February 12th 2013 11:25:08 PM
I recently blogged about “a fair mind at Arizona University,” Prof. David Gibbs, based on a letter he wrote on the double standard employed vis-a-vis the Serbs cleansed from Croatia. Nebojsa Malic emailed me afterwards, with the following about the experience of Prof. Gibbs and others who dare to discern an imbalance (to put it mildly) in the official Balkans line:
Last June, he was subjected to the same media lynching as you and I, by the same people (Toljaga, Hoare, Bosniak Congress). See here.
Now, Gibbs has been typically Western and polite in his responses, not realizing these are not fellow academics with whom one can have a reasoned debate, but propagandists who don’t give a fig for the facts that counter their narrative…
As for wishy-washy Western academics who know there is something wrong with the narrative, but don’t dare talk about it too much lest they be branded “extremists,” perhaps this article of mine might help:
…For years, the self-styled “international community” delivered food to the Bosnian Muslims (and looked the other way as the food was redirected to the ruling elite, then the troops, with what was left being sold for cold hard cash to the civilians it was intended for in the first place), looked the other way as weapons and jihadists came in, and tried to broker a peace agreement that the Bosnian Muslim regime would accept. But instead of gratitude, they would be accused of “appeasing the aggressors” and “not doing enough.” [Incidentally, this is what happens any time a compromise position is asked of the Albanian side in the Kosovo issue. And so, no compromise and it’s all on the Serbs to keep meeting the Albanians half-way, until it’s full-way.]
Eventually, the UN openly sided with the Muslims. In August 1995, UN “peacekeepers” put on their NATO hats and turned their guns on the Bosnian Serbs. Yet even today, the Bosnian Muslim media stoke the fires of propaganda that the UN and the West “favored the Serb aggressors” and “failed” Bosnia…And even the most outspoken pro-Muslim officials, such as Daniel Serwer of the U.S. Institute of Peace, are denounced as “Karadzic’s propagandists” if they so much as suggest that the Muslims may not have been absolutely right about everything, always.
One of the people high up on this hate-list is Lewis MacKenzie, Canadian general and veteran of many peacekeeping missions, who commanded the UN in Sarajevo during the first several months of the war in 1992. As such, he brokered a deal to turn over the Sarajevo airport to the UN, enabling the humanitarian aid to reach the beleaguered civilians. This saved quite a few lives, but wrecked the Izetbegovic government’s plans to provoke a Western military intervention on their behalf - plans that Alija Izetbegovic openly admitted to MacKenzie at the time.
So the Muslims turned on MacKenzie with the full force of propaganda at their disposal, intent on making his name mud in Canada and beyond. He was accused of patronizing a (fictitious) “rape camp,” of being a Serb, of being paid by the Serbs… Such accusations, though blatantly false, easy to debunk and clearly designed with defamation in mind, always got reported in Canada without qualifications, sometimes costing MacKenzie dearly. And all because he dared to speak about what he actually saw in Sarajevo, as opposed to what the official propaganda wanted the West to see.
His name is back in the news this week, as Radovan Karadzic’s lawyer recently visited Canada and interviewed him - among others - as a potential defense witness. Sarajevo papers, whose hate-o-meter is stuck on 11 lately, immediately commenced a game of “Let’s Hate Lew MacKenzie.”
No doubt, Gen. MacKenzie has no great desire to stay involved in Bosnia. But so long as he insists on telling the truth, rather than the officially preferred lies, the Muslims won’t stop slandering him. They don’t care much that he puts a lion’s share of the blame for the Bosnian tragedy on the Serbs. Whether he or any other Western official thinks the Serbs were 50% or 75% or 99% to blame is entirely irrelevant. “100% of Bosnia” is not just a party slogan of the ruling Muslim nationalist these days; it’s a political dogma. One must buy into Sarajevo’s official “truth” 100%, or risk the wrath of the smear brigades. […]
In for a penny, in for a pound: Unless one is 110% on board with the Official Truth, it’s impossible to escape the smearbund. But why try? Having enemies like these is a badge of honor for any decent human being.
I’ve recently read something on a seemingly unrelated topic. In the process of mocking a writer who has been the wimpiest liberal Obamabot (and proud of it!) out there, a fellow blogger coined the term “Rabbit people” to describe the herd of emotion-driven folk embracing the cultural Marxist agenda and seeking fulfillment through conformity. Except they never really find it, because:
It’s the mere existence of different people that is offensive to the rabbits; that’s how they rationalize that you must “hate” anyone who is different from you. This is why you can never reach a reasonable accommodation with Rabbit People. It is why you should never even try. Your very existence offends them. The only way to stop offending them is to become one of them; even if you abide by their myriad rules and regulations, they will continue to eye you askance, always suspicious that you may, at any moment, reveal yourself to be “not-rabbit”.
At which point, they will attack mercilessly and mindlessly en masse. Many a good little rabbit has been destroyed by his fellows in this manner; one of the more amusing things to watch is the frantic squeals of a rabbit who has somehow inadvertently offended the warren, desperately insisting that it is all a mistake and he is truly one of them even as they are tearing him to bits.
“…[T]he true object of propaganda is neither to convince nor even to persuade, but to produce a uniform pattern of public utterance in which the first trace of unorthodox thought reveals itself as a jarring dissonance.” (Alan Bullock)
[This] quote about propaganda fits as well. The point is to establish an emotion-based narrative, not only to mobilize support of the well-meaning but gullible, but also to isolate and suppress dissent. The way the anti-Serb narrative has been set up, anyone who dares disagree is immediately accused of being heartless (at the very least), and a deranged genocidal rapist and baby-killer at worst.
What I had in mind with the [rabbit] quote, though, is to encourage those dissenters: if their very existence offends the rabbitfolk, and they will never be accepted as part of the warren, then why bother? Why not live free instead, speak one’s mind, and stop fearing the rabbits - because though their posturing may look really intimidating at first, there isn’t really all that much beneath it. It’s mostly bluster, and they flee in terror at the first sign of resistance. The primary motivator of rabbit people being fear, you see.