences most certainly are not. And herein lies the tragedy, in many senses...

As I wrote already, to most observers American behaviour shows either incredible stupidity or incredible deviousness. Since, as Goldman noted, the first option is scarcely credible, the second comes as natural. And the only logical conclusion that can come out of that is that both US foreign policy actions and consequences of those are planned in advance and that the installation of islamic fundamentalist groups, those who never waste time to show in words and deed that they hate America, Israel, Europe as well as Russia in the place of former secular autocrats is in fact for the benefit of the former three and to the detriment of the latter. It is therefore inconcievable  that in their hubris Americans unleashed forces that they could not control even if they had attempted to and that they can not bring themselves to realize this. 

Tragically, by embracing the misconception of American omnipotence and omniscience the opponents of American foreign policy, are actually making such opposition all the more harder, not only psychologically, but also from a practical point of view since any possible strategy against it will be based on wrong assumptions and thus doomed to fail. And the consequences of such failure will encompass the world at large, including America.

Worst of all, however, is that analysis such as Mr. Goldman's which are close to the mark sound to the average ear like a conspiracy theory in it's own right. 

Wednesday, March 20, 2013

Cyprus, the place where the disguise was dropped

More out of trepidation of consequences, personal rather then national or social, then out of general principle, the Cypriot parliament rejected the EU/IMF terms for a bail-out. The waiver for accounts less then 10.000 EUR did not help. Cypriots are now looking towards the East for salvation. 

Let's, however, pause and think for a moment and see what is going on here. Two super-national, pseudo-state institutions demand that for the sake of salvation of a couple of banks the governement of a sovereign country (on paper at least) confiscates money from the private accounts of it's citizens and those of foreigners. Luckily, I am not the only one seeing there is something wrong with this picture. And not just something, but everything. And then some.

One of the cornerstones of civilization is property and the fact that it is unassailable, save cases when it is obtained through illegal and/or patently immoral means(such as expropriation of Jewish property by the nazis which was "legal" according to Nuremberg laws). By attempting to sieze money from ordinary people the EU has dropped the mask it has donned for way too long, one that made it appear as a benevolent entity dedicated to progress, development and peace. It is now for all except fanatics, hopelessly naive and irredemably  stupid a totalitarian state on a par with Nazi Germany and the USSR. This is not an exaggeration, because there is no other way to describe a political structure that is after the property of honest citizens. 

And if this monstrousity passes nobody should be under the illusion it will stop there. Once the new round of the financial crisis kicks in it will be the land they will set their sights on with everyone owning as much as a garden or a front yard being proclaimed a modern-day kulak.   And then the houses themselves...Just like in the terrible littany of Martin Nimoeller. 

Yet this is the organization our governement is so eager to take us into. One that would gladly take the little what we have left. I just hope that the vast majority of Serbs is at least concerned about it's bank accounts, if nothing else. 

Meanwhile, there are only two pieces of sound advice one can give to the citizenry. One, withdraw your deposits from banks now, just in case. Two, again just in case, spend some of that money on guns and ammunition. I'm not advocating violence but neither do I wish to remain blind to the direction the world is going now.

PS. Who says footballers are dumb? Years ahead of others back when he played as well as now. Not for nothing was he my favourite during the 1990-ties.  

Friday, March 15, 2013

Catching the same disease

A couple of months ago I wrote about the complete lack of principles and standards within the "right" in the USA and it's adoption of progressive liberal agenda and modus operandi as long as it is directed towards "the other". For truth's sake, I sadly have to note that a similar problem is rearing it's ugly head within the national patriotic public opinion among Serbs.

The most glaring recent example is some of the news surrounding  the election of the new head of the Roman Catholic church,  Pope Francis I. His Argentinian origins and the fact that he held the office of archbishop of Buenos Aires during the military junta immediately prompted articles questioning his supposed "dark past", along with the obligatory pejorative epithet of "conservative" routinely attached to his name. Other articles seeking to discredit the new Pope also cited his "political meddling" in his native land and opposition to president Kristina Kirchner, without going into specific details, and for a good reason that will be revealed later in this entry.

These stories have unfortunately been swallowed hook, line and sinker by the Serbian patriotic portals whether in syndicated columns or in comments and discussion forums. Bit by bit a conspiracy theory based on the half-truths noted above was born, one that said that the new Pope is an American puppet, set up to take down the socialist governements of Latin America. Just how does the Roman Catholic church's declining influence in South America that's been going on for decades and Nicholas Maduro's claim that the late president Chavez appealed to God in Heaven to give the world a Latin American pope fit into this is naturally not explained. Pope Francis' reputation of being a modest person and actually helping the poor and the needy, hardly virtues of a caricature the left-liberal media depinct as "conservative", is also barely mentioned.

The conspiracy theories now developing would look even more grotesque and off-the-wall if one actually dug a bit deeper for details of the new Pope's supposed "political meddling". It turns out that the only documented case of his political activism against president Kirchner is his opposition to the bill legalizing gay marriage and adoption. Not only is this an issue where Cardinal Bergoglio would simply have to take the stance he did by the virtue of his very membership among the clergy of the Roman Catholic church, not to mention the postition he occupied at the time, and indeed by the virtue of his very catholicism, it is also an issue where the overwhelming majority of those among the Serbian public which have subscribed to the  distorted portrait of the new pope is actually in agreement with him. 

Imagine a situation where the governement of Serbia introduces a bill legalizing gay marriage and adoption and the Patriarch of the Serbian Orthodox church vigorously opposing the bill by lobbying with the lawmakers. All those in Serbia that now eagerly want to believe any bad thing they read about Pope Francis would not only enthusiastically applaud the Patriarch but would also chide him for not going far enough in his opposition. At the same time, the very same press which now seeks to dig up any possible dirt it might against the Pope, would label our Patriarch as, you guessed it, "a conservative". Yet, when a Roman Catholic cardinal does the same in a Roman Catholic country we are eager to revile him as an "American agent" and fully believe any smear coming from the left-liberal press. The whole thing becomes even more surreal when one takes into account the official American position of support, even aggressive,  for the so-called gay rights. 

It is not the way it goes, people, you can not have it both ways. If gay marriage is bad for Serbia it is bad for Argentina as well. If it is bad for the Orthodox it is also bad for the Roman Catholics. And I, for one, am not taking up an inconsistent position on this issue. If this is the only time Pope Francis openly opposed his country's governement I'll readily and unashamedly say that he was right to do so. And president Kirchner has by legalizing gay marriage and adoption sown the seeds of destruction of everything positive she may have achieved so far.

And to return from the concrete example to the general principle: make no mistake, this kind of inconsistency when it comes to values one supposedly holds dear is doubly self-defeating. It not only alienates many neutrals and potential allies but also gives a propaganda weapon to the transnational progressive left and ultimately leads to it's victory in the long run. Careful before jumping the gun and learn from the mistakes of others. 

Friday, March 08, 2013

An example we should emulate

The Serbian governement's collaboration on the country's dismemberment has entered it's final phase. They are now brazenly open about it(in Serbian only). The Serbian media, like their Western counterparts when it comes to forcing down governement measures on an unwilling public, got into the act by relegating the story to the background at best(as well as misinterpreting it) or outright ignoring it. And the so-called nationalist and patriotic parties and organizations are by and large either passive or incapable of countering this stonewalling on the part of the governement-media cabal.

Luckily for them, something happened that might point the way to them. Ironically, the news comes from America. The governement was trying to sneak  through a policy which would allow it to target for death just about any person of it's choosing under the guise of "imminent threat" or "fight against terrorism". This, as well as the attempt of the lapdog media to stiffle the debate did nor go down well with Rand Paul who took the floor of the US Senate and would not relinquish until not only an actual debate gets ignited but also until the governement gives up any pretense of a right to simply assassinate it's own citizens which do not pose a threat. And he won on both accounts, garnering support even from people who are polar opposites ideologically.

This is how the Serbian patriotic organizations should act in the next immediate period. They do not have the possibility to seize the floor of the parliament but in the age of internet if the person is able, willing and above all principled it is not possible to simply shut him up or black him out short of physically terminating him. It is now obligatory for the opposition to organize continual manifestations of popular dissatisfaction within institutions as well as outside them and force the regime to come clean on whether it intends to betray Kosovo and Metohija for a mere date, as well as reveal other potential arrangements it has with EU and NATO. Anything short of this simply will not do, the time for strong-worded party communiques and standard debates is over. It is now an existential issue.

Are you up for it?

Wednesday, February 27, 2013

Movie review: "Flight"

Great men and heroes are human beings just like you and I. They too have sides to their personality that do not live up their overall image. If this side does not surface too much, it does not take away from the greatness or heroism in question. But how much is too much?

This is the question that the film "Filght", directed by Robert Zemeckis, starring Denzel Washington(one of my favourites), poses and tries to give an answer. Washington plays Whip Whitaker, an airline pilot with whose shambles of a private life we get acquainted right in the opening scenes. He is an alcoholic, a drug-addict and a divorced father of a teen-aged son, largely estranged from his wife and child. During what seems to be a routine flight from Orlando to Atlanta an accident happens and most of the people on board are saved only through Whitaker's remarkable maneuver and the resulting crash-land. But behind the scenes of public accolades for undoubted heroism troubling aspects of Whitaker begin to emerge...

Zemeckis then gives the conflict from several points of view. The main one is Whitaker's. The aftermath of the incident sees the pilot attempting to live with himself. Unable to wrestle with the more unsavoury aspects of his personality Whitaker develops a self-destructive streak which he tries to cover up with arrogant posture towards people who he can not lie to. As rationalization and self-justification, he begins to see his act not as a defining feature of himself but merely a tool to balance or even obfuscate his alcohol and drug abuse.  Moments of clarity and lucidity, however, reveal an individual desperate to find redemption.

Another angle is the more technical one, but it is closely connected to first one, and involves the reaction of officialdom, namely the air traffic authorities and airline executives which is at first brought through the characters of Charlie Anderson(Bruce Greenwood), pilot union liason to Whitaker and Hugh Lang(Don Cheadle), the attorney for the union. While willing to help Whitaker avoid any legal problems as well as overcome his personal conditions it is not clear throughout the film whether their actions driven by motives that are noble and altruistic or merely in service of the airline company's wish to avoid any liability, the wish that becomes clear in the most brazen and callous ways during a meeting with the airline's owner(Brian Geraghty).

In the climactic moment Whitaker is forced to ask the question of "how much awful behavior is too much" himself. And the answer brings him the moral and spiritual redemption he desired, ironically, just as he was about to achieve the ultimately false deliverance his helpers, whatever their motives were, intended to provide him. What is also a paradox is that through this his act of saving lives is also cleansed from any possible minimization or misrepresentation and presented in all it's purity(although this is not presented in the film itself).

On a final note about the film's message, one can not escape, once the film is seen, the somewhat ambiguous title. "Flight" can really refer to the main incident that triggers the plot, but it can also have the meaning of "running away from something" because, indeed, most of the characters, main or supporting, are indeed throughout the film trying to run away from something, whether it is the personal problems that dog them or responsibility for their actions. In the end it all catches up with them, showing that to make problems disappear it is necessary to take them head on. 

Wednesday, February 13, 2013

What to expect

Yesterday I blogged about the struggle for historical truth and memory and the need to protect it from falsifiers whose objective is to delegitimize Serb claims to their ancestral lands and the Serb people as a whole. Lest nobody think it would be as easy as it was in Norway, read Julia Gorin who wrote about Prof. David Gibbs of Arizona University who dared to stay true to his academic calling and keep away from the anti-Serb party line. For his trouble he has become a target of smears, slanders and character assassinations from the Usual Anti-Serb Suspects(as I will call them from now on).

As the cliche' goes, read it and weep. And not so much about the Suspects' gutter-standard writings but rather about the fact that the institutions that employed them descended with them to the nether regions that they occupy.

Tuesday, February 12, 2013

Challenge lying ahead

The struggle for the liberation of Serbia and Serbs is most certainly not limited to the political and diplomatic arena. In fact, battles won in the media and scientific sphere if not outweigh in importance then at the very least precede those lead by the formal leaders. 

In the past week my attention has been drawn to a successful action on the part of organized Serb diaspora in Norway that resulted in preventing Croatian and Bosnian Muslim lobbyists from falsifying the historical record concerning internees from former Yugoslavia in Norway during World War Two. 

Make no mistake, this attempt at an exibition is but a prelude of things to come, and according to some sources those "things" are here already. During the 1990s Western commentators and diplomats scorned Serb adherence to their own history as "living in the past". But derisive comments in that sense that even now appear from the usual anti-Serb suspects hide a much more sinister motive. George Orwell wrote that he who controls the past controls the future and EU/NATO power-brokers are all to aware of the truthfulness of those words, just as they are aware that their creations in the Balkans can not last in the long run if they are based on naked force and mere political circumstances. 

What they need is not, however, a legal fig-leaf over their actions, because try as they might they can not find one. What they must resort to is manufacturing historical reasons for their actions, to make it appear that the Serb people never had a just claim to the lands brutally taken away from them nor a rightful place in the echelons of civilization earned in two world wars. And it is not so much themselves that they need convincing but Serbs, because the only way to truly ensure that the present state becomes long-term and even permanent is to have the side interested in changing it relinquish such interest. The only way to achieve that is to indoctrinate the Serb population at large into their twisted version of history.

It is therefore imperative that all patriotic Serb organizations and individuals are ingaged in this battle to protect our historical memory and heritage, since to rely on the Governement of Serbia in this matter(or any other) is a fool's errand.  The battle needs to be primarily fought within our nation because it is the primary target of such assault and there are numerous ways of fighting it, from publishing pamphlets and books that reveal the truth to simple things such as educating your own children. And just as the Norwegian example shows, it is also a battle we can take to the enemy and his territory. In fact, we must, because the more he is occupied with protecting his own falsehoods (usually by entangling himself in more and more falsehoods) the less time he has to poison us with them.

Friday, February 01, 2013

Never was there a comparison more apt

I'm reporting a "man bites dog" story, or rather, an EU official actually making sense in his statements: 

The Dutch government says European countries should be allowed to exit important European institutions after joining them, including the European Union, the eurozone and the Schengen free travel zone.
In a letter to parliament Thursday, Prime Minister Mark Rutte said achieving that possibility will itself require treaty changes, because the Maastricht Treaty that established the euro and Schengen Agreement don’t allow for exits.
The statement echoes remarks that Rutte made at the World Economic Forum earlier in January, when he said the EU shouldn’t be like the “Hotel California” described in the song by the rock band The Eagles as a place where “you can check out any time you like — but you can never leave.” 

Somebody should inform the Serbian government about this part I bolded.

"Hotel California" was meant as an allegory of hell so make your own judgement. As for the parallels with Serbia's relationship with the EU, you need not go any further then the lyrics to see them at first glance.

Thursday, January 31, 2013

A grim anniversary and a moral(if you can learn from history)

Italian journalist Indro Montanelli held once a bust of Stalin in his office. since it was a known fact that his political persuasions are quite iopposite of communism, one of his friends asked him why he held this bust and  Montanelli replied: "Nobody killed as many communists as Stalin did". If I was a Europe-hater and an anti-white racist I woud emulate Montanelli  by having a portrait of Adolf Hitler in my home or study. Nobody killed as many white Europeans as Hitler did nor has inflicted such destruction on Europe, in material, spiritual and moral sense. Even today his evil legacy soils, one way or another, political and social discourse and other areas of life such as science, economy, jurispudence and even art.

The 80th anniversary of Hitler coming to power yesterday passed somewhat unnoticed even by me. What reminded me was a text by Srđa Trifković in Chronicles. Particularly interesting is Trifković's description of the events that lead to Hitler being appointed. I could not help even though I knew the facts already from other sources being dumbfounded all over again by the sheer cynicism, superficiality and short-sightedness of some of the participants:

Until the first few weeks of January 1933 Hindenburg repeatedly stated that he would never appoint Hitler as Chancellor, whatever the circumstances. As late as January 26 he declared to a group of friends and associates, “Gentlemen, I hope you will not hold me capable of appointing this Austrian corporal to be Reich Chancellor.” But Chancellor Franz von Papen—ostensibly a master manipulator—thought that if need be he could use Hitler as an expedient tool, a brute who would be kept on a short leash by the forces of the traditional Right.
Having patiently made his way into Hindenburg’s inner circle, Papen kept amusing and flattering the old man. By early 1932 he was considered not only trusted but indispensible. After the November 1932 election, which saw the Nazi vote drop from 37 to 32 percent, and after Papen was forced out of Chancellorship in December, Hindenburg’s importance in resolving the looming crisis grew out of all proportion to his declining faculties and deteriorating health. After another meeting with the Nazi leader, in the final weeks of 1932, Hindenburg declared dryly that “a cabinet led by Hitler would necessarily develop into a single-party dictatorship, with all the attendant consequences for an extreme aggravation of the conflicts within the German people.”
Papen begged to differ, however. He came to believe that he could build up Hitler yet control him from behind the scenes, bring him down at an opportune moment, and take the top post for himself yet again. He then persuaded Hindenburg’s influential son Oskar of the merits of his plan, and spent the last two weeks of January bullying Hindenburg into appointing Hitler Chancellor. On January 30, 1933—eighty years ago today—Hindenburg relented and swore Hitler in as Chancellor at 11 a.m. This was no Machtergreifung, no active seizure of power, no revolution. Hitler’s appointment was the fruit of Papen’s intrigue. Essentially it was theMachtübertragung, handover of power.

The cynical manipulators of today are showing that they have learned absolutely nothing. They live under the delusion they could have their own brutes to use as a stick to beat their political and ideological opponents and do not change their behaviour even when chickens come home to roost.  Which is why history threatens to repeat itself, but contrary to Marx's theory the second time might be even a bigger tragedy then the first.

Friday, January 25, 2013

Who is it that they admire and who is it they persecute?

It is often said that the quality and health of a society can be measured by seeing who it's most prominent are.   The fact Hilary Clinton has recently been proclaimed  "Most Admired Woman" by Americans in the traditional  Gallup poll bodes ill for the US society as a whole.

Sadistically gleeful reaction to the savage murder of Ghaddafi should have signaled to the world at large that she has a fundamentally sociopathic if not psychopathic personality. The other day she showed again that component of her in a sentence that for sheer cynical callousness takes some beating. "What difference does it make?" was her reply when she was asked whether she still thought some obscure video caused the attack on the American consulate in Benghazi.

Putting aside the objections specific to the case itself, such as the political imprisonment of the maker of the aforementioned film on trumped-up charges as a direct consequence of Clinton's false statements, her reply is even more egregious from the general philosophical point of view. If we apply this monstrous logic to it's logical end anything resembling morality would soon be erased from society and soon civilization itself would collapse. Let's take the preservation of law and order as an example: according to Hilary Clinton's warped view it is useless to hunt down murderers because once the person is dead it does not matter whether he or she was murdered or died of natural causes. 

In history this kind of thinking would produce even more monstrous results. Following Clinton's logic it really does not matter why millions of Jews died during World War Two, their deaths are tragic regardless whether  they were murdered by the Nazis or died of some general, vague "horrible wartime conditions". This is in fact a line promoted by those Holocaust deniers who seek to cover themselves with a cloak of respectability.

There is another side to this story and it concerns who, on the other hand, is reviled by that same society. The answer is: a person who displays sanity, logic and clarity in judgement. For more then a year Michelle Bachmann has been maligned as a "bigot", "crank", "redneck" and "islamophobe" for  refusing to look at the events in the Middle East through rose-colored glasses and expressing legitimate scepticism and concerns over possible future development. Now that she's been vindicated to a great extent, you'd think that some people would at least retreat from the public discourse(nobody is so gullible as to think they would actually apologize). But no, the media lynching of Michelle Bachmann continues unabated and will continue in the forseeable future.

Hilary Clinton revered, Michelle Bachmann reviled. As said in the beggining, says more about the society that treats them this way then about the women in question.

Monday, January 07, 2013

Christ is born!

And behold, a voice from heaven said,"This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased." - Matthew, 3:17

Merry Christmas to all my readers who celebrate it according to the Julian calendar!

Tuesday, January 01, 2013

Happy New Year!

All the best in 2013 to all my readers. As a gift, in honor of the year in which we mark the Richard Wagner bicentennial, I give you Die Meistersinger von Nurnberg
, Bayreuth 1984(back in the days when their production was still worth something)