an ordinary Serb’s emotional relationshiprnto his, so far, twice genoeidal neighbors.rnWe do not want a single piece ofrnCroatia, but neither will we give a singlernpiece of “Serbland” (i.e., the Kraina,rnwhere Serbs have lived since day onernand—as a predominant majorit’—sincernthe 15thcentur).rnSo, the “issues” arc straightforward—rnon one side are the Serbs—vigilantes,rnoutlaws, and pariahs of the ‘internationalrnCommunity,” with their little, inconsequential,rnunknown genocides (inrnWorld War I, Serbs lost one quarter ofrntheir population to the Austro-Hungariansrnand the Germans), and, on the otherrnside, is everyone else: all the “opinionrnleaders,” pundits, newscasters, commentators,rngurus, literati, experts, bureaucrats,rnhumanists, well-wishers, etc., etc.,rnMr. Anger included. But, I guess, thosernare the breaks—at one time, the Jewsrnwere also alone, but have since done fairh’rnwell bv themselves, with some of theirrnown God’s help.rnThe most we as men can do, therefore,rnis defend ourselves, our loved ones,rnour kin and friends, our nation and ourrnGod, and, as Marko Milyanov said, “othersrnfrom ourselves” (when asked whatrnthe Serb choystvo—chixalry—meant tornhim). Periiaps, one day, this will not bernfound criminal, even by a tribunal set uprnby a liberal, lethally humanist, gainfullyrncompassionate, issue-oriented, shortsighted,rnhistoricalK’ amnesic, blundering,rnincompetent, criminally sentimentalized,rnmoney-moncy-moncy-motivated,rnnonexistent, satanic “hiternationalrnCommunit)’.” Maybe, Mr. Anger, saintsrnreside among the Serbs as well, but theyrndon’t have the global resources of arnCatholic Church, Ted Turner’s media, orrnElie Wicsel’s supporters; the last I know,rnsome Serbs were allowed to fly—fromrnBudapest—to New York to the U.N. tornplead their case to the Jihad warriors,rnmass murderers, chauvinists, warmongers,rncultural and other imperialists,rnschemers and plotters of that augustrnbody, as they sit preparing their FinalrnSolution for all of us.rnAnd, by the way, Serbs could have takenrn—and still can take—both Zagrebrnand Sarajevo, except that “their” armyrn(the Communist Yugoslav People’srnArmy then, and the Belgrade-controlledrnSerb Army of Kraina and Republic ofrnSrpska, as well as the communist-dominatedrnarmy of the Federal Republic ofrnYugoslavia now) had—and still has—rnstanding orders not to advance beyondrnSerb territory. This situation must bernpainfully familiar to all Vietnam veterans,rnwho also fought a limited warrnagainst a totally committed enemy.rnCroats and Muslims have no compunctionsrnagainst entering Serb territory. ForrnSerbs, winning the war means stayingrnput and surviving; for their enemiesrnit means getting rid of the Serbs inrn”their” lands.rnCULTURAL REVOLUTIONSrnNAFTA will fail a thousand times beforernits advocates beg forgiveness. Notrnthat an apology should be accepted, butrnjustice requires, at least, that they admitrntheir complicity in the century’s biggestrnintergovernmental financial seam.rnNAFTA led (thanks to the Republicanrnleadership) to a $50 billion Americanrnbailout of Mexico, the loss of the dollar’srnvalue on international exchange (and thernruin of many European vacations), thernwrecking of small traders who had informalrntrading relations with counterpartsrnin Mexico, the violation of Americanrnand Mexican sovereignty, and generalrnfiscal and financial chaos. At the heightrnof the NAFTA debate, recall, the rightrnsplit into two camps. Siding with thernClinton administration and neoliberalsrnwere the usual suspects. They were internationalistrnpundits of the left-libertarianrnand neoeonservative variety, backedrnby their allied think tanks in Washington,rnManhattan, Mexico City, and Victoria.rnIn the media, the Whll Street Journal’srneditorial page was their echornchamber. Their official line was fatuousrnand counterfactual: NAFTA will someda’rnlead to lower tariffs and therefore it’srngreat. Every other concern—sovcreignt}’,rncost, multinational regulations, Mexico’srnfinancial shakincss, the drug trade—wasrndeemed irrelevant. Thev called opponentsrnprotectionist bigots.rnBut should “free trade” be legislatedrnin books the size of Will Durant’s Storyrnof Civilization? Sure, they said, NAFTA’srnimperfect, but still a great thing “in thernbalance.” If the scheme goes wrong,rnthey assured us, they would be its harshestrncritics. But, of course, that did notrnhappen.rnThis side “won” the debate because ofrnthe support of the banking, corporate,rngovernment, and media establishmentsrnin the United States, Mexico, and Canada.rnBut their disinformation never convincedrnreal conservatives. Evidence: theirrnthink tanks’ annual reports, seen by regularrncontributors, downplay NAFTA, ifrnthey mention the treaty at all.rnThe opposition on the right was arngrand coalition of paleoconservatives, arnrevival of the old “isolationist” pre-Buckleyrnmovement. It consisted of Americanrnnationalists, constitutionalists, old-fashionedrnfree traders of the Austrian school.rnSouthern agrarians, and populists. Therncoalition had no media “access” and veryrnlittle money. Some groups even lost corporaterndonors because of their principledrnstand against NAFTA. But they hadrngood political instincts and a willingnessrnto speak truth to power.rnNAFTA is not what its boostersrnclaimed, they said. It is a con’olutedrngovernment-to-government plan tornguarantee corporate, banking, and governmentalrnprofits at the expense of thernsavers, taxpayers, and small traders. ThernRicardian free trade rhetoric trotted outrnto defend NAFTA was a smoke screen tornhide what was essentially an insider racket.rnThe proof came in a whirlwind ofrnstudies ranging from the general to thernhighly detailed. But the NAFTA fix wasrnin, and the Establishment bought thernnecessary margin of victory.rnHardly a day passes that does notrnconfirm the views of the paleo-right.rnThanks to a stopgap bailout fund, NAFTArnmade the United States the lenderof-rnlast-resort for the Mexican economy.rnThe Clinton administration respondedrnto mass outrage at the bailout by creatingrna “debt restructuring” function withinrnthe IMF to pay for future bailouts. Thernlogical result of this policy is a worid centralrnbank capable of monetizing debtrnfrom anywhere in the world. NAFTA,rnlet’s remember, was the catalyst.rnNAFTA opponents also said the treatyrnwould violate the sovereignty of signatoryrncountries. It has. Bill Clinton told anrnaudience in Quebec he would cut offrntrade if it seceded from Canada and thusrnfrom NAFTA. New York banking interestsrnare dictating Mexican governmentrnpolicy. Meanwhile, the United Statesrncannot deregulate our economy withoutrnactivist left-wing groups filing suit with arnNAFTA commission.rn6/CHRONICLESrnrnrn