Apologies in advance for failing to post for the past couple of weeks. But the NWO is in such an agitated state of activity that I thought I should wait and gather some of the seemingly disparate threads into a more coherent whole that will shed significant new light on the NWO Elite, its internal myths, its functions and its foibles.
First, we have the nuclear spy scandals.
Our defense physics labs are full of foreign born Chinese and Indian physicists. In the words of the Wall Street Journal, American students will not take these jobs, so they must be staffed with less expensive foreigners. And of course, these Chinese and Indian fellows working in splendid isolation at these labs are confronted with two very real problems. First is comprehending the idea of an American Nation and why its secrets must be protected. These scientists have been taught multi-culturalism by our own institutions, and the ultimate message of multi-culturalism is that the American Nation simply doesn't exist. It is a small leap to the conclusion that America is the entire World, and therefor, its secrets belong to the world. Second, it is only natural for them to feel that their kinsmen who run China and India would never do anything to destroy the human race, and that it is unfair and degrading for them not to possess the modern instrumentalities of sovereignty and independence which these scientists have in their custody. Hence the faxes from Huntsville and Oak Ridge and the e-mails of test code from Los Alamos. It is another massive failure of the multi-cultural vision - a spectacular instance of the costs of maintaining a multi-cultural empire.
Our multi-cultural establishment in Washington (of both the Democrat and Republican variety) has a very hard time handling this security problem because to do so demands that they define the American Nation and its interests in a way that makes the actions of these Scientists look like a betrayal. Of course, this is impossible to do. Who exactly did these Chinese and Indian scientists betray? American Whites?
It is precisely the same conundrum that stopped America in its tracks back when Oppenheimer (according to Sudoplatov) was passing nuclear secrets to Stalin in hopes that nuclear arms would provide safety for his ethnic kinsmen in Russia.
So it is a near certainty that China has 50 years worth of nuclear test data as well as the programming code that allows the design and testing of new, related weapons by computer, without having to test. The code is worth hundreds of billions of dollars and 50 years. It reduces the cost of developing the very latest nuclear weapon technology to a point that is within the reach of many nations.
Through its multiculturalist delusions, our NWO elite has dribbled away its crown jewels and vented the source of its power. Ironically, at the same time our Nuclear secrets are dribbling out over the internet, the NWO is flexing its muscle in Serbia in pursuit of a second and more fantastic multiculturalist delusion. It is that delusion which I want to focus upon today.
I should mention as background that our NWO elite is a complex organism. It consists of an inner party that is overwhelmingly (but not exclusively) ethnically based. This inner party controls the media and makes all the important decisions. The motives and power of this inner party cannot be mentioned in public because the party has gained official victim status through the Holocaust story, which places them above criticism or discussion.
Next there is the outer party. This outer party consists of three parts. The first, and least important are the elites from two other minorities that have been granted victim status by the inner party. The loyalty of these minority elites is purchased through affirmative action. In exchange, these affirmative action elites must make sure that their racial kinsmen vote for politicians and policies supported by the inner party. Theirs is a finely tuned balancing act of stirring up racial anger sufficient to motivate voting, but not to such a degree that members of the inner party elite are threatened. The moral price these affirmative action elites pay is that they must betray the interests of their own racial group by motivating them to vote for polices that, by design, deprive them of control over their own evolutionary destiny and guarantee that they remain in a state of permanent dependence.
The second, and more important part of the outer party consists of alienated members of the majority group who fervently support the inner party because they have been led to believe that they benefit as individuals, even as the costs of the multi-cultural program are imposed primarily on their own kind. They support the inner party as a form of revenge against their own racial group.
Finally, the third and largest segment of the outer party is the "loyal opposition " which is permitted by the inner party as long as it does not publicly identify and attack the inner party as a group, and as long as it supports the multi-cultural vision. This "loyal opposition" within the outer party is very useful as a vehicle for channeling and directing any dissatisfaction that may arise among the majority who are paying the cost of the multi-cultural enterprise. This organized "loyal opposition" gives the middle class majority an opportunity to express dissent and dissatisfaction in ways which do not threaten the inner party.
The allegiance of the "loyal opposition" is tentative at best, and its loyalty depends on the delivery of economic benefits. In his classic work, The Collapse of Complex Societies, Joseph Tainter argues that all complex civilizations must deliver perceptible economic benefits, or citizens will withdraw from it and the civilization will collapse to a lower order of complexity and a lower level of cost. The inner party staffs and manages the administration of economic policy. The primary benefit they deliver to the "loyal opposition" segment of the outer party is expanding credit on relatively easy terms. This allows the local entrepreneurs, developers and real estate agents who comprise the core of the loyal opposition to expand their businesses and provide jobs.
For the great mass of the opposition, the working middle class, the benefit delivered is less visible, but is described by Niccolo Machiavelli in his classic The Prince:
"A man who is made a prince by the favor of the people should work to retain their friendship; and this is easy for him because the people ask only not to be oppressed."
The middle class majority which tends to vote for the loyal opposition party is content with the jobs and economic growth that are provided by easy credit and easy money. Most of the time this easy money also produces a rising stock market which confers additional tangible benefits.
Naturally, the inner party would prefer that its own party of state power win every election. However, the opposition party of less government and low taxes is a valuable safety valve which the inner party uses to calibrate the maximum amount it may safely extract from the middle class in taxes. When the "loyal opposition" party starts winning, the inner party knows it must cut back modestly and provide more benefits. While members of the inner party provide 100% of the financing for the party of state power, they finance about 40% of the loyal opposition party's budget as well, and it is a good investment - enough to prevent ambitious politicians from attacking the inner party directly by identifying its objectives and advantages.
Thus, the two party system in America provides a finely calibrated device to ensure sufficiency of rewards and benefits, thereby securing the power of the inner party. That is its only purpose. The current two party system will serve this end effectively so long as cheap credit is capable of generating enough benefits and enough loyalty to prevent an attack on the inner party.
So what does the inner party get out of all this? The answer is financial advantage, security and World domination.
Remember that the inner party is international in both citizenship and scope. The inner party uses the Treasury of the American Empire to fund a host of international credit creation and emergency lending organizations. These organizations provide the inner party with valuable inside information allowing them to make timely investments in distressed countries. The inner party members who staff these international agencies guarantee these investments. In addition, maintaining the World's reserve currency reduces the cost of the empire by about $25 billions each year, thereby lowering the cost of benefits it must provide to the outer party. This reserve currency role also vastly increases the ability of American consumers to borrow for consumption and run vast trade deficits with other nations - another benefit that can be distributed to the outer party at no cost to the inner party.
The inner party uses the Treasury of the American Empire to fund international organizations which write and enforce laws criminalizing opposition to the inner party and its activities. It also uses the Treasury of the American Empire to fund propaganda that it cannot sell at a profit through its mass media, in the form of Holocaust Museums and other monuments that reinforce the official victim status of the inner party and reinforce the secular religion of tolerance and multiculturalism that the inner party has established for the outer party.
The inner party uses the Treasury of the American Empire to provide about $5 billion per year in subsidies to its place of refuge in times of trouble, Israel. It also uses the armed might of the American Empire to guarantee the continued existence of Israel against all of those nations which Israel attacks or offends.
And just recently, the inner party began using American military might to enforce its vision of multi-cultural and "open" societies upon the rest of the world. Let us in to do business, or we will bomb you!
On the surface, it might seem a bit ironic that the inner party would allow multi-culturalism to dissipate its most valuable assets in the Nuclear labs at the same time that they are bombing autarchic closed societies populated by hostile races (Iraq and Serbia) back to the stone age.
But I opened this essay with the espionage story to illustrate by example the central point, which is that the members of the inner party operate according to shared visceral emotions - their own unique evolutionary psychology- and not according to any rational plan. The program of multi-culturalism arises from the emotional insecurities of the inner party. Thus, multi-culturalism is enforced even in situations where it will severely damage the practical interests of the inner party. And naturally, this impulse to enforce multi-culturalism in situations where it does harm provokes arguments among the inner party. These arguments never question the fundamental drive for World domination. Rather, they are about the tactics to be used in pursuit of that objective. These arguments invariably break out in the public print media and are there for all to see. Indeed they provide us in the "real opposition" our only window on the truth.
By way of illustration, the most famous and obvious of these arguments evolved into the publication of "The Bell Curve," a book about the effects of IQ on American life. For 30 years prior to its publication in 1994, Professor Herrnstein of Harvard (very much a member of the inner party) had been conducting research into the heritability of intelligence and the racial differences in its distribution. He loudly proclaimed within fairly narrow academic circles that those parts of the secular religion which the inner party has established for America - womens' liberation, easy abortion, alternative life styles, etc. - have the effect of lowering average IQ among the majority, which threatens to reduce the economic power of the U.S., and thus, the power and influence of the inner party itself.
Herrnstein pointed out that the effects of self absorbed life styles on majority IQ are compounded by the inner party's welfare system that subsidizes births among those with IQs a full standard deviation below the national average. When the effects of welfare are added to the effects of the inner party's multi-cultural program of immigration, which imports people with IQs that average a half a standard deviation below the existing U.S. average, we have a prescription for economic and social collapse.
The public reaction to the Herrnstein book was instructive. That first segment of the outer party - the minority affirmative action elites - viewed the book as an insult and a betrayal. And indeed, the pundits of the inner party took alarm that its publication might threaten to increase the cost of controlling these elites.
The second fraction of the outer party - those alienated members of the majority group who fervently support the inner party - also viewed the book as a betrayal and a humiliating vindication of the views held by the lower orders of the majority from whom this sector of the outer party seeks to differentiate itself.
Members of the loyal opposition who read beyond the sports pages chuckled and went about their business of having and getting.
Finally, despite Herrnstein's best efforts over 30 years, the message that not all herds of human cattle are equal seemed to have little impact on the members of the inner party itself, particularly the proverbial dentist in Peoria who belongs to that inner party by birth but is not particularly active in its programs.
Rational self-interested planning is not the driver behind the inner party's multi-cultural attack - facts and evidence cannot alter its course. And now the inner party, Cohen, Albright (nee Corbel), Burger, and Wesley Clark (nee Nemerovsky) have embarked on a brand new adventure. Their attack on Serbia is an effort to enforce multi-culturalism on an unwilling population through violence. It is an unprecedented expansion of the program of the inner party. This new war is purely ideological, and in this respect it resembles the numerous wars fought 500 years ago in Europe over religion.
But the virtue and wisdom of traditional religions is that, by and large, they confined their doctrinal assertions to transcendental truths not susceptible of disproof in the real World.
In contrast, the inner party seeks to impose on the World a purely secular religion based entirely on earthly propositions that are easily demonstrated to be false. General Clark's now notorious dictum is a classic example:
"Let's not forget what the origin of the problem is. There is no place in modern Europe for ethnically pure states. That's a 19th century idea and we are trying to transition into the 21st century, and we are going to do it with multi-ethnic states." [CNN April 24-25, 1999.]
There are a dozen more or less ethnically homogeneous states in Europe - Iceland, Ireland, Norway, Finland, Slovenia, Andorra and Leichtenstein in the "pure" category, with Denmark, The Czech Republic, Slovakia, and Poland in the "more or less" category, to name just a few. In addition, we have three new ethnically pure states formed by NATO itself - including Croatia, Serbian Bosnia, and soon-to-be Kosovo purged of its Serbian minority. This blood drenched campaign to impose the religion of multi-culturalism is pure delusion.
The campaign in Kosovo looks like a three stooges farce of incompetence and bumbling for that very reason. The campaign was conceived and planned by an isolated cadre of the inner party who simply cannot see reality. They thought the Serbs would surrender in three days. They never imagined that their bombs would induce the Serbs to escalate the civil war against the separatist Kosovars and had no relief supplies ready for refugees. They failed to anticipate Russia's reaction, and utterly failed to understand how China, Japan and India would see them.
Indeed this failure to respect the Chinese view is beyond imagining. After all, the Chinese have just bought the inner party's President (a classic outer party - category II type) in a picture perfect imitation of AIPAC. Given this virtuoso performance by the Chinese, it is impossible to understand how the inner party could not know that the cat is out of the bag.
In retrospect, It should have been clear to the inner party that China has been aware of who they are and how they run things for over 50 years. Here is a quote from Premier Chou En-lai (November 2, 1949):
"There is a relationship between the controllers of the government of the Soviet Union and the central government of the federation of North American States that can only be described as strange. Although bitterly divided on such subjects as economics and religions, they will cooperate when faced with what they regard as a mutual danger. The curtain that hides the relationship pulled aside slightly in 1933 when Maxim Litvinov's position was changed from Minister of Finance to Minister of Foreign Affairs and he left for the city of New York to confer with the controllers of government; from there he proceeded to the facade of government in the city of Washington.
"We Chinese, at the present time, are unable to understand the strange relationship and, until we do, we will proceed with extreme caution in international relationships."
Now who should the inner party suppose Chou En Lai was desribing here - Siberian Eskimos?
Indeed, the inner party is utterly incapable of comprehending how their actions are perceived by others. All comments, criticisms and feedback, even if constructive, are motivated by "hate" and dismissed out of hand.
Professor MacDonald asserts that the inner party has developed an evolutionary psychology that facilitates survival as a tiny minority scattered in diaspora. One critical aspect of this mentality is the ability to sincerely believe you are a victim race even as you and your fellow tribesmen dominate other races in the areas you inhabit. In other words, the very mental qualities that ensure the ability of the inner party to maintain its genetic isolation while settling in small numbers in every sizeable community throughout the European world, make them utterly unable to understand how others see them. Indeed, such empathy would constitute a mortal threat to their group identity.
As you might imagine, this Three Stooges war in Kosovo has provoked intense argument within the inner party. The argument has two sides. One side is horrified that the bombing has proceeded in an unplanned fashion and fears extreme danger if the Serbs, duly enraged by the inner party's bombs, are allowed to remain in control of their own destiny and plot revenge. In the words of Niccolo Machiavelli:
"And here it has to be noted that men must either be pampered or crushed, because they can get revenge for small injuries but not for fatal ones. So any injury a prince does a man should be of such a kind that there is no fear of revenge."
The dogs of war among the inner party have begun to realize that any settlement with Serbia invites the disaster of revenge through exposure. Serbia has a massive incentive to stir up nationalist sentiments and to expose the inner party in other more powerful nations as its least expensive and most effective means of preventing further attacks.
To illustrate this one side of the argument within the inner party, I have gathered for your review below four articles which advocate collective guilt, war against civilian populations, and a strategy of occupation and re-education in which the offending rebel against multi-culturalism is stripped of its independence and fed a steady and exclusive diet of consumerist, multiculturalist and NWO propaganda in schools and electronic media run by the occupiers.
The first is an article by Bruce Fein published in the Washington Times on Feb. 20, 1991 entitled "No Quarrel with the people of Iraq?" Mr. Fein argues that the Iraqi people are the enemy and should be treated accordingly. It is an incredible article. Mr. Fein condemns the Iraqi people for the crime of "complacency" and "indifference" to the misdeeds of their president, Saddam Hussein. To our knowledge it is the first example of this argument applied to a current conflict in the popular press. It is important to note that this article advocating collective civilian guilt was written by a neo-conservative and published in a neo-conservative paper. The inner party infiltrates all political movements, including conservatism, and will try to direct the agendas of these political movements so as to benefit the inner party.
The second article is by Thomas L. Friedman entitled "Stop the Music." It was published in the New York Times on April 23, 1999 and argues that the Serbian people are the enemy and must be punished for their sins against multi-culturalism. At this point, Friedman and the Times advocate only punishment, and have not yet focused on the reality of a settlement which leaves the Serbian people angry and in control of their own destiny.
The third Article is a piece by Daniel Jonah Goldhagen published in the New Republic of May 17, 1999 entitled "A New Serbia." This article elaborates on the theme of collective civilian guilt and remedies the defect in Friedman's piece by advocating the conquest and occupation of Serbia, turning it into one large re-education camp.
The fourth article was published on May 9, 1999 in the New York Times "Week in Review" column entitled "What It Would Take to Cleanse Serbia." It is a compilation of quotes from other members of the inner party seconding Goldhagen's view that Serbia should be occupied and re-educated.
OK folks, it is time to place this series of incredible articles under the jeweler's loop.
I would argue that the very appearance of these pieces is a sign of weakness within the inner party. The inner party was safer back in the closet.
First, the time line of these articles and their thematic development argue that the hatred of Serbia and the bombing arose from visceral emotion, and not accordance with any rational plan. The articles provide hard evidence of that in two very important ways. The articles are brimming with destructive passions that will make most Americans in the "loyal opposition" very uncomfortable. They are bad politics. Further, the time line shows that none of these passionate members of the inner party thought out this program of occupation and re-education in advance. To the extent these members of the inner party are possessed of reason, it is reactive to the calamities occasioned by their own emotional delusions about how their bombing campaign would be received in Belgrade.
Second, the very publication of these articles is improvident. Note that Goldhagen admits there is zero chance that his vision will actually be implemented. If that is so, then why publish? For by publishing these pieces on the Cleansing of Serbia, Goldhagen et al use the occupation of Germany as an graphic example. Most Germans under the age of 50 are unaware of just how heavy handed their reeducation was, and are utterly unaware of the extent to which their new government is the product of anti-German hatred.
Why dredge this up and set it before the youth of Germany in these graphic terms when there is nothing to be gained? It is a classic example of collective self-delusion by the inner party. How do they expect that normal German youth would react to such information? On the surface, it looks like these pieces exist to satisfy the lust for blood and revenge among the members of the inner party who feel as Goldhagen does. But on closer examination, it is a satisfaction that can only be delivered to a population for whom print words are a substitute for facts and realities on the ground. It is the primal scream of the inner party with its hands on the reigns of power. "If only we were really in charge!"
The youth of Germany, like most of European youth World wide, has been crippled by popular culture and many not react. But there is no chance that the message of these columns will be missed by the Chinese, Japanese, Indian, Arab and Russian elites who have clipping services that analyze this sort of thing (including this web site). All except for Japan have problems with ethnically based separatist movements within their borders, and will quickly perceive the threat that the inner party will use alleged mistreatment of rebellious ethnic groups as grounds for conquest, occupation and re-education.
Whatever doubts Chou En Lai may have had in 1949 about the real government of the U.S., any such doubts in the minds of his successors have surely been put to rest by the articles you see below.
In addition, this excellent adventure in Serbia has brought out into the open the proverbial "elephant in the living room" - the power of the electronic media and the reality that television is the ultimate weapon of the inner party. Television not owned by the inner party will be the first asset to be attacked in their upcoming conquests. Any state owned media that asserts or maintains a national identity for its people is an enemy, subject to attack. The natural corollary illuminated in these articles is that the American media, privately owned by the inner party, is the primary instrument of re-education that can and will dictate electoral outcomes in any democracy.
So after their Kosovo bombing adventure, is it now more or less likely that any of these nations will allow our media into their countries and open up their elections to its influence?
In fairness, I should describe the second viewpoint put forth in this intramural debate within the inner party. There is a sizable but distinct minority group within the inner party that argues against resort to bombs, and against demonizing the Serbs. But the argument boils down to tactics. In effect, the peace contingent within the inner party argues that the seductive power of Western consumer goods and Western entertainment will subdue the entire World in due time, rendering the populations of Eastern Europe, India, China and Japan as tractable to the agenda of the inner party as are the peoples of the United States and its NATO allies.
Reduced to its essence, the argument of the peace wing of the inner party is that the peoples of the World have an entirely different evolutionary psychology than that of the inner party. The sudden appearance of invaders with weapons drawn always arouses them to a violent defense and immense self sacrifice. Why arouse them in this way? By resorting to bombs, the inner party is playing on their turf, and leading to their strength! By initiating violence, the inner party arouses all of the collective racial and tribal instincts of survival. Once aroused, these passions can last a generation.
In its essence, the argument continues; why not lead to their weakness? The evolutionary psychology of the Nations is pre-programmed for simplicity, honesty and trust toward all they find as their neighbors. Once you settle among them, they will bend over backwards to avoid giving offense. They will not question why you take offense at their morals, ethics and religions, but will abandon or modify them in an effort to avoid offending you. They will not question why you call them bigots for preferring the company of those most like themselves, and will abandon their very racial and cultural identity to avoid giving you offense.
The long term effects of this abandonment are no different that the effects of armed conquest.
So why change a winning game?
Now in the further interests of fairness I should mention that some born to the inner party decline membership. But their numbers are few, as they must pass a three-part test of willingness to treat our nation as the equal of their own nation. First, are they comfortable with our separation and our control of our own evolutionary destiny? Second, are they comfortable with our old time religion, morals and ethics, or do they choose to be offended by them? Third, do they actively seek punishment of the haters within their own group? For example do they actively seek to get Goldhagen fired from his job at Harvard?
If these tests are failed, then their arguments are about the wisdom of alternative tactics for domination and not an argument for our equality as a separate people with rights to self-determination and control of our own evolutionary destiny equal to their own.
Our friends and allies do not hector us in matters of our own identity and collective survival.
As for the conflict in Serbia, I can only state the obvious. The Albanian Kosovars are our European brothers. So are the Serbs. The Albanians began a low intensity civil war to induce the Serbs to give up Kosovo. Our paramount duty is to avoid taking sides or otherwise expanding this conflict. Our secondary duty is to offer our good offices to help engineer a mutually agreeable settlement of differences if that is practical and possible. Otherwise this tragic "brothers war" must play itself out in isolation according to the strengths of the parties.
In the mean time, those of us trapped in multi-cultural America face a grim future. It is a future of certain economic decline and collapse engineered by multi-culturalism, as so brilliantly outlined by Herrnstein. It is a future of heightened military risk as our technological secrets leak across the globe, and we passively submit to rule by an elite driven by delusional dreams of World domination and fantasies of degraded subservience on the part of all the peoples of the earth before the inner party's baubles and debauched entertainments.
Pray for awakening, strength and renewal.
We will need them.
The Washington Times
Feb. 20, 1991
No Quarrel with the people of Iraq?
President Bush"s sharp rebuff of Iraq's latest "peace" overtures and call for the overthrow of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has created a false image of toughness.
It has camouflaged Mr. Bush's woolly headed acquittal of the Iraqi people of any responsibility for the arch villainous actions of their president.
The adverse consequences of Mr. Bush's bad thinking are threefold:
Unsound military tactics in seeking to destroy Iraq's will to resist the U.S. led coalition forces in the Middle East.
An apparent forgoing of reparations claims for Iraq's pillage of Kuwait, its murderous attacks on civilians, and the military deaths, purloined supplies and costs among the coalitions forces that have been occasioned by Iraq's crimes against peace.
And a message to peoples living under despotisms comparable to that holding sway in Iraq - for instance the Syrian regime of President Hafez Assad - that they have neither a legal nor moral obligation to resist cooperation with a government earmarked by savagery and repression insolent of international law.
Mr. Bush notwithstanding, the United States does have a substantial quarrel with the people of Iraq. In differing degrees, they are responsible for the aggression and war crimes of their president. If the Iraqi people had refused to obey Saddam's clearly illegal orders under international law, Kuwait's territorial integrity would be impaired, no Scud missiles would have been launched against civilian targets in Israel and Saudi Arabia, no POW's held by Iraq would have been the victims of war crimes, and coalition-force deaths and injuries would not have been required to rebuke Iraq's crimes against peace.
Some might argue in mitigation that Iraqis are only following orders and that defiance would be punished. But the "following orders" defense was rejected in the Nuremberg war crimes trials of Nazis and has never earned a place in military jurisprudence where, as in the case of Iraq, orders from a superior are manifestly illegal. A following orders defense should certainly fare no better outside the military for civilians implicated in international law transgressions.
The vast majority of Iraq's population has actively assisted or permitted Saddam's international lawlessness by either participating in the Iraqi military or providing food, fiber or logistical support for military aggression and barbarities, or displaying complacency with Saddam's tyranny. Citizen passivity to oppressive rule is unacceptable to civilized life, especially when the oppression carries international repercussions. As Thomas Jefferson trumpeted in the Declaration of Independence, "any peoples confronted with a design "to reduce them under absolute despotism" are saddled with a "duty to throw off such government and to provide new guards for their future security."
The Iraqi war effort would collapse instantly if Iraqi soldiers either quite fighting en masse as Russian soldiers did in World War I or if massive sabotage was practiced by Iraqi civilians, or if the Iraqis ousted Saddam from power as the Italians unceremoniously cashiered Benito Mussolini in World War II by exercising their right to revolt. Mr. Bush is thus wrong to treat the Iraqi people as victims of Saddam no more blameworthy than Kuwatis, Israelis, Saudis, Egyptians, Americans or other nationals for the coalition force countries. The Iraqis have fathered their own plight.
Why therefore, should Mr. Bush instruct the U.S. military scrupulously to avoid civilian targets in Iraq even if a contrary policy would more quickly destroy Iraqi morale and bring it to heel. During World War II, the allied powers ruthlessly bombed Berlin, Dresden and Tokyo for reasons of miliary and civilian morale. Winston Churchill instructed the Royal Air Force to "make the rubble dance" in German cities. Why is Mr. Bush treating Iraqi civilians more solicitously that the enemy civilians of World War II?
Mr. Bush's blanket exoneration of the Iraqi people for the countless illegalities and brutalities of Saddam has apparently lead to a decision against post-war reparations. The Bush postwar economic plans seems to contemplate greater wealth sharing amongst Middle East nations, and a Middle East investment bank to assist the rebuilding of Iraq and Kuwait. But why is any nation either morally or legally obligated to share wealth with another? To recognized such and obligation would be a source of endless wars. In addition, why shouldn't the Iraqi people pay reparations for war related injuries and damage inflicted by their nation. German taxpayers paid enormous reparations for the World War I and World War II villainies of their government. Why should a more lenient standard obtain for the Iraqis?
Finally, actual or would be tyrants are unlikely ever to make even a cameo appearance on the endangered species list. To minimize the harms inflicted by such rogues, the peoples over which they rule should be encouraged to resist by holding them accountable in reparations and exposing them to the hardships and hazards of war for the international crimes of their governments. To act otherwise fosters citizen inertness and indifference, the indispensable weapons for the triumph of evil.
Apr. 23, 1999 New York Times
Thomas L. Friedman
Stop the Music
Give the air war a chance.
It is said that a camel is a horse designed by a committee. It may not be pretty but it gets the job done, especially in the desert.
By that standard, NATO's air war over Yugoslavia is a military strategy designed by a 19 member alliance. it's also not pretty, but its very weakness could be a strength.
Bombing the Serbs from 15,000 feet is the only military strategy that all 19 NATO members , the U.S. Congress and the Russians can agree upon as tolerable in Yugoslavia today. While there are many obvious downsides to war from 15000 feet, it does have one great strength - its sustainability. NATO can carry on this sort of air war for a long, long time. The Serbs need to remember that.
While it is true that NATO will never liberate Kosovo from the air, there is still a chance that this sort of sustained bombardment can achieve our basic objectives - which are to compel Slobodan Milosevic, either tacitly or by negotiation, to enable the return of the Kosovo Albanians to their homes, with self-rule, protected by an international peacekeeping force that would parol a fence between Albanians and Serbs.
But if NATO's only strength is that it can bomb forever, this it has to get every ounce out of that. Let's at least have a real air war. The idea that people are still holding rock concerts in Belgrade, or going out for Sunday merry-go-round rides, while their fellow Serbs are "cleansing" Kosovo, is outrageous. It should be lights out in Belgrade: every power grid, water pipe, bridge, road and war related factory has to be targeted.
Like it or not, we are tat war with the Serbian nation (the Serbs certainly think so), and the stakes have to be very clear: Every week you ravage Kosovo is another decade we will set your country back by pulverizing you. You want 1950? We can do 1950. You want 1389? We can do 1389 too. If we can frame the issue that way, Mr. Milosevic will blink, and we may have seen his first flutter yesterday.
Will this strategy halt the barbarism still going on in Kosovo? No. The war to prevent the refugees from being thrown out of Kosovo, or abducted, was lost the first week - when NATO and the Clinton team bombed the Serbs without having either adequate ground or air power in place to deter them, and without understanding Mr. Milosevic's capabilities or his intentions. That was a strategic blunder for which the Kosovars have paid dearly.
The question now is how best to reverse that, without the U.S. and NATO becoming so enmeshed in the Balkans that it will weaken their ability to operate anywhere else, and straining their cohesion as never before. The only way is a merciless air war.
[ * * *]
That is just one reason that, for now, we must stick to a strategy that at least holds out the hope of achieving our objectives without NATO ending up owning the Balkans. Because nothing would do more to sap pubic support for American internationalism that America's taking over history's oldest hornet's nests.
Give war a chance. Let's see what months of bombing does before we opt for weeks of invasion, where, if we win, we get to occupy the Balkans for years. Let's make Kosovo Mr. Milosevic's Vietnam, not ours.
New Republic--May 17, 1999
A New Serbia
by Daniel Jonah Goldhagen
If you rebuild it...
In the early '40s, Germany and Japan were waging brutal imperial wars, conquering country after country, expelling subjugated populations from their homes, and perpetrating mass murder. In the 1990s, Serbia has been waging brutal imperial war, seeking to conquer area after area, expelling unwanted populations, and perpetrating mass murder. Germany and Japan were colossal powers, ravaging on a continental scale, together dragging the world into war. Serbia is a small, local power, ravaging on a regional scale, dragging NATO into a limited air war.
In all three instances, both the imperialism and the perpetrators' vicious treatment of the victims have been supported by a large majority of the country's populace that was beholden to an ideology which called for the conquest of Lebensraum and the vanquishing of the putative enemies. They believed fanatically in the rightness of these actions, even though they knew that the world saw them to be crimes. In all three instances, the crimes themselves were carried out often by ordinary members of the societies who willingly took these dehumanizing beliefs to radical conclusions when their governments moved them to do so. In all three instances, the majority of the people whose country was committing these enormous crimes deluded themselves into believing that they were the real victims and that any attempt, such as bombing, to halt the imperialism and mass murdering was the real crime. In all three instances, dissident minorities opposed the crimes but were too weak to stop them.
Serbia's deeds are, in their essence, different from those of Nazi Germany only in scale. Milosevic is not Hitler, but he is a genocidal killer who has caused the murders of many tens of thousands of people. The Serbs are not seeking the total, geographically unbounded destruction of another people, as the Germans did with the Jews. But they, too, are pursuing an eliminationist project to purge whole regions of Albanians and, earlier, Bosnians. The Serbs did not begin their imperial and mass murdering wars as the Germans did, without suffering injury or any conceivable threat, but did so in the context of simmering ethnic conflicts and having suffered some injuries themselves at the hands of Croats and of even Bosnians and ethnic Albanians. But the Serbs have nevertheless done their best to remind the world of the Holocaust. The majority of Serbs may not be, as many Germans were, in the grip of an apocalyptic ideology that essentially calls for, and produces policies that would lead to, an end to Western civilization. But the vast majority of the Serbs are animated by a particularly virulent variant of the nationalism characteristic of Western civilization. The horrifying result is all the dead civilian Bosnians and Albanians, who, whether or not one calls this genocide, are just as dead as were the murdered Jews, Poles, Russians, gays, and others during Hitler's time.
By the end of 1945, the Germans and Japanese had stopped killing. Within a few years, they were no longer a threat to their neighbors. Germany and Japan became democracies, good neighbors, and responsible, leading members of the international community. Germany, in particular, has become a force for democracy, cooperation, and prosperity beyond its borders. These parallel transformations are two of the greatest political successes of the twentieth century. How did such thoroughgoing transformations occur? And could they be reproduced in Serbia?
Germany and Japan were totally defeated and occupied. They were compelled by their conquerors to adopt democratic institutions and to remake themselves, to rid their public spheres of their nationalist, militaristic, and dehumanizing beliefs. Gradually, new political cultures and practices took root. Mentalities changed. The postwar world could not have been so peaceful and prosperous for Germany's and Japan's neighbors, or even for the Germans and Japanese themselves, if the war had ended with some negotiated settlement, the criminal leaders had been left in power, and the then-dominant cultural myths and beliefs that called for the violent subjugation and elimination of other peoples had continued to reign.
As long as Milosevic is in power, as long as Serbs continue to harbor the burning hatred of ethnic nationalism and are afflicted with delusions about themselves, their neighbors, and the rest of the world (that its wish is to victimize the innocent Serbs) , there will be no peace in the Balkans, and the danger of renewed "ethnic cleansing" will continue. As with Germany and Japan, the defeat and occupation of--and the reshaping of the political institutions and prevailing mentality in--Serbia are morally and, in the long run, practically necessary. With an allied-occupied Serbia, and a redrawn map that would certainly include a Kosovo detached in whole or in part from Serbia, peace and eventually prosperity could come to the region. The various countries and ethnic groups would be physically secure and in position to break out of the current spiral of hatred and vengeful dreaming. The existing Serbian democratic forces would be able to assert themselves, and the incentives would be created for more people to devote themselves to supporting democratic institutions, practices, and ideals. A new democratic educational system and public sphere could teach Enlightenment values such as toleration and the moral equality of all human beings.
The remaking of Serbia is desirable for the well-being not just of its neighbors but also of its inhabitants, now caught in the grip of delusions, hatreds, an ever-more-belligerent society and culture, war, and death. Occupation is the prerequisite for producing a thoroughgoing democratic transformation in Serbia and, more broadly, in the former Yugoslavia (there should be no illusions that all the Serbs' neighbors are angels). The common notion that outside powers cannot impose peace upon or set in motion the transformation of a belligerent society is belied by the historical record. In Serbia, it would be a much smaller and less costly task, in both material and human terms, than it was in Germany and in Japan.
The myriad costs to the NATO allies would, of course, still be substantial. Allied soldiers would die; the war and the occupation would be expensive in dollar terms (though so would a ground war to free Kosovo followed by an indefinite quarantine of Serbia); diplomatic rifts within NATO would likely develop; the Russians would probably become more hostile. Before NATO would embark on such action, the will of member nations would have to be engendered to bear the costs and to stay the course. So far, there is little indication that the NATO countries' leaders and elites have the moral fiber and political courage to do so.
But this does not mean that a plan to occupy and transform Serbia is not, in principle, both feasible and morally right. The moral objections against occupation and the forced reshaping of Serbia are slender. Any people that commits imperial war, perpetrates wholesale murder, and assaults entire peoples--not just their armies but unarmed men, women, and children--has forfeited the protections that the norms and conventions of sovereignty usually afford. Similarly, if a people's self-understanding of self-determination includes conquest, mass expulsion, and mass murder, the principle of self-determination is rendered moot for that people because it is a principle that is secondary to more fundamental ones, such as the right not to be murdered.
Any people that commits such deeds in open defiance of international law and the vehement condemnation of virtually the entire international community clearly consists of individuals with damaged faculties of moral judgment and has sunk into a moral abyss from which it is unlikely, anytime soon, to emerge unaided. The majority of the Serbian people, by supporting or condoning Milosevic's eliminationist politics (see "Milosevic's Willing Executioners," by Stacy Sullivan, tnr, May 10), have rendered themselves both legally and morally incompetent to conduct their own affairs and a presumptive ongoing danger to others.
Essentially, their country must be placed in receivership. The international community's secondary principles of sovereignty and self-determination should be suspended in the name of the primary principles of protecting the lives and fundamental liberties of the assaulted peoples. The criminals among the Serbs--Milosevic, the Serbian leadership, and those who have butchered, expelled, and raped Albanians and Bosnians--need to be punished; the rest of the criminals' supporters, composing a large percentage of the Serbian people, need to be made to comprehend their errors and rehabilitated. The Serbian people should regain full sovereignty only when they demonstrate that they have a real democracy that respects international law, including, of course, the genocide convention.
Some may object that NATO, by embarking on such an exercise, would be guilty of moral arrogance and selfrighteousness, would itself be acting in an imperial manner, or would be impermissibly selective by doing in Serbia what it has not done elsewhere. All of these unconvincing objections are answered by the undeniable rightness and success of the World War II Allies' analogous interventions in western Germany and Japan. These accomplishments are not diminished by the failure of the allies, then and today, to have taken similar action in other genocidal or quasigenocidal instances--from the Chinese Communists who perpetrated genocide for decades to the 1994 genocide in Rwanda.
The major pitfall to be avoided in occupying Serbia would be the temptation to be highly punitive. A relatively benign occupation would strengthen the democratic forces within Serbia just as it did in western Germany. The allies, partly through the character of an occupation that would help rebuild the country and the region economically, would have to make it clear to the Serbs that their purpose is not to exploit Serbs or to profit from their actions and that the basis of their actions is composed of universal morality and defensible principles of justice. The notion of collective guilt, conceptually and morally indefensible, must be rejected. Only those individuals who actually committed crimes should be treated as criminals. That such an occupation would be multilateral is therefore highly desirable, for that would both make it easier eventually to persuade Serbs that the moral underpinnings of the occupation are just and also make it less likely that the occupying forces would seek to pursue separate and illegitimate interests. And, if the 19 NATO countries will not unanimously consent to such a policy, the United States and others should pursue it outside of NATO's auspices.
The allied countries should not undertake such a project lightly, particularly because they, especially their leaders, can hardly lay claim to moral purity. There should be a high threshold for such intervention. A plausible standard for such an intervention was established de facto in 1945, along with the principle that a people that participates in or endorses systematic mass murder by its government--whether outside or inside its borders--can be occupied and have its country reshaped according to democratic principles. By any reasonable measure, Serbia has met this standard. The only weighty arguments against occupying and transforming Serbia are the costs, in casualties and resources, to the allies, which would not be small, and the need to deal with Russia, which would certainly oppose such a policy.
Nevertheless, if people accept this principle of intervention, and if people accept that it was both morally correct and wise to occupy and transform Germany and Japan in 1945, it follows that they must endorse, in principle, the desirability of pursuing a similar course in the Serbia of 1999. Those who refuse to draw this conclusion should at least not pretend that the range of policy options are restricted to negotiation, sanctions, bombing, or ground troops for Kosovo alone. They should also present a workable conception of how to restore peace and some semblance of normality to the region after the Serbian troops are removed from Kosovo.
To the shame of the world--particularly the Europeans and the United States--no one intervened when the Hutus were committing genocide against the Tutsis in Rwanda. To the shame of the United States and its allies, they stood by after defeating Saddam Hussein and watched him commit mass murder against the Iraqi Shia. The cost of inaction in a world where murderous rulers lead hate-filled people in eliminationist, even genocidal onslaughts is high enough that even those suspicious of, and reluctant to use, American or NATO arms should realize that there is no moral option but to defeat, overwhelmingly and finally, the genocidal killers of our day. Otherwise, the perpetrators will continue to kill and will likely begin to kill again. And future potential genocidal killers will think--as all the recent ones have--that they, too, will enjoy impunity.
The Federal Republic of Germany regained its sovereignty after four years of such an occupation and proceeded, at first haltingly and then with great determination, to build a successful democracy and good relations with its neighbors. Old enmities can be overcome with the guarantee that violence is not a policy option for oneself or one's enemies, with people's participation in democratic life, and with education. Education includes seeing oneself though the corrective lenses of others--for the Germans of 1945, those of the Allies; for today's Serbs, it would be those of the NATO countries. After all, the once-bitter enmities between Germans and French and between Germans and Poles have been overcome; this would not have been possible if the Allies had merely beaten Hitler's armies back to Germany's old borders, set up a "quarantine," and then left either Hitler or a like-minded successor, such as Himmler, in power.
NATO has done little more than hurl pious words and ineffectual bombs while the Serbs have continued to slaughter and expel hundreds of thousands of Albanians and, before them, Bosnian Muslims. On the assumption that NATO--now embarrassed by its seeming impotence, worried about its credibility, and under increasing pressure from its publics--decides to roll the Serbs back from Kosovo, NATO's leaders still need to articulate a strategy to restore genuine peace and to create the possibility for a positive future in the region. The question in stark form is: Would Albanians, Bosnians, Croats, Europeans, North Americans, and even Serbs be better off if Serbia were governed by a Saddam Hussein or a Konrad Adenauer?
Daniel Jonah Goldhagen teaches political science at Harvard University. He is the author of Hitler's Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust and is writing a book on genocide in the twentieth century.
May 9, 1999 New York Times p 1
Week in Review
What It Would Take to Cleanse Serbia
By BLAINE HARDEN
Along the blood-spattered timeline of Slobodan Milosevic's Yugoslavia, Kosovo is merely the hideous Now. There was a Before -- in Croatia and Bosnia. Assuming that Milosevic retreats from Kosovo with his dictatorship intact, as now seems likely, Balkans experts foresee an unspeakable After.
It may feature: Fratricidal civil war in Montenegro. Ethnic cleansing of Hungarians in the Serbian province of Vojvodina. Mass murder of Muslims in the Sandzak region of Serbia. No need, for the moment, to bother about the location or correct pronunciation of these obscure places. The world will likely learn. Just as it learned where Kosovo is -- or was -- before more than 700,000 human beings were chased from their homes in a systematic military campaign of burning and intimidation, theft and murder.
If the pattern holds, Milosevic will soldier on, using Big Lie manipulation of television to tap into a collective soft spot in the Serbian psyche. Even as legions of non-Serbs are dispossessed or killed, he will continue to inflame the Serbs and preserve his power by reassuring them that, yes, they are the victims.
Given the character of Milosevic's regime and knowing that there is almost certainly more horror to come, a bold, if impractical, question is just now beginning to be formulated. Is it finally time for outside powers to make the effort necessary to cure a national psychosis inside Serbia that has been destabilizing a corner of Europe for a decade?
Put another way, has the time come for NATO to do in Serbia what the Allies did in Germany and Japan after World II?
To follow that model, Serbia's military would have to be destroyed, and Milosevic crushed, by an invasion that almost certainly would cost the lives of hundreds of U.S. soldiers. After unconditional surrender, the political, social and economic fabric of Serbia would be remade under outside supervision so that the Serbs could take their place in a prosperous and democratic world.
The question cuts three ways. Will it happen? Should it happen? Could it possibly work?
The answer to the first part of this question, at least for the foreseeable future, is a resounding No Way. The other answers, however, are provocative enough to make it worthwhile to suspend disbelief and indulge the fantasy of a post-Milosevic Balkans.
Let's start, though, with the real world. Policy-makers and long-time students of the West's slow-motion intervention in Yugoslavia during the 1990's see no possibility of Milosevic's military defeat or of Serbia's occupation.
An agreement last week between the West and Russia outlined the kind of solution the outside powers would seek instead -- a withdrawal from Kosovo of the Yugoslav army, police and paramilitary fighters, with an international security force to replace them. Details of the deal are still being argued over, but one thing was clear: If the outside powers can get him to sign on, Milosevic would remain in power in his shrinking Yugoslavia. Thus, he would have the opportunity to "cleanse" another day. The West's calculation seems to be that avoiding a land war, keeping NATO together and cementing relations with Russia outweigh the long-term costs of letting Milosevic off the hook.
That, then, is the real world.
Such a course does nothing, of course, to eradicate extreme Serb nationalism.
The only way to stamp out the disease, protect Serbia's minorities and bring lasting peace to the Balkans is a Japan- or Germany-style occupation of Serbia, according to Daniel Serwer, who until two years ago was the director of European intelligence and research for the State Department. Serwer concedes that occupation has never been on the West's list of serious options, but he echoes many experts on the Balkans when he argues that it should be.
"It is very hard to see how Serbia undergoes this process all on its own," said Serwer, now a fellow at the U.S. Institute of Peace, a research group in Washington. "This regime is deeply rooted. It is not like some dictatorship that you take off its head and it will die. It is so corrupt and the corruption is not superficial."
Daniel Jonah Goldhagen, a Harvard historian who wrote "Hitler's Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust," published a kind of manifesto last week that demands Serbia "be placed in receivership."
"Serbia's deeds are, in their essence, different from those of Nazi Germany only in scale," Goldhagen wrote in The New Republic. "Milosevic is not Hitler, but he is a genocidal killer who has caused the murders of many tens of thousands of people."
It is worth remembering, though, that Milosevic is an elected leader, having won three elections that were more or less fair. That, along with the Serb leader's soaring popularity in the wake of NATO bombing, support an argument that what ails Serbia goes far deeper than one man.
No one makes this argument more powerfully than Sonja Biserko, director of the Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in Serbia and a former senior advisor in the European department of the Yugoslav Foreign Ministry. Ms. Biserko, who fled Belgrade a week after the NATO bombings began, said in New York last week that Serbia's fundamental problem is not Milosevic, but a "moral devastation" that has infected her nation.
"People in Serbia are undergoing a mass denial of the barbarity of the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo," Ms. Biserko said. "This denial is itself commensurate to the crime taking place before the eyes of the world."
Ms. Biserko, who met 10 days ago with Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and urged her to consider occupation, believes that Serbia's opposition politicians are incapable now of coming to grips with a culture of victimhood. "Serbs have managed now with the NATO bombing to convince themselves they are victims and as victims they cannot be responsible for what happened in Kosovo," she said.
A surreal sense of victimhood in Serbia is nothing new. During the siege of Sarajevo, when Serb forces ringed that city with artillery and routinely killed its civilians, Belgrade television reported that Bosnian Muslims were laying siege to themselves. "The Serbs continue to defend their centuries-old hills around Sarajevo," said Radio-Television Serbia.
To shatter this Looking Glass victimhood, Ms. Biserko offers a prescription: Indictment of Milosevic by the War Crimes Tribunal. A military defeat of Serbia and demilitarization of the country. Highly publicized trials that will force Serbs to confront the savagery committed in their name. A Western takeover of the mass media, with strict prohibitions against the dissemination of extreme Serb nationalism. A Marshall Plan for the Balkans.
Asked why the West should be willing to undertake an occupation that would risk many lives, cost billions and take years, Ms. Biserko shrugged: "What other choice is there?"
"The Western world has lost its political instinct," she said. "To bring substance to the ideals of human rights, at some point you must be willing to commit troops."
But could the occupation of Serbia work? Could it break the cycle of violence? Two prominent historians believe it could, if done properly.
"The key in Japan was unconditional surrender," said John W. Dower, a professor of history at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and author of "Embracing Defeat: Japan in the Wake of World War II." "The Americans went in and they did everything. They had a major land reform. They abolished the military, simply got rid of it. They drafted a new constitution. This is what you can do when you have unconditional surrender."
Dower was struck by the eagerness with which a defeated people welcomed reform. "In Japan, the average person was really sick of war, and I think that would be the case in Yugoslavia," he said. "The Americans cracked open a repressive military system and the people filled the space."
The occupation of Germany also suggests ways of dealing with Yugoslavia, according to Thomas Alan Schwartz, a historian at Vanderbilt and author of "America's Germany."
"When Germany was totally defeated, it provided opportunity," he said. "You could be physically there, controlling the flow of information and using war-crime trials to show the Germans that atrocities were done in their name."
Without something similar in Serbia, Schwartz said, "We can look forward to more trouble in Serbia.
"What reminds me of Germany is the comparison to the end of World War I," he added. "Then, the Germans had this powerful sense of being victims. There was a deep resentment that Hitler was able to exploit. It will be the same in Serbia when NATO bombing stops."
The Japan and Germany analogies, of course, are flawed. Those major-league powers ravaged parts of the world that America cared about. Occupation was nothing less than emergency triage for the worst violence in history.
Milosevic, by comparison, is small potatoes. He leads a minor-league country that periodically lays waste to poor, unpronounceable, strategically irrelevant places. Pristina is not Paris.
There is, though, an inkling that the West has begun to try for a solution. In Bosnia, 32,000 NATO-led troops and High Commissioner Carlos Westendorp are even now doing the hard, slow, complex work of healing that country.
Westendorp has not attempted a Japan-style remake of the Serb-populated half of Bosnia (just as nobody has tried to do that in neighboring Croatia, with its own accomplishments in ethnic cleansing). The indicted war criminals Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic have not been hunted down. Radical Serb parties have not been banned. But tough action is being taken. Westendorp ordered radical Serb nationalists out of state television. He has fired the nationalist zealot who was elected the Bosnian Serbs' president. If Serbs violently object to what the peacekeepers do, NATO-led forces shoot to kill.
In a recent interview in Sarajevo, Westendorp said most Bosnian Serbs are cooperating because they are sick of war. It will take time, he said, but the West has enough money and muscle in Bosnia to extinguish the will to war. The one insoluble problem, he said, was the leader in Belgrade.
"If getting rid of Milosevic fails," he said, "then everything fails."
Back to the Jewish Role Page
(c) 1999 Yggdrasil. All rights reserved. Distribute Freely.