Finding Serenity

"Once you've been to Serenity, you never leave."

Television is often seen as mind-numbing poison - and in most cases, that's precisely what it is. But every once in a while, something truly brilliant appears on the telescreens: something different, unique, unusual. Such was Firefly, in the fall of 2002. And because it was so different, it was smothered quickly by the suits at the network that has made lowering the lowest common denominator a profitable mission.

Something happened then the suits did not expect. When it came out on DVD, Firefly became a runaway hit. We wanted to know what happened to Captain Mal and his raggedy bunch of misfits in their struggle to "find a job, any job," and "keep flying," always a step ahead of the tyrannical Alliance. And tomorrow we will.

"Serenity," the long-anticipated feature film sequel to the 13 episodes of "Firefly," opens Friday across the US. If you value liberty, despise tyranny and hanker for an old-fashioned adventure, see this movie. You won't regret it.

This is why...

Since the news, rumors and images started coming in from the lost city of New Orleans, I've seen many interesting opinions about the man-made disaster that followed the natural one. I have yet to see a better take than this piece by Butler Shaffer, on LewRockwell.com today:

"Once again, the Events in New Orleans have brought into focus the long-standing question that we have heretofore preferred not to face: is society to be organized by and for the benefit of individuals or of institutions? Does life belong to the living, or to the organizational machinery that the living so unwisely created? We are confronted – as was Dr. Frankenstein – by a monster of our own creation, which must control and dominate us if it is to survive. We continue to feed this destructive creature, not simply with our material wealth, but with our very souls and the lives of our children. [...]

In the outpouring of individual compassion and cooperation following the disaster in New Orleans, the state discovered a threat to its existence. Political systems thrive only through division and conflict; by getting people to organize themselves into mutually-exclusive groups which then fight with one another. This is why “war is the health of the state.” But if people can discover a sense of love and mutuality amongst them, how is the state to maintain the sense of continuing conflict upon which it depends?

This is why the state must prevent the private shipment of truckload after truckload of private aid to victims; this is why flood victims – including those who want nothing more than to remain in their homes – must be turned into a criminal class, against whom state functionaries will “lock and load” their weapons and “shoot and kill... if necessary.” The state is fighting for its life, and must exaggerate its inhumane, life-destroying capacities in order to terrify the rest of us into structured obedience.

Forcibly tossing people out of their homes, seizing their weapons and depriving them of their property is obviously not about "helping" them - it's about helping the state. It's not about compassion, but control. This is the true face of government - not just this government, here and now, but government in general! - and it sure is ugly.

Imaginary Outlets

It isn't often that I can laugh uproariously upon reading what is supposed to be a serious quote from the legacy media. Usually, their stuff is so out of touch with reality, it's painful, frustrating, or both.

In today's New York Times there is an article (warning: they may require you to register) on the runaway success of "World of Warcraft." It's a massive multi-player online game that appeals to both player-vs-player and role-player crowds, and has over 4 million subscribers worldwide - a phenomenon in the industry that used to be proud of half a million. Anyway, the Gray Lady quotes a skeptic thusly:

"I don't think there are four million people in the world who really want to play online games every month," said Michael Pachter, a research analyst for Wedbush Morgan, a securities firm. "World of Warcraft is such an exception. I frankly think it's the buzz factor, and eventually it will come back to the mean, maybe a million subscribers."

"It may continue to grow in China," Mr. Pachter added, "but not in Europe or the U.S. We don't need the imaginary outlet to feel a sense of accomplishment here. It just doesn't work in the U.S. It just doesn't make any sense." (emphasis added)

No need for imaginary outlets? Why, then, are millions of Americans investing money they don't have into plywood palaces at obscenely inflated prices, courtesy of Boss Greenspan's cheap credit and fiat currency? Why are thousands of bureaucrats intent on reshaping the world against the wishes of its "reality-based" community? The world would be a better place if they all paid $15 a month to stay at home and play "American Empire" or "The Sims." Or "World of Warcraft," come to think of it; having to earn money the hard way - fighting monsters and crafting products people can use - might teach people a thing or two they appear to have forgotten.

Empire vs. America

My criticism of the Empire has frequently been mistaken as criticism of America, as if they are somehow one and the same. In the eyes of the imperialists, certainly - but anyone else should be able to easily see that not only are they two different things, but also mutually exclusive.

Libertarian columnist Vox Day offers an explanation that might help:

The "freedom" espoused by the utopians should never be confused with the unalienable freedoms that are the American birthright, however. It is no accident that despite the fact that they speak of an American empire, the quasi-democratic systems that result from American military invasions and occupations are inevitably free of the not only the checks and balances of the American Constitution, but also a good part of the American Bill of Rights. [...]

The reason that advocates of utopian empire are inherent traitors to the United States and enemies of its Constitution is because without respect for national sovereignty and self-determination, the United States itself has no raison d'etre. The protections of its constitution are nil and its unalienable rights are void if they are in conflict with the wishes of the utopians. In the same way that neither the Serbs nor the Kurds are permitted the right of self-determination under this utopian scheme, Americans are denied the very rights that they are supposed to be guaranteed. [...]

And because it offers the promise of freedom while delivering its opposite, the neocon's utopian concept of empire is doomed to failure by its inherent inconsistencies. The World Democratic Revolution is no more tenable than the World Communist Revolution, and like its intellectual parent, will eventually collapse into totalitarian tyranny. The particular danger for the United States is that following the tradition of imperial overstretch, its abuse as the utopians' primary weapon will cause the remnants of its constitutional system to break down as well.

Quoted from "On global empire" at Vox Popoli.

Against the "Strategic Class"

In the run-up to the 2004 U.S. elections, I pointed out the lack of difference between a Democratic and a Republican empire, drawing a parallel - as all too few have - between the Bushite "War on terrorism" and the Clintonite "Humanitarian crusade."

Now it seems that some Democrats are finally coming to understand that their "strategic class" (as Ari Berman of The Nation masterfully put it) is just as imperialist, if not more, than the neocons. Berman actually lays out a whole hierarchical pyramid of imperialists on the Democrat side, starting with Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton in the Senate, through Richard Holbrooke, Mad Madeleine Albright and Jamie Rubin in the gray diplomacy, down to think-tanks like the Council of Foreign Relations (strangely, not mentioning the ICG) and pundits like Thomas "give war a chance" Friedman.

But Berman is unable to answer his own question - "Why is the assumption of interventionism dominant in Washington's foreign policy discourse?" - because of a logical handicap. As Justin Raimondo explains this morning:

...there is a "simple answer," and it is the natural tendency of the Washington elites to assume the efficacy of government action as the solution to all problems. The "strategic class" is founded, after all, on the premise that the U.S. must intervene – militarily and otherwise – in the affairs of other nations in order to secure its own "national interests." The question isn't whether or not to intervene, but what strategy ought to underpin our intervention. (emphasis added)

The unspoken argument is that both the Democrats' "strategic class" and the Republican neocons are working hand-in-hand, complementing each others' efforts, to destroy what is left of the American republic and replace it with an American Empire.

Raimondo - no Democrat by any stretch of imagination - holds out hope that the Democrats will find some way to reclaim their Jeffersonian heritage; that, by challenging not just this war but imperial intervention in general they will manage to argue themselves out of their menshevik ideology. Perhaps he is being too much of an optimist. Individual redemption is possible - I went from a Communist Pioneer to an anarcho-capitalist libertarian, though the road wasn't easy. But collective redemption of an entire party? It's almost easier to believe the present-day Republicans will resurrect the Old Right...

The best I can hope for at this time is that the Democrats' Balkans policy, recently co-opted by Bush II, will become associated with the catastrophe in Iraq, and scrapped by the time the next election comes around.

Antiwar Verse

Rudyard Kipling's poetry, though good, was in the service of promoting the Empire of the day - in his case, the British. Richard Cummings of LewRockwell.com writes Kiplingesque verse against the empire of the day - in this case, American.

Here is just a sample, to whet your appetite:

The bombs that you dropped
Left Fallujah in rubble,
For the stench there can't be any words.
But no one could tell
In this bloody hell,
Were they Sunnis, or Shi'ites or Kurds?

Read the whole thing here.

If I had any poetic talent whatsoever, I would try to try to adapt this to the Balkans; but beyond "Were they Muslims, or Croats, or Serbs?" nothing comes to mind.

Missing the Plot

I was reading today's LRC, and I caught this fantastic quip by the always wise Bill Bonner:

"Watching the news is a bit like watching a bad opera. You can tell from all the shrieking that something very important is supposed to be happening; but you don't quite know what it is. What you're missing is the plot."

If there is a better description of mainstream news nowadays, I've yet to hear it. Of course, the "plot" that does emerge from all the shrieks of deliberate (or sometimes not) disinformation is the Official Truth, a shoddy work of fiction that is nonetheless taken at face value by the masses simply because they cannot conceive being lied to on such a grand scale. But just because one cannot grasp something, that something is no less real.

(Off-topic here, I was thinking of posting an apology for the relative paucity of posts lately, and the absence of Balkan Express, but then I realized I'd already said, right in the beginning, that I'll post as often - or as little - as I felt necessary. So I'll just chalk it all up to August heat exhaustion and move along.)

"Shoot the first Serb..."

According to the Belgrade daily "Srpski Nacional," the commander of Zagreb riot police, one Zvonimir Vitjak, threatened the Serb soccer fans planning to attend a match between Belgrade's Crvena Zvezda and a Croatian team.

"We'll shoot the first Serb who tries to make trouble. There will be no mercy for Belgraders, if they so much as think of disturbing the peace here... No matter how many Serbs come, we are ready to meet them," Vitjak is quoted as saying.

He added, "We all remember the Serb who carried the photo of Draža Mihailović on Jelačić Square. I promise I will personally deal with every Serb that gets a similar idea... I don't care that this is a European game. I will do anything to preserve the dignity of all Croats." (all emphasis added)

This racist drivel comes on the heels of last week's celebration of the August 1995 ethnic cleansing of Serbs. It's an illustration of the extent to which Serbs are hated in Croatia. Vitjak wasn't warning Zvezda fans, or hooligans, he was warning Serbs. He wasn't speaking of upholding the law, but of preserving Croatian "dignity."

Earlier this year (March), a riot in Zagreb targeted athletes, journalists and fans from Serbia after a handball game between a home team and Belgrade's Partizan. No arrests were made. Somehow I don't think Mr. Vitjak was too concerned with Croats who were "disturbing the peace" by beating up Serbs. After all, probably considering it a patriotic duty, it's what he would do.

Help fund Antiwar.com

I'm sure all the faithful readers of Balkan Express have already donated to Antiwar.com, to help keep it going for another quarter. I mean, they do provide far more in the way of news and opinion that your mainstream media, and charge nothing for it but what you give of your own volition. That alone is far more honest than the mainstream media, who take your money, then tell you lies - and lots of them.

You want lies? Go somewhere else. You want the truth - if you can handle it! - read Antiwar.com. And if you don't think the truth is worth a couple of dollars, then frankly, I don't even want to know you.

The Whipping Boy

It has long been obvious that the Serbs are the Empire's designated culprit in the Balkans. But it now appears they are becoming the whipping boy for just about everything, including the troubles the Empire is having with the jihad. At least some in Serbia are aware of this, and may yet be able to put an end to the thugs in power, who slavishly race to please the Empire by beating up on their own, already battered, people.

War of Values

Željko Vuković

Večernje Novosti, 30 July 2005

What would happen if 2/3 of Serbia's Muslims were considering emigrating to another country, fearing Christian Serbs? And if they documented their fear by the fact that one in five of them had endured some kind of assault or humiliation in the past week? And if the official figure of 1200 incidents of attacks on Muslims in Serbia were an understatement of reality, which ranged from insults to mosque-torchings and even murder?

Why, the democratic-humanist lynch mobs would rise instantly to protect the endangered and frightened Muslims from the aggressive, primitive Serbs. Maybe the new Draskovic-Sheffer pact could save us from another merciful bombing, but we would certainly not escape harsh economic sanctions and other collective punishment. Because when the democratic, humanitarian West hears that its Balkans Muslims are getting hurt, it cries and rages and knows no mercy.

Only, the Muslims who are considering emigration and fear assault and humiliation don't live in Serbia, but in the UK! They fear not Serbs, but those very same Brits who so conscientiously care for Muslims in Bosnia and Kosovo. Of course, the British will never be collectively blamed, let alone punished, for these assaults on their fellow Muslim citizens. The people to pay the price will again be - the Serbs!

Oh yes. Because every time the Western powers clash with Muslims, whether at home or in Iraq, Afghanistan or another Muslim country, they crack the whip over Serbia. To show the world that their military interventions and intolerance are not driven by hatred of Islam and Muslims in general, they decide to help the Muslims of the Balkans.

That is why the British foreign secretary, during the week when British Muslims dared not step out of their homes, made a quick hop to Potocari to tell the world how the British sympathize with Bosnian Muslims and would do everything that the crimes against them are not forgotten or unpunished. Meanwhile, the British viceroy in Bosnia, Paddy Ashdown, has pushed for abolishing the Serb Republic, as that would be the best proof of how much his country and the West care for the wishes and needs of the brotherly Muslims.

This is why London and Washington are stubbornly keeping silent abouot Al-Qaeda and other "holy warriors" in Bosnia and Kosovo. But they think of Serbs as soon as a terrorist bomb explodes on their doorstep! Only a few hours after the London explosions, the British media were reporting the explosives used were purchased in Serbia. They have yet to report that the two British-Muslim organizations suspected of terrorist attacks in London and ties to Al-Qeada, have been active in Bosnia and Kosovo for years.

Were Serbs to become more pacifist than Gandhi, it would change nothing. They would still remain the nation whose chastising is supposed to paint the false picture of Western hegemons' democracy and humanism.

So, whenever there is news of a terrorist attack in some Western country, or if a Western power starts to deal with its own, or non-Balkans Muslims, the Serbs should beware; they are about to suffer next.

Empire, Jihad, and Choice

Writes Charles Featherstone, of LewRockwell.com:

"We are at war with Muslims, but not all Muslims. In fact, the struggle is only with a small number of Muslims who have not only embraced a revolutionary political ideology, but have chosen to act on that belief. (And we would likely still be at war even if we gave them everything they wanted.) Our failure to properly appreciate that, to drive ourselves to a frenzied panic, to mull genocide as the answer to our problem, to fear we will lose when clearly we will not, is to create an existential dilemma where none exists...

To target nation states or whole communities ... in response for the actions of single individuals acting on behalf of a completely voluntary, non-state revolutionary group is the height of foolishness.

It also proves we've met an enemy we can't bomb. And the folks who run the Pentagon don't know what to do with enemies except bomb them."

In the aftermath of September 11, one of the most difficult questions I've had to deal with in criticizing the American Empire was the issue of terrorism and jihad. The debate was framed- quite deliberately - by the Emperor himself, in the nonsensical terms of "you're either with us, or with the terrorists."

But how about, "none of the above"? Being opposed to a gang of Muslim fanatics trying to re-create a VII (or XI?) century jihad with XXI-century technology did not, does not, and should not mean siding with the abomination that has murdered the American republic and possessed its cadaver. Or vice versa: just because George W. Bush and his minions have fabricated a danger that would justify their imperial adventure doesn't mean a danger does not exist. It just isn't the danger they are carping on about.

It is not "terror" itself the Empire claims to be - or should be - fighting. After all, terror from the skies, or the threat thereof, is its preferred method of keeping the rest of the world in line. The enemy here is the fanatical jihad movement, nurtured by that very same Empire as a weapon against the USSR back in the 1970s (in profound ignorance of jihad and Islam in general). It has since become loose, feeding on hatred over the real and perceived outrages against Muslims, beginning with the first Gulf War in 1991 and continuing with the "genocides" in Bosnia and Chechnya.

(As an aside here, the oft-used argument in America that punishing the Serbs for "genocide" against the Balkans Muslims would demonstrate the good will of the West is cynical. There would be no gratitude from Muslims, Balkans or otherwise, for something they consider America's obligation. I mean, who ever gets praised for doing what is expected of them? Furthermore, the fanatical Muslims will never be pleased by anything the "Crusaders" do. The whole "appease the Muslims by kicking the Serbs" thing is as stupid as it is irrational.)

Anyway, once the Empire invaded and occupied Iraq - using the same pattern of aggression established with Serbia - things got a bit more complicated. Among the Iraqi insurgents who have made life hell for the occupiers are both patriots and bona fide terrorists. The Empire, understandably, blurs the distinction - and if history is any indicator, the terrorists (who are more determined to inflict, and accept, death) will eventually overwhelm the patriots, if they haven't done so already. But my guess is that most Iraqis shooting at Americans are fighting for the same reason anyone fights invaders: "they are over here."

One can - and should - oppose both the Empire and the jihad on moral grounds. Both seek to impose ideas and interests by force, and are impervious to reason. Neither has any respect for life, liberty or property. The "with us or against us" is a choice between two evils. I don't have to choose evil at all - and neither do you.

Decline and Fall of Conservatism

Apologies for the lack of posts. Between certain personal obligations and the blistering heatwave rolling across the United States, it's been very hard to think, let alone make coherent comments about anything.

Butler Shaffer of LewRockwell.com doesn't have that problem . Indeed, he continues to write amazing philosophical essays. His latest, "The Decline and Fall of Conservatism," explains how a once-great philosophy of individual liberty, property rights and society-over-state degenerated into a totalitarian institution that tramples liberty, destroys property and elevates state above all.

I really shouldn't quote from the article, as taking anything out of context would be doing it injury; but there is a metaphor I cannot resist mentioning:

"...when the Soviet Union collapsed, conservatives were left without a raison d’être. Their very existence, as a political movement, ceased to be. They had accumulated weapons and powers – along with an army of defense contractors eager to keep the game going – but no "enemy." Conservatives – and, I should add, so-called "liberals" – were like a man with a leash, desperately in search of a dog."

Simply brilliant.

Conscience and freedom

I'm backdating this post to July 13, when it should have appeared. That I forgot to post it does not mean its message is any less important; only that I can be incredibly absent-minded at times.

This is a quote from a 1987 book, specifically from a lecture given by one Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger - now Pope Benedict XVI. The full text is on LewRockwell.com.

"Where conscience prevails there is a barrier against the domination of human orders and human whim, something sacred that must remain inviolable and that in an ultimate sovereignty evades control not only by oneself but by every external agency. Only the absoluteness of conscience is the complete antithesis to tyranny; only the recognition of its inviolability protects human beings from each other and from themselves; only its rule guarantees freedom."

These are certainly words to live by. One does not have to be Catholic to agree.

Long Way From Over

At Monday's commemoration of the 10th anniversary of the fall of Srebrenica, a column of Bosnian Muslims marched in wearing T-shirts with the photo of warlord Naser Oric and the slogan "Is self-defense a crime?" This presumably refers to Oric's wartime actions, which resulted in thousands of Serb civilians brutally murdered and dozens of villages destroyed.

Others bore the wartime sigil of the Bosnian Muslim government, the cynically appropriated shield of medieval Christian kings. They chanted "Long live the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina" - the name under which the Muslim-dominated government declared independence in 1992 - and "Death to the Serb Republic!"

Think the Bosnian War ended in 1995? Think again...

(photo: Zoran Šaponjić, Glas Javnosti, 12. July 2005)

Montenegrin Separatists Lose It

Say something the Montenegrin separatists don't like, and you may find yourself shot - or accused of terrorism. Last spring, the editor of a Podgorica newspaper who wrote about president/prime minister Milo Djukanovic's shady adventures in cigarette-smuggling was gunned down. The recent accusation of terrorism came at the expense of Srdja Trifkovic, Chronicles editor, prolific historian and commentator, after his recent appearance at a forum opposing Montenegrin separatism.

According to Trifkovic's colleague (and author of a great history of Montenegro) Thomas Fleming, papers close to the government accused Trifkovic of authoring a death threat to Djukanovic; the purported threat is a crude and sloppy forgery - which did not prevent the leading Empire-glorifying daily in Belgrade (the Jacobin Danas) from eagerly parroting the charge.

Aware that American money won't keep their criminal gang in power forever, that support for "independence" has consistently remained low (were it not so, the referendum Djukanovic keeps threatening to call would have taken place years ago), that their attempts to establish separate"Montenegrin" nation, culture, church, history and language have been recognized as a demented joke, and that the only way to avoid Italian smuggling indictments is diplomatic immunity, Djukanovic and his cronies have become desperately delusional enough to believe they could shape reality through propaganda.

Earth to Milo: it doesn't work, not even for the American Empire. Sooner or later, reality bites back. Looks like his time is just about up.

[As a side note, Dr. Fleming's condemnation of this smear campaign soon drew the attention of rabid Islamists (see writeback), whose absurd and hysterical charges against Dr. Trifkovic also named yours truly. Though signed "CAIR," the post actually reeked of Stephen Schwartz.]

Useless Power

Charles Featherstone of LRC had another fantastic commentary yesterday, which I somehow missed. For all its belligerence and bluster, he says, the Empire is already crumbling:

America's Army, Navy and Air Force have become useless instruments. Our soldiers can occupy, our planes can bomb relentlessly and with precision, our ships can patrol the seas, but who fears us now? Five years ago, when the glow of the War to Liberate Kuwait and air offensive against Yugoslavia still made American arms appear invincible, perhaps the governments and peoples of the world trembled at the thought of the United States military. But today, when a few thousand insurgents can tie down, tire and incapacitate that Army, what is there to left to fear?

Some governments may still quake at the thought of air strikes and the destruction of government "capital" and "investments" they would bring. But a people determined to resist us can look at Iraq and take heart – yes, we can be beaten. It's not all that hard.

[Paul] Harvey is right to fear defeat. In many ways, we have already lost.

When our whole approach to fighting "terror" is to inflict pain on people until they behave they way we want, what do we do when they can take all the pain we have to give? How much more pain are we willing – or able – to inflict until we realize the pointlessness of it all? Or until conscience confronts us?

And how many hydrogen bombs are we willing to use? One? Two? A dozen? A hundred? And if people still resist, or are driven to resist, what then? Shall we destroy the entire world?

We have unleashed our power upon the world only to discover that it is terribly finite, a great deal more limited than we hoped and imagined. Hundreds of billions of dollars spent on bombs, tanks, planes, soldiers, and every passing day we are less and less able to bend the world to our will.

A whole arsenal of useless power.

Those who engineered the rise of the American Empire in the mid-1990s wanted it to be both feared and loved. Bush II decided to dispense with love; "Oderint dum metuant" really did become the Imperial motto. But now the fear is almost gone, and hate is all that remains. Now what?

Newton's Third Law

On Wednesday, June 29, there was a commentary in the Belgrade daily Glas Javnosti that captured the ire of the Serbian public over the relentless media campaign concerning the "genocide" in Srebrenica. Titled "Srebrenica and Reaction," it can be read in a BBC translation here.

However, considering the BBC translation somewhat lacking, I'm offering my own. You be the judge of how they compare, but do note the point the author is making, for when you hear the next round of Srebrenica hysteria.

Action causes reaction. There is no principle more simple and more true. If you beat your wife, your daughter will certainly fall for some local thug. If you write something about Dinkić, he will sic his BIA (Badgering Inspectors' Armada) on you. If you mess with Brankica "Insider" Stanković, you will have to extradite Radovan Karadžić to avoid arrest...

This natural law applies to Serbs as well. If you tell us a story about Srebrenica every night at bedtime, we will wish to never hear it again. If every session of the parliament turns into an argument over Srebrenica, we will elect other MPs, who will argue about something different. If you continue to invite Nataša Kandić to your shows, we'll change the channel...

Since the Scorpions' atrocity video was shown, we have been watching a sort of Olympics for NGO-profiteers. Nataša Kandić & Co. can hardly manage to run from B92 studios to an exhibit on Srebrenica, then take their seats at a round table on Srebrenica, then dash to a conference on Srebrenica, from which they would race to a debate on Srebrenica, after which they would saunter to a forum about Srebrenica, finishing it off with a rally about Srebrenica. All along telling the foreign media, who paint them as local pillars of democracy and free speech, about their "martyrdom" in uncovering the "truth" about Srebrenica.

Meanwhile, Bojan Pajtić of the Vojvodina Executive Council proposes that Serbia declares a day of mourning for Srebrenica (yes, the same Bojan Pajtić who told Serbia that there is no need for Bodrum Day - imagine that, he's still a free man!), and Exit organizers decide that the entire festival will fall silent in the night of July 10-11, to commemorate Srebrenica... If it didn't smell like Nenad Čanak, it would downright Kandić-like. Speaking of Exit, what is Maja Gojković doing? What's the use of having a Radical as the mayor of Novi Sad, if Exit organizers can fall silent at will?

The hysterical campaign of "All Serbs are guilty of Srebrenica" will make us all eventually say, "Enough with the 'truth' about Srebrenica". Action and reaction.

You know, Americans never adopted a resolution on Hiroshima or Nagasaki, not to mention Iraq, Milica Rakić, the Indians... The English will never declare a day of mourning over the Falklands Islands. Croats will never so much as think of silencing the Split festival over Jasenovac, or the bombings of refugee columns in "Flash" and "Storm". It's a good bet the Bosniaks [sic] will never apologize for the suffering of Serbs in Sarajevo, or around Srebrenica, or because Izetbegović rejected the Cutilheiro peace plan.

Instead of learning from Americans, the English, Croats and Bosniaks, we Serbs constantly holler about "crimes in our name". So it makes sense that the United States Senate declares us - and only us - the culprits for a crime that took place 10 years ago, with a special resolution. There could be a connection: clamor about "crimes in our name" and the Senate slaps you down. Action, and reaction.

Miodrag Zarković

Hourglass Hypocrisy

I've long intended to address the activities and existence of the Jacobins in Serbia: the militant, Empire-worshipping, media-dominating "non-governmental" and "civic" faction that is small in numbers, but loud enough to drown any reasoned debate in that beleaguered society.

Recently, political commentator Marinko M. Vučinić took to task the editors of "The Hourglass," a popular show on the Jacobin B92 television, on the site of Nova Srpska Politička Misao (see original here). I've taken the liberty of translating just one passage from his commentary, which in my opinion describes extraordinarily well the main discourse of the Jacobins - their hatred, frustration and alien relationship with ethics:

"What are the main positions of these passionate zealots for truth in Serbia? Without even trying to appear objective, they treat their opinions as absolute. For them, Serbia today is a place of horror, a bandit state, a black hole of Europe where it is impossible to live or think in a civilized manner. National mentality dooms the Serbs to be manipulated slaves; our history and traditions are nothing but illusions and myths; we are prisoners of the past, unable to embrace Europe and modernity. We are steeped in chauvinism and clericalism, unable to face the past; politics is dominated by thugs, liars and swindlers.
The exception, of course, are representatives of the so-called civic intelligentsia, who always merit approval. So what if no one ever explained to Biljana Srbljanović how the "terribly interesting, competent and fascinating" Čeda Jovanović came to own a house with a pool in Ripanj, multiple apartments, horses...? It matters not. Such things are trivial compared to the importance of this ideological stormtrooper's modernization efforts. So you see, the relentless criticism of the "Hourglass" editors does know some limits, if only when it concerns the like-minded."

Liberty, Congress and Old Glory

Musing on the flag-burning amendment recently passed in the House, Anthony Gregory of LRC offers this for thought:

"...ever since the Washington administration, federal politicians have attempted to circumvent, and all too often have succeeded in circumventing, the Bill of Rights’ limits on government power. From the first National Bank to the Federal Reserve, from the Alien and Sedition Acts to Japanese Internment, from the first U.S. invasion of Canada to the second war on Iraq, the busybodies in Washington have frequently carried out colossal projects for which one searches in vain for Constitutional authority."

And also:

"Almost everyone in Congress actively and consistently votes against American liberty. Those who desecrate the Bill of Rights and yet feign a tear at the trumped-up intellection of Old Glory being burned in protest by dangerous anti-American radicals have little understanding of freedom – or America, in the best sense of the word."

A Pagan Theocracy?

LRC blogger Charles Featherstone noted yesterday that when a U.S. Army reservist desecrated the Quran as supposed retaliation for Muslims burning the American flag, he was unwittingly (or perhaps not?) comparing the Stars and Stripes to what the Muslims believe is "God's speech, an attribute of God, present with God from the beginning." In other words, the soldier was claiming that the United States and its banner were a manifestation of God.

Lew Rockwell isn't surprised:

"The Tomb of the Unknown is a temple complete with mock religious ceremonies... Mt. Rushmore mimics religious statuary in Luxor or Babylon. A Roman temple offers us Lincoln Best and Greatest on his fasces-encrusted throne. The Jefferson Memorial is a Greek temple. The Washington Monument is an Egyptian religious symbol. DC is strewn with these chilling edifices. And the Christian right, in the Yankee-Puritan tradition, regards the US state as God's chosen instrument on earth, and Bush as his prophet. This kid is simply a cruder version of the official view, which will have no other gods before DC."