No, THIS is what meddling in elections looks like

What began as isolated cases of Putin Derangement Syndrome years ago morphed into full-blown hysteria in 2016, when the Clinton campaign and its media enablers latched onto the accusations of "Russian hacking" to explain the humiliating disclosure of their plots and operations via internal emails from the DNC and John Podesta's private Gmail account.

On Friday, January 6, the Director of National Intelligence published a "report" basically asserting the Clintonites were right, and that Putin Himself ordered "interference" in US elections through, um... RT? The lion's share of this amateurish collection of "we assess" and "we believe" was devoted to RT, inexplicably relying on a primer produced in 2012 (so, there goes the argument the current conflict is due to 2014 "Russian aggression" in Ukraine...). The report, however, does say that "Disclosures through WikiLeaks did not contain any evident forgeries"  - meaning that the Clintonites lied when they said the purloined emails were being tampered with.

My assessment is that talk of "Russian hacking" is a desperate ploy to argue that Trump's victory was somehow the fault of malicious external forces, rather than Clintonite detachment from reality, logic and the American people. To borrow the Bard's description: A tale told by snarky idiots, full of sound and fury, but signifying nothing.

Now if you want to hear a story of how a country's democracy was actually meddled with... stay awhile and listen.

What Putin really said about Trump, Reagan and the DNC

The Atlantic Imperialists really dislike Vladimir Putin. They dislike Russia in principle, as the ultimate "other" - a large, European civilization separate from the post-Roman West. As usual, the Economist is completely wrong: It is really the Empire that sees Russia as an existential threat, because its resurgence provided proof positive that the Western "end of history" paradigm was even desirable, much less inevitable. As for the validity of Western models... how are those working out these days?

Vladimir Putin's goal is to undermine Western democracies whose models present an existential threat to his rule https://t.co/6JUXNKgkTI

— The Economist (@TheEconomist) December 24, 2016

Much has been made of Putin's supposed trolling of the Democrats for being sore losers at the December 23 press conference at the Kremlin. This comes from the same media that kept assuring everyone that Hillary Clinton's presidency was inevitable, so forgive me if I am inclined to take it with a grain of salt. Especially since the actual transcript of Putin's remarks at the marathon year-end press conference paints a different picture (all emphasis mine):

Vladimir Putin: I have commented on this issue on a number of occasions. If you want to hear it one more time, I can say it again. The current US Administration and leaders of the Democratic Party are trying to blame all their failures on outside factors. I have questions and some thoughts in this regard.

We know that not only did the Democratic Party lose the presidential election, but also the Senate, where the Republicans have the majority, and Congress, where the Republicans are also in control. Did we, or I also do that? We may have celebrated this on the “vestiges of a 17th century chapel,” but were we the ones who destroyed the chapel, as the saying goes? This is not the way things really are. All this goes to show that the current administration faces system-wide issues, as I have said at a Valdai Club meeting.

It seems to me there is a gap between the elite’s vision of what is good and bad and that of what in earlier times we would have called the broad popular masses. I do not take support for the Russian President among a large part of Republican voters as support for me personally, but rather see it in this case as an indication that a substantial part of the American people share similar views with us on the world’s organisation, what we ought to be doing, and the common threats and challenges we are facing. It is good that there are people who sympathise with our views on traditional values because this forms a good foundation on which to build relations between two such powerful countries as Russia and the United States, build them on the basis of our peoples’ mutual sympathy.

They would be better off not taking the names of their earlier statesmen in vain, of course. I’m not so sure who might be turning in their grave right now. It seems to me that Reagan would be happy to see his party’s people winning everywhere, and would welcome the victory of the newly elected President so adept at catching the public mood, and who took precisely this direction and pressed onwards to the very end, even when no one except us believed he could win.

The outstanding Democrats in American history would probably be turning in their graves though. Roosevelt certainly would be because he was an exceptional statesman in American and world history, who knew how to unite the nation even during the Great Depression’s bleakest years, in the late 1930s, and during World War II. Today’s administration, however, is very clearly dividing the nation. The call for the electors not to vote for either candidate, in this case, not to vote for the President-elect, was quite simply a step towards dividing the nation. Two electors did decide not to vote for Trump, and four for Clinton, and here too they lost. They are losing on all fronts and looking for scapegoats on whom to lay the blame. I think that this is an affront to their own dignity. It is important to know how to lose gracefully.

But my real hope is for us to build business-like and constructive relations with the new President and with the future Democratic Party leaders as well, because this is in the interests of both countries and peoples.

History made

I'm referring to this post, of course. What did you think I was referring to?

An unlikely off-ramp

We have crossed the boundary that lies between Republic and Empire. If you ask when, the answer is that you cannot make a single stroke between day and night; the precise moment does not matter. There was no painted sign to say: “You are now entering Imperium.” Yet it was a very old road and the voice of history was saying: “Whether you know it or not, the act of crossing may be irreversible.” And now, not far ahead, is a sign that reads: “No U-turns.”
- Rise of Empire by Garet Garrett, 1952

Long-time readers of this blog know that I am a subject of the Atlantic Empire and therefore have the right to participate in the quadrennial ritual of electing the Emperor. While I will not disclose which one of the candidates will get my vote, between my background and what's been published here that ought to be intuitively obvious.

What I will say, however, is this. Once a republic turns into an empire, it is rare - unheard of, actually - for it to get an opportunity to turn away. That's what the quote above refers to. Yet through a combination of most unlikely circumstances, the USA has one such opportunity this year. Whether Americans will use it, or lose it (most likely forever) will shape their own destiny - and that of the world.

Let's see what happens.

That Serbian Election

Many questions still remain about the general elections held in Serbia on April 24, mostly whether one nationalist and two liberal-quisling groups will make it past the 5% threshold and thus qualify for seats in Skupština, the Serbian legislature.

Here's why none of that matters: either way, the Progressive Party and its leader, Aleksandar Vučić, will remain in charge - of executing every order and whim of the Empire, that is.

Aleksandar Vucic has won another four-year term as prime minister of Serbia https://t.co/c51ALMW9aJ pic.twitter.com/Z0HoqOKMRI

— The Economist (@TheEconomist) April 25, 2016

(The Economist, official magazine of the Trans-Atlantic Empire, approves)

Elections in a satrapy such as Serbia (or Ukraine, for that matter) are meaningless by default. They don't decide anything. Their sole purpose is to paint a veneer of legitimacy on one quisling or another. Time and again, ever since the 2000 coup, whoever the Serbians voted for they got a quisling government either blessed or directly appointed by the Empire. Time and again, such governments would obey not the will of their electorate, but the orders of their overseas masters. So what difference does it make who gets to be the quisling-in-chief?

So, while the pundits debate who got a vote or two more or less than 5%, I'm going to ignore the entire sordid spectacle and pray instead for the "resurrection of the dead and life of the world to come" at Pascha tomorrow.

For God is just, and His justice cannot sleep forever.

To save the Republic, kill the Empire

“My foreign policy will always put the interests of Ukrainian people and Ukrainian security above all else. That will be the foundation of every single decision I will make. ‘Ukraine first’ will be the major and overriding theme of my administration."

Imagine for a moment that these words were spoken by one of the Empire's puppets in Kiev, installed after the February 2014 coup. Though official Washington lavishes praise on its Ukrainian stooges no matter how appalling their behavior, the outpouring of support for this kind of a statement would be deafening.

Except it wasn't a Poroshenko, Avakov, Saakashvili or "Yahtzee" who said it, but one Donald J. Trump - using "America" and "American," of course, in the quote I altered above. And because of that, the entire Washington establishment had a point-and-shriek episode.

Establishment figures left and right snarked about the speech being terrible, inconsistent, and awful. None other than Zbigniew Brzezinski, the Sith Lord of the Democratic foreign policy cult, called it a political suicide. This, mind you, is the same man who came up with the brilliant idea of using "riled-up Moslems" as a weapon against the Soviet Union in the 1970s, unleashing the modern-day jihad on the world, and remains unrepentant about it. It may have delivered his beloved Poland into NATO vassalage, but it sure hasn't helped the average citizen of the United States any.

Others guffawed at Trump's pronunciation of "Tanzania," or claimed that advocating unpredictability and consistent principles was somehow absurd. If there is an inconsistency in Trump's speech, though, it's in his simultaneous denunciation of Iran and ISIS - even though Iran is one of the few countries actually opposing the firestorm of jihad in the Middle East, sparked by Zbigniew and fanned by Bush the Lesser's 2003 invasion of Iraq and Obama's fumbling "regime change" policy in Syria (both of which Trump is on the record for opposing).

I'm neither a registered Republican, nor a Trump supporter. I did not vote for him in my state's primary, either. But as I listened to his speech today - having spent the better part of 15 years poring over US foreign policy and writing hundreds of articles about it at Antiwar.com, here and elsewhere - it struck me that Trump has just made an argument that the Trans-Atlantic Empire has eaten the American Republic alive, and that if there is any hope of saving the latter, the former must be relegated to the dustbin of history.

Hillary Clinton sneers that one can't "make America great again" because it's already great. Easy for her to say, when she's basically running not for a chief executive of a constitutional republic, but the Kaiserin of the Greater Atlantic Reich. Meanwhile, the current Kaiser thinks it perfectly acceptable to visit London and lecture the British on how sovereignty shouldn't really be a thing.

Back in 2012, Ron Paul made the argument against the Empire. He was muzzled by the media, and his supporters were shouted down at the GOP convention, with the establishment creating a special rule to favor its preferred front-runner. Who, by the by, ended up getting destroyed by Obama that November. The establishment has tried every trick in their playbook to do the same with Trump - and failed every step of the way.

Trump has already turned several of the establishment's sacred cows - open borders, free trade, and Muslims come to mind - into so much kebab. Today he challenged the Empire itself, and promised the chattering classes who spill other people's blood and money with reckless abandon that he will throw them out with the dishwater come November. Their snark and smug posturing is hiding what must be panic at the prospect that he may actually win the election six months from now, and put into practice what he just preached.

I don't know if he's genuine, if he'll be able to resist the lure of power and the insidious whispers of the dark side to join the Empire and rule the world - or at least pretend that's the case, as the current lot does - but I've spent enough time gazing into the abyss of trans-Atlantic (and -Pacific) imperialism to know that Trump's speech today made a powerful point. I don't know if that will be enough to save the American Republic, to be honest. But it will be interesting to watch him try, and the imperialists squirm.

(The usual disclaimer about this being strictly my personal opinion and in no way related to my employer or my work applies; ignore it at your own peril.)

"Vote or Suffer"

I have already written about some incongruities in the campaign preceding the Bosnian general elections, scheduled for next weekend, but there is one thing I left out, as it deserved a post of its own.

Local TV stations aired two ads in the third and fourth week of September, produced by USAID - the Empire's "Agency for International Development." Both had the punchline "Vote or Suffer" (Glasaj ili trpi). 

Still from the USAID propaganda video - "Vote or Suffer"

The first ad (watch on YouTube) blames the Bosnian authorities for failing to help the victims of May and August floods (!). On the same day it aired, the Imperial embassy website published a blog post co-authored by the military attache and the USAID head of mission, which accused the Bosnian authorities of embezzling the flood aid funds!

Both the Serb Republic and Federation authorities responded right away that the Empire was flat-out lying: they couldn't have embezzled anything, as not a penny of the promised flood aid from the US and the EU had actually arrived. But the Imperial officials refused to retract their claims. A few days later, another ad appeared, this time criticizing the economic situation (watch on YouTube).

There is no question that Bosnia is in a dire economic predicament, but a great deal of blame for that lies in the absurd legislation the locals outright copied from the US and the EU, under constant pressure from Washington and Brussels. One example is a 2009 law on "animal rights" which turned the Sarajevo Canton into a free range for feral dogs.

Let's also remember that US and EU officials supported the "demonstrators" with supposedly economic and democratic grievances, who earlier this year torched government offices in Sarajevo, Zenica and Tuzla, Maidan-style.

Lest you think this is someone impersonating USAID on YouTube, you can see both videos featured on the agency's official website. The claim by the agency head and Embassy officials that this is purely a "get out the vote" campaign is absurd. The ads very specifically urge the voters to elect a different government - presumably one more willing to obey orders from Washington. More to the point, USAID is engaging in behavior that would be blatantly illegal in America itself. Imagine a foreign agency running TV ads urging Americans to "vote or suffer"!

This is but the latest in a series of attempts by the Empire to influence the outcome of Bosnian elections. Imperial officials have turned a blind eye to jihadist activity (even when directed against the US!) in Bosnia for years, backed the rioters who torched government offices in February, sent in additional troops as a way of signaling support to those they back and threaten those they oppose, and outright "midwifed" the opposition coalition in the Serb Republic, recycling a name of a previous creation in the process. Thanks to genuine activists on the ground, their interference has been documented and brought to light.

Keep that in mind when Empire's stooges begin crying foul, after they lose at the polls.

Duh-mock-risy

This morning, I was on the newest episode of "CrossTalk" to discuss the farce that is the "presidential election" in Banderastan (formerly the Ukraine). It should air tonight sometime, and I'll try and post it as soon as it is online. (UPDATE: You can watch the show here)

Look at who all was involved: "several US senators," Mad Madeleine Albright and her NDI, the State Department, OSCE... Three cats and a unicycle-riding poodle could have voted, and they'd still call it legitimate. Meanwhile, the exit polls are in. Congratulations, it's an oligarch!

A sharp-eyed Facebook user spotted this attempt at perception management, that best illustrates today's circus:

On the left is a Ukie Twitter feed purporting to show happy voters being democratically democratic (source); on the right, the same photo - taken two weeks ago, in Gorlovka, during the Donetsk referendum on independence (source).

"Oops" doesn't even begin to cover it.

The Dragon Wins

Sunday was the feast of St. George, the fabled dragonslayer. It was also the day of general elections in Serbia, offering the people there an opportunity to challenge the record of misrule and abuse of their corrupt, unelected quisling regime.

They failed. The dragon won.

Oh, the New York Times is spinning a tale of angry voters turning to "nationalist and populist leaders once allied with Mr. Milosevic" - but conveniently forgets that one of those parties, the supposedly evil Milosevic Socialists, was part of the government for the past four years with Empire's beloved Democrats! (The phrase "supported by Brussels and Washington" actually appears in the article.) A government, remember, that Brussels and Washington put together against the wishes of Serbian voters.

As for Nikolic and his "Progressives," even the clueless NYT reporter calls him a "former pro-Russian hard-liner" (emphasis added) and notes he "had been an ardent supporter of Russia but now says he supports Serbia’s membership in the European Union." Oh, but unnamed "experts" - harpies on Empire's payroll, naturally - say it's all just a ruse, and imply Nikolic is really a Moscow stooge. If only!

For years, Nikolic managed the Radical Party while its leader, Vojislav Seselj, was on trial on trumped-up charges of "hate speech" before the Hague Inquisition. Election after election, the Radicals would win the largest single bloc of votes, but could never form a government, as the various and sundry "democrats" would combine and recombine to stay in power. Nikolic himself nearly defeated Tadic twice, only to narrowly lose in second-round polls accompanied by enormous pressure from abroad and media hysterics at home. So in 2009, probably having had enough of this, he ditched the party, took many of its elected legislators with him, and established the "Progressives" in a hijacking made possible by Serbia's ill-designed laws. Then he went to Brussels and Washington and swore fealty. That is why I don't consider the Progs true opposition; they aren't a part of the outgoing government, but their aim is to become a part of the pro-Empire establishment.

Now, if the results that were announced yesterday are correct - that is, if the elections haven't been rigged or stolen, which is a very distinct possibility - the Empire can rub its hands with glee. As I explained a couple of weeks ago, Washington and Brussels had a stranglehold on Serbian politics already. The Progs are sworn to them. The Socialists will most likely continue their profitable association with the Democrats, only on better terms. And the Democrats get to keep Serbia on course for total destruction. Whether they do it with the help of "United Regions" - the rebranded banksters - or the Empire-worshipping cult of "Reversal", or both, is entirely irrelevant.

The quisling establishment actually benefited from being split into a multitude of parties. This effectively diluted the anger of the electorate, who thought they were punishing the Democrats by voting for their coalition partners. Yes, it's entirely irrational, but there you have it.

On the other hand, the opposition forgot Franklin's memorable phrase, and ended up being hanged separately. The only opposition party that actually made it into the parliament are the passive, waffling Serbian Democrats, who - predictably - said they were "entirely content" with their results. The Radicals didn't even get enough votes to qualify for a single mandate. Depending on whether they successfully challenge the fraud, Dveri might get a seat or two - far less than what they were aiming for.

Apparently, there was also a great deal of invalid, creatively desecrated ballots - which, as predicted, did nothing to invalidate the election and had the effect of helping the quisling establishment win.

There is abundant anecdotal evidence of fraud, theft, bribes and bought votes. But the plural of anecdote is not data. Unless someone actually manages to produce hard evidence of massive fraud, the election is likely to stand. Moscow didn't send observers. There were no cameras at the polls. The Empire has already declared everything was peachy (they would, wouldn't they?). Rotten as it was, it really seems like a done deal.

So, now it gets worse. Whereas over the past four years Serbians could at least say they had an unelected government that worked against the wishes of the majority, this election just seated a parliament that is overwhelmingly in favor of Serbia being the sex slave of Brussels and Washington, only differing on the degree of S&M involved in the relationship.

"Hell: No need to die, you're already there"

The question now is whether there are any people left who will fight this state of affairs, and in what way. I don't know the answer. But I suspect we'll be finding out very soon.

The Persian Puzzle

Normally I wouldn't comment on Iran; what happens there is none of my business. But the whole post-election mess there has me wondering.

You see, it looks very much like a "color revolution" scenario: the US-favored candidate contests election results, claims victory, and his supporters riot till the government caves in. But then, couldn't the incumbent actually steal the election knowing full well that he can paint the resulting opposition protests as a CIA/NED coup attempt, whether that is actually true or not?

I freely admit that I haven't a clue what's actually true in the reports coming from Iran, whether Ahmadinejad or Mousavi actually won the vote, who stole what (or not). Given the track record of the mainstream Western media when it comes to the Balkans (as a rule, their reports are almost entirely false), why should I believe anything they say about Iran? Especially since the Empire is so determined to have a war with Tehran, one way or another.

The fact remains, however, that the technique of "democratic coup" pioneered by the Empire in Serbia - and applied elsewhere since - has made it effectively impossible to judge whether any election, anywhere, is actually legitimate. Even if we somehow possessed the knowledge to make an informed decision, there is still the matter of the Empire insisting that democracy is whatever it says it is. As a consequence, "democracy" has become just about meaningless. And that, regardless of what happens in Iran, is something definitely worth thinking about...

Update: Daniel Larison at AmCon offers some thoughts in a similar vein. Worth reading.

Update II: (6/19/2009) And here is Daniel McAdams at the LRC blog, confirming that the NED is involved, after all...

Failed God's Holiday

Today is Election Day in the United States, where subjects of the omnipotent imperial state get to indulge their self-delusion that their will, mystically transferred through the magic ballot box via a piece of paper (or a more modern digital device) gives a divine mandate to one of the candidates to become the absolute ruler of America and Emperor of the known world.

Of course, each election is the Most Important Election Ever, and each time the voting ritual is supposed to be of crucial importance for the fate of America and the world, and each time the people are told that if the "other guy" wins there will be an apocalypse, but if "our guy" is elected there would be heaven on Earth. And each time it's all a load of manure.

Emma Goldman was right; if elections could change anything, they'd be made illegal. What actually takes place today is a ritual of the dominant secular religion, wherein the masses give their overlords power by pretending to have a hand in choosing them. There is even a religious overtone to the campaign this year, as one of the candidates is painted almost as a Messiah coming to save America (and the world, let's not forget about the world - though it gets no say in the matter) from its present troubles.

If you are really looking to put a messiah into the White House, and you're a Christian, Muslim or a Jew, that makes you a blasphemer. Have fun with that. And that's the least of the problems I have with the self-anointed prophet of HopeChange. But I won't go into those now; this essay isn't about him - it's about the process in general.

Same goes for the other guy. If he's "conservative," there's nothing worth conserving. One's tempted to think the GOP frantically looked for anyone that wasn't Ron Paul. Now, Paul championed real change, and real conservative values - but he didn't want to be Emperor, and he wanted to cut off as much parasitic, bloodsucking scum from the government feed trough as possible. Good for the country, but bad for the political class; can't have that.

Don't delude yourselves. Whoever the high priests of democracy anoint Emperor today will keep breaking your leg and picking your pocket. He may just make it sound more pleasant. The strongest chains that bind a man are always in his own mind. It's a lesson governments all over have learned long ago.

As for me, even if I could vote today, I would not. Whatever happens in the coming months and years, don't blame me - I didn't encourage them.

None of the Above

I haven't written a whole lot about the upcoming elections for the Emperor, partly because I believe their outcome won't matter a whole lot (I'll explain in a minute) and partly because the candidates don't inspire optimism.

What, say you? How can I doubt St. Barack of the Change? Easily. Does he have a foreign policy team full of rabid imperialists from the Clinton era? He does. Is his running mate an obnoxious Senator from Delaware in love with the sound of his own voice, who was also an enthusiastic supporter of Clinton the Emperor? Check. What "change" exactly are we talking about?

I don't particularly care about John "KLA" McCain either, given that he'll be the Nero to Bush the Lesser's Caligula.

So, what did I mean about the insignificance of the election?

Look, the Empire is failing. It should be intuitively obvious to even the most casual observer. The crumbling economy, the increasingly worthless currency based on nothing, the much-touted military bogged down in wars it cannot win, the "diplomacy" gone berserk, the sheer stupidity of public officials (examples are too many; just open your local paper and laugh)... what more evidence do you want? I just hope the loss of Empire doesn't translate into America's self-destruction, but that's up to Americans themselves. Me, not being one, am going to politely stand aside and let them sort it out. Kind of like what they should have done with hundreds of other disputes throughout the world, instead of intervening and making them worse.

History isn't over. There is no such thing as Pax Americana. There was a historical chance in 1991 to make the world a little bit better; instead, the imperialists wanted power. Well, they got power. And they lost it - as it usually happens. So sometime in January next year, either Mad Mac or Barry Change will find themselves in charge of a bankrupt country with a Potemkin military, facing a very angry and resentful rest of the world. Good luck there.

To those who still think their participation in a meaningless ritual this November will make a difference, I'll only say: the only real choice is "None of the Above." Which is why you aren't allowed to make it.

Smurftastic

It's been four days since the election, and Serbia still doesn't have a government. Last time around, it took four months. Of course, last time it was hard to imagine that DSS would even think of an alliance with the Radicals (and now that's pretty much assumed), while anyone even thinking of a possible coalition between the DS and the Socialists would have been locked up in an insane asylum. Yet now you have the Imperial propaganda machine straining to promote the very people they've demonized for years as genocidal nationalist architects of Balkans bloodshed... It's actually kind of funny, if in a twisted way.

In light of President Tadić's statement that he "won't allow" a government "against the wishes of the people," I can only recall something I wrote last May, when it was Tadić and his Democrats that trampled all over that will (and the Radicals had parliamentary plurality):

Nikolić's election was protested by EU commissars. A scheduled delegation from Brussels canceled its visit. The world media (otherwise known for their fair and impartial coverage of Serbs, right?) are spreading panic about Nikolić being an ”ultra-nationalist” etc. President Tadić, head of the Democratic Party, said Nikolić's election was ”harmful to state interests” and a ”democratic Serbia.” Or was that a Democratic Serbia?

Tadić's party has been negotiating (or not) for months with the old PM Koštunica about a new government, without results. They claim they got the most votes, so they can dictate the make-up of the government. One teeny little problem with that argument is that the Radicals actually got the most votes. But that's an inconvenient truth, and thus overlooked in "democratic" discussion. Because, you see, only the "democratic bloc" can act democratically and build democracy in a democratic state... At which point I'm getting flashbacks to an 1980s cartoon where every Smurf smurfs smurfingly the entire smurfing day!

Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose, then. Seems like Tadić and his foreign sponsors believe they are the only ones that get to decide who and what is "democratic," regardless of how people vote or what they actually think. Holding people in contempt has never been a winning strategy in the long run. I wonder if they know that.

A Math Lesson

Official results of the Serbian elections haven't been released yet, but the EUphoric Democrats are already claiming total victory. Everyone's got a right to an opinion, of course - but not to their own facts.

Well, what about the facts? According to CESID, a pro-Western election monitoring NGO, the May 11 election results are as follows:

Democratic Party/G17 : 103 seats
Serbian Radical Party (SRS): 77 seats
Democratic Party of Serbia (DSS)/NS: 30 seats
Socialist Party of Serbia/PUPS: 20 seats
Liberal Democratic Party (LDP): 13 seats
SDA: (Muslim parties) 4 seats
MK (Hungarian parties): 2 seats
KAL (Presevo valley Albanians): 1 seat
Total seats in the parliament: 250

If I understand correctly, it takes 126 mandates to swear in a cabinet. Let's assume the Democrats will get the LDP on board, as well as the Hungarians, Muslims and Albanians. That's still only 123 mandates.

But if the Radicals, Socialists and the DSS make a deal... they have 127 mandates right there. A majority. A government.

Oh, I suppose it is theoretically possible for the Democrats to court the Socialists, but wait - aren't the Socialists the "hardline ultra-nationalists," the party of "the late dictator Slobodan Milosevic"? Hard to imagine the self-proclaimed postmodern democratic reformers whose wellspring of legitimacy is the coup against Milosevic in October 2000 actually contemplating any sort of cooperation with them. Anyone who can see the Socialists in the same government as LDP has got to be on some powerful hallucinogens.

Now, anything is possible, in theory. But in practice, the only way the Democrats will have won this election is if they can somehow defeat the math that says they do not have a majority to form a government.

Empire's Ostpolitik

It's a rough time to be an American Serb. (For the sake of clarification, I'm an ethnic Serb who lives in America, but I'm not a U.S. citizen; I just happen to live here for the time being, resentful that the taxes bleeding me dry are funding the Empire but not having much of a choice in the matter.)

First there is the matter of the U.S. being the principal sponsor of the "independent state of Kosova," the illegally occupied and severed province of Serbia. Listening to lies and hatred coming from Daniel Fried and Nicholas Burns, and knowing it is official U.S. policy, has to be infuriating.

Worst of all, though, is the awareness that all three front-runners for the post of Emperor this fall share the dreadful Serbophobia that governs America's Ostpolitik.

Hillary Clinton is, well, a Clinton. She is fully behind her husband's illegal 1999 war, and eagerly uses the Albanian term for the new false state, "Kosova" (even though the Albanians actually declared recognition as "Kosovo," the province's proper name). Riding on her coattails (petticoats?) are Madeleine Albright, Wesley Clark, and Richard Holbrooke, war criminals we all know and love from the 1990s.

John McCain is an enthusiastic supporter of the Albanian cause, and specifically the terrorist KLA. 'nuff said.

What of Obama? Surely, he's got to be better than these two, right? Not so fast.
As Justin Raimondo of Antiwar.com puts it today, "there is a problem with Obama's foreign policy stances, and I can boil it down to two words: George Soros."

Kosovo is proof positive that there's no shred of difference between the two major parties governing U.S. affairs. American Serbs voted for George W. Bush in 2004 not because they approved of the Iraq War, the Patriot Act, or anything else he and Darth Cheney have inflicted upon the world, but because John Kerry was in bed with the KLA. Unsurprisingly, though disappointingly, the lesser of two evils turned out to be, well, evil.

"It seems to me," comments Raimondo, "that the division of labor between the two wings of the War Party is, to a large degree, geographical." While the Republicans focus on the Middle East, the Democrats obsess about Europe, and more specifically, Russia. Now, Raimondo holds out some hope that Obama is not entirely in Soros's pockets yet, and may be using Soros as a means of getting to power. So far, however, he seems to be following the same Soros playbook Clinton, Albright, Holbrooke and Clark played by a decade ago.

As Daniel Larison of the American Conservative points out:

Recognizing separatist states... is how the Balkan Wars of the ’90s became international conflicts that drew in outside powers. It is how the West could make the wars of Yugoslav succession into an occasion for isolating and humiliating the rump Yugoslavia [i.e. Serbia] and backing up the historic proxies of… Germany, bizarrely enough. It is through the persistent mistaken belief that outside powers have some stake in the conflicts of the Balkans that great powers collide with one another and risk a more general war.

One question a whole lot of Serbs are asking right about now is WHY the Empire is so hell-bent on supporting Greater Albania and dismembering Serbia? To say that atrocities - both real and quite made up - were the actual cause of Imperial intervention in the Balkans is folly; they were an excuse - hence all the fabrications - nothing more. Ignoring the real genocide in Rwanda while making up a genocide in Bosnia; imposing a UN blockade harsher than the one against Iraq because of alleged "Serb aggression," then launching aggressive wars of its own (1999, 2003); condemning "ethnic cleansing," but sponsoring the largest instances thereof (half a million or so Serbs from today's Croatia and Kosovo) - how much more proof do we need that the Empire does not have a moral compass?

Almost 2000 years ago, Apostle Paul wrote, "there is nothing new under the sun." That is certainly a good description of American foreign policy. Its Russophobia is British in origin; its dislike of Serbs appears to be borrowed from Austria-Hungary and Nazi Germany (as is its choice of "allies" in the region). But the sheer stupidity of demolishing the international order over a patch of land utterly insignificant to anyone but the Serbs and the Albanians... that's 100% Made in America.

They should have outsorced it. Seriously.

Yep, Hoppe sure was right

To be fair, I was hedging my bets. The election really could have gone either way. On Friday I wrote:

"Tadic and the Democrats have turned to spreading panic and fear.... it could work, given that Serbs have been brainwashed not for years, but for decades, to feel inferior, guilty, and unworthy of their rulers. Having gone from blockade to postmodern, credit-funded consumerism, Serbians feel they are living better, and may fear to lose it. Yes, the whole selling out for a mess of pottage thing comes to mind here, but how does one argue that with someone who's mortgaged his soul for the sake of a suburban apartment and a mid-sized car?"

On Sunday this turned out to be the case.

Many are now saying that it was decided by ethnic minorities' disciplined turnout. And no, before the professional and amateur Serbophobes pipe up, it's not the Radicals engaging in baseless accusations; it's the minority politicians themselves claiming credit for Tadic's victory.

I don't think it matters as much, though. Sure, these communities fail to appreciate that Serbia treats them better than EU chairman Slovenia treated its minorities (think of the outrage if Serbia had "erased" people), but how can anyone expect other people to respect the Serbs if the Serbs can so manifestly fail to respect themselves?

Hoppe Was Right

A prominent place on my "history, philosophy and politics" bookshelf is occupied by an autographed copy of "Democracy, The God That Failed" by Hans-Hermann Hoppe. I think of it every time I read or watch anything related to the current elections in Serbia. So much of what passes for debate there is just such pure, unadulterated nonsense.

On Sunday, Serbian voters will have a choice of two presidential candidates that made it into the second round: the incumbent Boris Tadic (Democratic Party, DS) and the challenger Tomislav Nikolic (Serbian Radical Party, SRS).

Nikolic runs with a simple message that has the benefit of being true: Tadic represents the forces that have run Serbia since October 2000, beholden to foreign powers, corrupt and craven.

Of course, one could hold it against Nikolic that his party was once allied with Milosevic (then again, professional Milosevic-hater Vuk Draskovic was once a minister in a Milosevic government...), or that its leader is in The Hague on trial for war crimes. Except, the charges against him are pretty much for "inciting hatred," i.e. crimethink, and not any specific action. People tried by the Inquisition are political prisoners; Seselj is more so than most. Nikolic is a Russophile; he once famously expressed regret that Serbia was not a Russian province. Instead, one supposes, he should have been ecstatic that Serbia is actually a whipping boy for the US and the EU?

What bugs me about Nikolic is that the Radicals don't mind the modern omnipotent state at all; they just think it would do better with them in charge. To the extent that a hypothetical Radical government (the president is the ceremonial head of state, nothing more - Tadic's power comes from being the Democrats' party leader) would not serve the Empire, that is correct; but would it really serve the people of Serbia?

It's not hard to be patriotic in comparison to Tadic, Ceda Jovanovic, and a variety of other quisling types currently riding on the backs of Serbians. But would the Radicals steal (i.e. tax) any less? Would they not support oligarchs? Would they not sell off government property to their preferred investors (Russians, rather than Germans or Americans)? Would they actually try to restore the property stolen from Serbs in 1945? Ha! That will be the day.

Tadic, on the other hand, is desperate. For years he has spoken of "Euro-Atlantic integrations" as a "path that has no alternative," promising Serbians a better future in the EU and NATO. Thankfully, the NATO part died somewhere along the way (the fact that it was even mentioned, after what happened in 1999, is depressing enough). The EU part is equally incongruous; far from being a haven of prosperity, the EU is a reincarnation of the USSR. Its totalitarianism may be more polite, but it's there nonetheless.

Then, of course, there's the demonstration of EU's true colors, as the Brussels Leviathan openly declared its support for the Albanian separatists and decided to take over the occupation of Kosovo. The EU has gone past demanding Serbia's acceptance of its dismemberment, to simply ignoring Serbian opinions altogether. Brussels isn't even making the indecent proposal of trading Kosovo for EU membership any more; the EU intends to detach Kosovo anyway, and maybe negotiate with Serbia about annexing it in some distant future. Just the kind of beacon of civilization one should aspire to, isn't it?

With his promises thus shown to be hollow, Tadic and the Democrats have turned to spreading panic and fear. If they don't hang on to power, they say, Serbia would return to the "dreadful nineties," isolated, blockaded, besieged, even bombed (though they aren't saying so explicitly). It amounts to a "lesser of two evils" approach: If you think we're bad, wait till those guys come to power! Such brazen arrogance may well drive voters to Nikolic's camp, if nothing than out of sheer Serbian spite (inat).

Or it could work, given that Serbs have been brainwashed not for years, but for decades, to feel inferior, guilty, and unworthy of their rulers. Having gone from blockade to postmodern, credit-funded consumerism, Serbians feel they are living better, and may fear to lose it. Yes, the whole selling out for a mess of pottage thing comes to mind here, but how does one argue that with someone who's mortgaged his soul for the sake of a suburban apartment and a mid-sized car?

After October 2000, the "elite" that imposed itself on Serbia (with a little help of Uncle Sam) has been a textbook definition of "transnational progressivism" in action. My own distaste for this sort of people and their politics requires a rant in its own right; suffice to say that I would shed no tears if they were thrown out on the curb and forced to make an honest living (they'd whore themselves out to the Empire elsewhere, though; it's just what they do).

Whoever becomes president on Monday, it won't make the slightest bit of difference when it comes to the Empire's project of Serbia's dismemberment, or Moscow's support, or the pathological hatred of Serbs harbored by Albanian separatists and others in the region. It may make a difference in how the Serbs respond to it all. If Nikolic succeeds in toppling Tadic, it may mean a shift in Serbian politics not favoring the Tranzis, but it won't really change the essence of the problem. Until Serbia can somehow wipe off the fetid muck of statism, it will be neither strong, nor prosperous, nor free.

Ukraine's key election 'rigged'

There they go again...

Every time the candidate favored by Washington and/or Brussels loses an election, it's declared "rigged" or "stolen." Every time they steal an election, it's a glorious "triumph of democracy."

I don't know enough to say whether Yushchenko or Yanukovich is the right man to lead Ukraine; that's up to Ukrainians, or at least it should be. But I do know that Yushchenko hired Serbian "revolutionaries" - young janissaries trained by the CIA to create marketing campaigns and orchestrate public demonstrations against incumbent governments in favor of Washington-sponsored challengers.

The Independent reported it on November 2. These are the same characters who engineered the "Rose revolution" in Georgia (Caucasus) last December. There is a clear pattern here, from Serbia in 2000, Belarus in 2001 (that one failed) to Georgia in 2003; now the people behind the supposedly idealistic "Serbian" activists (they actually loathe Serbs and their culture, and worship Modernity and the omnipotent welfate State) are trying to have their way with Ukraine. Lord forbid Ukrainians elect who they want, and not a "progressive reformer" or some such character, endorsed by the Empire.

Now, that doesn't automatically mean a candidate the EU and U.S. oppose is an angel; no politician is, by definition. But it makes me wonder what the Empire is so scared of...