Centralslav Culture

A new perspective is needed if Centralslavia is to exist. Such an alliance will be short lived if the only purpose is diplomatic or economic. A change in orientation and perspective is needed.

To simply imitate American popular culture (or German, or whatever) is not going to help. The matter must be one of values. What do other regions value? What do you value?

This does not mean that one should express disdain for all that is Western or Eastern. It means that the actual values of the societies viewed are not the same as the ideals they talk about. This is not often intentional. Most Americans say they value education. When asked if they would walk five miles to school with their child so the child could go to a good school and not a poor one, they would not. The actual values of Centralslavia would hopefully be closer to what the West was like before the post WWI nihilism.

Life is suffering, that does not deride the beauty and hope of life. Life is hard, do not denigrate those who labor. The way of life and the assumptions about responsibility and respect for others needs to be where Centralslavia becomes a beacon of civilization. The West has grown weary of being civilized and is too lazy to stand up for it or even be it. Russia is tired and its leaders will not find the path to a common state of civilization easy. The nihilism of Moscow and St. Petersburg are making things hard to adjust.

Centralslavia has the benefit of historically being more organized than Russia but the suffering under Communism ironically preserved a more sensible outlook that was wiped out in the West by essentially Marxists of a more radical approach than either Stalinism or Maoism. Western Communists are not real Communists but madmen. Eastern Communism was tempered by the realities of life.

Concepts that the West lost are the ability of Centralslavia to exploit. Craftsmanship is to make creating a thing of grace, elegance, and efficiency. To make labor not a drudgery but a joy. Family is not a random biological pairing but a thing to be looked after. The husband and father must look after and listen to his wife and the same to his children. Men are men, Women are women, and children need not ape a hyper-sexualized culture. Life is to be treasured at all ages. The cult of youth is not a good one. The elderly have a different perspective and their wisdom must be cherished.

Religion now in parts of Centralslavia is ignored. People do not go to church nor do they think about moral issues. That must change. If it were to change, Centralslavia would have a major advantage over Western knee-jerk reactions. The Western lack of detail in approaching things is the key weakness of the West, it can be more easily avoided by Centralslavia. The concept of a classical education, detail, study, and debate needs to be brought back. These will bring good governance and that brings most good things.

The important thing is not what you do when you think, it is what you do when youdon't think.

The Pope in WWII

The Catholic Church in WWII

The situation in WWII is far more complicated than even the word muddled gives it. The Pope does not seem to have been anti-Semitic but elements within the church hierarchy were. The nature of the church hierarchy is the element that adds the most to complexity. The Catholic Church is organized along national lines for administrative purposes. These divisions had great latitude on practical matters and could act for the most part autonomously.


Right-Ustashi posing with a Serb head. (Taken from Byzantinesacredart.com)


That autonomy gave the national branches of the common organization a different character than that in the Vatican. The preferences of the Pope often clashed with those of some advisors, the advisors with those of the local clergy, the local clergy with the local authorities and so on. One of the main concerns of the Pope and many other Catholic thinkers was the tendency of local authorities (governments) to attempt to subsume religion into their political apparatuses and the local clergy that sometimes viewed the totalitarian ideologies as an extension of their Catholic
faith.

The Italian Fascist state under Mussolini tried to co-opt church participation in his state by including clergy input on some small matters and praising the specific legacy the Catholic Church had on Italy. There is famous footage of nuns marching in a fascist parade. Such images are evocative and were intended to be. The Fascist state was attempting to give people the impression that the legitimacy of the Catholic Church was being extended to include the state.

The legacy of popular Catholic intolerance for religious minorities included anti-Semitism. Such sentiments tended to be more imbued in the national church structure than in the Vatican. The effort to unify all members of the Austrian Empire by using the Catholic Church as the tool also drew upon inspiring intolerance of non-Catholics.

The legacy of this was a degree of Clerical Fascism among all the states in the former Austrian Empire. The worst impacted were the Hungarians and Croats. The groups made the most uncomfortable by this were the Jews, Serbs, and Romanians. The Jews were Jewish (evidently) while the Serbs and Romanians were Orthodox. By the time that the Austrian Empire was broken up by the Allies, popular Catholic sentiment had accepted a considerable amount of hatred.

This hatred was easily transferred into fascist ideas with a slight clerical twist. In Austria, the country’s leadership did not give full reign to the urges. The government of Horthy in Hungary was less in control but also was not favorable to Fascism in any variant. In Jugoslavia, the urges did not find a political outlet other than theorizing.

The strategic situation in the build-up to WWII changed the landscape dramatically. The decision of the Hungarian and Romanian governments to ally with Germany meant that they had to accept German pressure to legalize their own Fascist parties. The Hungarian fascists were brutal but were sometimes kept in check by the Horthy government. Only when the Hungarian state did not have control of an area could the Hungarian fascists carry out atrocities.

The Romanian government was similarly unenthused about Fascism. It took a degree of pressure from Germany to legalize the Iron Legion. They were kept under control but the government caved into pressure to deport Jews to Germany. The acquiescence to German plans for genocide says little regarding the dispositions of the local population. The leadership of Gen. Antonescu was protective of Romanian Jews due to a close friendship between Antonescu and his Jewish college friend Dr. Filderman.

Croatia after the German defeat of Jugoslavia was radically different. Unlike any other country’s participation in the Holocaust, Croatia had wide public support for genocide and this was in part due to explicit support from the Croatian Catholic Church. The moral sanction of the national Catholic Church allowed far ranging support for the crimes of the Ustashi.



Left-1940s — Fascist Croatia committed a genocide against Serbs, Jews and Gypsies: Entrance into Jasenovac death camp number 3, with the sign presenting it as a “Labor Service of the Ustasha Defense - Concentration Camp No. III” The coat of arms above is inscribed: “Everything For the Fuhrer, Ustasha Defense.”(Taken from Byzantinesacredart.com)




The actions of the Ustashi were unlikely to be favored by the Vatican. The Pope had tried quietly to slow down the Fascist search for people in Italy and there were a number of people hidden in the Vatican. What is most probable is that the Croatian church establishment did not inform the Vatican about its actions in the Balkans. While the Croatian church was overt in the Balkans, the general disinterest in the Balkans made it possible to keep the actions of the Croat church quiet.




Dr. Johnatan Levy: “...the real impetus behind the Second World War slaughter of Jews, Serbs, and Roma by the [Croat] Ustasha was clerical fascism.” Before joining the Ustasha, Croats had to swear an oath on knife, hand-grenade, pistol and Roman Catholic Crucifix. (Taken from Byzantinesacredart.com)




During that time, the Ustashi was deeply intertwined with the Croat church and one had to swear an oath to the Catholic Church in order to join the Ustashi. The closest parallel is the Mafia. While the activities of the Mafia utilized the Catholic saints for ceremonies, the Catholic Church kept silent about their activities in Sicily and in America. That did not mean that the Vatican knew that the mafia existed until it leaked out to the general public.

The actions of the Croatian Catholic church are some of the most horrific in WWII however they were probably smart enough to keep their actions quiet from the Pope. The Pope’s other actions particularly diplomatically and in Italy reveal a man trying to keep a clean conscience while slowing down the German actions to the Holocaust, not a man trying to commit it.

Kafka's Tolerance

I am puzzled by those who do not find the rise of tolerance as an overriding value troubling. Tolerance seems to me as an extremely brutalizing factor when taken as an independent good.

Let us take the example of the Former Jugoslavia. Serbs and Jews were exterminated together by the Nazi-backed Croats. The Croats in WWII were more open and vicious in their genocidal actions than Nazi Germany. The Bosnian Muslims were also allied with Nazi Germany and part of the WWII Croatian state. Serbs in the 90’s did not want to be part of any state run by people who tried to revive the Croatian Ustashi past (Franco Tudjman) or who had worked on behalf of the Nazi war effort (Alija Izetbegovitch was a recruiter for the Muslim SS divisions).

The Serb unwillingness to tolerate living in a state run by Nazi sympathizers made them intolerant of the national groups that Tudjman (Croats) and Izetbegovitch (Muslims) claimed to represent. That was therefore intolerant of the Serbs. Such intolerance is a sin against Tolerance and therefore the Serbs needed to be exterminated again. No better tools existed than those who had done the job back in WWII. Sadly for the Tolerant, some Croats sided with the Serbs in their intolerant desire not see Jugoslavia broken up, some Muslims did not want to live in an Islamic state and followed Fikret Abdic when he decided to set up a separate state in Bihac allied to the Serbs, and those famous intolerant Serbs got along well with people who did not shoot their civilians or side with those who did.

Tolerance demands that Jugoslavia be broken up because self-determination demands the right to form a country for a group that demands it while those who do not want to live in the new state be bombed into submission. Those who protest at the inconsistencies and who worry at the character of the new state are also cursed by Tolerance.

In a less bitter vein, let us consider the impact of prizing tolerance. Tolerance understood as being able to live together without coming to blows is necessary for any human endeavor such as simply living. Tolerance understood as accepting and respecting (beyond simply being human) the culture and values of others is more totalitarian. I am willing to understand the origins of forced marriage of children, I am not willing to tolerate it and if given power, will not sanction it and will seek to eradicate it. That means that those who make forced marriage of children a priority and I cannot exist peacefully unless there is a greater force that restrains both of us.

The assumption that Tolerance trumps all means that any conflict will be seen as a lack of tolerance on one side and therefore, any means are acceptable to eliminate the threat to global tolerance. Bigotry is the only possible cause for conflict and thus those who give in to it must be worthless human beings. This permits any tactic including accepting the existence of concentration camps and the strafing of civilians.

Any accusation of intolerance is thus a death sentence for the accused and they do not have a presumption of innocence. There is the modern social principle that the greater the accusation, the lower the burden of proof. This makes defeat an unbearable cost for any human government that does not want to see its civilians massacred. It also makes the conduct of a war difficult as well.

The gravity of the accusations assures their use if politically feasible by parties not constrained by moral instincts. Propaganda and false accusations are elements of any war. Tolerance makes them more potent weapons than ever before. Previously, war was considered a practical matter that could be conducted rationally. Emotional tools were employed but the decision to conduct a war and the reasons were accepted as part of the political process of states. Now, war for concepts like preserving the state, accomplishing national goals, and providing security for the main nation and its citizens is considered despicable and those who undertake this fundamental element of state action are considered criminals.

Tolerance has transformed a rational process into a crime and punishes the loser. This makes losing an unacceptable price and ensures that conflicts will be protracted while sentiments rise against the ignominies of one’s leaders being treated as criminals for preserving the state or its people.

Tolerance is also an unlimited ideal. Is the desire to live with those who are similar or a distrust of other groups intolerant? People may band together out of common ideals, priorities, or outlooks. Jews living in New York lived together and could enjoy easier access to religious services, cultural centers, acceptable butchers, and generally enjoy the benefits of specialization and not need to worry about misunderstandings with non-Jews.

This may cause problems in some cases and not in others. Is the desire intolerant?

Christians in Lebanon are unlikely to trust Muslims. Given the brutal civil war, is that irrational? They are in contact with Muslims on a daily basis but still do not trust them to look out for their interests or even survival. That is perfectly rational when one looks into the specifics of Islamic ideology and the actions in Lebanon over time. Where the Muslims move in, the Christians move out.

Is that intolerant?

By Tolerance the idol, the answers are yes. The conclusion then is that those who exhibit such concerns must be suppressed by any means possible. Instead of rational and sometimes emotional disagreements, you have a much more bitter conflict sanctified by the self-righteousness of those who may proclaim one tolerant or not.

Strategic Thoughts on Centralslavia

If a united Centralsalv alliance is achieved, Turkish expansion would likely grind to a halt due to a lack of weak targets to pick off. The increasingly Islamic nature of the Turkish government makes this a very real concern. The ideological imperative for Western elites to back the Bosnian Muslims and the Albanians would have to be weighed against a much more heavy concentration of powerful opposition from a major power block.

The discrediting of absolute state power justified by “technocratic skills” that now dominates Western European governments gives Centralslav governments a better restraint. That restraint gives a more realistic assessment as to where their strengths and priorities lie. Unlike the British government, deciding what people’s diversity schooling is less important than deciding the national security strategy. Generally, greater experience and less trusted governments give Centralslav nations an advantage as they are likely to be more realistic.

Russia is a force as is Western Europe. Both are led by nihilist elites. The West fails as its elites grow more autocratic as the day passes while the lack of direction and feedback stymies Russia. Neither is a good force. Independently, each country in Centralslavia would be vulnerable to either and be led by them culturally as well as in other aspects. Given the dead ideologies of the two major blocks, this is a danger to the survival of the various nations.

As there are far fewer Muslims in Centralslavia and the various nations possess greater historical sense and common sense, the onslaught of Jihad is likely to be more effectively combated by Centralslav nations than by Western ones. Russia sadly lacks the larger social framework to support a modern society and would not be as effective for that save its position.

By forming a major barrier between the West and Russia, a degree of neutrality would be needed given the inherent fear of siding with one or the other.