Nationalists Versus Liberals in Telling Myths Today

Myths are oftentimes perceived as something negative, but they are in fact necessary for a state and its people. This is why liberal journalists and scholars are now urging their politicians to come up with new myths, in order to counter the nationalists’ myths which they regard as superior.

The potential and importance of myths was recognized even in Ancient times and led to the Bible being written. Plato wrote about the power of myths in “The Republic” around 380 BC, where he described myths as invented stories that speak to feelings rather than the mind and as necessary lies that are a foundation for the state.

In his book “Sapiens” from 2014, Dr Yuval Noah Harari writes about the history of mankind and includes what impact myths have had. According to him, myths are binding to human beings and something which has helped mankind to be so successful, in contrast to animals or even humans before the cognitive revolution some 70,000 years ago, when fictive language appeared. As Harairi proves, fiction made it possible for us to imagine something together and this led to the ability to cooperate in large numbers; without myths, the result of fiction, strangers wouldn’t be able to live together. As Harari writes: “Two Serbs who have never met might risk their lives to save one another because both believe in the existence of the Serbian nation, the Serbian homeland and the Serbian flag.”

Today nationalists are winning elections all around the world and one explanation could be that the liberals have a lack of good myths. There is worry among some of these liberals that they have already lost the battle to nationalists because of this lack and now they are desperate. Now liberals such as David Brooks in “The New York Times” are saying that the nationalists have to be countered with new and better myths. Liberals such as him claim that the old myth of America as a spreader of democracy doesn’t work any longer and has been replaced by Trump’s talk of national identity and “real Americans” (i.e. no minorities). We will now take a look at what exactly the liberal myths are and if the nationalistic myths, with the idea that history and language is what binds a nation together, are that wrong after all.

The Liberal Myths and Creating New Myths

According to Brooks and most liberal American politicians, America has been the spreader of democracy in the world up to the point Trump came to power. According to this myth, Americans do things not only for themselves but for the entire mankind.

There is something here which doesn’t add up though. Otherwise, one could think that the founders of this nation of spreader of democracy never committed genocide on the original inhabitants of their land, the Native Americans, and as an insult to the injury even took trophies when they named military helicopters after famous Native Americans such as Black Hawk and Apache, with which they claimed to spread democracy. It was in the name of democracy that this nation also bombed Serbia in 1999. In other words, the myth is cheap talk and only people who are not fully informed can believe in it.

Brooks refuses to see this and talks about creating new myths, both in America and the rest of the world, as if the nationalistic myths are something evil and don’t work. The truth is that one of the difference between totalitarian states and democracies is that totalitarian states create new myths, such as Germany in the 1930s when the Swastika was introduced, and Yugoslavia after the Second World War when the communists talked about “brotherhood and unity” between peoples that had tried to exterminate each other the day before. We saw this in Venezuela as well, when Hugo Chavez renamed the country and changed the flag. It was a revolution that was continued by his successor and it has now led to what can be called a humanitarian catastrophe. One explanation could be that it ends in fiasco when you try to replace myths with something that doesn’t work.

However, now liberals like Brooks actually talk about creating new myths. These liberals talk about some myth which must include all of humanity. Then who are “we” one could ask of course. This also demands the notion that there is something wrong with loving your nation, which is simply an extension of oneself, after one’s family and friends. But the truth is that myths which nations have and which are defended today by nationalistic politicians, because they are proud of their heritage, are far more superior than liberal ones and must not be abandoned. They work and, as we will see, they have helped nations to survive and keep their way of living.

The Superiority of Nationalistic Myths

To illustrate this claim we can take the Serbs and their myths. This is a nation that lived under Turkish occupation for centuries after the battle of Kosovo in 1389. The myths about the battle of Kosovo, with all its stories of heroic deeds and the lessons drawn, helped to keep together the Serbian nation through Turkish occupation, even if many converted to Islam.

It is a case which also illustrates how myths don’t necessarily have to be altogether true. For instance, the hero Miloš Obilić first appeared under the name Kobilić, and the four “S” that are found on the Serbian coat of arms and stand for “Union only saves the Serbs,” which is said to originate from the time for the battle of Kosovo, are in fact four “B” that derive from a Byzantine dynasty.

Nonetheless, the Serbs believe in these myths, the same way I do, because they tell a story and there are lessons to be drawn. The nationalistic myths, such as that of the Serbian people, are also more rooted in facts and history than liberal myths will ever be. They are also rooted in people’s blood and soil. Thanks to their myths the Serbs kept their faith during Muslim rule that lasted for almost a half millennium.

Myths used by nationalists are something that work, and now the liberals have realized the power of myths and recognized that the nationalists have an advantage when it comes to myths and winning the support of people because of them. We see this conflict in Serbia as well, where many politicians want to join the European Union and as a consequence need to recognize the independence of Kosovo, but many Serbs refuse to do so.

The Serbian nationalist Vojislav Šešelj was right when he spoke for the Serbian people at his trial at the Hague tribunal and said this: “Blood has been spilled and the soil has been coloured red because of Kosovo. Even if there is only one Serb left, we will not give up Kosovo.”

Words as powerful as these can’t be matched by anything from the liberals, especially not in Serbia. Indeed, many Serbs converted to Islam, we see Serbs abandoning their roots in Montenegro, and many Serbs want to join the European Union, but these are traitors who have lost their pride and honor. This truth will maybe not kill them, since there are antidotes. But it remains a fact that they are weaker because of this and they, liberals in Serbia as well as in other places, can’t replace the heritage that someone is proud of and would die for with myths that are created for everyone. This is why they will lose the battle that is raging.

Alexekin Rockowia
Editor-in-chief of For-Serbia The Website

The Delegitimization Campaign Against Nationalists

“A spectre is haunting Europe… All the powers of old Europe have entered into a holy alliance to exorcise this spectre…” These are the famous words that in a manifesto by Karl Marx describe the advances of communism in the 19th century. They illustrate how history repeats itself; how man always takes to resistance from oppression, but above all what the consequences of this can be.
To see parallels on today’s world political stage, the best thing would be to look at the election of Trump for president and the so-called Brexit. These are events that often are described as reactions to the negative sides of globalization and immigration, in which one can detect a will from the people to strengthen their national identity and their country’s sovereignty. In other words, it is nationalism that we are witnessing.
Just like communism back then, nationalism today is acknowledged to be a power and one that is growing only stronger and stronger. This, one can be sure of, is despite the setbacks with the elections in Austria, the Netherlands and France. According to many experts, these European elections, in fact, do not do much to mask the inevitable: nationalism is on the rise and it still has a very good chance of taking over in these and other countries.
As a natural consequence of this – if we are now to connect back to the beginning, namely what a resistance can lead to – a trend has now appeared, resembling what Marx in the communists’ case described as an “exorcism” by a “holy alliance.” It was a “holy alliance” that felt threatened by communism then which led to efforts to clamp down, and it is a liberal establishment that is feeling threatened by nationalism now which is leading to this trend. This is something that bodes good for the nationalists, since we can see that there is something of an instinct involved when people’s ideology is rooted in their identity, which in turn can lead to one or two things as we will see at the end of this article. But first we will highlight this trend with several examples. It is a trend that can best be called “a delegitimization campaign against nationalists.”
Nationalism and the Media
One example of this delegitimization campaign is the portrayal of nationalism’s successes in recent times, when the liberal media talks about “quick fixes.” So called “quick fixes” are what the nationalists have as one of their great appeals, while the so-called normal politicians, whose followers are depicted as those who unlike nationalists “can read and write,” don’t seem to like these “quick fixes” and actively avoid them.
The problem is that according to the liberals these “quick fixes” are nothing but empty words from the nationalistic leaders, who thereby are portrayed as frauds, and nationalistic voters end up looking like easily fooled, stupid and impulsive. The nationalists are because of this delegitimized. But the truth is that there is something very dishonest about this portrayal, which is one of the proofs for that there exists a delegitimization campaign. This, of course, is thanks to the obvious reluctance of the liberal media and politicians to acknowledge the positive aspects of these proposed, as well as existing, “quick fixes.”
Without doubt, the liberal portrayal is prevailing in the public conscience. But the truth is that there is no objectivity among the liberals that is worthy of the name. Thanks to their portrayal, the people are not allowed to learn the truth. In the case of “quick fixes” the truth is that they work. To take one good example, there is how Hungary now has the lowest level of unemployment in its entire history; this after having thrown out the International Monetary Fund, one of globalism’s main enforcement mechanisms, something which can’t be called anything other than a “quick fix.”
This example would seem to prove that “quick fixes” work and that the problems that are presented by the media as complicated and nuanced really aren’t complicated and nuanced. You don’t need a political expert to chew it over for you: simple solutions like banning migrants and banning globalist organizations, some of the nationalists’ goals, can achieve results. The delegitimization is only depending on a distorted picture that is presented by the media.
The False Image of Nationalists
It is a delegitimization campaign that we see that is primarily about making nationalists look ignorant, which the media seems to do every day in their reporting. George Orwell wrote this quip about nationalism which many today would take out of its context and endorse without even thinking twice: “Every nationalist is capable of the most flagrant dishonesty, but he is also unshakably certain of being in the right.”
The truth is that we today know more about these sort of things thanks to social science experiments. Thanks to these, we now have a term called “confirmation bias.” It has been proven by experts that people tend to focus on certain facts that confirm their view of the world. In the same experiments, it has been shown that people think less of facts that do not fit their preconceived narrative. More importantly, there is nothing that says that this only applies to nationalists. But this is what the liberal media and politicians would like to have you believe.
In the case of liberals who take Orwell’s words out of their context and endorse them, the safest thing would be to call them arrogant. It is what most of the liberals have become these days when they claim that all nationalists are ignorant, when in fact ignorant people, thanks to what is called “confirmation bias,” can be found on all sides.
The Mother-View Theory
One could go further in proving this delegitimization by borrowing a word from the Swedish literary scholar and debater Göran Hägg. One’s mother-view, as he called it, is not something people so easily deviate from, after which he took the image in the West of the Serbs as a good example. Good arguments or critiques, according to him, will not affect people because of their mother-view.
As an example, consider the authority that science now has in our society. The word of scientists is viewed as authoritative, so everything that they say about global warming is taken as gospel by many people because it subscribes to their mother-view of the world in which science is the definitive authority.
A mother-view is more or less a part of our identity. This is one of the explanations for why many people refuse to take criticism, even if they are making mistakes or could do better, and this could explain why otherwise intelligent people end up making fools of themselves.
This proclivity to ignorance is precisely what we have seen liberal journalists and politicians fall victim to in Sweden. When attention was turned to migrant crime in their country thanks to Trump and Fox News, we saw this liberal ignorance writ large. They simply could not admit that the nationalists that they had been depicting as idiots were right all along. To do so would admit that they too were ideologically compromised and not objective. This is why it can be claimed that liberals carry on mother-views, in addition to to “confirmation bias,” just like nationalists and this proves further that there exists a delegitimization campaign.
The Debate on “Fake News”
A part of this delegitimization campaign is also the liberal debate on so-called “fake news,” in which nationalistic internet sites and newspapers are pointed out as spreaders of lies and propaganda. But all that is needed to see what it is really about is to take a look at a newspaper or a TV-guide: people that claim to be able to talk to the dead and predict the future are incredibly enough allowed to trick millions of people, even though an American foundation for years has offered a reward of one million dollars to anyone who proves that he or she is not a fraud. We could of course mention Wikipedia as well, where everyone can write anything they want. Then the liberal debate on so-called “fake news” speaks for itself: it is a desperate attack on nationalism and is part of a delegitimization campaign.
The Attack on Russia
We also have the attack on Russia of course to see this delegitimization. Few can claim that Russia has not become something akin to a punching bag, with many liberal journalists relishing the opportunity to bring up the Russian bogeyman. The biggest reason for this attack is of course the country’s nationalistic politics and because it is the country in Europe that has gone the furthest in the dismantling of liberal democracy, which happened because the Russians simply had to break away from Western power structures to maintain their sovereignty. Thanks to this attack, which really is part of a demonization campaign, the Russians end up looking like they are the worthy heirs of Hitler’s nationalistic legacy.
Today it is primarily about portraying them as guilty of “crimes against international law” because of Ukraine. However, it is only required that one looks at Russia’s annexation of Crimea and then at the United States’ invasion of Iraq. The hypocrisy becomes apparent. How little criticism there is now of the ongoing chaos in Iraq that was done in the name of liberal principles as opposed to the annexation of Crimea that was done on the basis of nationalist principles!
The reason for this is that Russia is being used as a political football, and it should be viewed in light of a delegitimization campaign against nationalists. This would be the only way to explain why Sweden’s relationship with Russia is being compared to that of Poland’s, that is to say a country that Russia has been at war with for almost as long as the two countries have existed.
So the attack on Russia that we now see can be explained. Russia has become an avatar of nationalism according to the liberal press, so of course they attack Russia with anything they can come up with. By digging up more facts on this issue, for instance from the documentary “The Masks of Revolution” by Paul Moreira, one will see only more proof of this attack on Russia, and at the same time of the delegitimization campaign against nationalists.
The Result of the Delegitimization
But it is a delegitimization campaign that has started to backfire. We see what these constant attacks on people’s identity leads to. Nowadays, when a nationalistic ideology is portrayed as something that only the worst kinds of people partake in, the nationalists’ identification is instinctively only intensified. It is also in this delegitimization campaign that we can find the source to a calling that is now going out to nationalists – just like the case was with the communists in the 19th century, a movement that slowly grew and would come to make up one of the world’s super powers. It is a calling that says “Unite!” – and we are now starting to see the birth of a mass movement whose time has come.
Alexekin Rockowia
Editor-in-chief of For-Serbia The Website

Liberals and Their Self-Image – Arrogance, Hypocrisy and Ignorance

Liberals like to see themselves as representatives of common sense, while at the same time they regard nationalists as ignorant and arrogant. We will in this article examine this liberal self-image. As a result we will see that liberals themselves, in addition to ignorance (which has been proven already), carry on arrogance as well as hypocrisy.
Ignorance and arrogance are, to say least, two common words in the liberal description of nationalists. We have seen this, for instance, in the image of Geert Wilders. It was what we saw after one of Wilders’s campaign speeches, one in which he asked the audience if they wanted to have “more Moroccans or fewer Moroccans?” This became one of the recurrent ingredients in the depiction of him as ignorant and arrogant. Naturally, this was in order to delegitimize him.
It is something that is being done with most nationalists, and the word ignorance is being used the most in this effort. But the one who knows all the facts also knows that this has been dealt with – and that ignorance is therefore an unjust word in the description of nationalists – since it has been proven that ignorance can be found on all sides. This of course is thanks to the social science studies that lead to the launch of the term “confirmation bias.”
Now it is time to look at the arrogance part. It will be seen just how much the liberals are wrong here as well. The question that we will be asking is what consists in this so-called nationalist arrogance, and we will see that liberals are the ones who are the most arrogant.
A Positive Arrogance with Nationalists
What we can make out in the nationalists’ case is in fact a form of positive arrogance. It is simply something that challenges the liberal hegemony, that is to say the soft totalitarianism in the liberal establishment. This is why the statement that we took from Wilders, and that which is said by Trump, often goes over well with the supporters. This positive arrogance is what we see with a lot of nationalists, for instance the Serbian politician Vojislav Šešelj, which we saw during his trial for war crimes at the Hague Tribunal: in connection with this process, while cameras were running, he asked the judges and prosecutors to suck his cock and fuck their mothers.
In this case the nationalist stood for defiance against a higher and evil power in the form of a illegitimate court; in other cases it can be directed towards an establishment of journalists and politicians that are actually just bullies. However, the liberal arrogance, which without doubt exists, is graceless and backfires.
The Liberal Arrogance
Arrogance in its negative form – that of supremacy – is what the liberals are guilty of. To take an illustrative example, there is a debate that was arranged by the BBC some ten years ago. The question that the audience was going to vote about, and which they voted against with vast majority, was if we needed to create a Western UN. One of the sides in this debate viewed it as high time for this: we in the West, as they saw it, had a moral superiority that was liberal and with a Western UN we could bring about more peace in the world. But then one could, if one knows all the facts – the facts that are hardly reported in the liberal media – ask the question how the West’s leading nation, the United States, would play its role in this project. That is to say, if one considers the fact that this is one of the countries in the world that gives itself the right to commit genocide.
The United States did – which we can mention for the sake of justice – sign the Genocide Convention and also ratified it (after 40 years). But this was done with the reservation that it was inapplicable to the United States! It was this argument that Clinton’s liberal administration had when Yugoslavia turned to the World Court because of American crimes during the Kosovo war, a case which Yugoslavia lost.
The Kosovo war was also something used in the BBC debate. According to the intellectual liberals who said that we needed a Western UN, this war was a prime example of when liberal principles prevailed. Fact is that this only illustrates arrogance, since the bombing of Yugoslavia was what the left-wing professor Noam Chomsky called the low point in intellectual history for the West; after which he compared liberal newspapers such as The New York Times to the Soviet Pravda.
At the same time this is a liberal arrogance that can be found way back in history. We see this even with one of the most influential liberal thinkers ever, John Stuart Mill, who justified colonialism in India and talked of Indians as barbarians and claimed that the Brits wanted to help them and give them civilization. Needless to say, he left out the part about the crimes and the inhumane treatment that the Indians had suffered under British rule.
The Liberal Hypocrisy
To see the hypocrisy from the liberals, there is a whole host of examples here as well. This of course is thanks to today’s liberal reporting on Russia, Trump and Europe’s nationalists. Take for instance the criticism against Russia after the shooting down of a Dutch passenger plane during the Ukrainian war. This plane was actually located over a war zone (!) which no one seemed to think was strange. But one could go back some 30 years, when American military shot down an Iranian passenger plane and killed all 290 people on-board. This is something that no one seemed to care particularly much about and it has today been largely forgotten. In the Russians’ case, however, it has haunted them to the point that there was talk of sanctions.
One can also look at various liberal politicians’ attacks on Russia after the annexation of Crimea. By many of these liberal politicians, this event was regarded as the biggest threat to the stability in Europe since the Second World War. One cannot, according to them, under any circumstances change the borders of sovereign states with force. The truth is that Pandora’s box was opened already in 2008 by themselves when they recognized Kosovo’s unilateral declaration of independence.
One more example of this hypocrisy or double moral could be found during the election in France. Here Marine Le Pen was accused of pretty much wanting to take France back to the Middle Ages. This was thanks to her view on the Euro, the European Union and NATO. But no one wanted to draw any parallel to Switzerland, one of the world’s most prosperous countries, which doesn’t have any of these things.
Common Sense and the Liberals
The image of nationalists vis-à-vis liberals leads us to something important, namely the talk about common sense. Nationalists don’t have this at all according to the liberals. At the same time it is something that is a crucial part in the liberal self-image. Common sense is indeed something that liberals claim to have a lot of, but it is as we now have seen only an expression for their arrogance.
Common sense, by the way, is something that changes over time. For instance, it was viewed as common sense a couple of centuries ago to believe that the earth was the center of the universe. One has to question one’s own views, and only then you can claim to have common sense. Then you will see that liberals just like anyone else can be ignorant, arrogant and hypocritical – and are far from being synonymous with common sense (if one is critical to the facts that are presented and actually questions).
Alexekin Rockowia
Editor-in-chief of For-Serbia The Website

How Jihad Came to the West

Given that the Bosnian Serb President Milorad Dodik is arranging parades with his police forces and talking about independence for the Serb entity of Bosnia and Herzegovina, while Bosnian Muslim and many Western politicians are protesting, it is high time to give a background to what is happening and what has been happening ever since the fragile peace agreement was reached in 1995.
If one wishes to understand the present-day situation, it would be best to explain what the conflict is actually about. In today’s Western medias and in the statements made by Western politicians, just like during the 1990s, it is mostly a distorted picture that is given. According to their way of looking at the conflict, it is about the Serbs who want to continue what they set out to do in the early 1990’s, that is to create an ethnically pure “Greater Serbia,” because they believe that they are superior over Bosnian Muslims because of religion. The Bosnian Muslims however, according to themselves and these Western medias and politicians, want to sustain a multi-ethnic Bosnia and Herzegovina, which its first President Alija Izetbegović is also said to have wanted when the Bosnian Civil War began in 1992.
The conflict of today does indeed involve religion, which must be stressed. It is what everything was about during the war, which led to the deaths of over 100,000 people, roughly half of which were civilian casualties. It is also a fact that it is religion that defines the nationalities of Bosnia and Herzegovina, since Bosnian Muslims, Serbs and Croats all speak the same language – although the language, depending on which group you ask, is called different names.
Today’s coverage and the background that is given, however, is not objective. Now the truth will be shown; how the war began, how the war in a sense continued even after the peace, and it will be shown that the Serbs were not the bad guys back then, and therefore they are not the bad guys today. This will be done partly thanks to facts from Western sources, including the CIA and NSA, that were made widely known in the Norwegian documentary “Sarajevo Ricochet – The US Green Light” from 2011. We will see that the Bosnian Civil War in fact marked the beginning of Jihad in the West. There are even indications, which will be seen here, that the attacks on 9/11 would not have happened if it weren’t for the Bosnian Civil War.
“The Islamic Declaration” – or the Plan for Bosnia and Herzegovina
The man who is the most responsible for the Bosnian Civil War, and thereby Jihad in the West, is Bosnia and Herzegovina’s first democratically elected President, Alija Izetbegović. As a dissident in the former Yugoslavia, he differed from most of his Bosnian Muslim countrymen, who were known as being loyal to this multi-ethnic creation. It is safe to say that Izetbegović had an ideology, an Islamist, that was not shared by them, who unlike him were secular and not particularly faithful. In his book “The Islamic Declaration” from 1969 he presented “A programme for the Islamization of Muslims and the Muslim Peoples.”
Here is an example of the message that is found in the book: “A people that has accepted Islam is incapable of living and dying for any other ideal. It is unthinkable that a Muslim should sacrifice himself for any other ruler, no matter who he might be, or for the glory of any nation or party, because the strongest Islamic instinct recognizes in this a kind of paganism or idolatry. A Muslim can only die in the name of Allah and for the glory of Islam, or flee the battlefield.”
It is a quote that should lay waste to claims that were made, and are still made, that Alija Izetbegović was fighting for a multi-ethnic state. The Serbs of course knew who he was and what he really wanted. The book was after all republished in 1990, which prooves that he had not modified his views. It was around that time that Bosnia and Herzegovina had its first democratic election, after which Izetbegović became its President, even though he represented only a minority of roughly 40 per cent. But Izetbegović had taken this into consideration when he wrote his book: “The Islamic order can only be established in countries where Muslims represent the majority of the population. If this is not the case, the Islamic order is reduced to mere power (as the other element – the Islamic society – is missing) and may turn to violence.”
He continues his thoughts around this on a following page: “The choice of this movement is always a tangible one and depends on a series of factors. There is, though, a general rule: the Islamic movement should and can start to take over power as soon as it is morally and numerically strong to be able to overturn the existing non-Islamic government, but also to build up a new Islamic one.”
After reading these quotes, it is obvious that Alija Izetbegović was an Islamist. As such he should not even have become the leader of the Bosnian Muslims: his views and plans were shared only by a small minority of them. The truth is that Izetbegović together with other Islamists hijacked the Bosnian Muslims’ biggest party, the Party of Democratic Action. Its leader should have been Fikret Abdić, who got the most votes, and it was agreed that Izetbegović would be the leader only temporarily, but then came the crisis and things changed. Abdić, a man who was regarded as far more moderate and representing the most Bosnian Muslims, would during the war even come to declare his own republic in Western Bosnia, which allied itself with the Serbs and fought against the Bosnian Muslim government.
In contrast to Alija Izetbegović, we can take a look at the Bosnian Serb leadership and draw some conclusions. While Izetbegović was politically active and had set out to destroy Yugoslavia several decades before this country fell apart, the Bosnian Serb President Radovan Karadžić was a psychiatrist and poet, who had as one of his best friends a Bosnian Muslim, and he had not been politically active. His successor to the post of Bosnian Serb President, Biljana Plavšić, was a professor in biology and she had international merits. Together with others in the Bosnian Serbs’ biggest party, the Serbian Democratic Party, which was portrayed as a party for criminals and losers, they constituted the Serbian intellectual elite in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Even if few of these had been dissidents in Yugoslavia, they were accused of having started the war because they wanted to create a ethnically pure state.
The Background to Jihad in Bosnia and Herzegovina
This is a bit of the background to why the Serbs, after a referendum where a majority had voted for an independent Bosnia and Herzegovina, declared the independence of Republika Srpska, which can be translated as the Republic of Srpska or the Serbian Republic. It was a referendum that was boycotted by the Serbs, and they were right in doing so; the referendum was after all illegal, since the Serbs were a “constitutive people” and hence could not be ignored, according to the country’s constitution. The majority didn’t even want an independent Bosnia and Herzegovina; Croats voted for independence only so that they could join Croatia more easily.
After the referendum everyone knew for sure that war would come. It was around that time that Radovan Karadžić held his infamous speech in Bosnian and Herzegovina’s Parliament, which during the war was shown in news all around the world, and it is shown still today in connection with his trial at the Hague Tribunal. But what people get to see are only a couple of seconds from a speech that was several minutes long. Here Karadžić is shown while he is angry and says that Muslims could face extermination if they continued to go on their road to independence. Then Alija Izetbegović sits in the same chair, calm and tolerant, making it look like he is the good guy.
The message from Karadžić, if one looks at the whole speech, is that a war had to be avoided at any price. It would be a peace that was not perfect to any of the parties, not even to the Serbs. If war came, according to him in his speech, it was inevitable that fighting would break out in the entire country, since the three groups lived so mixed together; it would be a bloodbath. However, unlike in the case of the Second World War, the Serbs were now prepared. This was Karadžić’s real message.
What Karadžić knew, together with everyone else in that Parliament, was that all three groups had prepared for war and everyone knew that war would most likely occur. Karadžić was just doing his best and was desperate in that speech, in order to avoid a hell as he called it, even if it meant threatening the Bosnian Muslims and he ended up looking like the bad guy.
That preparations for war had been undertaken, for instance by hiding weapons and ammunition, could be called an widely known secret: the politicians and journalists didn’t talk openly about it, but even ordinary people knew about it. All the three groups were involved in these preparations, but it was only that the Serbs had learned their lesson from the previous war and were now the most prepared.
A genocide on the Serbs would not happen this time. In the Second World War the Serbs had suffered millions of deaths. Many Serbian children, women and men had been sent to death camps just like the Jews, or were even thrown into pits together with grenades. Before the genocide, which was committed by Croats as well as Bosnian Muslims, the Serbs had been the largest group in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
The message from Karadžić could not have been made clearer: the Serbs had learned their historic lesson and this time they would win. When war came the Serbs could thus easily take control over towns and villages in most of the country. This meant that the Serbs after a few months controlled around two thirds of Bosnia and Herzegovina, even if they made up only one third of the population, something that can be compared to the Israeli success during the Six-Day War. Much was thanks to paramilitary groups from Serbia, such as Arkan’s Tigers. This group had been formed a couple of months before the outbreak of war in Croatia, with the promise not to let history repeat itself.
It was in April of 1992 that war was a fact. According to a propaganda film that was made in 2000 by Azzam Publication, which was based in London until the attacks on 9/11, war veterans from Afghanistan started arriving after a month. The propaganda film is called “The Martyrs of Bosnia” and in the beginning of the film one can read the following: “The first video ever made about the Mujahideen, by the Mujahideen, in the English language.” In this propaganda film the Islamists even publish names of fallen terrorists, and say things such as this: “What occurred in Bosnia and Herzegovina was not merely a war between the Muslims and the Serbs, but it was a war between Islam and Christianity.”
It was indeed all about religion. In fact, the Bosnian Civil War could be called the Serbian Civil War. One could digress here a little bit and mention that Bosnian Muslims’ ancestors are in fact Christian Serbs – both Bogomils and Orthodox – who converted to Islam during the Turkish occupation. In the case of the Bogomils, who were part of a faith that differed from Orthodoxy but none the less called themselves Serbs, the reason that they converted was mostly that they were viewed as part of a sect and not accepted by other Christians. But there were also motives that resembled that of the Orthodox Serbs, many of whom converted to Islam throughout the occupation that lasted for almost 500 years, only for the reason of better conditions under the Muslim Turks. This also explains why the Serbs took over so large parts of Bosnia and Herzegovina and why they besieged Sarajevo, since their ancestors were farmers and hence owned a lot of land, while the Muslims’ ancestors had had privileged jobs in the towns.
So, really, Serbs were killing Serbs. The fact that Serb Muslims created a new nation has among other things led to the illogical word “Bosniak,” which is today being more frequently used in Western medias, not to mention the language called “Bosnian,” which is the same as Serbian in every regard. Since Bosnia is a geographic region that consists of three different groups, both words are illogical. Still the Muslims in Herzegovina and even in Serbia call themselves Bosniaks and say that they speak Bosnian.
The Jihad in Bosnia and Herzegovina
Much about the Mujahideen in Bosnia and Herzegovina was made publicly known thanks to the journalists John Burger and Misad Ralić (who no one can claim isn’t objective since he is a Bosnian Muslim war veteran). They were followed by a team of Norwegians for a documentary called “Sarajevo Ricochet – The US Green Light,” where among other things connections are shown between the Bosnian Muslim government and Islamist terrorists who were active in the United States in the early 1990s. This is because of facts that were uncovered about a “humanitarian organization” called the Third World Relief Agency. Through this organization, which was situated in Vienna and had connections to Saudi Arabia, the Bosnian Muslim government got between 300 million and one billion dollars. It was shown thanks to these journalists’ investigations that money from this organization also funded terrorist activities in the United States. Those who help make this and many other things public knowledge include Michael Scheuer, a former CIA intelligence officer, and John Schindler, a former NSA analyst.
Serbs’ claims about the Mujahideen and their connections to Alija Izetbegović, however, were ignored as mere propaganda during and after the war. Serbs had after fighting the Mujahideen even obtained evidence of their crimes. This included video footage that was filmed by the Mujahideen for propaganda purposes. One example is what happened in the so-called “Slaughter House at Kamenica,” where around 60 Serbian soldiers were raped, tortured and decapitated. If one looks at the video footage from that place, one can see the fear in the Serbian soldiers’ faces. It is impossible to imagine to what degree they must have felt fear, and what kind of thoughts went on in their heads. Pictures of the Mujahideen walking around with the heads of Serbian soldiers reached the Serbs and spread fear already in the beginning of the war. In an instance that can be found on the Internet, Bosnian Muslim soldiers film a Serbian soldier who has detonated a grenade against his heart, maybe because the Mujahideen oftentimes yelled “Allahu Akbar!” when they advanced.
The Mujahideen crimes were well-documented and evidence was handed over by the Serbs to the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. The fact that no Mujahideen or high-ranking Bosnian Muslim has been indicted and convicted, says a lot about this tribunal. Alija Izetbegović could have been charged long ago, just like many members of the Bosnian Serb government and Serbian generals were charged right after the war. Instead the indictment against Izetbegović was made public only after his death in 2003.
Probably this was done so that the Serbs couldn’t say that the tribunal hunted only Serbs. The truth is that in the case of non-Serbs it was mostly low-ranking people that were convicted by the tribunal. In few instances it was for command responsibility, which Alija Izetbegović together with other Bosnian Muslim politicians and generals (many of whom are still alive) had in the case of the Mujahideen. The Mujahideen were after all a formal part of the Bosnian Muslim army. This was the same army which according to Western medias and politicians was fighting for a multi-ethnic state.
How the War Continued in the West
By 1994 the Serbs were on the retreat and faced being pushed out of virtually all of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Much of this was thanks to bombing from the air by the United States under the leadership of Bill Clinton. It was only after politicians in Serbia and in Montenegro said that they would have to intervene with the Yugoslav army, after hundreds of thousands of Serbs had been expelled from Croatia in less than a week and large parts of Western Bosnia had been lost, that pressure was put by the Americans on Alija Izetbegović to end the war and the Dayton Peace Agreement could be reached. One demand from the West was that all foreign fighters needed to leave the country. However, in many cases of the Mujahideen, who were several thousands, this did not happen. Instead they were given citizenship in Bosnia and Herzegovina. This is how the war came to the West.
One of the Mujahideen that was given a passport, as is shown in the Norwegian documentary, was a brother to Ayman al-Zawahiri, the leader of al-Qaida after Usama bin Laden. Other things that are shown is Abu Mali, one of Usama bin Laden’s main allies in Europe, sitting next to Alija Izetbegović in a video. Two of the hijackers during the 9/11 attacks had also been Mujahideen in the Bosnian Civil War. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, regarded as the brain behind the 9/11 attacks, lived in Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1995. The two journalists that took part in the documentary, John Berger and Misad Ralić, also revealed that fourteen major Islamist terrorist attacks around the world, including in Europe, had connections to the Jihad in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
So there are today many things that are happening in Bosnia and Herzegovina, resembling the tensions that went on before the outbreak of the Bosnian Civil War. But unlike the liberals in America, who held power at that time and chose the Bosnian Muslims as their friends, the conservatives actually care about history and tradition. One of these conservatives is Donald Trump’s newly appointed National Security Advisor, John Bolton, who among other things has held a pro-Serbian stance on Kosovo’s independence. Hopefully Trump will keep his promise and not be an ordinary Washington politician. The ordinary Washington politicians, as has been seen now, choose their friends based on what their goals are, rather than choosing their goals based on who their friends are. Now the time is here for the West to get a second chance and choose the right side.
Alexekin Rockowia
Editor-in-chief of For-Serbia The Website