“Just when I thought I was out… they pull me back in!”
I thought I was done writing about Robert Spencer for a number of reasons. First, compiling the exposé of his friend and colleague James Jatras was a laborious effort for which, until recently, I had little to show besides publication in the Albanian-American newspaper Illyria (I have little interest in preaching to the converted) and a few (mostly unsympathetic) comments. Second, the more I read about Spencer’s other associates and their agendas, the more I felt that by virtue of their sheer extremism, these fringe elements could never achieve anything of substance in America; so why bother exposing them? And third, I do have a life. And a job.
That being said, in the wake of second-hand threats of legal action I have decided my best defense against potential charges of defamation is the truth. More truth about Robert Spencer.
While I don’t think Spencer and his associates stand a chance of implementing what I fear are their stealth policies, their shrill and unfortunately universally accepted identification with “the counter-jihadist movement” is severely detrimental to the efforts of respectable intellectuals standing up to Islamofascism. Front groups for radical Islamist interests — along with their Western apologists — conveniently employ such critics of compromised backgrounds as straw men against any legitimate scrutiny of their own activities. I believe everyone acquainted with Robert Spencer’s work should consider the causes he is involved with and the company he keeps before lending him support; this is one more reason for me to write about him.
In this article I would like to draw attention to Robert Spencer’s relationship with Srjda/Serge Trifkovic, author of books critiquing Islam and self-styled scholar of Islamic history, theology and law. In fact, his books are so similar to Spencer’s in tone and tenor they are often purchased together on Amazon. The two authors are friends: they’ve held joint interviews, collaborated on a documentary film, “Islam: What the West Needs to Know,” and Spencer has frequently featured and extolled Trifkovic’s work and commentary throughout his website JihadWatch. Trifkovic is heavily promoted by the American Council for Kosovo — a Serbian lobbying organization in which Spencer serves as board member. Another board member — until his death — was Alfred Sherman, who also founded and financed a similar organization, the Lord Byron Foundation for Balkan Studies, currently headed by Srdja Trifkovic. Moreover, Trifkovic and the director of the American Council for Kosovo, James Jatras, have coauthored articles and held interviews together.
What’s so interesting about Trifkovic? Just about everything omitted or whitewashed from his Wikipedia profile.
The following is an accurate albeit incomplete introduction:
…Trifkovic was one of the leaders of the Bosnian Serbs during the years of ethnic cleansing. Unsurprisingly, he has an online article titled “The Hague Tribunal: Bad Justice, Worse Politics,” in which he argues that there was no ethnic cleansing at all against Bosnian Muslims by Serbs. His subtitle reads “The Myth of the Bosnian Holocaust,” and to support his eccentric case he repeatedly accuses the U.S. authorities of distorting or covering up “facts” about Bosnia to accuse Serbs unjustly…
In the same article, Trifkovic openly supports Bosnian Serb wartime leader Radovan Karadzic and his military chief Gen. Ratko Mladic and argues for their innocence. These two have been indicted by the U.N. Tribunal on sixteen counts of genocide and war crimes regarding the Bosnian war of 1992-1995…
In March 2003, Trifkovic appeared as a defense witness in the trial of Milomir Stakic in [the Hague Tribunal.] On July 13, 2003, Stakic was sentenced to life imprisonment after being found guilty on the following counts:
Count 4: Extermination, a Crime against Humanity
Count 5: Murder, a Violation of the Laws and Customs of War
Count 6: Persecutions, Crimes against Humanity, incorporating
Count 3: Murder, a Crime against Humanity, and
Count 7: Deportation, a Crime against Humanity.
The Stakic case is of great importance in the overall context of the Bosnian war and The Hague Tribunal, because it centers on the expulsion of non-Serbs from the area of Prijedor in northern Bosnia-Herzegovina, in which the notorious concentration camps of Keraterm, Omarska and Trnopolje were located. Stakic himself stated on television that the camps of Omarska, Keraterm, and Trnopolje were “a necessity in the given moment.”
There are some illuminating points in Trifkovic’s testimony. At page 13757, Trifkovic admits that he served as “representative of the Republika Srpska between 9 November, 1993, and July, 1994, in London,” a fact that he had omitted from the C.V. he submitted to the Tribunal. The Republika Srpska [R.S.] was the Serbian occupation zone in Bosnia-Herzegovina created on the orders and under the direction of Slobodan Milosevic.
On March 19, 2003, Judge Wolfgang Schomburg commented on the character of Trifkovic’s testimony, which he described as showing “the clear lack of tolerance, the poor basis of facts relying on secondary instead of primary sources. And not going into details, we discussed some examples yesterday. This is clear. But as I said yesterday, this has nothing to do with Dr. Stakic being the accused here in this Tribunal.”
That is, the Judge states that the opinions of Trifkovic should not be attributed to the defendant Stakic. The opinions of Trifkovic were so extreme they should be excluded so as not to prejudice the defense of a man who finally was given the first LIFE SENTENCE for his crimes against Bosnian Muslims!
The full transcripts of Trifkovic’s defense of Milomir Stakic at the Hague Tribunal can be found here, here, here, here, here, and here, in chronological order. Robert Spencer is close friends with not one, but two defense witnesses for Serbian war criminals, the other being James Jatras, who defended Slobodan Milosevic at his trial. But Trifkovic’s testimony was even more scandalous than the above account would indicate:
[S]ources at the Hague report that war crimes prosecutors last week ripped apart Chronicles editor, paleocon speaker and longtime war-crimes tribunal critic Srdja Trifkovic for plagiarism; according to people at the trial, Trifkovic republished verbatim and without attribution four pages of sensitive court documents, allegedly obtained from a member of the defense team.
Whenever confronted with his ties to the genocidal Bosnian Serb government, Trifkovic pulls out an entire portfolio of published statements to prove his vehement opposition to Slobodan Milosevic throughout the 1990s. His indignant alibi is that, in fact, he worked as adviser to a “determined foe” of Milosevic:
Yes, I was Plavsic’s consultant during her brief presidency (1998), when she was persona gratissima in Washington, where I accompanied her during her visit in May of that year. She was certainly not a “member of the Milosevic regime” — quite the contrary, she was his determined foe, which made it possible for me to help her, and made her attractive in the eyes of the U.S. Administration.
Slobodan Milosevic is so infamous that in the sensitivities of many a Westerner, opposition to such a monster is conflated with epic struggles of “good vs. evil.” It is hard to fathom that many Serbian leaders (as well as a significant portion of the Serbian population) opposed Milosevic not because he was planning and executing genocide and mayhem all over Yugoslavia, but because he hadn’t gone far enough and had failed to fully deliver on those counts. After all, who can be expected to keep track of all these colorful characters? Milosevic, Karadzic, Mladic, Stakic, Plavsic, Blagojevic… Opposition to Milosevic is automatically considered a proxy for human decency.
The most fascinating thing about Biljana Plavsic, whom Trifkovic admittedly served as a consultant, is she’s not a fictional character! The descriptions below do not refer to a comic book or horror film caricature. She did indeed live and rule in Serb-occupied Bosnia:
Biljana Plavšic is a former Bosnian Serb politician and university professor currently serving a sentence in Sweden as a result of a conviction by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) for war crimes. She was the president of Republika Srpska for two years from 1996 through 1998.
Besides being the highest-ranking Bosnian Serb politician to be sentenced [by the ICTY], she was also known for her fiery nationalist statements during the War in Bosnia, against the Serbian Democratic Party (SDS), and, later, her remorse for the crimes against humanity she admitted to have been responsible for as a high-level politician.
She was infamous for some of her comments during the war, and for her April 1992 appearance in Bijeljina with Željko Ražnatovic, aka Arkan. Serbian President Slobodan Miloševic’s support for the “Vance Owen Plan” caused her to refuse to shake his hand, as she denounced him as a traitor to the Serbian nation.
Vojislav Šešelj, at the Miloševic trial, described Karadžic’s motives for nominating her.
“She held very extremist positions during the war, insufferably extremist, even for me, and they bothered even me as a declared Serb nationalist. She brought Arkan and his Serb Volunteer Guard to Bijeljina, and she continued to visit him after their activities in Bijeljina and the surrounding area… Radovan Karadzic…believed her to be more extreme than himself in every way. He thought that the Western protagonists who tried to eliminate him at any cost would have an even greater problem with her… Radovan Karadzic believed that she would continue to occupy her patriotic positions until the end…”
Vojislav Seselj is the founder of Serbia’s neo-fascist Radical Party, so just what kind of thoughts and plans were roaming in Biljana Plavsic’s head to be deemed too extremist even for him? Srdja Trifkovic’s utterances were so outrageous that the ICTY judge explicitly cautioned that they not be attributed to the war criminal Stakic. Is it any wonder, then, that not even Milosevic was a worthy embodiment of Trifkovic’s political philosophy? Biljana was his true and only match.
More (<– excellent source I recommend reading in full) about and from the “iron lady”:
“I’m not saying that we no longer wish to live with Croats, but rather that we shall not allow them to live with us.”
“I don’t have much faith in political negotiations. One good battle would settle this war,” she told Telegraf (Belgrade) on 15 July 1994. Hence her statement that she “exchanges kisses only with heroes [more on that later -ed.].” Her conception of heroism is personified by Zeljko Raznjatovic-Arkan, the perpetrator of horrific ethnic cleansing in B.-H. “When I saw what he’d done in Bijeljina, I at once imagined all his actions being like that. I said: here we have a Serb hero. He’s a real Serb, that’s the kind of men we need.” (On, Belgrade, 12 November 1996.) “Arkan is wonderful… he impressed me as a humane person forced by necessity to take up arms.” (Bosnian Serb News Agency, 1992.)
Plavsic’s monstrous celebration of Arkan as the symbol of Serbdom and heroism can be understood only in the context of her own authentic conception of ethnic cleansing: Arkan is not simply the Serb Empress’s favourite hero, he is the loyal and systematic executor of her “imperial” design. This is the reason for her great affection for him, which has lasted to the present day. “I would prefer completely to cleanse eastern Bosnia of Muslims. When I say cleanse, I don’t want anyone to take me literally and think I mean ethnic cleansing. But they’ve attached this label ‘ethnic cleansing’ to a perfectly natural phenomenon and characterized it as some kind of war crime.” (Svet, Novi Sad, 6 September 1993.)
What the difference is, in this concrete case, between the cleansing of Muslims from eastern Bosnia and ethnic cleansing, is something that only Biljana Plavsic’s monstrous mind can discern. “It’s not the nape but the neck,” as the saying goes.
From the very beginning of the war Plavsic was already invoking Dragoljub-Draza Mihailovic, leader during World War II of the Serb(ian) nationalists better known as Chetniks and a proven collaborator of the German occupiers. “He fought for the unification of all Serbs within a single Serb state, the borders of which were to run from Djevdjelija [on the Macedonian-Greek border] to Karlobag [two thirds of the way up the Croatian coast]… Uncle Draza intended to cleanse the future united Serb lands of all enemies of Serbdom and Orthodoxy, as well as of anti-national elements.” (Srbija, 3 September 1992.)
“That’s true [i.e. that the Bosnian Muslims were originally Serbs]. But it was genetically deformed material that embraced Islam. And now, of course, with each successive generation this gene simply becomes concentrated. It gets worse and worse, it simply expresses itself and dictates their style of thinking and behaving, which is rooted in their genes…” (Svet, Novi Sad, 6 September 1993.)
As a concrete example of her thesis about Muslims being “genetically deformed material,” she has used Ejup Ganic: “I have never met a more deformed person than him in political circles, which abound with such deformed people.” (On, Belgrade, 12 November 1996.)
“We are disturbed by the fact that the number of marriages between Serbs and Muslims has increased… because mixed marriages lead to an exchange of genes between ethnic groups, and thus to a degeneration of Serb nationhood.” (Oslobodjenje, Sarajevo, May 1994.)
[Plavsic] once said, at the time of the Vance-Owen Plan [which led to her falling out with Milosevic, because he settled for peace -ed.]: “there are twelve million of us, and even if six million perish the other six million will live decently.” Later she tried to explain this away by saying that Milosevic had misquoted her (NIN, Belgrade, 6 May 1994.) She claimed she had only repeated to him what a wounded soldier had told her! It is not known what reply she gave to the wounded soldier, but if Milosevic said one good thing during the war it was that she belonged in an institution.
“The Serbs of Bosnia, especially those living in frontier regions, have developed and refined a special ability to sense danger to the nation and to evolve mechanisms for self-protection. In my family it was always said that the Serbs of Bosnia were much better than the Serbs of Serbia… As a biologist I know that the best ability to adapt and survive is possessed by those species which live next to others that are a threat to them… Hence, the separation of Serbs from other nations is both a natural and a necessary phenomenon.” (Borba, Belgrade, 28 July 1993.)
From another source:
Even the former Bosnian Serb President Biljana Plavsic’s December 2002 confession of guilt in The Hague seemed more aimed at appeasing the guilt of Serbs than remorse for the victims of Bosnian Serb atrocities. Her explanation that egregious crimes had been motivated by Serbs’ “blinding fear,” which led to an “obsession” that they would “never again become victims,” as they had in World War II, had little resonance in non-Serb quarters. Few can forget the woman who was once shown on local TV stepping over a Bosniak corpse to kiss and congratulate the Serbian warlord Zeljko Raznjatovic, known as Arkan.
This is the person for whom Robert Spencer’s friend and colleague Srdja Trifkovic worked at a time when her actions and pronouncements were a matter of public record. He also worked for Karadzic in the capacity of official spokesperson, a fact he has tried to deny since his self-refurbishment as a pundit and scholar of Islam in the US:
I have met Karadzic during my many trips to the Balkans but I never “worked” for him.
Sources say otherwise. A BBC article identifies him as a former spokesperson for the Bosnian Serb government as he argues against Karadzic’s extradition to The Hague. But the smoking gun comes from elsewhere:
Dr Trifkovic, in a 1994 interview with Adam Nicolson of the London Sunday Telegraph:
“In the press the Serbs have been portrayed in a Manichaean way, as the perennial and only culprits, demonised as a collective monstrosity. It was this which induced me to give up my other career pursuits and become a spokesman for Dr. Karadzic, which is not much easier at the moment, I must say,” he smiled, “than being the spokesman for the Afrikaner Republican Party.” The Serbs’ main shortcoming, as he saw it, had been in public relations. “There is a Serb reluctance to manipulate the truth,” he said. “A sense of propriety. The concept of public relations is morally repugnant to the Serbs, to manhandle people’s minds in that way we believe the truth will become known by itself. The result was a lack of preparedness for this aspect of the war from which we have suffered.”
Ah, but what’s a little bit of personal revisionism from a man who denies the Srebrenica genocide and other meticulously documented massacres without batting an eye? Trifkovic’s on-record views include:
[T]he commonly quoted figure of victims of the Srebrenica massacre was a “long-debunked myth.”
[T]he often-cited figure of 200,000-250,000 Bosnians killed in the entire conflict is incorrect, and that it is closer to 80,000-100,000 on all three sides (Serbs, Croats and Muslims), about half of them civilians, which is the figure confirmed by the Hague Tribunal research team.
Muslims in the UN-designated safe havens, like Srebrenica, led by Naser Oric, were actually using them “as armed camps and springboards for offensives against the Serbs.”
He has said that the alleged Bosnian Serb “rape camps” were “entirely fictitious.”
Invoking Lord David Owen’s memoir, he has described the Breadline Massacre, where 22 people died, as a public relations “stunt” by the Izetbegovic regime.
What did an average workday as Karadzic’s spokesperson entail? No comment:
Dr Trifkovic, as featured on CBS EVENING NEWS (6:30 PM ET) May 26, 1995, Friday:
HEADLINE: BOSNIAN SERBS HOLD UN PEACEKEEPERS HOSTAGE IN RETALIATION FOR NATO AIR ATTACKS
DAN RATHER, anchor:
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization stepped up its air attacks against Bosnian Serbs today, but the Serbs are still very much in control on the ground, and they came back with even more terror against civilians and United Nations’ soldiers. Correspondent Barry Petersen begins our report.
BARRY PETERSEN reporting:
American and NATO strategists expected the air strikes to change the course of the war. They were right; it got worse. Serbs reacted by imprisoning unarmed UN observers.
Unidentified Man #1: Our lives are in danger.
PETERSEN: Some were turned into human shields at the ammunition dumps NATO was targeting. There was a desperate radio message, apparently sent by a UN hostage.
Unidentified Man #2: If the bombing stops, we will be set free. Otherwise, we will be–we will be killed, over.
Unidentified Woman: (Foreign language spoken.)
PETERSEN: The Serbs chose a somewhat different response to yesterday’s air strike: a massacre; artillery blasting a crowded street in Tuzla lined with sidewalk cafes. More than 70 were killed. The youngest victim was two months old. The Serbs know they can’t stop the warplanes militarily. They think if they can make the price of the air strikes high enough in human terms, that will stop the UN generals.
Mr. SERGE TRIFKOVIC (Bosnian Serb spokesman): The next time there is a call for stern action against these dastardly Serbs, if it is known that it will result in 2,000 shells falling on the so-called protected areas, people will think twice.
PETERSEN: The shells rained down on Sarajevo today, another of those so-called protected areas that isn’t.
Mr. MARTIN McCAULEY (Eastern European specialist): The military must now consider whether it’s worth using military force against military objects if the result is the death of innocent children and men and women.
PETERSEN: The UN now stands at a terrible crossroads about what to do next. It has never stood up so strongly to the Serbs, and Bosnia has never paid so dearly. Barry Petersen, CBS News, London.
At this point, I would like to briefly revisit the recent online debacle over Robert Spencer being caught joining a genocidal Facebook group championing the “Reconquest of Anatolia,” which would be accomplished through the ethnic cleansing and forced sterilization of the Turkish population. Anyone disposed to charitably dismiss the evil lunacy espoused by the group as merely hyperbolic sentiment ought to remember that Robert Spencer is closely associated with a man who has personally participated in an actual ethnic-cleansing campaign of similar proportions. Spencer’s family background is a reasonable fit for irredentist intentions toward Turkey, not to mention his seething hatred for everything Muslim/Islamic:
LAMB: What’s your own background as far as country?
SPENCER: Well, I’m an American and my family is from what is now Turkey and actually that is the beginning of my interest in the subject of Islam that my grandparents shortly after World War I were offered the choice of conversion to Islam or exile from the land where they had lived for many hundreds of years – that is my family had lived. And many Christians in that area had lived there.
They were – those chose exile and they came to the United States. They, despite their experiences which involved some violence and some of the – some killings of some of the family members, they were – they spoke in a uniformly positive fashion about life over there and made me become quite fascinated with it such that I took the first opportunity I could when I went to college to read the Koran and to begin studying Islamic theology and history.
But I won’t elaborate on Spencer’s genocidal sympathies or lack thereof, lest I be freshly accused of making libelous allegations. Readers can draw their own conclusions, though by now they’re probably just wondering whatever happened to our old friend Trifkovic in the wake of the Dayton Agreement, when the Bosnian Serb government he worked for was assimilated within the federation of Bosnia-Herzegovina. I believe I already gave it away, but it’s worth rehashing: He became an American pundit, analyst, author, and anti-Islamic polemicist. Anyone impressed with Spencer’s credentials and achievements should be in awe of Trifkovic’s: after all, the latter holds a PhD as opposed to a mere Master’s degree, has been a visiting scholar at no less than the Hoover Institution (on the State Department’s dime), and has also authored bestselling books on Islam. A counter-jihadist par excellence, wouldn’t you say?
A closer look at his activities in America reveals involvement with the paleoconservative Rockford Institute. Trifkovic is the director of the institute’s Center for International Affairs and publishes its magazine, Chronicles. The leader of the John Randolph Club — an offshoot of the Rockford Institute preoccupied with “renewal of Christendom” — is Justin Raimondo, owner of the anti-Semitic conspiratorial site Antiwar.org, which has published several of Trifkovic’s articles.
As a curious aside, speaking of Christendom, the director and producer of the documentary “Islam: What the West Needs to Know“, starring both Robert Spencer and Srdja Trifkovic, is a contributing author to Chronicles. In a recent article he prophesies that Barack Obama is the Antichrist, whose presidency heralds the end of our times. Gregory M. Davis writes:
I propose that with president-elect Obama we have taken a significant step toward the end of the world-and not just because a left-winger is likely to make a botch of whatever he touches. By the end of the world we mean the end of human history, which had its beginning with the fall of man in the Garden of Eden. The fall was the beginning of history; the Second Coming of Christ and the Last Judgment-when we shall all be changed in the twinkling of an eye and the elements burn with fervent heat-will be the conclusion. History as we know it is the story of the separation of man from God through disobedience and the saga of his redemption through divine grace. We do not know when the Master shall return-no man knoweth the day nor hour-but we do have powerful indications from Holy Scripture and Tradition about the general course of history and what its latter days will look like.
This same Gregory M. Davis also contributes to Spencer’s JihadWatch, where he has authored an entire column, Islam 101. Back to Chronicles: A magazine that would publish insane screeds of the Obama-is-the-Antichrist caliber can be safely assumed to carry more craziness on board, and it does. On the magazine’s website the League of the South is prominently blog-rolled. In fact, Thomas Fleming, Chronicles’ current editor-in-chief, is a founder and former board member of the neo-Confederate League. Pat Buchanan also has a regular column, and the magazine has strongly supported his presidential bids. The magazine’s attitude toward Jews and Israel can be gleaned from a simple Boolean search of their archives. Fleming writes:
From a fairly homogeneous ethnic base-a British core with Northern European accretions-we have morphed into a multiethnic, multilingual, multicultural population in which no one, not even descendants of the oldest stock, knows or cares who he is. Leftists now rejoice that the White House will be presided over by someone whose middle name is Hussein and actually run by someone whose middle name is Israel.
Paul Craig Roberts writes:
Vast numbers of people in the United States and abroad are hoping that President Obama will end America’s illegal wars, halt America’s support for Israel’s massacre of Lebanese and Palestinians, and punish, instead of reward, the shyster banksters [sic] whose fraudulent financial instruments have destroyed economics and imposed massive sufferings on people all over the world.
Elsewhere he writes:
It is the same media that today provide only Israeli propaganda as “coverage” of the Israeli war crimes in Gaza.
Readers interested in further establishing the bona fide anti-Semitism of Chronicles can do their own digging. Trifkovic has been personally involved in Pat Buchanan’s political debut in the Serbian American community and has jointly organized fundraisers for him with the Council of Conservative Citizens, a white-nationalist organization whose membership largely overlaps with the Ku Klux Klan‘s:
The Council of Conservative Citizens grew out of the old white Citizens Councils-the principal organization that fought for segregation in the South during the Civil Rights era. At the end of 1998, it appeared as if the role of the Council of Conservative Citizens in public life would be greatly diminished after the exposure of close ties to elected officials. However, recent events point to a new cycle of activity by the Council members in the electioneering sphere.
On June 30, 2000, nearly 100 supporters gathered at the Holy Resurrection Serbian Orthodox Cathedral on Chicago’s Northside for a $100 a plate fundraiser for Reform Party Presidential candidate Pat Buchanan. Although a posted flyer announcing the hastily scheduled event claimed that the meeting was sponsored by a group calling itself the “Coalition for Just Peace in the Balkans,” it was clear who was in charge.
The Very Revered Father Denis Pavichevich, priest of the Resurrection Serbian Orthodox Cathedral, was the host of the event, and clearly ran the show. Dressed in a gray cassock, accessorized with a large gold cross around his neck and a huge diamond-encrusted Confederate Battle Flag ring on his left hand, Father Denis-as most people referred to him that evening-was a friendly albeit imposing figure.
Flying in front of Pavichevich’s residence next to the church is the third national flag of the Confederacy-just below a Serbian flag. In addition to running the church and being the RSVP contact for the Buchanan fundraiser, Pavichevich is the vice-chair of the Northern Illinois Council of Conservative Citizens (Northern Illinois CCofC). He uses his church to hold regular Council of Conservative Citizens meetings as well as this Buchanan fundraiser.
Staff from the Rockford, Illinois based Rockford Institute also played an integral role in the event, running the registration table and doing the introductions.
The crowd milled around the lobby, browsing through copies of Chronicles and Buchanan’s latest book, Republic, Not an Empire, as they awaited the arrival of the Reform Party candidate. There was a virtual absence of Reform Party literature. Several people in the crowd wore the green “Buchanan 2000” buttons of the Spotlight-run “Americans for Buchanan Committee” on their lapels.
As Buchanan entered the room with Pavichevich and Chronicles Foreign Affairs Editor Srdja Trifkovic, people began filing into the banquet hall and taking their seats. With the verve of a politician, Buchanan made his way through the crowd, shaking hands with many of the people sitting down. Towards the end of his rounds, Buchanan stopped to chat with John Kelly, the chair of the Northern Illinois Council of Conservative Citizens, who was surrounded by CofCC activists at his table.
Another mini-commotion broke out at one of the CofCC tables. John Kelly brought a CofCC banner with him to the event. A discussion ensued about whether they should ask Buchanan to pose for a picture in front of it. But since the CofCC was a “controversial” group, they decided it might be too awkward for Buchanan to fully align himself publicly with the CofCC. They settled for a group picture with Buchanan, without the banner.
After dinner, Thomas Fleming, head of the Rockford Institute, stepped up to the podium to begin the Buchanan introductions. During his lively and brief remarks, Fleming discussed how someone had labeled Buchanan a “loose cannon.” To Fleming, that was a good thing. He extolled the virtues of being loose (able to turn to meet the opposition, on all sides, and not tied down by money) and a cannon (a dedicated individual who is powerful). He then introduced Trifkovic, to give a “more serious introduction.”
Trifkovic appealed to the large contingent of Serbian Americans in the crowd, by waxing [sic] on about how Buchanan is the only candidate who is pro-Serbian and how that position is a natural result of his “America First” stance.
Buchanan then took the stage for a canned stump speech and an announcement that Perot would not be running against him, followed by questions. During the Q & A period, Trifkovic seemed to guide Buchanan through the questions, at times whispering into his ear.
The same source summarizes Fleming’s and Trifkovic’s pasts and positions:
Fleming goes even further, mounting an assault on the legal foundation of civil rights and equality before the law in the United States – the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. Arguing that “no one who believes in a federal system can accept the premise of the 14th Amendment,” Fleming further asserts the genetic determinist view that has generally accompanied assaults on the rights of people of color in America. He writes that the “genetic differences” between the races “are responsible for gross statistical variations in…emotional and behavioral norms, and the various components of intelligence” (Chronicles, August 1994).
Given Fleming’s views on matters racial, it is no surprise that he emerges as an apologist for the Reconstruction-era Ku Klux Klan. Fleming characterizes the Klan as a “national liberation army” of “ex-Confederates” who “refused to accept their status as a subjugated people.” As such, Fleming argues, the “postwar struggles” carried out by the Klan were “only accidentally a struggle between races.” (Chronicles, November 1997). Fleming’s views on the Reconstruction Klan are in keeping with his position on the board of directors of the League of the South. This Alabama-headquartered group opposes the idea of “egalitarianism” between the races and argues that southern whites should not “give control over their civilization and its institution to another race, whether it be native blacks or Hispanic immigrants.” To accomplish such goals, the League advocates overturning the 14th Amendment to the Constitution and states that “secession is the best way to restore good government to the South.” The League has subsequently been a leading advocate of defending the use of the Confederate Flag in southern states.
Fleming has also offered his own twist on history and its uses. While rejecting the crass Holocaust denial of David Irving and Ernst Zundel, he nonetheless attacks Holocaust education curriculum such as “Facing History and Ourselves” as a “reigning ideology” that has “displaced the authentic religion of Judaism.” Such ideology, he argues, has been “distorted into a weapon to destroy every real and good thing in the traditions of European and American Christendom.” (Chronicles, May 2000).
Another Rockford staffer adept at bending history for political purposes is Srjda Trifkovic, director of the Rockford Institute’s Center for International Affairs and Chronicles Foreign Affairs Editor. Trifkovic has dismissed ethnic cleansing in Bosnia as being “fabricated by the Muslim side” and minimized the devastating war in the Balkans as nothing more than “a medium-sized local conflict.” Trifkovic and Fleming are listed as heads of the “Coalition for a Just Peace in the Balkans,” the group sponsoring the Chicago Buchanan fundraiser. Trifkovic introduced Buchanan at the Chicago event and helped guide him through the difficult foreign policy questions from the audience.
Other individuals involved with Chronicles, the Rockford Institute, and the Council of Conservative Citizens have their backgrounds examined, but the connections and positions become as repetitive as they are nauseating, so I will refrain from airing them here. Readers may satisfy their morbid curiosity about the associations between various American and European neo-fascist fringe groups and their respective histories by consulting the above source.
Here are two other insightful sources related to Srdja Trifkovic and the insidious web of connections between Belgrade propaganda, neo-confederate/white-nationalist groups, and fringe elements of the GOP. Excerpt:
The Foreign Policy Editor of Chronicles, the Journal of the Rockford Institute, is Serge (Srdja) Trifkovic. Trifkovic, a proponent of extremist Serb nationalist causes and former advisor to the architects of ethnic cleansing in Bosnia (see below) has appeared on CNN as an expert on the Balkans.
The Chronicles web page on Kosovo includes every possible Belgrade position, from the claim that the atrocities at Racak were a hoax, to claims that Albanians in Kosovo were fleeing NATO bombs rather than Serb militias, that the Bosnian Muslims slaughtered themselves, and that Serbs were experiencing in Kosovo what white Americans are experiencing in the U.S. as the “browning of America.”
One of the authors of this “browning of America” theme for Chronicles is another extreme supporter of Serb radicalism, Bob Djurdjevic. In a series of articles for Chronicles, The Washington Times, and on his own web site, Djurdjevic glorifies as a victim the indicted war criminal Simo Drljaca, who was responsible for the region of the most gruesome atrocities in Bosnia, including the Omarska, Keraterm, and Trnopolje concentration camps, and he extols General Ratko Mladic, now indicted for genocide by the International Tribunal, and shows a picture of himself with his hero Mladic. He writes [that] the New World Order (NWO) is out to destroy White, Christian America even as it is out to destroy the White, Christian purity of Europe. He even proudly publicizes a letter, sent to him by Ku Klux Klan leader Louis Beam, in which Beam volunteers to fight in Kosovo to protect Serbia from the non-Christian hordes. Beam, in turn, in an article called the Alamo of Kosovo, extols Prince Lazar and the Serb heroes of 1389 as the greatest defenders in history of Christian White culture and the effort by the Belgrade regime to continue this heroism in Kosovo in 1999. For full details, citations, and quotations of Djudjevic and Beam, see my full article, “‘Mutt America’, The Religio-Racist Right and the Balkan Genocide.“
But Trifkovic is not a one-trick-pony; in addition to Serbian Fascism, he seems receptive to neo-fascist efforts all over Western Europe (not to mention his routine dissemination of Russian propaganda on all fronts, ranging from the situation in Ukraine to the conflict in Georgia):
Among the slew of anti-Muslim screeds published in recent years, one of the more prominent was The Sword of the Prophet by Serge Trifkovic. Despite Trifokovic’s dubious background as a former spokesman for Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic (although he also spoke against Slobodan Milsoevic), he was embraced by American conservatives — paleo and neo — as yet another expert who dared to tell “the truth” about Muslims and Islam. Here he is on Frontpage, discoursing on the subject with fellow polemicists Robert Spencer and Walid Shoebat. Sites such as Jihad Watch and pundits such as Don Feder toasted his efforts; Brian Mitchell of Investor’s Business Daily gushed over him as “a European historian of broad learning, sound philosophy and keen political insight.”
In 2006, Trifkovic demonstrated this “keen political insight” in a cosy interview with the BNP’s Nick Griffin, in which he took at face value Griffin’s denials of racism and failed to ask any questions about either Griffin’s anti-Semitic past or the various private comments made by BNP leaders expressing crude racism and praise for Hitler. The BNP has a Jewish town councilor, Patricia Richardson, and this is presented as evidence that the BNP has rejected its past anti-Semitism-although in fact Griffin has (by his own admission) merely discarded anti-Jewish politics for anti-Muslim as a matter of strategy.
And as it happens, Richardson and Trifkovic will be meeting at the end of this week at a conference in Baltimore entitled “Preserving Western Civilization”.
The conference is being organised by Dr. Michael H. Hart, an astrophysicist who claims that human history should be interpreted by considering differences in racial IQs. He also argues that the USA should be divided into white, black, and mixed “nations.” Other speakers include Philippe Rushton, the “scientific” racialist who believes that white intellectual superiority over blacks can be inversely correlated to size of genitalia-as I blogged here, in 2006 he spoke on the “biological basis of patriotism” at a Right Now conference held at Mark Mason’s Hall in central London-and the usual characters from the American Renaissance circuit.
It’s interesting that despite the rabidly racist and anti-Semitic environment he is steeped in, Srdja Trifkovic takes time to tailor Belgrade propaganda specifically for Israel, as exemplified by his articles “Kosovo: A Threat to Israel’s Survival,” “U.S. Kosovo Policy is Bad for Israel” (coauthored with James Jatras), etc. This is yet another example of how anti-Semitic agitators are learning to pay lip-service to Israel’s interests for the sake of expediency when they think they can co-opt Jewish sympathy for their hatred of Muslims.
A confrontation with CAIR over his book, the Sword of the Prophet, has boosted Trifkovic’s profile as a reputable “counter-jihadist.” In such a conflict, asymmetric information can lead outsiders familiar with the disreputable background of only one of the parties involved to conclude that its antagonist is blameless. Just as whoever hears Biljana Plavsic was Slobodan Molosevic’s adversary may assume she was one of “the good guys,” whoever knows of CAIR’s disturbing tactics and connections to Islamist terrorists (e.g. the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas) may think Trifkovic is “fighting the good fight.” But how many people will in turn sympathize with CAIR and discount as motivated by Islamophobia any future scrutiny of its activities, should they learn of the baggage Trifkovic carries? In a perverse way, CAIR and their ilk, and Trifkovic and his ilk, are each other’s allies: they use each other as bogeymen to divert attention from their own severely compromised agendas.
CAIR is not interested in integrating Muslims into a liberal America, but rather in spearheading subversive movements to empower extremists at home and abroad. Conversely, Trifkovic is not interested in defending America, the institutional product of the Enlightenment, from the advances of radical Islam — in fact his writings and actions suggest he despises America’s liberal, secular, constitutional nature. Philosophically he yearns for the establishment of a tribal, medieval, eugenicist, proto-Christian aggressive state whose glory is defined by the cruelty it can inflict on its neighbors, while pragmatically he seems interested in furthering Belgrade and Kremlin propaganda in American circles. Anti-Islamic polemics is his platform for gaining attention and credibility to promote his true goals.
Effective opposition to the insinuations of radical Islam in the West ought to focus not only on what we oppose, but most importantly on what we affirm. No successful response to Islamofascism — or one worthy of success — can include the likes of Trifkovic and his supporters, including Robert Spencer.
I am not the first to draw Spencer’s attention to the activities of his friend and colleague Trifkovic. Stephen Schwartz has been through it before. Spencer’s response:
As for Schwartz’s guilt-by-association attacks on Srdja Trifkovic, they are all the more beneath contempt for the fact that Trifkovic himself over a year ago supplied in this very publication a string of quotations from his own work going back to 1990 showing that he was an early and consistent opponent of the Milosevic regime. [And we’ve seen how much that’s worth. -ed.] Trifkovic, of course, does not need me to defend him.
It is true that in Sharia courts, the testimony of non-Muslims need not be considered [a gratuitous jab at Schwartz for being a Muslim -ed.]; but Stephen, we are now in a different court: the court of public opinion.
Indeed, Robert. We’re in the court of public opinion. The spotlight is on you.
75 thoughts on “Robert Spencer’s Connections: The Serge Trifkovic File (Srjda Trifkovic)”
If I were you, I would keep my day job flipping hambugers at McDonalds. To characterize Antiwar.com as an “anti-Semitic conspiracy site” is ridiculous. Naturally, you give no basis or reference for your evaluation, not even via links. But then again, anyone who cites the discredited nutball Stephen Schwartz as some kind of authority obviously has problems with facts.
Well, Dennis, I can see why you’re not a fan of Stephen Schwartz, who wrote an expose of your history as “a failed author, journalist, sf writer and San Fransciso republican and fascist leaner who has a habit of boring all readers and listeners with “pretensions and diatribes”
Why don’t you tell us about your book and your theory that Israeli spies were involved in the 9/11 attacks? On second thought, please don’t.
You haven’t done your research – Kejda is not a burger flipper. Not that there’s anything wrong with burger flipping. It would be a huge step up the career ladder compared to working at antiwar.com.
Condemning a person based on somebody they’re friends with is a piss-poor argument if I’ve ever seen one. You never disagree with any of your friends about anything? You think Spencer sees eye to eye with all his friends on every issue? You’ve been drinking Charles Johnson’s Kool-Aid on this one. When your best links to “evidence” against Robert Spencer are LGF and Wikipedia, it’s hard to take this garbage seriously at all. The continuing attempt at character assassination against Robert Spencer by Charles Johnson and his puppets like you is downright disgusting and childish. There’s more evidence to the absurd Obama birth certificate conspiracy theory crap than there is to support the idea that Spencer is some kind of genocide-supporting fascist.
I don’t believe how many new and sad things we have learned about Robert Spencer, it’s becoming impossible for him to hide his associations. He is pushing away from the anti-jihad movement every sane and “moderate” human being. So pathetic.
Thanks to site like yours and LGF that are making these things known.
Raimondo – You’re the discredited nutball and your website is an anti-Semitic conspiracy site.
No one cares what you write so stop wasting your time.Idiot
“About Kejda – She was born and raised in Tirana, Albania” identifies the bias of author. Nuff said.
This is just guilt-by-association claptrap.
If Spencer is such a bad guy why not demonstrate this with quotes from his writings. He has a body of published work. If you hate him so much, but can’t base your criticism on his books then they must be all right.
It seems from your impassioned but insubstantial attack on Spencer that there is another agenda being played out here. I really don’t know what it is, but as long as Spencer keeps talking sense, I’ll keep reading him.
This bad news about Robert Spencer is very sad. I thought his work on blogging the Quran was valuable, and I have heard him speak. I did not detect any hatred for Muslim People only an examination of Islam and it’s founder. I hope he is not a wolf in sheep’s clothing, but if he is, better to be exposed now. The world certainly twists and turns in all directions making it very hard to find a straight path.
“Spencer’s family background is a reasonable fit for irredentist intentions toward Turkey, not to mention his seething hatred for everything Muslim/Islamic”
This is where what you write becomes unfounded and libelous.
Lynn, you wrote:
“I thought his work on blogging the Quran was valuable, and I have heard him speak. I did not detect any hatred for Muslim People only an examination of Islam and it’s founder.”
And, let me ask since you have followed what he’s written, have you EVER
seen anything remotely venomous or advocating anything genocidal
from him? These guilt by association allegations, these ‘findings’ that people
keep claiming to make about Robert are insane, and usually, the culprits
are biased and making weird attempts at trying to be worth anything
influential within the counter-jihadist movement. Ever heard the phrase
“The enemy of my enemy is my friend”? Furthermore, Robert has clarly stated
countless times on his site, Jihad Watch, that he does not advocate
anything that Kejda and the likes are accusing him of condoning.
Hehe, the “antiwar.com” site claims that it is “against imperialism”. That is a tough stance to take these days. Neither the US nor Britain have empires. Perhaps Russia can qualify as they still rule over other peoples, but then in Russia those other peoples can vote too.
Who does rule over other peoples in a huge area without giving them a say? Look at the Arab League.
Imazighen (Berbers), Dinka, Fur, Massalith, Nubians, Assyrians, a few dozen remaining Jews, live under Arab rule without recognition of their languages and without much influence in politics (except Jews in Morocco, I guess).
At the same time those Arab governments are fighting wars against non-Arab peoples in Sudan, Syria, and, until 2003, in Iraq. The only non-Arab people in the region claimed by the Arab League as theirs who ever stopped the Arabs were the Jews in Israel (and now the Kurds in iraqi Kurdistan, I suppose).
_I_ am staunchly anti-imperialist.
Let’s start with dismantling the largest remaining empire.
I think the accusations are very serious and should be examined. I also think that a person has a right to face their accusers, one of our most valuable of rights. Some things cannot be ignored. The United States elected a President who’s spiritual adviser was bigoted and vengeful and managed to brush off the concerns of the curious. I think that Robert Spencer should defend himself against this terrible article.
JS: I have never detected any venom toward the Muslim People in any of his writings or speeches. He struck me as a scholar, and offered many links to study material or references.
I agree with many of the above criticisms. A lot of energy went into this opus but it is utterly unpersuasive and one must wonder about the motivation of the writer. Robert Spencer is only enhanced in my opinion after reading this ridiculous piece. I’m frankly sorry I wasted my time looking for some telling criticism.
Ever heard the phrase
“The enemy of my enemy is my friend”?
Kejda already addressed that issue when she said “In a perverse way, CAIR and their ilk, and Trifkovic and his ilk, are each other’s allies: they use each other as bogeymen to divert attention from their own severely compromised agendas.”
The enemy of your enemy is not your friend. Proof of this can be seen in Britain, where the British government allies with the Muslim Brotherhood in the mistaken belief that the MB is the enemy of ‘extremists’. It can also be seen in America, where our government allies with the sponsors of 9/11, Saudi Arabia, in an effort to fight Iran and Russia. Israel allies with terrorist Fatah in an effort to fight Hamas, the Mexican police ally with drug dealers in a effort to fight other drug dealers, the list goes on and on.
Use of this failed tactic makes people distrust their representatives, who are obviously allied with evil. Allying with obvious crudballs also tends to divide groups that should be allies, turning the anti-crudball factions against the pro-crudball factions. No one needs to ally with or tolerate crudballs like Trifkovic. United we stand, divided we fall.
Charles Johnson is a linker not a thinker. The perspective of commenter #1 is all an educated person needs to know in order to choose sides. I’m beginning to wonder if Johnson was the source for the Rather-memo as a way of showing his ‘followers’ that he can part the sea like any great leader. Regardless, CJ is the loose cannon putting the entire ship in danger.
This piece by Kejda is a lecture in paranoid thinking. She was born in a country where this kind of thinking was ruling, so to speak. Everybody had at least to know how paranoid thinking works in order to survive. Some remained sane in this process some not. But you need not to be born in a country ruled by a paranoid dictator to get lost. Some, like Charles Johnson, only have to go from biking to blogging and sooner or later they declare war on everyone who is not dancing to their narcisstic tune. Maybe a little weed was involved. Who knows, who cares.
Justin, that’s how I’ve seen your site for years. In fact everyone I know, from a wide spectrum of political opinion who has seen your site says pretty much the same thing. She probably didn’t bother to provide links to back it up because it’s such common knowledge. But here’s links from articles by you on that site anyway on the Jooz run America and 9-11 troofer themes-
And this piece on Ron Pauls imminent triumph included purely for being such a rib-tickler:
According to the people you are defending, being a “loose cannon” is a good thing. Oh, the virtues of being loose (able to turn to meet the opposition, on all sides, and not tied down by money) and a cannon (a dedicated individual who is powerful)!
Good thing we got you for a thinker!
For the record, I am allowing abusive comments directed at me and Charles Johnson to stand just so that readers may see for themselves what kind of sentiments are motivating Spencer’s and Trifkovic’s apologists.
Excellent piece, Kejda. You clearly and concisely demolished Trifkovic’s revisionist accounts of his role in the Bosnian conflict, leaving no room for doubt. In my opinion the Serbian connections are the most damning aspect of Spencers profile, showing his enthusiasm for embracing not just neo-nazi sympathisers, but actual ethnic cleansing fascists whose boots are still wet from the skulls they’ve kicked in.
“Great people talk about ideas; ordinary people talk about things; small-minded people talk about other people.” This is pathetic.
To James #21 and some others: Forgive me, but I guess I mistakenly believed that the central issue pertained somehow to Robert Spencer’s political philosophy, ideology and the validity of his scholarship. Notwithstanding this article, if such it is, I don’t see the relevance of his “associations” to anything of importance justifying this work. Maybe I’m just obtuse; if so, help me out here.
Charles. Yes ‘obtuse’ is the correct answer. Spencer it seems can’t get enough of associating with and working with people and groups that espouse and even practiced ethnic cleansing. He’s happy to lie on their behalf too in an effort to defend them. What does all of this say about his political and moral judgement, his integrity etc? Well, quite a lot and it isn’t good. As for the efforts to combat Islamism, this just serves to discredit whatever valid points he makes in the minds of the wider public. That’s not helping such efforts; just the opposite in fact.
Wow. What a hilariously bad piece–I laughed hysterically the whole way through it. If it weren’t so nasty towards Spencer and Trifkovic, two of my very favourite people, I would actually thank you for making me so very amused.
Seriously, people who actually believe this ought to do some of their own research instead of believing this propaganda written by a foul-mouthed person blinded by her anti-Serb bias. Do a little thinking for yourselves, people. It’ll do you some good.
What a pathetic attempt to aid paranoid Charlie Johnson on his crusade to aid Islam. There are very good reasons for America to reassess its role in aiding Balkan Muslims. They lie like Muslims everywhere and America swallowed them wholesale.
The main difference between Charles Johnson and his lizard army and the antjihadis they smear as fascists by guilt-by-association is that Charles and his Lizards want to remain virtual. They do not dare to meet people in real life outside of their nerd club. They want to stay in front of their screens and feel powerfull. If you go out into real live like Richard you meet real people and things are different. But that is something a narciss with an internet connection do not wants to know about. Charles Johnson is running amok since he was invited to conferences. He do not wants to show his fans and the world his real presence. And he is probably perfectly right so. It would be a deseaster.
I think what bothers me about this post, is that it begins with Robert Spensor than departs to other people, places and other events then finally at the very end comes back to Robert Spencer. To me it is like the ‘six degrees of Kevin Bacon’ yet no one is accusing Kevin Bacon of the what you are accusing Robert Spencer of. You end by challenging him with the words the “court of public opinion” and I think what court? yours. It seems you have already decided his guilt and are now ready to spread it around without one word he spoke or one word he wrote pointing to your terrible assertions.
I read one of your other posts and I could take your statement “Judeo-Christianity is going to die” and twist it to mean that you want to exterminate all Jews and Christians. You say that is not what I meant. I say for Judeo/Christianity to die all Jews and Christians will have to die and that statement would be true.
I am sorry you only made good? case against the others but I am not ready to accuse “Kevin Bacon”. If you were a lawyer in charge of the prosecution, I would say you case is very weak and the light of public opinion is still in your court.
This whole “you can’t prove guilt by association” shtick is a canard. Of course you can. You can prove that a person is guilty of associating with other persons whose philosophy and goals run counter to his stated positions. No more, but also no less.
As Kejda says in concluding her article, it’s about the court of public opinion. Not a judicial proceeding. And everyone, without exception, judges a man by the company he keeps.
Spencer claims not to hate Muslims. Yet he freely associates with, quotes from, appears with and supports people who not only plainly hate Muslims but have actually worked for other people who proudly promoted slaughtering them just for being Muslims. And these same people not only hate Muslims but a whole busload of other categories of human beings.
The discredit and shame that he has brought on his work by these continuing intimacies is his own doing. Exposing them is an unfortunate necessity.
The main difference between Charles Johnson and his lizard army and the antjihadis they smear as fascists by guilt-by-association is that Charles and his Lizards want to remain virtual.
That’s not true. There are many LGF gatherings hosted all across the country. They’ve been meeting for years. I’ve met a lot of nice people at those meetings.
And yes, this is an acknowledgement that I’m not a fan of Trifkovic, and I am in the anti-crudball camp.
Guilt by Association is completely different from Guilty of Associating With and a “red herring” not a canard. You better schtick to Guilty of Associating With, or your argument begins to look more like a Kangaroo Court. And yes I can say that you have not proved Guilt by Association.
Now back to “Judeo/Christianity is going to die.” Please continue….How?
Sophistry, Lynn. And are you saying that Spencer’s friends and colleagues don’t bother you at all? What a self-revelatory stance, if it is indeed yours.
As for ‘Now back to “Judeo/Christianity is going to die.” Please continue….How?’ – I have no idea what you’re banging on about. Don’t bother to explain, though, as I’m sure whatever it is has no bearing on the argument at hand.
Which points out clearly that you do not inspect the accuser who’s very words I quote. Dangerous… inconvenient, and very revealing about you perhaps? If you read my other posts you would know that who Roberts Spencer knowingly associates with is very important to me. You have no idea what I’m banging on about because you obviously lack curiosity, indeed. Which is why kangaroo courts are often successful.
Connecting disjointed and irrelevant thoughts of yours into a meaningful whole is not my responsibility, Lynn. You seem to talk out of both sides of your mouth, again something I’m not concerned with reconciling.
But thanks for playing.
Irrelevant to you because your not the accused. I try to see the world from both sides, the accused and accuser. It helps me avoid those one sided games that people tend to play when they have an agenda. Continue with your game. Is it Blind Man’s Bluff?
“Just when I thought I was out… they pull me back in!”
Sounds good to me! You do really hate Orthodox Christians, don’t you…Kedja? I am not Orthodox, in fact I don’t belong to any organized religion, but I can always tell by the long winded, pointless exposés about the Serbs (and by extension the Russians), anyone with connections to them, and all the evils that they have done, or will ever do, and anyone who supports them must be evil as well.
You are smart, I will give you that, but you, like so many smart people I have meet in my life: You don’t understand history. I have meet electrical engineers, programmers, biologist, economist, hell even a few well known theoretical physicist, but many seemed clueless about history, and why it is important. History tells us in any conflict there are winners and losers. In any conflict, there are two sides, some join that side due to genuine support for that cause, some do it for economic or political gain, and some because the “enemy of my enemy is my friend”. This has been true of every conflict sense the dawn of recorded history.
Albania, and by extension “Muslim” Bosnians and Kosovars, etc, are on the wrong side of history. Like it or not, they are with Islam. Communism tried its best to remove the power that ideology had over those lands, but it failed. Islam is coming back with vengeance. Supported by monies from Saudi Arabia, and other Islamic states, Islam grows in power each day, while the secular power of liberal democracy grows dimmer each day. All the pretty pictures put up by you, your husband, by Michael Trotten, and crew of smiling Albanians, and happy little villages can’t change this fact. Albania is Islamic land. Islam has claimed it by right of conquest, and until that ideology is defeated, crushed, and ripped out of the social fabric of life forever, it will creep back. It has always done that, and history shows us Islam has always been pushed back only by war, and brutal ones at that. Those are facts, facts which you ignore.
Serbia, despite all its faults, is on the right side of history. They have no doubt made many mistakes, ugly and disgusting ones at that, but who has not in history? The key is do you now stand on the correct side. It does not matter how, or even why you stand on the correct side, it only matters that you do. In the epic conflict that is coming, the battle between liberal secular democracy and Islam in Europe, the Serbians will make useful allies, but the Albanians will at best aid and abet Islamic forces, or worst openly side with the forces of Islam. That is what is important.
So what you have written about Robert Spencer, Serbia, and all those Serbians, with impossible names to pronounce, even if every bit of it was true which it is not, the fact still remains, Albania is on the wrong side. That must be a bitter pill for you to accept. To know in your heart those dam Serbs, will win in the end, not because they were guiding lights of liberty, but because the fate of history gave them a lucky break. An alliance of convenience! Oh cruel fate…
The same applies to you. You have chosen your side. Even if you personally agree with liberal democracy, you have sided with your ethno-centric group despite all reason. The very thing you criticized all those Europeans about, their ethno-centric ways, now you display in spades. Your ignorance, like so many others, of Islam, only adds to this folly. You use words like, “Islamofascism”. I don’t use that anymore, nor should anyone who understands this conflict. Islam is Islam. There is no such beast as what you describe. Islam as it is currently constructed, lived and practiced by a majority of Muslims on the planet cannot coexist in a peaceful manner with anyone else, yet you offer nothing to this discussion, other than…you know, those Serbs can be really bad guys sometimes!
I guess you now know what Robert E. Lee felt when he decided to choose his home state of Virginia, over his nation, in the American Civil War. He disapproved of slavery and succession, yet went on to defend them both by his actions…..
Also just so we can clear up the concept why terms like “Islamofascism”, and “Radical Islam” are useless have a look at this:
Even Charles has noted it (yet he seems not to have made the intellectual leaps to understand what it means).
A near majority or majority of Muslims depending on how you look at studies like this support Sharia. That means they may not support the strategy of al Qaeda, they still support their goals.
This means we are on the road to a epic bloodbath within our lifetime, unless Muslims give up Islam, or change Islam, or we give up liberty. I don’t plan on giving up liberty, I don’t think a large segment of the Muslim population will give up or change Islam. So what does that leave us? What do we do about the large Muslim populations in Europe who want to keep Islam as is, and want us to change for them? Tell me you or Chuckles have a plan to deal with this?
Serbia, despite all its faults, is on the right side of history…Your ignorance, like so many others, of Islam, only adds to this folly. You use words like, “Islamofascism”. I don’t use that anymore, nor should anyone who understands this conflict.
This is complete bullshit. You have no idea who the enemy is, and the supporters of ethnic cleansing, fascism and whiny bullies like the Serbs will be on the wrong side of history because they demonstrate, through their actions, that they’re weak. They’re afraid to confront the real enemy. The weak side loses, and the winners write the history.
We are currently fighting a war against a well-organized paramilitary/terrorist infrastructure that is funded by Islamist countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran Syria and Pakistan. The financial and ideological foundations of this infrastructure are managed by Hezbollah, the Muslim Brotherhood and branch organizations like Hizb-ut-Tahrir, Hamas, CAIR, Fatah and the Muslim American society. Military training is provided by Iranian, Pakistani and Libyan intelligence agencies. While most of this organization’s riches come from wealthy oil ticks, supplemental income is provided by criminal activity like drug and cigarette smuggling.
Islamofascism was inspired by Nazism (Hassan al Banna, founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, was a fascist, and the British let German Nazis settle in the Middle East after WWII in the hopes that they would help the Muslims take care of the Israel problem) and communism (the left helped Khomeni gain power, and they still support Islamism despite the fact that Khomeni killed and persecuted them), but the major factor that empowered Islamofascism was petrodollars. During the oil crisis of the ’70’s, oil ticks around the world were empowered by the influence they had over world events. They don’t have the same power now, but the world still gives Saudi Arabia and Iran more respect than they deserve. That tendency, to give these weak authoritarian nations more respect than they deserve, is (in part) to blame for the rise of political Islam.
Islamist paramilitaries have no air force, no navy. They can’t shoot straight. The states that support them are also very weak and vulnerable. If our government, and other governments stopped supporting them, if our intelligence agencies used the information we’ve collected through our alliances with them, we could defeat them without any large-scale military engagements.
To win a war, you have to properly identify the enemy. Terror supporters in Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Syria are the enemy. Local apolitical Muslims are not.
Since our government is allied with some fascist, authoritarian terror supporting nations, they have neglected to properly identify the enemy, which causes some confusion. But come on, this isn’t rocket science. What do you think will do more to fight Islamofascism, convincing our govt. that wiping out Pakistans ISI intelligence agency is necessary or deporting the Muslim pizza guy next door? Criticizing our government’s alliances with Saudi Arabia or saying mean things about Albanians?
Mary, you know I somehow knew you would respond. You are wrong and here is why…
Reason Number 1: The Nature of Islam
Jihad is part of Islam. It is not something the Muslim Brotherhood, Hezbollah, Hizb-ut-Tahrir, Hamas, CAIR, Fatah and the Muslim American Society, etc (any others you want to name?) invented. It is as old as Muhammad himself. Jihad is the religiously obligated means to establish Islamic rule on earth. Instead of sending out missionaries, or human rights activists, or democracy advocates, they send out warriors, and those that cover up for those warriors, or help those warriors fight to bring Islamic Law to all. You really need to read the Quran, Hadith, commentaries, etc. Really, do us all a favor, and learn about Islam.
Reason Number 2: The Nature of the Islamic World
We are not fighting (or should I say they are fighting us) a paramilitary order, but a hostile population who hold ideals counter to ours, and very fundamental ones at that. The majority of Muslims (I do mean a majority) don’t accept our views on women’s rights, our views of free speech, our views on freedom of religion, our views of a secular state, our views of democracy, and our views of individual thought. They really don’t! The foundations of their societies, their ideals are founded on the Quran and on the Hadith collections.
Reason Number 3: The Nature of our Current Situation
From a logical standpoint it should be easy to save the West. On this you are partially right. Muslim countries produce no weapons, and outside of the oil states they produce nothing worth time writing about, however they do have that pesky oil. Petrodollars fund so much in the West. It funds western hirelings, it funds crooked and sympathetic politicians, it funds organizations (like CAIR), but most of all it funds Muslim immigration. How do you think all those Muslim immigrants get into Europe in the first place? Money talks, it always has, and you add to that all the useful idiotic leftist, who have found their alliance of convenience, you have one hell of a convergence of forces that yes represent a clear danger to the West, unlike anything anyone has seen in some time. Add to all that a complete apathy of the people in the West, it means a window has opened for Islam to win the West. It maybe is not an overwhelmingly large window, something on the order of the Confederacy winning the American Civil War, but it is there.
The factors in summary for Reason Number 3:
1. An increasing Muslim population
2. A segment of the population who already hates what the West represents (Communist, leftist) who want an alliance with Islam.
3. A segment of the population who just will not fight for anything, or stand to defend anything, while the Jihadist are dedicated to their cause, with the passive support of a majority of Muslims on this Earth for their objectives, if not outright support for the strategy itself.
4. A segment of elite, in the West, who are making money off the oil trade, and it just happens that we are still a oil based economy, and will be it appears for sometime (unless a real leader comes along and changes that).
5. People like you, who show a dangerous arrogance and overconfidence. I accept that most Muslims are telling the truth when they say this is their values, their ideals, their beliefs. You on the other hand cannot comprehend that a whole population of people on this earth, for the most part, hold values different to yours. They do! The overwhelming majority of the Southern white population in America did not own slaves, yet they went on to defend it in the Civil War. Most Germans did not belong to the Nazis, yet they fought to defend the Nazis…this is life. Muslims will defend Islamic Law, they will defend their way of life (a way of life that is counter to ours in fundamental ways). They will fight! The question is will we fight for our way of life?
Reason Number 4: Even if we win it will still be ugly
Charles Johnson, and people like him, really does fascinate me for his intellectually screwed-up arguments in relation to Islam. He demands Muslims in the west accept western ways, yet he says we cannot use force to impose that upon them under ANY circumstances. So what are we suppose to use than, debate? Oh yes that will work, despite the fact that it has NEVER worked in the entire history of Islam, despite the fact that all it has accomplished up until now is prove people like Mr. Spencer and Mr. Wilders right, that most Muslims have no intentions of giving up their way of life (the objectionable parts), and will do all they can to eliminate, crush, or do away with any Muslim who does! The simple, innocent attempt to teach girls to be equals to boys could be enough to send the Islamic community in Europe, or even in America, into a full fledge conflict, which could lead to the mass deportations that Charles claims people like me want. I don’t want mass deportation, nor does Mr. Spencer from what I can tell from his writings, but the question does need to be asked: What happens when we do start to demand western values in Islamic communities in the West be enforced, and the majority of Muslims do not respond in a reasonable manner? History tells me that things are going to get ugly, real ugly.
Charles does not have an answer for this, other than it won’t get that bad because he says so. Well, considering he was so right about the purple fingered Iraqi Muslims, who have since used their freedom to crush all Non-Muslims, impose Islamic law into their constitution, and in general have behaved just like Islam teaches them, you will have to forgive me if I don’t have much confidence in Chuck’s grand plan, because he has none. Does he not understand that by defending our own values it could very well lead to all those things he so dislikes now?
So in conclusion….if we want to end this problem we must:
1. Get out of the Islamic oil business. Punish the Arabian states. Cut off their money supplies, cut of their oil monies. This is going to be much harder than it looks.
2. Declare Islam must be reformed and changed to fit the modern concept of religion as a personal faith, not a total way of life. Enforce western standards (by defending them) on the Muslim community in the west, no matter the consequences, and no matter where it might lead us.
3. End Muslim immigration (with the exception of those wishing to leave traditional Islam).
4. Support Non-Muslims who are currently in conflicts on the edges of the Islamic world, and support all ethnic and religious separatist movements in the Islamic world. Make alliances were useful, even if they are very grey.
See…how hard was that? Let me know when Kejda, or Lord of the Lizards, have a realistic plan for dealing with Islam, and that understands what Islam is all about.
Also you must realize that we did have the USSR as an ally in WWII. It is really hard to accept the Serbs are worse or even equal to what Mr. Stalin did.
1. Get out of the Islamic oil business. Punish the Arabian states. Cut off their money supplies, cut of their oil monies. This is going to be much harder than it looks.
Sure, that should be our first priority.
2. Declare Islam must be reformed and changed to fit the modern concept of religion as a personal faith, not a total way of life. Enforce western standards (by defending them) on the Muslim community in the west, no matter the consequences, and no matter where it might lead us.
Define ‘enforce’. Are you talking about deporting anyone who does not fit your definition of a good Muslim American? Because that kind of action tends to lead to mob wars, mass slaughter and social unrest. It’s also unconstitutional.
3. End Muslim immigration (with the exception of those wishing to leave traditional Islam).
That’s not unconstitutional, and it could be done.
4. Support Non-Muslims who are currently in conflicts on the edges of the Islamic world, and support all ethnic and religious separatist movements in the Islamic world. Make alliances were useful, even if they are very grey.
This is entirely wrong. Britain is following this advice – they’re allied with the Muslim Brotherhood in an effort to fight the ‘extremists’. They ignore the fact that the extremists and the Brotherhood share the same fascist goals.
As I said before, the enemy of your enemy is not your friend. We aren’t so weak that we have to make desperate alliances with Serbian bully boys, Saudi oil ticks and other fascist brownshirts.
When a government or an organization allies with evil, the followers of that organization lose faith in it, for obvious reasons. We’re not desperate enough to have to make alliances with crudballs, but when we make those alliances anyway, we broadcast to the world that yes, we so completely gullible and lame that we don’t think we can fight this pathetic enemy by ourselves. Since everyone else believes this, pretty soon we start believing it too.
I mean you force the laws of the United States of America on them (if we are just talking the in the United States). In other words, any attempt to bring localized Sharia laws into that community must be defeated. Any attempt to use Muslim mobs to dispense Islamic justice must be crushed, by force if necessary. If for some reason they find some way to accomplish this by “constitutional means” than we have a real problem.
I hear people all the time talk about the constitutionally of this or that, and I am a supporter of the constitution, but also remember we had a Civil War once over constitutional issues. It does happen, so if Muslims are going to try to claim their religious rights are being infringed upon, because we don’t set up segregated places for women and men for example, or give any other kind of special privileges, well this is one person who would rather die than live under that kind of constitutional interpretation. Remember segregation was once “constitutional”…so do be careful with that word. It is not a suicide pact.
I hate to tell you this, but I think the “mob wars, mass slaughter and social unrest” will happen before anything like mass deportations might take place. This will be especially true in Europe. I am only stating this, because that is path we are on now, unless Islam fundamentally changes, or we stop Islamic immigration soon. I just don’t see how one group of people who accept the ideals found within Islam can live in peace (for any period of time worth note) with people who accept liberty. It is like slavery, which lasted until the 1860s in this country, and ended in a bloodbath. You can’t have both freedom and slavery in one country. The concepts found in the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, and modern civilization in general are totally alien to Islam. It is like we are in the middle of some kind of religious Jurassic Park! There is just not enough time for Islam to evolve before blood is spilled, and it turns ugly. Humans can only put up with so much, and they have their concept of what is right and we have ours…..they are just too far apart.
The general rule of thumb: If it weakens the “House of the Islam” it is a-ok with me. You seem to keep missing where I am coming from. Islam, the political ideology mapped out by Muhammad and his followers in the 7th century is a direct threat to liberty and freedom, and to all Non-Muslims on this earth. I am not talking about “extremist”. I am talking Islam…Period.
Stop confusing this with fascism, or anything else, for it is I-S-L-A-M. It is political. It is extreme by modern 21st century standards (hell it was extreme for its time). Why do you think Muslims in the Islamic world treat all non-Muslims like crap? Why do you think they wage war with most of their Non-Muslim neighbors? More important this is the way it HAS ALWAYS BEEN! It is not something new, or invented by some group like the Muslim Brotherhood. This is the typical attitude of the typical traditional Muslim living on this earth today, or has ever been.
Essentially what you, and Charles Johnson, are advocating is impossible. Islam as it is currently constructed cannot coexist peacefully with western secular democracy. What you demand is we just take the bombings, the attacks upon our liberty, the wanton slaughters, storming of schools, the continued violent attacks for the rest of our lives, and for the rest of our children’s lives, and the rest of our grandchildren’s lives, all the time listening to same old excuses form the Muslim community and world, the same excuses they have always used , even in the 7th century, until somewhere in the far distant future the majority of Muslims figure out how to live in the western liberalized world.
Now you understand why you are wrong, what did we do to deserve this? Why must my future, children and grandchildren suffer, so that you, Kejda and Charles can hold your heads up high because you did want to get into the gutter. You know why we have the liberties we have today, because my American ancestors got into that gutter.
Do, by all means, keep talking.
It’s, ehem, “enlightening.”
Yes, it is enlightening. Comet, do you think that Robert Spencer’s posts reflect your views?
Mary, Mr. Spencer is one of the most knowledgeable men in relation to Islam we have in the west. By contrast “Lord Gekkonidae” has been wrong so many times (Ex: Iraq, Pakistan, Bush), does nothing except ride others coat tails, knows nothing about Islam, and as far as the anti-Jihad movement is concerned he is useless. So yes, this is a very easy choice. Choose Charlie and his groupies, or peoples who debate topics, argue, fight, but in the end have the same general goals. Stop Islam from gaining supremacy in the west, and save western civilization.
You see Mr. Spencer and crew are useful in this effort, Chuck has been well…not.
Does that answer your question?
Plus Mary, you have not answered my questions? What do we do when Muslims in America demand Sharia law for their local community? What should Europeans do if Muslims demand Sharia law, and refuse to follow European law (as they are essentially doing now)? This has occurred throughout history in any place that has had a large Muslim population (see Thailand for example). So it is coming…if not here already.
Do you have any answers for this? Does Charles? Kejda? Come on one of you deep thinkers can answer these simple questions?
Your Albanian brothers sided with Islam. Jihadist forces fought in the Balkans, for every picture of an “Arkan”, I have a picture, or video of some Jihadist yelling “Allahu Akbar” in Kosovo or Bosnia. You seem to have no problems with the Mujahedeen fighting for the Albanian cause in Kosovo? Yet Mr. Spencer is a “fascist” because he happens to have some Serbian friends who were maybe friends to some other guy, who was a friend to maybe a bad guy…but just for the sake of it lets put up a picture of Arkan…something that will shock the stupid.
The fact that Jihadist were in Kosovo fighting for the Albanian cause is enough to tell me this is more than just some ethno-centric conflict. The KLA are not only a jihadist group, but a drug, and weapons running operation as well. They did their share of head chopping savagery that all good faithful traditional Muslims do when on Jihad.
So once again, in your world, it is ok for Albanians to have Jihadist fighting for causes they fancy, but it is really bad for the West to make nice to Serbia for causes it might fancy…
That means you’re a “fascist” in this idiotic game of connect the dots, and X degrees of separation. I hope Chuck does not find out or you will be banished! Does this mean you and Chuck are supporters of Jihad as well when it is against only the Serbs, or maybe the Russians and Chinese too? Oh my, what a development! What good is an anti-Jihad movement if we have people who support Jihadist land grabs in it? Disturbing…I hope you can refute this…
Nice friends the Albanians picked! Like I said, Albania is on the wrong side of history on this one…
Learn to live with it…and move on. After all you’re an American now, not an Albanian….right?
Welcome to America!
Kejda and Mary…one last thing (yes the last for tonight at least) considering you are both of the “Lizardatrix” species (no sexism meant, just fitting of your personalities) in the eternal quest for racist, Nazis, poltergeist, the body of Charles Darwin, and other strange stuff…lets make something VERY clear about me…before we go down this idiotic road. So for your education, I shall provide you with definitions of all the relevant terms (I know it is hard to learn in this modern day world when everything is just so screwed up).
According to Merriam-Webster: 1. Racism – a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race. 2. Nazism – the body of political and economic doctrines held and put into effect by the Nazis in Germany from 1933 to 1945 including the totalitarian principle of government, predominance of especially Germanic groups assumed to be racially superior, and supremacy of the führer.3. Fascism – a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.
My view: I don’t agree with Racism, Nazism, or Fascism. I think all races are equal (the idea of race is stupid to begin with), I don’t like Hitler, and Fascism is idiotic. Here is what I want: If the majority of Muslims want to truly live in peace in the west they must give up: 1. Violent jihad for any reason, 2. Support for violent jihad for any reason, 3. Covering up for violent jihad for any reason, 4. Teaching violent Jihad for any reason, 5. Threats of death or violence to those who wish to leave Islam, 6. Threats of death or violence to Muslim women (or anyone else) who don’t follow the Quran. 7. Threats of death or violence to those who mock or talk about Islam. 8. Threats of death and violence to those try to convert Muslims to something else. 9. Threats of death and violence if we don’t accept Islamic Law. 10. Lying and covering up the structural problems in Islam. For example: Make a concerted effort to speak out against those who do 1 through 9, in clear language, not using double-talk, with a clear definition of who is an innocent, and an acceptance that Islam needs to be reformed for the 21st century.
If they do these things (maybe a few others, I am willing to listen), we will live forever in peace, and harmony, with only a few rather ugly hick-ups that always occur during the wonderful travels down the rocky road called integration. If they do not, we are on the…highway to hell…..oh yea! Play that song!
My opinion is they won’t do those things, because that would mean they would have to dump Islam, or change it, and it is clear you guys think they will? Am I wrong? Dazzle me….
What do we do when Muslims in America demand Sharia law for their local community?
Say no, because it’s unconstitutional. Unlike most European countries, we have a constitution that forbids this kind of thing.
What should Europeans do if Muslims demand Sharia law, and refuse to follow European law (as they are essentially doing now)?
Say no to sharia, increase police presence in Muslim neighborhoods, increase undercover monitoring of mosques and muslim gangs and prosectue groups like Hizb ut Tahrir and the Muslim Brotherhood under already-existing laws against criminal/mafia operations. Adopt a Giuliani-esque attitude towards crime, Muslim or otherwise. Zero tolerance. Have you seen the graffiti in Europe? The place is like New York, 1985. It’s a mess, but we know how to clean that up.
This has occurred throughout history in any place that has had a large Muslim population (see Thailand for example).
Thailand does not have a large Muslim population. Most of the terrorists there are from Malaysia, trained by Libyans and financed by Saudis. Since the Thai government wants to maintain good relations with the Saudis and the Malaysians, they’ve made no real effort to protect their own people from terrorism. The situation is similar to the one in Britain.
During the heyday of piracy in Europe, European governments allied with and supported some pirates in an effort to fight other pirates. They also maintained good relations with the states that supported piracy. As a result of these policies, pirates basically controlled the seas. Millions of Europeans were enslaved, murdered or ‘disappeared.’ These policies didn’t change until Thomas Jefferson decided to send the ships to Tripoli.
We’re facing the same situation with terrorism today. Terrorism empowered because governments around the world are allying with it, due to policies based on ‘the enemy of my enemy is my friend’. If we want to fight terrorism, we’ll fight these alliances, and we’ll do everything we can to disempower terror-supporting states like Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia.
With their support of the Serbs and other Muslim-haters, the anti-Koran crowd shows that they’re following the same strategy as the European governments – the enemy of my enemy is my friend. I’m not even going to get into the whole amorality of this kind of support, I’ll just not that it’s a losing strategy.
oops – that should be “I’ll just not[e] that it’s a losing strategy..
Mary and anyone else who happens to read this… You know I was going to respond to you on this, but I won’t. I am going let your words speak for themselves. Some questions to ponder.: 1. Who thinks saying “no” to the Muslim community will work? 2. Who thinks police enforcement by itself will work when the Muslim population responds back with “hell no!”? Now re-read this new study out of the Islamic world, on their views of Sharia, America and Osama: http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/feb09/STARTII_Feb09_rpt.pdf. 3. Does anyone think Mary’s plan has a chance in hell of working? This has been very enlightening and informative. We are clearly in different camps. I view Islam as a mortal danger to civilization like it always has been throughout history, and you guys don’t. You think Islam is not the problem, but just groups. I am glad we cleared that up. Good day…
Bill Roggio and Aaron of Internet Haganah do more in one day to combat the international jihad then all of the genocidal neo-fascist wordsmiths and mouthpieces of the so-called “anti-jihadist” movement have done in their whole lives, combined.
There is a reason why Daniel Pipes so politely disagrees with Spencers work.
Over 300,000 Moslem Iraqis and Afghans are openly fighting on our side. Is their Islam still a problem for you ethnic cleansers?
Render, people like you and CJ are the reason Obama got elected. Your defense of the Iraq war, of Islam, and of the incompetent George W. Bush are why we are were we are. Read Quran 9.29 for starters and get a clue!
Those 300,000 Moslem Iraqis and Afghans fighting for us also accept women are inferior to men, infidels are inferior to Muslims, and the only reason they are fighting with us is well…$$$. Quran = Mein Kampf, so your defense of moderate muslims, is like defending moderate Nazis. Smooth…does this mean you have no problems siding with men like this?