The Bosnia Cult

Here’s an interesting example of the Western press and establishment trying to mediate an ethnic conflict in the Balkans, ending with debacle, disgrace, and an orgy of bloodshed; ultimately it had to be hushed up. Nobody talks about Yugoslavia in any detail anymore, just like nobody talks about the New South Africa. The excerpt is from Diana Johnstone’s Fool’s Crusade: Yugoslavia, NATO and Western Delusions; I highly recommend this book.

________________________________________

[excerpt]

On the rhetorical level – which was dominant in the early Clinton years – verbal support for the Muslims was an indispensable gauge of liberal sensibility, anti-racism, and concern for human rights. A number of politicians, intellectuals, and cultural figures throughout the West elevated support to [Bosnia] to the touchstone of modern humanitarianism.

The Bosnia Cult

The reality was complex, and steeped in lies, myth, and history. The reporters sent to report on the “siege of Sarajevo” were mostly too new to the region to be able to distinguish truth from lies. The mass media wanted a simple story. This meant something with “human interest”, a pathetic story of innocent victims on one side and an evil villain on the other. Soon all photos of bereaved civilians were identified as Muslim, even if they were Serb. The story was easier to sell if it was clear who the “good guys” were and who the “bad guys”.

However, the Bosnia cult that developed between 1992 and 1995 went far beyond the reporting, biased or otherwise, of the mass media. Sarajevo became the last stand of the intellectuals aspiring to continue the tradition of the intellectuels engages of the twentieth century. The term echoed Jean-Paul Sartre, but the precise models were those who had defended the Republican side in the Spanish civil war: Andre Malraux, Ernest Hemingway, George Orwell… Like the tradition, the Bosnia movement was strongest in France and in circles in the United States that take the French intellectuel engage as model. On one level, Bosnia aroused such passion because in Sarajevo, visiting Westerners found people just like themselves, in dramatically perilous circumstances. These were Europeans, suddenly elevated from their contemporary function as prosperous consumers to tragic victims of war. For all the protests that war was not supposed to happen to Europeans any more, the excitement generated cannot have been entirely unwelcome to a generation with no cause more inspiring than the common currency. A real aversion to war might have led journalists and writers to find in Bosnia merely the destructive chaos that can result when human beings fail to manage their collective affairs in a sensible way. Instead, they flocked to embrace “Bosnia” as a cause of great significance: indeed the cause of their generation. A cause worthy of yet more war.

“Bosnia was and always will be a just cause”, wrote David Rieff, who has expressed as well as anyone the ideology of the Bosnia cult. By “Bosnia”, Rieff meant above all the value of multiculturalism, which, in his mind, was exemplified in Bosnia-Herzegovina where it was the object of “genocide”. Armed with this conviction, he did what he could to fit reality into it, lopping off pieces, discounting unwelcome contradictions, padding an inadequate factual basis with passionate writing.

Rieff’s conviction was all the more rapid in that it pre-dated his discovery of its apparent embodiment in Bosnia. He had left the United States in order to write about the effect of non-European refuges and immigrants to Europe, firmly persuaded in advance of the imperative need to transform old Europe into a new Europe that was “genuinely multicultural and multiracial”. Rieff was openly and fervently convinced that Europe must become another United States, a melting pot. He had gone to Europe “in search of this ‘Americanization’ of the European future” with the “didactic conviction that in the twenty-first century we would all be polyglot or we would kill one another off”.

This is a rather extraordinary conviction, and comes down to saying, “within a century, everybody must be like me, or else we will all kill each other”. However, it converged with that of a number of European intellectuals who viewed Bosnia through the distorting lens of Europe’s immigrant problem. The sudden idealization of Bosnia-Herzegovina was closely related to a preoccupation with a current problem of vital importance in countries such as France: assimilation of Muslim immigrant populations. Television viewers suddenly discovered a romantic Sarajevo, populated by gentle, blue-eyed Muslims, practicing musical instruments in comfortable apartments – people “just like us”. These people would be perfect neighbors, and their lukewarm European Islam seemed to offer the ideal model for successful assimilation.

The notion that “Bosnia” represented the model for Western Europe’s integration of its Muslim immigrants helps explain the vehement hostility that arose against the Bosnian Serbs, accused of destroying this model society out of sheer racist nationalism. It accounts for the extreme passion expressed in the 1994 slogan adopted by Bosnia’s European champions, “Europe lives or dies in Sarajevo”. Multicultural Sarajevo was represented as a test case for the survival of European integration in the broadest sense.

…

Rieff was thus by no means alone in his passion, as he rightly recalls, explaining why he and “many other foreign writers, photographers and television journalists” kept chosing “to spend time on the Bosnian side”:

“We did not just think that what was going on was a tragedy – all wars are tragic – but that the values that the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina exemplified were worth perserving. Those ideals, of a society committed to multiculturalism (in the real and earned rather than the American and prescriptive sense of that much overused term), and tolerance, and of an understanding of national identity as deriving from shared citizenship rather than ethnic identity, were precisely the ones which we in the West so assiduously proclaim.”

….

First of all, if the people of Sarajevo were indeed the embodiment of modern multiculturalism, why had 90 per cent of its citizens voted, the first chance they got (in December, 1990), for one of the three nationalist parties, Muslim, Serb, or Croat? This does not prove that they were all “nationalists” by any means, much less that they favored the civil war that ensued. Rather, it indicates a measure of mutual distrust, and fear, that is not wholly compatible with a “multicultural paradise”.

[excerpt]

Posted by Potential Frolic on Tuesday, March 13, 2007 at 08:45 PM in
Comments (17) | Tell a friend

Comments:

Posted by Stanley Womack on March 13, 2007, 10:47 PM | #

David Rieff is the son of Susan Sontag. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Rieff

“Rieff is the only child of Susan Sontag. His father, whom Sontag married in her teens and divorced in her 20s, is Philip Rieff, author of Freud: The Mind of A Moralist.”

Posted by ES on March 13, 2007, 10:55 PM | #

This book misses the point entirely.

Amerikwa attacked Serbia to dismantle the *independent* ethno-nation that self-assembled from the Yugoslav provinces following the collapse of communism in 1990. Jewish-ruled Amerikwa did not control this nation—its markets, natural resources, government and now they do. What’s in-between’s detail.

Posted by ES on March 13, 2007, 11:08 PM | #

May I add that it’s a shame that goys tend to attack Jewry’s pretext lies, and even write entire books on it. It’s ridiculous. They spend their lives debunking lies that took some Jew a micro-second to concoct.

Posted by ES on March 13, 2007, 11:15 PM | #

Apologizes for the multiple comments.

Adding to the above, does anyone realize that almost all of the former Communist nations of Eastern Europe have JOGs?

Serbia is JOG’ed—they finished off the nationalists in the Bulldozer Revolution of 2002. So is the Ukraine. Hungary is, and Poland, too. East Germany joined the already JOG’ed West Germany.

Posted by PF on March 13, 2007, 11:24 PM | #

Hey ES,

This book misses the point entirely.

Amerikwa attacked Serbia to dismantle the *independent* ethno-nation that self-assembled from the Yugoslav provinces following the collapse of communism in 1990. Jewish-ruled Amerikwa did not control this nation—its markets, natural resources, government and now they do. What’s in-between’s detail.

Please don’t knock the book until you’ve read it. What I cite above is only two pages of a couple hundred. The author’s thesis is more or less exactly what you said in the above paragraph.

Posted by ES on March 13, 2007, 11:31 PM | #

PF,

Sorry. I realized I shot off my mouth, so the sentence is duly retracted.

Posted by ben tillman on March 13, 2007, 11:46 PM | #

Right. We can’t counter the memes. We have to shut off the meme machine.

Posted by Rnl on March 14, 2007, 01:18 AM | #

Johnstone, despite occasional lapses into leftism, also wrote the best article on the Kosovo crisis:

NATO’s Humanitarian Trigger
http://www.srpska-mreza.com/Kosovo/hoax/articles/Johnstone1.html

Thanks to Kosovo, NATO can celebrate its 50th anniversary next month by consecration of its new global mission: to intervene anywhere in the world on humanitarian grounds. The recipe is easy: arm a group of radical secessionists to shoot policemen, describe the inevitable police retaliation as “ethnic cleansing”, promise the rebels that NATO will bomb their enemy if the fighting goes on, and then interpret the resulting mayhem as a challenge to NATO’s “resolve” which must be met by military action.

Posted by PF on March 14, 2007, 06:12 AM | #

Johnstone, despite occasional lapses into leftism, also wrote the best article on the Kosovo crisis:

I’m really suprised with this woman. She is a leftist, but her analysis is basically always air-tight, at least in this book.

Posted by Johan Van Vlaams on March 14, 2007, 07:58 AM | #

The police service in South Africa, statistically:
40% of the cops: permanent sick leave.
10% : illiterate
50% : demoralised, even pondering suicide, see
http://www.mg.co.za/articlepage.aspx?area=/breaking_news/breaking_news__national/&articleid=301985

But president Mbeki says that crime in South Africa is a matter of perception…

Posted by Robert of the Rohorrim on March 14, 2007, 08:18 AM | #

I feel bad for these policemen and the loved ones they leave behind; I believe I understand how they must feel. To any potential suicides in SA: If you are going to die anyway, why not drop a few bad guys first? Look at it as your final good deed—you are a soldier who gets to kill a few enemy troops before you die.

Posted by Guessedworker on March 14, 2007, 11:45 AM | #

Robert,

I won’t exactly equate your little incitement to blow up a few SA crims with Al’s accidental but specific invitation to curtail Mr Lackey’s concubinin’ yesterday. But I would appreciate it if you could find a more hopeful and, from this blog’s POV, less hazardous recommendation. We are, after all, not excitable Third Worlders.

Posted by Stanley Womack on March 14, 2007, 12:13 PM | #

Ben Tillman says, “We can’t counter the memes. We have to shut off the meme machine.”

I respectfully disagree. We not only can counter their memes, we must counter their memes. It’s doubtful if their “meme machine” can ever be shut off, but we are smart enough (once we learn to think outside the box) to deconstruct, rebut, undermine, and elbow aside their memes, and to set out into the public sphere our own memes.

We’ve found only two or three of their memes impossible to deconstruct—- what we lack is the means to get our memes into the public arena so that our children and grandchildren can be liberated from the smears and libels that have been attached to us.

That’s why we need a European & European Diaspora News Agency, to disseminate everywhere possible our memes and our counters to their memes. They have a huge headstart, but we’re smart enough to make it happen.

Posted by Anon on March 14, 2007, 12:58 PM | #

“Rather, it indicates a measure of mutual distrust, and fear, that is not wholly compatible with a “multicultural paradise.”

Bullshit, it indicates that people want to live with other people who are like them (God forbid). But to Rieff and the rest of multi-culti, PC leftist brigade, that equals distrust and fear. If I want to live with my fellow whites or Croats or Italians, I’m afraid of blacks, latinos or Serbs, or something(maybe I just like walking into a store and being able to speak English, buy good pastries or hear mass in Croatian). Forcing people to do otherwise is what causes problems. I’m not surprised that Rieff is the son of Sontag (sounds like a horror movie, but it is real and so is the damage they have both caused). No shock he shares her miserable beliefs and destructive ideas about the world. But if we are going to measure up to his standards people are going to have to die, right?
On another note, if it wasn’t for NATO and the stupid US intervention in Kosovo, the Albanian mob wouldn’t exist. Now that’s multiculturalism! Everybody gets to have an organized crime family.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on March 14, 2007, 06:11 PM | #

Try out the following on the Jews and you’ll be deafened by an immediate chorus of “ANTI-SEMITISM! ANTI-SEMITISM!” though it’s nothing but Rieff’s vomit with “Israel” inserted wherever Rieff put “Europe”:

“Bosnia was and always will be a just cause.” In saying that, Fred Scrooby meant, above all, the value of multiculturalism [...]. Scrooby had left the United States for Israel in order to write about the salutary effect on of non-Jewish, non-white refugees and immigrants to Israel, firmly persuaded in advance of the imperative need to transform Israel into a new Israel that was “genuinely multicultural and multiracial.” Scrooby was openly and fervently convinced that Israel must become the same as what is planned for the United States, a majority non-Jewish, majority non-white melting pot. He had gone to Israel “in search of this ‘Americanization’ of the Israeli future” with the “didactic conviction that in the twenty-first century we would all be polyglot or we would kill one another off.” [...T]he values that the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina exemplified were worth perserving. Those ideals, of a society committed to multiculturalism (in the real and earned rather than the American and prescriptive sense of that much overused term), and tolerance, and of an understanding of Israeli national identity as deriving from shared citizenship rather than Jewish identity, were precisely the ones which we in the West so assiduously proclaim and strive to see become reality in Israel through the transformation of Israel into a multiethnic, multiracial, multicultural state in which Jews are a minority just as we strive to make Euros a minority in a multiracial United States.”

Any bets on how the above would be received by 95% of the brazen Jews who constantly agitate and organize for exactly this to be imposed on whitedom the way this unbelievably obnoxious Jew Rieff does? Killing off whitedom demographically is highly desirable but killing off Israel demographically will get the Jews shrieking. Of course, only 95% of them will shriek. Five percent will agree with it. These are the Jews who are homozygous for the Jewish nation-destroying gene: see this comment of mine I’ve hunted up from a year-and-a-half ago in this thread:

“Jews tend to be leftists because burying Christian civilisation and Western Man is ‘good for Jews.’ It’s a tribal choice ... a conservative choice, and therefore, not liberal at all.” (—GW)

GW here is onto the fundamentally right explanation for what’s going on with the Jews. By advocating what they see as good for their tribe — in this case the destruction of the rival tribe of white-Euro-derived Christian society and nation-state — they aren’t being liberal but conservative. There’s a tribal war going on, John. When one side strikes the other in that war, of course it’s not going to say openly that it has just successfully stricken its enemy, but will make up some morally high-sounding justification and deny it’s engaged on the field of battle.

Thus when the Jews, such as Abe Foxman and the ADL, or the Jews who run about 60% of Hollywood, or the Jewish neo-Trotskyites who are mistakenly called the “neocons,” push hard for the genocidal destruction of white-Christian society and nationality in this country through race-replacement, what they are up to is striking their tribal enemy — white Christianity — as starkly as they can, regardless of whatever high-sounding motives they make up to seem to occupy the moral high-ground, and when Pat Buchanan, Taki, and the American Conservative Magazine come out with opinion pieces implying Ariel Sharon and the Likud Party are somehow immoral for favoring what are legitimate Israeli/Jewish nationalist interests, they are in reality launching a counterattack against Jews whom they see as having attacked their side, white Christianity, notwithstanding all the stuff they trot out about feeling sorry for the Palestinians: their real motivation is to strike back at the Jews whom they see as having striken them.

Tribal war, folks. Let’s start talking frankly about it.

Jews, by the way, are going to have to start getting talked about — as a group they’re contributing strongly to the support of too much wrongness, such as Marxism and genocide-through-race-replacement, thereby helping to do much harm in the world, and people are going to have to start figuring out why and, together with the Jews, see if the defect Jews harbor that makes them do this, whatever the defect is exactly, can be rectified or at least somehow disarmed and neutralized so it can’t continue to cause harm.

My idea is that lots of Jews have an inherited genetic predisposition for harming the white-Christian society they live in — in other words, their leftist mischief, to take one example, and, to take another, their tendency, no matter whether they’re leftist or conservative, to almost religiously insist on race-replacement-type genocidal destruction of white Christian nation-states, is partly genetic. The genetic trait that makes them do these things may have conferred on them a survival advantage over the centuries — or been linked to some genetic trait that did — and therefore got selected for, so lots of Jews have the trait.

On a different subject: Cochran and Harpending have suggested that Jews heterozygous for the Jewish smartness gene are made smart, which was supposed to happen, in the interest of Jewish group survival, while ones homozygous for it are made smart but in addition are made susceptible to lipid-storage diseases or DNA-repair diseases, which wasn’t supposed to happen — just as Negroes and some Mediterraneans heterozygous for the sickle-cell trait get less malaria, which was supposed to happen in the interest of their survival, while ones homozygous for it get less malaria but also get sickle-cell anemia — which wasn’t supposed to happen.

Getting back to the subject: In the same way, I think Jews who are heterozygous for the white-Christian-nation-state-destroying gene are made into advocates of the destruction of white Christian nation-states and societies they live in (through compulsive leftism, Marxism, favoring of race-replacement immigration, and so on), which was supposed to happen in the interest of their group survival, while those who are homozygous for the gene are made into advocates of the destruction of the white-Christian nation-states and societies they live in but also advocates of the destruction of the Jewish state, Israel — which wasn’t supposed to happen. Someone like Noam Chomsky, for example, is homozygous for the gene, and therefore passionately favors the destruction not only of white-Christian societies and nation-states but of Jewish/Israeli ones as well.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sunday, June 19, 2005 at 06:11 PM | #

A couple more from that thread, which I want to post in honor of this David Rieff swine:

“I have nothing against a Zionist who extends to white gentiles the right to self preservation that he advocates for the Jews.” (—Phil)

This is elementary, of course. And the Jewish Zionists who don’t do this — who don’t extend to white-Euro Christians what they themselves want for Jews and for Israel in regard to nationalism and group preservation — are beyond obnoxious: they’re positively the worst sort of swine. Examples of this kind of Jewish Zionist swine would be David Frum, Jonah Goldberg, and John Podhoretz, part of the Jewish neo-Trotskyite coterie who help run National Review Online.

By the way, I agree with Phil on Prof. Paul Gottfried, whom I revere.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Monday, June 20, 2005 at 10:30 PM | #

“Many Communists realized long ago that a bloody, Russian-style revolution was not the way to impose their ideas on advanced Western countries. They rightly feared that Europeans and Americans, Christian and conservative by upbringing, would never make such a revolution. So they resolved to change the people, leaving the issue of who controlled the state until later.
“They believed that an attack on morality, religion, the family and traditional education would transform society much more effectively than a seizure of power.

“Many of these men gathered in Frankfurt in 1923 in what they called the Institute for Social Research but which became known as the ‘Frankfurt School.’ Many members fled to America when Hitler came to power in 1933 and became highly influential in US universities, the cradles of political correctness. One of their leaders, the Hungarian Georg Lukács, said they were there to answer the question: ‘Who shall save us from Western Civilization?’

“Lukács, in his period as schools commissar in the short-lived Hungarian Soviet Republic, devised sex education as a deliberate way of debauching the minds of the young.

“Other leading members included Theodor Adorno, whose book, The Authoritarian Personality, first put forward the idea that holders of conservative views were in some way unbalanced. But the most influential was Herbert Marcuse, believed to be the inventor of the slogan ‘Make Love, Not War,’ prophet of the sexual revolution and the Sixties counterculture.

“Almost all the ideas of radical antifamily feminists, sex-education fanatics, homosexual equality campaigners and radical school reformers can be traced to this origin. So can the campaign to get rid of traditional history and literature in schools. It is one of the most successful political initiatives in modern history, all the more so because most of those influenced by it have never even heard of it.”

—Peter Hitchens, London Mail on Sunday, 19 June 2005

[gleaned from The Ambler today.]
______

These communist scholars were almost all Jews, weren’t they? Here’s your country-destroying, society-destroying, nation-state-destroying gene in action, the one carried by so many Jews — the one that, in some of them, those who are homozygous for it, even turns them against the Jews and Israel, so potent a force for evil is it.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tuesday, June 21, 2005 at 12:05 AM | #

Posted by PF on March 14, 2007, 06:40 PM | #

Scrooby had left the United States for Israel in order to write about the salutary effect on of non-Jewish, non-white refugees and immigrants to Israel, firmly persuaded in advance of the imperative need to transform Israel into a new Israel that was “genuinely multicultural and multiracial.” Scrooby was openly and fervently convinced that Israel must become the same as what is planned for the United States, a majority non-Jewish, majority non-white melting pot. He had gone to Israel “in search of this ‘Americanization’ of the Israeli future”

LOL! Looks like a great idea for our next

F-U-N-D-R-A-I-S-E-R!

Scrooby’s the Prophet of Semitic Reconciliation, with the formula for a peaceful future: the destruction of historic identities. Its all so simple, why cant they see it?

Next entry: PF Goes Undercover: Black Poetry Contests

Previous entry: “Project Megiddo” Or “Why James Bowery Should Run the FBI”

Existential Issues

White Genocide Project

Of note

General News

Science News

Science Categories

All Categories

The Writers

Each author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer; the hashes link to authors' homepages.

Links

Endorsement not implied.

Controlled Opposition

Crime

General

Immigration

Islam

Jews

Nationalist Political Parties

Science

Whites in Africa