Racak, "Genocide," and the Measure of a Massacre
by Karl Kammler
The New World Order's farcical trial of former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic at The Hague sheds light on the true nature of the relationship between war, politics, and morality -- something few have the courage to confront. During the ongoing trial, Milosevic responded to charges that Serb forces entered the ethnic Albanian village of Racak on January 15, 1999, rounded up two dozen male villagers, and shot them. One of the Albanian witnesses, Asllan Bilalli, stated angrily upon hearing Milosevic's defense against this charge, "If Racak was not a massacre, then what is a massacre?" He asks a great question, but I suspect he will not accept a blunt answer.
The media often frame debates in such a way that people are unconsciously drawn into accepting the media's terms and standards as given and unquestionable. Terms like "genocide," "war crimes," and "universal human rights" are some of the usual shibboleths that are deployed to cast a nationalist leader like Milosevic as the "bad guy." It is important to challenge the very basis of the "war crimes trial" concept, and not just quibble over whether "war crimes" actually occurred or not. To defeat a false idea, you do not try to argue with it by accepting its own premises as true and "working within the system." You have to besiege it from the outside, totally de-legitimizing it. Milosevic does this correctly by pointing out, whenever he can, the political nature of the kangaroo court in which he now finds himself.
Polite society in modern times has a way of glossing over hard reality. Sensitive moderns prefer to ignore what doesn't conform to their "feel-good" worldview; they seek to cover it up with perfume. An example of facing reality: many people are born in the wrong place, and they all can't be saved. In addition, individuals suffer the fate of their nation. If you are a Kosovar, then yes, it sucks to be you. As Americans, we are lucky, and we sure as hell should not throw away our wealth and the advantages of our technological and geographic position to play Lone Ranger overseas.
So let's strike at the root of what the New World Order (the West, the United States, NATO, the Nuremberg Mindset, and the UN) has accused Milosevic: "genocide." Newsflash: there is no such thing as genocide; it is a relatively recent, Western, and political creation. It is a term of recent origin designed to outlaw humanity (human beings acting like human beings). In fact, it cannot be considered a crime. Criminalizing the natural illiberal tendencies of humanity is a vain attempt to sanitize reality. Criminalizing genocide is about as effective as outlawing war -- they tried outlawing war with the 1928 Kellogg-Briand Pact, and that piece of paper didn't work.
How do some people, who occupy influential positions and have a modicum of intelligence, end up trying to do pie-in-the-sky things like outlaw war? It all starts with these news reports being spread around where people say, "oh, isn't it terrible this is happening over in [fill-in-the-blank]." That line of thought is exactly how we ended up in the Balkans. "Soccer moms" in America whined about seeing Croats or Kosovars (or whatever they were) in "concentration camps" over there. Then, of course, the usual bleating began: "Saddam/Milosevic/[fill-in-the-"un-PC"-leader's-name-here] is just like Hitler (who else?) and has to be 'stopped." I have seen this little routine repeated enough to know when I am being had. If only more Americans were awakened to these kinds of tired scripts.
The scenario I describe above is a recent affliction America suffers. Before the invention of television and the advent of the alien-controlled mass media, this little routine where we whine ourselves into other people's wars could never happen. Additionally, this deafening symphony of sorrow is a fundamentally feminine trait that our body politic has picked up, and the extension of voting rights to women accounts for the power of the "soccer mom" voting bloc today. Many forces have converged to damage our Republic, but I suspect we would have been much better off without television (or the Jews who determine its content) and without the Nineteenth Amendment.
No one should be "horrified" by what is merely business as usual in a region filled with irrational people who have forever been at each other's throats (the Balkans, or the Middle East). Human beings have fought and oppressed each other for endless reasons since time immemorial. They compete, bloodily. They display "group egoism." They put their own first. There is survival value in illiberal behavior. The chief figures of the New World Order now have the nerve to arrive on the scene of world history and declare that they are wiser than our ancestors were. These global micro-managers seek to change and perfect human nature, and are attempting to sacrifice Milosevic on their altar to the false god of "universal human rights." The concept of "universal human rights" occupies the same pantheon as "war crimes" and "genocide"-the stillborn attempt to impose Anglo-Saxon standards upon the rest of the world.
Assorted do-gooders and bleeding hearts mistakenly assume that the standards of morality which govern the affairs of individuals apply at the level of states, nations, races, and so on. While this predilection for consistency is admirable, context must bind that consistency. Count Camillo di Cavour stated at the time of Italian unification, "if we did for ourselves as individuals what we are willing to do for our country, we'd be jailed as scoundrels." In the field of international relations, most classical realists (George Kennan, for one) agree that the planes of morality and power can never meet.
Nation-states have one reason for being: to defend their citizens and pursue the interests of their citizenry. Without citizens, there are no nation-states. Nation-states therefore do not have the luxury of worrying about whether a given action in the cosmic competition with their peers is "moral." You do what it takes to preserve the nation-state and ensure that your side wins. That's Realpolitik. Those who beat their swords into plowshares end up plowing for those who don't. End of story.
History shows that among most people, the core of the "dark side" of humanity remains dormant or is directed into harmless channels until the right people and times animate that core. The anti-genocide crowd would excise that "dark side" in the name of a better world that they likely feel is more "human." Yet, the paradox is that if their "merciful" plan succeeded, we would all have lost one half of our humanity. I therefore submit that the drive of the Enlightened Ones to pathologize human nature is itself pathological. You have to take the "good" with the "bad." Earth is a perfect balance between heaven and hell, and I hope it stays that way, forever. For this reason, I hope The Hague's efforts fail and Milosevic is acquitted. Judea delenda est.