Saturday, December 29, 2007
One amusing case study is Vesna Peric-Zimonjic, a long-time correspondent for the Independent and Inter Press Service, who easily gives Marlise Simons a run for her money as the worst Serbophobe of the West.
I could spend a sea of pixels and hours of your time dredging up examples of VPZ's Serbophobic rants, but I won't. There's Google, there's your keyboards, give them a workout. Suffice to say that I'm plenty convinced of the veracity of my statement above.
So when I read this, I could not help but laugh. Heartily. Propaganda doesn't get more pathetic than her December 26 piece, pompously titled, "EU Abandons Borders, Serbia Wants Them."
VPZ uses the occasion of the EU officially abolishing its internal Iron Courtain towards the Eastern members to blast Serbia for threatening to blockade its occupied province of Kosovo if it secedes. Never mind that Kosovo's secession would be contrary to Serbian and international law, or that the Serbian blockade would be a legitimate response. I mean, here's the United State, self-proclaimed champion of democracy and human rights, blockading Cuba since 1959. You don't see VPZ criticizing that, now. Might interfere with the paycheck.
To support her claim, VPZ quotes several personages - each and every one belongs to a tiny sliver of Serbian political and media spectrum, the self-proclaimed "liberal democrats" (a.k.a. the Red Guards of Globalization). She starts off citing an op-ed by Vladimir Gligorov (whose father, Kiro, was president of Macedonia, but Junior likes it better being "citizen of the world") in the "largest circulation daily" Blic. What she doesn't say is that Blic is a German-owned tabloid paper, whose circulation may be large but reputation is certainly not.
She also quotes "historian" Nikola Samardzic, who scoffs at Russia, conveniently omitting the fact that he's a high-ranking member of the Liberal Democratic Party. At the end, she gets a statement from a 43-year-old shopkeeper, which sounds as if written by Samardzic, and passes it off as the opinion of "many Belgradians."
I don't really have to explain the incongruity of these people objecting to a blockade of Albanian separatists and a friendly policy towards Russia, even though they used to call for a Western blockade of Serbia and still continue to argue for utter submission to the West. That's self-evident.
VPZ's cheap tricks can't fool anyone remotely acquainted with the situation in Serbia. But that isn't her target audience anyway; she's after the average Westerner, in whose mind the Empire has to replant the notion that the Serbs are somehow extraordinarily evil, so they deserve to have their country occupied and partitioned. For that purpose, it uses "Serbs" such as VPZ, Gligorov, Samadrzic, and other "liberal democrats," who serve willingly and enthusiastically. They have less decency than Judas; after all, he tried to give the 30 pieces of silver back.
Friday, December 28, 2007
The Serbs are generally conflict shame [sic] people, which will say it is very important for us not to offend even our enemies (up to a certain point). It may sound ridiculous but here are a couple of examples.
Even after all this wars that happened during the past decade I still have some “friends” of other Balkan nations. When I visit them at their homes, it is totally normal for them to have dozens of items showing their national insignia in their homes and they are proud about it. Serbs are different, when they are having a visit from a friend of another Balkan nationality; they tend to hide their national insignia so their visitor is not offended by it.
I've observed this phenomenon firsthand. It's perfectly OK to be a Slovenian, Croat, Albanian, "Bosniak" (whether with the lilacs or with the crescents, "Montenegrin" (of the Doclean kind) or whatnot, but God forbid you have an icon on the wall, let alone a flag or anything actually remotely national. It's perfectly OK for them to talk how they were "oppressed" and "victims of genocide," but when a Serb mentions politics that's "hurting their feelings."
Well, too bad. For them, I mean.
Here's how I riddle this. The whole conflict-avoidance/shame thing is an inferiority complex manufactured after WW2 to make the Serbs governable. Historically, Serbs are a tough lot to rule. Those princes and kings that ended up merely in exile were fortunate.
Consider also that the Communist Party of Yugoslavia had an overtly anti-Serb platform; their principal enemy was "greater Serbian bourgeoisie," i.e. the crown and the merchants/free peasants that supported it. Originally (at least since its 1928 congress in Dresden), the CPY championed the abolition of Yugoslavia and the "liberation" of Croats, Slovenians, Macedonians, Montenegrins... oh, and the annexation of "Kosova" to Albania (that's a subject for another article...). The Nazis did exactly that in 1941, but by 1945 - thanks to Soviet and British support - the Communists found themselves in possession of Yugoslavia. Suddenly dividing it up did not seem like such a good idea. But how could they hang on to power in Serbia, where they were extremely unpopular?
The answer was to manufacture guilt. Long before the term "moral equivalence" was coined, the children in socialist Yugoslavia learned that Chetniks (Serbian royalists who fought for the king) were no different than the Ustasha (Croatian Nazis who conducted a mass extermination of Jews and Serbs so brutally even the German Nazis were disturbed by it). Anyone familiar with "political correctness" of today will recognize the matrix along which the Serbs - defined as "oppressors" of everyone else by the virtue of their existence - were treated in comparison with Slovenes, Croats, Macedonians, Muslims and Montenegrins (the latter three given nationhood by Tito).
The reason Slobodan Milosevic became so wildly popular in the 1980s is because he dared challenge that matrix. When he said "No one is allowed to hit you" to the Serb demonstrators in Kosovo Polje (at the time getting clobbered by ethnic Albanian police) April 1987, Milosevic tapped into a vein of popular resentment that ended up bringing him to power.
Ironically, the West labeled Milosevic "the last Communist" and answered him with - Communist propaganda! The whole "genocidal Serbian aggressor" line, peddled since the early 1990s, reeks of it. Considering it originated with Slovenian, Croat and Bosnian Muslim separatists (who were the product of Tito's system), that should not be surprising.
Currently the torch-bearer for the notion of Serb Guilt are the so-called "reformers" - the media, NGOs, and political parties composed of erstwhile Reds who simply switched masters, and now work for the Empire (or the EUSSR). Every day, in every way, they peddle the line that Serbs are evil as a people, that they need to "reckon with the past" and "embrace the future" and atone and apologize and repent...
For sixty years (at least) the Serbs have been trapped in a matrix that insists their very existence is evil, abominable and shameful. This is how they've been kept enslaved. No man or woman who accepts being inferior can truly be free. But they are not kept in bondage by chains and whips, but by the force of ideas implanted into their minds.
Only by rejecting this manufactured guilt and by understanding who made it and with what purpose can the Serbs begin their path to freedom.
Thursday, December 27, 2007
Serbia's Missionary Intellectuals
A guest article on Serbia’s politico-intellectual heritage from Nebojsa Malic.
Alter the victory of the Radicals in the December elections, a chorus of condemnations arose from Western governments, press and think-tanks. Serbia was going “fascist,” they said; the Radicals’ strong showing was a “return to nationalism” and a “turning back the tide” of progress achieved under the ever-so-pure DOS. Reality, of course, was nothing of the sort. Certainly, organizations and governments with vested interest in perpetuating certain policies in Serbia might have been expected to react this way. But such proclamations also came from people who fashion themselves Serbia’s “intellectual elite” � the self-proclaimed activists for democracy, human rights, and peace who happen to be just the opposite. Similar groups exist in most post-Communist societies, composed of people who replaced their erstwhile Marxist zealotry with similar fervor in propagating “open society” and other dogmas of the modern managerial state. This phenomenon, like many others, is simply more pronounced in Serbia.
Extremists in Defense of “Virtue”
Prominent sociologist Slobodan Antonic wrote about a year ago [Serbian original here] about the phenomenon of “Missionary intellectuals,” which he described as “a group that perceives itself as missionaries of the Atlantic world and its values in Serbia.” He offers examples, among which are - unsurprisingly - people such as Sonja Biserko and her entourage (Teofil Pancic, Latinka Perovic, Nebojsa Popov, etc.) known for almost pathological disdain for Serbian ethnicity, tradition, history and culture.
Antonic underscores several character traits of the Missionaries. Their dogmatism produces “intolerance towards criticism, and even any disagreement, however reasoned… all those who exhibit even the slightest differenceof opinion are politically demonized, while the debate about ideas is replaced by name-calling denunciations.” Their “cognitive exclusivism” takes after Marxism, so “their epistemology is so epistemologically superior it is beyond criticism… They are immune to criticism because they have defined all other positions as nationalist [and therefore evil] by definition.” And their language is that of intolerance (surprise!), exemplified by streams of invective aimed at political opponents (i.e. just about everybody who is not “worthy” of their elevated wisdom), e.g. “selfish, fucked-up bastards in the Silent Majority”, “feeble-minded advocates of anti-democracy, nationalism and chauvinism,” etc. The last, but not least, is their call for increased repression, such as banning books, political parties, music and organizations whose authors and ideas they disapprove of. Obviously, here’s a group that believes extremism in the quest for “Atlantic values” (whatever they may be) is no vice, but the highest virtue.
Antonic’s analysis is the best explanation yet of this particular movement in Serbian society (which is also present in other countries in the Balkans, and generally anywhere the Empire has promoted “civil society”). It does suffer from one serious flaw, which is that Antonic shares the missionaries’ values, and objects only to their methods. He describes them as people who “truly want the best for their environment, and desire to share the best values with their community.” Yet they have a mighty strange concept of “sharing,” as Antonic notes just a little further down in the text:
“Their lives end up being spent in constant, tedious and fruitless denunciation of their own people (town, or province), or even in openly calling for occupation by ‘civilized foreigners.’ Unfortunately, if such occupation does come, and they get a chance to participate in the government, their zealotry in violence, prohibitions, impositions, persecution and exclusion is matched by no one…”
Reading between the lines is not necessary here: Antonic clearly believes that the DOS regime was the equivalent of foreign occupation, where the Missionaries ran amok with overt support of the authorities (and in some instances, they were the authorities).
The “Mondialist Pasdarans”
It is worth noting that the article originally appeared on the pages of Vreme (Time) weekly, a paper known for its backing of the very globalist “liberals” that Antonic criticized. In fact, this was a public manifestation of the conflict between the zealous liberals (e.g. Biserko, Kandic, et al.) and their more “moderate” brethren, who felt uncomfortable with their violent and hateful rhetoric. While the “moderates” are still the majority of Serbia’s globalists, the West continues to pay attention to the fringe - but oh so very loud - proclamations of the “Mondialist Pasdarans” (as Antonic dubs them, referring to the fanatical Iranian Revolutionary Guards).
Antonic’s critique of Missionaries appeared in February 2003, in the midst of a clash between these extremists and the mainstream Serbian “liberals” (counterparts to American and British parties of that persuasion, not the true, classical liberals of the XIX century or today’s libertarians). Just over a month later, Prime Minister Zoran Djindjic was assassinated, and the Missionaries took over the helm of government. But while they seemed triumphant in the debate (which, of course, was nothing of the sort) the repression and naked power grab they indulged in over the next nine months demonstrated to Serbians the true colors of their would-be “saviors.” Those who called most loudly for “de-Nazification” of Serbia turned out - unsurprisingly, if one may note - to be most like the Nazis in their thoughts and deeds.
Unfortunately, such is the delusional character of their fanatical dogmatism that they absolutely did not understand the message Serbian voters intended to send them, when they threw out the DOS regime in the December elections. Instead, the crushing defeat of the Missionaries’ nine-month dictatorship was condemned as the “return of fascism.” Today, the missionaries spout identical nonsense as they did a year ago. Entrenched in their contempt of reason and dialogue, they seem to be completely beyond persuasion.
A Communist Origin
While similar groups can be found throughout the former Communist bloc, the “missionaries” in Serbia have a peculiar distinction in their overt hatred of their own ethnic identity. They explain it in terms of shame over the atrocities allegedly committed in the wars of the 1990s, but that does not explain why they choose to believe the foulest atrocity stories even after they’ve been proven false. Antonic’s explanation, linking their dogmatism to Marxism helps clarify things a bit. Having come from that system, most of these “intellectuals” have never abandoned Communism except in name. Latinka Perovic, for example, was a major figure in Serbian party leadership in the 1970s, when she was purged for ostensibly “liberal” tendencies (which bore little resemblance to actual, classical liberalism). Other major figures in the missionary movement are all scholars of social sciences who were educated by the Communists, and retained Marxist methods of thinking and even many Marxist beliefs, albeit under different names nowadays.
What’s important to note at this point is to which extent Yugoslav Communism was anti-Serb in nature, ever since the Yugoslav Communist Party emerged in the 1920s under Moscow’s aegis. Soviets hated Yugoslavia - and its Serbian monarchy - for the support and refuge it offered the Tsarist “Whites.” They resurrected the Austrian bogeyman of “Greater Serbian hegemony” in an effort to destroy the country and the Serbian monarchy in particular, in order to re-create a miniature Soviet Union on its ashes. To that purpose, the Communists backed Croat fascist separatists (Ustashe) and Kosovo Albanian irredentists, and even applauded the Nazi invasion of 1941, which resulted in Yugoslavia’s dismemberment (it helped that Hitler and Stalin were still allies, too). The Communists’ virulent Serbophobia was somewhat tempered by Tito, who needed Serb support to fight the Germans, but he nonetheless proceeded to re-create Yugoslavia precisely along the pre-war lines of Sovietization. One important difference was that Stalin and is successors sought to Russify the USSR and crush individual ethnic identities in an effort to stamp out regional resistance and head off Russian opposition, while in Yugoslavia the drive was in the opposite direction, encouraging ethnic nationalism of others at the expense of Serbian identity, which was perceived as the primary peril. Slobodan Milosevic was vilified by leaders of other ethnic Communist parties precisely because he dared question the sacred precept of Tito’s Yugoslavia that everything was somehow always the Serbs’ fault. The accusation that he was a “nationalist” originated not with Franjo Tudjman and Alija Izetbegovic, actual nationalist leaders of Croats and Bosnian Muslims, but with their Communist predecessors!
Therefore, when Serbia’s missionary intellectuals violently loathe the Serbian ethnicity, culture, tradition, history and faith, they are drawing on almost eight decades of Serbophobia nurtured by their ideological forefathers. Back then, they invoked it in the name of Socialist Revolution; today, they use it in the name of “democracy” and “Euro-Atlantic integration,” but the change is purely cosmetic.
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Deputy chief of the United Nations administration in Serbia’s breakaway Kosovo province, Steven Shuck [sic] who is being probed for corruption and 'unprofessional behaviour' has stepped down from his post...
Shuck, a retired American general, is being investigated by the UN internal commission over his alleged ties with some Kosovo businessmen, politicians and sexual relations with UN staff as well as two ethnic Albanian popstars, the reports said.
Further citing local (i.e. Albanian) media, AKI claims that Shuck [edit: the name is spelled "Shook"] was close to KLA commander Ramush Haradinaj (one of the rare KLA leaders indicted by the Hague Inquisition), and had "suspicious dealings with Kosovo energy minister Ethem Ceku in connection with a multimillion dollar project to build electric power plants."
As Lord Acton famously wrote, absolute power corrupts absolutely. As occupiers of the southern Serbian province, UNMIK officials had as close to absolute power as one gets in this day and age (except, perhaps, the viceroy of Bosnia). Their lavish wages and connections with the Albanian mafia and separatist leaders (or am I repeating myself?) ensured unlimited access to pleasures of the flesh. No wonder UNMIK officials have become the very paragon of corruption.
It's unclear whether Shook's departure will halt the UN investigation. Allegations of his wrongdoing (and knowing UNMIK's modus operandi, this is probably just the tip of the proverbial iceberg) are too serious to just be dropped. No matter what the punishment, it will not fit the crime of occupation, with all the ills it has brought. Even a morsel of justice, however, is better than nothing.
Friday, December 14, 2007
Fine. Don't listen to me. Listen to an Albanian instead. Here's a commentary written by one Mehdi Hyseni (who may or may not be related to Skender Hyseni, spokesman for the provisional government). Hyseni currently lives in Boston, Mass. (USA) where he moved in 1999. Prior to that, he "earned a doctorate in international affairs at Pristina University" and "held professional positions in the Department of Translation, Information and Foreign Affairs in Belgrade" from 1978 to 1999, according to a 2003 bio.
It was posted in a Serbian translation by Nova Srpska Politicka Misao (NSPM), which often publishes opposing viewpoints, without editorial guidance. I'm not that magnanimous, so I'll note beforehand that Hyseni not only had access to a doctoral degree under the "evil Serbian regime," but he also worked for the said regime even after 1989, when thousands of Albanians were supposedly disenfranchised and sacked from government jobs. And in Belgrade, no less. Keep this in mind as you read on.
The translation from Serbian is mine, and is faithful as far as I can attest. If there are any discrepancies between the Albanian source material and the Serbian text, talk to the NSPM translators.
Without further ado, here's Hyseni:
KOSOVO BETWEEN TWO PHILOSOPHICAL AND POLITICAL EXTREMES
Mitrovica PRESS – Mitrovica
Boston/Mitrovica, December 10, 2007 - The first extreme is the "philosophical and political" thesis of Serbian ethnocentrist (nationalist, racist, fascist, colonialist and genocidal) collective paranoid notion that "Kosovo belongs to Serbia", while the other reflects the abstract nihilism of official Tirana that "Kosova belongs to Kosova," instead of at least saying it belongs to Albania.
Both of these contradictions will be clarified only when Kosovo achieves independence.
The polished philosophical, utopian, decadent, existentialist and conceited speculation by dilettante analysts, reflected through the spirit and times of Communist philosophy of "brotherhood and unity" (that is, the Tito-Rankovic Yugoslavian "brotherhood and murder"), one cannot correctly interpret, or understand, let alone fight the colonialist and genocidal Serbian policy aimed against Albanians and ethnic Albania. Rather, it further clouds and obscures the theory and practice of the practical historical, political, philosophic, diplomatic and legal justifications for the solution of the colonial Albanian question in the Balkans.
We should clearly understand the fact that decadent political philosophy cannot achieve the liberation, freedom and independence of Kosova and other territories of the colonized ethnic Albania. It is now a decisive historical moment (as Hasan Prishtina, our famous patriot and fighter for the liberation and unification of ethnic Albania, once said) for the president of Albania Bamir Topi and Prime Minister Sali Berisha openly say to Belgrade's face that "Kosova is Albania, not Serbia!" Otherwise, Serbia and the Greaterserbs will not stop howling and will never give up their anti-Albanian thesis that "Kosovo is Serbia."
Until Albania officially declares that Kosova is Albania, both Kosova and Albania, as well as our loyal ally and savior the United States, will have disputes, misunderstandings and serious problems with the colonialist Serbia and the racist, fascist Greaterserbs, who believe "Kosovo is Serbia."
That Belgrade and the Greaterserbs make the colonialist and genocidal claim that Kosova is Serbia does not surprise us. However, that some Albanian "philosophers" in power still lack courage to defend the truthful counterclaim that Kosova is Albania, both to Serbia and to the world, not only upsets us, but urges us to suspect that the Albanian political philosophy still fails to understand that the cruel colonial and hegemonic Serbian rule cannot be rejected through pseudo-philosophical declarations that Kosova "belongs to those who live there"! Such political and national hypocrisy! Such an euphemism! Philosophical colorblindness! It is a lack of human and national consciousness, this lack of courage to tell the truth that Kosova does not belong to Serbia, but ethnic Albania.
This truth needs to be defended by all legitimate legal, national and international means.
The unmasking of many centuries of Greaterserb history, politics, propaganda, diplomacy, colonial and genocidal practice against the Albanians and ethnic Albania in the Balkans cannot be accomplished through thumb-twiddling and empty talk, using dilettante euphemisms and disgraceful, anemic, terrifying, speculative, moralizing, anti-philosophical, unrealistic and anti-pragmatic vocabulary. They need to be revealed before the world and called by their proper names, fully describing their anti-Albanian character.
No people in the world achieved freedom and independence through the exercise of speculative concepts of colorblind and decadent philosophy, fed to the readers of mass media. So long as we Albanians in the Balkans are happy to be fed such anti-philosophical and anti-realistic produce (which are essentially nothing but imaginations of a false, romantic ,symbolic, "dialectic" philosophy of Nietzche's absolute individualist concern), we will live with slavery and Serbo-Slavic colonialism in the Balkans.
No one in the history of Serbia and Serbs has ever given a more objective, humane and precise definition of Serb ethnocentrism than the great French philosopher Andre Glucksmann, when he said, "When Serbs say they are innocent, they express their utmost racism."
This is true in every way - anthropological, historical, psychological, human and propaganda. The entire psychology and practice of world anti-Semitism can evolve, but not that of the Serbs. Its genesis is hereditary, passed from one generation to another and cultivated systematically and through institutions, from the family to the Orthodox Church, the academia, literature, poetry, drama, politics, diplomacy, the military, etc. In other words, Serbian anti-Semitism is not imported, but is an original manifestation of collective Serbian anti-Semitic paranoia, "Made in Serbia".
This is the prime reason the Serbs even today cannot free themselves of the centuries-old muck of their maniacal philosophy that they are supposedly the "most peaceful, most democratic, most just, most cultured, most enlightened, most progressive and most civilized" people in the Balkans. All these negative concepts are organically part of the Greaterserb mythological ethnocentrism.
This essential doctrine and practice of self-destructive, anti-Semitic ethnocentrism and Serbocentrism is the reason Serbia, in its historical, political, colonial and militarist continuity, has committed over ten genocides against Albanians and ethnic Albania (1842-1999).
In this traditional ethnocentric (racist and fascist) style, the propaganda of modern Serbia began an official campaign against the independence of Kosova in Belgrade, on December 4, 2007.
The initiator, overseer and director of this all-Serbian populist campaign, under the slogan "Kosovo is Serbia" is the Serbian government's Ministry for Kosovo and Metohija, headed by Slobodan Samardžić (member of the Serb negotiating team during the shuttle diplomacy efforts of Martti Ahtissari and Wolfgang Ischinger's "troika"), which "forgets" the truth that Kosova belongs to Albania, not Serbia, even though Tirana still lacks courage to say so.
Now, some might say that this is by no means a mainstream Albanian argument, but a rant of a madman. Fair enough. Only trouble is, I've heard these "arguments" over an over from Albanians; they are all over Albanian websites, peddled by Albanian lobbyists and "advocates," openly preached to the general Albanian public (in Kosovo, at least). As far as they are concerned, all of this is gospel truth.
Tell you what. Replace "Serbs" here with "Jews" and "Albanians" with "Germans." See how it sounds to you.
Yeah, I thought so.
Thursday, December 13, 2007
But as Julia Gorin reminds us, many fall short when faced with what needs to be done:
"By shining a light on our Kosovo mischief, I am merely doing my duty as an American. But there are Americans who have a greater responsibility than I to save the U.S. from this bipartisan treachery, Americans who should be most on the case at this eleventh hour: Serbian-Americans."
So, where are they? I don't count; I'm not an American citizen, just someone who's lived in this country for almost a dozen years. Besides, I've definitely not kept silent, what with having been a columnist for the past eight. Yet I'm an exception, rather than a rule.
Why is this? Julia has a theory:
"I understand the reasons that Serbs shy away from this duty. They want finally to be liked, and more than anything else to fit in; indeed, the modern Serb rejects his Serbhood. As well, a Serb knows he will instantly be painted with the “Oh, but this is coming from a Serb; of course you’d say that” brush. Notice this is never a consideration or stumbling block for the Serbs’ enemies..."
While true to a great extent, it's not the whole reason. I personally know people who fear that any sort of public expression of opposition to the current U.S. policy in the Balkans would have negative consequences to their careers, wealth, property, and even lives. I know people who believe their voice can't change anything. But they are saying something, with their silence: they are saying that their cause is not worth speaking out for, much less fighting for.
I, quite obviously, disagree.
Now, here's the real kicker: most of these Serbs who don't dare so much as whisper in public have no qualms about bemoaning the current situation in private, lamenting the state of the Serbian nation today and wishing for someone to step in and save it. Which brings me to the point I want to make, using the words of a brilliant American playwright:
"Look, if you think we're wrong... then I respect that. But if you think we're right and you won't speak up because you can't be bothered, then God... I don't even want to know you."
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Bosnian Army Offensive Operations in Sarajevo Region, June 1995 (238K)
Map N from Balkan Battlegrounds: A Military History of the Yugoslav Conflict, 1990-1995. Central Intelligence Agency, Office of Russian and European Analysis. Washington, D.C. 2001.
What is this? It is the map of the infamous 1995 "summer offensive" by the Muslim-dominated ARBiH that was supposed to break the siege of Sarajevo. Even those most casually acquainted in military arts can see that the direction of Muslim attacks makes little sense: only the 16th Division, attacking from the north, is actually moving towards the city, yet it eventually gets rolled back. Instead of attacking northwards from the city to help the 16th, the 12th Division is striking out eastwards, to... nowhere. And the 14th Division is attacking eastwards as well, to Mt. Treskavica (a barren piece of rock that claimed hundreds of Muslim lives without the Serbs so much as firing a shot). The whole operation was a strategic fiasco, with massive casualties.
Now for the reason I'm posting this. Notice the starting positions for the 14th Division's attack, down south. Two of the arrows start out not from green-shaded ARBIH-controlled area, but from the "UN patrolled" blue area. This was territory captured by the VRS (Bosnian Serb army) in a 1993 counterattack, which threatened to cut Sarajevo off completely from the rest of Muslim-held Bosnia. The Izetbegovic regime howled for help from the West; NATO and the U.S. threatened to bomb the Serbs; Serb leadership offered to cede the territory to the UN peacekeepers and keep it demilitarized. Of course, the moment the Serb troops withdrew, ARBiH forces poured in.
Oh, and did I mention that at this point Sarajevo was supposed to be a UN-designated "Safe area"? Yes, alongside Tuzla, Srebrenica, Zepa, Gorazde and Bihac, Sarajevo was supposed to be a demilitarized "safe haven" for civilians. There's even a 20-kilometer "exclusion zone" for heavy weapons, clearly seen on the CIA map. But see, "safe havens" were only sacrosanct when Serbs violated them; if Muslims deployed tens of thousands of troops, artillery and tanks within those areas, that was just fine.
The hypocrisy is just sickening.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
In his briefing, de Marnhac also noted the average age of Kosovo's Albanians was 28, while the figure for Serbs was 54.
"In the mid to long term there will be some kind of biological end to the problem here because, you know, one of the population(s) will simply disappear," he said.
No people - no problem. Simple as that. It used to be called genocide, or "ethnic cleansing" (a term first used by a Kosovo Albanian official in a 1987 New York Times story). Now it's "biological end."
Want to take over a bit of territory? Easy! Breed like mad - a dozen kids per family, or more - then when you become a majority, launch a rebellion. If you plead genocide, you may get lucky and the Empire will fight an illegal war of aggression on your behalf, and give you the territory on a silver platter. Bonus points if you've managed to soak the host country for welfare benefits for five decades so you can support your breeding program, making sure all those kids had schools, hospitals, government-subsidized jobs, etc. Anything else would be a violation of their human rights, you know... Once you have the territory, all you have to do is abuse the natives to the point of "biological solution," and there you go.
Seriously, though, de Marnhac's remarks should not come as a surprise. This cold-hearted, bigoted thinking explains how KFOR has "protected" Serbs in the province since 1999 - basically by putting them in ghettos and waiting for them to die off. One must remember, KFOR's function was never to protect non-Albanians from the KLA, but to protect the KLA from the Serbian army and police. They looked the other way as KLA burned, looted, murdered, threatened, extorted, besieged, stole and otherwise abused Serbs, Roma, Turks, Gorani, and other communities in the occupied province, only stepping in when abuses became bad enough to warrant unwanted media attention.
But he is right, you know. Serbs cannot hope to hold Kosovo if they are not willing to live there. They cannot hope to hold Serbia itself, if they don't start having babies. That's one way to make sure de Marnhac's prediction never comes to pass.
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
In the piece that I'm extensively quoting below (the translation is my own), Vukadinović lines up the trees, and a forest begins to emerge:
What this is about is a series of erroneous estimates and decisions, on part of many factors and over a lengthy period of time. First of all, the Serbs have generally underestimated the demographic problem of Kosovo, i.e. the skyrocketing growth of Albanian families, that - combined with pogroms during the Nazi occupation and systematic pressures in the half-century that followed - made the Serbs in Kosovo and Metohija an absolute minority. Likewise, just before and immediately after WW2, Serbian authorities wrongly believed the problem of Kosovo could be solved through police repression; the Communist regime, starting in the late 1960s, went to the other extreme and attempted to pacify Albanians by giving them broad autonomy and quasi-statehood. Milošević wrongly believed that after reducing the autonomy and establishing a semi-police regimen in the province in the early 1990s he had solved the problem, leaving Kosovo in the hands of inept and corrupt local officials...
On the other hand, the West (that is, the U.S.) wrongly believed - assuming they did believe - that Kosovo was primarily a humanitarian problem, rather than a conflict of two irreconcilable claims, two ethnic groups and two nation-building interests (as well as several regional interests). They erred in bombing Serbia (FRY) because of Kosovo, in the absence of UN Security Council approval, and lacking any legal or sufficiently moral justification. They erred even further when they tried to cover up that error with a claim of "genocide against the Albanians" and their "Gandhi-like resistance", systematically covering up the facts about crimes, atrocities and inhumane treatment of the remaining Serbs in Kosovo.
Additionally, seduced by misinformation coming from their envoys in the field, the West miscalculated the degree of Serb interest in Kosovo, wrongly believed that "Koštunica is just bluffing“, that Tadić would agree to independence, and that Kosovo is "number five or six on the Serbian national priority list“. They miscalculated the Russian position and possible role in the Kosovo crisis, constantly telling Belgrade that Serbia cannot count on a Russian veto in the Security Council, that Putin would make a deal with Bush and that "the Russians will sell you out in the end." Worst of all, this sort of policy and the promises - direct and indirect - that they will get independence as "reward for their suffering under Milošević“, have made the Albanians so entrenched, they reject any offer that falls short of this, no matter how favorable, as unjust.
Finally, a portion of the anti-Milošević opposition took their propaganda about "Kosovo as primarily a democratic issue" too seriously, and contrary to experience and common sense began believing that the problem of Kosovo began with Slobodan Milošević and that it would end with his departure. Part of this opposition corps that came to power after October 5, 2000, saw Kosovo as ballast to be discarded as soon as possible, believing - erroneously - that this would be met with support, or at least acquiescence, by most Serbians, as they become dazzled with European stars and supermarkets. They were mistaken.
Everyone, therefore, erred, and now everyone stands to lose. Serbs most of all, but also the U.S., the Albanians, Western interests as well as the "European agenda" in Serbia itself; let alone the international law and order. I think many now see the status quo ante  as a less-bad outcome for everyone. The question now is if anyone is at the controls, and if there is time for anyone to slow down or change the course.
(From "Is there a pilot on board?!" by Đorđe Vukadinović, 20 November 2007.)
Wednesday, November 07, 2007
But no, this post isn't about them apples. It's about Apple computers and their price in Canada.
Wired magazine - which seems to have a grudge against Steve Jobs and Apple, for some reason - reports how Macs are still more expensive in Canada than in the U.S. (by $150 or so). Considering how the Canadian dollar is now actually stronger than its American counterpart, that's adding insult to injury.
However, they also mention a pretty credible speculation that Apple adjusts its international prices annually, sometimes winning and other times losing on currency fluctuations. And remember, the U.S. dollar is "doing a post-modernist impression of the last minutes of the Titanic" (as the GeekCulture forum poster put it so aptly). That's got to be the best visual description of inflation I've ever come across, by the way.
Canadians have a solution to this conundrum; they can head south of the border and load up on cheaper Apple stuff. If only Americans had a similarly simple way of compensating for the depredations of Empire...
Friday, November 02, 2007
Today he offers a way to evaluate potential candidates for the next Emperor: "How do you propose to avoid a long war?"
What's wrong with a "long war"? Says Lind:
Sun Tzu said it succinctly: "There is no instance of a nation benefiting from prolonged warfare." Acceptance by any Presidential candidate of a "long war" or "persistent conflict" is an admission of grand strategic imbecility. Which, just possibly, ought not be the highest qualification for public office, all appearances notwithstanding.Worse yet, America has already been through a long war - from its 1917 intervention in Europe to the 1990 "victory" against Communism (see here for why I put that in quotes). And the fruits of that?
In 1914, America was a republic with a small federal government, a self-reliant citizenry, growing industry, an expanding middle class, an uplifting culture and exemplary morals. By 1990 and the end of that long war, we had become a tawdry and increasingly resented world empire with a vast, endlessly intrusive federal government, a population of willingly manipulated consumers, shrinking industry, a vanishing middle class, a debauched culture and morals that would shame a self-respecting stoat.Yet every "mainstream" candidate for the Throne of St. Abraham promises more war, more Empire, more of the same.
Where will another long war leave us? What's left of America won't be worth a bucket of warm spit, or however you say that in Spanish.
Of course, given the acceleration of history as evidenced by the 20th century alone, it won't take another 70 years for the said spitbucket transformation, but probably much, much less.
Wednesday, October 03, 2007
A Bosnian Muslim man was apprehended Monday as he tried to enter the U.S. embassy in Vienna, Austria with an explosive-laden backpack. Another Bosnian was arrested later Monday, suspected of being an accomplice.
It is nothing short of a miracle that the suspects were actually identified as “Bosnians” as opposed to “former Yugoslavs” or some such rubbish (as was the case with ethnic Albanians charged in the plot to attack Fort Dix earlier this year). Satisfied with this nod to the obvious, however, neither the Austrian government nor the media covering the event are willing to go any further. So the Austrians publicly state they “can’t say anything at the moment about a possible motive.” Indeed, Austria’s top cop (”general manager for public security”) Eric Buxbaum said “It is too early to speak of an Islamist background,” while Doris Edelbacher, identified by the AP as chief spokeswoman for Austria’s federal counterterrorism office, is said to have “played down speculation… that the thwarted attack may have been motivated by radical Islamic ideology.”
Because, you see, the wannabe-bomber and his handler were Bosnian Muslims, and that just can’t happen. The two suspects are Muslims? Check. There’s a jihadist imam in Graz, preaching jihad and murder of infidels? Check. The backpack bomb is the kind of device routinely used to blow up Israelis? Check. A Muslim prayer book is found in the backpack? Check. They are from where? Well, then, they can’t possibly be jihadists. Call off the search, boys, motive unknown.
What on earth could possibly be a motive for a jihad-style attack by a Muslim on a U.S. embassy? Jihad? Of course not! Out of the question! Never! Must be because… they didn’t process his visa request fast enough! That’s it! Perhaps he should sue the American government for causing him undue hardship; he wouldn’t be the first.
Already the mainstream press is saying that the main suspect has “sought psychiatric help” in the past, trying to suggest he was just a nutcase. Maybe there is something to it; but on the other hand, the fact that he panicked, threw the bomb away and tried to run, instead of blowing himself up, suggest that “Asim C.” is not mentally ill. I’m not so sure about those trying to spin his inept attempt at martyrdom as anything but.
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
The article helpfully references the panelists' names (though without much in the way of background):
"The panel consisted of Yale professor Ivo Banac, University of Pristina professor Dastid Pallaska, 2007 Yale World Fellow Verena Knaus, 2006 Yale World Fellow Garentina Kraja, Laurie Ball LAW ’09 and Jonathan Finer LAW ’09."
Let's see... an ethnic Albanian professor (Pallaska), an ethnic Albanian journalist (Kraja), and a former Croat politician (Banac) round out the "Balkans" perspective. To be honest, Banac was probably the most impartial of the lot - but with this lot, that's not hard.
Continuing on: Knaus is a member of the "European Stability Initiative," a Brussels-friendly NGO run by Gerald Knaus (husband or brother?). The ESI is funded by numerous foundations and Western governments - and oh yes, NATO! Can't expect someone who ate from NATO's dish to criticize the Alliance for its illegal occupation of Kosovo, now can we?
Next up is Laurie Ball, a Duke graduate who did "community-building" in Bosnia as part of her "career in human rights." If that doesn't qualify her as an expert in international law, I don't know what would.(EDIT: I just remembered the name of a Patrick Ball, a pet "expert" of the ICTY. Could he be a relative?)
Finally, there is Jonathan Finer, who is actually a Washington Post reporter best known for being "embedded" with the 1st Marine Division in Iraq, but who has recently done a tour of the Balkans and produced a series of predictably propagandistic rubbish about Bosnia, Serbia and Kosovo.
Now, according to the Yale Daily News, Law School Dean Harold Koh called “a better briefing than anything presented at the State Department.” I concur - in the sense that the putrid bilge regularly emanating from the State Department is hard to outdo. But I bet these brave panelists came close. Of course, the reporter only quotes Ball, Pallaska, Finer and Knaus; there's nothing at all from Banac or Kraja. But what is quoted is insipid enough.
Not surprisingly, there was widespread agreement about the inevitability and even necessity of independence, and the report (presumably drawing from the "information" offered at the panel) spoke of "more than 10,000 ethnic Albanians" killed. Only trouble is, this "fact" is nothing of the sort.
In the past, forums, panels and "debates" of this kind at various universities and NGO institutes at least tried to create a pretense of impartiality by inviting a token Serb (even better, an ethnic Serb with a serious case of neo-Jacobin Empire-worship). Now, if this is the state of academic debate , or even discussion, at one of America's most prestigious universities, it's no wonder the American public is so utterly deluded about what is actually happening in Kosovo.
Then again, didn't the current Emperor study at Yale?
Monday, September 10, 2007
I can't vote for Dr. Paul next year; I'm not an American citizen. But if I could, I would. Because, as Vox Day so aptly puts it (my emphasis):
The choice is simple. If you want to live under an EU-style regime that is intent on invading and occupying other countries in the name of democracy for the foreseeable future, vote for any of the so-called major candidates. It doesn't matter which one.[...] If, on the other hand, you wish to live in a nation where the United States government is governed by the Constitution, you had better support Ron Paul. This may be your only opportunity, for it is entirely possible that this will be the last time such a choice is presented to you.
Wednesday, September 05, 2007
After NATO occupation forces entered the province in June, however, the alleged genocide proved ephemeral. Just over 2,000 bodies were found, belonging to Albanians as well as Serbs, Roma, and others who lived in Kosovo, killed by NATO bombs, KLA terrorism, and yes, Yugoslav police and military. The total number of bodies found was 2,788, including both Serbs and Albanians (several mass graves were in fact those of Serbs massacred by the KLA). The International Red Cross is listing another 2,047 persons as still missing, "including approximately 500 Serbs, 1,300 Albanians and 200 members of other ethnic groups."
This is a far cry from "an estimated 10,000 people, mostly ethnic Albanians," which is used in every report about the occupied province, including and especially those dealing with the constant KLA terror against the remaining Serbs and other non-Albanians. The repetition is meant to provide a justification for NATO intervention, but it also tends to bolster the bogus case for independence claimed by the Albanian separatists. Little wonder, then, that all the mainstream media keep repeating the 10,000 mantra.
Last week, however, a U.S.-based intelligence publication Defense & Foreign Affairs, analyzed the Kosovo death toll fraud, and showed conclusively that the figure of 10,000 Albanians has been a fabrication all along.
Every man, woman and child the U.S. forces kill in Iraq is transformed into an "insurgent" by the magic of propaganda. That same propaganda turned every KLA terrorist the Yugoslav forces killed - in battles raging for a year before NATO bombers took the KLA side - into an innocent civilian, then multiplied that number by three, five, ten, a hundred. The same thing was done in Bosnia.
In both cases, numbers are meant to override reality. Iraqi body counts are supposed to provide a metric of "progress", covering up the reality of failure. In Bosnia, and later in Kosovo, numbers were meant to provoke outrage, anger and shock, blocking out rational thought and providing cover for aggression, occupation, and support of unsavory client regimes. The greater the deception, the bigger lie it required. Under the umbrella of those lies, the "democratic" authorities in Croatia accomplished what their Nazi predecessors could not, ethnically cleansing most Serbs; Alija Izetbegovic achieved his dream of forcing the Muslims of Bosnia back into Islam, this time of the Saudi variety; and the Albanians of Kosovo have at least temporarily restored the "Greater Albania"of WW2, and set upon eradicating every trace of Serb presence in the land.
Trouble is, what would have been possible a century or half a century ago - because who could find out the truth, safely locked away in classified archives? - is not so possible now. The lies are getting exposed after a few short years. Sure, a lot of the damage has already been done, and not all of it can be reversed. But the time between the lie and its exposure has shortened exponentially. And once exposed, it is just a matter of time and willpower before the edifice built on the lies is torn down. And maybe next time - for, given the human worship of violence, there will be a next time - lies won't be so easily believed in the first place.
Thursday, August 16, 2007
Look at all the candidates for Emperor, already preening and posturing. They all want to be Bush, not beat him. The only candidate who actually wants to be a Constitutional President - Ron Paul - is being ignored by the legacy media, in their arrogant belief that if they can just deny the existence of something or someone, that something or someone would actually cease to exist. How is that different from that famous neocon sneer at the "reality-based community"?
I know times are hard. Because of war and the Empire, the dollar is worth less than ever before. You think it will be worth any more if there's a war with Iran soon? Oh, wait, you didn't know about that one? But Antiwar.com features news, analysis and opinion exposing the Empire's war plans every day... and they don't charge for it! All they ask is that you donate, however much you think it's worth to you.
What price truth? What price liberty?
Of course, I have a dog in this fight; Antiwar.com runs my own column, Moments of Transition, on Thursdays, so obviously I have a vested interest here. But if you donate - and you should - don't do it for me. Do it for the millions of Americans who oppose the war, who cherish liberty and reject the Empire as an abomination.
Do it for yourself.
Monday, August 13, 2007
Here's a one such find, via Slobodan-Milosevic.org: in mid-July, a leading Bosnian Muslim daily published a "news" story about the new official definition of terrorism in Bosnia, and its author.
According to Bakir Alispahić, a newly minted M.A., "so-called religious terrorism does not exist, and that therefore there can be no talk of Islamic terrorism."
Alispahić, once the top policeman for the Izetbegović regime, and later head of the Muslim government's intelligence agency (AID), was charged with terrorism in 2002 over "Pogorelica" - an AID-owned camp where Iranian agents were training Bosnian Muslim terrorists in 1996. A NATO raid uncovered "Iranian propaganda, terrorist training manuals, bomb making materials, and bombs disguised to look like children's toys."
He was acquitted after several key figures in the case were mysteriously killed. The Empire never pressed the "Pogorelica" issue, because exposing the Izetbegović regime's terrorist connections would interfere with its wartime propaganda of "Bosnians" as innocent victims of evil genocidal Serbs.
Adding insult to injury, Michael Bay's 1996 summer blockbuster "The Rock" opened with the protagonist dismantling a child's doll booby-trapped by fictional Serb terrorists...
But back to the "terrorism expert" Alispahić, who explained his motivation to Dnevni Avaz thus: "They are a result of my conviction that I was completely groundlessly accused of terrorism by certain circles. Had these forces managed to win and prove their accusations, my struggle and my contribution to the war effort, and ultimately the defence of our country would have been marred by terrorism, which never existed in Bosnia."
In other words, he defined himself out of terrorism and thus vindicated his efforts. "Scientific," indeed.
In the commission reviewing Alispahić's thesis were Smail Čekić (Muslim regime's leading "expert" on war crimes) and Nijaz Duraković (former chairman of the Bosnian Communist Party, who eventually rediscovered himself as a nationalist and joined Haris Silajdzic). Duraković told Avaz that "there is a tendency to declare B-H almost collectively terrorist, and the Bosniaks collectively Al-Qa'idah," so Alispahić's thesis ("proving" that neither could possibly be true) was so very important.
I was going to make a snarky comment about what passes for "political science" in Bosnia, when I realized that's precisely what this is: political science. Alispahić conjured a "scientific" definition to save his own miserable skin. Duraković and Čekić love it because it serves their agenda of defending "Bosniaks" from accusations of terrorism.
But Duraković's jibe about collectively labeling Bosnian Muslims as terrorists is disingenuous at best. There is no denying that terrorists were involved with the Bosnian Muslim jihad against Serbs and Croats, or that some Bosnian Muslims were terrorists, but insofar as I know, no one has ever called the entire Bosnian Muslim nation terrorist. Meanwhile, Duraković and other Muslim nationalist routinely label the entire Serb nation "genocidal." So Duraković was really engaging in projection here.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: so long as the Bosnian Muslims believe in their innocence and victimhood, and refuse to come to terms with the realities of the 1992-1995 war and the fundamental problem of Bosnia's existence (ethnic relations), there can and will be no peace in that country. As for terrorism, between Empire's denial and Muslims' own hypocrisy, Al-Qaeda appears to have a safe haven in Bosnia.
Tuesday, August 07, 2007
Back in July, Julia published a piece in the American Legion magazine revealing that the "victory" in Kosovo was anything but. She was immediately attacked by two soldiers deployed in Kosovo, claiming she was a "liar" and a "predator" who made up things and impugned the Soldiers (always with a capital "S") who served their country and protected "our freedoms" - such as, ostensibly, Julia's freedom of speech.
Let's set aside for the moment the obviously ridiculous notion that occupying a portion of Serbian territory on behalf of Albanian separatists in any way shape or form defends anything American, whether rights, interests or principles. In practice, one has freedom of speech in the U.S. so long as their voice isn't heard by too many. If there is the slightest danger of a dissenting view "infecting" the carefully constructed mainstream, the dissident is exposed to onslaught of "respectable" critics and pro-establishment types, dismissed as a kook or a paid foreign agent, ridiculed as a liar or a fringe extremist, etc. This is exactly what happened when Julia published her critique of Croatia's Ustasha revival; death threats and invective came at her from all angles (publishing emails from angry Croats calling her a "filthy Jewish bitch" or saying "we didn't kill enough of you" was a brilliant response, though).
Just to make sure she means business, Julia has a link on her page to Bruiser, her rather fierce-looking canine companion. Seems as if taking a look at his photo has a salutary effect on those who threaten her bodily harm.
Following the attacks by the two military bloggers, Julia has composed an extensive response, which is carried by FrontPage Magazine. She carefully documents every one of her claims, debunks the bloggers' assertions methodically, and in general makes them look like clueless idiots at best, or pathetic mouthpieces of officialdom at worst.
How someone can sit in Camp Bondsteel, in occupied Kosovo, and claim they fight for liberty is completely beyond me. How can someone claim to fight for American freedoms, and then take part in enabling the ethnic cleansing of Serbs in Kosovo, which is as un- and anti-American an endeavor as it gets? Or could this be the knee-jerk "patriotism" of some folk who believe that questioning the motives and intentions of the Imperial government while there are troops in harm's way (by the way, that harm is likely to come from the Albanians they are protecting; how's that for irony?) is treason? It seems they have forgotten that their oath was not to a Fuehrer but to the Constitution of a Republic.
There are times when I wonder whether I would care so much about what has taken place in the Balkans had I not lived through it, or if I would be so passionate about the injustices heaped upon the Serbian people if I were not an ethnic Serb. Julia Gorin is neither. She's an American, who could have profited handsomely parroting the official line about evil, genocidal Serbs. Instead, she chose to put everything on the line for the cause of truth and justice. That is true heroism. That is the American Way. And those who sneer at her while pretending to be American patriots ought to be ashamed of themselves.
Monday, August 06, 2007
Right; when Croats, Muslims or Albanians leave their homes, it's always "ethnic cleansing" and "genocide" but when Serbs do the same thing, it's their own fault. Anyone see a bit of problematic reasoning here?
Croatia is currently governed by the same party that declared independence in 1991, wrote the Serbs out of the Constitution and accepted Ustasha (WW2 Nazi) symbolism in mainstream political discourse. Tens of thousands - including diplomats with families, no less - recently saluted Ustasha songs at a big rock concert in Zagreb.
Facts speak for themselves, gentlemen; where once were hundreds of thousands of Serbs, now there are almost none. They've been killed, expelled, or forced to deny their identity so that within a generation they will be more ardent Croats than Franjo "Founder of the Nation" Tudjman. What happened in August 1995 was the largest single act of ethnic cleansing in the Balkans to date. Nobody cared, because it was "just those Serbs."
Just so we're perfectly clear: when the Empire engages in aggressive warfare (the greatest international crime) for the sake of "human rights," it is only the "rights" of its allies, satellites, quislings and clients. Serbs, being none of that, are not considered human. And if they dare offer resistance, then obviously whatever happens to them is their fault.
I won't bother pointing out whose "logic" this resembles.
Saturday, August 04, 2007
Thursday, July 26, 2007
Alexander Solzhenitsyn, in an interview to Germany's Der Spiegel, says this:
When I returned to Russia in 1994, the Western world and its states were practically being worshipped. Admittedly, this was caused not so much by real knowledge or a conscious choice, but by the natural disgust with the Bolshevik regime and its anti-Western propaganda. This mood started changing with the cruel NATO bombings of Serbia. It's fair to say that all layers of Russian society were deeply and indelibly shocked by those bombings. The situation then became worse when NATO started to spread its influence and draw the ex-Soviet republics into its structure. [...] So, the perception of the West as mostly a "knight of democracy" has been replaced with the disappointed belief that pragmatism, often cynical and selfish, lies at the core of Western policies. For many Russians it was a grave disillusion, a crushing of ideals.
When Austria-Hungary threatened war with Serbia in 1914, Russia backed Belgrade. Not because it could handle a war at that point, or because such a course of action was in its best interest - arguably, neither was the case - but because in 1908 it had stood aside and allowed Vienna to annex Bosnia-Herzegovina in clear violation of the 1878 treaty that was supposed to create peace in the Balkans.
For modern Russia, 1999 was another 1908. They don't want another 1914. But the American Empire is acting like Austria-Hungary, even to the point of having an Austrian-born, Serbophobic U.S. ambassador in Belgrade...
Of course, the analogy only goes so far; even so, the Empire ought to realize that Moscow is really serious this time. As is Belgrade, custom-made polls notwithstanding. It is now clear that the 1999 war "lost Russia." Somehow, the worshipful embrace of Albanian peasants seems a bad bargain in comparison.
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
The battle for Kosovo is far from over. Albanian separatists are still determined to have their way, and their allies - the governments in London, Paris and Washington - are just as determined to paint their 1999 war of aggression as a triumph of democratic peace. Turns out Serbia and Russia are just as determined not to let them, even though the Empire has constantly underestimated both. Maybe that's why it lost the staring contest at the UN.
Any which way things develop from here, the Finn is done. Finished. Now he just has to hope the Albanians won't ask for their money back, the same way they've been "asking" for land...
Monday, July 23, 2007
Thomas E. Woods, a brilliant historian who has previously penned The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History and Church and the Market: A Catholic Defense of the Free Economy, has a new book out: 33 Questions About American History You're Not Supposed to Ask.
I haven't read it yet, though I have ordered a copy. So, why do I recommend it? Because reviewer Kevin Gutzman wrote today on LewRockwell.com that "the two chapters on American intervention in the former Yugoslavia are among the book’s finest."
I haven't the slightest doubt that Professor Woods has put together a fine piece of myth-busting work here. I can't wait to read it!
Thursday, July 05, 2007
However, something very close to it has just been published. On July 4th, most fittingly, online magazine American Thinker published Julia Gorin's superb dissertation on the "Balkans Quagmire" in the minds of Western observers.
Rich in analysis, primary and secondary sources, unimpeachable logic and sincerity, this is one article anyone even remotely interested in the Balkans should read. Needs to read. If, some day, a collection of essays on the Balkans crisis of the past two decades is published, I hope that some of my works make it in there. But I know that this essay of Julia's will.
Read it. Go.
What are you waiting for?
Monday, July 02, 2007
Croatia had 1,107 towns with Serb majority, and I systematically compared the situation from the 1991 census with that of 2001. From this I established that in the majority of towns with Serb majority the infrastructure has been completely destroyed. Not only have people been expelled, their property was destroyed as well... I've noted the destruction of the entire infrastructure: emergency rooms, art houses, warehouses, power stations, cemeteries... Ethnic cleansing in Croatia encompassed people, property and even real estate registries.
I went further, statistically analyzing the two hundred-plus cities in Croatia, and established that some 124,000 Serbs were expelled from places where there was no fighting, and that the same destruction was applied to their property. There isn't a single village where someone hasn't been killed or disappeared. In larger cities there were concentration camps, euphemistically called "collection centers," and in many cases people died there.
Statistics show that 10,000 people were expelled from their homes in Split, and 18,500 from Zagreb. At the Zagreb fairgrounds, there was a concentration camp at "Pavillion 22." Everyone pretty much knew what went on there. Some 200 people disappeared. Still, the largest number of people were killed in Sisak.
Any mention of Balkans wars in the Western media includes numbers: 250,000 (the false, grossly inflated number of war deaths in Bosnia); 8000 (the purported number of Muslims slain in Srebrenica in 1995); 10,000 (the number of Albanians allegedly killed by Serb forces, "estimated" by NATO sources). There's one number that's never mentioned: 380,032.
The 2001 census listed 380,032 fewer Serbs in Croatia than in 1991. As Dr. Livada's research shows, that number was brought about by actions "with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such."
Friday, June 29, 2007
It seems that the Serbian government has had quite enough of him, at long last. Prime Minister Kostunica's spokesman, Srdjan Djuric, has skewered Polt twice this week. The first comment came on Tuesday, after the Ambassador abused the event marking the 60th anniversary of the Marshall Plan to give yet another speech about the "need" for independent Kosovo.
The sneering Polt asked a rhetorical question during his tirade: "What if we were to tell you today that we were wrong and that Kosovo is yours, and that we are withdrawing our forces from Kosovo by Saturday. What then?"
Polt was obviously expecting the terrified Serbs to beg the Americans and other NATO troops to stay and continue their occupation, so even more Serbs could be ethnically cleansed, even more churches could be destroyed, and even more Albanians could illegally settle in the province. No such luck; instead, Djuric reacted by commending the ambassador on an "interesting new suggestion" that signaled American acceptance of Serbia's territorial integrity.
The departing ambassador walked into another blunder on Thursday, when he criticized Prime Minister Kostunica's remark that the U.S. and Serbia were locked in "a new battle for Kosovo." According to Polt, there is no battle; America is a friend of Serbia, and all the hostility is purely one-sided.
Djuric replied: "Friends don't seize one another's land... If this means the U.S. is abandoning its support for the independence of Kosovo... then we can talk about friendly relations between our countries. " He followed up by asking "whether [Mr. Polt's] country would consider Serbia a friend if Serbia were advocating the creation of a new state on American territory."
Of course, Polt was spewing nonsense on both occasions. Washington doesn't have friends - only servants and victims. And the U.S. can no sooner withdraw from Kosovo than it could from Iraq - even though in both cases withdrawal would be the right thing to do. But this is the first time someone in the Serbian government (even if only a spokesman) openly told the Americans that their departure, far from being lamented, would be a good riddance.
But it shows a special kind of arrogance when even the highest official of the Alliance, secretary-general Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, lies without hesitation.
At a conference today, Scheffer responded to criticism from Afghanistan, where 90 civilians died in NATO operations just this month, with this claim: "Let me make one point unmistakably clear - Nato has never killed and will never intentionally kill innocent civilians."
This right here is postmodern "morality;" actions are deemed moral or immoral based on their perpetrator. So when NATO invades a country, bombs civilian targets, destroys utilities, targets reporters, sponsors ethnic cleansing and destruction of cultural monuments, that's "humanitarian intervention" and beyond reproach. But if anyone else is so much as accused of doing any of these things, that's "genocide."
Civilians die in war. That is why starting a war was declared a supreme international crime, back in 1945. Scheffer presides over an Alliance that has violated that law with impunity. So yes, Jaap, you did intentionally kill innocent civilians. That much is unmistakably clear.
Thursday, June 28, 2007
According to the magazine, surveillance carried out by the German intelligence (BND) produced evidence of Ahtisaari accepting cash and bank transfer payments from Albanian mafia figures.
The former president of Finland was appointed in 2005 to oversee negotiations between Serbian authorities and the provisional Albanian government set up by the UN in the occupied province, following the 1999 NATO invasion. In February this year, he unveiled his "proposal" for the province that would see it detached from Serbia but functioning as an EU protectorate.
Ahtisaari's spokesman, Remi Dourlot, dismissed the magazine's allegations: "This is a rubbish story, which is actually from a Republica Srpska magazine."
Fokus is indeed published in the Bosnian Serb Republic (RS), but what is Dourlot's point, exactly? That allegations are preposterous simply because they come from a Serb magazine?
Dourlot's dismissal of the story isn't news in itself. But the reasoning he gave - or lack thereof - may just be another important piece towards completing the Ahtisaari puzzle. There is plenty of speculation about Ahtisaari's past and his motives in being at the forefront of carving up Serbia, but it is futile to argue he is not hostile to Serbs.
Prior to his appointment as the UN envoy for Kosovo, Ahtisaari was NATO's envoy to Belgrade during the 1999 war. Afterwards, he became a board member of the International Crisis Group, a Brussels-based NGO openly supporting Albanian and Montenegrin separatists and Bosnian Muslim centralizers. During the sham "talks" he conducted in Vienna in 2006, he told the Serbian delegation that Serbs bore collective responsibility for what happened in the Balkans during the 1990s. And earlier this year, after his "proposal" was snarled up in Russian objections, Ahtisaari was quoted by Simon Tisdall of the Guardian (in an article supporting the Albanian agenda, no less):
"If the EU cannot do this, it can forget about its role in international affairs. If we can't do this during the German presidency, we should give up and admit we can't do anything."One can understand the desire to have the EU assert itself diplomatically - however misguided - but what do the Germans have to do with it? Could Ahtisaari's vision of European unity be closer to Quisling's than DeGaulle's?
But then there is the issue of cold, hard cash. The Fokus story named names, listed numbers of bank accounts. In this day and age, it is entirely too easy to verify a story and prove it right or wrong - provided that people want to hear the truth in the first place.
Given that the Empire's case for Kosovo independence is built on violence and lies and that everything concerning the Albanian organized crime is swept under the rug, Dourlot's dismissal of the Fokus story as "rubbish from a Serb magazine" calls forth a phrase well-known to political reporters: "Believe nothing until it's been officially denied."
Monday, June 18, 2007
If the self-proclaimed autocrat of the known universe wants to make a complete idiot of himself, he's more than welcome to do so. At least this time no one got killed.
Scanning the news stories from the past week, however, my eye caught on this quote by Nancy Snow, identified as "professor of communications at California State University, Fullerton" in an AP report by Paul Chavez:
"You know things aren't going well when you have to go to Albania to have people take to the streets and cheer you."
And there you have it.
The way it was implemented, unfortunately, attempted to shove the country back into the insane paradigm of 1991, with "citizen state" being used as a veil for domination by one community over the others. Countless "reforms" since 1996 have endeavored to create a strong central government at the expense of the entities. What Bosnia needs, on the other hand, is a less powerful government at all levels.
The reason Serbs, Croats and Muslims fight is only partly based in history; the simple truth is that, with the concept of government inherited from the socialist Yugoslavia (which copied it from the USSR), the state has entirely too much control and influence over every aspect of human action. This is statism in its purest form: extortion, violence, robbery, theft. Coupled with the troubled historical heritage, no group trusts the other with such power, but the lure of its privileges is too strong for anyone to contemplate the obvious solution: abolish most of it, and with it the temptation.
One of the reasons the military reform succeeded was the abolition of conscription. Once the military stopped being a tool of social engineering, politicians had no use for it anymore. Unfortunately, this is a lesson that escaped just about everyone, from the locals to the still substantial number of foreign bureaucrats administering, "training" and "overseeing" the country. With the Bosnian Serb leader Milorad Dodik drawing a line in the sand and refusing to dismantle the Serb Republic any further, and Bosnian Muslim leader Haris Silajdzic leading a political jihad to achieve just that, passions are rising again and the fragile peace (or rather, absence of war) in Bosnia looks as if it won't last for long.
A week ago, I received a note from a friend who works in Sarajevo (and wishes to remain anonymous, for obvious reasons):
I am getting more and more worried about this place. [One] of my top staff and a very smart, educated guy, just spent 45 minutes in my office ranting about the political situation. Basically, he made the case for why Bosnia cannot exist as a sovereign state, but he, like everyone else, refuses to see the implications of his own arguments. Instead they call for "radical action," "imposed solutions," "abandoning politics," etc. Almost fascist-feeling, cult of action, will-to-power type stuff...
The people are delusional. They blame Dodik for everything. They say the country has gone backwards in the last two years, and imply it is because of the "disfuntional state institutions." I say the country has progressed, because the people have clearly, democratically spoken, and now we know where people stand. Plus, because reforms have been achieved despite the "disfunctional state," granted only under Dodik in the RS. Perhaps if they wanted the Serbs to have an interest in state institutions, they should have made the Federation work years ago, so the Serbs would be begging to be part of the dynamic economy next door. But instead they squabbled over insignificant details, made Srebrenica the focus of every speech, and divided up the spoils. Besides the "dysfunctional state" is the only kind that fits the state of the country now - it perfectly reflects the dis-united, aimless people.
They cite historical examples, and then misinterpret every one of them. They pray for the US to finally wake up and impose their (Bosniaks') vision on the country. They threaten war if Dodik achieves his (federal) aims democratically...then accuse Dodik of being a threat to the peace.
And suddenly I am hearing people - respected, educated, important people - talking about the failure of democratic institutions, and the consequent need for "radical action"....
The temperature is rising here. Croatians are hopeless. Bosniaks are radicalizing. Serbs are trying to be pragmatic (in my opinion), but they will be ready to respond if someone tries to use force agains them. The US seems to be trying to disengage - they want to impose window dressing reforms and then hand over responsibility to Brussels....
Things certainly sound grim.
Friday, June 15, 2007
In the Balkans, he will be remembered primarily as a Nazi officer involved in atrocities against Serbs and Jews in western Bosnia.
Robert Fisk has an interesting and informative obituary detailing Waldheim's "career" in the Belfast Telegraph and the Independent.
So here's a war criminal who not only "escaped justice" but eventually rose to the highest office of the UN, the very organization which later (overstepping its already generously broad mandate) established the illegal "tribunal" for political persecution of Balkans leaders (and some more than others). And no, that's not a typo.
Having covered up the genocide the Nazis and their allies conducted in Yugoslavia during World War Two, the Empire - which, after all, has those very same allies today - fabricated a "genocide" supposedly committed by the Serbs, and has used the "tribunal" as a tool of political pressure to ensure Serb submission. For years we've been hearing about "war criminals eluding justice" and "ending the culture of impunity." The hypocrisy is astounding.
Monday, June 11, 2007
As a propaganda organization affiliated with the Empire reports, His Elevated Majesty told Albanian Prime Minister Berisha:
“You get your diplomats working with Russians and EU diplomats to see if there is not a common ground,” said Bush, indicating that if there no compromise on Kosovo’s independence the US may act on its own toward the region.
“If you end up being in a position where you don’t, at some point of time, sooner rather than later, you got to say: that’s enough – Kosovo is independent,” said Bush.
Commenting on this pronouncement by His Hegemonic Enormity, Serbian Prime Minister Kostunica said that the Empire "has a right to support certain states and peoples in accordance with its interests, but not by making them a present of something which doesn't belong to it... The U.S. has to find some way of showing its favor and love for the Albanians other than presenting them with Serbian territories."
Leaving aside for the moment the question of whether Albania and the Albanians have done anything to deserve Imperial favor and love (ha!), Kostunica has a point here. Even His Most Worshipful Greatness cannot give away what is not his (occupation does not mean ownership, see), so Kosovo is right out. However, he could reward his Albanian vassals with the State of New Jersey. From what I hear, it would not be all that hard.