Friday, April 05, 2024
From Ian:
The American Left’s Milošević Moment
The American Left’s Milošević Moment
As Eastern bloc communism began to crumble, Serb nationalists turned to this history to fill the ideological and narrative void and employed rhetorical tactics that are entirely familiar to today’s woke American landscape, including:Prince of Truth
No. 1: Glorifying the year of enslavement as the beginning of a national narrative. There has been much scrutiny regarding the historical accuracy of The New York Times’ 1619 Project, but little regarding the sheer strangeness of it celebrating, from its own advocates’ perspective, a calendar year of enslavement and degradation initiating centuries of persecution that have de facto never ended. (This latter characteristic makes 1619 very different from conventional American commemorations of Pearl Harbor or the Alamo, military setbacks which were quickly dealt with.) However, this logic wouldn’t seem strange at all to Serb nationalists, who celebrated Yugoslavia’s own 1619 with 1389, the year Milošević said Serbs “fell into slavery” and Muslim rule for 489 years by, depending on your interpretation, either losing or forcing a Pyrrhic draw at the Battle of Kosovo against the advancing Ottoman Empire. The glorification of the Serb-specific defeat of 1389, most famously in Milošević’s Gazimestan Speech on the Battle of Kosovo’s 600th anniversary, directly attacked Yugoslavia’s motto of multiethnic Bratstvo i jedinstvo (Brotherhood and Unity) and summoned the ancient hatreds motivating the mass rape, ethnic cleansing, and genocide of Bosnian Muslims. Milošević died in 2006 while on trial for genocide and other war crimes.
No. 2: Attributing sinister ethnically based motivations and ideologies to political opponents. Members of Congress like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ayanna Pressley, and Cori Bush regularly leave political opponents flummoxed with accusations of “racism,” “white supremacy,” and “anti-blackness.” In Bosnia, a squad of highly educated Serb politicians, propped up by Milošević and led by Karadžić—who had studied at Columbia—leveled parallel charges against Muslims. Though U.S. Ambassador to Croatia Peter Galbraith called the largely secular Muslims Bosnia’s “most Western” ethnicity, Karadžić and crew harangued them as Islamic fundamentalists scheming to create an “anti-Serb” neo-Ottoman caliphate. Meanwhile, national media outlets “deliberately fanned the flames of national hatred,” in the words of British journalist Christopher Bennett, by amplifying, embellishing, and inventing incidents of interethnic violence. Moderate Serbian politicians and honest journalists who refrained from joining the frenzy were expelled from public life.
No. 3: Calling opposition and criticism “violence,” in order to legitimize future actual violence. In October 1991, after Slovenia had won its independence in the Ten-Day War and Croatia’s declaration of independence had initiated a Serb-Croat war that would last until 1995, multiethnic Bosnia faced the decision of whether to declare independence from Serb-dominated rump Yugoslavia. Enter the charismatic Karadžić, who delivered a petrifying speech to Bosnia’s legislature taunting Muslims with “extinction” should they declare independence, continuing with a sneer, “If there is a war, the Muslim people will not be able to defend themselves.” (The line recalls President Biden repeatedly saying that the U.S. government can employ F-15s against American gun-rights supporters.) In that same speech, Karadžić pointed to the gallery and yelled that independence for Bosnia would be “violence on the Serbian people, constitutional violence” and that “constitutional violence breeds all other kinds of violence.” Calling words and beliefs “violence,” suggesting they breed and justify further violence, is a hallmark of wokeness. Karadžić was convicted of genocide in 2016.
In March 1992, Bosnia’s Muslims, joined by the province’s Croat minority, voted for Bosnian independence, rejecting Karadžić’s threats and making themselves the largest ethnicity in a new country. A month later, Yugoslavia’s politically corrupted army teamed up with extremist Serbian paramilitary gangs led by psychopathic career criminals like Željko “Arkan” Ražnatović in a coordinated campaign of ethnic cleansing, mass murder, and mass rape against the largely unarmed Bosnian Muslim population. It peaked in July 1995 with General Mladić’s Srebrenica genocide, which Mladić openly called “revenge on the Turks in this region,” i.e., payback for Ottoman rule.
An ideologically pure decolonization of the Ottoman imperial presence, perhaps? The core belief of “wokeness” or “anti-racism” is that concessions are owed by the “privileged,” especially those affiliated with groups that centuries earlier engaged in conquest and enslavement. In fact, Hoare, the historian, has documented many influential “anti-imperialist” leftists who duly defended Milošević’s ethnonationalist regime in the 1990s.
Other contemporary woke believers would almost certainly oppose Serb violence against Muslims, though, and Hoare himself was raked over the Twitter coals for suggesting similarities between the destruction of statues in summer 2020 with the destruction of Ottoman monuments and mosques in 1990s Bosnia. (Hoare, impressively, never backed down.) The motivation in these cases is not concern over human rights or the golden rule, of course, but an instinct that Muslims are “good” while groups like Serbs, Christians, whites, and—as large-scale celebrations following the Hamas massacre on Oct. 7 made clear—Jews are “bad.”
Although wokeness is sometimes called “critical race theory,” the use of an academic, clinical term like that to describe this latter, instinctive version of wokeness is to miss the point entirely. The reality of “wokeness” is the promotion of tribal hatreds. It is tribal hatred even when—as in the case of many urbane white Westerners—it involves hating one’s own ostensible tribe, a circumstance that similarly applies to Bosnian Muslims, whose European heritage complicates whether they qualify as good Muslims or as bad white people. As bizarre as it might seem, it is in fact fairly common to see social media posts where Bosnian Muslim genocide refugees get harangued for their white privilege, sometimes by woke Bosnian Muslims, just like Jewish genocide survivors and their children are regularly denounced in the U.S. for their own “privilege.” Apparently the rule of instinctive wokeness is that vilifying Bosnian Muslims regarding 600-year-old events in the Balkans is evil, but vilifying them for their “responsibility” for 400-year-old events in America is righteous, providing that they fled to Utica or St. Louis to avoid mass slaughter.
Bosnia, then, serves as an important window as to whether wokeness is fundamentally an ideological or tribal phenomenon. More importantly, it shows wokeness’s endgame. America’s establishment once reviled the ethos that killed 140,000 and displaced 4 million in the Yugoslav wars and Joe Biden bragged about calling Milošević a “damn war criminal” to his face. Now, terms like “anti-racism” and “social justice” are covering for a worldview whose routine incitements to tribal hatred and social fracturing based on fanning the embers of historical grievances directly echo the ideological formations of the most bigoted and notorious villains of the late 20th century.
Not satisfied with Balkanizing the United States, the American political and media establishment is injecting the Milošević model into the rest of the world as well. The U.S. State Department is pushing aggressive “equity”-based policies on the world at large and, as the Croatian Canadian who goes by the pseudonym Niccolo Soldo has pointed out, is also training activists in Europe in the arts of wokeness and anti-racism. As politicians in New York and Chicago are discovering, the present-day, large-scale migration into the United States and Europe is quite stressful for polities to manage. Matters become far more grave when you realize that elements of the United States government are using their country’s cultural and political hegemony to convince masses of incoming migrants to think of local Americans and Europeans the same way rampaging Serbian Chetnik death squads thought of the Muslims they spent large chunks of the 1990s brutalizing and killing.
Bosnia became a cauldron of tribal hatred in the 1990s because of its combination of real-world ethnic diversity and age-old animosities and historical wounds that were deliberately inflamed by politicians and media figures. The entire Western world may soon discover what it means to live in such a society.
As a staunch defender of the West and its values, Murray is compelled to support Israel because, as he said, it’s on the front line of the civilized world, defending the West. “Israel has recognizable ethics and culture,” he said. “It’s different, as all countries are, but it’s part of us.” What baffles him – and many others – is the fact that Westerners in America and Britain are supporting every country in the Middle East except for Israel.
“Israel is the one country in which Americans could live in the Middle East,” he said. “I’ve spent enough time in other countries to know this difference. A lot of people don’t. Israel is a core part of the West. When people ask me, ‘Why do you support Israel?’ I say, ‘Why would you support every other country but Israel?’”
If Israel is a front line of the West, then why is Western media so anti-Israel? Murray believes that, in part, “it’s a numbers game,” he said. “There are 1.6 billion Muslims and under 20 million Jews, so advertising revenues play a part. There is also the fact that Israel has this disadvantage of being a relatively comfortable war zone to report from, so it’s a deep paradox. It’s not like reporting from Syria or Yemen; there are very few brave journalists who have made it into these war zones. There is also this ridiculous thing where, ‘If it’s Jews, it’s news.’”
Murray has seen the large-scale demonstrations against Israel and Jews, with tens of thousands marching in the street in his native England, as well as hostage posters ripped down and extremists spewing antisemitic, anti-West rhetoric. In February, protesters projected their genocidal slogan, “From the river to the sea” on Big Ben, and the U.K. reported that 2023 was the worst year for antisemitism since 1984, when it initially started recording the data.
Even though it seems bleak in Britain, with many Jews there wondering if they should leave, Murray is optimistic that his country can be saved from antisemitism and progressivism because the majority of people don’t buy into it. “I’ve done everything I can and will continue to do so,” he said. “Most people do not go along with those extremists. I have great trust in the British people, whom I believe have been pushed down more and more, but have not disappeared.”
Murray also empathizes with British Jews, who have felt unsafe living there, especially post-Oct. 7. “I believe my Jewish friends when they say they can’t come into London on a Saturday [because of the protests],” he said. “We should listen to Jews when they say, ‘I am not safe.’ It’s a remarkable thing how few people seem to have sympathy for that. If any other minority said that, I think we’d speak up and say something, and I don’t think we’d doubt their testimony.”
While much of the world is gaslighting the Jewish people, Murray is validating them. Since Oct. 7, he’s been invited to speak at Jewish events and dealing with cancelations and mobs for supporting Israel. He was set to speak at a fundraiser at the Apollo Theatre in London for IDF-drafted students, but the event was canceled by the venue and relocated to a synagogue. Afterwards, he posted on X, “Wonderful event to a capacity audience in London. Shame on the Apollo Theatre for bowing to the mob. But London’s Jews will not be intimidated and neither will I.”
Protesters recently tried to disrupt a speaking event Murray held in Sydney, Australia, chanting, “Douglas Murray, you can’t hide, you’re supporting genocide.” When Murray went on Sky News to comment on what happened, he said, “First of all, I don’t feel like I’m hiding … I think that’s kind of a waste of a day, not least because I could not hear them … It’s really pathetic.”
Murray’s courage to stand up against the mob, to call out their lies, is a breath of fresh air that empowers the Jewish people and makes them feel like they have a friend in this fight. The fact that he is being embraced by Jews is “wonderful and deeply touching,” he said. “It saddens me that Jews feel alone and without allies. I think that’s a terrible thing. I spoke to one person in Tel Aviv who said they were there for the #MeToo and BLM movement, but none of those people were there for them since Oct. 7. Maybe it’ll never be reciprocated. That isolation is terrible, for the Jewish people and so many who care about Israel and see there is this lack of empathy.”
However, by using his voice, Murray knows he is strengthening the Jewish people. And he is proud of it. He said, “If I can, in any way, give people comfort or solace, that pleases me more than anything.”
