Sunday, December 31, 2006

Those who educate by blinding rather than by enlightening

Reading through Prayers by the Lake by St.Nikolai yesterday evening I came accross the following extract. It applies as much now as the time at which it was written, if not more so.

Those who educate by blinding rather than by enlightening --what will You do with them, O Lord?
They turn Your children away from You, and prevent them from approaching Your Grace, for they say: "'The Lord is an archaic term of your dead grandparents. It is an old amulet, which your grandparents used to wear but they have died off. We shall teach you how to till the earth, how to fatten the body, and how to dig for gold, which shines more brilliantly than the dead Lord." What will You do with these corrupters of Your children, O Lord?
"I shall do nothing to them, for they have done everything to curse their own seed and breed. Truly, they have prepared a worse judgment for themselves and their people than the scribes and Sadducees. For they had the example of these latter, and failed to learn from it.
"In their old age, they will hear sabers rattling at their threshold, and will be dying of hunger, bald and gaunt, and they will not dare to poke their heads out of their door to warn their students. How will they warn them, when My name has been expelled from their brigand hearts? What will they even say to warn them, since they prepared their students for this in their own abysmal stupidity, which accompanies everyone whom I do not accompany?" What will happen to them, O Lord?
"It will be worse for them than for the Babylonians, when in their might they used to worship blood and gold, and used to teach their children to worship them also."
"First will come hunger, such as even Babylon never knew. And then war, for the sake of plundering bread, from which they will return defeated. And then an internecine slaughter and burning of cities and towns. And then diseases, which the hands of physicians will not dare to touch. And the teachers will be flogged with whips and goaded to be the gravediggers of their students, whose stenchful corpses fill all the road-ways."
Those who lead the people are not leading the people, but are misleading the people -- what will You do with them, O my Lord? "They are leading the people astray for the sake of their own profit, and once the people arise and rise up, these leaders will step down from power and consume their ill-gotten gains in peace. They accuse their adversaries, and yet follow in their steps. Their clamor prevents a wise man from getting a word in edgeways."
"They flatter idiots and bullies just to attain the first places. They write books daily and expose the wickedness of their kinsmen, in order to conceal their own wickedness."
"They do not teach the people the truth, but feed them lies the year round."
"They are incapable of doing the people justice, so instead they intimidate them by scaring them with a worse injustice of times past."
"They pillage for themselves and their friends, for they know that they are not long for this world."
What will You do with them, O righteous Lord?
"They have done everything themselves, and I have nothing to do, except to leave them to themselves. Truly, they will not consume their gains in peace, but will spend it on the funeral feasts of their relatives."
"They will be impoverished, and mice will scurry through their torn shirts. They will dream of rebellions by those who have been deluded and looted, and they will arise at midnight, terrified and soaked with sweat. Their life will be long, so that their punishment may be longer."
"They will live to see their house in flames, and will flee their own land, hungry and sickly, and will not dare to utter their own names in the presence of anyone."
"They will see foreigners in their land, and will beg them for a piece of bread."
"It will be worse for their country than it was for the Roman Empire. For they had Rome for an example, and did not learn from it."
"It will be worse for their nation which was born of them, than it was for the Jewish nation. For they had the example of the Jewish nation, and did not learn from it."
"They will hear their names being cursed, and will not dare to poke their heads out the window."
"They will see their people, being led away bound in columns, and will be afraid for themselves."
"And they will hear, both when asleep and when awake, their name being cursed, and they will shiver -- they will shiver but will be unable to die."
O Great and Fearful Lord, all Your ways are grace and truth. What will You do with those who were blinded, misled, deceived and despoiled?
"I wait, to see who will cry out to Me -- and I will respond."
"As long as there is crying out on earth, there will also be an echo in heaven."
"I am the One who is closest to everyone on earth. I give Myself to everyone who desires Me; I withdraw Myself from everyone who does not acknowledge Me. Without Me the world is a pile of ashes. And without Me people are feebler than ashes."

A sordid affair

First off I refuse to call Saddam a tyrant or to judge him in the slightest. Its the favourite tactic of the Empire to demonise a leader as the devil incarnate and use this as a pretext to bomb and occupy entire countries. The media is always mobilised to blacken someone beyond redemption; to even accept it in the slightest is to give some kind of oxygen to the grotesque lies. So for instance, some will say the war was immoral or illegal, but then they backtrack in an effort to compromise and somehow better fit the media image that has been spun by saying, but Saddam was evil and the country is better off without him. Imagine if I were to go and rob a property, killing family members and executing the head of the household in an attempt to plunder the property. What kind of an excuse would it be to say: 'Oh he was evil and a tyrant'. That may well be, but thats hardly an excuse for the crimes I commited, and noone would have accepted that excuse as a reason for robbing the house and killing people, so why accept it after the event? Anyone that agreed with with the statement about the original occupant being evil would be to some extent playing down the original crime itself, and justifying the completely unjustifiable criminal act that occured. If you give the Empire an inch they take a mile, I refuse to retreat in the slightest, and will not parrot even 1% of their excuses or apologetics for their heinous acts.
'Dubya' issued a statement saying that Saddam's execution was "the kind of justice he denied the victims of his brutal regime". If Saddam did any evil he will be judged by God for it. But an American show trial, after an immoral invasion, after a monstrous lie is not justice for anyone.
Bush thought that sleeping through the execution on his ranch would help to create the image that this was Iraqi justice, nothing could be further from the truth. America acted illegally according to their beloved international law (remember that the reason for half their invasions is to uphold it). Firstly occupying powers under international law are expressly prohibited from changing the judicial structures of occupied states. Secondly prisoners of war (and the Americans concede Saddam was one) are not allowed to be handed over for trial by their former enemies. Thirdly as a former head of state Saddam is afforded sovereign immunity to prosecution, and you cannot pass retrospective laws to counter this.
Created by Paul Bremer, the Iraqi Higher Criminal Court was never anything but a US-orchestrated puppet court. Violations of commonly accepted principles of law include (this is an incomplete list):
(i)American imposed censorship of court proceedings
(ii)Withholding of evidence from the defence
(iii)Forcible ejection from court of defence lawyers and the placing of defence lawyers under house arrest
(iv)Denial of defence counsel access to defendants
(v)Blatant lack of impartiality of court judges
(vi)Overt political interference in the selection of court officials and the prejudicing of the trial and trial outcome by statements made by invested political figures — including George W Bush — affirming progress towards, or demanding, execution
(vii)The replacement of four of the five originally selected court judges
(viii)Lack of equality of arms between the prosecution and the defence
(ix)Failure to ensure the security of the defence leading to the murder of three defence lawyers

Some trial when one judge resigns due to American interference, and the next is fired by the Americans. Saddam was executed after a 'trial' about the events surrounding the attempted assassination of him in a shiite town. America purposefully made sure that he was executed before much bigger issues such as the gassing of Kurds, the invasion of Iran and Kuwait could be investigated. Their complicity in supplying Saddam with weapons and encouragement would have been uncovered. Yet they use these alleged human rights abuses as reasons to depose him (in retrospect, since that wasnt the reason given at the time of the invasion). Yet Margaret Beckett, the British Foreign Secretary, claimed that Saddam had been "held to account".
The cherry on the mountainous cake of lies came after Saddams execution. Even in death they tried to smear him. Iraqi National Security Adviser Mouwafak al-Rubaie said that Saddam went to the gallows quietly:
"He was very, very, broken." He said that Saddam turned to look at him. "He was frightened. It was clear in his face."
This moron clearly has the same respect for the general publics intelligence that Bliar does. Did he not consider that the video footage his government ordered shot would reveal the emptiness of his lies?
Saddam went to his death shouting: "God is great. The nation will be victorious. Palestine is Arab." Judge Moneer Haddad, one of the appeal court judges who had been invited to watch Saddam die said:
"he was not afraid of anyone, it was a terrifying scene. Saddam was in self-control. I was not expecting him to be like that".

Thursday, December 28, 2006

Bliar is off his rocker

I almost fell off my chair when I read Tony Bliars latest contribution to historical revisionism and theology. His newest offering includes:

To me, the most remarkable thing about the Koran is how progressive it is. I write with great humility as a member of another faith.
What a pathological liar, if hes a man of faith then Bush is an intellectual giant. The fact that he chooses Christmas day as the date to release this third rate appeasement/apology for Islam shows how much faith he has. Nowhere does he mention the spiritual signicance of the Nativity, but he finds time to comment on the progressiveness of the Koran.

As an outsider, the Koran strikes me as a reforming book, trying to return Judaism and Christianity to their origins, much as reformers attempted to do with the Christian church centuries later.
If he is a man of faith, then why is he denigrating his own faith by claiming that Christianity needed to be 'returned to its origins', and that Islam was the one to do it? Why isnt he a Muslim then...

The Koran is inclusive.
Looks like he hasnt read it then. Probably just got some snippets from his PR team to quote when hes on the subject of the religion of peace.

It extols science and knowledge and abhors superstition.
I'll have some concrete quotes to counter this some time soon.

It is practical and far ahead of its time in attitudes toward marriage, women, and governance.
Which begs the question why isnt Tony asking us to adopt their 'practical' methods of governance. Well actually he is doing his best by overseeing the Islamification of Britain. Mind you one 'practical' method of governance was to impose a tax on all non-Muslims in Muslim lands, so maybe Bliars planning on introducing a tax on Muslims. Fat chance.

Under its guidance, the spread of Islam and its dominance over previously Christian or pagan lands were breathtaking. Over centuries, Islam founded an empire and led the world in discovery, art, and culture.

Scarcely has there been a more stagnant empire in history. Again I'll go into this in greater depth when I have the time.

The standard-bearers of tolerance in the early Middle Ages were far more likely to be found in Muslim lands than in Christian ones.
'Standard-bearers of tolerance'. This guy is a lunatic. Mohammed said: 'Two religions shall not remain together in the peninsula of the Arabs'. Hows that for tolerance, but we're supposed to let them come and impose themselves on us.

We have to show that our values are not Western, still less American or Anglo-Saxon, but values in the common ownership of humanity, universal values that should be the right of the global citizen.
For universal values read no values- access to condoms is more important than babies being killed in their mothers wombs.

The danger with the United States today is not that it is too involved in the world. The danger is that it might pull up the drawbridge and disengage. The world needs it involved. The world wants it engaged.
The world wants it engaged just like it wants a nuclear holocaust. And if the last 50 years are an example of the US not being involved, God help us when they decide to 'get involved'.

Our values are our guide. They represent humanity's progress throughout the ages. At each point we have had to fight for them and defend them. As a new age beckons, it is time to fight for them again.
Its time to fight for our values by fighting against people like have the blood of hundreds of thousands on your hands you treacherous, lying, sorry excuse for a puppet. You're right when you say God will judge you, I wouldnt be too sure that you'll be getting the judgement you're expecting though.

What most annoys me about Blairs perverse world view is that he tries to twist reality so that it conforms to his agenda. In actual fact hes as clueless about Islam (or lying, take your pick) as the head mistress in my previous blog entry:

Political radicals became religious radicals and vice versa.
Those in power tried to accommodate this Islamic radicalism by incorporating some of its leaders and some of its ideology. The result was nearly always disastrous. Religious radicalism was made respectable and political radicalism suppressed, and so in the minds of many, the two came together to represent the need for change. They began to think that the way to restore the confidence and stability of Islam was through a combination of religious extremism and populist politics

Anyone who knows the slightest thing about Islam could tell Bliar that Islam has always been a political religion. It has a blueprint for government and judiciary. There wasnt one historical moment when the beautiful spirituality of Islam was supplanted by extremists who tried to politicise it. It always was political. That mythical moment only exists in Bliars brain. But supposedly hes more intimately familiar with Islam than Muslims themselves. As Fazlur Rahman, a well respected Muslim scholar said:

Islam insisted on the assumption of political power since it regarded itself as the repository of the Will of God which had to be worked on earth through a political order

Mullah Bliar has clearly recieved some new revelation which abrogates this old Islamic view.

But let us remember that extremism is not the true voice of Islam. Millions of Muslims the world over want what all people want: to be free and for others to be free. They regard tolerance as a virtue and respect for the faith of others as a part of their own faith.

Telling people what to believe again. Sorry but Muslims dont follow Blairite Islam. Just today I read this. This 'refugee' who crossed God knows how many safe countries (according to international law he should have sought asylum in the first one, so he shouldn't even be in Europe, yet alone Denmark) has the audacity to proclaim:

"We're the ones who will change you,"

It will remain forever unclear to me why people who have the audacity to utter such provocative statements are not immediately deported out of Europe. He is absolutely right when he says:

"western thinking" as formed by the values held by leaders of western or non-islamic nations. Its "materialism, egoism and wildness" has altered Christianity

But his vision of an Islamic Europe is not the antidote to the problem. A healthy European country who had a backbone would have chucked this guy back into Arabia years ago. But the Europe of old is AWOL, and in its disorientated state it niether knows what it stands for or against, all the time taking needless blows from the rear from a problem that could be dealt with within 1 day.

"Just look at the development within Europe, where the number of Muslims is expanding like mosquitoes," Krekar said.

Well if they describe themselves as mosquitoes who am I to argue. I'll be using this quote in the future.

"Every western woman in the EU is producing an average of 1.4 children. Every Muslim woman in the same countries are producing 3.5 children. "By 2050, 30 percent of the population in Europe will be Muslim."

This could all be solved in no time at all. Europe to the Europeans, our 'guests' have outstayed their welcome, its time to ask them to leave. Failing that we should forcibly evict them.

Thursday, December 21, 2006

Christmas in Britain

Its the run up to Christmas and, as could be anticipated, if you took away all the shiny material objects made from cheap crap from China you wouldnt know it. The government, local councils, schools and the media are doing their very best to undermine any spiritual substance common folk might find in Christmas in all sort of ways. The atheist attack dog that is Richard Dawkins was wheeled out multiple times last weekend to repeat his repetitive arguments on why there is no evidence for God, why Christianity is 'nasty'etc. This guy is the no1 man that the media turn to when they need an atheist (which is quite often). If he was better looking (and less bitter) theyd probably give him his own tv show. He claimed his militant atheism is supposedly based on a love of truth, but he promptly contradicted himself (I suppose he didnt want it to seem like he was a party pooper) by claiming he was a 'cultural Christian'. Sometime I'll post some criticism of mine regarding his favourite arguments.
A Christmas party I had to endure (work related) was in a bizarre restaurant which seemed to double up as a night club half way through the evening. Before I could even get my main course down me theyd wheeled out a DJ complete with all his equipment and were pumping out so much noise pollution I couldnt hear the girl next to me speak. Then they opened up the doors to non-diners and started moving away the tables to make room for a makeshift dancefloor. 20 minutes later it looked like an Ibiza nightclub with Christmas decorations, and a few shell-shocked diners left over. As a few drunk slappers prepared to mount a nearby table to gyrate to the jungle beats I beat a hasty retreat through the mass of pissed and drugged up clubbers. It was actually quite a surreal sight, and I might have stayed longer, if only to observe my work colleagues making fools of themselves. As it was, Id been training in the gym earlier in the day and was not in the mood to inhale copious amounts of nicotine, or deprive my body of rest. Incidentally my local gym considers it appropriate to play songs with lyrics like 'I love pussy, shave that pussy' while people work out. I wouldnt have thought its appropriate 'musical' material for any time of the year, yet alone Christmas time. There were numerous women around as well at the time.
I thought Id gather up some of the more interesting Christmas related stories:
First up, an example of what happens when foreign ethnic groups form enclaves, and then the locals bend over backwards trying to appease them because they're so scared of offending them. In this case the English head teacher of an 80% Muslim school removed the 'virgin' from Mary for Christmas celebrations so as not to offend Muslims. She clearly has no faith or she would never have sanctioned this. But what is even more embarrasing is that she has no knowledge about Islam, and it was the Muslims she was trying to placate. Muslims also believe Jesus was born from an immaculate conception. Why Jesus, a supposedly lesser prophet, was given that honour but Mohammed wasnt is one of the many bizarre contradictions of Islam, but the fact remains that this teacher was clueless. The story is here. Another school decided to axe its Christmas play altogether in favour of a celebration of a range of different faiths, including Judaism or Hinduism.
A local council will withdraw funding of a toddlers group unless it stops singing Christian songs, especially those about Jesus! No sign of any Christmas spirit, infact the yob culture is alive and well, here is a story about a local Santa being ambushed by youths who hurled missiles and swore at him. I laughed when I first read it but its quite sad really.
Speaking of Santa's, a German retail chain withdrew Santa Claus statuettes after shoppers complained that they looked as though they were giving a Hitler salute. A pic of the Santa's saluting in tight formation can be seen here.
We were going to have another crass multi-cultural gimmick from channel 4 featuring a Muslim woman in full niqab giving the broadcaster's alternative Christmas message. It seems the woman in question has stepped down after she saw the reaction to the announcement. But seeing as dozens of women in niqabs applied for the role Im sure they can come up with another one in time to save the day.
Aside from all the usual pc nonsense, this years BNP Christmas message was recorded from the Hebridean island of Iona, a key location in the establishment of the Christian tradition in these islands and a very special place at the centre of early Scottish political life; it is the burial grounds of kings and queens from Scotland, Ireland and Norway, a place of homage and reverence. In the 15 minute video, Nick Griffin gives some history of the island and reminds viewers about the erosion of the Christian tradition together with the replacement of the indigenous British population. The BNPtv clip can be downloaded here for those with broadband connections.
Oh and good news finally: David Irving has been released from jail in Austria.

Sunday, December 17, 2006

Holocaust Conference

Here's a must watch video of the American Jew Blitzer interviewing David Duke, an American who attended the Holocaust Conference in Iran.

Looks like Duke really did his research, nailing Blitzer with blow after blow. He brings up Blitzers membership of AIPAC (American Israeli Public Affairs Commitee), which really dismisses any claims he can have to being an 'honest broker' of the truth. Imagine a Serb reporter working for a Serbian owned media conglomerate in the US who also happens to be a member of the 'Serbian Commitee for Kosovo', interviewing Albanians who want an independant Kosovo and claiming to be an impartial reporter working for an impartial media outlet.

Then Duke hits Blitzer with a couple of uncomfortable and irrefutable facts that he doesnt even attempt to call into question:

1. 60% of Republican Party funding comes from Jewish sources.-thats from The Washington Post.

2. 4 out of the 5 biggest media conglomerates in the US are Jewish owned, and the 5th is even more pro-Israel than the other 4. -thats from the Los Angeles Jewish Times.
Its quite perverse also how its portrayed as immoral to question the mainstream account of 'The Holocaust' (you've got to love how the Jews have requisitioned the word 'holocaust' for themselves) but people are free to research any other period of history. I would be ignored if I turned up in Germany and claimed 20m Russians didnt die in WW2, but I would be locked up if I said that 6m Jews didnt die. Talk about a monopoly on suffering even if the standard version of 'The Holocaust' was 100% accurate. And politicians in America moralise about freedom of speech in other areas of the world, but say nothing about the imprisonement of David Irving or Ernst Zundel for thought crimes. Is it not against America's beloved human rights to send people to prison for having an opinion? People are free not to believe in God, they are free to spit on him, but question the official version of events on one particular historical event and all hell breaks loose.

Reminds of a poem I once read which went something like this:

"I see a country that pillages the worlds natural resources but prides itself on being the worlds biggest donor of aid. I see a country that aborts it’s unborn, but won’t club a baby seal. I see a country that prays at the alter of diversity, but destroys it with racial intermarriage. I see a country that allows all forms of filth and degenerate behavior, in public and various forms of media, but won’t allow a cross to be burned in public. I see a country that allows abortion because it is your body and you can do with it as you want, but won't let you smoke a marijuana cigarette. I see a country that will go to war to protect other peoples borders while it's own is being overrun with illegals. I see a country that is the only one in history to use nuclear weapons, but thinks it has the moral authority to decide whether others can have them. I see a country that has degenerated past the point of no return. May God have mercy on our souls."

The point about freedom of speech is actually taken up by Duke in this next interview with MSNBC :

In both interviews Duke mentions his personal website, CNN and MSNBC must really be rueing the day they gave this man air time. I might add that the first youtube clip topped numerous youtube categories a couple of days ago. Among others:
#1 - Top Rated (Today) - People - English
#1 - Most Viewed (Today) - People - English
#1 - Most Discussed (Today) - People - English

Wednesday, December 13, 2006

Immigration: 'Not something prescribed to society'

The above quote was made by bganon. I will set out to show that immigration is indeed prescribed to society, at least in the West. Im using Britain as an example. Im not going to concentrate on the merits of the arguments for or against immigration. Thats a big topic in itself, so my aim is just to show that immigration is prescribed to the people of Britain. If anyone is interested in the merits of the arguments for immigration (economic prosperity and cultural diversity are the favourites) which Robin, Tony, and David keep repeating (like broken records) in the 3 speeches I supply then 2 excellent sites I found recently attempt to address those points and more:
The absurdities of multiculturalism
The Economics of Immigration

Multiculturalism is defined as the mixing of people of different races, nations, religions and cultures. It is absolutely impossible to create a multicultural society, out of homogenous ones, without immigration. Therefore one cannot talk about the benefits of multiculturalism while criticising immigration. The two go together. It is theoretically possible that the reverse could be true, that you could have immigration which does not lead to multi-culturalism (ie diaspora returning) but for the most part this type of immigration is negligible.
Multiculturalism is sold as an ideal, (and immigration as a means to executing that ideal). Most Brits would laugh at the claim that it is not prescribed to society since they know that criticism of immigration is so taboo, that a party who let most of them in while in government (the ‘conservatives’), can be described as racist just for suggesting that there should be a limit on immigration. All government and media institutions, and their various ‘think tanks’ and ‘commissions’ endorse both immigration, and multiculturalism. This is obvious to anyone living in the country but for those people who haven’t experienced the propaganda machine in action Ive supplied two speeches as an example of the type of stuff we’re dealing with. Even wikipedia states:
Multiculturalism was adopted as official policy, in several nations from the 1970's onward, for reasons that varied from country to country.
Multiculturalism began as an official policy in English-speaking countries, starting in Canada in 1971. It was quickly adopted by most member-states in the EU, as official policy, and as a social consensus among the elite.

Heres what Robin Cook (foreign minister at the time) had to say on the matter when he wasn’t busy supervising and promoting the bombing of Serbia back into the stoneage:

The British are not a race, but a gathering of countless different races and communities, the vast majority of which were not indigenous to these islands.
It is not their purity that makes the British unique, but the sheer pluralism of their ancestry.
He starts off by laying the foundation for his subsequent gross deception by undermining the British people In two ways. First he implies they aren’t really indigenous to Britain, secondly he questions their stock. The fact that are nonetheless 100% European with no Pakistani or Afghan contributors to the gene pool he conveniently leaves out.

Today’s London is a perfect hub of the globe. It is home to over 30 ethnic communities of at least 10,000 residents each. In this city tonight, over 300 languages will be spoken by families over their evening meal at home.
What a beautiful image, families having their evening meal, if that doesn’t convince you nothing will.

This pluralism is not a burden we must reluctantly accept. It is an immense asset that contributes to the cultural and economic vitality of our nation.
Sounds like hes selling multiculturalism to me. What would we do without all those cultural benefits, how would the economy function.

Legitimate immigration is the necessary and unavoidable result of economic success, which generates a demand for labour faster than can be met by the birth-rate of a modern developed country.
Our cultural diversity is one of the reasons why Britain continues to be the preferred location for multinational companies setting up in Europe.
And it isn't just our economy that has been enriched by the arrival of new communities. Our lifestyles and cultural horizons have also been broadened in the process.
Hes said this already, but cant find any other reasons so he mentions economic and cultural benefits again. This time he inserts a new descriptive term that liberals love: ‘enrichment’.

Some of the most successful countries in the modern world, such as the United States and Canada, are immigrant societies. Their experience shows how cultural diversity, allied to a shared concept of equal citizenship, can be a source of enormous strength.
Diversity a source of enormous strength eh. How can we achieve it…immigrant societies.

The diversity of modern Britain expressed through devolution and multiculturalism is more consistent with the historical experience of our islands.
Actually more consistent with the British historical experience would be a military invasion by a European country. Maybe the French could be persuaded to invade, I mean countless dead and foreign subjugation is a small price to pay, as long we’re being consistent and true to our past historical experiences. Liberal logic is a strange subject.

We should be proud that those British values have made Britain a successful multi-ethnic society. We should welcome that pluralism as a unique asset for Britain in a modern world where our prosperity, our security and our influence depend on the health of our relations with other peoples around the globe.
Again hes repeating himself. But notice how he uses diversity, immigrant societies, pluralism, multi-ethnic, multi-culturalism interchangeably. Hes promoting the whole lot, not just one. Yet again he mentions the economic benefits, but in an effort to produce another positive (hes desperate here) he inserts a real porker of a lie: pluralism improves relations with other peoples around the globe which in turn leads to greater security).

And we should recognise that its diversity is part of the reason why Britain is a great place to live.
Still sounds like hes selling it to us.

Now we have Tony Bliar preaching to us:

So now is the time to make the argument for controlled migration.
He mentions controlled immigration (yeah right), but even so the bottom line is that hes trying to persuade us that we need immigration.

Where there are abuses we will deal with them, so that public support for the controlled migration that benefits Britain is maintained.
A recognition of the benefits that controlled migration brings not just to the economy but to delivering the public and private services on which we rely.
Celebrating the major achievements of migrants in this country and the success of our uniquely British model of diversity.So fact one; the movement of people and labour into and out of the UK is, and always has been, absolutely essential to our economy.And the economic contribution of visitors and migrants is nothing new. At crucial points over the past century and beyond we have relied on migrants to supply essential capital to our economy and plug the labour gaps when no others could be found.
The usual economic arguments.

And they were followed in the 1950s and 1960s by workers from the West Indies and South Asia who found jobs in electrical engineering, food and drink plants, car manufacturing, paper and rubber mills and plastic works, fuelling the post-war economic boom that backed up MacMillan's claim that "we'd never had it so good".
Implying a causal link between immigration and prosperity.

Those who do come here make a huge contribution
Repeating himself.

Our public services would be close to collapse without their contribution.
Introduces a touch of drama to the proceedings to prevent listeners from falling asleep to the mantra of economic prosperity, cultural diviersity, economic prosperity, cultural diversity..............

Population mobility and migration has been crucial to our economic success
How many times, do you not have any other points to make Tony?

The East African Asians who fled Uganda in the 1970s have contributed immeasurably to British society
Immeasurable eh.

Britain as a whole is immeasurably richer - and not just economically - for the contribution that migrants have made to our society.
Same monotonous argument as Robin Cooks: cultural and economic benefits to immigration.

Our literature, our music, our national sporting teams - all bear the indelible impact of centuries of migration.
Same tactic as Cook as well, try and paint the Britain as an immigrant country.

So over the coming months, we will do two things at once: make the argument for controlled migration as good and beneficial for Britain
There you have it: immigration being prescribed.

We all have responsibilities: ordinary decent British people - to keep faith in our traditions of tolerance and our historic record of becoming stronger and richer as a result of migration and diversity.
Translation: It’s your responsibility to keep the faith as regards our migration and diversity experiment even though you don’t like it and it isnt working.
Notice how he tries to offload responsibility for this modern phenomenon by claiming its ‘traditional’ and ‘historic’. Afterall if its been happening since time immemorial then he doesn’t have to come up with any convincing reasons of his own for it. Interesting how he pleads with people to keep faith in something which is so incredibly good. You’d have thought that since its so great he wouldn’t need to be begging people to persevere with it.

In addition to the speeches by a former foreign minister, and the current prime minister, I'll add a third by a former home office minister, David Blunkett. The man is famous for having to resign due to abusing his position to speed up the residence application of the nanny of the married woman who was giving him sexual favours. The essay is brain-numbingly boring including the same repetitive phrases as the other two, but to show people the limited but insistent nature of their arguments Ive provided some of the highlights:

Migration is now of crucial importance to developing countries
This is probably sending you to sleep.......sorry.

But migration also brings significant cultural, as well as economic, benefits.
Where have we heard this before....

It increases the diversity of our societies, and builds up our cultural capital.
In an effort to be original he introduces a new twist, referring to the cultural benefits in economic terms.

In the UK, we have always been an open, trading nation, enriched by our global links. Contemporary patterns of migration extend this tradition.
Same tactics as the rest: make out that immigration is a historic tradition. If its not new or innovative, less need to provide evidence to back up his assertions. Gets a gold star for fitting in the word 'enriched'.

Democratic governments need to ensure that their electorates have confidence and trust in the nationality, immigration and asylum systems they are operating, or people will turn to extremists for answers.
F*cking hypocrite. How many people can have confidence and trust in a man that abuses his position for sexual gratification.

the fact that a substantial proportion of the citizens of the West are themselves Muslims - something which is very important to social cohesion in countries such as the UK.
Only Robin Cooks lie about diversity being good for security is on a par with this fib. So the recipe for good social cohesion in any country is to introduce a substantial proportion of Muslims.

In addition to these 3 speeches Ive just come accross the Orwellian sounding government white paper 'Strength in Diversity'. The same arguments that Robin, Tony, and David used are trotted out. If they're not prescribing immigration, multiculturalism and diversity to us with comments such as the following then Im Harry Potter:

The United Kingdom has a long tradition of successful migration and
integration that has brought, and continues to bring real economic and social benefits, which are shared by all.

Respecting and valuing diversity is an essential part of building a successful,
integrated society.

Saturday, December 02, 2006

Discussion on 'Race, Culture, Religion and Behaviour' and 'Present day Serbia'

This is an extension of the debates Ive been having with bganon in some of the comments sections. His statements are in red. Its fast becoming an epic discussion, and is already by far the longest blog entry, not that this is necessarily a good thing. Its so long I doubt many would read it. In any case we're up to the fourth installment.

Nikola perhaps you could answer a question for me. A black, (or green with blue spots) person moves into a given area with his wife. Their children look the same as they do and have lived in the 'foreign' culture all their lives.The children behave as their surrounding dictate - integrated with the local culture. My question is are they less welcome or should they have less rights than somebody who came from the other side of that same country?

Firstly, you say that the children behave as their surroundings dictate, and make the presumption that they integrate with the local culture. The reality is that people can be brought up in the same geographical area, it does not necessarily mean that they will all end up the same. Look at the Pakistani ghettoes in Yorkshire and the Midlands. There are no-go areas for whites, and no go areas for Pakistanis. Do you think that the hordes of Albanians that entered Kosovo in the last century have integrated successfully? Secondly why the need to find out, are our societies not diverse or interesting enough that we need to ship foreigners in? Even if we are successful, what was the point, the diversity they brought will melt into the local culture if you are right. Unfortunately all the evidence points the opposite- they don’t integrate successfully. Mass immigration and multi-culturalism are two intertwined ideologies which offer very little or no benefit in the best possible scenario, and offer social disintegration and disaster in the worst possible scenario. Finally to answer your question, I believe in nation states. Serbia is called Serbia for a reason, and it must serve the Serbian culture and people first and foremost. So yes a non-Serb is less welcome than a Serb. Id rather welcome a Serb from the diaspora rather than a Chinese, turk, American or any other person. Just like a random Serb is less welcome in my house than a member of my own family.

Also, Im confused by which identity is more important. Are we talking about countries, are we talking about ethnic identity, colour, are we talking about local areas?

Well they are all intertwined I wouldn’t go as far as saying ones more important than the other. Im curious as to why you use the word colour. Lets be accurate here, when you say colour you mean race. Don’t lets fall into that old myth that colour is all there is to race.

If we are talking about the last point then I'm in agreement. People born in the same geographical area share the same habits - regardless of background. But if you are suggesting that somebody brought up in a local area will behave differently to others because of their colour I dont agree.
Israelis and Palestinians are virtually living on top of each other in some areas, does it look to you like they share the same habits? Claiming the dead soil we stand on induces the same habits on whoever might stand on it is to me very strange. Surely the background, which you dismiss as a non-factor, is much more crucial. And you can have two families living next door to each other, who are of different races, speak different languages, and have different religions and customs. I see it every day in the suburbs of this city I live in. Believe me the soil we stand on is irrelevant, you can step inside their homes and its like you’re in the Far east. Behaviour is much more closely correlated to culture and religion rather than geography.

As I said I studied phsychology and am aware of current expert opinion on how influencial genetic and social factors are on a person. There are 2 extremes of the scale some (mostly liberals and behaviouralist types) say that man is 100 percent socialised, they dont allow for genetic factors.The other extreme side of the scale is a 50 / 50 viewpoint (mostly those of the extreme right wing persuasion). Incidently the nazis believed that man was more than 50 percent genetic.
Perhaps you'd be a better runner if you grew up in a gheto, and decided that running was your only ticket out of there. Not that I'm saying this is true for black runners. I agree with you on this actually. What I am saying is that you have to look at things quite deeply before being certain what is causing what.
Im curious as to how you can say that there are two extreme views, one of which doesn’t allow for genetic factors at all, and the other which allows for both genetics and environmental factors. I agree the first is extreme, but why is it extreme to believe that a combination of genes and environment could influence an individual? Surely a more neutral take would be that either the 100% genetic or 100% environmental viewpoints are preposterous.
The following examples show racial genetic differences which refute the 100% social factor theory. That’s not to say that genetics is all there is to anything, but to claim the opposite, that it has no influence is just plain wrong. Reality refutes your position.

Differences in size, coordination, motor skills, bone-density, mineral composition.
"On the subject of size, it is widely know that black babies tend tobe born smaller than white babies but that black babies develop more rapidlyin coordination and motor skills.

Another interesting biological reality involves long-distance running.At the present time long-distance men’s running events are dominated byBlacks from the Elongate groups.

Many of these race differences are particularly clear in a multi-racialcountry like the United States. Compared to whites, African-Americans areborn earlier and smaller, but they mature more quickly. Their bones aredenser, and have a higher mineral content. Denser bones are found evenin fetuses before birth, and this difference in density continues throughoutlife. For this reason osteoporosis among the elderly is less common inblacks than in whites."

This article provides an insight into how some scientists are influenced by political and ideological principle rather than scientific ones:
"What Dr. Lahn told his audience was that genetic changes over the past several thousand years might be linked to brain size and intelligence. He flashed maps that showed the changes had taken hold and spread widely in Europe, Asia and the Americas, but weren’t common in sub-Saharan Africa.
Dr. Lahn says he is moving away from the research. “It’s getting too controversial,” he says.
Dr. Lahn had touched a raw nerve in science: race and intelligence."

Cervical cancer risk may depend on race.
Evidence of differing IQ between races
Differences in hearing
Black people who carry a mutated version of a gene involved in blood clotting are six times more likely than other people to develop heart disease, say scientists.
A gene which stops some ethnic groups getting rid of an alcohol by-product may be contributing to cancer cases.
Indians 'genetically prone to heart disease'
Race, genetics, and human reproductive strategy
Race and Intelligence (book in pdf form)
Fred notes:
"The IQ of East Asians (Koreans, Chinese, Japanese) is about 106, of Eurowhites 100, "blacks" in America 85, blacks in Africa 70. He does not in the book deal with Jews, but Ashkenazi Jews average 115. The East Asians have a particular advantage in mathematics. The moment one recites the statistics, frantic counterarguments arise. Race doesn't exist or, contradictorily, isn't important. Intelligence doesn't exist, can't be defined, or can't be measured. Tests are biased. In short, anything that gives an undesired answer undergoes summary rejection. Given that races demonstrably differ in appearance, size, bodily proportions, biochemistry, brain size, and a thousand other things, is there any obvious reason why they should not vary in intelligence? In behavior?"

But both these extreme views 100 percent and 50 / 50 are dismissed by the huge amount of experts in the field who have conducted extensive experiments on the issue, some going on for many years. I wont go any further since if you are interested you can find further information on the internet on this.
Well I cant claim its 50/50 but its definitely not 100% either way, that’s for sure. Its somewhere inbetween.
Indiginous peoples. Again for me a supposition. What is an indiginous people? What date is your starting point for indiginous?
Well in some areas of the world im sure it would be very debatable as to who the indigenous people are. For the area of the globe that I care about I have no such dilemmas though. Serbs are indigenous to the Balkans (that’s not a claim to the entire region by the way), Europeans are the aboriginal population of Europe.

Are you talking about indiginous from the begininng of nationalism and nation states? Or are you talking about indiginous from since the modern age began? If you know about history and about population flow you will see that there has always been migration. People (Slavs) migrated to what we today call Serbia from what is now called Russia. Are they indiginous, or were those people that lived here before indiginous and what about their rights?
Indeed there have always been population movements, there is no hard and fast rule. But the Slavs have been in the Balkans for over a thousand years, before they came they were in parts of present-day Russia for probably thousands of years. The Serbs that entered the Balkans mixed with and absorbed the Old European populations, hence the result that we are not as Nordic as other Slavs. So its impossible to talk about the rights of those people, because they don’t exist any more.

Serbia was invaded so many times and under nearly 500 years of Turkish rule. Are the Serbian people indiginous or highly mixed after years of exposure to 'foreign' people?
Well as I have stated we are not pure Slavs, we have plenty of Dinaric blood, we mixed with the various peoples present during the times of the Byzantine empire, but Id be careful to claim that we mixed with turks. They took plenty of our blood, some of our best infact, but theres no evidence they left any. End of the day, we are what we are now, theres no point in holding up some quasi-mythological ancient Slavic identity. I think we remained intact despite all those invasions and occupations. Any Serb who would look at the Ottoman occupation and thought it made him less Serbian because his ancestors were exposed to a foreign people I would regard as a lunatic not worthy of his own state and land anyway. It made us stronger, it made us dig deeper, it made us who we are.

Thats not even going into the North American Indians debate. I would bet that most who are worried about mixing would find themselves confused by supporting the rights of indiginous peoples. They might well be arguing that they should be thrown out of their own countries!
That’s why I don’t discuss that issue, I don’t care about it, that’s for other people to worry about. My people never colonised or invaded anyone else, theres no moral obligation to accept the colonisation of my people.

I agree that there are great problems when a historic majority (note no use of the word indiginous) population is outgrown by a minority. I have written on this topic a number of times. Something needs to be done - a universal standard needs to be applied. Thanks to the concept of self determination (and Woodrow Wilson) any majority in a given area can seek that right. Before you know it their elite see that there is much greater benefit in creating their own state which they can dominate rather than be subservient to the centre.And yes this must be spoken of and not swept under the carpet as is the case now. If many years of history are to be ignored in Kosovo where the Serbs used to compose a majority and the previous minority, Kosovo Albanians, are allowed to form their own state, then that must happen elsewhere around the world, or this must be prevented from happening using other means. This is a vital question that does concern all of us and we must come up with a strategy / answer to it.
Well this is why I don’t value democracy. Democracy gives power to the majority, ie in Kosovos case, those who reproduced like bunny rabbits. In practical terms those that hate democracy the most will be the ones that gain power through it, ie the Muslims flooding into Europe. Logic dictates that any Serb that honestly believes in democracy, must also come to terms with the fact that this implies that Albanians have a right to an independent Kosovo, and he must be prepared to give up all rights to a future Serbian state if we were to become a minority. If I, as a bachelor, let a homeless couple into my house and they in time produce 10 offspring, do they have any moral right to my property? Numbers shouldn’t make the slightest bit of difference. But it is ultimately unsustainable to sustain a state if you’re national group is not a majority, that is why I reject mixed states and would deport all the Albanians. I don’t want to have to exercise my moral right to lord it over a majority of Albanians, Id rather they weren’t there in the first place. Secondly its no coincidence that the almost spiritual significance that is given to democracy comes at the same time as the West has abandoned absolute values and seeks to relativise everything. Every religion is equal, the sexes are equal, everyones opinion matters, theres no absolute morals, no absolute right or wrong, all sexualities are equal. Simply put: theres no conviction. Instead of a strong leader that stands for something substantial, we have policy by numbers. A triangle has three sides, thats absolute, you cant vote on it. Im not interested if the majority think it has 56 sides, then theyre morons. A majority can be wrong, and given the nature of the manipulation theyre invariably exposed to, theyre wrong on a fairly consistent basis. What kind of retards do they have to be to vote in the biggest hate figure in Britain for a third term?

I dont think there is anything wrong with making un-pc statements. Its ridiculous to sanitise your view and may even be counter productive - causing people to feel more frustrated and more likely to do something wrong, shall we say.And yes society has gone in this direction but if a person is smart enough (even those with extreme viewpoints) they will listen and start to realise the error of their ways. The 1990's were the high point of PC in the West but I believe the hysteria is over now.
Well I think that we are just about reaching our climax here in Britain regarding political correctness, but yes it certainly is being rejected by the silent masses.
My belief is that we are all individuals and all make our own decisions - we are responsible, not our local culture. Local habits and customs may play a part but it is the individual who decides.
I vehemently disagree. We are all responsible for our selves and our own immediate action, and make our own decisions. But those decisions are based on social influences, religion, etc An individual who carries out a suicide bombing is personally responsible for his own action. But you cannot ignore what led him to this action… a complex variety of factors. His religion and its tenets would have justified him in his own eyes, his spiritual superiors would have counselled him, his family and friends could have given him the moral support before the event. He could have been influenced by the previous actions of members of his tribe and co-religionists. Historical events relevant to his society and tribe, which had absolutely no direct influence on him, could have inspired him to carry out the attack. It is difficult to understand in this ego-centric society that people can have group loyalty but it is the reality. The Multiculturalists must understand that not everyone wants to be a loyal little citizen who cares about nothing but his personal consumption. They cant live in their ivory towers forever.

This is the debate about the present day state of Serbia:
I think we disagree again Nikola!
Not much of a suprise there then.
The concept of soverignty - do you think it exists in todays world?
I dont just mean Serbia, I'm talking about all countries. It isnt nation states that make the decisions these days, its the multinational corporations (who have bought up all political parties long before they come to power in those nation states).
I could say the same thing about democracy- does it really exist, but that wouldn’t stop you are your fellow liberals at B92 claiming its desirable.

Thus I'd say that soverignty is an illusion. (not that I'm saying its a good thing)
It certainly is an illusion- that’s my point, I would like it to be a reality. Tadic is a puppet.
Politicians are a bunch of prostitutes in any country so the Serbian case is not specific.
That’s a really positive outlook right there- akin to: all other marriages are failing, its perfectly OK that my ones failing too.
I dont think the size of the Serbian army is so important.What is important is the quality of the army and basic things like foodstuffs or conditions in it.
Well since the government clearly has no desire to protect the territorial integrity of the country of course there is no need for a large army. All we need is a few crack units which can be shipped off somewhere in the middle-east, whenever America snaps its fingers.

Its no accident that there have been so many incidents in the army recently considering how the money for the army is spent wrongly by the government.
These incidents are not about the size of the army and everything to do with, as you point out, corruption and inefficiency. And who is to blame, the ‘democratic’ government which has been in power for years.
In other words its nasa posla - the corrupt officials take the money to buy themselves flats or to pay immoral arms dealers like Dragic some ridiculous deal whilst ordinary soldiers are freezing, starving and lacking proper training.
The logical solution is to sort out the officials, not get rid of the army. And dont forget it was JSO that caused many of the problems for our elected officials post 2000, members of which murdered our elected Prime Minister.
Renegade members is no excuse for disbanding entire military formations. And Djindjic came in on the back of a Western-funded coup, not an election.
So, yes they should have been disbanded. In fact they should have been disbanded long before - Legija was parading around Belgrade 2001 /2002 in his Jeeps with his Zemun mafia buddies (with state security protection) acting as if he were God or something.
So why is it that once they put Legija in jail they didn’t appoint another leader, why shut down the entire unit? Was it inherently evil just like the Serbian people? Had it committed so many 'war crimes' it was beyond redemption?

The third REPLY:

Of course there are cases where children of immigrants dont integrate (I should add that my example was a case, I wasnt claiming that all children integrate, I do maintain that most do - although opposition from their parents can be a problem).
You’re just stating things without providing evidence. Take Kosovo, did most Albanians integrate? No, and I wouldn’t want them to, I don’t want them there.
First of all I think that langauge like 'hoardes' is unhelpful in a discussion of this type. I mean it is not relevant and actually shows that you have already made an emotional judgement and are less likely to be persuaded by facts.

Check your dictionary: Hoarde: A wandering troop or gang especially, a clan or tribe of a nomadic people migrating from place to place for the sake of pasturage, plunder, etc.; a predatory multitude. What are they if they arent a clan or tribe that migrated for pasturage and plunder with a predatory attitude? Look at our hundreds of churches and monastaries in ruin, nearly all the land in the province is theirs. Look at their attempts to expel the remaining minority of Serbs.

The Albanians that entered Kosovo are unlike most other immigrants in that their country remained on the doorstep. Thus they (or a considerable total of them) did not feel the need to integrate.Tito's Yugoslavia, as you know, afforded plenty of rights for minorities to speak and use their own language etc.
They are the immigrants that I am most concerned with, and they are a problem are they not? So retract your statement about immigrants mostly integrating. Who cares, even if it were to work all around the globe, which it clearly doesn’t, if it doesn’t work in my backyard I don’t want it.
As you also know it wasnt just the Albanians who did little mixing, the Serbs of Kosovo also kept to themselves. There are so many factors we could talk about this Kosovo topic forever. Suffice to say that I think huge mistakes were made by Communist Yugoslavia and by the corrupt local officials (Serbs and Albanians) in Kosovo that if anything reduced the chances of ordinary people having better relationships with one another.

Oh so it’s the Serbian fault, we didn’t welcome them enough. No one asked the Serbs if they wanted the borders to be opened, Tito just did it anyway. So you expect people to react positively to a policy that completely disregarded their wishes and to bond with immigrants. You keep assuming people should want cross-cultural relationships with each other. Why this implicit assumption? No wonder you’re so disappointed when it turns out to be a bad dream.

You ask me why the need to find out as if this - immigration, is some kind of organised experiment.

Then answer the question, regardless of whether it is or isn’t an experiment, why do we need to find out? It is at the very least a policy, why the need for it? Who voted for it? Don’t use your democratic principles only when it suits you.

It is not some kind of mass experiment (although of course its much easier to think of it this way). Dont you think that most of these people would rather stay at home, close to their families, in surroundings they are used to?

Most immigration is economic, the immigrants enter for material gain. Why do you expect them to be loyal to the state and fit in.

Some are persecuted in those countries yes although this is the cowardly excuse argument used in the West by liberals who dont have the guts to say what the real problem is for fear that the average man in the West wont understand:Most leave their homes because of poverty, they cant find jobs in their home countries. They hope to be employed in Western countries with a general plan of either sending money home on a regular basis or somehow legalising their status and bringing their family with them. Completely normal behaviour - just the kind of thing I (or you?) might do if we lived in some terrible situation with no hope.

I agree it completely natural on their part to desire to come and gain any possible benefits they can. That doesn’t give them a right to do it, if the host population doesn’t want them there.

The REAL problem is that the rich countries of the West are monopolising the resources. So the real solution to mass emmigration is to ensure that people of poorer countries dont have to leave the place where they were born and grew up.
I agree, so why are you supporting immigration then?

You believe in nation states? Do you also believe that nation states will last forever or that there was many years of history before nation states existed? Nation states are temporary. If they are temporary then its a little short sighted to think they are such an important feature.
That’s the most ridiculous thing you’ve said. Nation states are temporary so they are unimportant! Well everything is temporary. Name me one thing on this earth that isn’t temporary. Nation states are capable of existing for long periods, certainly there is no inherent reason why they should last less than the multi-cultural free-for-all states in the west. Infact if anything they would last for longer, they would be more stable.

I dont see a huge difference between the behaviour of Israelis and Palestinians. Quite frankly both sides have comitted serious human rights abuses and neither side has the monopoly on righteousness.

Im not talking about the violence towards each other. You stated that if people are brought up in the same geographic location they will all get on like a house on fire, and be totally the same. Since according to you, geography determines behaviour and customs more than anything else. So why are they so culturally, religiously, linguistically etc so very different to the point that they want to exterminate each other.

Let me then give you an example which you will be familiar with. First the statement, a Croatian Serb has more in common with a Croatian in Croatia than a Serb in Serbia. Likewise a Croat living in Belgrade has more in common with his fellow Belgraders than he does with the Croats in his homeland.
Well maybe you hang out with liberals that have no national consciousness. Here in England I know Serb families from Croatia that are part of the Serbian community, consider themselves Serbian, come to Serbian church, celebrate Slava, and never ever see another Croatian. Theyd laugh at you if you tried to tell them they had more in common with Croats.

I am obviously not talking about religion - provided the person is religious. I'm talking about language, behaviour and so on. I have a very good friend cleansed from the Krajina who often laments that this Serbia isnt his country, Croatia is. He keeps his Croatian accent with pride. And yes, his family were Serb nationalists who lived in Krajina for generations.
What a sad, deluded individual. My family is from Krajina, that doesn’t make me Croatian. If I had been born in Lahore, would it make me a Pakistani?

I have a Croat neighbour who speaks ekavski, doesnt go to church and actually voted for Slobodan Milosevic during the 1990's. She is completely integrated into Serbia and doesnt have any desire to return to Croatia.
So I provide the straightforward example of nigh on 2m Albanians who couldn’t care less about integration, more like extermination, and the best you can do is come up with one personal friend who is integrated. Lets base all Serbian policy on this one friend of yours, who cares about the 2m who don’t fit your theories.

On my view regarding the nature nuture debate I would ask you to read the published material available on the internet.
You’ve already asked me to do so, and I came back with a comprehensive list which refutes the possibility that all differences between people are social.

There is plenty of it and you will see why I think both views that I mentioned as being extreme. If you have a problem with all those studies and experts I'd be happy to discuss this with you but its not a case of my opinion against yours in this matter. Plenty of people know the topic far better than we do.The examples you gave are fine. I mean there are differences as I stated previously. Its obvious to anybody who ever attended school that some are more capable at one thing and some at others - regardles of how much effort one makes.
So accept then that the 100% social theory is not extreme, its just plain false.

IQ tests are subjective. I've taken a few myself, the more you take the higher your IQ gets. Lots of information out there on the flaws of IQ tests.
Im sure these experts could grasp these simple facts and adjusted their experiments accordingly. It didnt stop them drawing scientific conclusions. In any case IQ isn’t the only difference I provided.

Wait a minute Nikola you are saying that some 500 years of Turks lived on this territory and that none of them had sex (or raped) the local population? That is incredible if that is what you are saying. Nobody can take such a claim seriously.
Of course people were raped, prove it was on a large enough scale to affect the genepool. The turks let the local population largely get along without interference as long as they got their taxes, and their recruits for janissaries etc. So there is historical evidence they took some of our best blood, but where is the evidence that they contributed? Bare in mind that rape would have had to have been the ONLY possible method of mixing, because there was no mixed marriages during the occupation. The offspring of any Serbian women taken in harems would have been raised as Turks. So provide evidence of mass rape if you can.

So, of course we mixed with Turks, and Germans and Austrians and Greeks, Bulgarians and so on. Where does that fit in with the idea of what a Serb is?Where does that fit in with 'mixing'?
I really don’t understand your logic, what are you trying to say? That theres no such thing as a Serb, so we might as well carry on mixing to kingdom come. You’re clearly beyond help if you think that.

As far as the American Indians are concerned it is an important issue. I believe that unified principles should be applied.
How many time do I have to tell you, it is not an issue, because my ancestors or people never colonised them, why should I take a position on their plight. Yes it was their land, but that’s not my concern. I shouldn’t need to be able to sort out every territorial dispute on the globe just so that I can say Kosovo is Serbian.

If you are saying that one principle should be applied in the case of Serbs for example but you look the other way with US indians. Well, at best it makes Artisari's stupid opinion that Kosovo is an exception that cannot be applied elsewhere, understandable.
Ok if you really want to force a comment on this issue then here it is: It was their land, they have the moral right, they’re situation is hopeless. Happy now?

Well, I share some of your concerns with democracy. I'm not much of a fan and cant stand mindless idiots who think it is the answer to all our problems. It most patently is not - nor is the materialism that comes with it and capitalism.
Using your great observation that nation-states are temporary, why are democracies any less temporary?
But numbers in a country do make a difference. And again I'd like to ask you about the time question. Is there a date from which you think that the majority of an areas has the right to claim that as a country? Again I would say where does this leave America, Australia and Israel for example?

Serbs entered the area a long time before 1000AD. Israel shipped most of its populace into its state around 50 years ago. So not really a great comparison. Why do you ask me for hard and fast dates when there is no academic principle on this matter and you know it. If I were to give you a date it would just be whatever suited my position, which would make it easily refutable, because there would be no underlying principle.

If the Serbs had the right to do it in one period then why do Albanians not have the right to do this is another?
Ok lets assume they have the right to do it. Well then we have the right to resist, which you are patently trying to deny by claiming that Serbs should have been more accepting, that there are no inherent problems, and that it is unreasonable to want a nation-state.

So if soverignty is an illusion then it doesnt matter who is in power in Serbia or elsewhere its the values that govern the international system that dictate.So what are you advocating, we raise the white flag because resistance is futile?
Thus its a complete waste of time attacking Tadic, slightly less of a waste of time attacking Bush but to use your time wisely you would aim your fire against the system that allows (no encourages!) politicians to behave this way.
I hate the system, and I do ‘aim my fire’ against it. But that’s a flimsy reason for ignoring the traitors that are working for the system. For example I hated the British system for long before Blair came to power, doesn’t mean that he’s immune to criticism once he starts making criminal decisions for himself. And it was you that said group mentality, loyalty and responsibility didn’t really exist, it was all down to the individual. Well then Tadic should take the fire for his own treacherous acts, regardless of which bigger powers were behind them.

That is what I do - rather than fire at the easy target an individual. Thats why, by the way, its also a waste of time when I see so many Western (or Serbian) liberals attacking Milosevic. Milosevic played the international system, he pushed the rules but the majority of what he did was done by other leaders in the West and elsewhere. People should attack the system that allows individuals like him to appear - whether thats machiavelli style, democracy or Communist leadership style. And not waste time attacking the individual.
Well I don’t see you attacking the system, or proposing an alternative. All you advocate is raising our hands in the air and accepting being treated like the Wests bitch.
Its irrelevent to me whether Djindjic's election (I dont agree that it constitutes the definition of a coup) was funded by the west or not.
How is a coup inspired by the West, which has left us in the position we’re now in, irrelevant. Clearly its extremely relevant.
The SPS election campaign(s) were funded from a mixture of stolen millions and from the ordinary Serbs pocket. An even worse crime if you think about it.
That’s more irrelevant that the statement I made. The coup was more recent and is affecting us NOW. You see how you don’t treat like for like, but only look at the facts that suit you.
The problem with 'renegade members' of JSO as you put it, is that those renegade members led that formation - they werent ordinary members. They had huge power over the entire formation. And I dont even want to go into how many members of this formation were common criminals or members of the Zemun mafia.
So you don’t want politicians to be attacked, for allegations that are indisputable but its OK to attack individual soldiers, calling many of them common criminals. Provide the evidence.
Obviously you dont remember the JSO protest (some say it was an attempted coup I would not go that far)
Attempted coup, don’t make me laugh. Occupying 100m of a motorway, and only in one direction is hardly a coup. It was a protest.
when they took their weapons and stood on the streets in Belgrade. No unit has the right to do this - I would have closed them down then and there if it were up to me. But Kostunica supported their 'union' rights to protest. (Tell me what would happen in the UK if the entire SAS unit took to the streets of London armed to the teeth!)
I’ll tell you what would have happened. The SAS leaders would have been replaced, they wouldn’t have disbanded the entire unit.
When you say that Serbs are indigienous to the Balkans are you saying that Serbs predate Slavs or modern man?
What kind of a question is that. How can they predate Slavs when Serbs are Slavs. How can they predate modern man, when they are modern man. What on earth are you talking about?

Are we not then Slavs rather than Serbs? Again I ask you for a date. From what date to you use to determine whether a people are indigenous or not?
Why are you so obsessed with dates? Why is it that experts the worldover accept that aborigines are the indigenous people of Australia without any universal principle that you so desire, but Serbia needs a special date to have its claims examined.
Having done a bit more research (ie checked out the wikipedia definition) Ive found the following definition for an indigenous population:
"The term indigenous peoples has no universal, standard or fixed definition, but can be used about any ethnic group who inhabit the geographic region with which they have the earliest historical connection."
Serbs are the earliest ethnic group that can be traced to the region they now reside in, which is still intact. For example niether the Romans nor Illyrians exist anymore.
Heres what the World Bank defines as an indigenous people (not that I care about their opinion, but since you're obssessed with internationally recognised principles):
A description of Indigenous Peoples given by the World Bank (operational directive 4.20, 1991) reads as follows:
Indigenous Peoples can be identified in particular geographical areas by the presence in varying degrees of the following characteristics:

a) close attachment to ancestral territories and to the natural resources in these areas;
b) self-identification and identification by others as members of a distinct cultural group;
c) an indigenous language, often different from the national language;
d) presence of customary social and political institutions; and
e) primarily subsistence-oriented production.
Im at a bit of a loss as to why (e) is necessary, since it presumes that a group has to be organised in a certain economic way so as to be indigenous. Slightly bizarre if you ask me. But regardless Serbs tick all the boxes. And before you say Albanians fit the definition, check out (d), they dont have any historic social or political institutions.


Can you not just keep this debate within the confines of argument? I dont expect any more from you than I'd ask from myself.
If the remits of the debate are getting wider its because you are bringing more issues to the table, I’m only responding to what you write, point by point.
You are acting as if I have some kind of agenda because I disagree with you. That is not the case, as I said, my views are my own - not wed to some political philosophy.
Your views are not as unique as you might like them to be, the fact that you are a blogger on B92 shows you have at least some affiliation to particular strands of thought. In any case Im not criticising your views as a whole, but am attempting to isolate those ones that I disagree with and respond to them.
We all state things without providing evidence - you included.
Well then call me out on those points where you believe the evidence doesn’t back my statement. You seem to want the two of us to debate by different standards, whereby you get to criticise my views and demand various definitions and evidence, but when I provide them and ask you to back up your assertions, you cop out by saying ‘we all state things without providing the evidence’. For example I have to provide you with evidence that the Serbs are indigenous to Serbia or that they even exist as a nation (you claimed we were such a mish-mash and questioned whether the name Serb meant anything), but Im supposed to just accept you claiming that we have Turkish blood, and that immigrants just want to assimilate. Secondly you get to decide what is relevant and what is irrelevant, so you get to criticise Milosevic, but decide that its ‘irrelevant’ for me to mention that the coup that overthrew him was funded by the West.

By saying that I've made a statement that does not provide evidence means that you must provide evidence for each statement you make (which would be ridiculous). That is also my reply concerning my neighbour which you dismissed out of hand.
I’m willing to provide evidence for anything I’ve claimed, if I failed to provide any its because I took it as a given. You on the other hand are squirming at the thought of having to back up your statements. In a debate either side can be called to provide evidence on a particular factual issue which they both disagree on, that’s not in the least bit ridiculous. What would be ridiculous is the idea that either of us can state anything and it has to be taken as a given. I did not dismiss your neighbour out of hand, I accept you are telling the truth and that this is how he honestly feels. But I dismiss the significance of the views of one person, when it is clear that millions of Albanians (who are a major issue for us, not your one friend), do no think the same way your neighbour thinks. Hence his views and actions are really statistically irrelevant.

On the hoardes issue, now you will try and pretend that there is no emotion involved in the use of that langauge right? I expected more honesty rather than a PC defence.
When you question the suitability of me using a certain descriptive word (and these petty little complaints are what are widening the debate, yet you ask me to keep within the confines of the argument), I reserve the right to back up that the word I used is a perfectly adequate and an extremely accurate reflection of what I was trying to say. Instead of disputing this all you can do is claim that my defence was PC, you in fact want me to bring my emotions into this and are coaxing me to admit this and that.
And you are beginning to put words into my mouth you say 'its the Serbs fault'. Good grief, isnt it possible to debate this issue without you taking it personally? Without you assuming that I am supporting an extreme position?
You claimed that one of the reasons that Kosovo has turned out to be the disaster it now is, among other reasons, is that ‘it wasn’t just the Albanians who did little mixing, the Serbs of Kosovo also kept to themselves’. If this isn’t a clear implication that the Serbs are at least partially to blame for the current situation then I don’t know what is. It implies that had Serbs not kept to themselves, and that had they been more welcoming and mixed more, that we might not be where we are today.
Its not anybodies fault. It rarely is - these things can be explained in scientific terms, not in emotional ones. This isnt only about Serbs and Albanians, its about humankind and the way people behave in a given situation.
You see this is more PC than anything I ever said. ‘Its not anybodies fault’, of course its some bodies fault. Murder is also common to humankind it doesn’t change the fact that the culprit of an individual murder is at fault himself. You try and relegate issues to the most abstract, philosophical and meaningless statements to try and circumnavigate the evidence from everyday life which doesn’t fit in with your views. I remind you of your claim that nation-states are not worth thinking about because they are ‘temporary’. Everything is temporary!

The scientific explanation as far as I'm concerned is Tito's mistaken policies that didnt have the peoples interest at heart. He was primarily concerned with keeping tensions low in the short term (ensuring they would explode once he was gone) so he could rule with as little difficulty as possible.
Actually opening the borders to hundreds of thousands of Albanians doesn’t keep tensions any lower than they would have been without the new influxes, quite the opposite. A more scientific explanation for his policy would have been the fact that he wanted to ingratiate himself with Albanians as a stepping-stone to including Albania within Yugoslavia. I’m not even really convinced by this, but it makes more ‘scientific’ sense than shipping immigrants in to keep tensions low.

The Serbs of Kosovo were the collateral damage - just as incidently many people (of suppsedly different ethnic group) were the collateral damange of Milosevic. It was nothing personal, nothing to do with nation or nationalism and everything to do with power. Of course its so easy to persuade and manipulate people to think it was to do with nationalism but thats another story.
There is no social cohesion in Kosovo, people have split along ethnic lines, accept it. No one has to be persuaded or manipulated to see this obvious reality. Carry on blaming individuals all you want, but there are bigger factors at work.
I dont assume that people want cross cultrual relationships. Correct me if I'm wrong but are you saying that people do not want cross cultural relationships?
Hehe, trying to turn the tables eh. Since you claimed that they all want to assimilate into the host culture, you show this to be the case. In the absense of evidence it would be prudent to not hold multiculturalism as an ideal, for if you were to be wrong disaster would soon follow. Were you to be right there is very little if anything to gain. If I come up with an innovative new medicine, I must show beyond doubt it is safe, If I cant then I wouldnt be allowed to inflict this on the public. Show as much concern to the public for the state of their society as you would for the state of their medicine.

So accept then that the 100% social theory is not extreme, its just plain false.'Why should I, I never said it was true???
You claimed there were two possible theories. I have disproved the possibility of the 100% social theory so I’m asking you to withdraw your claim to the possibility of there being 2 theories. The first one is ludicrous.

This is not some game or battle between us here Nikola. I'm operating under the principle that you want to move in the direction of whatever is the truth as do I. What we are doing here, as I see it, is not trying to convert one another, but trying to inform one another. Then we go away with more information and perhaps a modified view. I'm not interested in extracting concessions I would hope that you would see some merit in arguments for yourself!
I find it difficult to believe that you are open to the truth when I present you with evidence of something and you can’t bring yourself to accept it. The 100% social theory is a fantasy and any honest seeker of the truth can see it for what it is.

Why we need to find out what exactly? I dont need to find out anything. As I said this (immigration) is not some organised social experiment (with the exception of the US I suppose in a way) as I outlined to you its a case of those with no resources desiring the same as what you and I already have.
For someone who lambastes capitalism it’s strange that you haven’t considered the possibility that immigration is used as a tool to obtain cheap labour and is sold to the natives under the guise of ‘diversity’ and ‘enrichment’. A country like Britain could quite easily control its borders, yet it chooses not to, and the result is hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants and asylum seekers.

No, I dont see anything wrong with that and I dont see that you have put forward an alternative for them - apart from to imply that we close the borders. Its quite simple if we dont want more of them to come and live in our rich countries (ok my country is not rich) then we have to pay for it.
That’s right Serbia is not rich. And even if it was, the idea that we would have to build up every third world economy or we’d have to accept immigrants is perverse. Serbia is a small country, if it governed itself and did not pillage other peoples resources, and infringe on their rights Id expect those foreigners to have the enterprise to use those resources to help themselves and to not infinge on our rights. If they cant do that, then its their problem. If we have a surplus of goods then it would be right to give to others, but being held to ransom for others problems is not a policy many would buy into.

Frankly, I'd be happy with that. The materialism in Western society is quite over the top. Prevention is always better than cure and prevention in this case - ensuring that the poor have jobs in their own countries is a better solution than dealing with them at the border (it may even be cheaper in the long term though I cant stand throwing a bone to the greedy who have no values other than their pocket). So why not empasize this point rather than the dangers of mixing?
Both points are valid. One does not exclude the other. Just because I believe that the West has pillage global resources, it doesnt mean I shouldnt highlight the dangers of immigration.
Until we provide a fundamental solution to that problem no amount of controling the border will work. Its like computer security - they will always find a way to crack. So I think, no I expect, that (thinking) people like you who have a problem with immigration to be thinking in terms of realistic solutions.
Well I believe it’s a phallacy that border control doesn’t work. The truth is that no European country even makes an effort to secure its borders. Look at the Island I live, it should be very easy to quash illegal immigration, and for that matter drug trafficking. The only entry points are airports, seaports and the channel tunnel. With the money spent on bombing and occupying Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo etc they could easily apply enough resources to shut down illegal immigration. But its not a priority, infact its seems even to be a policy to turn a blind eye. Check out this documentary on how the worlds only superpower cant be bothered to secure its own borders:
Don’t tell me its not possible till its been attempted. Ne kudi konja koga nisi jahao. Given the political will most countries could mobilise the human and technological resources to secure their borders.

I dont support immigration, as I understand it you are against immigration. I think that it is natural that people will emmigrate as long as the West monopolises resources.
You do support immigration for all intents and purpose. You claim it is inevitable and that it must be accepted until ‘solutions’ are found. The solutions are quite straightforward, advocating the status quo indefinitely equates to support of immigration.
Ok I'll rephrase that - nation states are a recent development considering how long man has populated the planet.
‘Nation state’ is a recent term, but the phenomenon that it describes- self determination for common peoples- is not at all a recent development. Nations and tribes have always sought to govern themselves and their territories along the principle that a people with common ancestors, religion, culture and language should organise themselves and have control of their own destiny. Serbs have attempted from the earliest records we have to organise themselves in this way. It is a natural instinct.
And the concept will pass into history and when it does the sky will not fall in.
That’s a major assumption right there. The concept that a common people should desire to live among their own and to govern themselves freely will never pass into history unless the worlds people are forcibly mish-mashed together.
I agree that my friend is sad that he was ethnically cleansed from Krajina, despite his best efforts. It was sad that he was in that column of a hundred thousand or more Serbs. It was sad that his so called brothers who deluded him and his parents with supposed Serb patriotism / nationalism (telling them they would never be abandoned to the Ustate) were liars.
So he gave up his Serbian identity because the leftover communist government let him down. Well if we Serbs were all that fickle, there wouldn’t be a single one left. Also you contradict yourself when you say that he feels Croatian, yet didn’t want to be ‘abandoned’ to the Croatian forces. He rejects his Serbian identity because of how he was treated by Serbs, but feels Croatian even though they expelled him.

Its also sad that he's spat upon by other Serbs like yourself today - after all he did and went through for 'the cause' only to find that nobody gives a damn.
Who’s the one using emotive language now eh. So I spat on him did I. Im just stating the obvious, I was born in England, doesn’t make me English. Likewise your friend can feel as Croatian as he wants it doesn’t make him one.
I've met members of the Serb diaspora too. If they are not sad after being ethnically cleansed I'd wonder about their sanity.
You’re putting words into my mouth, I never claimed that they weren’t sad to be cleansed from Krajina, show me where I said that. I said they would laugh at you if you called them Croatian. Big difference, check your facts.

You automatically assume some greater right than I because you see me as some liberal.
What are you talking about, which rights have I granted myself?

I do not say you have less of a right than I do because you only see the abstract whilst I live with these people day in day out. I have more refugee friends than I can count. I wish you could hear their first hand stories.
You’re assuming you have so much more experience of reality than me. I have lived in Serbia, I have interacted with all kinds of people there, so don’t be condescending about how you’re in touch with the people and I’m so buried in abstract thought.
Your points about numbers in the army, about strong leadership (Tito, Milosevic perhaps), NATO. All abstract concepts, none everyday problems faced by people - refugees and others living in Serbia today.
The state of the army is not an abstract concept. If there aren’t enough soldiers to protect the country that’s going to cause very real problems.
Well if you dont want to agree that there was plenty of mixing going on before Serbs existed or after the ethnic group came into being I dont know what to tell you. It seems extremely logical to think that an area which was so exposed to centuries of invasion and reinvasion would have a mixed ethnic population - according to your criteria of mixing. I would research this if it meant much to me but it doesnt.
You seem to have a problem with the concept of ‘burden of proof’. If you raise the supposed mongrelization of Serbs as a reason to question the existence of a Serbian nation, the oenus is on you to back up your original claim, not for me to do it for you. If you cant back something up then don’t mention it in the discussion.
I dont have any unhealthy obsessive interest in trying to undermine one or another group identity.
Strange considering that you have tried to question the existence of the Serbian people.

Can you imagine what you are saying? That you are not interested in other conflicts because they didnt cross the path of your own ethnic group?
I’m not saying that I’m not interested. I’m merely saying that the problems relevant to my people take precedence. Also I don’t have a moral obligation to sort out every problem in the world before I sort out the problem on my own doorstep. To imply that I cannot have a position on the Serbian question until I have resolved all the worlds problems is clearly ridiculous. Why should I attempt to resolve issues on the other side of the globe if I cant even agree with you on the ones that matter more to us.
So say it clearly does Israel as a recent state have a right to exist?
Here you go again widening the debate, even though you complained about how wide it was getting. You keep trying to force me to make statements about other nations in some kind of an attempt to catch me out and get me to contradict myself. But I’ll answer the question, no I don’t think Israel has an inherent moral right to exist. Not because it’s a recent state, there are many states that could be created tomorrow and would be beneficial. Any state built on such injustices, and that operates in the way Israel does, cannot have my support.

And how does this sit with your concept of multiculturalism? Dont you support the concept of ethnic / religious states?
Not at any cost and in any possible scenario, no. I support the right of every people to have self-determination, but that doesn’t mean they can set up camp wherever and however they feel like. Number one the Jews of today are a far cry from the Biblical people that occupied present day Israel. Most of them are Khazar converts. Secondly their religion is not one that I support in any way, shape or form. You cannot ask me, as a Christian, to support a state just because its a religious one. I find elements of their religion vile, including many extracts from the Talmud. You've opened a can of worms here, if you want me to start quoting Talmudic verses I can, but I think you'll agree that its not necessary.

OK if you have difficulty on this and the dates issue because you say you dont have any underlying principle. But it does sound a little odd when you say that.
Its not that I don’t have an underlying principle, in terms of dates, no one does. Not one person on the globe can give you a specific date for how long a nation has to have been in a particular place before it is regarded as indigenous. Ask an ethnologist for one and he will laugh at you. The concept of having one all-encompassing date is ridiculous.
Who said democracy was any less temporary than nation states? Again you are putting words into my mouth.
You’re right, you never said that. But Id be surprised, given that you blog for B92, if you didn’t support the idea of democracy. You’ve asked me many a question, now answer this one, do you or don’t you support democracy. If you do, then your statement about ‘temporary’ nation states is clearly hypocritical. If you don’t, have you been upfront and disclosed this fact to your readers on B92? Imagine the shock and horror if you did such a thing.
I havent advocated anything on Serbia yet. You are claiming that I am behaving like a bitch. Dont understand your point - if there is a point on this. Is it because you think I dont agree with you?
No you’re absolutely right, you haven’t advocated anything. All you have done is be negative. Heres a recap of some of your ‘constructive’ comments with the logical interpretation written below:
Thus I'd say that soverignty is an illusion
So don’t fight for it.
Politicians are a bunch of prostitutes in any country so the Serbian case is not specific.
So accept them.
Nation states are temporary. If they are temporary then its a little short sighted to think they are such an important feature.
So don’t think about them.
So, of course we mixed with Turks, and Germans and Austrians and Greeks, Bulgarians and so on. Where does that fit in with the idea of what a Serb is?
So we might as well mix even more.
If the Serbs had the right to do it in one period then why do Albanians not have the right to do this is another?
So let the Albanians walk all over us.
So if soverignty is an illusion then it doesnt matter who is in power in Serbia or elsewhere its the values that govern the international system that dictate.
So accept the values they dictate.
Thus its a complete waste of time attacking Tadic
So let him off the hook.

I said you advocate Serbia behaving like the West’s bitch because you are perpetuating the notion that the sun shines out of the West’s backside and that nothing is possible without their blessing. The Serbian nation, within the borders of a Serbian state, has experienced sovereignty as a reality for extended periods of its history, and for the periods that it was occupied it has held up that principle as one of the dreams which helped it survive. Yet you have proclaimed that it is an illusion that cannot be hoped for or achieved. No one will give you anything if you don’t demand it, no one will respect you if you don’t respect yourself. If Serbia sees itself as a protectorate of the West and lamely accept its status, thats exactly how it will remain- and deservedly so. But don’t tell me we don’t have a choice.

My 'alternative' is to try to think out solutions to problems rather than engage in the artificial debate the media (and the man in the pub) are suggesting.
You have yet to give one single solution, yet you have questioned the existence of the Serbs as a nation. Strange set of priorities don’t you think?
The assylum issue in the UK as you know is not spoken of in the terms I structured it - and I'm pleased you agreed with me to some degree. It is entirely dishonest led both by liberals (led by the Guardian, polite society and others) and conservatives (led by the daily mail, white van man etc).
Puppet to the left, puppet to the right. The debate is dishonest because they’re all singing from the same song sheet. If the conservatives are going to be the anti-immigration side of the debate then God help us. They brought them all in.
If you can only see a liberal in me from where you are I'd suggest that's because you must be sitting too far to the right to see me.
Actually estavisti said exactly the same thing to me once. My ideology doesn’t fit into the simplistic left and right idea, some of my preferred economic policies include state ownership of strategic industries, for example.
On the Serbia issue you must think the Serbian people are extremely stupid to vote for pro Western candidates just because of some foreign funding.
Stupid no, naïve yes. Its easy to believe what you want to believe, and the politicians tell the people want they know they want to hear. Dangling the promise of higher living standards once we enter the promised land that is the EU.
The reason October 5th occured wasnt the foreign factor - it was so much more than that.
The fact that Soros and others throw money at countries like Serbia, Ukraine, Georgia etc and we suddenly have a revolution on our hands, all a coincidence eh. Of course popular discontent with incumbents is used as a method of stirring the people.
The same JSO unit, supposedly patriotc, switched sides. The same crooks and football hooligans (and some nationalists) that used to support Milosevic / Draskovic, Seselj whoever, changed sides. Were they too paid by foreign money?
I never said they paid every single football hooligan, crook, and politician. But once a coup with a large amount of popular support takes place, there is a domino effect and people will cave in and join the victors- hardly surprising.

You are also ignoring the fact that there was an election since then (unless you are calling that also a coup) that voted in the current government. There will be another election this January.What will be your excuse this time for majority of Serbs voting for DS / DSS?
Well in the last election the largest one party was SRS- it was only by making a coalition of losers that DS and DSS remained in government. As if I have to make an excuse for democracy when I oppose it.

How patriotic is it really to feel contempt (be honest, it is close to contempt isnt it?) for so many Serbs who vote this way.
You’re giving value to numbers. You assume that patriotism means going with whatever the majority of your nation think. Like Ive said before if the majority are wrong I’ll never side with them. The Serbian nation is generally quite patriotic, the problem is that they are very naïve, forgiving and often trust the wrong people. Like Nikolaj said: ‘Nasa velika slabost je da se nasa velikodusnost pretvara u servilnost’ (Our biggest Achilles heel is that our open-heartedness often transforms itself into servility). A certain section of the populace trusts the false patriotism of DSS for example, Ive even known a perfectly decent patriotic woman advertising G17+ by wearing one of their shirts. People can sometimes, with all the best intentions, be wrong. That’s how I look at the majority of Serbs, I don’t feel contempt towards them, though it might suit you to think I do. That’s the unfortunate nature of democracy, it splits people along party lines, duping them into believing false promises. There is a certain section of the population that I feel contempt for though. It is those liberals and traitors that are promoting false Western values which are alien to our people. These are the type of people who believe that the Western oppression of Serbia was our own fault. They want us to believe that the West is benevolently disposed towards us, that they hold the key to our ‘living standards’, and that if we could just emulate them, with their help, we could reach the holy grail.

I, by the way, do not feel contempt for those who vote for SRS / SPS even if I will not vote this way.
That’s a stark contrast then to most of the members who frequent the B92 forum who look at them with complete disdain.
I wont bother debating JSO in depth with you because you obviously never saw with your own eyes what was going on. I'd guess that if you saw some of the injustice that I did you would have a different opinion, if only a slightly differing one. Common criminals is too kind for some of these men. Merceneries for hire is closer to the truth.
When it suits your argument you treat things in the most abstract terms, and when it doesn’t then you fall back on the personal angle. If only I had seen what you personally saw I might agree with you eh. Well how convenient for you to come up with, yet again, some personal evidence which lacks detail, is unverifiable and therefore irrefutable. None of this changes the fact that our army is being dismantled as a force capable of protecting the territorial integrity of the country. All under the pretext of ‘reorganisation’. This ‘reorganisation’, includes buying old American equipment for five times its value, under the guise of harmonising its arsenal with ‘NATO’s needs’.
If an SAS unit took to the streets with arms in the UK there would be a complete scandal. I would not be surprised if the unit was disbanded, although its not comparing the same really.
I agree its not comparing the same, but you were the one who used the SAS analogy to begin with.
On the indigenous point I'll wave the white flag - according to the standard definitions at least.
At least we can agree on something then:)