Posted by Most clear statement from PTB since Clark on Sun, 04 Oct 2015 12:05 | #

  G.W. - that is one of the most explicit statements of intent since Wesley Clark:

     
“Let’s not forget what the origin of the problem is. There is no place in modern Europe for ethnically pure states. That’s a 19th century idea and we are trying to transition into the 21st century, and we are going to do it with multi-ethnic states.”
- Wesley Clark, U.S. general, ex-NATO Supreme Commander, talking about the NATO bombing of Serbia, 1999.

                     
Clark endorses Hillary..

Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Sun, 04 Oct 2015 16:17 | #

I know this is slightly off topic, but everything surrounding the issue of Wesley Clark, NATO, and the response by European and European-American ethno-nationalists seems to be completely knotted up in a mess, though. It’s hard to see how it ended up that way.

1. Albania, ethnic Albanians, and those known as the Kosovars are in fact the ideological descendants of Axis, via Mussolini and the SS Handschar Division, and the Kosovars themselves are fully aware of that. In fact, these people took the time after the breakup of Yugoslavia to remove almost every single Jew from their ideological state apparatuses in what could only be described as an anti-Jewish purge.

2. Plenty of far-right groups - not ones in the west though it seems - sided against the Serbs and sent monetary and moral support to the Kosovars in order to spite the Serbs and spite the Russian Orthodox Chauvinists.

3. Wesley Clark managed to incoherently convince himself and others, that NATO literally teaming up with fascists to re-establish an ethnic enclave designed to break Serbia and by proxy break Russia’s legs in South Eastern Europe, was somehow ‘getting rid of ethno-states’, even though NATO was literally assisting in the establishment of an ethno-state where one had not existed previously.

4. Liberals actually believed the words coming out of Wesley Clark’s mouth.

5. Some social conservatives in western Europe suddenly decided that raising money to buy arms by running drugs was ‘really corruption’, even though people like Oliver North and Duane Clarridge had already demonstrated that this was actually ‘business as usual’ for American intelligence, a decade previously.

6. Some far-right groups in the North Atlantic decided to give assistance to Serbia, even though Milosevic was overtly planning to disrupt the integration of the European Economic Area, and even though Serbia was acting in an adversarial way to European interests.

I think that what happened here was that Serbia and Russia took a beating in South East Europe from the USA and the UK, and various interest groups were kind of groping around for an explanation. The Jews arrived at the ‘conclusion’ that Serbia was ‘racist’ and ‘must be stopped’ and so ‘deserved it all’, and some ethno-nationalists arrived at the seemingly opposite-day conclusion that ethno-nationalists should therefore support Serbia against their own apparent interests in order to spite Wesley Clark and the Southern Poverty Law Centre.

But if you look at the result, the biggest losers count for count, were that the Serbs lost, the Jews also lost, and the Russian also lost by proxy.

The Balli Kombetar was a fascist organisation that participated in the Holocaust, and was later revived by British intelligence - MI6 - as part of ‘Operation Valuable Fiend’ which was intended to carry out organising and recruitment for various attempts at overthrowing the government of communist Albania after WWII, which was described as a ‘captive nation’, and to maintain Kosovo as a part of ‘Greater Albania’, if not by territorial lines then as an ethnic enclave.

The Albanian Committee of the Assembly of Captive European Nations was a civic group which was largely staffed by Balli Kombetar members, and which was receiving funding from the CIA.

These people also went on to co-ordinate what would later be known as the KLA, which the Serbs and the Russians would consider to be ‘a terrorist group’, as well as co-ordinating the escape from Soviet-controlled territory of many fascists and their families, particularly Albanians and Croats who wanted to continue to fight against Bolshevism on behalf of the legacy of their foreparents, under the protective umbrella of NATO’s geostrategic objectives which had become complimentary.

Call me ‘a bad person’, but I just don’t see why anyone should be feeling any exceptional guilt about what happened. Bad things happened, yes, but the Orthodox Serbs were in fact an opponent, weren’t they?

Of course the Serbs are not an enemy now, but objectively speaking they were back then. Someone tell me if I’m wrong. At the very least, it shouldn’t be so easy for people to choose a side in these kinds of overlapping motives and territorial claims.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 04 Oct 2015 19:53 | #

Kumiko,

Le soleil absolu in matters of friend and foe is that special quality of identity and love of kind which sweeps across the world of one’s cognition, lighting and ordering everything, and which decides.  There is no countering it, for there is no interest higher or closer than that which we hold in those we love.

Thinking back, I am pretty sure I saw the press characterisation of the Serbs and that of Milosevic with his Russian backer and, having a professional history in advertising (ie, lying) and therefore knowing a thing or two about how opinions are manufactured, withdrew my consent.  But that would have been an exercise of the thinking faculty, drawing on suspicion and exhaustion with the motives of Power, and is not at all the same thing as knowing out of oneself what is “mine”.  I would like to think that most of my brothers in this movement understood much more instinctively that the Serbs, whatever their faults in the disastrous preceding conflicts, were asserting their identity - a European identity - over Kosovo against the abusive, homogenising western power-house ... against, in essence, the same elites which were (and are) exercising their political prerogative to obliterate the genetic distinctiveness and creativity and beauty of European Man in all his living spaces in the West.

Now we know from Timmermans that the programme is politically decided and beyond recall, as far as his class is concerned, and reaches into the east as well; and it will not stop there as he freely asserts.

As I said in our conversation last night, such a gene-killing is in no ways required for the purpose of commercial competitiveness, or for some reason of cosmic justice,  or out of historical necessity.  Its politics derived from one source, and that source is Judaism.

Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Sun, 04 Oct 2015 21:07 | #

Well, I should also say of course that I don’t endorse the western liberal moral narrative on the situation either. Basically the western liberal argument against Milosevic and the Serbs, largely seemed to have been making use of the moment for them to try to jam in as many ‘anti-racist’ memes as possible through the media, in a scenario where that whole paradigm was non-applicable.

After all, in that conflict, all sides were engaging directly in ethnic nationalism, from top to bottom. In response to the challenge that was placed before them, in my view the Serbs did not do anything that should have been unexpected. They also had a clear mandate to defend themselves that comes from their existence as human beings in a particular civic space.

So while I of course respect the fact that the Serbs needed to defend themselves, I wouldn’t be inclined to say that I stand ‘with’ them though, not against the people that they were fighting, at least. Furthermore, the Serbs used every kind of ‘anti-racist’ and ‘anti-fascist’ rhetoric in their argumentation as well. The impression I get is that both sides of that conflict were trying to cast their argumentation into terms that a liberal audience was supposed to digest.

But for everyone who knows that it doesn’t make sense within a liberal context, it quickly becomes clear that it was two ethnic nationalist groups fighting for control over the same territory.

In defence of ethnic Albanians and their identity, they are a European identity. After all, they are basically a group that used to be known as the Illyrians, a Southern European population group that first showed its power and aspiration in the modern era when it decided to revive its own national identity, one which was separate from their former Ottoman overlords, and one that was also separate from that of the South Slavs and East Slavs. In 1881, it became an idea that had found guns, when the Ottoman Empire tried to suppress the League of Prizren and had it backfire magnificently as the League only grew in prominence.

In 1911, the ethnic Albanians began to say that all Vilayets of the Ottoman Empire in which Albanian people lived, were part of the Albanian nation and that such a nation should be able to stand alone. This idea was published in a document that they called ‘the Red Book’. The rest is history, because after that the great powers began to take an interest in the issue, and they would become either a threat or a proxy depending on which side of the grand chessboard you happened to be seated on.

So I just do not see how Albanians are propagating liberalism or anything like it. As far as I can see, that whole fight was just a continuation of ethnic-nationalists fighting other ethnic-nationalists.

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 05 Oct 2015 09:03 | #

If there is any way to distinguish and order Serbian and Albanian ethnic interest in Kosovo, I would think it must be rooted in the distinction of expansionist and imperialist ambition from possession of the soil as the guarantor of ethnic existence.  In other words, the life of peoples of the land ... the natural right of native peoples to struggle for life on their land ... is the ultimate moral expression of human genetic interests, and has to be ordered above the need to annex more land (which a demographically growing people may justly have, if that is looked at in isolation).  In moral terms, survival trumps expansion, peace trumps war, self-defence trumps aggression.

As Wesley Clarke made very clear in that quote (which is from a CNN interview), the interests of his class preclude any such considerations.  NATO was fighting for a multi-ethnic dispensation not just in Kosovo and the Balkans generally, where Power might be expected to wring its hands and plead with the warring tribes to “just get along”, but in every “place in modern Europe”.  Why?  Because ethnic homogeneity is understood to be the cause of “the problem” - they think distinct peoples with ethnic interests are existentially conflicted; and to end conflict requires the end of all distinction ... the breaking of all personal boundaries, all geographic borders, all human difference (save, of course, one).

There are two things to say about this.  First, if human difference generates endless conflict, then the logical course for a wise and patriarchally-inclined elite would be to privilege political stability and settled occupation of the land.  It would be to discourage migration, and to encourage in peoples peaceful forms self-expression and destining.  It would not be to conduct a vast war on the European genome, which is a strategy plainly belonging elsewhere than in virtuous statecraft.

Second, if the elites are right, and human difference does indeed imply endless conflict (because of competition for resources); then such it is.  That is the human condition.  But how bad is it, really?  Historically, how many conflicts have arisen from such difference rather than, say, from the pathological ambitions of over-mighty individuals and special interest groups (political, financial, religious) within the elite class?  How bad, actually, is this problem of difference?  Has the problem not been elitism all along, at least in large part.

If the answer to the question is “Human difference ain’t so bad, really - leaders go to war, peoples don’t”, then what is all this grand, grotesque gene-killing for?  Is it not merely a new channel for the elites’ ambition?  After all, whom would the “peace” of a world of total gentile sameness - Homo deracinatus - really benefit?  Not the raceless masses, for whom it would be inhuman in the extreme, standing in opposition to all life’s history, indeed all Nature (which, obviously, possesses no metric for equality, only for fitness to environment).  So, those who desire such a world set themselves in opposition to the very concept of human striving, even mate selection, and love itself.  How is a world sans these things preferable to the life of peoples?  Why is the beauty and uniqueness of those lives so disvalued?

I cannot see how that disvaluation, and the infernal, genocidal machine it vouchsafes, got installed in the thinking of the Clarkes and Timmermans of this world other through the Judaic presumptions of a significant number of significantly influential actors in the elite structures, albeit they are much helped by the indirect, adoptive route Hebreic thinking about the gentile takes into our religious, philosophical, and political culture.

Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Mon, 05 Oct 2015 11:19 | #

I don’t think that I agree with these moral ideas, particularly the one that says ‘survival trumps expansion’. While that is generally true, sometimes it can be the case that survival is synonymous with expansion. Or at the very least, that expansion in some cases can make survival easier.

You say that NATO was fighting for ‘a multi-ethnic dispensation’, yes, in their words they liked to tell themselves that they were doing this. But in their actions, they didn’t create a multi-ethnic Serbia, and they definitely didn’t create a multi-ethnic Kosovo. It was like the complete opposite of that by result, since Kosovo—a Kosovo filled with ethnic Albanians and containing not one single Jew because the Jews all fled into Serbia—ceased to be a province of Serbia and ended up being detached from Serbia.

Something which I think the pro-Serbian side have never been able to explain to me is this:

1. Why did Israel quite vocally refuse to support the NATO bombing of Serbia?
2. Why did Ariel Sharon say that Kosovars were the ones who started it by ‘committing aggressive actions’?
3. Why did Israel even care to comment in the first place?
4. Why has Israel never recognised the existence of Kosovo? They are one of the few countries who have pointedly refused to do so.

I can’t be sure what was going on inside the brain of Wesley Clark.

Regarding Timmermans, there is certainly a Hebraic superego at work there, that one is plainly visible to see.

I just don’t agree that the Albanians are somehow implicated in any of this.

Furthermore, why should the Albanians have been content to live under Serbian domination, in a province that was included within Serbian borders as part of an international game of betrayal in 1912? The only reason—as far as I understand it—that Kosovo was not rejoined with Albania outright in 1912, was because the balance of power between the great powers in the Balkans was arrayed in such a way that Albanians were not able to get the response out of London that they had really wanted. And again in 1945 when the situation turned against them as they bet on Axis and lost again. This time around, the ethnic Albanians bet on NATO and won. I just don’t see why they would be condemned for persevering on this, or why the Serbs would be seen as some kind of defenders of European civilisation.

Plus, on top of all of that, the Albanians seem to have made the issue be about ethnic genetic interests pretty early on. In fact, it was Pashko Vasa in the 1880s who declared that “the religion of Albanians is Albanianism”. Albania is also a country where 70% of respondents to the preliminary census in 2011 did not choose to select any of the religious options offered. It’s listed as the 13th least religious country in the world. The Albanian government prohibits religion from influencing state policy, and religion may not be taught in schools. In Kosovo, that policy is the same, they have ‘no official religion’, and the young generation largely seem to behave like atheists.

Looking at the situation, I just can’t see what is supposed to be so bad about Albanians.

I also don’t see why it would be fruitful for Western Europeans to support Serbia’s claims to Albanian-inhabited lands, since the only great power that would be helped by that would be Russia. For what reason did western European ethno-nationalists want to help Russians and Serbs to strive against western European interests?

Posted by DanielS on Mon, 05 Oct 2015 12:15 | #

Excellent points, GW and Kumiko…

Kumiko, I must add that it was not only Wesley Clark who had no qualms about bombing Serbia, but Madeleine Albright was also a massive hawk when news came that Kosovans were being pushed out of Serbia..

                       
Like Clark at the time, she was a powerfully positioned Jew in the U.S. system - Secretary of Sate. Despite winning “The Medal of Freedom”, she is not exactly a sympathetic character in consistently liberal terms, so what is the common factor here?

Madeleine Albright says 500,000 dead Iraqi Children was “worth it,” wins Medal of Freedom: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omnskeu-puE

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 05 Oct 2015 12:47 | #

OK, Kumiko, I will begin at the end of your reply.

The real “western European interests” are the ethnic genetic interests of Europe’s peoples.  There is no interest in anti-Russianism or in pro- western elitism.  It’s the wrong paradigm.  It is the elite’s paradigm.  Perhaps in this instance you will need to break with your stance on Russia.  The WN position is very much that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”, not that Russia is a friend per se.

On this blog, btw, I have argued against the Russianisation of talk about solutions to our crisis.  In particular, I have argued against Duginism and against the comfort blanket of a Paris-Berlin-Moscow axis.  So no eurasianism but also no Western elitism.  I want no power over my land but that of my own people.

As for Israel’s stance on the Kosovo conflict, the answer to that might be found in the number and influence of Jews who made aliyah from Serbia.  But not my area of expertise!

My prior comment is not really about morality.  Real, non-propositional moral values, in any case, are commendations of evolutionarily adaptive behaviour.  That is their fitness gain.  Really, I am talking about the ordered application of genetic interests.  For example, “expansionist and imperialist ambition” can easily be determined to be ordered secondary to “the possession of the soil as the guarantor of ethnic existence”.  Imagine, for example, that tens of thousands of a given, highly expansionist ethnic group are at war with some native people somewhere, on and for the natives’ soil.  The war is long, even generational.  Not a few of the colonisers miscegenate with the natives.  But that act does not reduce the sum of ethnic genetic interests on their own soil.  It, too, is war, in a sense; since it damages the genetic interests of the colonised group.

But then, one day, word arrives among the invaders that their own ancestral homeland has itself been invaded by an aggressor, and kin are being put to the sword.  The situation is critical.  A decision must be made.  Either kin and home are written off and the colonisation continues, or the army returns to free the homeland.

The army will always return.  The people’s life trumps their self-aggrandisement.

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 05 Oct 2015 13:01 | #

Daniel,

You will know that another elitist - non-Jewish like Timmermans - with no fear of spilling the demographic beans is Peter Sutherland:

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-18519395

The EU should “do its best to undermine” the “homogeneity” of its member states, the UN’s special representative for migration has said.
Peter Sutherland told peers the future prosperity of many EU states depended on them becoming multicultural.
He also suggested the UK government’s immigration policy had no basis in international law.
He was being quizzed by the Lords EU home affairs sub-committee which is investigating global migration.
Mr Sutherland, who is non-executive chairman of Goldman Sachs International and a former chairman of oil giant BP, heads the Global Forum on Migration and Development , which brings together representatives of 160 nations to share policy ideas.
He told the House of Lords committee migration was a “crucial dynamic for economic growth” in some EU nations “however difficult it may be to explain this to the citizens of those states”.
An ageing or declining native population in countries like Germany or southern EU states was the “key argument and, I hesitate to the use word because people have attacked it, for the development of multicultural states”, he added.
“It’s impossible to consider that the degree of homogeneity which is implied by the other argument can survive because states have to become more open states, in terms of the people who inhabit them. Just as the United Kingdom has demonstrated.”

That was in June 2012.  He is so keen on gene-killing racial Europe, he went home to Ireland three years later to spread the race-treachery gospel there, thus:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVmg37snifI

Governments have to lead by giving the positive news that migrants are good for a community, economically and every other way rather than constantly expressing them as a burden because they are not really a burden. Within a very short period of time they contribute positively to the community in which they live.

It’s going to take a long time to solve the inherent problems of north Africa and sub-Saharan Africa so we’re going to live with the issue of migration for a very long time.”

Posted by Captainchaos on Mon, 05 Oct 2015 21:11 | #

Fortunately realpolitik is a tad easier to understand than GW’s philosophical musings.  If the White West goes under then the Chinese will have Japan for breakfast.  That is all the incentive you need to support our cause.

Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Mon, 05 Oct 2015 22:25 | #

I’ll answer each of you in reverse order, so I’ll start with Captainchaos.

Captainchaos, you’re not taking into account the full situation there. Firstly, my interests are not narrowly confined to Japan, as I support Asian regionalism. Secondly, China overstepping its bounds, is actually not the primary threat to Japan’s security.

The issues vary by region:

a. In the South China Sea, China overstepping its boundaries would be a threat to everyone else’s interests. In that zone, Japan, the Philippines, Vietnam, Taiwan, Thailand, India, France, Britain, and the United States, have done a lot to try to coordinate better with each other, in the view that maintaining a nice fence and a deterrent, will encourage Chinese policy-makers not to start developing eyes that are bigger than their mouths. Also, the ‘normalisation’ of Japanese defence over the past few months has led to China rolling out a red carpet for Japan on defence.

Back in July, Li Keqiang had a very warm exchange with Shotaro Yachi when they met in Beijing, and Li Keqiang said that this was a step toward ‘bringing relations back on track’. The reason for China’s sudden change in behaviour is two-fold. It has come to realise that its Asian neighbours are becoming increasingly integrated economically, and that engaging in costly sabre-rattling is simply not a productive activity anymore. Furthermore, as China’s economy matures and begins to slow its growth rate, Xi Jinping’s administration has realised that stirring up anti-Japanese sentiments inside China often leads to absurd levels of property damage in China resulting from rioting. They’ve become tired of that.

Li Keqiang asked Shotaro Yachi for help in getting a three-way summit between Japan, China, and South Korea organised, presumably with a hope of burying these economically disastrous hatchets.

China is learning that it is going to have to share the region with everyone else, and that it is more profitable for everyone that way. Most growth in Asia is going to be coming from developing economies in South East Asia and the outsourcing of labour to those locations by the developed economies in Asia. Creating a conflict in those fragile places is not in the interest of anyone.

b. In North East Asia and Central Asia, Russia is the primary problem, and NATO is part of the toolkit to keep Russia at bay. For all Asian economies, geostrategic victories by China over Russia and by the European Union over Russia, are victories for everyone, so long as the situation I described in section ‘a’, remains on the path toward cordial relations among Asian states.

China is to be incentivised to be a nicer neighbour in the South China Sea, but China is being deliberately allowed by the North Atlantic to proceed at their own discretion in Central Asia. Almost all gains made by China in Central Asia are strategic gains made against Russia. The west is pretty happy about that, and sometimes you see some think-tanks almost taking a gloating tone about it. And it’s a good thing to gloat about, of course. For the past few years, China’s big gains have all been against Russia. The news on TV doesn’t highlight this fact, though.

c. In the Middle East and North Africa, that is the petrol station. For China alone—which forms a large part of just about every supply chain imaginable in manufacturing—about 50% of its energy imports are from the Middle East and North Africa. For Asia as a whole, the figure is somewhat similar if you count the whole length of a supply chain. Tacit support for the North Atlantic acting as the pipeline guardians, the bodyguards of oil services companies, and the guarantors of open sea lanes and open trade routes, is an absolute necessity for Asian development to be able to continue. Asian states will never fundamentally oppose the west’s role there (beyond some mere political rhetoric that is), for obvious reasons. At most, from a high level there would only be ‘constructive criticism’.

So yes, basically our interests fit together and complement each other. What I’ve written here is pretty simplified (almost dissatisfyingly so, but I didn’t want to end up writing in too much detail or it would just be too long a reply), but long story made short, it is rewarding for Asians to support Europeans in various contexts. Call it ‘mercenary’, but it is what it is.

Posted by US General: detain radicalized lone wolves on Wed, 07 Oct 2015 08:02 | #

US general : Dissidents must be segregated

Wesley Clark: ‘Radicalized’ People Should Be Segregated ‘From the Normal Community’

Former Democratic presidential candidate and retired General Wesley Clark argued that if people who “radicalized…don’t support the United States, and they’re disloyal to the United States as a matter of principle,” then “It’s our right and our obligation to segregate them from the normal community” on Friday’s “MSNBC Live.”

Clark, when asked how to “fix self-radicalized lone wolves,” answered, “Well, we’ve got to identify the people who are most likely to be radicalized. We’ve got to cut this off at the beginning. There are always a certain number of young people who are alienated. They don’t get a job. They lost a girlfriend. Their family doesn’t feel happy here. And we can watch the signs of that and there are members of the community who will reach out to those people and bring them back in, and encourage them to look at their blessings here.”

He continued, “I do think on a national policy level, we need to look at what self-radicalization means, because we are at war with this group of terrorists. They do have an ideology. In World War II, if someone supported Nazi Germany at the expense of the United States, we didn’t say that was freedom of speech, we put them in a camp, we — they were prisoners of war. So, if these people are radicalized, and they don’t support the United States, and they’re disloyal to the United States as a matter of principle, fine. That’s their right. It’s our right and our obligation to segregate them from the normal community for the duration of the conflict. And I think we’re going to have to increasingly get tough on this, not only in the United States, but our allied nations, like Britain and Germany and France, are going to have to look at their domestic law procedures.”