Empire's Values

"Hypocrisy," wrote the great French writer Francois de La Rochefoucauld, "is the homage vice pays to virtue."

Today, vice is what passes for virtue, and hypocrisy seems to have become the principal value of the Atlantic Empire and its satellites.

It's bad enough that the Empire has internalized the belief that killing people is somehow "saving" them, due to the miraculous transubstantiation of anyone killed by Imperial ordnance into an "enemy combatant." But when a country that routinely invades others, overthrows governments by force or subterfuge, and sponsors terrorists (e.g. Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan, KLA, Libyan and Syrian "freedom fighters) is setting up a committee for "atrocity prevention," what is one to conclude other than that it has left logic a few exits back?

The "Pussy Riot" tempest in a teacup is a perfect example of hypocrisy that simply rampages throughout every layer of society in the Empire. Sure, the desecration visited upon an Orthodox temple by the three orgy-loving "activists" pales in comparison to the oeuvre  of those paragons of tolerance and freedom in Kosovistan (under NATO's loving gaze no less). But don't you see, that just shows how oppressive Russian autocracy truly is! In a truly free, democratic society, all the churches would be razed and evil Orthodoxy abolished - or so reason the Marxists.

Wait a second, isn't America supposed to have fought the "long, twilight struggle" against Marxism and Leninism for forty-odd years? And didn't the collapse of the Soviet Union and the abolition of Communism usher in the End of History? Well, sure - but that's beside the point, since we're all Marxists now.

Let me explain. Karl Marx argued that life had been better in "noble savage" times without private property. Sure, people lived in caves, had but rudimentary tools, starved more often than not and died of old age at thirty - but they were just! Because his vision of an egalitarian world ran up against the notion of objective truth or virtue - something valued not only by Christian and Jewish philosophers but the Greeks and Romans before them - Marx railed about religion being the "opiate of the masses" and posited the existence of "communist truth", i.e. whatever was useful to the communist cause. Half a century later, his disciple Vladimir Ilyich Ulanov (better known as "Lenin") distilled this to a simple dichotomy: "Who-Whom".

While Marxism-Leninism was officially retired about two decades ago, cultural Marxism remained alive and well. And at its foundation is the relativistic logic proposed by Marx and championed by Lenin: it doesn't matter what is done, but who does it to whom. When "we" do something, that is by definition good, and when those Other People do the same thing - or even something considered virtuous under the wretched old "normative" logic  - it is by definition evil. Isn't it wonderful to have a moral compass that always points exactly where one wants it to?

Imagine the existence of an "activist group" funded by a foreign government, with a lewd name rendered only in a foreign language (e.g. Пизда Бунт), specializing in public acts of indecent exposure they call performance art, and therefore protected free speech. Imagine them barging into the National Cathedral in Washington, DC. Or wold it have to be a mosque? Or maybe an abortion clinic? One never knows what's actually considered sacred by the Imperial establishment these days. In any case, do you honestly think those very same media that cried crocodile tears over the fate of "Pussy Riot" wouldn't be leading the lynch mob, torches and rope in hand, in this instance?

Or do you think they'd sing them praises as brave pioneers of tolerance, diversity and freedom of expression - as they've done with "Pussy Riot"?

The answer to that question pretty much determines whether you're a cultural Marxist - i.e. believe in that relativistic pseudo-logic of who/whom - or not.

Now, standing up for the downtrodden workers exploited by the Industrial Revolution's robber barons is a good thing. But the bright shining future Marx envisioned for them involved caves. They were concrete instead of stone, but that's hardly the point. The equality he envisioned turned into a coerced equality of misery for most, and a life of plenty for a few. How exactly was that a good thing? I've lived in a Marxist society, and I've seen how quickly and easily it morphed  into the worst version of pagan nihilism. When you make people believe they are no better than animals, don't be surprised when they bite.

To be fair, cultural Marxism is no more an American value than original Marxism was a Russian value. Both were imposed on their host nations, if by different means. And it isn't just a thing of the "left" (democrats, reformers, progressives, whatever), either. The "right" is hardly different, amounting to at best a caricature opposition. They say they are defending tradition, but are no longer capable of articulating what that tradition is, much less why it's worth fighting for. (See the just-finished RNC convention in Tampa for a host of examples). To a 1950s liberal, a typical "conservative" of today would seem to the left of Stalin.

Besides, targets of Imperial "do-gooderism" worldwide certainly don't care whether their murderers wear ties or tie-dyes. Dead is dead.

Whatever you want to call the ideology currently dominating the West (Transnational Progressivism, Globalism, One-Worldism, Secular Humanism, etc.), its basic philosophy is Marxist and neo-pagan. It loathes tradition, family and kinship, property and commerce. It extols coercion, violence, welfare and conflict. And it disguises itself with pleasant-sounding words whose meaning has either been reversed or eliminated entirely: equality, democracy, freedom, diversity.

Not content with dismantling their own countries in this manner, the followers of this ideology  desire to remake the world as well. In that, they are aided by veritable cults of fanatical followers,  drawn by promises of riches and power but find fulfillment only in the feeling of smug self-righteousness: the "human rights activists" and "NGOs" (funded by foreign governments, ironically), professional revolutionaries and their spear-carriers, useful idiots and true believers.

They target Christianity and Judaism, though for the time being they seem to have a love affair with Islam. It isn't a cozy relationship; both the riots in Europe and the bloodbaths in Iraq and Afghanistan offer object lessons in what happens when Islam and cultural Marxism mix. Not surprisingly, the cultural Marxists refuse to acknowledge the problem exists, since that would clash  with their narrative.

Fight back, and the mainstream media - as well as the twitterati and blogger brigades serving the Cult of Death - declare you uncivilized, primitive, retrograde, repressive. Pure projection, all of it - for it is they who desire to abolish civilization, extol force as the arbiter of all, wish to reverse the history of humanity and repress anyone who dissents. Much as they loathe the naive evangelicals who believe their actions can bring about the Rapture, the secular cult is exactly like them, in that they seek to "immanentize the Eschaton", bringing about the End of History by obliterating all competing thought.

Their ultimate objective is not universal happiness. Nor is it diversity, equality, freedom, democracy or justice. Those are but flowery phrases that are mere means to an end. And that end is "all the kingdoms of this world, and the glory of them." This is why they hate Christianity, for its unequivocal rejection of that offer. And why they attack Orthodoxy in particular: because, unlike most other branches of Christianity, it still persists in upholding that rejection.

Not Just A River in Egypt

An acquaintance of mine is vacationing on Cyprus, and recently posted this to her Facebook page:

The people of Cyprus are pretty religious and very Orthodox Christian. They keep icons on their desk in business offices, including the bank. Wednesday, the 15th, is dedicated to the Mother of God and it's a national holiday. Everything is closed.

But the cheapest satellite network here is the Nile Network [NTN], which the British here subscribe to for their holiday rental apartments and houses so that people on holiday have something to watch and they don't have to pay much. The Nile Network includes both Al Jazeera and CNN, and breaks 5 times a day for Muslim prayer. In the middle of an old American action movie (in English, with Arabic subtitles), an imam will come on and preach Islam - with English, Russian or Greek subtitles, depending on which holiday makers he is in the mood to hit today - for 15 minutes. The Nile Network tells you when a movie will be on, not as "Tuesday the 14th at 6 PM", but rather as "The Second Day (or 3rd) day of Ramadan at 6PM", so you have no idea when this movie is going to be on unless you check the Islamic calendar.

This place is pretty amazing. Most Greek Cypriots just basically ignore it all, never would subscribe to the Nile Network even for their holiday rentals, and kind of think that the British are a bit nuts.

A beach in Cyprus

The Cypriots might be onto something here. What else should one think of a tourist who pays good money to visit Cyprus, and instead of enjoying the local charms - food, landscapes, people, culture, etc. - they sit at their rental  and watch American action movies, with breaks for Islam?

Nile's Wikipedia page lists the network's goals thus (emphasis added):

• Address foreign viewers in Egypt and all over the world with regard to culture, economy, tourism, and art, and to initiate a constructive dialogue between different cultures in foreign languages. 
• Present the views of the Egyptian government and people on various issues concerning the Arab World and the Middle East, as well as global issues. 
• Reflect the image of modern Egypt, and all its concrete achievements in the form of national projects in the fields of education, women's rights, health care, and the establishment of a democratic atmosphere. 
• Broadcast news events from Egypt and the Arab World, and analyzing and discussing them with officials, politicians, analysts and cultured Egyptians, Arabs and foreigners in foreign languages. 
• Present objective news on international events, analyzing and discussing those events to help foreign viewers understand the truth about the Egyptian and Arab stances on the current international events in order to protect foreign viewers from falling prey to biased media. 
• Present images of Egypt and reflect its religions and values, humanitarian and tolerance. 

All the standard buzzwords and catchphrases are there. When you distill the verbiage, you're left with an understanding that Nile is an Egyptian propaganda channel. There's nothing wrong with that, mind you. But it's very interesting that they wrap that propaganda in American action movies - hardly a reflection of Egyptian "religion and values." 

I've observed a similar phenomenon in Serbia, where a network called B92 injects its propaganda (also called "news") into a stream of American entertainment programming. Not surprisingly, B92 was directly funded by the Empire for years - and may still be; though the station's ownership has supposedly changed, its slant hasn't changed in the slightest. The difference here is that NTN is spreading Egyptian propaganda abroad, while B92 is spreading Imperial propaganda at home (sometimes with hilarious results). Yet they have the same modus operandi: come for the fun, stay for the indoctrination.

Needless to say, this kind of propaganda works best on a thoroughly disoriented audience: people whose own culture, heritage, identity and values have been systematically stripped away. That way, when someone else's ideas and values are presented to them, they are embraced as a breath of fresh air. Earlier this year, indie Finnish satire Iron Sky played this for laughs in a subplot where a PR wizard earnestly brands an electoral campaign with ideas from actual Nazis (from the Moon!). 

Have the British been so tenderized? Brendan O'Neill seems to think so, illustrating the claim with examples of reactions against the people who dared dislike the opening ceremony of the Olympics. He also argued that the arrest of a boy who sent a nasty tweet to a British diver showed a "culture of intolerance" that has developed in the UK - paradoxically, in the name of imposing "tolerance" and "diversity." British tourists are already showing an alarming lack of judgment by choosing to watch TV while vacationing in what is by all accounts an exceptionally beautiful country. So, who knows?

Nile TV is merely exploiting an opening provided to it by culture warriors in the West. Serbs at least have a cause to be angry at B92, as it both creates and exploits the confusion in their society. If the British tourists fall for any of Nile's propaganda, it will be nobody's fault but their own. 

Hostile Actions

The online edition of Albuquerque Journal ran a story today, almost entirely based on a New Mexico National Guard press release, that three Guard members are scheduled to receive Purple Hearts, "for injuries they received during hostile actions in Kosovo on Sept. 27, 2011."

What was it that happened in Kosovo on September 27 last year? Oh, yes: the Americans opened fire on unarmed Serb demonstrators, injuring several. I wrote about it then, and another blogger has helpfully collected a selection of video clips, stills and background information.

But to hear the ABQJ tell the story, "New Mexico troops helped prevent a Serbian mob from breaking through a border crossing and potentially killing a group of German soldiers on the NATO team, the Journal reported last December."

NATO's actual mission (from The Weight of Chains)

First of all, that was no "border crossing," but a checkpoint on the road between (the occupied Serbian province of) Kosovo and (the rest of) Serbia. Granted, the U.S. government believes that "Kosovia" is an independent state, and has tried to impose this belief on the rest of the world. But the very least a journalist could do is acknowledge that there is in fact a dispute. Secondly, the "Serbian mob" consisted of unarmed civilians. The German soldiers had body armor, rifles and tanks. Who was really a threat to whom? But since one can hardly have a story of heroism involving Our Boys ("New Mexico troops," to be precise) shooting at unarmed people whose land they are occupying, these inconvenient facts had to go.

At the time of the incident, KFOR claimed some of its troops were injured. They never offered any evidence for that, however - unlike the Serbs, who documented their injuries with photos and unedited video footage. But the ABQJ helpfully explained that the "The Purple Heart is awarded to members of the U.S. Armed Forces who are wounded by an instrument of war in the hands of the enemy and is specifically a combat decoration." (emphasis added)

There is no mention what the "instruments of war" allegedly used on the New Mexicans might have been. But note that the said instruments have to be wielded by "the enemy" in a combat situation. So by the NMNG's own admission, the Serbs of Kosovo are "the enemy" and NATO's "peacekeeping" mission is really a combat mission. Judging by KFOR's operational activities, the objective of that mission is to finalize the ethnic cleansing of Serbs begun in 1999, thus creating and securing a 100% Albanian "independent state of Kosovo."

Closing up the story, the ABQJ paraphrases a statement by former Guard commander, Maj. Gen. Montoya, who reportedly said that New Mexicans' handling of the situation was praised by U.S. "military leaders around the world" (?!) for "potentially stopping a new Kosovo war by managing conflict situations without lethal force."

Whoa. First we had the deliberate shooting of unarmed civilians re-told as Saving Gefreiter Gruber, and now it has morphed into "potentially stopping a new Kosovo war"? I used to wonder how the U.S. government and military could make embarrassingly stupid decisions; now that I know how divorced they are from objective reality, I wonder no more.

Final question: if live ammunition isn't "lethal force," General Montoya, what, pray tell, is? Unarmed Serbs, perhaps?

Footnote

From a regular reader:

"If New Mexico troops have now been granted Purple Hearts for routine crowd control duties, isn't it that much more imperative that NATO military authorities track down the identity of, and award the highest existing medals for bravery to, those daring NATO pilots who, dropping cluster bombs from a high altitude, risked their lives in a daring confrontation with enemy troops who would pass by the area unarmed thirteen years in the future?  Never have so many owed so much to so few."

Defining Empire, Again

Cleaning up some archival material the other day, I looked at the very first post here, almost eight years ago. At one point there, I said I would "define Empire only once". Looking at that definition, however, I find it wanting:

The best I can say is that it is not so much a place, as a state of mind (credit to Chris Deliso for the phrase). Though historical analogies are perilous, tempting inappropriate parallels and interfering with rational analysis, they are nonetheless a sort of practical shorthand for describing modern phenomena. Today’s Empire to me is what is colloquially known as “The West,” and is not just the U.S. or the E.U., but both...

From a distance of eight years, I can see a little better now. Though what I call the EUSSR is an adjunct of the Empire, a transnational-progressivist reiteration of the Soviet Union that bows to twelve yellow stars on a blue field instead of one on red, the actual Empire is headquartered in Washington. I've even taken to calling it the "Atlantic Empire" for the sake of precision, as it represents a continuation of the British Empire of yore in terms of geopolitical goals (if not quite ideology).

A 1942 movie about a cattle empire; irony deliberate

It was in October 2004 that an unnamed White House official - later identified as Karl Rove - spoke the famous words dismissing the "reality-based community" to Ron Suskind of the NYT Magazine: "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality."

That's precisely the "state of mind" I was talking about, though I didn't realize it then. Sure, EUrocrats try to change observable reality by twisting language and making up convoluted laws, but  they stop short of rearranging reality at gunpoint - mostly because they have become squeamish about warfare. Americans don't have that "problem." 

To people who share Rove's view of power - whether they call themselves Republicans, Democrats or something else - being an empire means one is no longer bound by anything. Not the Constitution, not natural or divine law, not language, and not even physical reality. Everything is just a function of the Nietzschean "will to power". If they want something, they take it, by whatever means are most expedient. They can make excuses afterwards, or in many cases not even bother. As one former UN GenSec wrote, they see "little need for diplomacy; power is enough."

Is it? Judging by the extent to which Imperial will has been thwarted by actual reality at every step, no, power isn't enough. Examples are legion, from Afghanistan and Iraq, to Empire's failure to impose its will in Bosnia, or fully crush Serbia, or compel the world to recognize "Kosovo" as an independent state.

A thousand years ago, the Viking king of England ordered his chair be set on a beach, and commanded the waves to halt. Obviously, they did not. According to chronicler Henry of Huntingdon (Historia Anglorum), Canute the Great then said, "Let all men know how empty and worthless is the power of kings, for there is none worthy of the name, but He whom heaven, earth, and sea obey by eternal laws."

Yet the way most people think today, Canute was a fool who really thought he could command the tide - thus missing the whole point of his little demonstration, intended to show the importance of reality to his sycophantic courtiers. 

In ancient Rome, imperium meant "power to command" - i.e. state authority over the individual. Today, it denotes the belief that one state - the U.S. - has authority over the rest of the world. It is an idea the founders of America would have recoiled in horror from, recognizing it as the ancient sin of hubris. Yet there we have it.

Until the tide comes in, anyway.

Interesting Times

It has been a year since the self-proclaimed "Kosovian" authorities tried to take over the Serb-inhabited north of the occupied province. When they failed, NATO and EULEX were called in - only to be thwarted by non-violent protests of the local population. Tanks and live gunfire could clear the road temporarily, though it soon became clear that they could kill the Serbs - and face the consequences once the footage hit YouTube (which it would have within minutes) - but they could not compel them to obedience. Harassment has continued ever since - just this morning, Polish troops had sealed off one road, while "Kosovian" Very Special Police robbed a Serb bank last week - but it looks like both the "Kosovarians" and their Imperial sponsors are waiting for the new/old regime in Belgrade to find a way of surrendering the occupied territory and the Serbs therein.

(Yes, those were links from B92, because they were the only links in English I could find. There's definitely a gaping hole ready to be filled with English-language news coverage that would not be in service of Serbia's enemies.)

Saturday was also the anniversary of Austria-Hungary's 1914 ultimatum to Serbia, the true start of the Great War; a century hence, some still blame Serbia and Russia for upsetting the old Imperial order. Times change, but the argument remains the same; the invader always wonders why we refuse to just die already. Can't say I have much sympathy for either the argument, or the invaders making it.

When I say that "all of this has happened before, and is happening again", I'm not just using a catchphrase from Battlestar Galactica; the scenario developed for Balkans interventions (first in Bosnia, then in "Kosovia") is actually being applied to Syria. The trouble with imagining oneself as a knight-errant is that the rest of the world is then divided into two categories only: dragons and damsels in distress. Delusional much?

The other problem with interventionism is that it just doesn't work. Sure, it can force things temporarily - kind of like what KFOR does with the barricades in Thacistan - but that just creates more problems down the line. The 1878 Congress of Berlin, for example, "solved" the Balkans crisis in a way that made WW1 almost inevitable. Yet now some people want to do it again.

While I haven't done much writing here lately - most of my attention has been devoted to the other blog, Antiwar.com columns and some translation and editing work - I did manage to add some blog links. If you are interested in news from and about Syria (actual news, not the propaganda), the Moon of Alabama blog is the place to go. I've also added the blog of a sometime commenter and very astute writer, "Hero of Crappy Town" (fans of Firefly will get the reference). I should have done so much sooner.

I'll see July off with something I've said before, but may as well say again. The Empire is constantly harping on about how the people it has "helped" need to "come to terms with reality" - but by that it means the virtual reality, established and maintained through lies and coercion. Meanwhile, the Empire itself refuses to accept actual reality, and the gap between the two is widening by the day.

These are interesting times, indeed. In a very Chinese sense of the word.

RIP Alexander Cockburn

Alexander Cockburn, 1941-2012

Late yesterday I heard that Alexander Cockburn had passed away, at the age of 71. He had cancer that ended up being terminal, but chose not to make it into a public spectacle (unlike, say, Christopher Hitchens). A prolific writer and outstanding editor, he kept writing till the very end, and his pen remained as sharp as ever.

It was just a month ago that I caught one of his pieces in CounterPunch, and commented on it. The magazine had been one of the few voices consistently opposing Imperial meddling under the guise of "humanitarianism", whether in the Balkans or elsewhere.

The fact that Cockburn and his associates self-identified as leftists, yet as an avowed libertarian with a monarchist streak I found myself agreeing with them more often than not, just goes to show how pointless these labels are for understanding the business of humanity.

There is a line in the great Serb epic, The Mountain Wreath, that goes something like this: "Blessed are those who live forever, for their births had purpose." I can't think of a more fitting epitaph for this great man. I hope his soul finds peace, and his words continue to inspire others to fight the darkness, madness and despair that ever seek to drown the world.

Succor From an Unlikely Source

Lord of the Rings (from Wikipedia)

As a big fan of J.R.R. Tolkien's work, and Peter Jackson's screen adaptations thereof, I was amused by something a friend mentioned this morning. The amusing part is not that Jackson's movie trilogy is currently being shown in Serbia, but by whom: none other than a TV network originally established and funded by the Empire to spread pro-Imperial and anti-Serb (or am I repeating myself here?) propaganda. How ironic is it that they are now showing - most likely in a bid to improve their ratings - an epic that stands for everything they fight against, from liberty, tradition, honor and decency, to resisting the seemingly unstoppable military and propaganda might of Mordor?

That led me to contemplate how the "Lord of the Rings" would look if amended and adapted to fit the Imperial vision of the world, promoted by this particular network and the quisling cult it serves. Perhaps it would involve a panel of "expert analysts", explaining to the public what the story really means:

• Bilbo Baggins is a thief and a rogue, who stole the Ring from its rightful owner, Gollum;
• Gollum is an exemplar for progressive citizenry, putting above all the search for his personal pleasure, the "Preciouss";
• Frodo, Sam, Merry and Pippin are dangerous terrorists who got a hold of a Weapon of Mass Destruction;
• Aragorn represents the anachronistic and outdated institution of hereditary monarchy;
• Legolas and Gimli are closeted LGBTQ persons;
• Elrond and Galadriel are selfish Elves who refuse to share their bountiful wealth with the underprivileged Orcs of Misty Mountains. Moreover, they aided the Fellowship's invasion and destruction of Moria, which the peaceful Orcs barely managed to liberate from their Dwarvish oppressors, with Sauron's selfless aid;
• Gandalf is the instrument of the Wizard-Elvish conspiracy against peace and welfare of all the peoples of Middle Earth, offered by the legitimate overlord Sauron;
• Sauron is the misunderstood, well-intentioned peacemaker, who only wishes to integrate all of Middle Earth and usher in an end to history of warfare and strife;
• Saruman is a realist, who understands the value of Mordor's politics of peace. He promotes industrial development and biological research, for which he is targeted by fanatical eco-terrorists;
• The Nazgul only wanted to retrieve the WMD from the Hobbit terrorists, but the evil Gandalf murdered their poor innocent horses at Bruinen, and later interfered in their humanitarian air patrols over the bandit Rohirrim and rebels of Gondor;
• Theoden is a crazed dictator, leading his people to ruin by choosing to fight Sauron and Saruman instead of reaching a peaceful settlement with them, abolishing the anachronistic monarchy and living in peace under the progressive, pragmatic democrat Grima Wormtongue;
• Denethor is a wise leader of Gondor, usurped by evil wizard-conspirator Gandalf, who also turned his sons to treason. Boromir is the misunderstood hero, while Faramir an incompetent fool holding outdated ideals;
• The siege of Minas Tirith was Mordor's legitimate response to the aggression of Elven "Axis of Evil" (Rivendell-Lothlorien), led by Gandalf, and the terrorist activities of the Fellowship...

And so on.

You may laugh at the obvious twisting of the story, but this is precisely the kind of poisonous drivel being poured into the eyes and ears of Serbs for years now, via this particular TV network and many others, by various servants of Empire: NATO lobbyists, self-proclaimed reformers, promoters of regional autonomy, "cultural decontamination," liberal and other Democrats, etc. The entire ideology of Serbia's quisling cult is servitude - to the Empire and its coercive might - expressed through contempt for liberty, justice, tradition and natural values.


There is a great quote from Gandalf, midway through The Two Towers: "Oft evil will shall evil mar." True enough, for in a bid to improve its ability to tell lies, the cult's TV is actually giving succor to those who oppose the present-day Sauron and his servants. Irony is not dead, and there is yet hope for the world.

Purported Proof

Regular reader jack brought to my attention this bit of news:

NATO tied to Muslim Slaughter at Srebrenica

BELGRADE – A French major, serving with their intelligence services, fled to Belarus with the evidence that war crimes committed in Srebrenica in 1995.

The documents he presented shows that the "genocide" blamed on Serbians was organized by the American, British and French secret intelligence service, and carried out by a paramilitary group known as the "Scorpions" in order for the alleged genocide to be blamed on the military and civilian officials of the Republic of Serbian (RS) – learned Pravda.

According to our source, the major French military intelligence DRM has evidence that the wartime commander of the VRS Main [sic] Staff, Ratko Mladic was not aware of these activities. From these documents, which are in the possession of Belarus, the French officer requested and received political asylum on the June 29, 2012 in Minsk.

The documents clearly show that Naser Oric and all the commanders of the Army of Bosnia/Herzegovina (Muslim) in this part of eastern Bosnia were under constant control of the western intelligence services.

Oric was the Bosnian Muslim commander in Srebrenica and was convicted by the ICC of war crimes against Serbs but found "not guilty" of broader crimes of ethnic cleansing.

What do I make of this? I take it with a chunk of salt. For one thing, there seems to be a bit of confusion about the militia that is supposed to have been operating on foreign orders: this report has it as the “Scorpions”, but where does the 10th Sabotage Detachment (which includes "star witness" Erdemovic) fit in, then? The Milosevic assassination plot that men from the 10th were previously associated with ("Operation Spider") has somehow morphed into a plot to kill Mladic. In other words, I'd like to see some of the purported evidence before I come to any sort of conclusion.

I understand why some Serbs might jump on to this as proof of Serb innocence in the Srebrenica case. But it's worth remembering what they say about things too good to be true. For all I know, this could be a "Hitler diaries" type plot, aiming to discredit the legitimate criticism of the official Srebrenica narrative - based on cold, hard facts and forensic criticism of "evidence" produced by the ICTY - through association with crackpot theories.

That said, there is still a mystery of why Oric was put through a show trial - first convicted and sentenced to two years for the laughable charge of "knowing that prisoners were mistreated", then acquitted altogether. Unlike other warlords who served Izetbegovic, only to learn that one of his few principles was that "dead men tell no tales", Oric is still alive - and a prosperous "businessman" at that. I'm honestly curious as to how. But I can't riddle whether him being an Imperial asset, and not just Izetbegovic's, would have made his survival more or less likely. After all, Empire's Serbian assets have been given lengthy sentences (Perisic, Plavsic) or may die before their verdict (Stanisic).

We'll have to wait and see.

The Stench of Puppetry

Imperial envoy P. T. Reeker (Wikipedia)

Asked why he was visiting Serbia this week, Imperial envoy Philip Reeker responded that Belgrade was a "beautiful city." True, but entirely beside the point. Only a complete naif would believe that the real motive of this Foggy Bottom operative (with lengthy prior experience in the Balkans, no less) was sightseeing the indisputable natural beauties of the Serbian capital during the unprecedented midsummer heatwave - rather than, say, the delicate talks concerning the new government of Serbia.

Two months after the general election, reasonably believed to have been rigged, Serbia has a President and a parliament, but no cabinet yet. At first it appeared that the previous alliance of coalitions around the Democrats and the Socialists would be in charge again, until the Socialists switched partners and began talking to the Progressives.

(If you need a cheat sheet to keep track who's who, look here.)

All of a sudden the Empire noticed that the Socialists' leader used to be an aide to Slobodan Milošević; this bothered them not a bit four years ago, when his "pragmatism" enabled the Democrats' total takeover of state and institutions of society. Even though the new, Progressive president pledged to be a good and loyal client, the Empire doesn't know whether he can be trusted. So to preclude any possibility of Serbia wiggling out of its chains, Reeker was sent to Belgrade. And after he leaves, another Foggy Bottom official, Philip Gordon, will visit to reinforce the message.

The notoriously unreliable mainstream media in Serbia - largely controlled by the ousted Democrats - are churning out the wildest rumors, so it's difficult to figure out what that message might be. But not impossible.

One possibility is that Reeker and Gordon are trying to put together a "Grand Coalition", between the Progressives and the freshly ousted Democrats, in which the former president and Imperial sycophant Boris Tadić would have a role. Unlikely as this may sound, the Empire did manage to force just such a coalition on Vojislav Koštunica, back in 2007. Granted, the Democrats backstabbed that cabinet at every opportunity, and were directly responsible for toppling that government just as the Empire declared the occupied province of Kosovo "independent" - so that experience alone ought to serve as a cautionary tale.

Another option is that the envoys are not trying to dictate the cabinet's composition as such; Washington doesn't really give a damn who runs Serbia, so long as they remain aware they only rule at Imperial sufferance, and that any power they have is there solely in service of orders from Foggy Bottom. That means not just selling the Serbs of Kosovo down the Ibar River and acquiescing in the occupied province becoming Albania II, but continuing the policies of their predecessor in destroying the rest of Serbia from within. Remember: any size Serbia is too big for Empire's liking, and the only good Serb is an ex-Serb.

By far the most optimistic scenario is that Reeker and Gordon are merely trying to secure the new government's submission on the question of "Kosovia." So long as Belgrade leaves the "independent republic of Thacistan" alone, and delivers the defiant Serb remnant into its "loving" embrace, Washington couldn't care less what else they do. However, that would mean the Empire abandoning the notion of dominating Serbia itself, for both fun and profit. Given that having a puppet Serbia is pretty much the linchpin of Empire's "responsibility to protect" and "atrocity prevention" narrative, how likely is that?

All of the leaders and parties involved in the cabinet dance have pledged to obey the Empire, to greater or lesser extent. Tadić may have been the most flamboyant quisling, but Mlađan Dinkić has been steadily ravaging Serbia's economy for 12 years now. Ivica Dačić hopped on the Imperial bandwagon four years ago. And let's not forget that Tomislav Nikolić "rebooted" himself to be more to Empire's liking when he stopped being a Radical and became Progressive.

Will any of them have the intestinal fortitude to tell Reeker that Empire's vision for Serbia stinks? I doubt it.

Spoiled Wards of Nanny State

The past several days I've had to deal with power, phone and internet outages due to a freak storm that swept through the Imperial capital on Friday. Much as I'm tempted to rail against such poorly set-up infrastructure that tends to collapse under any sort of inclement weather, I'll save it for another time.

What I missed in the ensuing chaos was the storm of vitriol directed at my friend and colleague Ilana Mercer, over the column wherein she criticized the emotional response to the story of the bullied bus monitor. Being as I focus on Imperial shenanigans in my ancestral lands, I had not seen the video of Karen Klein being cruelly mocked by teenage boys. Once I watched it, I found Ilana's conclusion entirely reasonable. Why did Klein just sit there and take it? What has this society come to, when children can bully adults, and the adults are too craven to talk - let alone fight - back?

I hear the same thing is happening in the lands of my birth now. Elementary and high school students bringing weapons, abusing teachers, even threatening and physically assaulting them. But we had wars and societal collapse (a.k.a. "transition"); what's America's excuse?

Even worse than the outrageous behavior of boys on the bus - which would've been unthinkable even a generation ago, as their fathers would have seen to it they couldn't sit down for a while thereafter - was the vitriolic response to Ilana's article. I won't quote any of it, for it is far too foul; see for yourself. Nothing better than displaying one's "compassion" by being contemptuous of someone else, right? What the hell has happened to this country, when people react like this to a reasoned argument, just because their precious feelings are hurt?

And then it struck me: the bus monitor, her tormentors, and those trolls - they were all children. Children of the Nanny State, who's always coddled them from any criticism and taught them they were entitled to everything they could beg, borrow and steal, without any responsibility, ever.

Worse, I know children who have actually exhibited a grasp of logic and the ability to use it. These spoiled brats, real and metaphorical, don't bother. They operate purely on emotion, getting offended, "feeling" this and that (never "thinking" - that'd be presumptuous and might offend Nanny), and ever crying at the top of their lungs when something isn't to their liking. So calling them children is an insult to honest children everywhere - but I'm at a loss for metaphors here.

A semi-literate farmer in the era of Jefferson, Washington and Franklin possessed more reason than most "educated" Americans today (and I daresay many in other countries, also afflicted with nanny-statism). People back then took up arms against what they saw as excessive taxation and meddling - what their descendants today would deride as "not enough government", sadly - and even accepted the challenge to explain why, using the philosophical language of Locke and Hume, talking about liberty, equality before the law and natural rights. Most of their descendants today wouldn't recognize a natural right if it socked them on the jaw. Or identify tyranny, even if it's been systematically pilfering their pockets and their minds for years.

It's a sad state of affairs - pun very much intended. And while I'm sorry Ilana had to deal with the tantrums of spoiled brats, at least her experience offers a lesson to us all about the stunted minds of postmodern "citizens" and their complete disrespect for actual adults.

Foundation of Lies

Bombs for "democracy"

Earlier this month, "Kosovarians" marked the anniversary of their "liberation" - i.e. the beginning of NATO's occupation of the Serbian province claimed by the terrorist KLA. Now, the Kosovo War was illegal and illegitimate, and its conduct doubly so - characterized by barbaric attacks on Serbian infrastructure and civilian targets, with the intent to demoralize and disrupt civilians. Most casualties suffered by the Yugoslav Army were along the Albanian border, while repelling the KLA invasion, and not from NATO airstrikes.

After the armistice was signed, however, the Empire wasn't satisfied merely with selectively applying its terms - it falsified the war's aftermath as well. A commission of "independent experts" was hired to proclaim it "illegal but legitimate." Despite solemn proclamations that the sovereignty of Yugoslavia (and later Serbia) would not be violated, the process of creating the "independent state of Kosovo" began almost right away. But perhaps most importantly, the actual combat reports were falsified in order to create the impression that the war was "won" by air power alone.

As Alexander Cockburn notes in Couterpunch yesterday, that falsification had far-reaching effects:

"[t]he Kosovo campaign’s apparent confirmation that bombs and missiles could achieve a victory at no cost in friendly casualties, and in a good cause too, undoubtedly prepared the political landscape for the automated drone warfare so eagerly embraced by our current leadership."

Indeed, as early as March 2003 it was obvious to some observers that Kosovo provided a precedent for the invasion of Iraq (and subsequently Libya).

Now, if NATO had not in fact beaten the Yugoslav Army, why did Belgrade surrender? The answer is very simple: it didn't. Even Cockburn makes a mistake of saying that Yugoslav President Milošević "accepted the allied terms", attributing that decision to Moscow's betrayal. While Yugoslavia was in fact betrayed by the puppet government of Boris Yeltsin - which some have argued played a crucial role in Yeltsin's subsequent demise and the rise of Vladimir Putin - it happened following the armistice, not prior.

The terms agreed upon in Kumanovo and built into UNSCR 1244 were different from NATO's demands prior to the war, in three crucial respects: NATO accepted UN authority over the province, there was no clause giving the Albanians independence after three years, and there was no mention of NATO's open access to the rest of Serbia (the infamous Appendix B of the Rambouillet ultimatum). On paper at least, NATO did not win an unconditional victory. That's why they proceeded to creatively reinterpret the paper.

Cheating the Serbs by altering the deal at gunpoint was one thing. Wrecking what was left of international law to establish the "independent Republic of Kosovo," was something else altogether. But perhaps worst of all, the falsified narrative of Kosovo as both the "good war" and a successful one has contributed to the quagmires in Iraq and Afghanistan, the disaster of Libya and the bloodshed in Syria. Something similar happened with the deceptive success of the "revolution" in Serbia (2000), leading to its replication around the world.

The lies then beget atrocities, which beget more lies. And so on, until the whole thing comes crashing down, in fire and blood.

Life Imitating Art

HBO's recent comedy hit Veep was inspired - well, adapted from - a fantastic British comedy called  The Thick of It, which shows politics from the (sordid, self-serving, incompetent) inside. The creator of both shows is Armando Ianucci, who was recently honored with the OBE (in a funny twist, this prompted a Twitter war with Blair spin doctor Alastair Campbell, who is generally assumed to be the inspiration for the character of Malcolm Tucker on the show).

Showing just how accurately Ianucci's comedy skewers British politicians is a video of actual events that was uploaded to YouTube yesterday, and has since gone viral. It shows the EU commissar for foreign relations, Baroness Ashton, panicking before meeting the new president of Serbia (who visited Brussels last week), because she doesn't know what he looks like!

Fellow Brit Robert Cooper, Ashton's envoy for the "talks" between Serbia and the self-proclaimed "Republic of Kosovo", is no help. "Neither do I," he responds to Ashton's request. Fortunately, an aide has a picture, and Ashton is soon happily grinning next to the visiting Serb.

The ignorance is particularly embarrassing considering that Nikolić had been a presidential candidate in 2004 and 2008, narrowly losing to EU's preferred quisling Boris Tadić; upon winning this time, he was criticized by numerous EU officials for his "nationalism" and statements challenging the Official Truth about the Yugoslav Wars. And they don't even know what he looks like!

Yes, they really are that incompetent. And far less powerful than they seem.

A Scoop of Quisling Pabulum

It isn't often that I want to facepalm when watching RT, but yesterday was one such moment.

Serbia's new President just returned from Brussels, where he basically assured the Eurocrats he  would continue the suicidal policies of his predecessor and EU/US drone, Boris Tadić. But Serbia doesn't have a new cabinet yet, so figuring out whether its policies will actually change remains a matter for speculation.

I suppose RT thought it would be a good idea to bypass the political operatives and speak to a diplomat, whose job after all is to represent the country, regardless of who were in charge. After all, as English diplomat Henry Wotton once famously observed, an ambassador is a "honest man sent to lie abroad for the good of his country." So they interviewed Serbia's Ambassador to the UK, Dejan Popović. Now, in a normal country, their assumption would have been entirely warranted. But remember, this is Serbia we're talking about. And in post-2000 Serbia, the "good of his country" part was officially redacted from that observation, and replaced with "for the EU and the Empire."

"Serbian" ambassador to the UK

Two minutes on Wikipedia, or even the Embassy's own website, could have saved them the trouble. Popović, a former law professor, was Deputy Finance Minister in the 2001-2004 DOS government, and subsequently deputy chancellor of the Belgrade University. Before becoming ambassador, he was on president Тadić's "privy council." He may claim not to be affiliated with any party, but how plausible is that? In post-2000 Serbia, no one can get even menial jobs without party connections. Yet this man was a deputy minister, vice-chancellor of the country's biggest university, member of the president's inner circle and an ambassador, supposedly without any party pull. Not possible. The only question is only which party, the Democrats or the disgraced bankster G-17, which has now morphed into United Regions?

Judging by the stupidities he spewed in the interview, it could be either. Supposedly the voters didn't care for the EU or Kosovo, but were "not satisfied with the performance of the economy." So that's how one says "you bastards ruined the country so badly, we're eating out of trash bins" in European, the language of the ruling quisling cult! More importantly, however, the only basis for his conclusion are the official election results. Which, let's remember, were absurdly unreal, doctored and tampered with. Anyone trying to make sense of them is wasting time, as they are nonsensical.

The way Popović prattles on about the economy is simply offensive, as if Serbia magically woke up in its present predicament, and this development had nothing whatsoever to do with his Democrat-bankster bosses. Nope, must have been unicorns from outer space who indebted the country to 45% of the GDP, brought unemployment to 25%, and put the country in a position where there would be no choice but to "enter a very strict domain of austerity measures".

That's rich, by the way, coming from a government that's grown in size even as it mercilessly suffocated every productive endeavor in the country. Božidar Đelić, Popović's direct superior in the DOS government, was nicknamed "the Flayer" (Derikoža) for the array of taxes he imposed upon the economy devastated by war and sanctions. Somehow I don't see the new Serbian government getting any smaller, lowering taxes on productive enterprises, or stopping the funding of soul-sucking NGOs. Oh yes, that's a pretty paradox right there, a government drowning the country in debt while giving 44 million Euros annually to fund the "non-governmental organizations" by and large focused on destroying the country from within! That's like deliberately infecting someone with AIDS, then feigning surprise that they are bleeding to death from Ebola.

Asked whether it was feasible for Serbia to pursue EU annexation and stay friends with Russia, he gushed that it absolutely was. Why, such "very good friends of Russia, for instance Bulgaria or Croatia" were in the EU or about to join! Um, last I heard, both of those were members of NATO and Washington's obedient vassals. How did he figure they were "friends of Russia"? Is that like the "friends of Syria"?

What about NATO membership? Oh no, no, Tadić said Serbia would be neutral, and the Constitution said Kosovo was part of Serbia. Surely no politician can disobey the Constitution, right? Or say one thing to his people and the other to the Empire? Right?

The ambassador showcased the "depth" of his economic and political understanding by arguing that the EU was a lofty collection of noble values, which will outlast the economic and fiscal woes. He best not leave the kiddy-pool without a life vest. The EU was built on a promise of prosperity through welfare statism. Clearly, that concept is now collapsing - as is its American variation, prosperity through oligarchy and conquest. Which country is actually prospering, debt-free and trying to hammer out a new form of government that would guarantee the liberty of its citizens without devolving into teleoperated mob rule? You've guessed it: Russia.

But the straw that broke the back of the proverbial camel was Popović's handling - or rather, mangling - of the Srebrenica question. Namely, president-elect Nikolić had recently told a radio show that Srebrenica was a horrific war crime, but not genocide - for which he was condemned by Bosnian Muslims, Brussels and Washington alike.

The Ambassador had plenty of room to maneuver here. Nikolić did condemn the atrocity, and executing POWs is bad enough there is no need to gild the lily by defining it as "genocide." The  ICJ verdict that keeps getting mentioned actually rejected the claim that "genocide" happened in Bosnia, and they only referred to Srebrenica as such because of a deliberate decision to take the verdicts of the ICTY (unlike the ICJ, an illegitimate court) at face value. Yet there is a growing body of level-headed evidence showing that the ICTY manifestly failed to prove the case for genocide in Srebrenica. Even the infamous parliamentary resolution promoted by the Tadic regime described Srebrenica as a "serious war crime", never mentioning the word "genocide."

No serious diplomat would allow himself to admit to genocide, regardless of his personal feelings in the matter, and even if it were true (which, again, is very much debatable). Instead, Popović did just that, and even reinforced it by saying he ought to know, as a lawyer and law professor! For that alone, he should be sacked immediately.

I don't know what RT was expecting out of the interview, but instead of getting a scoop on the new President's policies, what they got instead was a dollop of pabulum from the quisling regime still clinging to power, presented by a pathetic excuse for a diplomat who clearly cares more about the Brussels Reich than about his own country and people.

D'oh.

New Boss, Same as Old Boss

New face, same promises: Nikolic in Brussels

Though the jury was out on it for a few weeks, it is now apparent that the election of Tomislav Nikolic to Serbian presidency was leveraged into a victory of the Empire. Nikolic has just returned from Brussels professing undying devotion to the EU, which means he intends to continue Tadic's suicidal course.

On the other hand, the Imperial media are using his election as the opportunity to demonize Serbia once more (not that they need much of an excuse). In turn, Nikolic's handlers are invoking this to tell the confused Serbs, "Look, he's a nationalist! He's not actually a quisling! He's just pretending to be a quisling so he can fool the Empire. Trust him!"

If that's an act, give the man an Oscar right now.

Meanwhile, the cabinet talks are still ongoing. Yesterday a tabloid owned by the Democrats (most of them are) claimed that an agreement was reached for a grand coalition of the Democrats, Socialists, Liberal-Democrats and United Regions (reference my handy guide to Serbian politics if this is confusing). The rumor was never confirmed, but it spread through Serbia like wildfire. Meanwhile, the Progressives are talking to the Socialists and, well, whoever.

No doubt there will be someone from the previous government in the new one, making Serbian politics much like those of the Bosnian Federation. In other words, even if someone had in mind to reform the system, there's no way that can be done in a precarious coalition with a partner that benefited from that system. Vojislav Kostunica and Zlatko Lagumdzija have had to learn this the hard way. I doubt Nikolic is even interested in trying.

Until a prime minister is appointed, however, Serbia's day-to-day affairs are run by the previous cabinet - only now the ministers have even less responsibility for their actions, because they are lame ducks. Whose policies are they actually implementing? The ones in effect before the May 6 general election? Those of their respective party leaderships? Those of the new President? Well, hardly, because the president isn't supposed to make policy. One can forgive the confusion of people who didn't know this, since all they've had to go on is Tadic, who notoriously violated that principle by staying the boss of the Democratic Party while holding the office of President, and essentially ran the country as an autocrat - albeit one teleoperated from Brussels and Washington.

Nikolic and the Progressives have shown nothing to indicate they had any sort of vision for Serbia, or even how they intend to do things differently. In the current vacuum, the Empire and the old regime are doing their best to ensure that even if they decided to try and untangle Serbia from the web of servitude to the Empire, they would never get a chance.

No wonder that a country where politics comes down to parties calling themselves Democrats, Socialists and Progressives is in such horrible shape. I don't know what sort of reaction might emerge to Serbia's corrupt, quisling oligarchy, but I wouldn't be the least surprised if it turned out to be decidedly non-political.

Following the Money

Despite numerous cogent analyses, and even frank admissions by former and current Imperial officials, indicating that their interventions around the world - and specifically in the Balkans - have been motivated by considerations of power, there are still some who maintain that the wars were all about the money.

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the force driving politicians. Most of us normal folk want money because with enough of it (and how much is ever enough?) we think we can afford all the comforts of life we desire. But once you reach a certain level of power, money ceases to be an object. You don't have to worry about purchasing things; you can simply take them.

The other day an Imperial propaganda outfit revealed that Wesley Clark, the "General who led NATO’s campaign against Serbia in 1999" (that's one way of putting it) has asked Kosovo's government (sic) "for a licence to transform the country’s untapped coal reserves into fuel". Sure enough, a chorus arose: See, Kosovo was all about the ore, the oil, the mineral wealth!

No. Kosovo was about breaking Serbia, so as to conquer the Balkans and establish an axis with Turkey and the Middle East, while erecting a barrier around Russia. All ancient geopolitics, really. Any potential profit for Empire's camp-followers was merely icing on the cake. But the cake itself is hegemony in Eurasia.

The following is adapted from two emails sent to me by an astute reader, familiar with Balkans business deals. I won't reveal his name; suffice to say I have full confidence he knows what he's talking about.

The phrasing "License for Oil" is a bit deceiving. If you look at this API article (which can be read in full for free) then it seems that his company is seeking a license to 1) explore for coal, and, if found, 2) convert coal into gas and 3) convert gas into synthetic fuel ("oil").  If you look at the website of his company, Envidity Inc., you will see that they are already developing a coal-to-synfuel project in Mongolia, where they have obtained an exclusive license for coal extraction in an area of 774 sq. km.

On their page "About Us" you will see that they do not hide their association with Wesley Clark, and they are not entirely ignorant of his glorious military past: "...In his last assignment as Supreme Allied Commander Europe he led NATO forces to victory in Operation Allied Force, saving 1.5 million Albanians from ethnic cleansing." [!!!]

Looking over their website from a business point of view, it is clear that they are a bunch of experts with an idea, but no money or financial backing so far. They are betting everything on the theory of "peak oil"...  In addition, Kosovo's energy and transportation infrastructure is atrocious (probably not much better than Mongolia's), so unless the energy to run the conversion process will come from the coal itself then their facility would be a net consumer of electricity from the Kosovo power grid, and Kosovo is already a net importer of electricity, I believe.

Anyway, the thing seems to me like a pipe dream. Even their Mongolian project so far is merely at the stage of obtaining rights for the coal, and these people do not look to me like people who know about financing, building, and operating large chemical plants. (And they seem to be saying that this project would provide royalties to the Kosovo regime of €300 million/year, which implies sales of billions of euros per year, which would need a very large plant.) So unless we see them first succeed in finding someone with the pockets deep enough to backstop a construction project of a billion or two euros in Mongolia, we should conclude that they are just dreamers.

Sure, coal is known to exist in Kosovo, and in fact it is the only source that they have so far for producing electricity. And sure, there exist technologies to convert coal into gas and then into liquid. But these technologies are so expensive that I am not aware of any such plants operating at the present time. Here is an article posted yesterday about such a plant that is going to be constructed in West Virginia: this plant, which will produce 18,000 barrels of synfuel a day, is expected to cost $4 billion, so you can imagine how much Wesley Clark's plant would cost that "could eventually produce up to 15.9 million litres (100,000 barrels) a day". And no matter how many NATO troops may be available for free to guard their facilities, if they employ any of the local people then they will face horrendous problems with theft, corruption, careless maintenance, and so on.

The important thing is that due to this depression almost no projects of over €250 million are moving forward anywhere in SE Europe, and this would be a project of over €1,000 million. And it is entirely a gamble on "peak oil". In addition, the project would be in Kosovo, and I have the impression that no significant infrastructure, industrial, or energy project has moved forward in Kosovo since "independence", not even wind parks or hydro plants of €5-50 million, much less something of €1,000 million.

A few months ago I did some research, trying to find any register of "environmental impact assessments" (EIAs) in Kosovo. I found that the Priština regime did indeed publish a very rudimentary EIA law back in about 2004, requiring significant projects to file EIA studies and obtain EIA decisions. But I found no evidence at all - even in the Kosovo Official Register - that any such filings or decisions had ever been made.  I think to date it is all merely hypothetical.

More attractive than the coal would be the minerals, since the mountains of the Balkans are rich in all kinds of minerals, and the highest mountains - around KosMet - have some of the most exotic minerals. But if the Trepča mine complex is almost completely idle because no foreign investors have been willing to step forward, you can imagine that for an economically questionable project like coal liquefaction it will be harder still to obtain money from abroad.

So you see, Clark's project is a pie in the sky. It is much more likely, in my estimation, to be a front for some serious money-laundering than ever to actually produce any fuel. I suppose Clark figured he'd never be chairman of the Joint Chiefs, so he's settling for the next best thing, trying to cash in his "popularity" to profit from a snake-oil scheme. It's a long way from a self-styled noble knight saving the Albanians-in-distress to a vulture picking at their refuse - but I can't say I'm particularly surprised.

The Speed of Truth

With last year's Libyan intervention proceeding according to an accelerated Balkans script, and Syrian "freedom fighters" going to "learn" from KLA terrorists, it was just a matter of time before a "massacre" would manifest and be used as justification for intervention in the name of "stopping genocide."

Enter Houla, a village where over 100 people were murdered, allegedly by the "Assad's regime." The story was the stuff of headlines in the mainstream Western media for days - and then it vanished. Why?

Because it has emerged that Houla was a frame job: the massacred civilians were loyal to the government, while the methods of murder suggested it was the "rebels" who did the killing. Daniel McAdams has more of the story on the LRC blog, quoting a variety of sources, and concludes:

"Syrian government responsibility for Houla was a lie; it was in fact a provocation by the rebels to get the Libya-style foreign intervention they need to overthrow the government. Will anyone listen now that a major mainstream outlet has reported it?"

Now, I doubt anyone will listen; the Imperial establishment has long disdained facts when they dared interfere with its conjured narrative. Even if the general public takes this story to heart, expect it to be taken by another forthcoming bit of atrocity porn. And if in some unlikely case it doesn't swallow the case for "saving Syria" by mass-murdering Syrians, the establishment will do it anyway. Just as they did in Libya, or Iraq, or Serbia. Impunity, thy name is Empire.

The silver lining, however, is in the speed with which lies can be debunked, thanks to new technology. It took a decade to get an accurate death toll of the Bosnian War, and years to expose the Racak hoax. But the "gay girl in Damascus" took a few months, and Houla was exposed as a fraud within weeks. That's still not good enough, but it shows promise.

A Message in Blood

There was some confusion in Serbia as to where the "international community" (i.e. the Empire and its long tail of servants) might stand on the newly elected president. After today, there shouldn't be.

Unarmed Serb civilian "threatens" NATO "peacekeepers"

In a shocking repeat of last September's bloodshed, this morning American KFOR troops fired upon Serb civilians trying to stop the demolition of the roadblocks in northern Kosovo. There are reports of 3-4 seriously injured people. KFOR immediately claimed several of their own soldiers were injured, but didn't provide any proof. Same as last time.


The roadblocks were erected after the KLA regime in Pristina tried to seize the "border" with Serbia in July last year. Serbs living in the north of the province refuse to recognize the illegally declared Albanian state, and continue to resist occupation.

The rest of their kin in the province has either been ethnically cleansed, or lives in ghettos surrounded by barbed wire and "protected" by the same NATO troops that established the Albanian "state" in the first place. While officially claiming to defend Serbia's claim to Kosovo, the quisling government in Belgrade has done everything to surrender the province. But the Serbs actually living there refuse to submit; in a referendum in February, they told both Belgrade and the KLA regime to bugger off.

NATO's "KFOR" mission has repeatedly tried to dismantle the roadblocks, asserting they were entitled to "freedom of movement" everywhere in "Kosovia." The local Serbs have defied them with sticks, stones and bodies, nothing more. There was an unofficial truce during the winter, as heavy snows blanketed the province (though contrary to KFOR's hopes, that didn't dampen the Serbs' resolve any).

Initially, the Serbs were blocking all traffic. But with KFOR outposts at risk of disease from waste accumulation, the blockade was relaxed: KFOR vehicles could pass, but Albanian "officials" and their EU enablers were still banned. Despite continuing to insist on unconditional passage, KFOR took the deal. According to local Serb leaders, after today, that deal is off.

Former UNMIK official and U.S. diplomat Gerard Gallucci - an outspoken critic of the occupation tactics, even as he supports "Kosovia" as "reality" - argued earlier this month that the Albanians aren't interested in a negotiated solution, only surrender. So they've been trying to provoke violence, in order to get NATO to do the job for them.

Albanian motives are hardly a mystery: they covet land, and hate the Serbs viscerally (as a legacy of the Ottoman era, not because of phantom "human rights violations"). But what is the Empire thinking? Though they've been used as an example of America-loving Muslims (though the Muslim angle is routinely downplayed in the West when Albanians commit acts of terrorism), creating the "Independent state of Kosovia" isn't really about the Albanians at all.

To conquer the Balkans, one must conquer the Serbs. To make sure the Serbs stay conquered - which a succession of empires in the course of history has found a challenging endeavor, to say the least - they must be lobotomized. And the way to do this is to destroy the nexus of their identity, the legend of their heroic defiance to Ottoman conquerors in the Battle of Kosovo. Once the Serbs embarked on the long, arduous road to freedom from the Ottoman Empire in 1804, they didn't stop fighting till they've liberated Kosovo - which they did in the First Balkan War of 1912. Ever since then, enemies have tried to take it away: from Austria-Hungary in WW1, Nazi Germany in WW2, the Communists since 1945, and now the Atlantic Empire.

Trouble is, there are still Serbs who refuse to surrender. Besieged, blockaded, bombed, betrayed by the quisling cult that rules in Belgrade - nothing seems to work. And nothing will. When people are set on liberty or death, there is little an aspiring conqueror can do. That's something KFOR and the Empire still have to understand.

Wherefore the Distortions?

On the pages of the Washington Post, Serbophobia tends to be impersonal: just your everyday sneering at nations standing in Empire's way.  Even the famously wrong Richard Cohen sticks to using the standard manual of Serbophobia, hitting the appropriate cliches in order to make a point about supporting interventionism.

Then there is the Washington Times, a paper claiming to be as conservative (i.e. GOP) as the Post is liberal (i.e. Democratic). True enough, over the years, the Times has printed criticism of the Democrats' Balkans policies. And in 2007, they did publish an unusually frank staff editorial condemning the "perception management" in the case of the Fort Dix Six. On the other hand, they employ Jeffrey T. Kuhner.

A regular columnist at the Times, Kuhner can be relied on for a good hysterical rant about the "Evil Serbs" just about anytime. In 2003, he blamed the Serbs for jihad in Bosnia. In 2004, he saw the sky falling when the Serbian Radical Party got the biggest chunk of votes in the election that saw the demise of DOS. Yet the apocalypse he foresaw failed to materialize. Now he's at it again, arguing that the election of Tomislav Nikolic to Serbian presidency is a "vote for war" in the Balkans.

Kuhner's latest screed is simply stuffed with so many factual errors that arguing with them would take up three times his word count: a clever strategy, when letters to the editor are typically limited to 150 words. But at its core is the smear of the newly elected President of Serbia as "neo-fascist", and the Serbs themselves as Nazi Germany reborn.

Per Kuhner:

"Mr. Nikolic embodies the worst forms of Serbian nationalism, whose ideological roots go back to the “Chetniks” - the term for Serbian royalists - of World War II. Led by Drazen Mihailovic, the Chetniks formed a racist far-right-wing movement that sought to forge an ethnically pure Great Serb empire incorporating Serbia, Montenegro, Kosovo, Macedonia, most of Bosnia and large chunks of Croatia. Allied to Benito Mussolini’s fascist Italy, the Chetniks engaged in murderous ethnic cleansing, slaughtering tens of thousands of Bosnian Muslims, Croatians and Kosovar Albanians." (emphasis added)

Where to begin? First off, Kuhner doesn't even know the proper party line, which is that "Serbian nationalism" supposedly dates back to the 19th century (and Ilija Garashanin's "Nachertanie"). The whole "Greater Serbia" claim was manufactured by Austria-Hungary in the early 1900s, to create a pretext for a war against the independent principality that obstructed its plans for hegemony in the Balkans (a war Vienna finally got in 1914, but ended up not liking very much).

Kuhner can't even get Mihailovic's name right - it's Dragoljub, shortened to "Drazha", not "Drazen". "Chetnik" is actually a Serbian term for a guerrilla, dating back to the conflicts of the early 1900 (in particular the 1912-13 Balkan Wars). Mihailovic's forces were actually the Royal Yugoslav Army, a legitimate resistance movement fighting against the Axis occupation. The claim they fought for an ethnically pure Serbian state is a lie concocted by Communist propaganda, as are the allegations of their mass murder of innocent civilians. That was actually the policy of the Nazi-allied Independent State of Croatia; established in April 1941, it included most of present-day Croatia, Bosnia and parts of Serbia, and engaged in wholesale genocide of Serbs, Jews and Roma.

Kuhner doesn't mention Nazi Croatia even once. Yet he can't possibly believe it's irrelevant, since he claims the "Chetniks" were allied with Mussolini's Italy. What actually happened is that there was a truce between the Royalists and the Italian troops stationed in southern "Croatia" (but not in Montenegro or Albanian-occupied Kosovo) - but only because Mussolini's men actually opposed the Croatians' mass murders. Why would they fight the Italians, when the Italians were trying to prevent genocide?

So "fascist" was the royalist resistance, Mihailovic was decorated by President Truman, and his men rescued over 500 Allied aviators (including the men who bombed Serb civilians), at great cost in lives. Kept under wraps for decades so as not to offend the Communists in Yugoslavia, the story only recently came to light, even as its heroic protagonists pass away.

But none of this fits Kuhner's narrative, so it isn't mentioned. He barrels on:

"As Yugoslavia disintegrated in the 1990s, Belgrade launched brutal wars of aggression against Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo. More than 250,000 were killed and nearly 2 million ethnically cleansed."

Here "disintegration" serves to sanitize the violent and illegal secessions by the above-named entities, accompanied by wholesale murder of Serbs and the resurrection of Nazi-era symbols and policies. To cover this up, propagandists concocted the story of "Serb aggression" and deliberately invoked Nazi imagery to defame the Serbs. Kuhner recycles the old, debunked figure of 250,000 dead, and doesn't count one million Serbs who were ethnically cleansed.

He then proceeds to talk of "death camps" in Croatia and Bosnia, quoting outlandish claims of alleged survivors - whereas even the Hague Inquisition (established for the purpose of blaming the Serbs for everything) has shied from such allegations. Even the most outspoken professional Serbophobes haven't dared to claim that Ovcara was a "death camp" for 2000 people, as opposed to a farm where about 200 Croatian POWs were executed. Until Kuhner, that is.

Kuhner's diatribe is basically another example of what happens when the official distortions of WW2 history are allowed to go unchallenged: we see a triumph of Hitler's allies and Hitler's policies, while those opposing them get smeared as "fascists".

Why would Kuhner engage in these distortions of history, so extensive they cannot possibly be accidental or a product of ignorance? He has a degree in history, and even taught it for a couple of years, if his Wikipedia page is correct. But the page also says he was "born in Montreal, Canada to Croatian immigrant parents."

The only conclusion I can draw from Kuhner's op-ed - which is just the latest in a long series of Serbophobic diatribes - is that he's harping on about Serbs-as-Nazis in order to cover for the real Nazi allies: the very same Croats, "Bosnians" and ethnic Albanians claiming to be victims of "Serb aggression."

If that's "conservatism" then Edmund Burke is spinning in his grave.

Rise of the "Undertaker"

No, this isn't an article about staged wrestling, but rather about the (somewhat) surprising triumph of Tomislav Nikolić in yesterday's presidential election in Serbia. Contrary to "journalist" fantasies, his graveyard-related moniker has nothing to do with the phantom "gruesome reputation... organising recruitment to Serbian paramilitaries to fight in Croatia and Bosnia" [sic], and everything to do with the fact that he once held a job as manager of a cemetery.

His enemies - who generally never held honest jobs in their lives, but had really good spin doctors - used this to smear him as a man who'd "bury" Serbia if elected. Meanwhile, they did "everything they could" (in the favorite phrase of the now ex-President) to destroy Serbia and salt the earth in their wake. They even resorted to wholesale fraud to ensure their continued rule. Yesterday's vote brought those plans to a halt.

Or did it? For all the bleating of Western "journalists", spoon-fed sordid political pornography by their well-paid Serbian (or rather, Serbophobic) sources, Nikolić is not the same man he was four years ago.

Having lost the second presidential election to Boris Tadić, and seeing his party once again left out of the cabinet - cobbled together in a mockery of electoral results by Western ambassadors - Nikolić snapped. He left the Radical Party, whose caretaker leader he'd been, and founded the Progressives. He also hired former American ambassador William Montgomery as a consultant, went to Brussels and Washington to pledge fealty, changed his tune on Serbia getting annexed by the EU, and offering a platform filled with nothing but fluff. His criticism of the Tadić regime boiled down to, "We'd do the same thing, only better."

Especially interesting was his choice of party name. It is possible it was chosen for him by Montgomery or some other foreign consultant, since progressivisim is all the rage in the West right now. But to the few who still have a working knowledge of Serbian history, the choice was very symbolic: the Progressives used to be the ruling party under the corrupt, Austrophile King Milan Obrenović, and were famously defeated by the Radicals in 1887. They were so hated by the people, that their final convention in 1889 was dispersed by an angry mob throwing stones and wielding clubs. For over a hundred years, their name was mud - until Nikolić resurrected it.

Wouldn't it be par for the course if the "nationalist" Nikolić was really an Imperial agent? It is a distinct possibility. What is certain, however, is that the Empire will now try to pressure him to continue Tadić's policy of unconditional surrender in order to prove he's not a "nationalist." It is, of course, an impossible quest: the moment Nikolić gives them an inch, they will move the goalposts and demand more, just as they've done with Tadić.

But while Tadić was ideologically committed to Imperial supremacy and even ran his mouth about the need to "transform society" and "change the mentality" of the Serbian people so they would fit better into the Brave New World of EUtopia, Nikolić's principal support comes from the frustrated, disenfranchised Serbs who still care about their identity, tradition, culture, history and nation. He wasn't their ideal candidate by any stretch, but they voted for him because Tadić was worse.

By the virtue of that victory, Nikolić is in the unenviable position of having many expectations to meet and very little room to maneuver. If he defies the Empire, expect the storm of abuse to increase. But if he chooses to be another Tadić, he will quickly draw the wrath of the Serbians - without having Tadić's media machinery and direct foreign backing to shield him. The question then remains who will Nikolić fear more, the foreign overlords or his own folk.

If this really turns out to be a ploy to replace a worn-out puppet with a fresh one (while fooling the Serbs they had a choice in the matter), it may well explode in its authors' faces. The fall of Tadić has opened the floodgates of frustration. No amount of marketing tricks will close them again.

Vampire Journalism

No sooner had Ratko Mladic's "trial" before the Hague Inquisition opened today, reports began appearing in the press of his "taunting the victims". Supposedly, Mladic motioned towards the "Mothers of Srebrenica" sitting in the observation gallery with a throat-slitting gesture.

The claim accompanied the descriptions of Mladic as the organizer of the "murder of 8,000 unarmed men and boys" in Srebrenica, which was of course the "worst massacre in Europe since World War Two," easily inducing the casual observer to instantly dislike Mladic.

The problems with this "trial" are many, from the ICTY lacking legitimacy to try anyone, the fact that it writes its own ex posto facto laws and rules, has standards of evidence that would be laughed out of any legitimate courtroom, to the consideration that the people brought before it have already been lynched in the court of public opinion, and therefore cannot have a fair trial even if the Tribunal itself weren't a travesty.

But the story of the taunting throat-slitting gesture is a prime example of journalistic misconduct when it comes to the Balkans, a case of not just gilding the lily, but of actually reversing the facts of the case.

You see, the throat-slitting gesture was first mentioned in June last year, when it supposedly took place at Mladic's "status conference" hearing. News agencies and papers relying on their feeds reported that the general had taunted his (alleged) victims with a throat-slitting gesture. However, some careful research by an observant reader quickly produced the actual story:

Kada Hotic, who has relatives who were killed at Srebrenica, said Mladic taunted her when she threatened him.
“I told him he will pay the price for murdering my son,” she said, adding that she drew her finger across her throat. Mladic could not hear her, but she said he gestured back, holding his thumb and forefinger close together to indicate she was insignificant. (emphasis added)

So, the gesture did happen. But it wasn't Mladic who made it, but a Muslim observer! She admitted to it, proudly - and the only interpretation of Mladic's finger gesture is hers, too. Now, it is obvious why the AP would mis-report that Mladic had made the motion - it makes the designated villain look properly villainous, and fits the propaganda narrative. But how dare they, when it was so obviously not true? Did they think they wouldn't get caught?

Apparently so. Until someone did catch them, and informed blogger Julia Gorin. She then sent letters to the offending agencies and newspapers, pointing out the problem. Finally, on September 30, 2011, the Toronto Star - one of the papers that ran AP's story on July 4, issued the following correction:

"Online News Correction for September 30
Published On Fri Sep 30 2011
A July 4 article about the war crimes tribunal of Gen. Ratko Mladic incorrectly stated that Mladic drew his finger across his throat while looking at the public gallery. In fact, a person in the gallery made the threatening gesture to Mladic." (emphasis added)

The Star's correction prompted a chain reaction of retractions by other papers, and the AP itself. Gorin's blog entry provides a complete list and many details of the case.

Of course, the retraction got very little attention, while the lie of Mladic threatening the women in the gallery got spotlight treatment. And now the story has been raised from the dead, reported in the exact same words - again, with no visual evidence to back it up, no indication that it refers to an event from last year, or that it was originally mis-reported in a manner that merited an official retraction!

There you have it, folks: vampire journalism, courtesy of your mainstream media. Ready the garlic and the stakes.