Waiting for Stalingrad

I have a long tradition of year-in-review articles for Antiwar.com (the most recent is "Moments of Revelation."), though not so much here. Nonetheless, it seems like a good idea to recap the year that was.

"By their fruits you shall know them," I began the year, quoting Matthew. And sure enough, the fruits of the Empire and its servants have been poison throughout.

KLA supporters in Washington DC famously said the "Kosovian" bandits fought for "human rights and American values;" I offered a glimpse into what that looked like in practice. Meanwhile, the spineless quisling regime in Belgrade committed outright treason by recognizing "Kosovia" in all but name. Even so, Serbia is not dead and buried, much as the Empire would like it to be so.

This was the year in which Great War revisionism gained more steam. Not only have there been efforts to blame everything on the Orthodox Other, but - as this item from February showed - to actually explain the war as the legitimate reaction of the Central Powers to being "threatened"! In such a climate, it was easy for Christopher Clark to argue that the war originated with the 1903 May Coup in Serbia. I mean, if the Serbs had only stayed Austrian vassals...

Such a climate of calumny made it possible for "Bosniak" activists to slander a WW1 Serbian march performed at the UN, with the help of the mainstream Western media.

Not that internet journalism has done better this year; after 14 years of online work, I've shared a few insights, inspired by another blogger's year-in-review posting. But the tendency to print unverified rumor, or even deliberated disinformation - case in point being a faux story about Tom Hanks supporting the Serbs - was inherited from the mainstream media. The Internet may be the media version of the AK-17 (whose inventor passed away in December, at age 94), but whether it's bullets or words, proper use and precision do matter.

A good friend and great fighter for the cause of truth, Stella Jatras, reposed in the Lord this June. Many of her Serb friends gave her a fitting tribute. When the history of these dark days is written, her name will shine brightly in it.

For my part, I've taken aim at many mistakenly beloved illusions this year: I took issue with Daniel Greenfield's drone worship in February; and challenged the perceptions that 1389 was a defeat, or that October 5, 2000 was a triumph.

Likewise, on the 70th anniversary of the Communist revolutionaries declaring a rebirth of Yugoslavia, I questioned their proclamation, and addressed the problematic features of their creation. And then there were unanswered questions about the Great Leader...

Chechen bombers of the Boston Marathon did not cause a re-evaluation of Empire's support for the Caucasus jihad. Instead, it backed the jihadists in Syria. In fact, by the summer, everything seemed set for yet another evil little war. As if on cue (because it was on cue) war talk was everywhere, the Imperial media eager to watch the world burn. Croatia actually bragged about being a conduit for weapons to the Syrian "rebels."  Had the attack actually gone forward, it would have been a defining moment for the Empire, marking it unmistakably as the greatest danger of our time. And then... nothing. Whether it was the Russian fleet off the Syrian coast, or Vladimir Putin's words of caution, but the Syrian campaign ended up stillborn.

Just the other day, Chechen bombers attacked public transportation in a city that, for six days every year, still bears the name Stalingrad. Their sponsors would do well to remember what happened to the "invincible" Wehrmacht there, seventy years ago.

Is it really a coincidence that Nazi revival is all the rage in the European Union? Seven years after murdering Slobodan Milosevic, the faux-Tribunal overtly promoted a Big Lie, presenting the Croatian Nazi plan to exterminate the Serbs as a Serb plan to exterminate the Bosnian Muslims. Meanwhile, Croatians reveled in their "heritage" after qualifying for the 2014 soccer World Cup - and then shamelessly tried to silence the few voices daring to protest.

Open Nazism was on display in Ukraine as well, where the Empire tried to stage another "Orange revolution" in December. It failed. Because the East remembers.

RIP M. Kalashnikov

Mikhail Timofeyevich Kalashnikov, inventor of the world's most ubiquitous automatic rifle, passed away today at age 94.


As with almost every technological innovation, the rifle that bears his name is a product of evolution in weapons development. The genius of the injured tank mechanic was to put the existing pieces and concepts together in a novel way. Thus came about the Avtomat Kalashnikova 1947, or AK-47.

As RT describes it:

AK-47 is not a weapon designed for accuracy tests at the firing range. It is a weapon for firefights at close quarters, in harsh Russian conditions.

It can be assembled by a person with no military training, is fired by simply pointing at a target, and it can be easily looked after without a cleaning kit. It does not jam by itself (due to the generous allowances between moving parts, which also explain its mediocre accuracy at range) and it does not stop functioning in any weather conditions.

There are layers of irony in the fact that the Soviet Union gave birth to the most democratic weapon of the modern age. What Samuel Colt's six-shooter did for individual self-defense, Mikhail Kalashnikov's rifle did for nations.

Just a hundred years ago, the world was partitioned between the empires of Europe. As Hillaire Belloc famously wrote, "Whatever happens, we have got/The Maxim gun, and they have not." (The Modern Traveller, 1898) The AK-47 put the firepower of the Maxim machine gun within everyone's reach, enabling the small and weak to challenge the mighty and powerful.

Rest in peace, Mikhail Timofeyevich.

And Now For a Word

I wanted to title this "We interrupt this broadcast for a message from our sponsors," but a) it's too long, b) I don't have any sponsors, and c) posting here isn't on any sort of regular schedule anyway.

I do have a promotion, however. Back in 2012, an essay of mine appeared in a collection titled "Why Peace?" It isn't a case for pacifism, but rather for non-aggression. Yes, there is a difference, and no, it's not hair-splitting but rather precision in speech and thought. War may be a necessary evil sometimes, but we must remember it is evil nonetheless.

There are many other valuable essays in the book. You may like some more and others less. For what it's worth, mine is a rare firsthand glimpse into the Bosnian War, which I put into the broader context of Imperial white-knighting.

The book is available through a variety of channels; you can find out more here. 

Tea and Biscuits in Kiev

Tuesday night I got another call from RT, to comment (video) on the situation in Kiev as the police moved to dismantle the "opposition" barricades.

Ukraine's government is in a difficult position. If it allows the protesters to blockade downtown Kiev, it appears powerless. If it breaks them up, and there is blood, it appears brutal. Thing is, all of this is in Gene Sharp's playbook, developed into the manual for "color revolutions." The motley coalition of marginal political parties (including Nazi apologists)? Check. A charismatic leader that's all style by no substance? Check. Meaningless acts of media posturing? Check. Celebrity endorsements instead of an actual program? Check.

Now the top "diplomats" from Brussels and Washington are hobnobbing with the would-be revolutionaries, stirring the pot. But if the EU couldn't secure Ukraine's submission with financial incentives (or - and here's a discomforting thought for many a EUrocrat - couldn't afford to), what makes them think Baroness Upholland showing up for tea, or Victoria Nuland giving away biscuits, would work any better?

cartoon by V. Kremlov, RT

The revolutionaries' script is both their greatest strength and their greatest weakness. Strength, because it has been developed to maximally use human psychology. Weakness, because if the other side can somehow disrupt the protesters' OODA loop, get them off the script, the "revolution" fails. Moscow and Minsk have done it.

Another thing to keep in mind is that neither official Kiev, nor Moscow, nor RT - routinely demonized in the West as "Russian propaganda" - are challenging the underlying illusions peddled by the EU and the Empire: that the EU equals Europe, and that "European values" are justice, order, and prosperity, when they are manifestly none of those things. Perception management is as deadly in politics as it is on the battlefield. Letting the other side frame the debate is tantamount to losing in advance.

Yet even with all their advantages in perception management, it is the Empire and the EU that are losing. Already, the fickle attention of the Western media is shifting onto the Emperor's "selfies" at the funeral of their secular saint.

Because even the best-conjured illusions only go so far, for so long. 

Agent of Albion?

Reader "Endless Struggle" sent in a comment concerning last week's piece on the Communist takeover of Yugoslavia:

Good analysis of the significance of Nov. 29, however, not enough credit goes to the British in "making" Tito, especially since the recently disclosed CIA analysis of his speech indicates that the Tito of WWII and later is not the original Tito.

"The name is Broz. Joe Broz" (via the Daily Mail)

He's referring to this document (PDF), in which the NSA analysts argue that Tito's speech patterns belie his origin story - but conclude, tellingly, that it doesn't matter, since Yugoslavia's ruler is doing the West's bidding anyway.

We now know - thanks to Michael Lees' book, "The Rape of Serbia" - the British were recruiting and training Croatian communist for a British-controlled guerrilla army in Yugoslavia in late 1941, a full half year before their official history said the British even heard of Tito. And David Martin, in his book "Web of Disinformation", tells us that is was Churchill that convinced Stalin to switch Soviet support from Mihailovic to Tito. You see, Stalin did care about who was killing Germans because the SU was close to breaking in 1941 - 42. Meanwhile Britain is safe and secure behind the Channel and the combined British and American fleets. In fact, Gen. Eisenhower, in his private journal,  accuses the British of cowardliness for not fighting the Germans by deliberately delaying D-Day for nearly two years. 

The assertion that Tito was Stalin's pawn rings false on many levels. For one thing, there is 1948, and the Tito-initiated split. But way before that, there was the case of Mustafa Golubic. A WW1 Serbian veteran, Golubic became a NKVD general and ran several Soviet networks in the West (e.g. he's alleged to be the mastermind behind the assassination of Trotsky). He was sent to Yugoslavia in the spring of 1941, to be Tito's minder - and in June 1941, he was ratted out to the Gestapo, tortured and executed. Although officially it is still a mystery who sold him out, rumors allege it was Tito's aide Milovan Djilas, on Tito's orders.

Also, since Churchill had liaison officers at Tito's HQ, it is much more credible that Tito arranged the Jajce event to coincide with Churchill asking Stalin (and not the other way around) in Tehran to abandon Mihailovic, than the official story. Certainly, the British betrayal of the royal Yugoslav government was entirely too enthusiastic for something allegedly forced on them by Stalin. Though I wouldn't put it past Tito to play Moscow and London against each other, for his benefit.

And since Tito's true significance was to cover up the Serbian Holocaust and save the indispensable Roman Catholic Church for the Cold War becomes logical and clear. Or perhaps we are to believe the British are so noble that they "fought" Hitler out of pure altruism. then I suggest you read John Costello's "Ten Days to Destiny: How the British Tried to Strike a Deal with Hitler".
As many have commented, since the end of the Cold War, the true history of WWII is only now seeing the light of day. 

I, for one, never thought Britain fought Hitler out of altruism. In both 1914 and 1939, London went to war to safeguard the Empire - and in both cases, only hastened its demise. As far back as the Seven Years' War, it has been British policy to foment unrest in Europe. So I have no trouble believing Churchill's intent was to have the Germans and the Soviets smash each other to bits, whereupon Britain would leverage their American cousins' (Churchill himself was half-American) manpower and industry to conquer and rule the ashes.

On one hand, it didn't quite work out that way: Britain never really recovered from the war, sliding into moribund welfarism. India became independent in 1947; the rest of the Empire followed soon enough. On the other hand, the spirit of British imperialism moved across the Atlantic and infested the American host; hence the Cold War and the Atlantic Empire of today. But as I've been pointing out for over a decade, that hasn't been going well for the imperialists, either.

Of course, none of that is any comfort to the people they've sacrificed like pieces in a board game, in the 1940s or today. It just goes to show that, once you agree to be a piece on the board, you lose your say in how the game is played.

Still, conniving as the British - and their American apprentices - may be, they are hardly all-powerful. While they can and do a lot of damage, their dreams of conquest routinely fail. Or as one famous Englishman wrote, in an entirely appropriate context, "Oft evil will shall evil mar."

A Rotten Orange

I was on RT this morning, commenting on the events in Ukraine.

Honestly, I don't understand how anyone can believe the utter rubbish coming out of the EU and peddled by the mainstream Western media these days. Srdja Trifkovic explains the whole thing pretty clearly here, but let me try summing it up even further.

Brussels did not offer Kiev a "deal" - they demanded unconditional surrender. Current trade arrangements with Russia, far more favorable to Ukraine than what the EU offers, would have ended - yet Kiev would have nothing to show for it but promises of eventual EU "aid."

Think of it this way: someone offers you a "deal" to quit your job, and in return he'll move into your house, take all your possessions (to do with them as he pleases) while you go beg on the street to make rent (because you have to support him living in your house now), all for a promise that in a decade or so, he might give you some money. Maybe. If he's not broke by then.

Would you do such a thing? No? Then why would Ukraine?

Ah, but the "evil Russians" this and that. Nonsense. Moscow is all about commerce, while Brussels and Washington are all about coercion. It isn't Moscow's (phantom) operatives staging "revolutions" and promoting "regime change" around the world, but "activists" funded by EU and US governments - even as EU and US citizens sink into poverty themselves, bled dry to support an Empire.

The EU is not some mythical land of plenty, with rainbows and unicorns and manna from heaven. It is the hungry of Greece, the robbed of Cyprus, the debtors of Ireland, the corruption of Italy, the ghost cities of Spain and the destitute of Portugal. It's the "guest workers" of Poland, the starving Bulgarian potato-diggers, and the Nazis of Croatia.

And EU's support for the rioters in Kiev basically means that "democracy" is whatever they say it is, and violence is perfectly acceptable if it's for the "proper" (that is, EU) cause. You'd think people who lived under such "logic" for 70 years, and profess to despise it, would recognize it when it's shoved in their faces.

I understand the Galicians wanting to rejoin Austria-Hungary (not that they'd be any happier there, but whatever). I even understand Vitaly Klitschko; he did take a lot of blows to the head. But what's everyone else's excuse? 

Shameless

The great Serb poet Jovan Dučić, who sought refuge in 1941 from the atrocities of Nazi Croatia, once called the Croats the bravest people in the world, "not because they are fearless, but because they are shameless." Just to be clear, it was not meant as a compliment.

Almost every day brings new proof of Dučić's accuracy, from sieg-heiling on football pitches and smashing Cyrillic signs, to street "art" about hanging Serbs on willow trees.

Downtown Zagreb last week (photo: BN TV)

But while the EU and its quisling cult constantly insist the Serbs apologize for the unforgivable crime of continuing to exist, there are no calls on Croats to apologize for their overt Nazism. Nor do Croats feel any urge to do so. Quite the contrary!

"Joe" Simunic is "proud to be a patriot." The sign-smashers and "artists" believe they are honoring the legacy of the "Homeland War." Because Croatia has been a loyal client of the Atlantic Empire and even more so of Berlin (being "rewarded" earlier this year with EU membership), there is little criticism of such behavior in the mainstream Western press. What there is, usually contains an attempt at moral equivalence, such as "Croatia fought a war with Serbia [sic] in the 1990s". So I guess that makes hating the Serbs OK?

A simple litmus test would go like this: Read anything in the mainstream Croatian press about the Serbs. Replace the word "Serb" with "Jew." See how that reads.

Now a Croatian grievance group in France has sued Bob Dylan and Rolling Stone magazine, claiming he "incited hatred" with a 2012 (!) interview, in which he said - among other things - this:

“Blacks know that some whites didn't want to give up slavery - that if they had their way, they would still be under the yoke, and they can't pretend they don't know that. If you got a slave master or Klan in your blood, blacks can sense that. That stuff lingers to this day. Just like Jews can sense Nazi blood and the Serbs can sense Croatian blood.”

Supposedly, the CRICCF was horribly offended because Dylan dared "compare Croatian criminals to all Croats." This is baffling. On one hand, isn't official Croatdom proud of their hatred of Serbs and service to the Reich? Also, doesn't phrasing it this way mean they agree the Ustasha - and their present-day heirs - are criminals? These, however, are hatefacts, and all you are supposed to do is focus on how horribly offended they are because Dylan - who, by the way, is an actual participant of the U.S. civil rights struggle - made a comparison that hit a little too close to home.

The timing of the lawsuit ought to be a clue: right as Nazi incidents in Croatia are out in the open, and Dylan has just been given a Legion of Honor. This is a PR stunt, pure and simple. Unfortunately, under EU's most-progressive-and-democratic "hate speech" laws, there is a more-than-zero chance a Parisian judge may decide the horrifying anguish of Croats in France upon being compared to Nazis and the Klan is entitled to financial compensation.

The ironic part about Dylan's statement is that it's the Croats usually sniffing around for "Serb blood" in people they dislike - an obsession even more absurd because the vast majority of Croats are genetically indistinguishable from Serbs. It's just that they were ruled by Catholic kings for over a thousand years, and their national identity was eventually formulated in the late 1800s (under the influence of Austro-Hungarian expansionism) as militantly Catholic, Serbophobic and anti-Semitic. Driven by that hatred, entirely unprovoked, they committed barbaric atrocities against the Serbs in both world wars, and again in the 1990s (having murdered most of the Jews in 1941-45). Call it a triumph of monstrous nurture over nature, if you will.

It would be interesting to see if any Serbs in France will file an amicus brief in Dylan's case, detailing all the Croat "contributions to civilization," such as Jastrebarsko, the only death camp for children in WW2. Not so much for Dylan's sake - I'm sure he can defend himself - but for their own. Because the untold numbers of their kin, "civilized" to death by the "bravest people in the world", cry out for justice - in this world or the next.

Usurpation Day

On this day, exactly seventy years ago, a group of revolutionaries meeting in the Bosnian town of Jajce proclaimed themselves the only legitimate government of Yugoslavia.

By itself, their declaration meant little. Yugoslavia hardly existed in practice, partitioned between the German Reich and its Hungarian, Bulgarian and Croat allies. The royal government, which in April 1941 left the country to continue the fight from exile (as did the governments of Czechoslovakia, Poland, France, and Greece, among others) had appointed General Mihailovich, a staff officer leading the guerrilla movement, their Minister of War and commanding officer of the Yugoslav Army in the Homeland. In addition to fighting the Germans, Croats, Hungarians, Bulgarians, Albanians and even some collaborators among the Serbs, Mihailovich's guerrilla also fought the Communist partisans, who emerged following the Nazi invasion of the USSR and made their priority to claim Yugoslavia for the socialist workers' revolution.

By late 1943, after Stalingrad and Kursk, it was clear that Germany would lose the war. That the Soviet tanks would show up was a question not of whether, but of when. Meanwhile, the Western Allies landed in Italy, forcing its surrender in September 1943.

That had multiple consequences for the war in Yugoslavia. Until then, the Italians were able to suppress the genocidal rampages of Croats and Albanians. Afterwards, they had a free hand and full German support, in exchange for Waffen-SS divisions made up of Albanians and Bosnian Muslims (Skenderbeg, Handschar, Kama).

The Communists did nothing to stop the atrocities. In line with their dogma, the Serbs were "oppressors", while the Croats and Albanians were the "oppressed" - so even though the Albanian leadership and the Ustasha were "reactionaries" and "fascists" in the Communist book, the mass murder and expulsion of Serbs were not objectionable as such.

To be fair, Communists weren't the only ones at the meeting in Jajce. Some of the "delegates" were pre-war politicians from opposition ranks: Croat separatists, Bosnian Muslims, and others generally sympathetic to the Communist platform of resurrecting Yugoslavia, but as a federation. If the Communists were the radicals, these "democrats" were their useful idiots.

Meanwhile, the Serbs in Communist ranks have by then so internalized the dogma of their own collective guilt for alleged "bourgeois imperialism", become so fanatical in their faith - and make no mistake, Marxism was a religion, though its deity was of this world - that they not only agreed to stand by while their families were being slaughtered, but to shift blame for the atrocities onto the designated "fascists," while the collectives that participated were actually rewarded. Thus arose the post-war Socialist Republic of Croatia, laying claim to Istria, all the Adriatic coast, Dubrovnik and western Syrmia, for example. Thus came about the "Autonomous province of Kosovo".

Why did the Communists believe that November 1943 was the right time to declare themselves the new rulers of a country they had yet to resurrect from under the Nazi heel? The Red Army was coming, but it would take them another nine months. Could the answer lie in the West?

In 1915, the Serbian Army and government retreated before the German, Austrian and Bulgarian invasion; the survivors reached Entente territory in Greece, and were deployed at the Salonica Front. In September 1918, the Serbs spearheaded the Entente attack and rolled up the front; six weeks later, they had not only liberated their homeland, but were approaching Vienna. The royal Yugoslav government hoped for a repeat performance, with an Allied landing along the Adriatic coast helping Mihailovic launch a general uprising. But the plans for an Adriatic Landing never went beyond the theoretical.

A day before the meeting in Jajce, Stalin met with Churchill in Tehran, and demanded the British switch their support from Mihailovich to Tito's Communists. Churchill wasted no time in agreeing. Supposedly, this is because Tito's men were "killing more Germans" - which was simply not true. But the fact that Stalin's demand and the meeting in Jajce were almost simultaneous suggests it was coordinated on the Communist part.

As for Britain's betrayal, it is a fact of history - only the motivations remain beyond conclusive explanation just yet. There are several theories to explain it, from secret Communist sympathizers in British intelligence (who did exist), to a story that young Churchill was roughed up by some Serbian officers for libeling the Serbs while he covered the Balkan Wars as a journalist. But the best explanation is probably the simplest: to London, the Serbs have ever been but an extension of the hated Russians, so Whitehall preferred a Croat-led Yugoslavia that would keep the Serbs under control. Interestingly enough, Hitler thought the same.

Another clue can be found in the decision of Jajce revolutionaries (calling themselves the "Anti-Fascist Council of People's Liberation of Yugoslavia, or AVNOJ) to ban the royal government from returning to the country. In sections 3 and 4, the AVNOJ leadership is tasked to "review all the international treaties and obligations" the royal government entered into, "for the purpose of nullification or approval", and declared all subsequent treaties made by the royals null and void.

This enabled both London and Washington to effectively confiscate the gold reserves the royals managed to take with them, as "payment" for all the military aid provided to both Mihailovich and the Communists. The remaining gold, hidden in Montenegrin caves, was discovered in 1943 by an enterprising Italian officer - who sent a small portion to Mussolini, gave the half of the remainder to Tito in 1944, and kept the rest for himself. Meanwhile, the Communists kept telling the people the "corrupt plutocrats" of the royal government stole all their gold. And while King Peter II died broke, Tito lived and died like a pharaoh.

In addition to throwing Stalin a bone - on account of the Red Army doing the bulk of the fighting in Europe - the Western Allies had a few more reasons to back Tito. For one, that avoided the sticky matter of the wartime Croatia. Horrific crimes of the Croatian state, backed by the Roman Catholic Church, had disgusted the Italians and unsettled even the Germans. How could anyone ask of the Serbs to re-create Yugoslavia with the Croats, after that? Easy enough: by having Tito denounce the Pavelic regime as "a handful of fascists," then rehabilitate Croatia as a federal republic in the new Yugoslavia. And while the Serbs had to continue apologizing for their existence - "oppressors," remember? - a top Croat official (Stevo Krajacic) was able to tell the families of Serbs murdered in the Jasenovac camp complex,"we killed too few of you here." (1968)

The suppression of Croat atrocities not only made Tito's Yugoslavia possible, it was also extremely useful for keeping the Church of Rome useful during the Cold War, as a tool of anti-Communism in places like Poland.

And so, on that November night in Jajce, a plan approved in Tehran was set in motion. Hitler had already unwittingly provided a template. Eighteen months later, when Soviet tanks drove the Germans out, Tito became the pharaoh of a reanimated Yugoslavia. Though the principal victims of Nazi invaders, and principal fighters against them, Serbs loyal to the king were persecuted, and even those who backed Tito found themselves third-rate subjects in their own country. Adding insult to injury, they were told this nightmare was the ultimate fulfillment of their historical dream of freedom.

Though both Tito and Yugoslavia are long gone, the nightmare endures. Seventy years later, it is high time for the sleeper to awaken. 

Poor Little Nazis

Yesterday, after Croatia's victory over Iceland qualified them for the 2014 Soccer World Cup, one player led the home crowd in a victorious chant. AP (via HuffPost) has a video of it, noting that it caused a bit of furor on account of being, well, Nazi. 

WW2 Ustasha poster

AP quotes "Joe" Simunic - born in Australia, to Croatian emigre parents - saying, "I did nothing wrong. I'm supporting my Croatia, my homeland," and "some people have to learn some history."

Let's learn some history, then.

Ustasha (усташа, pl. усташе) - is an old Serbian word for "insurgent", appropriated (like everything else) by Croats. Specifically, a violent chauvinist movement sponsored by Fascist Italy after WW1, seeking to establish an independent Croatian state.

They were given the opportunity in 1941, when Axis powers invaded the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. An "Independent State of Croatia" was proclaimed on April 10. Mass murder of Serbs, Jews and Roma (in that order) began within days.

Ustasha Croatia opened an extermination camp in Jasenovac (with adjacent camps for women and children - the only such facility in Nazi Europe) almost a year before Germany's Nazi leadership decided to seek the "final solution to the Jewish problem" through mass murder. Their atrocities were so visceral, even the SS were appalled. But Hitler and the Roman Catholic Church had their back, so the genocide continued.

Ironically, it was the Italians who managed to rein in the Ustasha and provide some sanctuary to Serbs and Jews in their occupation zone - at least until Italy's surrender to the Allies in September 1943. From then onward, to the end of the war, Croats and Germans were able to murder with impunity.

The Communist Partisans, who later claimed to have liberated Yugoslavia single-handedly, did absolutely nothing to stop the slaughter. Oh no - after the war they resurrected Croatia as a "republic" within the Yugoslav "federation" reanimated from the kingdom's corpse, and rewarded it with territories ethnically cleansed of Italians, Germans and Hungarians. All in the name of "social justice", of course, because everything before and during WW2 had really been the fault of the "Greater Serbian bourgeois imperialism." No joke.

When a Holocaust-denying Ustasha fan became the first "democratic" president of that Croatia in 1990, his revival of Ustasha language, symbols and values was cheered in the West as "anti-Communist" (and again, got the Roman Catholic Church's blessing). Thousands of Ustasha Croats returned from exile in the U.S., Canada, Australia (Simunic, for example). Meanwhile, Serbs living in Croatia were first disenfranchised, then subjected to state abuse, property destruction and outright murder. But when they took up arms in self-defense, that was dubbed "aggression."

So obviously, in this twisted world, the Ustasha Croatians are "good guys" and their victims - the Serbs - are evil incarnate. And "Joe" Simunic is just a misunderstood patriot.

Sure, technically his words were innocent. All he said was, "For the home," and the crowd howled back, "Ready!" And it's not like they haven't done so before. So,  should we mind if, say, Germans give a salute to victory?

Oh wait.

Blogiversary

Take my love.
Take my land.
Take me where I cannot stand.
I don't care,
I'm still free.
You can't take the sky from me.
(Ballad of Serenity)

The first post on this blog (then called "Black Lamb & Gray Falcon") appeared on November 18, 2004. Has it really been that long? Time flies, when you're having fun.

I've blogged at Antiwar.com prior to that, and have been writing for a lot longer - since 1999, to be precise - but always as a guest. Falcon was the first Web location truly my own.

By my count, there have been 520 posts here prior to this one. Back in 2004, I could give my full attention to columns (then still called "Balkan Express", now "Moments of Transition"). Things that didn't fit there, found a home here. Then in March 2005, I launched Falcon's Serbian sibling, which has flown higher and farther yet.

Designs, templates, links and fonts have changed, but the substance has remained consistent. More than the posting schedule, anyway. I won't apologize for it, though: throughout, my guiding notion has been that an essay has to be done right, or not at all. Even if quantity has a quality all its own.

It has been an amazing journey. The blog has made a difference right from the start and continues to attract both fans and haters, legitimate comments as well as trolls. And that's the thing: before the internet, the legacy media were the only game in town. Today, everyone has a soapbox. Sure, this includes the trolls, the sock-puppets and the mainstream propaganda machine - but at least they are now on equal footing with the rest of us. I'll take that over the old order, any day.

In the coming days, I may clean up some tags, sort the links, and tweak the template a bit. Those are all details, though. What matters most are the articles. And they will keep coming, because that's always been Falcon's mission.

Keep flying.

The Real Extremists

On November 3, local elections, called under the so-called laws of the so-called "Republic of Kosovo", were held in this occupied Serbian province. In the four counties in the north, inhabited and defended by Serbs who refuse to submit to the NATO-backed Albanian regime, the vote failed: less than 4% of people showed up, in spite of overwhelming propaganda from the treacherous Belgrade government.

The Empire's solution was appropriately Orwellian: they will vote again (and again), till they get it "right" - i.e. submit to "Kosovian" authorities. As the repeat vote - scheduled for November 17 - looms, I've taken the liberty of translating some thoughts by Aleksandar Pavic, published Wednesday by the Strategic Culture Foundation. As Imperial and quisling media dominate English-language coverage coming out of Serbia, I think this would be a valuable reminder to Balkans-watchers of what reality looks like.

- Gray Falcon

"This country is too small for traitors such as us"
posters mocking the Serbian Regressive Party, Nis, Serbia, 2013

The Real Extremists
by Aleksandar Pavic

We await - and may wait indefinitely - for someone from the most progressive circles of the most progressive Euro-Atlantic civilization to condemn the outright racist threats directed at the Serbs in North Mitrovica recently by the most progressive Euro-Atlanticists in Belgrade. As the repeat "elections" loom at three precincts in that city, the message from Belgrade is: vote, or get an Albanian mayor!

Where is the European Union? Where is the European Commission? OSCE? UNHCR? EULEX? Independent observers? The Commissioner for Protection of Equality? Where are the Liberal Democrats, the Other Serbia, the Center for Cultural Decontamination? Where is Boris Tadic, the new global defender of multiculturalism? Where the hell is the American Ambassador? Does their silence mean approval of this racist message from the government of Serbia, namely PM Dacic and Commissioner Vulin? If they truly want a "multiethnic Kosovo" as they say, why would the possibility of an Albanian mayor in a Serb community be objectionable?

By the way, you won't hear such shameful, extremist intimidation from those advocating the boycott. The only thing that truly appalls them is the thought that anyone in Kosovo and Metohia - but especially in the North - could get elected on the basis of "Kosovian" laws. Because, unlike their "progressive" EUropean fellows, they truly believe in the rule of law, and are prepared to fight for it.

I am willing to wager that the boycott crowd has nothing against an ethnic Albanian being elected mayor of North Mitrovica - so long as the election is conducted under Serbian law. Of course, in that case the Serbs of the North would turn out in great numbers. Still, in principle they have nothing against the notion of a loyal Albanian holding the office of mayor. Such a person would bother them far less than one of Thaci's "Serbs."

Generally, boycott advocates - who oppose Kosovo's separation from Serbia - have shown a far greater commitment to multiethnic coexistence than their "urbane" opponents. Note that those who preach "letting go of the Kosovo ballast" most often imply that the "amputation" of Kosovo is necessary in order to avoid being "swamped by two million Albanians" allegedly living in the province (In truth, there are far fewer - but that's a topic for another day). On the other hand, the alleged "nationalists" have zero objections to living alongside Albanians - on one condition: that this be within the framework of Serbia, the most ethnically diverse country in this region of Europe, rather than in a quasi-state led by former and current drug-runners and merchants of human flesh.

So, who are the real extremists, and the truly intolerant? Those who exchange handshakes with faces on wanted posters, or those who refuse to be governed by them? Isn't all this a bit upside-down? The newest government line that the Serbs of the North "would be solely responsible" if an Albanian is set over them is a monstrous projection. Rather, the responsibility would rest squarely on the present government of Serbia. Because it accepted an "election" held under the so-called "Kosovian" laws. Because it refuses to call an election under its own laws. Because it signed an agreement in Brussels that recognizes "Kosovian" writ in the entire territory of the occupied province.

Is a government anywhere else in the world voluntarily giving up a number of its citizens, and forcing those citizens with everything at its disposal - including the threat of military intervention - into the hands of the enemy? And then trying to wash its hands, like Pilate, of the whole thing and blaming those who just want to stay in their own country, and have the same rights as everyone else?

By the same token, is there a media more shameless than the media in Serbia? Is there a press anywhere that absolutely refuses the opportunity to speak to any defender of the Constitution and the laws of the land? Where else is there a pack of journalists so willing to ignore the elephant named "Constitution" in the room, eager to whitewash the government of any blame, and organize witch-hunts against anyone daring to defend the legal order?

At the top of the dung heap is the daily Kurir, engaging in systematic demonization of Dr. Marko Jaksic. Their libels seem calculated to strip him of all humanity, turning him into the modern Goldstein, fair game in the Wild West called "Kosovo." Just the other day (November 12, 2013, page 2-3), Kurir accused Jaksic - the same man who speaks out daily of the need to comply with the Constitution, the laws and the UNSCR 1244 - of "undermining the system"! This is accompanied by repeated accusations that Jaksic has "met with Thaci", that he owns valuable real estate in the country and abroad, and that his arrest is impending. All this is calculated to create a climate in which any violence against dr. Jaksic would be spun as acceptable to the general populace.

Only 3,8% of the Serbs in the North actually turned out at the "Kosovian" polls on November 3. So, if Thaci's followers - Serb or Albanian, it really doesn't matter - take over, or some misfortune befalls dr. Jaksic, the blame will not rest on the boycott advocates, or anyone else in the North, but rather squarely on the shoulders of the government in Serbia. The very men who once swore to defend Kosovo and Metohija are now trying to surrender and force their compatriots under the yoke of the Albanian mafia. The very people mounting a smear campaign against the man who made it possible to negotiate about North Mitrovica in the first place.

Last, but not least, it is worth mentioning the newest edition of "Odnako" (However), hosted by Russia's best-known and most popular political journalist, Mikhail Leontyev. Shown on November 12 on Channel 1 of the Russian public TV, it looked critically upon the so-called local elections in Kosovo, and the role of the Serbian government in them. Those in the government with eyes to see and ears to hear ought to at least try and see the messages coming from Moscow these days.

Yes, there were pompous proclamations of mutual appreciation surrounding the (unnecessarily complicated) start of construction on South Stream. However, there was also an interview with Marko Jaksic, with a clearly shown poster in the background of the two Progressive leaders and the caption: "This country is too small for traitors of our caliber". There were also images of the defaced government posters calling for participation in the "elections", as well as the "clean up the trash day" in North Mitrovica, where the people took down government propaganda material. Analysts agreed that by backing the separatist polls, Belgrade "recognized that Kosovo is not Serbia". Slavko Stevanovic was interviewed and introduced, without any hesitation, as the "Chairman of the recently constituted Assembly of the Autonomous Province of Kosovo-Metohija."

Of particular note is Leontyev's sign-off to his viewers:

"...it is too early to feel sympathy for Nikolic. However, God only knows how this will end. This is Serbia, after all, where his predecessor Djindjic was simply taken aside and shot. Well, goodbye!"

Trains to Nowhere

From AP:

They were seen as a shining example of Bosnia's rebirth from war: a fleet of high-speed trains built-to-order in the West. Eight years later, they haven't made a single ride.

The reason: They're just too fast for Bosnia's 60-year-old rails.

"It's as if you bought nine Ferraris and ... no roads to drive them on," said Samir Kadric, an official with the publicly-owned railway company that bought the trains.

Predictably, AP's Aida Cerkez prefers to insinuate the problem lies with Bosnia's division between the Serb ("dominated") Republic and the Muslim-Croat ("shared") Federation. And the article blames the "Bosnian-Croat railway company" (presumably Željeznice Herceg-Bosne, ŽHB) for the $90 million train flop.

Here's the thing, though: the train deal was supposedly made in 2005 (see "eight years later" above), but if Wikipedia is to be believed, ŽHB had merged with the Muslim-run BHŽ into the ŽFBH (i.e. Federation Railways) in 2001 - four years prior to the boondoggle.

I, for one, don't believe for a second that this was a product of simple stupidity. Remember, "Bosnia’s politicians have taken rent-seeking to the level of a dark art, systematically siphoning profits from public utilities and corporations to line party and personal pockets." (from Reality Bites Back) Someone made out like a bandit on this "deal", and - judging by the know-nothing attitude of people interviewed by AP - with impunity.

Perhaps the fact that the railroad execs intend to recoup the money by leasing the trains to Turkey might give us a clue as to who.

A Textbook Tyranny

From today's column on Antiwar.com, illustrated by anecdata from the Balkans:

The political class has a vested interest in keeping problems alive, so they can pretend to be the only solution. There is but a small step from governments never letting a crisis go to waste to creating a perpetual crisis, seen as a perpetual opportunity to do “good”, line pockets, or both.

[Throughout history] government has been treated [by power-lusty individuals and groups] as a way to privatize the benefits of state power, while socializing the costs that came with it. All governments everywhere have faced this temptation, and most of them have succumbed.

If with great power comes great responsibility, but those in power can shift that responsibility elsewhere – onto the electorate, the unelected bureaucracy, or a capricious deity – the result will always be a government that is too powerful and utterly irresponsible: a textbook tyranny.

Such arrangements are indeed cozy for tyrants – while they last. But they never last very long.

The Great Despoilment

Thirteen years have passed since the "democratic revolution" of October 5 in Serbia. It became clear almost right away that there was nothing democratic, or revolutionary, about it. Rather, it was a coup on par with the 1953 overthrow of Mohammed Mosadegh in Iran - and with similar consequences for the country.

National Assembly on fire, October 5, 2000

I've written much over the years about the political consequences of the "peaceful occupation" by the devotees of Empire's quisling cargo cult: the mockery of laws and elections, destruction of the country's military capability, corruption of its politics and society, complete abdication of sovereignty and statehood, appeasement and empowerment of separatists, etc. But all that was accompanied by old-fashioned looting as well.

According to one study, in the years since the 2000 coup, as much as $51 billion has been siphoned out of Serbia into various offshore accounts. This figure does not include whatever the quislings and their followers have managed to rob and stash inside the country, so the real extent of Serbia's economic rape is actually greater. Even if the promised EU donations and pie-in-the-sky stories of Arab investment turn out to be true - and they won't - they are utterly insignificant in comparison to how much of Serbia's actual wealth has been looted by various "democratic reformers", "moderates" and "pragmatists."

They have systematically looted, corrupted, and defiled everything they've touched, ensuring that no civilized means of contesting their vile reign remained available. Their reckoning, when it comes, will be nasty, brutish and short.

The Endpoint of Moral Relativism

Last week, when it looked like the Atlantic Empire might launch yet another evil little war, Brendan O'Neill commented on the sanctimonious hypocrites weeping crocodile tears over the Syrian dead.

Not only is the West engaging in reductio ad Hitlerum while behaving like Hitler for a while now, but the eagerness of interventionists to see “genocide” everywhere represents what O'Neill terms “Holocaust relativism”: “All sorts of campaigners now use Holocaust imagery to whip up support for their crusade against some modern moral scourge.”

O'Neill proceeds to list several entirely inappropriate Holocaust comparisons, including the one most often overlooked by critics of Empire:

During the Bosnian War in the 1990s, the Serbs were frequently referred to by liberal observers as Nazis – or as the “tinpot Nazis of the Balkans”, in the Guardian’s words – and their bloody attacks and assaults were often compared to the Holocaust. 

Yet during the 1941-45 occupation of Yugoslavia, Serbs were the principal victims of actual Nazis, while the people libeling them supported Hitler! Accusing the Serbs of Nazism was a deliberate insult to injury. In a 1993 interview, an executive of Ruder Finn - a PR company hired by Croatian and Bosnian Muslim interests - boasted how the objective of the campaign was to “reverse” the attitude of Jewish organizations towards Croats and “Bosnians”, due to the “real and cruel anti-Semitism” in their history - and that his firm “succeeded masterfully.”

Seeking to de-legitimize the existence of Serbs in the territory they claimed, the regimes in Zagreb and Sarajevo howled to any Western reported who would listen that they were victims of “Greater Serbian aggression and genocide.” Evidence? Who needs evidence, when there are Pulitzers, glory, sinecures and power to be gained from making up stuff the Imperial establishment wants to hear?

The absurd charges of “genocide” in Bosnia have not only prevented any sort of peace in that broken country, they've propelled to power a cabal of “humanitarian interventionists” who see no problem in murdering people in order to “save” them. They do this because they have convinced themselves - and portions of the general public - that “humanitarian” imperialism is magical: anyone belonging to the designated victim faction (combatant or not) who gets killed, automatically becomes an “unarmed innocent civilian”, while any actual unarmed, innocent civilians hit by “liberating” bombs, missiles and drones are transformed into “enemy combatants” and “legitimate military targets.” Or to simplify it even further, “it's not murder if we do it.” All one has to do is say the magic word: genocide. And according to the “humanitarians”, genocide is everywhere.

The few who dare question this insanity are smeared as “genocide deniers.”

O'Neill argues the “only real beneficiaries of such relativism are the Nazis themselves, whose wickedness is implicitly diluted and diminished if we accept the idea that Holocausts like theirs happen all the time.”

Sure enough, as a result of interventions to “stop Serb genocide”, the German military is once again deployed around the world, the Luftwaffe is bombing again, and Nazi allies from WW2 are enjoying a renaissance - if only in Eastern Europe, for now.

I entirely concur with his conclusion: Those who honestly believe that Syria is like the Holocaust “on any level whatsoever,” that Putin is Hitler, that the Serbs are Nazis, Gaza is a Warsaw-style Ghetto, and the farming of chickens is like the extermination of the Jews, “have sunk so far into the mulch of moral relativism... that there is probably little hope for you.”

Gazing at the Abyss

The real error was believing that jihad could be harnessed, controlled and directed to achieve a strategic purpose. That belief was wrong in 1978, it was wrong in 2001, it is wrong now, and it will be wrong tomorrow.

(9/11, 2011)

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.

(From Beslan to Boston, 2013)

Draw your own conclusions.

Al-Qaeda's Air Force

All the talk coming out of Washington about "red lines" and "credibility" and chemical weapons is just smoke and mirrors.

This is what it comes down to, distilled by Karl Denninger:

Al Qaida is a sworn enemy of the United States. The United States has ratified their statement of being our enemy through more than 10 years of continual declaration of a "state of emergency" citing the so-called "war on terror."

It is an act of Treason according to our Constitution to provide material aid and comfort to a sworn enemy of our nation.

A military strike at Assad's government IS ACTING AS AL QAIDA'S AIR FORCE.

That's all there is to it. No amount of Congressional, White House, Foggy Bottom or media lipstick can make this anything but a pig.

Our Syria

Commentary by Željko Cvijanović, Novi Standard (Belgrade), August 30, 2013.
Translated by GrayFalcon. Original here.

When the first missiles strike Syria and we are shown the first horrific images - carefully selected to scare us enough without riling us up too much - it would be nothing we haven't seen before, in the case of some of us, lived through ourselves. "There is nothing new under the sun," one could say. Except our eyes are less reliable than ever before. Because there are many new things here, and drawing on analogies can only help us see the heart of the matter - while missing everything else.

1.
America is being led into a new war by a president who got elected claiming to be the antithesis of his belligerent predecessor; who promised Americans hope through changes that would bring the country back from the pitfalls of Bush the Younger's "wars on terror." Today, the man who received a Nobel Peace Prize not so long ago as an advance payment for expected greatness, is declaring that it is not a question whether Syria will be bombed, but when.

Meanwhile, heading the Department of Defense into the conflict is Chuck Hagel - one of the staunchest critics of Bush's wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, a rare member of the Washington establishment who dared criticize Israel, and almost the lone advocate of dialogue with Iran - in other words, one of the most peaceful Pentagon principals since America began waging war beyond its borders.

Providing the diplomatic cover for missiles and bombers would be Vietnam veteran and anti-interventionist John Kerry, whose arrival at the head of the State Department this winter promised hope for a peaceful resolution of the Syrian conflict, due to his cordial relationship with Bashar al-Assad.

Last, but not least, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in this war will be four-star General Martin Dempsey, who opposed a direct intervention by offering a worrying estimate that such an adventure would require "hundreds of scenarios, thousand of soldiers, and billions of dollars."

There have never been more doves at the top, never less support for a war in the American public, yet America has never been more belligerent. What gives?

2.
The answer could cheer up only someone like [current Serbian Prime Minister] Ivica Dačić, who is in charge of Serbia just about as much as Obama and his cabinet run the United States. America is not being dragged into another war and another crime by its political leadership - though they are willing participants in the endeavor, and should not be absolved of responsibility. It is clearer than ever before that America is being dragged into war by its "deep state," the shadowy decision-makers working without the mandate of the American people.

This is nothing new, one might say, adding that such shadowy structures - named by some as the "military-industrial complex," although that is a somewhat reductionist perspective - have led America into wars in the past. And that is true. Just as it is true that we knew about American atrocities in Afghanistan and Iraq before Julian Assange and Wikileaks revealed them to us. Just as we guessed the extent of surveillance and control before Edward Snowden, who merely confirmed it. In a similar manner, the American "one percent" who start wars while robbing their compatriots blind are being exposed by the Syrian War - and not just to us, but to the American "99 percent," now reviled around the world through little fault of their own.

This exposure is an important aspect of the deepening crisis in the West, which Syria brings into focus even before the first missile strikes the unfortunate country. It is made clear by today's revolt in the House of Commons, who rejected David Cameron's proposal for UK's participation in the war. Since the 1990s at least, the UK has led the U.S. into wars around the world more often than not, and has never deserted like this. Though I am not sure that London won't change its mind, and though Hollande has managed to out-Sarkozy Sarkozy, America still stands at Syria's gates more alone than ever.

In Libya, Obama found the magic formula to appear both peaceful and warlike, by letting other countries take point on the drive to war. He will, of course, attempt to find a "middle path" by planning limited strikes, intended to help tip the balance in favor of the Syrian rebels. But Obama cannot know how things will go after the first missile aimed at Damascus. He can know even less as to what might be going on by missile #5000. And once the first American jet is shot down, that's simply dark territory.

All of this makes for a completely new situation, indicating that internal resistance in the West to the aggression against Syria might have potential to be the strongest yet after the Vietnam War, with unpredictable political upheavals, consequences and outcomes.

3.
Another new moment is that all the previous American wars - from Desert Storm to Libya - were waged by the American "deep state" with a clear feeling of superiority, translated on the ground as an emphatic missionary complex. There will be manifestations of this in the Syrian War as well, but tainted for the first time by the self-realization of America's weakness, or more precisely, dwindling strength.

As Obama is pressured to light the fuse over Syria, the Senate will vote on a law once again raising the ceiling for the enormous U.S. debt. This paradox is limiting American options, at the very least by imposing awareness on Washington that if it doesn't strike now, it may not be able to strike tomorrow, as the pendulum of American power is swinging back more every day.

Why is this new? Why is it important? Because those who enter a conflict convinced of their own superiority can be reasonable and see the limits of possibility. Conflicts entered with an awareness that tomorrow one will be weaker, however, make one desperate. Think of it as Cinderella: aware that her spell will wear off at midnight, and that she has to woo the prince by then, or lose him forever. The discrepancy between the two perceptions acts to induce a sense of panic, further reducing actual superiority and distorting plans beyond reason or possibility. The superpower becomes a jug that goes to the well till it breaks.

This paradox limits even the basic American options. There is no going back, only going forward to the bitter end - attacking Syria, Iran, China, Russia... Those unable to halt or retreat have closed off all avenues to victory; even at their mightiest, they will live in fear of defeat, becoming their own worst enemy. And this is why Syria is something new, a point of no return.

4.
A power set on the path of no return by the fear of defeat, rather than rational analysis, sends a clear message to everyone else: submission is futile.

It was easy to persuade the bombed-out and beaten Serbs that they could live better by submitting. Even the Libyans, almost genetically poor before Gadhafi brought them reasonable standards of living, could be persuaded they would be better off without him. But who can persuade the Syrians today? Who can promise them anything more than red slaughter, if they lay down their arms before the "Free Syrian Army" thugs? Is there a voice of Allah that would persuade the Iranians they won't be next? Is there anyone in China not aware that the American deficit can be fixed only if they keep enough of their earnings for a cup of rice, and hand everything else over to JP Morgan? Is there a Russian - besides Navalny - unaware that the hole of American debt is so deep, it can only be filled with the resources of Siberia?

Though it will depend on the strategic understanding and tactical plans of each country finding itself on America's road of no return as to how they may get involved in the Syrian War, there is no doubt that they will get involved. And that is another new development.

If it lasts long enough, Syria could become a comic-book war, between the forces of Sublime Evil, arising for the first time since the defeat of Nazism, and the forces of Good joining together in self-defense. And if it lasts even longer, it may reduce the many identities of Western civilization down to just one: totalitarian plunderers. That, in turn, will ensure that the resistance to imperial America, though less visible than some would wish, will become more organized than ever. The lessons of Syria, and the threat of the long, cold global night, will make cats and dogs lie together in harmony. If you know what I mean.

5.
What will Syria mean for Serbia? Much more than one can read in the Serbian media. Incomparably more than one can infer from the silence of Serbian politicians. Perhaps more of Serbia's destiny will be decided before Damascus than before Constantinople in 1453.

What can we do about it? Only pray for the forces of Good to triumph over Evil, knowing all the while that the line between them runs right through us.

Watching the World Burn

Since the beginning of the (un)civil war in Syria, back in the heady days of the faux "Arab Spring", I've been convinced that Imperial intervention was a matter of when, not if.

Media vs. Syria (seen on Facebook, source unknown)

Tunisian and Egyptian revolts - aided by Otpor training - successfully overthrew their respective governments, but the Libyan stooges failed abysmally, and had to be rescued by an intervention. This was done using the Kosovo Scenario on the accelerated Bosnia schedule: establish a flimsy pretext for NATO involvement through the UN, go in bombs blazing, establish "peace" through occupation. Sure, that hasn't worked out so well - just ask the families of the Benghazi dead - but in the immortal words of the (likely) future Empress, "what difference does it make?"

The Syrian war began as one of those Otpor-like "civil revolts," but when the government in Damascus refused to crumble, it escalated into armed rebellion. The Empire and its clients have been supplying weapons to the rebels. Rebel "fighters" have also received "training" from the KLA - which, knowing the KLA, consisted primarily of advanced courses on "how to stage a massacre and blame the enemy for it, in order to create a pretext for intervention." Meanwhile, several Imperial clients have been enlisted to bolster the atrocity porn narrative in the mainstream media.

Conditioned by the endless stream of celebrity gossip to have the attention span of a spastic squirrel, the general public may have forgotten the attempt to stage a chemical attack in June this year. Yet the intervention machine had not kicked into gear then, the way it is now. What has changed? Either the Empire is now more prepared for war than it was two months ago - which I doubt - or the powers that be decided that fallout of Ed Snowden's NSA leaks, and economic and social problems at home, demanded an urgent distraction: a short, victorious war.

So now the media is deploying the heavy verbiage, trying to sell the general public on the notion that the only country to have ever used nuclear weapons somehow has the right, or even the moral obligation, to murder people in another country, supposedly to protect them from (allegedly) being killed by chemical weapons. Which were in all likelihood used by the rebels in a false flag op (see KLA training, above).

Moon of Alabama thinks the Empire lacks the wherewithal to attack, and that it's unwilling to risk a confrontation with Russia and China. He might be right about the former, but I'm not so sure about the latter. Remember that Washington lives in a virtual reality bubble, believing only the "facts" it chooses to believe (or those it invents, same difference). Note also the evolving confrontation with Moscow over "gay rights", which isn't about homosexuals or civil rights at all, but about power.

I still don't know how the Empire intends to attack, but it is abundantly clear that it has decided to. The current Emperor seems to share the outlook of his predecessor, who once spoke of wanting to "set a fire in the minds of men." So they set the world on fire instead.

The East Remembers

In the early morning hours of Aug. 4, 1995, on the heels of an incessant artillery and air bombardment, some 200,000 Croatian troops moved in to “liberate” Krajina, a stretch of mountains inhabited by Serbs who had rejected Croatia’s secession from Yugoslavia four years prior.

This is how I began "Remembering the Storm", published on the 10th anniversary of that atrocity. Croatia has since joined NATO and the EU. General Ante Gotovina was captured, extradited, convicted - and released. Yet that essay remains as true today as it was eight years ago.

"United Europe fights in the East"-
Nazi Croatian poster from 1942

Documentary evidence publicized during the trial of Gotovina et. al clearly confirms that Franjo Tuđman and his government wanted the Serbs gone. They wanted to finish the job begun in 1941, by their political progenitors, who aimed to "kill a third, expel a third, and convert a third." Of the two million Serbs in the "Independent State of Croatia," German sources estimated anywhere between 500,000 and 750,000 perished.

When Germany lost the war, the Ustasha - Croatian Nazis - had to flee. However, the cause of Croatian statehood was rescued by the Communists, who spun a myth of moral equivalence between the genocidal Ustasha and the Serb royalists. Croat nationalists could thus say they had "won WW2 twice". And in 1991, when Yugoslavia was weak and Germany strong once again, they came back for a rematch.

Just like in 1941, the Serbs fought back. Just like in 1941, Croatia had outside backers. Not ready to intervene in 1991, they arranged an armistice, deploying UN peacekeepers to disarm the Serbs. Meanwhile, American "advisors" trained Tuđman's troops in "human rights and democracy," while American diplomats exchanged notes calling Croatians their "junkyard dogs", cultivated for the purpose of fighting "Serb aggression".

The all-out attack on the Republic of Serb Krajina was launched on August 4, 1995. The following day, Croatian troops entered the Krajina capital of Knin. Tuđman declared it "Homeland thanksgiving day," cribbing from Americans the same way he cribbed from the Soviets in dubbing his extermination campaign the "Homeland war."

Krajina's defenders were surrounded and outnumbered. The Serbs in Bosnia and Herzegovina were dealing with a series of offensives by NATO-armed Muslim and Croat troops. Belgrade had refused to help, hoping to avoid a war with NATO (it didn't work; appeasement never does). Krajina's population chose exile over death. The 2001 census showed 380,000 fewer Serbs in Croatia than in 1991. Tuđman succeeded where the Ustasha had not. But then, he had better sponsors.

Croatia is American Empire's "junkyard dog" even today, though the Croats in Bosnia got the worst of that bargain. Empire's favor extends to other Nazi allies - be they militant Muslims in Bosnia, or Albanians occupying Kosovo and claiming more territories besides. A real 1940s reunion, today's Balkans.

To add insult to injury, the "war crimes" kangaroo court is now claiming the Ustasha plans for extermination of Serbs are really Serb plans for genocide of Muslims!

Tuđman died in 1999, and his party is no longer in power, but Croatia continues to celebrate August 5 as a national holiday. Montenegro's corrupt government separated from Serbia in 2006 and is trying to impose a rabidly anti-Serb (and pro-Croatian) national identity on its populace. Albanian-occupied Kosovo was declared an independent state in 2008, the same year an openly quisling regime was installed in Serbia.

Not everything has gone Empire's way, though. There are Serbs who still resist. The insane plan to woo jihadists "of all color and hue" isn't working out so well. And when another client tried to replicate the Krajina scenario, in August 2008, all the Imperial training and tech didn't last a day against a Russian frontier army.

The West may think it has won. But the East remembers.

Decline

Daniel Greenfield writes, apropos yesterday's anniversary of the Moon landing:

"Forty-four years ago, a nation that we now know was racist, didn't care about the environment and drank too much soda, landed on the moon.
[...]
We were going to go the moon and then to the planets beyond. We could find new frontiers, plant our flags, build colonies, jump from world to world, star to star, and turn our civilization into something more than another archeological dig. Maybe it was all just a crazy dream, but looking at the eyes of the men who did it and who died and die seeing it undone, there is that sense that they believed that it could be done.

Going to the moon was a crazy idea of course. Going beyond it would have been even crazier. Instead we settled down to the important things, like race relations, the importance of listening to music, breaking up the family, importing huge numbers of people with little use for our way of life and all the other stupid suicidal things that dying civilizations do to pass the time.
[...]
We could have gone to the stars, but we took another road instead. Maybe we can still turn back to a time when we could do great things before it's too late."

But wouldn't that be "turning back the clock" on all the wonderful "progress" that's been made since, uh, erm...? Well, yes. Progress in deconstructing society, certainly. Can it be done? I don't know. Should it at least be attempted? Certainly.

Space colonization may be impractical, as Charles Stross has argued, but then again, it might not. But practicality is less of a concern than the loss of drive. After everything has been deconstructed, people are wondering if anything has a point - to the point where reality offends them. So instead of doing great things, they turn inward and embrace the ennui. Retreat from space is just a symptom. Every health chart of a dying civilization shows some form of this.  The story of Buzz Aldrin's secret Communion suggests that the rot was already setting in, even then.  Fred might be right.

Note, however, that this applies to one civilization in particular. And while influential and powerful, it forgets it alone is not humanity. There is a world elsewhere.

Enough with the NYTimesians

I was going to dissect here an op-ed that appeared in today's New York Times, penned by one of the usual suspects.

I wanted to explain how half the stuff in the piece is outright made up, and the rest is twisted half-truths, combined with the author's self-serving projections. Such as when he called the Bosnian Serb Republic a "crucible of imagined victimhood" - on par with other big lies that have just kept coming for the past 22-plus years.

I felt an urge to try and correct idiotic assertions such as that "young people" emigrate so "they could be plain 'Bosnians,' not some ethnic subgroup", or that "young people" (again) who supposedly protested supposed Serb racism last month "wanted to to be Bosnians — not Bosniaks, or Serbs or Croats." Because no actual people, young or otherwise, said that. Ever. And because, whether one likes it or not, there is no such thing as a "Bosnian" identity, divorced from group identities defined by religious legacies of foreign conquest.

I also wanted to challenge the moronic attempt to blame a 2011 jihadist attack on the U.S. Embassy on the lack of centralized police command. It wouldn't be the first political abuse of that incident, after all.

Most of all, I wanted to vent my disgust at a shill who pretends to care about phantasmal "Bosnians" while in actuality shilling for one particular "subgroup" (hint: change one letter), as he has for the past two decades.

But then I realized something. People who complain about articles in the New York Times are under the mistaken impression that the New York Times still matters.

So I wrote this post instead.

The Big Lie

Two months ago, I wrote about a horrifying feature of Yugoslavia II (1945-1991): the moral equivalence the regime of Josip Broz Tito imposed between the royalist Serbs and the Nazi Croats (both Catholic and Muslim).

The very real genocide (entirely fitting Lemkin's definition) of Serbs in the "Independent State of Croatia" (NDH) was thus systematically minimized and suppressed, while the royalists ("Chetniks") were accused of massacring Croat and Muslim civilians and open collaboration with the Nazis. The West participated in this cover-up, partly to prop Tito's regime as a wedge in the Eastern Bloc, but also to protect the Roman Catholic Church, whose clergy backed the NDH.

Thanks to the suppression of truth about the NDH, Croat exiles were able to impose the myth of their own suffering at Communist hands (e.g. Bleiburg, Cardinal Stepinac) as a foundation of an independent Croatia proclaimed in 1991 (and forcibly "cleansed" of Serbs by 1995, with Empire's help). Part and parcel of this was a media operation in the early 1990s, by which the heirs of NDH were presented as victims, and their intended victims as executioners:

"...the Croatian and Bosnian past was marked by a real and cruel anti-semitism. Tens of thousands of Jews perished in Croatian camps. So there was every reason for intellectuals and Jewish organizations to be hostile towards the Croats and Bosnians. Our challenge was to reverse this attitude. And we succeeded masterfully." (James Harff or Ruder Finn, 1993 interview) 

This went beyond "reversing the attitude" of Jewish organizations; through the legerdemain of perception management, the very real Nazi connections of Croats, "Bosnians" (i.e. Bosnian Muslims) and later Albanians - during the 1999 attack on Serbia - transformed into the entirely fabricated "Serb fascism" in the Western public opinion. Vile screeds such as "Serbia's Secret War" and "Heavenly Serbia: From Myth to Genocide" were just the tip of the propaganda iceberg.

What you see vs. what happens (source unknown)

Not only did this whitewash the Holocaust, it manufactured a cover for its continuation, this time under Imperial sanction. The outcome of NATO's "Deliberate Force" (1995) and "Allied Force" (1999) was arguably worse than of Hitler's "Strafgericht" (1941): there are hardly any Serbs left in today's Croatia, while those that survived 14 years of ethnic cleansing, pogroms, murder, rape and worse in Albanian-occupied Kosovo are now being forced to submit to KLA rule. Serbia itself has a quisling government far worse than the puppet regime of General Nedić. Only in Bosnia did the Serbs manage to defend their rights, though the political assault on them shows no sign of abating.

Part of that assault have been the "war crimes" trials of the entire political and military leadership of the Bosnian Serbs. The ICTY, a "court" conjured by the Empire for the purpose of legitimizing its Balkans meddling, is insisting that the Bosnian Serbs committed "genocide" against the Muslims. Not in a general sense, mind you, but in seven or so municipalities, cherry-picked by the prosecutors. Both this, and classifying what happened in (or rather, outside) Srebrenica in 1995 as genocide are patently absurd.

The actually legitimate ICJ ruled in 2007 against the claim of "municipal genocide". Last year, the ICTY "judges" dropped that particular charge against wartime Bosnian Serb president Radovan Karadžić. This week, an appeals panel led by ICTY president Theodor Meron, reinstated the charge - on July 11 no less, the date Muslims mark as the anniversary of "genocide" in Srebrenica.

Political symbolism? Marlise Simons (see here) of the New York Times thinks so:

"By scheduling the hearing on what has become a sacred date for Bosnian Muslims, the presiding judge, Theodor Meron, seemed to want to send a message to the war’s survivors as he recited an usually long and gruesome list of atrocities committed against Muslim civilians and prisoners of war." (emphasis added)

However, among the "evidence" cited by Meron is the following:

"...there was evidence from meetings attended by Karadzic in the early 1990s 'that it had been decided that one third Muslims would be killed, one third would be converted to the Orthodox religion and a third will leave on their own'."

Lest you think this is Al-Jazeera editorializing, Simons cites the same passage in her NYT article. So does Carol Williams of the LA Times. And here it is, in the official ICTY press release:

"For example, the Appeals Chamber observed that the Trial Chamber received evidence that in meetings with Karadžić “it had been decided that one third of Muslims would be killed, one third would be converted to the Orthodox religion and a third will leave on their own” and thus all Muslims would disappear from Bosnia." 

If this is what it considers "evidence," the ICTY ought to disband itself immediately, disbar all its judges and prosecutors, and sentence itself to whatever is appropriate for contempt of court and obstruction of justice. Because this particular claim is a word-for-word plagiarism (with names changed) of a statement made by Mile Budak, Nazi Croatia's minister of culture, in a 1941 speech about Croatian plans for the Serbs. 

Nor can ICTY "judges" claim ignorance of this fact, because the original statement by Budak was quoted in the Karadžić "trial" not two months ago, by Nenad Kecmanović (testifying on May 31 this year, official transcript, end of p. 7133).

Take a minute for this to sink in. Not only is a political court, acting on political instructions, fabricating a political accusation for political purposes, the false evidence it cites to accuse the Serbs of genocide is based on a Croatian Nazi plan to commit a genocide of Serbs. This isn't just blaming the victim, this is blaming the victim in order to absolve the actual culprit.

And not a single Western journalist covering the "trial" has noticed this.

Still think the media have anything to do with the truth? That ICTY has anything to do with either truth or justice? Why?