Stella Jatras reposed in the Lord on Saturday, June 15.
For the past two decades, even as many Serbs stayed silent in the face of a bigoted campaign of lies and libel - or worse, joined in the persecution of their own, hoping to gain favor with the persecutors - Stella and her family took a courageous stand for truth and justice, never wavering, never losing faith.
Stella was quite literally a daughter of Sparta - and her father's name was Leonidas, no less. As Julia Gorin noted, she was Sparta, truly worthy of that heroic heritage. Axia!
Knowing her was a honor and privilege. With her passing, the Serbs and Greeks lose a great advocate on Earth, but gain one in Heaven.
May the Lord give her peace, and her memory be eternal.
Tuesday, June 18, 2013
Friday, June 14, 2013
There They Go Again
Just two days ago, Leon Hadar wondered if Samantha Power's appointment to the UN meant war in Syria.
Sure enough, the Emperor announced today that the Empire would intervene in Syria, because the government had (allegedly) used chemical weapons against the rebels, thus crossing Washington's arbitrary "red line."
This presumably has nothing to do with the Assad government winning the war, or Obama being taunted by Bill Clinton. Or the IRS and NSA scandals. Nothing to see here, move along. Right?
According to the mainstream media, Washington is considering "arming the rebels" and establishing a "no-fly zone." Except there has already been a massive gunrunning effort, via Croatia and Jordan, earlier this year.
Furthermore, after Libya, the odds of the "no-fly zone" back door to intervention getting through the UN are zero. Can the Empire bypass the UN, the way it did 14 years ago, when it occupied Kosovo? The Washington establishment, trapped in perpetual 1999, may think so; but Syria has learned the lessons of Serbia (even if Serbia hasn't), and Russia - which has a naval presence in Syria and friendly relations with Damascus - is extremely unlikely to stand idly by.
Then there is the question of who exactly would intervene, and where from. The Empire's bases in Iraq are on the wrong side of a massive desert, and at the tail end of a vulnerable supply line. Turkey is a bit preoccupied with internal problems at the moment; its military is yet untried in open battle with a conventional enemy, while its top brass have been purged over the past decade for opposing Islamization.
That leaves what, Israel? Invading Syria on behalf of a jihadist insurgency? Really?
Washington is reusing the Balkans playbook again: atrocity porn, inflated death tolls, smuggling weapons, no-fly zones... expect claims of mass rape and genocide to follow soon. Not because those might actually be happening, but because they are needed to bolster the narrative of the Imperial White Knight riding to the rescue of "Syrian people" (i.e. the jihadist rebel clients of Washington).
Will Syria be the place where this outlandish narrative will run into the reality wall? We'll find out soon enough.
Sure enough, the Emperor announced today that the Empire would intervene in Syria, because the government had (allegedly) used chemical weapons against the rebels, thus crossing Washington's arbitrary "red line."
This presumably has nothing to do with the Assad government winning the war, or Obama being taunted by Bill Clinton. Or the IRS and NSA scandals. Nothing to see here, move along. Right?
According to the mainstream media, Washington is considering "arming the rebels" and establishing a "no-fly zone." Except there has already been a massive gunrunning effort, via Croatia and Jordan, earlier this year.
Furthermore, after Libya, the odds of the "no-fly zone" back door to intervention getting through the UN are zero. Can the Empire bypass the UN, the way it did 14 years ago, when it occupied Kosovo? The Washington establishment, trapped in perpetual 1999, may think so; but Syria has learned the lessons of Serbia (even if Serbia hasn't), and Russia - which has a naval presence in Syria and friendly relations with Damascus - is extremely unlikely to stand idly by.
Then there is the question of who exactly would intervene, and where from. The Empire's bases in Iraq are on the wrong side of a massive desert, and at the tail end of a vulnerable supply line. Turkey is a bit preoccupied with internal problems at the moment; its military is yet untried in open battle with a conventional enemy, while its top brass have been purged over the past decade for opposing Islamization.
That leaves what, Israel? Invading Syria on behalf of a jihadist insurgency? Really?
Washington is reusing the Balkans playbook again: atrocity porn, inflated death tolls, smuggling weapons, no-fly zones... expect claims of mass rape and genocide to follow soon. Not because those might actually be happening, but because they are needed to bolster the narrative of the Imperial White Knight riding to the rescue of "Syrian people" (i.e. the jihadist rebel clients of Washington).
Will Syria be the place where this outlandish narrative will run into the reality wall? We'll find out soon enough.
Thursday, May 16, 2013
Twisted Projections of Conjured Present
Just as I warned back in January, the race to blame the Great War on the Evil-Serbs-and-Russians (properly pronounced in the same breath) is on.
In the New York Times' Sunday Book Review, Reuters editor Harold Evans gave a glowing review to Christopher Clark's "The Sleepwalkers", which blames Serbia for "expansionism" and "terrorism," and Russia for "creating a narrative to justify taking up arms", by "shift[ing] the moral onus from the perpetrator to the victim." Naive France and gullible Britain got suckered in, and thus the Great War began.
This is, of course, patent nonsense. The French wanted a war of revenge for 1871, and this seemed as good an occasion as any. Britain chose to go to war, and while Sir Edward Grey couldn't imagine the actual horrors the war unleashed, his famous comment about the "lamps going out all over Europe" more than suggests he was aware something horrible was about to happen. Does that sound like being suckered in by the wicked, wily Russians to you?
Barbara Tuchman began her "Guns of August" with the parade of European royalty at the 1910 funeral of Edward VII of England - "on history’s clock it was sunset, and the sun of the old world was setting in a dying blaze of splendor never to be seen again."
Clark, on the other hand, opens his book with the 1903 May Coup, which Evans gleefully cites in gory detail:
But Clark needs to show that Colonel Dragutin Dimitrijevic "Apis" was an evil, murderous conspirator who deliberately started WW1 out of his Serb nefariousness, so the context of the May Coup, Austria's abusive relationship with Serbia, and just about everything relevant to the situation gets shoved aside.
He does, however, cite "historians of gender" to argue that all of the politicians involved were men, and had masculinity issues. Such depth of analysis! Lest he be considered insufficiently postmodern, Clark also deems Austria's ultimatum to Serbia - long considered a standard of shamelessness and bad faith - as “a great deal milder” than the 1999 NATO ultimatum to Serbia. Considering that Rambouillet was patterned after the Austrian ultimatum, and that its purpose was to make the war inevitable, I'd say Clark missed the point by such a wide margin here, he ended up shooting himself.
This is technically supposed to be a review of two books, Clark's and Sean McMeekin's "July 1914", but Evans spends most of his time on Clark. I get the impression McMeekin was brought along to make the case against Russia. He had previously written a book called “The Russian Origins of the First World War,” and Evans relies on him to make the claim that "Russia’s crime was first in escalating a local quarrel by encouraging Serbia to stand up to Austria-Hungary and then accelerating the rush to war."
So, if only Austria had been given a carte blanche by the rest of Europe - as it had by Germany - to curb-stomp the "terrorist, expansionist" Serbian savages, there would have been no WW1 - and perhaps Britain would still bestride the world. What a load of hummus.
I can understand the lament over world empire lost. I can understand the desire to blame the perennial Other - the Orthodox Slavs - for the myriad of sins of the Catholic and Protestant West. I even understand the twisted projection of conjured present - with Serbs as the arch-villains the white-knighting humanitarian West needs to defeat to save the Muslim damsel in distress and win her affections - to a traumatic event a century prior; in both cases, facts are discarded or suppressed when they interfere with the narrative.
But when the modern Anglo-American historians and politicians end up sounding like Kaiser Wilhelm - whom Clark cites at one point as saying, "Stop this nonsense! It was high time a clean sweep was made of the Serbs,” - then one can only conclude they represent a civilization that has deeply lost its way.
 |
| Austrian view of the Serbs in 1914, now the Anglo-American mainstream |
This is, of course, patent nonsense. The French wanted a war of revenge for 1871, and this seemed as good an occasion as any. Britain chose to go to war, and while Sir Edward Grey couldn't imagine the actual horrors the war unleashed, his famous comment about the "lamps going out all over Europe" more than suggests he was aware something horrible was about to happen. Does that sound like being suckered in by the wicked, wily Russians to you?
Barbara Tuchman began her "Guns of August" with the parade of European royalty at the 1910 funeral of Edward VII of England - "on history’s clock it was sunset, and the sun of the old world was setting in a dying blaze of splendor never to be seen again."
Clark, on the other hand, opens his book with the 1903 May Coup, which Evans gleefully cites in gory detail:
"King Alexandar and Queen Draga, betrayed and defenseless, huddle in a tiny closet where the maid irons the queen’s clothes. They are butchered, riddled with bullets, stabbed with a bayonet, hacked with an ax and partially disemboweled, their faces mutilated beyond recognition and the bloody half-naked remnants tossed from the royal balcony onto the grounds."Those horrible Serbs, murdering their defenseless king that way! Such savages! Let's set aside the inconvenient fact that the squeamish Brits were busy at the time setting up concentration camps for Boer civilians. Clark doesn't explain why the Obrenovic king was killed, as such hatefacts would interfere with his precious narrative. So the reader doesn't get to understand the heavy-handed absolutism of the Obrenovics, their servitude to Austria at the expense of their country and people, and the long string of abuses and humiliations heaped on both the ordinary Serbs and the military. His marriage to Draga Masin, a rich merchant's divorced daughter who went so far as to invent a pregnancy to appear likeable, was just the last straw. While I can't in good conscience approve of the method of their dispatch, they well deserved to be overthrown.
But Clark needs to show that Colonel Dragutin Dimitrijevic "Apis" was an evil, murderous conspirator who deliberately started WW1 out of his Serb nefariousness, so the context of the May Coup, Austria's abusive relationship with Serbia, and just about everything relevant to the situation gets shoved aside.
He does, however, cite "historians of gender" to argue that all of the politicians involved were men, and had masculinity issues. Such depth of analysis! Lest he be considered insufficiently postmodern, Clark also deems Austria's ultimatum to Serbia - long considered a standard of shamelessness and bad faith - as “a great deal milder” than the 1999 NATO ultimatum to Serbia. Considering that Rambouillet was patterned after the Austrian ultimatum, and that its purpose was to make the war inevitable, I'd say Clark missed the point by such a wide margin here, he ended up shooting himself.
This is technically supposed to be a review of two books, Clark's and Sean McMeekin's "July 1914", but Evans spends most of his time on Clark. I get the impression McMeekin was brought along to make the case against Russia. He had previously written a book called “The Russian Origins of the First World War,” and Evans relies on him to make the claim that "Russia’s crime was first in escalating a local quarrel by encouraging Serbia to stand up to Austria-Hungary and then accelerating the rush to war."
So, if only Austria had been given a carte blanche by the rest of Europe - as it had by Germany - to curb-stomp the "terrorist, expansionist" Serbian savages, there would have been no WW1 - and perhaps Britain would still bestride the world. What a load of hummus.
I can understand the lament over world empire lost. I can understand the desire to blame the perennial Other - the Orthodox Slavs - for the myriad of sins of the Catholic and Protestant West. I even understand the twisted projection of conjured present - with Serbs as the arch-villains the white-knighting humanitarian West needs to defeat to save the Muslim damsel in distress and win her affections - to a traumatic event a century prior; in both cases, facts are discarded or suppressed when they interfere with the narrative.
But when the modern Anglo-American historians and politicians end up sounding like Kaiser Wilhelm - whom Clark cites at one point as saying, "Stop this nonsense! It was high time a clean sweep was made of the Serbs,” - then one can only conclude they represent a civilization that has deeply lost its way.
Sunday, May 12, 2013
Truth, not Absolution
In this week's column over on Antiwar.com, I wrote of eerie similarities - too many to be coincidental - between the policies of the EU and the Atlantic Empire and those of the Third Reich. Specifically, I underlined the parallels between the dismemberment of Yugoslavia between 1941-45 and the one of 1991-95, as well as the hostility towards Russia.
Mind you, there is a distinction between arguing that the West today is implementing specific National-Socialist policies and simply calling them Nazis, which would be both facetious and inaccurate. To focus on labels and not the substance is a mark of postmodern who/whom-ism, which is not my thing.
One of the readers, however, made a comment I want to expand on here:
Pointing out facts about the Communist approach to Yugoslavia, the internal boundaries, ethnic engineering and the 1974 Constitution does not, and never shall, absolve the murderers of Yugoslavia, internal or external. Just as pointing out the problems of the first Yugoslavia doesn't validate the Axis invasion and dismemberment of it. Though the Communists certainly did just that, arguing that the "rotten" old Yugoslavia deserved to be destroyed and then reborn in a "revolution".
As I've noted in another essay, the Serbs have paid with millions of lives for believing the lie that those who identified as Croats and Muslims considered the Serbs their kin. Some have, and perhaps given enough time and peace, that could have become the belief of the majority. But time and peace were not to be had. The bitter truth is that becoming Catholic (in Austrian-held lands) or Muslim (in Turkish-held lands) meant escaping the life of oppression and contempt in which the Orthodox Serbs were held by both empires. These converts did not see the Serbs as their kin, but as their inferiors. And in some cases, officially sanctioned victims.
This was the problem with the first Yugoslavia, which King Aleksandar tried to fix by promoting the idea of "one nation, three faiths." After Aleksandar was assassinated in 1934, Regent Prince Pavle tried appeasing the Croats, a policy culminating in 1939 with the unprecedented creation of their own ethnic province (Aleksandar's provinces were geographical, named after rivers). Not two years later, Croat officers sabotaged Yugoslav Army units, Croat civilians greeted the Nazi tanks with flowers, and the Ustasha regime of Ante Pavelić found plenty of those willing to slaughter Serbs with knives, pickaxes, mallets and whatever else was handy.
To argue that Croat atrocities were somehow caused by "Serb oppression" is to ignore the rabid Serbophobia of the Croat identity as articulated by Starčević-Frank and adopted by Radić and Pavelić. Or the fact that similar atrocities were perpetrated during WW1 in occupied Serbia by the Austro-Hungarian occupation forces. Among them were many what would later become the "Independent State of Croatia," including a metalworker from Zagorje called Josip Broz.
Broz, who supposedly became a Communist during the Bolshevik revolution in Russia, survived the purges of the 1930s and became leader of the Yugoslav Communist Party (KPJ) in 1937. Almost a decade prior, at the 1928 congress in Dresden, the KPJ had decided that Yugoslavia needed to be destroyed, and that the "captive nations" such as Croats, Macedonians, Albanians and Slovenes needed to be "liberated" from "Greater Serbian tyranny."
During the war, the priority of Tito's partisans was establishing pro-Communist institutions, preparing for the inevitable Axis defeat. Their primary target was not the Germans, but the royalist resistance of General Mihailović, which tried to help the Allied war effort by sabotaging roads, railways, and communications and harassing German garrisons. Both sides were aware that they could not defeat the Germans alone; Tito waited for the Soviets, Mihailović waited for the British. In the end, the Soviets showed up, and the British sold out Mihailović.
Triumphant, Tito executed Mihailović, declared the monarchy abolished and the exiled king undesirable, and proceeded to reinvent Yugoslavia. The result was a compromise between the vision from 1928 and practicalities of the time. Why break up a country, when you can rule it as pharaoh? Under Tito, Slovenia exploited the rest of the country for raw materials, Croatia had the entire coastline, and Serbia was cut up into "autonomous provinces" and reduced to WW2 occupation borders (more or less). But the worst part was the imposed doctrine of moral equivalence, in which the royalists were just as evil as the Ustasha, or the Waffen-SS recruited from Muslim populations. Serb guilt for "Chetnik atrocities" (real and imagined) and "oppression" of others in the old kingdom was supposed to balance out the Croatian genocide of Serbs.
Still the Croats were not happy. Even Tito's Yugoslavia was too stifling for them. As Communists in Serbia plumbed the depths of self-hatred (e.g. the so-called "liberals" like the book-banning Latinka Perović, today the gray eminence of the most rabidly pro-Empire "liberal democrats"), in Croatia they demanded more Croatian pride! Though Tito purged both party leaderships, he gave the Croats most of what they wanted: the 1974 Constitution empowered the republics at the expense of the federal government. Serbia, however, was paralyzed by the requirement that both provinces approve every single decision of the republic legislature, effectively giving the Albanian-dominated Kosovo and a pro-Croat establishment in Vojvodina veto power over Belgrade's affairs.
Such was the situation that Slobodan Milošević sought to repair in 1987-89, only to be accused of "nationalism" and "greater Serbian hegemonism" - both by the self-hating Communists in Serbia that he'd purged, and the leadership of Croatia and Slovenia, who felt their privileged position within Yugoslavia would be endangered. I am not sure Milošević ever understood that the second-rate status of Serbs in Tito's Yugoslavia was never a bug, but a very deliberate feature - he never spoke of it that way, and kept defending Yugoslavia till his dying day. But the party leaderships in other republics understood Tito's setup entirely too well.
This was no "handful of malcontents" as Guest implies in his commentary - Kučan received overwhelming support for his separatist policies in 1990. Tuđman's plan to separate Croatia and expel the Serbs was never challenged by the Croatian opposition. Albanians have laid claim to certain territories since at least 1878, long before there was ever a Yugoslavia, or Tito, or Milošević. Only in the case of Bosnia was there a handful of zealots that ended up running things.
Izetbegović, however, did manage to set himself up as the leader of Muslims - with American help, and the war played no small part in the process - and the parameters he set remain the framework of Bosnian Muslim politics even today, no matter which party nominally runs things.
If you read the mainstream Western propaganda about Yugoslavia's demise, you'll notice very quickly that it rejects the notion of internal conflict between Yugoslavia's inhabitants. Rather, it sings paeans to Yugoslavia's multiethnic diversity and peaceful cohabitation, disturbed only by the periodic eruptions of "Greater Serbian ultranationalism." So to save Yugoslavia, they had to destroy it:
Again, pointing out Yugoslavia's flawed premises doesn't absolve those who destroyed it, be that the West in the 1990s, or Hitler fifty years prior. It does, however, explode the premise that Yugoslavia was some sort of "Greater Serbian" project, or that those who destroyed it from within not once but twice were somehow oppressed or terrorized.
Once the Serbs themselves realize this, as well as the disturbing fact that Hitler and the Atlantic Empire apparently share the same view of them, they may rebel against the doctrine of "Serb guilt" and end the policy of capitulation to Imperial demands. Which probably explains why these issues remain a taboo topic, even today.
 |
| via Wallpapers Online |
One of the readers, however, made a comment I want to expand on here:
Guest, May 11:Where to begin? Perhaps with this 2005 essay about Tito, which contains the same argument as I've laid out, albeit much condensed, in the column.
"...The only thing that held Yugoslavia together for 35 years was its supreme leader, Marshal Josip Broz “Tito”...."
This, I think, is both a wrong conclusion and harmful to Mr. Malic's argument itself. It is a convenient myth in the West that Yugoslavia was a low hanging fruit, ready to be picked, after Tito's passing away. That is not so.
West has vested interest in promothing that falacy and thereby absolving itself of the horrendous crimes perpetrated on the people of Yugoslavia and of any responsibility for attacking and dismantling a sovereign state.
A handful people with an ax to grind (Tudjman, Izetbegovic, Jansha,) and other anti-Yugoslav elements were supported by the West and assisted in bringing about what is now where Yugoslavia once was.
I do not understand Mr.Malic gifting these criminals an absolution by repeating the myth created in the West, that Yugoslavia existed only because of Tito. Mr. Malic is a good analyst, but, for some unknown reason, naively promotes this myth.
Pointing out facts about the Communist approach to Yugoslavia, the internal boundaries, ethnic engineering and the 1974 Constitution does not, and never shall, absolve the murderers of Yugoslavia, internal or external. Just as pointing out the problems of the first Yugoslavia doesn't validate the Axis invasion and dismemberment of it. Though the Communists certainly did just that, arguing that the "rotten" old Yugoslavia deserved to be destroyed and then reborn in a "revolution".
As I've noted in another essay, the Serbs have paid with millions of lives for believing the lie that those who identified as Croats and Muslims considered the Serbs their kin. Some have, and perhaps given enough time and peace, that could have become the belief of the majority. But time and peace were not to be had. The bitter truth is that becoming Catholic (in Austrian-held lands) or Muslim (in Turkish-held lands) meant escaping the life of oppression and contempt in which the Orthodox Serbs were held by both empires. These converts did not see the Serbs as their kin, but as their inferiors. And in some cases, officially sanctioned victims.
This was the problem with the first Yugoslavia, which King Aleksandar tried to fix by promoting the idea of "one nation, three faiths." After Aleksandar was assassinated in 1934, Regent Prince Pavle tried appeasing the Croats, a policy culminating in 1939 with the unprecedented creation of their own ethnic province (Aleksandar's provinces were geographical, named after rivers). Not two years later, Croat officers sabotaged Yugoslav Army units, Croat civilians greeted the Nazi tanks with flowers, and the Ustasha regime of Ante Pavelić found plenty of those willing to slaughter Serbs with knives, pickaxes, mallets and whatever else was handy.
To argue that Croat atrocities were somehow caused by "Serb oppression" is to ignore the rabid Serbophobia of the Croat identity as articulated by Starčević-Frank and adopted by Radić and Pavelić. Or the fact that similar atrocities were perpetrated during WW1 in occupied Serbia by the Austro-Hungarian occupation forces. Among them were many what would later become the "Independent State of Croatia," including a metalworker from Zagorje called Josip Broz.
Broz, who supposedly became a Communist during the Bolshevik revolution in Russia, survived the purges of the 1930s and became leader of the Yugoslav Communist Party (KPJ) in 1937. Almost a decade prior, at the 1928 congress in Dresden, the KPJ had decided that Yugoslavia needed to be destroyed, and that the "captive nations" such as Croats, Macedonians, Albanians and Slovenes needed to be "liberated" from "Greater Serbian tyranny."
During the war, the priority of Tito's partisans was establishing pro-Communist institutions, preparing for the inevitable Axis defeat. Their primary target was not the Germans, but the royalist resistance of General Mihailović, which tried to help the Allied war effort by sabotaging roads, railways, and communications and harassing German garrisons. Both sides were aware that they could not defeat the Germans alone; Tito waited for the Soviets, Mihailović waited for the British. In the end, the Soviets showed up, and the British sold out Mihailović.
Triumphant, Tito executed Mihailović, declared the monarchy abolished and the exiled king undesirable, and proceeded to reinvent Yugoslavia. The result was a compromise between the vision from 1928 and practicalities of the time. Why break up a country, when you can rule it as pharaoh? Under Tito, Slovenia exploited the rest of the country for raw materials, Croatia had the entire coastline, and Serbia was cut up into "autonomous provinces" and reduced to WW2 occupation borders (more or less). But the worst part was the imposed doctrine of moral equivalence, in which the royalists were just as evil as the Ustasha, or the Waffen-SS recruited from Muslim populations. Serb guilt for "Chetnik atrocities" (real and imagined) and "oppression" of others in the old kingdom was supposed to balance out the Croatian genocide of Serbs.
Still the Croats were not happy. Even Tito's Yugoslavia was too stifling for them. As Communists in Serbia plumbed the depths of self-hatred (e.g. the so-called "liberals" like the book-banning Latinka Perović, today the gray eminence of the most rabidly pro-Empire "liberal democrats"), in Croatia they demanded more Croatian pride! Though Tito purged both party leaderships, he gave the Croats most of what they wanted: the 1974 Constitution empowered the republics at the expense of the federal government. Serbia, however, was paralyzed by the requirement that both provinces approve every single decision of the republic legislature, effectively giving the Albanian-dominated Kosovo and a pro-Croat establishment in Vojvodina veto power over Belgrade's affairs.
Such was the situation that Slobodan Milošević sought to repair in 1987-89, only to be accused of "nationalism" and "greater Serbian hegemonism" - both by the self-hating Communists in Serbia that he'd purged, and the leadership of Croatia and Slovenia, who felt their privileged position within Yugoslavia would be endangered. I am not sure Milošević ever understood that the second-rate status of Serbs in Tito's Yugoslavia was never a bug, but a very deliberate feature - he never spoke of it that way, and kept defending Yugoslavia till his dying day. But the party leaderships in other republics understood Tito's setup entirely too well.
This was no "handful of malcontents" as Guest implies in his commentary - Kučan received overwhelming support for his separatist policies in 1990. Tuđman's plan to separate Croatia and expel the Serbs was never challenged by the Croatian opposition. Albanians have laid claim to certain territories since at least 1878, long before there was ever a Yugoslavia, or Tito, or Milošević. Only in the case of Bosnia was there a handful of zealots that ended up running things.
Izetbegović, however, did manage to set himself up as the leader of Muslims - with American help, and the war played no small part in the process - and the parameters he set remain the framework of Bosnian Muslim politics even today, no matter which party nominally runs things.
If you read the mainstream Western propaganda about Yugoslavia's demise, you'll notice very quickly that it rejects the notion of internal conflict between Yugoslavia's inhabitants. Rather, it sings paeans to Yugoslavia's multiethnic diversity and peaceful cohabitation, disturbed only by the periodic eruptions of "Greater Serbian ultranationalism." So to save Yugoslavia, they had to destroy it:
"The consequences of this campaign are extraordinary. In view of the fact that a small set of conspirators in Belgrade again were able to foment trouble... the radical elimination of this danger means the removal of an element of tension for the whole of Europe."Does this not sound like something an EU commissar or State Department errand boy would say? Was it written by Bill Clinton, Tony Blair, Wesley Clark, Richard Holbrooke, Madeleine Albright, or any of the "judges" or prosecutors at the ICTY? Though it could have come from any of them, the quote in question is actually from Adolf Hitler's address to the Reichstag, on May 4, 1941, following the conquest of Yugoslavia and Greece.
Again, pointing out Yugoslavia's flawed premises doesn't absolve those who destroyed it, be that the West in the 1990s, or Hitler fifty years prior. It does, however, explode the premise that Yugoslavia was some sort of "Greater Serbian" project, or that those who destroyed it from within not once but twice were somehow oppressed or terrorized.
Once the Serbs themselves realize this, as well as the disturbing fact that Hitler and the Atlantic Empire apparently share the same view of them, they may rebel against the doctrine of "Serb guilt" and end the policy of capitulation to Imperial demands. Which probably explains why these issues remain a taboo topic, even today.
Monday, April 29, 2013
Exaggerated Rumors of Demise
I'm trying to decide whether one of the commentators on my recent Antiwar.com column is a troll, a "Kosovian" trying to reframe the issue, or a self-defeating Serb. See for yourselves; "Brian" says:
So, is "Brian" right? Are the Serbs finished, their cause lost? Hardly. Because if that truly were the case, would he (but also the "Kosovian", cultist, and Imperial media) be trying so hard to make it sound so? The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
Unlike "Brian," I am not about to make blanket statements about what all Serbs think or feel. Having observed the place for over a decade, however, I can make a case for three major groups of them.
The Quisling Cult
The government, most political parties, banks and finance, and the media are run by what I call the "Quisling Cult," whose adherents range from opportunistic to True Believers. Whether they are motivated by virulent self-hatred (nurtured by the Communists, and the Hapsburgs before them) or simply money and power, they seek to ape the Empire and the EU, whom they see as their betters, in hopes of joining them.
In the past, pressure to join with invaders and "rise up" from the tormented crowd produced converts that went on to became Croats, Albanians, or "Bosniaks". The Cult is merely an extension of this phenomenon.
Due to the uncanny resemblance with the cargo cults of New Guinea, the "Quisling Cult" seemed like a logical name. This group is not very numerous. It is, however, both loud and in charge. If this sounds familiar, bear in mind it was copied from a template, after all.
The Confused Patriots
Those opposed to Serbia's occupation and ongoing degradation are more numerous than the Cult, but lack cohesion. They know what they don't want - giving up Kosovo, being forced into the EU - but aren't entirely sure what they do want, or how to go about fighting for it. "Calculated neutrality" isn't exactly an idea people would be willing to kill or die for. Even if they managed to formulate a message, they would still be barred from the media - but that's a far smaller problem, and easier to solve when they get to it.
The Serb identity was first thrown into confusion almost a century ago with the creation of "brotherly" Yugoslavia, then systematically suppressed, undermined, falsified and obliterated by the Communist Yugoslavia, leaving it open as to what exactly it means to be a Serb these days - the situation the Cult and the Empire have exploited, while the patriots seem more unable than unwilling to address.
Serbian politics over the past two decades have been characterized by betrayal that makes "Game of Thrones" an exercise in trust. Anyone even remotely on the side of the patriots has been overthrown, murdered, co-opted or suborned, until the Cult dominated almost all politics. The die-hard remnant is fractious. They remind me a lot of the Whites after the Bolshevik revolution- with the Tsar gone, they have no common cause, and hatred of the Reds just isn't enough. About the only issue uniting them is Kosovo, but even then they have no strategic vision as to how to fight for it. So they fight tactically, on issues such as the "gay pride parade" or GMO. That, I think, goes a long way to explain their failure to thwart the Quisling Cult.
The Sedated Majority
And then there is the vast majority, desperate for leadership and not finding any. These are the people numbed by Communism, shocked by its collapse, still in a fog as to why and how Yugoslavia's demise happened, and hurt by a decade of UN blockade, NATO bombs and the kleptocracy that followed. They try to live their lives the best they can, in a system designed around robbing them blind.
Some of them, mainly the younger generation, are nihilists, seeking only pleasures of the flesh - they tend to be sympathizers of the Quisling Cult but too lazy to actually join it. Others still follow traditional values, but more out of inertia than any actual awareness of principles behind them. To win, the patriots need to energize and inspire this group, while the Cult only needs to keep them in a passive, lotus-eating funk. This is accomplished through a diet of tabloid newspapers and trash TV: "reality" shows like "Big Brother", soaps, celebrity and other scandals, and mendacious "news."
This is where the Serbs' fabled resilience has been turned against them, as they tolerate government abuses out of fear (constantly reinforced by the media) of war, starvation, even worse poverty and international isolation, but also out of faint hope (again, reinforced by the media) of "living like everyone else" once they enter the Promised Land of the EU. They don't realize they already live like many EU subjects - e.g. Romanians, Bulgarians, Greeks, Cypriots, Spaniards, the Irish...
The polls cited in the media to show alleged Serb support for the EU, or "Kosovian" independence, or anything else, are misleading. At best, they are inaccurate - at worst, deliberately so. Pollsters are paid to provide the desired statistics, so they do. And even if the majority clearly opposed the Cult policies, the Cult would do it anyway. Remember, they hate the people they administer (on behalf of the Empire), and consider them lesser beings.
Lack of massive street protests does not imply consent to government policies. Marching in the streets rarely works, and only if the government is susceptible to popular pressure. The Cult isn't - its power base is not in Serbia, but in Brussels and Washington. If anything, they have been adept at diverting the street to their own ends, from the coup in 2000 to the Kosovo protest in 2008. Last, but not least, when demonstrations do take place - such as the rally in Kosovska Mitrovica, for example - they get downplayed in the media, both foreign and Cult-dominated domestic. When Reuters says "more than 5,000" that's technically true - 30,000 is more than 5,000 - but is rather deliberately missing the point.
Now, believing that Serbia's patriots will get their act together sufficiently to derail the Cult, set their country free and figure out a way of curing the century-long corruption in their midst may sound like wishful thinking at this point in time. But then, I'm sure the Janissaries lording over the Belgrade Pashalik in 1804 didn't really believe their rule was at a risk of ending. Nor did the court in Vienna believe invading Serbia in 1914 could result in a disaster.
If the Empire and the Cult think their story has a happy ending... they haven't been paying attention.
"The Serbian government is not quisling. Serbs are quisling. Serbs have become as an ethnic groups quislings. Forget "Serbs" they "quislings" Where are the protests in Belgrade? Few people can protest more than Serbs!! Where are any 1996 or 2000 protest size rallies!! Serbs are quislings. Serbs now all say Kosova and say Kosova is an independent nation- if they live in Serbia!! It's true about the diaspora being more opposed to kosova independence than serbs that livein Serbia. This is why the government can be so quisling. Because serbs in Serbia are just so tired and exhausted there is now no patriotism. Forget nationalist. Patriotism is dead in Serbia. It is now a quisling nation and that is the new ethnicity.Though using "Kosova" (only Albanians and their sponsors call it that), and incessantly repeating propaganda tropes point to an Albanian partisan, the argument that "Serbs are just so tired and exhausted" to go on existing actually sounds like the incoherent drivel of the Quisling Cult, the self-hating Serbs who wish to be something else. Not surprisingly, the Cult are vocal supporters of Thacistan.
[...]
serbs want to be popular. They want to have money. They don't want to be thought of as caring about kosova land over money. EU is symbolic of being popular and liked.
[...]
No there are not Serbs anymore! The Russian ambassador was going down the right road. Serbs have been replaced by quislings. Forget "Serbs" existing."
So, is "Brian" right? Are the Serbs finished, their cause lost? Hardly. Because if that truly were the case, would he (but also the "Kosovian", cultist, and Imperial media) be trying so hard to make it sound so? The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
Unlike "Brian," I am not about to make blanket statements about what all Serbs think or feel. Having observed the place for over a decade, however, I can make a case for three major groups of them.
The Quisling Cult
The government, most political parties, banks and finance, and the media are run by what I call the "Quisling Cult," whose adherents range from opportunistic to True Believers. Whether they are motivated by virulent self-hatred (nurtured by the Communists, and the Hapsburgs before them) or simply money and power, they seek to ape the Empire and the EU, whom they see as their betters, in hopes of joining them.
In the past, pressure to join with invaders and "rise up" from the tormented crowd produced converts that went on to became Croats, Albanians, or "Bosniaks". The Cult is merely an extension of this phenomenon.
Due to the uncanny resemblance with the cargo cults of New Guinea, the "Quisling Cult" seemed like a logical name. This group is not very numerous. It is, however, both loud and in charge. If this sounds familiar, bear in mind it was copied from a template, after all.
The Confused Patriots
Those opposed to Serbia's occupation and ongoing degradation are more numerous than the Cult, but lack cohesion. They know what they don't want - giving up Kosovo, being forced into the EU - but aren't entirely sure what they do want, or how to go about fighting for it. "Calculated neutrality" isn't exactly an idea people would be willing to kill or die for. Even if they managed to formulate a message, they would still be barred from the media - but that's a far smaller problem, and easier to solve when they get to it.
Serbian politics over the past two decades have been characterized by betrayal that makes "Game of Thrones" an exercise in trust. Anyone even remotely on the side of the patriots has been overthrown, murdered, co-opted or suborned, until the Cult dominated almost all politics. The die-hard remnant is fractious. They remind me a lot of the Whites after the Bolshevik revolution- with the Tsar gone, they have no common cause, and hatred of the Reds just isn't enough. About the only issue uniting them is Kosovo, but even then they have no strategic vision as to how to fight for it. So they fight tactically, on issues such as the "gay pride parade" or GMO. That, I think, goes a long way to explain their failure to thwart the Quisling Cult.
The Sedated Majority
And then there is the vast majority, desperate for leadership and not finding any. These are the people numbed by Communism, shocked by its collapse, still in a fog as to why and how Yugoslavia's demise happened, and hurt by a decade of UN blockade, NATO bombs and the kleptocracy that followed. They try to live their lives the best they can, in a system designed around robbing them blind.
Some of them, mainly the younger generation, are nihilists, seeking only pleasures of the flesh - they tend to be sympathizers of the Quisling Cult but too lazy to actually join it. Others still follow traditional values, but more out of inertia than any actual awareness of principles behind them. To win, the patriots need to energize and inspire this group, while the Cult only needs to keep them in a passive, lotus-eating funk. This is accomplished through a diet of tabloid newspapers and trash TV: "reality" shows like "Big Brother", soaps, celebrity and other scandals, and mendacious "news."
This is where the Serbs' fabled resilience has been turned against them, as they tolerate government abuses out of fear (constantly reinforced by the media) of war, starvation, even worse poverty and international isolation, but also out of faint hope (again, reinforced by the media) of "living like everyone else" once they enter the Promised Land of the EU. They don't realize they already live like many EU subjects - e.g. Romanians, Bulgarians, Greeks, Cypriots, Spaniards, the Irish...
The polls cited in the media to show alleged Serb support for the EU, or "Kosovian" independence, or anything else, are misleading. At best, they are inaccurate - at worst, deliberately so. Pollsters are paid to provide the desired statistics, so they do. And even if the majority clearly opposed the Cult policies, the Cult would do it anyway. Remember, they hate the people they administer (on behalf of the Empire), and consider them lesser beings.
Lack of massive street protests does not imply consent to government policies. Marching in the streets rarely works, and only if the government is susceptible to popular pressure. The Cult isn't - its power base is not in Serbia, but in Brussels and Washington. If anything, they have been adept at diverting the street to their own ends, from the coup in 2000 to the Kosovo protest in 2008. Last, but not least, when demonstrations do take place - such as the rally in Kosovska Mitrovica, for example - they get downplayed in the media, both foreign and Cult-dominated domestic. When Reuters says "more than 5,000" that's technically true - 30,000 is more than 5,000 - but is rather deliberately missing the point.
Now, believing that Serbia's patriots will get their act together sufficiently to derail the Cult, set their country free and figure out a way of curing the century-long corruption in their midst may sound like wishful thinking at this point in time. But then, I'm sure the Janissaries lording over the Belgrade Pashalik in 1804 didn't really believe their rule was at a risk of ending. Nor did the court in Vienna believe invading Serbia in 1914 could result in a disaster.
If the Empire and the Cult think their story has a happy ending... they haven't been paying attention.
Sunday, April 28, 2013
Treason
After a ten-round circus in Brussels, on April 19 the quisling regime administering Serbia on behalf of the Empire said it was ready to declare Serbia's rape consensual.
To hear them say it, they did this to "save" the Serbs who remain in the occupied territories (recognized by the Empire as the "Republic of Kosovo") from another pogrom. This is cynicism at its worst, because the "deal" turns those very Serbs over to the tender mercies of the Albanians and NATO - the very parties responsible for the peril of pogrom to begin with.
NATO is supposed to "protect" the Serbs, much as it has "protected" their brethren living in the ghettos elsewhere in the occupied province. Much as it has "protected" them during the actual 2004 pogrom. No, the tanks and bullets of the barricades showdown are more likely to be the NATO response.
Treaties with the Empire aren't worth the paper they are printed on. Whatever "guarantees", safeguards and privileges this "agreement" offers the Serbs on paper will vanish with the first KLA boot on the ground, or the first NATO tank. Just as it happened in 1999, and has been happening ever since.
In recognizing the statehood of "Kosovia," submitting to the EU and Imperial demands, selling out its citizens - both in the occupied territories and the rest of Serbia - the quisling government in Belgrade has trampled the Serbian constitution, and committed high treason.
Whatever legitimacy it could claim to have, it has now lost. Entirely.
As of April 19, 2013, the President and government of Serbia stepped outside the law. On Friday, April 26, the parliament of Serbia did the same.
Make of that what you will.
To hear them say it, they did this to "save" the Serbs who remain in the occupied territories (recognized by the Empire as the "Republic of Kosovo") from another pogrom. This is cynicism at its worst, because the "deal" turns those very Serbs over to the tender mercies of the Albanians and NATO - the very parties responsible for the peril of pogrom to begin with.
NATO is supposed to "protect" the Serbs, much as it has "protected" their brethren living in the ghettos elsewhere in the occupied province. Much as it has "protected" them during the actual 2004 pogrom. No, the tanks and bullets of the barricades showdown are more likely to be the NATO response.
Treaties with the Empire aren't worth the paper they are printed on. Whatever "guarantees", safeguards and privileges this "agreement" offers the Serbs on paper will vanish with the first KLA boot on the ground, or the first NATO tank. Just as it happened in 1999, and has been happening ever since.
In recognizing the statehood of "Kosovia," submitting to the EU and Imperial demands, selling out its citizens - both in the occupied territories and the rest of Serbia - the quisling government in Belgrade has trampled the Serbian constitution, and committed high treason.
Whatever legitimacy it could claim to have, it has now lost. Entirely.
As of April 19, 2013, the President and government of Serbia stepped outside the law. On Friday, April 26, the parliament of Serbia did the same.
Make of that what you will.
Friday, April 19, 2013
From Beslan to Boston
Some of my readers may remember an essay from several years ago in which I explained why I refuse to be called a journalist. Seeing the coverage of the Boston Marathon massacre only fortified me in that conviction. I hope the mainstream media that fingered the wrong suspects, even going so far as to publish their names and photos, enjoys the libel suits they so richly deserve.
There were even some who hoped (!) the suspect would be "a white American", because that would better serve their political agenda. The irony of their wish-fulfillment, after a fashion, is why I believe the universe isn't random: the suspected terrorists really were "white Americans", though only in the most technical sense. The brothers Tsarnaev came to the U.S. from Chechnya.
For those who can't tell Chechnya apart from the Czech Republic, the latter is a mostly Catholic country in central Europe, while the former is a region of Russia in the north Caucasus. A tribal society with a tradition of mountain banditry, the Chechens launched a war of independence against Yeltsin's Russia in 1991. They successfully defeated the crumbling Soviet army and established an "Islamic Republic of Ichkeria", proceeding to engage in abductions for ransom, sex slavery, drug running and terrorism. In this, they had the support of a veritable who's who of Imperial policymakers.
Following NATO's 1999 attack on Serbia, however, the mood in Moscow changed. After the Chechens tried invading the neighboring region of Dagestan, Russian troops crushed the rebellion. The jihad, however, continued.
And that's the problem. What happened in Boston was horrifying, absolutely. But it's been happening to Russians for years, and there has been not a shred of sympathy from the American political class, the media, or the (admittedly ignorant) general public. To mention just a few examples:
- October 2002, Chechen terrorists hold hostage a Moscow theater, during a popular stage play. 130 hostages die during the rescue.
- September 2004, Chechen terrorists seize and hold hostage 1100 children, teachers and parents in an elementary school in Beslan, North Ossetia. After two days of horror, most of the terrorists are killed in a rescue, but not before murdering 334 civilians, 156 of them children.
- January 2011, a jihadist belonging to the Chechen terrorist movement blows himself up at Moscow's busy Domodedovo airport, killing 37 and injuring 173.
Yet all that came from Washington were condemnations of Moscow's "human rights violations" in the Caucasus. Terrorists? Surely you jest: terrorists are only those who attack Americans.
As I commented on Ilana Mercer's blog, the Chechen identity of the bombing suspects threatens to mess with the Narrative of evil Russians (or Serbs) oppressing the good, innocent Chechens, "Bosnians" or "Kosovars." In that Narrative, Islam is a "religion of peace", and if America continues to champion Islamic causes, Muslims will be grateful and embrace democracy. Or not.
To this end, terrorism perpetrated by the "designated victims" is habitually swept under the rug. Bosnian Muslim Sulejman Talovic shoots up a Salt Lake City mall and is given a jihadist funeral, but the official investigation declares "motive unknown." Albanian Arid Uka attacks a bus of U.S. soldiers at the Frankfurt airport? Albanians "love America", the mainstream media declare. Move along, nothing to see here. A Bosnian Muslim jihadist attacks the U.S. embassy in downtown Sarajevo, and the senior State Department official brushes it off. Right on cue, I hear this morning (h/t Steve Sailer) that the New York Times ran a story pitying the poor Chechens.
Terrorism cannot be defeated. But terrorists can. The first step towards doing so is to stop enabling them, supporting them, cultivating them as a weapon against enemies real or imagined, and harboring the delusion that they can be controlled.
Tall order, I know.
There were even some who hoped (!) the suspect would be "a white American", because that would better serve their political agenda. The irony of their wish-fulfillment, after a fashion, is why I believe the universe isn't random: the suspected terrorists really were "white Americans", though only in the most technical sense. The brothers Tsarnaev came to the U.S. from Chechnya.
For those who can't tell Chechnya apart from the Czech Republic, the latter is a mostly Catholic country in central Europe, while the former is a region of Russia in the north Caucasus. A tribal society with a tradition of mountain banditry, the Chechens launched a war of independence against Yeltsin's Russia in 1991. They successfully defeated the crumbling Soviet army and established an "Islamic Republic of Ichkeria", proceeding to engage in abductions for ransom, sex slavery, drug running and terrorism. In this, they had the support of a veritable who's who of Imperial policymakers.
Following NATO's 1999 attack on Serbia, however, the mood in Moscow changed. After the Chechens tried invading the neighboring region of Dagestan, Russian troops crushed the rebellion. The jihad, however, continued.
And that's the problem. What happened in Boston was horrifying, absolutely. But it's been happening to Russians for years, and there has been not a shred of sympathy from the American political class, the media, or the (admittedly ignorant) general public. To mention just a few examples:
- October 2002, Chechen terrorists hold hostage a Moscow theater, during a popular stage play. 130 hostages die during the rescue.
- September 2004, Chechen terrorists seize and hold hostage 1100 children, teachers and parents in an elementary school in Beslan, North Ossetia. After two days of horror, most of the terrorists are killed in a rescue, but not before murdering 334 civilians, 156 of them children.
- January 2011, a jihadist belonging to the Chechen terrorist movement blows himself up at Moscow's busy Domodedovo airport, killing 37 and injuring 173.
Yet all that came from Washington were condemnations of Moscow's "human rights violations" in the Caucasus. Terrorists? Surely you jest: terrorists are only those who attack Americans.
As I commented on Ilana Mercer's blog, the Chechen identity of the bombing suspects threatens to mess with the Narrative of evil Russians (or Serbs) oppressing the good, innocent Chechens, "Bosnians" or "Kosovars." In that Narrative, Islam is a "religion of peace", and if America continues to champion Islamic causes, Muslims will be grateful and embrace democracy. Or not.
To this end, terrorism perpetrated by the "designated victims" is habitually swept under the rug. Bosnian Muslim Sulejman Talovic shoots up a Salt Lake City mall and is given a jihadist funeral, but the official investigation declares "motive unknown." Albanian Arid Uka attacks a bus of U.S. soldiers at the Frankfurt airport? Albanians "love America", the mainstream media declare. Move along, nothing to see here. A Bosnian Muslim jihadist attacks the U.S. embassy in downtown Sarajevo, and the senior State Department official brushes it off. Right on cue, I hear this morning (h/t Steve Sailer) that the New York Times ran a story pitying the poor Chechens.
Terrorism cannot be defeated. But terrorists can. The first step towards doing so is to stop enabling them, supporting them, cultivating them as a weapon against enemies real or imagined, and harboring the delusion that they can be controlled.
Tall order, I know.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)