The Media’s War against Mladic, Serbia, and Christian Nationalism

The following essay has several aims:  to respond to the current excitement concerning General Mladic’s arrest, the nature of Western interventionism, not only in Serbia, but wherever they choose in the world, and to partially review John Norris’s Collision Course: NATO, Russia, and Kosovo (I didn’t get a chance to read the entire book.  It was on loan from the library but that doesn’t matter.  It is pure CNN propoganda.   If you watched any of the news concerning the Balkans in the past ten years, or read an issue of Time on some such matter, you can predict, almost word-for-word (since the media operates via sloganeering) what Norris will say.

Mladic, Srebenica, and War Crimes

Both Serbian commentators and CIA analysts have thoroughly debunked the claim that Srebenica was a “genocide.”  I will do little more than summarize Schindler’s conclusion,

The one area of the war that always gets mentioned is the final Serb assault on the town of Srebenica, with the alleged slaughter of 7,000 Muslim men and boys.   Several things must be noted:  1) it is acknowledged that 7,000 men of the Bosnian Muslim infantry were executed in military fashion; 2) Muslims recruit boys to fight for them;[3] 3) the town was not surrounded by the Serbs, thus allowing noncombatants to leave the city; 4) given that the city was controlled by Muslims gang leaders, many Muslims actually deserted to the Serb camp—this fact alone demonstrates how untenable the Hague narrative is:  if the Serbs simply wanted to ethnically-cleanse the entire town, they would have done a better job of surrounding it and killing those leaving the city; 5) Alija Izetbegovic knew that he could never defeat the Serbian army alone and had to find a way to enlist outside help.   The Clintonistas knew they couldn’t actually start attacking the Serbs without provocation.  A deal was made:  Izetbegovic would abandon his own people to be slaughtered, provoking international outcry and response.

What is Nationalism?

Christian conservatives in America, weary of the war-mongering of the past few generations, and rightly suspicious that many grass-roots Americans are identifying God and Country, decry this as “nationalism.”  I maintain nothing is the sort.  Nationalism springs from the ethnos and is an organic development of the community.    Nationalism is certainly not this American phenomenon for several reasons:   1) America has no identifiabl “ethnos” (aside, perhaps, from the vague “white” and “black” races, but even then that is highly disputable), and 2) what these conservative Christians are rightly decrying is the neo-con/neo-lib projection of late 20th century market values over other communal and religious traditions.   Therefore, nationalism is not what these conservatives fear, for what they fear is actually trying to destroy nationalism! (for the ultimate proof of this, consider how the media, whether right-wing or left-wing, condemns any kind of “bad guy” as an “ultra-nationalist).

Kosovo:  The Coming Russian Confrontation

Norris, John.  Collision Course:  Nato, Russia, and Kosovo.  Westport, CT: Praeger, 2005.

This book is essentially a manifesto for neo-liberal interventionism.  It makes little attempt at objectivity.   The leaders of the Slavic world can do nothing correctly, except as they agree to Western dictums.   The book itself is quite valuable, if not necessarily for the reasons the author and publisher think:  it documents the inevitable failure of a country (e.g., empire) trying to impose outside values upon traditional and regional communities.

In many ways the book summarizes the lead-up to the war, the nature of the Allied coalition, and the political consequences throughout and following the war.  This review will largely avoid those issues as they are thoroughly covered elsewhere.   Rather, the reviewing will focus on insights from Norris’ experiences and thoughts resulting from those insights.

The book begins on a painful note.  The author of the foreword, Strobe Talbott, is acting like a Clintonian cheerleader.  He is guilty of “loaded language” and bias.  His particular argument asks, quite rightly, what should be the conditions for empire, I mean, intervention.  He notes that military force should only be used when diplomatic means are exhausted, that it guarantees safety to both the “victims” of the aggression and the regular citizenry, and that it ensures stability in the region.  Talbott claims it gloriously met all of those goals.   The truth, though, is that NATO failed in all of the above:  It was the Russians, not NATO bombers, that brought Milosevic to the table; the United States rejected numerous diplomatic proposals from the Bosnian Serbs and actually urged Izetbegovic to reject peace and go to war[i] (!), and Serbs living in Bosnia and Kosovo today are facing a genuine ethnic cleansing on the level of which Milosevic was accused.

Reading Between the Lines 

While NATO was technically victorious, it nearly lost the war and created several far greater disasters.  Many of the Allies did not even want to proceed with air strikes, and the more traditional and Christian members like Italy and Greece, nearly withdraw when NATO insisted on bombing Orthodox Christians during Pascha.   Another point of contention was Russia.  When Russia advised Serbia in this war, Russia was weak, bankrupt, and internally divided.   That said, Russian special forces nearly captured several key airports in Kosovo.  They actually could have done this quite easily, but Yeltsin was not committed.  Had Russia proceeded, and American brass admits it could not have stopped Russia, then a combined Russian-Serbian movement would have easily won the war.[ii]  Think about it for a second:  if a poorly equipped, disillusioned Russian force under Yeltsin could have accomplished this, imagine what a modern Russian army under Putin could have done?[iii]

Had several Allies withdrawn from the campaign (which even US State officials expected them to do), combined with Russian forces seizing key Kosovar airports, along with NATO’s inability to decide on air strikes or sending ground troops, and with the general instability of the region (Norris, 30), NATO—or more precisely, the Anglo-Americans—would have lost this war.  While sending ground troops would have ended the conflict quickly, the costs would have been enormous.   The Serbs, holed up in the mountains, have a history of breaking empires.  It would have been Afghanistan/Iraq to the nth power.

Presuppositions Determine Evidence

Despite the flaws and biases of this book, CNN, and the Clinton Administration, Serbophiles have to face up to the fact of genocide and war crimes.   Did Milosevic carry out ethnic cleansing against the Albanians?    Given the fact that the Hague could never decisively prove this at the ICC (along with Milosevic’s mysterious death), the answer has to be “no.”  Were Serbs guilty of violence against the Albanians?  Probably, but this was no different from the Allied treatment of German civilians during WWII (Dresden, anyone?).

As other CIA analysts (Schindler) have noted, Muslim forces have long used “safe havens” as staging points for attacks on Serb forces; therefore, when the Serbs retaliate, it seems like they are attacking civilians.

Conclusion

Despite the “CNN-idolizing” feel of the book, the author has correctly identified Kosovo has a symbolic defining point between East and West.[iv]  In other words, the actions in Kosovo will determine not only Russia-America relations, but also how the “international community” can respond to situations within national borders.

The most obvious reason leading to American bombing is the alleged ethnic cleansing of Kosovar Albanians by Milosevic.  I say “alleged” because the charges against Milosevic were never proven at The Hague.  (There is a reason Milosevic died under mysterious circumstances).  In fact, one cannot escape the impression that the West orchestrated this war.   The West routinely rejected halts to the bombing and rejected several overtures at peace, overtures largely favorable to NATO and brokered by Russia (p. 19-21).[v]  As other analysts have made clear, NATO needed Kosovo as an oil transit.[vi] Accordingly, peace was unacceptable as long as Kosovo remained in Serb hands.

One other point of contention:  The CIA had already identified the Kosovo Liberation Army as a terrorist group.   Given that, how come Norris never discussed the criminal (and violently anti-American) actions of the KLA?  The fact he doesn’t mention this shows how much this book is pure propaganda.  (Milosevic pointed this out to Albright, which Albright derisively dismissed.  One thinks the reason is obvious).

Given that this book is written by an “Establishment man,” and to a large degree, the author’s protests notwithstanding, this book unofficially represents the Western Establishment on interventionism.   Given that high pedigree, high standards are required of the book.  Unfortunately, this book fails on a scholarly level.  I do not fault the author for citing sources—much of the information can be found elsewhere, and the author does give a thorough bibliography and an extensive index.   Rather, the author uses loaded language on every page.    I think if one looks beneath this language one sees a “quiet desperation.”  The Clinton Administration must justify its position continually.  Kosovo today is a failure by anyone’s reckoning.   The administration knows it has broken international law in intervening, and the record since then is a poor one.  In other words, the Regime (rightly) suspects its authority and dignity is now illegitimate and it lacks moral force for any of its actions.   Clinton, Talbott, and Norris are right to be nervous.  The international community and nationalists elsewhere are calling their bluff.


[i] Cf. John Schindler, Unholy Terror: Bosnia, Al Qai’ida, and the Rise of Global Jihad. St. Paul: MN, Zenith Press, 2007.

[ii] And likely started a nuclear WWIII.

[iii] This is a very real question.  The Kosovo question is still under discussion and NATO’s sabre-rattling towards Russia has not helped.

[iv] For more on the “East vs. West” conflict, see Samuel Huntingdon’s rightly famous The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order,  New York: Simon and Schuster Paperbacks, 1996.

[v] One cannot help but see just how sick and evil Madeline Albright truly is.   She refused peace at any price—refusing to even tell Milosevic how he could stop the war aside from the vague refrain “stop the killing.”  Milosevic’s response to Albright was cold, brutal, and perfect:  “Who is killing the Albanians when the bombs are falling?”

[vi] Cf. F. William Engdahl, Full Spectrum Dominance: Totalitarian Democracy in the New World Order, Baton Rouge, LA: Third Millennium Press, 2009.

Putin’s Response to the New World Order

I think the New World Order primarily connotes a global economic market led by Anglo-American bankers.  I know some want to “mystify” it with connections of Cabbalism, Zionism, and Freemasonry.  Certainly, the last three should be resisted, and certainly they factor into the New World Order, but I think the primary goal and end-game is a single global market.  This market will relativise traditional communities, religions, and national identity.   I suspect there is a religious dimension to the New World Order, but I don’t want to say too much on it because there is so much that cannot be known right now.

Eurasian Podcasts

These are a collection of podcasts on the topics of Eurasia, Russia, geopolitics, and oil from the last few years.  They are done by various artists.  I think it is relevant since Eurasia is able to posit a number of alliances (Moscow, Yerevan, Tehran, Damascus) that can block the anglo-American banking elites.

Bill Engdahl’s site.  Decent interviews on how oil and banking elites have managed finance and war in America for the last century.

Seeds of Destruction.   I usually hesitate when people talk about modern medicine, genetic manipulation, and all that.  Too many kooks out there.  That said, when David Rockefeller openly states he wants to modify/wipe out certain segments of the population, and granting that he has the grants, funds, and connections to influence food producers to do that, well you have to take him seriously (btw, he did that).

The Gods of Money.

Russia’s Direction.   It took me a while to like Jeff Rense, but this podcasts discusses how Russia battled the New World Order, Khordorovsky, and the Oligarchs.

Armenian History II (discusses Armenian history and the Jewish/Rothschild connections to the Armenian Genocide).

Armenian History I (discusses Armenian church and society).

Venezeula and Syria against the New World Order.

Uzbekistan.

Putin’s Military.

 

Rebelling to Restore…what exactly?

Back in the Reformed days I used to be a big proponent of  “rebelling against tyrants to restore the Constitution in the land.”   Partly due to the fact the Bible says “rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft,” along with numerous NT references, I realized my position is simply untenable.    Of course, while I should point out that the adolescents at Puritan Board were incapable of answering my arguments at the time, I still retract my arguments.

One of the reasons is that if “rebellion” against the political entity is justified (and I am not saying that it is), it can only be done so if it is to restore the moral order to the land, or something like that.   For example, the Cossacks rebelled against the Masonic rulers in St Petersburg to protect Old Russia and Holy Russia (and to fight freemasonry, obviously).   That’s conceivably legitimate.

But what of us in America?  Am I a TEA partier who wants to protect the Constitution and get “constitutionally-minded” leaders back in the land?   An emphatic no!  I agree that the current regime is corrupt beyond all imagination (as was its predecessor and as will be its successor), but why should I want to protect and restore the Constitution?   It is a Masonic document imposed by an oligarchic elite with the intention of eradicating and marginalizing the small, Christian farmer.

Even the (likely) occultic roots notwithstanding, I’ve argued before that restoring the Constitution (for some reason these right-wing folks honestly think the Regime in Washington will let them do that.   They’re more likely to end up in a FEMA camp per Janet Napolitano’s wishes).   Anyway, restoring the Constitution will simply reinforce the dialectic, eventually producing the same problems later on.

I reject the dialectic altogether and cannot imagine any realist scenario where I would condone a rebellion.   As bad as D.C. is (and sadly, we are about to see it get much worse), it still provides (however incompetently) some form of stability, and that should be encouraged.

So there’s no good churches around…

Does that mean one should abandon the Church altogether?  This is one of the consequences of globalism:  one reads of theology and the Church (usually on the internet) and wants to join this church, but there is isn’t one around for hundreds of miles.   What do you do?   This is becoming more and more a reality.

To make the problem even worse, what if you want to join this church but find out the Bishop is either Novus Ordo, communing with Freemasons, or participates in the World Council of Churches?   If you are not aware of that–particularly freemasonry or ecumenism–it’s not so big a deal.  But if you are aware of that, it is tough to knowingly commune with those who are communing with Masons.

I say all of this to acknowledge the painful reality of my Talmudic acquaintance’s problem.  It’s not fun to “be the only one left in Israel who has not bowed the knee” and then to drive several hundred miles on a Sunday.  He has a point which should not be casually dismissed.  The logical structure of his arguments he has given on this point are not very impressive, to be sure, but he has touched on something that has kept me awake for many nights.

Turning to the Fathers

I am not entirely certain I am comfortable with the True Orthodox Church.   I agree with their arguments on the Old Calendar (and for what it’s worth, courtesy of St Herman’s Press, I use an Old Calendar).  That said, I think they are correct on Ecumenism, freemasonry (which as a former Southern Baptist, I fought that battle even then), and modernism.   Their inability to communicate the gospel with love and gentleness, as a general rule, will likely keep more from joining their ranks.

In any case I asked a True Orthodox priest what I should do.   He said keep the church cycle as best one could and make pilgrimages to a Church on feast days, citing Blessed Seraphim Rose as an example.

Interestingly, St Basil, in a slightly different context, sheds some light on this point.   In times of persecution, it is doubtful there will be any churches around, good or not.    And as America is moving more and more to this situation per FEMA and the PATRIOT ACT, this will be a very real problem.   How should we commune, then?

St Basil writes (p. 179 in the NPNF II series, volume 8):

It is needless to point out that for anyone in times of persecution to be compelled to take communion in his own hand without the presence of a priest or minister is not a serious offence, as long as custom sanctions this practice from the facts themselves.  All the solitaries in the desert, where there is no priest, take the communion themselves, keeping communion at home.   And at Alexandria and Egypt, each one of the laity, for the most part, keeps the communion at his own house, and participates in it when he likes.

I am definitely not saying one should do house communion or even worse, house church like the Reconstructionists do!  Heaven forbid!   I am pointing out that the Holy Fathers didn’t get hung up on this point.  They realized the fact of unusual situations, and recognizing that these situations are not normative, nor will they become normative in the future, they allowed them.  The point is there are ways to keep the faith, resist modernism, and resist freemasonry without saying all the churches are hereby defunct.

A Summary of Putin’s Moves

the best book on this is by a German guy (i didn’t forget his name but I forgot how to spell it) titled *Full Scale Dominance.*   The thesis is this:  in the 1800s Harold Mackinder (sp?), a British scholar, argued that for Britain (or America) to control the world they must control the Eurasian heartland.  Unfortunately, Russia stood in the way of Britian running the world.

American thinkers like Zbignew Brzereznki, Obama’s chief adviser and a leaader in the Council on Foreign Relations, have  picked up MacKinder’s thesis and formulated in in an American context.  While America cannot simply annex Georgia or Kygyzstan, it can do the next best thing:  establish puppet governments.

The reason is this:  he who controls the oil wins the game.   That is why America spent all this money on Sakaashvili.  They needed a cooperative Georgia for the oil pipelines from the Caspian.   They also needed a cooperative Ukraine to destabilize Russia, which they gained in 2004 in the “Orange Revolution.”  What most Americans don’t realize is that the 2010 Ukraine elections went back to pro-Russian candidates.   This set back the New World Order’s plans 10 years.

Still, on neocon/neolib terms,  Russia and China must be neutralized.  American leaders have differing thoughts on it.  Jew Paul Wolfowitz (Bush’s chief adviser) said to simply nuke about 20 Russian and Chinese cities.   Other American leaders are not so sure that’s a good idea.  Most are pushing for a prolongation of the War on Terror.  If you look at where American bases are in teh War on Terror, they are surrounding Russia.   That’s why America is so intent on missile shields in these bases:  they can easily be converted to launching pads against Russia.

Here are some other good links:

http://www.danielestulin.com/en/ (scroll down to Khodorovsky part two for a fine summary).