Sure thing, Solar. I had not really gotten a chance to read this thread carefully, post by post. It is really one of the more interesting pieces I have seen, anywhere. Not too  many have the knowledge to expound on the Serbian/Turkish/Russian connections. Those may have the impression Americans either do not care about  or do not have the capacity to understand such things. I hope this discussion continues.

We take it for granted that Washington leadership manipulates the boot licker press. We also suspect the press has its own agenda, meaning, the press has been infiltrated by the left.  Upon inauguration, Obama was handed the keys to the pres, or, the leash around its neck, but he really has not used it effectively. He annoyed the very people who could have helped him. 

Not so, the Clintons. The Clintons have been so skilled at persuasion that they have actually created a reality all their own. That rigged Stephanopolis interview with Peter Schweitzer came as a pail of ice water in our faces.  The public was, like, "Oh, no. Here we go again!" Contemplating a Hillary presidency and a return to all those lies.

We need to be honest with ourselves and admit that, thanks to Washington and the skilled opinion shapers there, our understanding of the world is probably at about 20%, if we are lucky. I am into this discussion  not to derail, but to further interest it the Clintons and what they really did.

Quote from: Mountainshield on May 28, 2015, 09:43:25 AM
First I too want to say thanks for sharing all that, you slavs have a lot more balls I hate to say than modern Scandinavians and I love reading about Hungary in particular standing up to the EU liberals and commies.

For national movements being inherently socialist some of it is as you say a result of former communist intelligence agencies or bureaucracies setting up national movements in post-communist countries such as Serbia, Hungary and East-Germany. But also it is tied with the legacy of fascism or falangism as the only other patriotic conservative alternative to socialist nationalism or socialism itself.

Moderate conservative parties does not really believe in anything that stirs the emotions of the soul, sure private property and liberty are concepts worth dying for but the message conservative parties always ties it with statistics and economical arguments combined with apologetic pleas to social justice in order to not come across as cold hearted capitalist or racist. Ayn Rand and even Hitler observed this when reflecting upon conservatism in Europe, they don't offer a real alternative to socialism. Falangism for example, share most of the social values we as conservatives embrace but not the economic policies. So in order to not appear racist moderate conservative attack nationalism out of fear of being consociated with these "neo-fascist" ideologies.

So what you end up with is a spineless moderate conservative alternative that nationalists see with disgust because they are afraid of embracing conservative socialist values so these conservatives end up with socialist nationalist parties that pretends to be against socialism while at the same time have the exact same policies except for when it comes to ethnic and immigration policies.

Thank you for this post, you are completely right.

Quote from: Dori on May 28, 2015, 10:13:36 AM
Who stole your coal, minerals, water, electricity and controlled the drug market?

NATO politicians in Kosovo. They behave like Kosovo is their private property. They are bribing Albanian politicians in Kosovo to sell them Kosovo state property for bargain. Although all of that state property still legally belongs to Serbia.

Maybe these links would help.

http://www.varight.com/news/why-is-madeleine-albright-trying-to-buy-the-kosovo-telecom-company-another-poke-at-the-serbs/

http://sputniknews.com/voiceofrussia/2012_06_26/79390184/

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/regional/KLA1.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TdcV5N7Icwk

Quote from: kalash on May 28, 2015, 03:24:45 PM
You probably don't know that, but at this time along with war with Turky in 1806-12, Russia was also in war with Persia 1804-13. And of course the MAINE conсern  for Russia in 1812 was invasion of Napoleon. It was very big thing. Napoleon, by the way, had a big expectations on continuation of russian- turkish war, that could help him during invasion, and he was really outraged, when he found out, that Kutuzof (fieldmarshal that later that year chased french from Russia), beat the turks and made them beg for peace just couple of months before Napoleon invade Russia.  So, as you see Russia at that time had their hands very full.

Yes. That was our misfortune. And what was the most weird in that situation, it's that Napoleon admired Serbian uprising and Serbian leader Karađorđe as a great warrior.

Quote from: red_dirt on May 28, 2015, 03:36:19 PM
Thank you for this enlightening thread. I thought the Serbs got rid of the Moslems. Show how much I know. I see  the communists and the corrupt leadership have created many problems.

Ha ha, well you probably know who stopped us. No, we actually didn't want to get rid of the Muslims, we just wanted peace and normal life. But, Bosnian Muslims wanted Bosnia to be completely Muslim country, and Kosovo Albanians, who are mostly Muslim, wanted to separate that territory from us and join it to Albania. They caused the problems. Our politicians are that much corrupted that I could see only a new revolution, or Third Serbian Uprising, as a possible solution to the problem.

Quote from: red_dirt on May 28, 2015, 04:28:31 PM
We need to be honest with ourselves and admit that, thanks to Washington and the skilled opinion shapers there, our understanding of the world is probably at about 20%, if we are lucky. I am into this discussion  not to derail, but to further interest it the Clintons and what they really did.

People in my country usually think Americans are stupid because they don't know history. I usually reply with how could they know history if you didn't tell them. They believe your government should have taught you history. But, I don't want to tell too much at once, because I don't want to make you go like "Whaaa?". But history is actually very complex, and we know only the top of it's iceberg.

I have many reasons to believe British Empire was and still is the most evil creation in the modern history of the world. Americans stood up against the British Empire during the American Revolution for a good cause. But, today, America acts like British Empire did once. It is like the British Queen runs the American diplomacy. America lost its soul when it allied with British Empire during WWI, and later during WWII, and after in the NATO. Once, the American flag was a flag of liberty, of hope, of dreams. But now, it is a flag of imperialism. You go hand in hand with the British Empire you defeated once. I would love to see that "Don't Tread on Me" America once again.

Some of the crimes of the British Empire include spreading the communism around the world. British were those who have sent Lenin from Switzerland into Russia to incite a communist revolution. They have convinced Germans to let him pass through their territory, because he would defeat Russia from inside. In spite of the fact Russia and United Kingdom were officially allies, British imperial interests were in the first place, and those were defeating both Germany and Russia at the same time. But the British Empire never had allies, they just had their own interests, and fooled others into thinking they were allies.

What happened with Serbia? British had promised us help in 1914 if Germany and Austria-Hungary attack us. But their help never arrived. British had their troops in Greece, but they refused to come to Serbia to help Serbian army. We were stabbed in the back by Bulgaria, so without British help from Greece, Serbian military and civilian refugees had to retreat over Albania in order to reach the coast for British and French ships to rescue them. But British and French didn't want to send their ships. It was only when Russia intervened, threatening it will retreat from the war if allies don't send us ships. So French ships arrived, and our forces were rescued to Greece.

What happened during WWII? The ruler of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, Prince Paul (Knez Pavle), was a great British lover. He desperately wanted to avoid joining the Tripartite Pact. But, when he asked the British will they help us in a case of war with Germany, they answered him they wouldn't. So he signed the pact. And it was actually an awesome treaty. Because, Hitler didn't want war with Yugoslavia. He was patient, and kept negotiating with Prince Paul. So, in the final treaty that was signed, Germany and Italy agreed they won't send any troops into Yugoslavia, nor will ask any transport of their troops or staff through Yugoslav territory. By joining the Tripartite Pact, Yugoslavia actually gained a neutral status in the WWII, similar to Spain or Sweden or Turkey. But, what happened two days later? British intelligence incited a great revolt and a coup in Yugoslavia against the treaty, using famous Serbian love for freedom, so Hitler went furious, and decided to smash us in no time. So, the British refused to help us in a case of war, but they pushed us to sacrifice our lives for British interests. They have literally kidnapped our young king who was under aged, and kept him as a hostage. He wanted to come back to his occupied country. He was a skilled pilot, and he wanted to escape the British in Egypt and secretly fly back to Yugoslavia. He organized a test flight, when one Serbian pilot secretly took off from Egypt to Yugoslavia, but he was immediatelly shot down over the Mediterranean Sea by the RAF. No joking with the British Empire. Later on, Winston Churchill forced our young king to recognize new communist government in Yugoslavia. Yugoslav communist leader, Tito, was a multiple agent for Austria-Hungary, Soviet Union, Germany, and United Kingdom. But his most powerfil boss was Churchill. Not to mention it was not the real Tito at all, because the real Tito died during the Spanish Civil War, and was replaced by a double. Stalin knew this, and sent his trustful agent Mustafa Golubić, who was from Yugoslavia, to kill Tito, but Tito's agents were faster and killed Mustafa. Most likely, Stalin actually supported Serbian national forces, the remains of the legal Yugoslav Royal Army who didn't want to surrender to Germans, called "chetniks". Their leader, general Draža Mihailović, was allegedly Stalin's agent. Churchill, Roosevelt, and Stalin, agreed Yugoslavia shall become communist after the war, although communists were just a minor political force here, but I blame Churchill the most. At the end of the war, Serbian nationalist forces were retreating alongside with Germans to surrender to British and Americans in Austria and Italy. Those who surrendered to the American troops, were rescued, and brought into the United States. Those who surrendered to the British troops, were sent back to communists, and were all shot. After the war, Stalin asked from Churchill to bring back the Yugoslav royal family into country and organize democratic elections in Yugoslavia, but Churchill refused. Later, there was a famous Tito's official break up with Stalin in 1948, although they have been long time enemies already.

Quote from: milos on May 29, 2015, 12:56:42 AM
I have many reasons to believe British Empire was and still is the most evil creation in the modern history of the world. Americans stood up against the British Empire during the American Revolution for a good cause. But, today, America acts like British Empire did once. It is like the British Queen runs the American diplomacy. America lost its soul when it allied with British Empire during WWI, and later during WWII, and after in the NATO. Once, the American flag was a flag of liberty, of hope, of dreams. But now, it is a flag of imperialism.

No wonder you have problems with America, if that's how you feel.  UK is America's strongest ally in Europe, always has been. Landlocked central and eastern Europe caught some bad cards when the age of sea power reigned. Russia has always had great navy, but the great empires have been long associated with sea power.  That age is over.  Strong navy is still an asset.

Quote from: red_dirt on May 29, 2015, 09:06:28 PM
No wonder you have problems with America, if that's how you feel.  UK is America's strongest ally in Europe, always has been. Landlocked central and eastern Europe caught some bad cards when the age of sea power reigned. Russia has always had great navy, but the great empires have been long associated with sea power.  That age is over.  Strong navy is still an asset.

But, America should stand for liberty, while British Empire has been always enslaving and manipulating people all over the world and mercilessly destroying other nations for own gain. These are two completely opposite ideals. How could have they ever been allied? It looks like British Empire is using United States to create a better image of themselves. Like a mass murderer carrying a child.

But the core of the problem lays in the bankers and the FED. Bankers are giving war loans to both sides in the war, and then make a profit regardless of who wins or loses. It's like in a roulette, where different nations come to play, but the house always wins, and the players are always being fooled. And a message to Russian anti-American communists: "How could you ever embrace Lenin, when he and his bolshevik revolution were funded by American bankers?" I mean, OMG. I mean, I have been on internet since 2001, and I have read this like million times from different sources, and in some printed books, too. But Russian communists probably think it is just a propaganda, the same like national-socialists think it is Jewish propaganda when someone tells them Hitler was given war loans by the same American bankers. And those bankers were Jewish, OMG. But they are not American in their hearts, nor they are Jewish in their hearts, so we should not be fooled to hate Americans or Jews for what those bankers did and still do. Because personal responsibility is real, and therefore it is only individual guilt that exists. And British Empire too is not really British, of course, so no one should hate British for that reason. And ethnic Russians in Ukraine are defending Lenin's statues from the "Ukrainian and NATO fascists". OMG. You keep protecting statues which celebrate bankers' victory over you. Why don't you just invent some technology to completely dissolve Lenin's remains, crash his mausoleum to the ground, and replace that ugly red star at the top of the Kremlin with the golden eagle which belongs there? To bankers from FED it was an easy task to print paper US dollars out of nothing and loan them to Lenin and Trotsky, at the expense of the American people and taxpayers. And if one should start searching for commies in the United States, he shall begin with the Federal Reserve.

http://www.wildboar.net/multilingual/easterneuropean/russian/literature/articles/whofinanced/whofinancedleninandtrotsky.html

In this article, it has been told that Trotsky posed a threat to England, because he wanted to withdraw Russia from the war. He surely was a threat to England, but not to those who were in power, and those were the bankers. Because, bolshevik revolution withdrew Russia from the war, which made England seek for help from the United States. It was just a planned way for the bankers to involve United States into war, and to make profit out of even more war loans. And who granted Trotsky the American passport and protection? It was Woodrow Wilson, the same Democrat US president who allowed the creation of the Federal Reserve System just four years before, as a reward for those bankers who funded his presidential campaign.

QuoteJacob Schiff was head of the New York investment firm Kuhn, Loeb and Co. He was one of the principal backers of the Bolshevik revolution and personally financed Trotsky's trip from New York to Russia. He was a major contributor to Woodrow Wilson's presidential campaign and an advocate for passage of the Federal Reserve Act.

QuoteWith this in mind we can appreciate the great strength of those mysterious forces both in England and the United States, that intervened on Trotsky's behalf. Immediately telegrams began to come into Halifax from such divergent sources, as an obscure attorney in New York City, from the Canadian Deputy Postmaster-General and even from a high-ranking British military officer, all inquiring into Trotsky's situation and urging his immediate release. The head of the British Secret Service in America at the time was Sir William Wiseman, who, as fate would have it, occupied the apartment directly above the apartment of Edward Mandell House and who had become fast friends with him. House advised Wiseman, that President Wilson wished to have Trotsky released. Wiseman advised his government and the British Admiralty issued orders on April 21st, that Trotsky was to be sent on his way. ("Why Did We Let Trotsky Go? How Canada Lost an Opportunity to Shorten the War", MacLeans magazine, Canada, June 1919. Also see Martin, pp. 163-164.) It was a fateful deecision, that would affect not only the outcome of the war, but the future of the entire world.

QuoteNor was this phenomenon confined to the United States. Trotsky in his book My Life tells of a British financier, who in 1907 gave him a "large loan" to be repaid after the overthrow of the Tsar. Arsene de Goulevitch, who witnessed the Bolshevik Revolution firsthand, has identified both the name of the financier and the amount of the loan. "In private interviews", he said, "I have been told that over 21 million rubles were spent by Lord [Alfred] Milner in financing the Russian Revolution... The financier just mentioned was by no means alone among the British to support the Russian revolution with large financial donations." Another name specifically mentioned by de Goulevitch was that of Sir George Buchanan, the British Ambassador to Russia at the time. (See Arsene de Goulevitch: Czarism and Revolution, published by Omni Publications in Hawthorne, California, no date; rpt. from 1962 French edition, pp. 224, 230)

And to call for help from Thomas Jefferson: "If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them, will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."

http://www.rense.com/general85/jeffer.htm

What the FED basically does is making Americans become poor proletarians who will then seek for social justice and government care. Why is US border with Mexico being opened? Because, those Mexican illegal immigrants are new proletarians with no private property. The same is happening in Europe, EU is allowing illegal immigration from Africa and Middle East for the same commie purpose, to make a new European proletarian class. Bankers and their commie fellows, first they make people poor, and then they emerge as their saviors who will feed them, for the cost of their freedom.

Quote from: milos on May 30, 2015, 02:39:17 AM
But, America should stand for liberty, while British Empire has been always enslaving and manipulating people all over the world and mercilessly destroying other nations for own gain. These are two completely opposite ideals. How could have they ever been allied? It looks like British Empire is using United States to create a better image of themselves. Like a mass murderer carrying a child.

milos, consider the fact that you may have been subjected to a form of revisionist history.

Dinesh D'Souza made a movie about Obama a few years back and he went to Kenya and spoke with Kenyans about their colonialist roots.  Obama's own brother admitted that if Kenya had not gotten their independence from the British Empire they would be much better off today.  Once the British left, Kenya's economy ceased to grow in the way it did under British control.  He said that their lives were much better under colonialism.  He felt like Kenyan would have become as Singapore if they had not gotten their independence, which stagnated their economic growth.

I have lived many years in Asia and can tell you that Singaporeans..... although they love their independence... are keenly aware that it is the British that made their lives so much better than their neighbors.  Singapore is a prosperous jewel in the midst of poverty stricken Nations around them.  They realize they owe it all to the UK.  They were not enslaved or ravaged by the UK.  They were treated just like the British citizens they were deemed to be.

Even India was improved vastly during their British occupation.  They did nothing to hurt the people.  They raised those people our of horrible conditions and made it a civilized Nation.

So milo, I believe you have a warped knowledge of much of history.  Have you actually traveled to the former colonies of Asia and Africa?  What is the source of your knowledge?  Books and teachers?

I think you 3 are all right to a point.
Lets not forget the reason America even exists. Not because the Crown was so freakin wonderful, rather the exact opposite, it was extremely selfish, oppressive and demanded strict adherence to it's laws.

Sure, they brought stability, the rule of law to any given area, but it also came at a price.

Quote from: kroz on May 30, 2015, 04:12:54 AMObama's own brother admitted that if Kenya had not gotten their independence from the British Empire they would be much better off today.  Once the British left, Kenya's economy ceased to grow in the way it did under British control.  He said that their lives were much better under colonialism.  He felt like Kenyan would have become as Singapore if they had not gotten their independence, which stagnated their economic growth.

Years ago, I had a boss from the western coast of Africa.  She was very well educated, and all her schools taught in English.  She also knew the language and customs of her tribal roots.  I got the distinct impression, that where she lived and grew up was very Europeanized. 

Quote from: Dori on May 30, 2015, 05:47:30 AM
Years ago, I had a boss from the western coast of Africa.  She was very well educated, and all her schools taught in English.  She also knew the language and customs of her tribal roots.  I got the distinct impression, that where she lived and grew up was very Europeanized.

Much of the world is somewhat europeanized due to colonialism. 

Indonesia is heavily influenced by the decades of Dutch rule in the Dutch East Indies. 

Hong Kong is definitely influenced by British occupation.  And Hong Kong was kept from the grasp of communist China because of the UK.

Quote from: Solar on May 30, 2015, 05:22:14 AM
I think you 3 are all right to a point.
Lets not forget the reason America even exists. Not because the Crown was so freakin wonderful, rather the exact opposite, it was extremely selfish, oppressive and demanded strict adherence to it's laws.

Sure, they brought stability, the rule of law to any given area, but it also came at a price.

No one is saying that the British were faultless in their administration over their colonial empire.  It is all a matter of relativism to their lives before being colonized.  Most were improved and somewhat civilized in contrast.  Yes, the Brits were selfish in many ways and dominated the people sometimes improperly.

However, once America won their war of independence things begin to change elsewhere.  We were moving into a new era of internationalism and the UK adjusted accordingly.  It was just part of the times.  Colonialism gradually disappeared without warfare following WWII.

Even the Royal Crown relinquished their family power and became figureheads only.

If we fairly look back over history, all governments were oppressive prior to the U.S. development of a free Republic.  Since then others have attempted to copy our pattern but none have been quite as successful.

I am extremely reluctant to point a finger of guilt upon pre-modern history nations.   When you purview the globe prior to the twentieth century..... the european powers were among the best to live in...... at home and in their colonies.

Quote from: kroz on May 30, 2015, 06:23:52 AM
Much of the world is somewhat europeanized due to colonialism. 

Indonesia is heavily influenced by the decades of Dutch rule in the Dutch East Indies. 

Hong Kong is definitely influenced by British occupation.  And Hong Kong was kept from the grasp of communist China because of the UK.

No one is saying that the British were faultless in their administration over their colonial empire.  It is all a matter of relativism to their lives before being colonized.  Most were improved and somewhat civilized in contrast.  Yes, the Brits were selfish in many ways and dominated the people sometimes improperly.

However, once America won their war of independence things begin to change elsewhere.  We were moving into a new era of internationalism and the UK adjusted accordingly.  It was just part of the times.  Colonialism gradually disappeared without warfare following WWII.

Even the Royal Crown relinquished their family power and became figureheads only.

If we fairly look back over history, all governments were oppressive prior to the U.S. development of a free Republic.  Since then others have attempted to copy our pattern but none have been quite as successful.

I am extremely reluctant to point a finger of guilt upon pre-modern history nations.   When you purview the globe prior to the twentieth century..... the european powers were among the best to live in...... at home and in their colonies.

Agree, but Milos wasn't referring to post WWI era, rather nearly a century prior, if I read it correctly.

Quote from: Solar on May 30, 2015, 06:36:05 AM
Agree, but Milos wasn't referring to post WWI era, rather nearly a century prior, if I read it correctly.

That is true..... but my point is that it was all relative to the state of these nations prior to colonialism.

For the most part the people's lives were improved and their economies definitely improved.  They had previously had harsh taskmasters in asia especially.

Europe was an entirely different situation.  But history tells us that those nations have been conquered over history many times by various conquerors..... most for selfish reasons.  That was just the nature of the world prior to WWI.

Don't single our Britain as the evil empire...... there were many!

Quote from: kroz on May 30, 2015, 06:23:52 AMI am extremely reluctant to point a finger of guilt upon pre-modern history nations.   When you purview the globe prior to the twentieth century..... the european powers were among the best to live in...... at home and in their colonies.

I agree.  It drives me crazy when the left condemns this countries history by using their values today.  They never take into consideration the times.  Funny how they never condemn the behavior of the islamofacists though.

Quote from: kroz on May 30, 2015, 06:47:56 AM
That is true..... but my point is that it was all relative to the state of these nations prior to colonialism.

For the most part the people's lives were improved and their economies definitely improved.  They had previously had harsh taskmasters in asia especially.

Europe was an entirely different situation.  But history tells us that those nations have been conquered over history many times by various conquerors..... most for selfish reasons.  That was just the nature of the world prior to WWI.

Don't single our Britain as the evil empire...... there were many!

Oh absolutely agree! My point is that all of you are correct in one or more aspects, including Milos and his claim of communism, considering the UK's party in power is that of the Fabian's, a direction they've been heading for centuries..

Quote from: Solar on May 30, 2015, 05:22:14 AM
I think you 3 are all right to a point. Lets not forget the reason America even exists. Not because the Crown was so freakin wonderful, rather the exact opposite, it was extremely selfish, oppressive and demanded strict adherence to it's laws. Sure, they brought stability, the rule of law to any given area, but it also came at a price.

The colonial era was marked by failures of colonies, a good many of them British, not because the English demanded strict adherence to the laws, but because they were often too lenient in enforcing the laws. History and storybooks are full of the theme, the arrival of the new, strict, governor, who would crack down on the foolishness and  get the colonists back on track. Winthrop and Quincy stand out, historically. Also, stern ministers like Mather came in to "encourage" regular attendance on Sundays, "or else."  More often than not, the root of the problem was too much money pouring in, not enough internal discipline.  Drunkeness, debauchery, fighting, cruelty to the natives, hard partying with the natives, booze, drug use, witchcraft, poor planning, all those things that spring up on the frontier when man and woman are left to their own devices, and the money is rolling in.

At the same time, the flood of money from the colonies to the King's treasury was creating moral dilemmas in itself. European  royalty was increasingly at each other, as the money to support wars in Europe, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Portugal, England, Norway,  flowed seeming without end, old grudges being renewed with the cash to back them up.

Can you imagine the scene if Governor Winthrop or even Capt. John Smith would sail into Baltimore harbor today, under orders to get these fools straightened out?  One Mike Brown on the scene and there would be hell to pay, and not the kind Barack Obama and Eric Holder have in mind.

America even developed its own little version of royalty at the turn of the century and the industrial age, The Rockefellers. John D. used to ride around in an armored car, visiting the mine properties, looking very much the Prince, him and the other titans of industry. There were many Serbian, other central and eastern Euros at work in the mines, Italians, Cornish, Chinese, Norwegians and Swedes. These were family people who mainly wanted safety and some money in the pocket. To associate the American business with oppressive Royalty back home was not a far leap. Many of the labor union organizations grew quite powerful. We might even say overly so, taking a look at the strings of  deserted mining towns that dot the American landscape.

Those same populations went on to comprise some of America's most treasured human resources,
the ol' melting pot folks they did. That includes the Serbs, definitely, esp. in industrial and mining states.

Quote from: milos on May 29, 2015, 12:56:42 AM
Not to mention it was not the real Tito at all, because the real Tito died during the Spanish Civil War, and was replaced by a double.

It's a good one! Never heard before. Will be on my list right after  "Moon landing was filmed in Hollywood" 

Quote from: kalash on June 01, 2015, 01:26:55 PM
It's a good one! Never heard before. Will be on my list right after  "Moon landing was filmed in Hollywood" 

Don't tell me you're one of those rubes that think the moon landing was faked, are you?