View from Minas Morgul

More on the hipocricy and ignorance on Syria

2012-02-09T12:42:00.004+01:00

In yesterday's entry I linked to an article by Daniel Greenfield in which he gives a fairly realistic view on Syria. There is another part worth mentionig in it, one that shows the absurdity of pushing for a UN resolution on Syria calling for a regime change:

A closer look at the whole process reveals the ridiculousness of it. The Security Council Resolution calling for peaceful democratic change was co-sponsored by Saudi Arabia, which is an absolute monarchy, and which recently used tanks to suppress protests in Bahrain. As the driving force behind the Arab League, Saudi Arabia was the key player in moving for regime change in Libya. Now it has rubber stamped regime change in Syria.

But why are we expected to take a call by one tyranny for the overthrow of another as a moral duty. As bad as the Assad regime is, Syria is marginally more open and democratic than Saudi Arabia is. And unlike Saudi Arabia, it isn’t an Apartheid state that treats non-Muslims and women like dirt. If we were going to implement regime change on the basis of democracy and human rights, we would start with the Saudis.

Of the Muslim co-sponsors of the UN Resolution, virtually all of them have suppressed opposition movements and imprisoned political dissidents. Bahrain is another co-sponsor of the resolution and the only difference between it and Syria, is that Bahrain is a Sunni minority ruling over a Shiite minority, while in Syria it’s the other way around. Kuwait ethnically cleansed the Palestinians back in the nineties. Turkey is still conducting an occupation and murdering Kurdish civilians. Libya doesn’t have an actual elected government, but it’s still somehow sponsoring UN resolutions for regime change in another country.

Of the nine Muslim co-sponsors that have actual governments… eight are monarchies. Most are even absolute monarchies. The only quasi-democracy on the list is Turkey which has prisons filled with dissidents, persecutes minorities and continues to deny its genocidal actions. Not to mention its violation of UN resolutions on Cyprus.

Muslim absolute monarchies are calling for implementing democratic change in Syria. Did monarchies which torture and execute dissenters expected anyone to believe that they were concerned because the Assad family was killing opponents of the regime? Two of the co-sponsors had been doing the same thing last year. One of the co-sponsors is busy torturing former members of its regime right now.

The UN Resolution was based around the Plan of Action of the League of Arab States based on an observer mission to Syria headed by General Mohammed Ahmed Mustafa al-Dabi. Al-Dabi headed up the Sudanese genocide, he is the pet thug of Sudan’s indicted war criminal leader, Omar al-Bashir and helped create the Janjaweed rape squads.

Obama has been on the record opposing any military intervention in Sudan, despite the fact that an actual genocide did take place there. But now we are being led by the Gulf Cooperation Council members into another regime change plan. The loudest voice calling for military intervention is Sheikh Hamad Al-Thani, the fat smirking thug running Qatar.

Another of the Al-Thani clan, who serves as foreign minister, said, “We ask that the Syrian regime leave and hand over power. We are with the Syrian people, with their will and with their aspirations.” The Al-Thanis, who rule in an absolute monarchy, are the last people to be cheering on the aspirations of the people. The Al-Thanis can’t see the people from their palaces.

So ridiculous, it isn't even funny. We live in the era of tribal morality, where good is when we rob the neighbouring village while evil is when the neighbouring village robs us. Principles? We don't need no stinkin' principals!

As for the ignorance part of the title, be sure to read an article by Yedidya Atlas at Frontpage Magazine titled "Who are the Syrian people?" in which he expands on the argument Greenfield mentioned in his article.

Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind

2012-02-08T13:30:00.003+01:00

Russian foreign minister was spot on: the West's reaction to yet another joint Russo-Chinese veto on Syria is hysterical. And pathetic to boot. There is no other word to describe the western diplomats' temper tantrums comparable to those of a child that has just been deprived of it's favourite toy.

Honestly, after Lybia, what did they expect? That their waxing about "poor unarmed Syrian civilians opressed and murdered by that evil dictator Asad" was going to be credible? The nonsense of it all id not lost on Daniel Greenfield, who writes:

If anyone is to blame for Russia and China’s vetoing of the Syria resolution in the UN Security Council, it’s Barack Obama. Last year the United States and the Arab League brought forward a No Fly Zone to the UN Security Council. Instead of enforcing a No Fly Zone, Obama, Cameron and Sarkozy instead used it as an excuse for an invasion and regime change. If Russia and China refused to take another plan from the same suspects at face value, the blame lies with an administration that abused a No Fly Zone.

The message from Russia and China is fairly clear. Fool me once, shame on you. But don’t even think about trying it twice.

I would, however, argue, like I did back in October, that the Russians and the Chinese were anything but fooled and that back then as well as now they knew exactly what they were doing. To them, Assad is a bigger asset then Ghadafi was and they acted accordingly. This simple notion of action being driven by national interest is something US/NATO can not swallow. But their musings replete with ideological cliches are among clear thinking people met with a mixture of bemusement and derision, as Caroline Glick notes:

Most US leaders have used rhetoric to explain their policies. But if you take the Obama administration's statements at face value you are left scratching your head in wonder. Specifically on Syria, if you take these statements literally, you are left wondering if Obama and his advisers are simply clueless. Because if they are serious, their indignation bespeaks a remarkable ignorance about how decisions are made at the Security Council.
...
Outside the intellectual universe of the Obama administration - where stalwart US allies such as Hosni Mubarak are discarded like garbage and foes such as Hugo Chavez are wooed like Hollywood celebrities - national governments tend to base their foreign policies on their national interests.

In light of this basic reality, Security Council actions generally reflect the national interests of its member states. This is how it has always been. This is how it will always be. And it is hard to believe that the Obama administration was unaware of this basic fact.

Sadly, Glick contradicts herself in the rest of the article by lamenting over Obama not "stopping Asad from killing the people of Syria". For a dose of reality we go back to Daniel Greenfield:

And who are the Syrian people anyway? Is it the Sunnis or the Alawites or the Christians? This isn’t a civil war between a dictator and his people, no matter how often the media and foreign policy experts will repeat the lie, it’s a religious conflict between a ruling Shiite splinter sect and Sunnis backed by Turkey and Arabian Gulf monarchies.

For all the talk of replacing Assad with an inclusive system based on elections, this will mean majority rule and the disenfranchisement of non-Sunnis, non-Muslims and women at the hands of the rebels handpicked by Turkish ruling Islamist party and the Emir of Qatar. Egypt’s democracy led to an Islamist parliament. There is no reason to expect a Syrian election not to lead to the same thing.

As the old saying goes, one should be careful what one wishes for because it may just come true. But how can one reason with people that do not learn not only from sayings but even from real-life experiance? The warnings similar to that of Greenfield will be either ignored or shouted down by screeching propagandists and later vindication will be scant consolation since the consequences of ideologically-driven ill-concieved policies will be to grave for people to dwell on past warnings.

Christ is born!

2012-01-07T14:25:00.002+01:00

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

Happy New Year

2012-01-01T15:29:00.001+01:00

All the best in 2012 to all my readers.

Not just Christmas

2011-12-29T15:08:00.004+01:00

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.

There's always a new low

2011-12-21T14:24:00.005+01:00

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?

Just for the record

2011-11-25T14:47:00.002+01:00

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.

Andrew McCarthy - the sanest and bravest person in America

2011-10-27T13:43:00.003+02:00

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".

Michele Bachmann: the sanest and bravest person in America

2011-10-24T13:07:00.004+02:00

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.

More on the subject of forgetting and learning nothing

2011-10-06T14:24:00.002+02:00

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?

They do indeed play it

2011-10-05T14:13:00.005+02:00

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.

It’s amazing where one can find trash

2011-09-13T14:07:00.002+02:00

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.

10 years on

2011-09-12T13:31:00.003+02:00

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.

This time maybe nothing will be left

2011-09-09T14:47:00.004+02:00

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:

Wilders goes one step further

2011-09-05T14:16:00.004+02:00

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.

Not over until it's over

2011-08-26T11:32:00.002+02:00

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.

Will there be an England?

2011-08-12T13:09:00.003+02:00

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?"

Kosovo and Metohija overview

2011-08-10T10:25:00.003+02:00

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.

The shortest answer is the best

2011-07-26T13:32:00.004+02:00

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.

Off again!

2011-07-08T13:58:00.001+02:00

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.

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

2011-07-01T15:14:00.002+02:00

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.

Remember the good old days when dissent was patriotic?

2011-06-24T12:54:00.002+02:00

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

2011-06-24T12:34:00.002+02:00

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...

So ridiculous it isn't even funny

2011-06-14T12:14:00.002+02:00

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.

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

2011-06-13T14:21:00.003+02:00

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!

That's the way it works

2011-06-06T15:36:00.002+02:00

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?

I believe this is only fair

2011-05-24T14:50:00.002+02:00

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.

Obama to Israel: drop dead!

2011-05-20T10:09:00.003+02:00

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.

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

2011-05-17T14:07:00.002+02:00

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...

Bin Laden dead, delusions are still alive

2011-05-03T14:17:00.004+02:00

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.

Out of town

2011-04-25T23:04:00.001+02:00

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.

Christ is Risen!

2011-04-24T13:28:00.002+02:00

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

That's the way

2011-04-19T15:12:00.003+02:00

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.

The forgotten crisis

2011-04-15T12:58:00.003+02:00

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.

Bitter and twisted: open season on Wayne Rooney

2011-04-08T13:23:00.005+02:00

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.

April 6th 1941, NEVER FORGET

2011-04-06T13:03:00.003+02:00

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.

Has the turnaround begun already?

2011-03-28T13:43:00.005+02:00

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.

If they lost him...

2011-03-25T13:26:00.005+01:00

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.

24.3.1999,NEVER FORGET

2011-03-24T12:35:00.002+01:00

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.

On behalf of whom?

2011-03-23T11:40:00.003+01:00

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.

Japan

2011-03-14T17:02:00.004+01:00

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.

I'm back at last!

2011-03-10T15:13:00.002+01:00

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.

One month

2010-03-19T12:51:00.003+01:00

No, not the time since my last post(it's been longer as you can see) but the time since I was thrust into a new role in my life, that of a father. A month ago exactly, a little girl came into this world. There was some trouble along the way, but, as Shakespeare said, all is well that ends well. I am started to get used to my new lifestyle, one that has little to do with the old one. I already got rid of some old habits and am in the process of acquiring new ones which is the tougher part, really. What I found unusual is that I was not ovewhlmed with emotion right from the start, but my daughter has quickly started to grow on me and I feel I'm ready to take on my responsibilities as a dad, ones that will last for the rest of my life. I have no idea what will come out of it, I can only do my best.

As for blogging, when I find the time there will be something, I did not forget you.

Thou shall always practice affirmative action

2010-02-03T15:23:00.003+01:00

The latest front page of the excreable "Vanity Fair" came under attack by progressivist hacks. Reason? I'll give you a couple of quotes:

While we'd like to think celeb bible Vanity Fair puts a great deal of thought and planning into its annual "New Hollywood" issue, this year the editors really limited their scope when it came to choosing the next big stars. (Or perhaps they overemphasized the "Fair"? ) Every woman on its new cover is extremely thin and very, very white. Unless Vanity Fair considers one redhead to be diversity, we feel the need to cry foul.
...
Though it's true, Young Hollywood is predominantly Caucasian, we can think of a slew of non-white, non-rail thin actors who made a splash this year (Gabourey Sidibe from "Precious" anyone?). In the accompanying article, Vanity Fair writer Evgenia Peretz calls out the young cover stars by their best attributes: "downy-soft cheeks," "button nose," "patrician looks and celebrated pedigree," "dewy, wide-eyed loveliness," "Ivory-soap-girl features." Roles for black, Asian, and Latin actors are scarce in Hollywood, but surely Sidibe, Zoe Saldana of "Avatar" and "Star Trek," and Freida Pinto of "Slumdog Millionaire" are having their moment. Vanity Fair may have been looking for the most promising batch of talent for their issue, but they should have been looking for a diverse group of women as well.

If uber-ultra progressive liberal rag like "Vanity Fair" can be berated for not practicing "diversity", anyone can. And for any reason whatsoever. So it's time people stop trying to satisfy progressive polit-commisars and begin ignoring their screeching altogether.

Epiphany

2010-01-20T10:31:00.003+01:00

January 19th is the holiday of Epiphany according to the Julian Calendar which is still used by Serbian, Russian and Georgian Orthodox Churches as well as the Coptic Church and the Jerusalem Patriarchy. After half a century of electing a drunk and a murderer, a year almost to the day after the election of the Anoited Prophet Of Hope and Change, the voters of Massachusetts(I got the spelling right, unlike some political candidates) had an epiphany of their own and decided to put a stop to the scheming of Obama and his cohorts.

So where did the latter blow it? Because there can be no doubt that they did blow it, big time(and that is a galactic understatement). A year ago they cruised on the wave of popular enthusiasm to one of the most convincing electoral victories ever recorded, promising a new era in every way and with the means to deliver it. It was actually then where seeds of this defeat began to be sown. Democrats started to believe their own hype and thought they could ram just about anything down the population's throat while facing only token opposition. After all, they had the White House, both houses of Congress by a wide margin and the mainstream media ready to cover for them. Republicans and their base was directionless and demoralized and the timing seemed to be perfect. In their victorious hubris Obama and his crew let it all slip out at once, the health care and welfare programs, the nationalization of industries, tax-hiking and other programmes that amassed new debt on the already debt-ridden US economy.

When resistance to such measures proved to be stiffer then at first thought, the Democrats' response was at best clumsy, at worst offensive. Their representatives went from petulant child-like complaints at being heckled and called names through dismissive labels about protesters as "people living in the past" right down to offensive fascist/nazi comparisons. The sycophant media was also quick to give their own contribution when they put the race card on the table. Not only did that not deterr the opponents of the Obama plan and in fact galvanized them even more, such behaviour from the establishment turned off fence-sitters and even some supporters. By summer it was clear that the road to Obama-world would be bumpy. All of a sudden it was the democrats who were disoriented by the unexpected turn of events.

The death of Ted Kennedy re-ignited the flame for a short while. Thanks to his political machinations Massachusetts introduced a bill that would require a special election should a US senator from that state die or retire instead of the customary governor's appointment. The bill was set up in order to prevent then-governor Mitt Romney, a Republican, from appointing someone from the GOP to the Senate but in the ironic turn of events only a higher power could engineer Democrats not only got hoisted up by their own petard but lost the crucial vote in the most liberal state of them all and the seat held by one of it's most iconic figures.

How could this have happened? While putting it all down to Martha Coakley and her inept(another gallactic undestatement) campaign seems a bit simplicistic at first, it is the truth, from a certain point of view at least. Martha Coakley and her campaign were in fact the embodyment of everything that makes leftist, post-modern liberalism and progressivism so evil: the arrogance, snobism, elitism, aloofness, disdain for the "average Joe", out-of-touchness with simple life and above all complete divorce from reality(and these are just the pick of the bunch). It was so transparent it hardly needed any comment or even campaign ads.

While the result itself is a shock, the shockwaves it sent around the country and the effects of those are predictable. Some Democrat lawmakers wasted no time in going into "every man for himself" mode. And who could blame them? If a democrat can lose ine Massachusetts, a democrat can lose anywhere! However, reports of the imminent political death of Obama and the Democrats are exaggerated and premature. Congressional elections are in November and Obama is not up for re-election until 2012. Plenty of time to regroup in both cases, we just saw what a difference a year makes in politics, let alone almost three. The road they are on now leads inevitably to perdition, though.

Hypocritical and dumber

2010-01-13T11:17:00.003+01:00

In a strange break from the health-care debate the major topic of discussion in American politics have become the alleged controversial statements of Senator Harry Reid on then-Senator and presidential candidate Barack Obama.

Without giving it much thought Republicans and conservatives jumped on the opportunity and ganged up on Reid demanding his resignation. Their reaction was as dumb as it was quick. Yes, if Reid was Republican we would already be seeing a lynch mob consisting of the usual race-card players, media pundits, democrat politicians(sorry for repeating myself) and other phony do-gooders lambasting the man with a barrage of various labels. Yes, anyone that would dare to defend Reid would get the same treatment, which is why nobody would eventually. Everything that points out the hypocrisy of modern-day liberalism is true. As usual, though, the Republicans can not see the wood from the tree.

By demanding that Senator Reid resigns over some remarks he made off-record they are effectively signing-on to the liberal-progressivist way of thinking and one of the tennets of their ideology: political correctness. Instead of combating this plague that is hampering the modern civilization, they are advancing it. Even if they succeed in their efforts to remove Reid it will be a meaningless tactical victory for the Republican party alone and a significant strategic loss for all those figthing for true freedom of expression regardless of political orientation. Making politically correct standards the only standards will inevitably drive civilization into an ever deeper mire.

The Stupid Party? Absolutely.

Christ is born!

2010-01-07T12:15:00.003+01:00

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

All the best in 2010

2009-12-30T15:01:00.003+01:00

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

I wish you all the best in 2010.

Can't happen in America? Yeah, right!

2009-12-07T14:13:00.003+01:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

...

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

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

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

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

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

Revolutionary instead of conservative

2009-12-01T09:03:00.003+01:00

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

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

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

Vyechnaya pamyat - memory eternal

2009-11-15T16:46:00.002+01:00

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

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

So, who does our gevernememnt take after?

2009-11-10T13:15:00.004+01:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Someone should dare call it treason

2009-10-28T19:54:00.004+01:00

Allegations that the contemporary European ruling classes have conspired to destroy and/or disenfranchise native indigenous European populations and supplant them with third world peoples were at best laughed off as paranoid conspiracy theories and at worst branded as rantings of racist, neo-nazi maniacs. Now we see they were anything but.

Vindication is, however, scant consolation for those who have been sounding warning bells the past several years, knowing that governement immigration policies were simply too awkward to be a product of simple ignorance or opportunism. The damage is not only done it is almost irreversible. Major political parties have already either subscribed to multiculturalism or were bullied into it and the media have long since been under control of the very people who are architects of this conspiracy. Hence the mumbled reaction by what is left of the Tories and the deafening silence of the major papers and TV outlets.

Britain and other European countries are in a need of a complete makeover, even revolution, if they are to survive as distinct nations and cultures. And the first step towards that would be calling this act by the governement of the UK(I don't call them "British governement" since there is nothing remotely British about that sorry lot) by it's real name: treason. Heck, there are also elements of ethnocide here! And warn that this deed will not go unpunished. Yes, the perspective of that seems remote now, but one day...Yes, one day..

What did they expect?

2009-10-23T14:44:00.004+02:00

Russian president Dmitriy Medvedev came and went. The media have already reported about his visit to Serbia extensively and analysts as well as "analysts" gave their views which covered just about every aspect of the visit so I wouldn't want to repeat their words here.

I would just like to give my take on the reactions of the patriotic part of the public. Many have expressed their disappointments over this visit, in particular Medvedev's speech to the parliament, namely the part where he stated how they have nothing against our membership in the EU. It was immediately interpreted as the Russians pushing us towards Brussels so we could act as their pawn there. The idea of the "new system of collective security" that Medvedev stated was even seen, God only knows how, as a "green light" for a NATO membership. Even the billion euro loan was seen as a stab in the back to the patriotic sector.

Such reactions are largely fueled by totally unrealistic expectations as well as utter lack of comprehension of foreign policy. Those who'd like the Russian state to support the patriotic oposition should ask themselves some questions...For example, what opposition? Nikolić, Vučić and the newly-formed progressives who are trying to out-Tadić Tadić more by the day? Koštunica who is largely responsible for the fact that the current governement is ruling in the first place? Radical party? Their EU policy is neither here or there at the moment. At one point they are anti-EU, at another they are not sure, at the third they won't say...What did they actually do to raise the public consciousness about the dangers of euroutopia? Did they organize seminars, for example, with western eurosceptics as participants, which would have explained the true nature of the EU benemoth? how about articles, papers and other publications about the detrimental influence of the EU from a national, economic, political, cultural or civilizational point of view?

How about smaller patriotic NGOs and organizations? First of all there is far too many of them and they all operate independantly of one another, and second, more important, they themselves are not sure how to proceed. Do they want to be a fully fledged political movement acting proactively on a daily basis or are they content with ad-hoc activities?

Any way you look at it, we do not have a serious anti-EU organization, which is somewhat of a tragedy since even according to the most EU-slanted opinion polls the number of opponents of Serbia joining the Union is around 30% which is a starting point any newly formed political party would kill for. Until such a party is formed, however, nobody has the right to be "disappointed" with Russia. And only then we will know whether the Russian interest is indeed to have us as it's pawn within the Union or are they just attempting to get out the maximum out of a bad internal situation in Serbia.

Until then I suggest you re-read the reports of Dmitriy Medvedev's visit and take pleasure in seeing Tadić and his people kissing up to him whereas scarsely a year ago they used to treat with disdain anything Russian.

"There...are...four...lights"

2009-10-15T14:42:00.005+02:00

"At the end, he gave me a choice - between a life of comfort... or more torture. All I had to do was to say that... I could see five lights, when in fact there were only four."
"You didn't say it?"
"No. No... But I was going to. I would have told him anything... anything at all. But more than that - I believed that I could see five lights."

I haven't blogged often these days for personal reasons and because I lacked inspiration. Not that there haven't been enough subjects to blog about, it's just that they mostly comment themselves and the purpose of this blog is not to provide a daily chronicle. Therefore I only make an entry if I have a larger philosophical idea to accompany the current events. And so it happens that I do now...

The above quote is from yet another episode of "Star Trek - The Next Generation", "Chain of Command", a two-part episode from Season 6. In it captain Picard was sent on a secret mission to destroy a Cardassian compound. Unfortunately, Picard was caught and the Cardassian commander subjects him to torture. Torture scenes are an hommage-remake of Orwell's "1984", specifically the part where O'Brien asks Winston Smith how many fingers he is holding up. Series creators even managed to cast a duo of Patrick Stewart - David Warner which gave a performance (almost) at the level of John Hurt and Richard Burton.

The dialog above happens at the very end, after Picard safely returned to the Enterprise(sorry about the spoiler) and recounts his traumatic experience to Counselor Troi. In the safety of familiar surroundings and free of torment, Picard remembered what was the most terryfying thing about it.

Nine years ago a lot of Serbs after almost a decade of torture were ready to say anything to make it stop. After it didn't many turned to despair repeatedly asking why the torture continues in spite us telling the torturers what they wanted to hear. Their goal, however, is not that we say what they want to hear but that we truly believe it in our hearts. Until that happens they will never have completely conquered us. That is why they continue to torment us. Until we actually believe we could see five lights and begin loving our Big Brother.

Need more proof that the Nobel Peace Prize is a politicized sham and a joke?

2009-10-09T12:17:00.002+02:00

Here it is!

As if there wasn't enough of American "obamania", now we have to endure sycophancy from overseas. But that's not the worst part, far from it. This "prize" will now be flaunted by Obama minions as an official seal of infailability as well as a stick to beat all those who question his policies(so much for dissent being patriotic). Then again, the prize being awarded to an awowed chauvinist Ahtisaari, nothing should surprise us.

Depressing, truly depressing, in several ways...

Last anniversary, hopefully

2009-10-05T12:45:00.002+02:00

It is now 9 years since we "established democracy". News and TV in Serbia will dedicate due attention to this, in between hysterical tirades against "hooligans", so I won't bother you much with it.

I can not help but notice, though, that the reflections on that date are dominated by a sense of surprise that not all had turned out as imagined. Everyone is shocked, shocked that nothing really changed and that hardly anything positive happened to us.

I myself am not the least bit surprised. On the contrary, this is exactly what I expected because I did not imagine like John Lennon, I watched reality occur and the outcome could never have been any different then this.

I hope that this is the last time this sorry date is being marked in any significant way.

"Human rights" against national rights

2009-09-29T11:18:00.003+02:00

Our "old friend" Richard Goldstone has caused a lot of controversy with his latest "human rights" report about the Middle East. The Governement of Israel, as well as ordinary Israelis and Jews were first shocked and then livid, to say the least. Had they been paying attention to what has been going on in the world in the past decades, they wouldn't have been either. Goldstone and his report are just a logical consequence of the ideological shift that has been going on in our civilization, one that threatens it's very existence. Melanie Phillips provides a good explanation on what the "human rights" ideology has turned into:

...‘human rights’ has become an Orwellian synonym for an attack on human rights. It has become a judicial wrecking ball which is being deployed to shatter the fundamental principles of both western civilisation and national identity.

This is almost wholly obscured by the fact that it was western civilisation which produced the concept of human rights in the first place -- the sacredness of human life, the equality of all people, the seminal importance of freedom, law and justice – and declared these to be universal principles. That’s why ‘human rights’ lawyers protest that their doctrine cannot possibly constitute an attack on western civilisation, because it is rooted in that civilisation’s own foundational principles.

The crucial point, however, is that these were not universal principles but – very different, this – culturally particular principles to be applied universally. They derived from a particular set of religious ethics which gave rise to western civilisation -- principles promoted through Christianity but deriving from the Hebrew Bible. Without that Biblical moral underpinning, there can be no basis for freedom or equality or respect for life.

Phillips' claim that these are "culturally particular principles to be applied universally" is rather dubious, in my opinion, since they were never called as such. The UN has adopted "The Universal Declaration of Human Rights" in which it claims human rights stated within it as universal. It could have been that the authors had something different in mind, something aching to Phillips' assertion, and which would be far more sensible, but the wording of the declaration does not support that. Rather, it vindicates the position of Goldstone and his ilk. By formulating "The Universal Declaration of Human Rights" as such, we have sown the seeds of our destruction and we are now reaping it, as Melanie Phillips herself shows:

Arising from the contemporary cult of individuality which repudiates all external authority as unjustified constraints on self-actualisation, ‘human rights’ culture claimed that these ‘rights’ were indeed universal – principles that transcended all cultures and therefore laid claim to superseding them. It took the principle of ‘universality’ and radically dislocated it from the unique Biblical tradition from which such ethics had sprung. ‘Human rights’ thus became free-floating axioms, deriving from no higher authority than the vagaries of judicial assumptions, prejudices and whims.

In wrapping itself in the mantle of universality, ‘human rights’ culture became an explicit attack on the very notion of the particular. Religious tradition therefore was directly in its sights – particularly Christianity and the Hebrew Bible upon which it drew, even though these were the foundation of those rights. That’s why, for example, Christians are no longer allowed to uphold their belief that same–sex relationships are sinful; if they protest against same-sex adoptions, for example, on the grounds that a child has the right to a mother and a father figure, they are vilified as bigots and lose their professional position.

The rights of Christians count for nothing. As the beliefs of a particular, discrete tradition they are trumped by ‘universal rights’. And these are whatever 'human rights' lawyers deem them to be, through institutions such as' human rights' law or supra-national courts – such as the International Criminal Tribunals of which Judge Goldstone was such an ornament. This ‘transnational progressivism’ holds that the nation and the culture that made that nation must yield to the diktats of ‘universal’ principles – which are not universal at all but spring from the minds of western ‘human rights’ lawyers intent on promoting a secular agenda which kicks away all those tiresome Biblical constraints, to be replaced by their own formulae for controlling human behaviour.

Moreover, because ‘human rights’ is the legal engine of self-actualisation, it is also the legal engine of moral and cultural relativism – the doctrine that values are all subjective, that there can therefore be no hierarchy of values and that no culture can have superiority over any other culture. This turned ‘human rights’ into a battering ram against the very idea of a majority culture.

And if I may add, this, by extension, also turns the "human rights" ideology into a tool of the destruction of nation-states, national cultures and national and state rights as such since "majority culture" is but a product of the aforementioned concepts.

Melanie Phillips, however, does not offer a solution to this problem. Perhaps because it is much easier to state it then to actually do it. Let me start with the former: one must either reform or abolish altogether the UN human rights declaration.

And now, for the hard part...I'm sure that the very proposal might raise quite a few eyebrows. Non-western countries will propably dismiss this out of hand because on the surface it might look as if someone would try to remove the legal obstacle for conquest and re-colonization. However, if they look closely into recent history, they will find out that the Declaration, or some of it's stated principles, has, in fact, quite often been used as a pretext for an invasion of a sovereign country by the powers governed by the universalist transnational-progressivist ideology, all in the name of "universal human rights". Which brings me to my next point...

A far greater obstacle to the Declaration's reform will be, in fact, in the ruling establishment in the West. Not only were entire political and other careers forged around the so-called "human rights" industry in the US and Europe, but transnational progressivism has over the years, in fact, cleverly supplanted traditional societies there, leaving the impression that they always were the true representatives of the West. It will not give up it's position easily.

The conditio sine qua non of any Declaration reform is that such ideology as well as all of it's off-shoots in the form of "nation-building" and "spreading of democracy" are curtailed and marginalized and that their proponents are exposed and ostracized. Europe and America must do that for their own sake first. Only this can open the door to a Declaration more in the mould of Melanie Phillips' claim, one that will be applicable only to countries and peoples that wish to belong to a certain civilizational circle but which will simultaniousely forgo any universalist claims or pretends of expanding beyond it's realm or imposing itself on those who reject it. This will, in turn, create a much healthier and more sincere foundation in international relations, something that is sorely needed in these times.

"If we ever want to leave..."

2009-09-29T10:38:00.002+02:00

Freelance columnist and reporter Diana West was present at a symposium discussing the war in Afganistan and how should America win it. Present there were the usual suspects, the nation-and -democracy-buliders, the conquerors of hearts and minds and the discussion was basicaly revolved around these cliches. Unsuprissingly, the participants were either ignorant or dismissive about the history an present day reality of Afganistan, avoided mentioning the "I" word like the plague and simultaniousely completely entrenched in their belief that "every human beings desire for freedom and democracy" overcomes all obstacles. Yet, even such tedious gatherings produce something for the ages, such as this assertion from John Nagl, co-author of the U.S. Army's counterinsurgency manual and fellow of the Center for a New American Security:

"If we ever want to leave, we have to build an Afghan government that can accomplish those goals (of good government) on its own."

There was a joke about the late Yugoslav leader Tito that went like this:

Q:"How does Tito's last will and testament begin?"
A:"If I ever die..."

Reality is at times more comical then jokes, or in the case of US involvement in Afganistan, tragicomical.

It's not about rights, it never was

2009-09-22T12:49:00.003+02:00

Thankfully, Serbia has been spared the so-called "gay pride" event. All the brainwashing coming from the NGO sector, the media and governement officials had the opposite effect on the public, already vastly opposed to the gay agenda. Not only football fans and memebers of patriotic organizations but also ordinary people were in fact galvanized into opposition to this shameful occurence.

However, a golden opportunity was missed to expose the gay agenda, it's goals and the people who stood behind the "gay rights" organizations in Serbia, an opportunity that might not present itself again.

The phrase "gay rights" is highly misleading in the first place. Nobody ever asked them what rights guaranteed by the consitution of Serbia were they denied exactly. Political rights? They have the right to vote and be voted into office. A right to life, to have free sexual relations with whom they please? Again, nobody denies them that. Their right to work, right to legal protection, right to health-care(Serbian constitution gurantees that right, whether health-care is a "right" or not, is another story) are all protected. They claim they can not get married. They can, but with the person of opposite sex. They also complain that they are not allowed to adopt children. Well, I have news for them: adoption is not a constitutional right but a privilege. And finally, they claim they can not express their sexual orientation freely. So which governement organ or agency is impeding them from doing that? None whatsoever.

So what is this all about? Well gay activists themselves are letting the cat out of the bag as soon as any serious discussion about what really bothers them gains some momentum. Very soon they begin to complain and whinge how they have to deal with scornful remarks on the streets and mockery, how "gay" is still a dirty word etc. They pretty much start resembling children complaining about the teasing they get in the schoolyard during the break. They claim it is tormenting them and they want it to stop.

But gays' own chief argument about homosexuality being a choice in fact vindicate those who scorn them. We can all agree that animosity towards someone because of something one can not choose, such as race and ethnicity, is reprehensible. But if belonging to a certain group is a matter of choice then it is concievable that many people, as well as the society as a whole will not approve of such a choice and that they might voice such disapproval in one way or the other. It is a natural right. But gay activists want such vocal dissaproval to stop, one way or the other and are ready to go as far as destroying the traditional society of a nation in order to achieve this. So who is in fact curtailng whose rights here?

In the case of Serbia, there is an additional factor to weigh in. Gay activists in Serbia, whether consciously or not, found themselves on the same task of destroying the traditional Serbian society that transnational progresivist governements and institutions have been trying to accomplish in the past 9 years. Thus the opposition to "gay pride" got an additional dimension in the defense of nationhood. There is no better evidence of that then various EU institutions and ambassadors of EU countries expressing their disappointment that the gay manifestation did not take place.

"Gay pride" was a litmus-test of how far the annihilation of the remains of the traditional Serbian society has gone. Had it succeeded, additional demands for the introduction of other post-modernist multi-culti measures aimed at dismantling of everything that makes Serbs Serbs would have followed suit. Fortunately, it turned out there is still a healthy core in the nation ready and unashamed to express their will to defend their heritage. I doubt, however, it will be tha last time they will be called upon to do that.

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

2009-09-18T14:26:00.003+02:00

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

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

In 1939, Hitler sold out Poland.

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

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

2009-09-16T15:22:00.004+02:00

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

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

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

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

Are you quite sure it was off the record?

2009-09-15T13:30:00.003+02:00

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

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

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

We are all dispensable to them

2009-09-02T14:17:00.003+02:00

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

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

Should we attempt to change others?

2009-08-31T13:02:00.004+02:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Inglorious basterds" - review

2009-08-30T21:56:00.009+02:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

No sooner said then done

2009-08-13T14:22:00.003+02:00

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

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

It's standard MO

2009-08-11T11:17:00.006+02:00

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

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

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

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

2009-08-06T12:36:00.003+02:00

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

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

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

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

They are pushing it a bit too far now

2009-08-05T15:11:00.004+02:00

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

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

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

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

When you think about it a little...

2009-07-23T11:26:00.003+02:00

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

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

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

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

Our "antiamericanism"

2009-07-22T17:25:00.003+02:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So the sun does not shine brighter after all

2009-07-16T10:56:00.003+02:00

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

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

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

Sign of the coming times?

2009-07-13T15:04:00.004+02:00

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

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

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

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

Not that it matters who really won

2009-06-17T10:45:00.003+02:00

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

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

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

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

Call their bluff

2009-06-10T14:10:00.003+02:00

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

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

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

So, who cares about the EU elections?

2009-06-09T13:12:00.003+02:00

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

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

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

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

Feel safe in this world of ours?

2009-05-26T12:04:00.003+02:00

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

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

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

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

If they won't, we must

2009-05-19T11:26:00.004+02:00

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

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

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

This is the world they are trying to create

2009-05-13T14:18:00.003+02:00

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

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

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

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

Panem et circenses

2009-05-08T13:11:00.003+02:00

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

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

So, now she sees it?

2009-05-05T10:33:00.003+02:00

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

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

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

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

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

It's not just land they are trying to steal

2009-04-29T14:58:00.003+02:00

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

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

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

What else was left for them?

2009-04-24T14:46:00.003+02:00

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

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

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

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

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

Christ is risen!

2009-04-19T10:24:00.002+02:00

And he is still in Belgrade

2009-04-14T13:41:00.004+02:00

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

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

Resentfull? McCain? Who would have thought?

2009-04-09T12:56:00.003+02:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2009-04-07T11:57:00.002+02:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quod licet Iovi...

2009-03-30T13:35:00.003+02:00

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

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

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

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

2009-03-26T12:27:00.003+01:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

10 years

2009-03-24T12:31:00.003+01:00

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

The more he talks of change...

2009-03-20T14:29:00.004+01:00

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

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

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

The key for revival

2009-03-18T12:36:00.003+01:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now THIS is tough defending!

2009-03-16T19:39:00.001+01:00

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

Those two had nothing on these guys!

They shouldn't have, end of story!

2009-03-09T14:32:00.004+01:00

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

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

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

Teleprompter

2009-03-06T12:11:00.002+01:00

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

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

It's always someone else's fault

2009-02-26T12:08:00.004+01:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

Down with "hate speech"!

2009-02-25T11:49:00.003+01:00

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

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

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

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

That's the way!

2009-02-19T12:14:00.004+01:00

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

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

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

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

Still think Obamania is not a cult?

2009-02-17T12:56:00.003+01:00

How about now?