Open Revolt is happy to present a recent interview conducted by Teša Tešanović of the Serbian Radical Party with Comrade Joaquin Flores Director of the Center for Syncretic Studies. Both these groups are held in the highest regards and have our complete support.
Interview by: Teša Tešanović
(Teša Tešanović is a journalist, philosopher, and an organizer of the Serbian Radical Party)
We are joined today by Joaquin Flores from the Belgrade based think-tank, the Center for Syncretic Studies. He is the director of the center, which while is clearly ideologically charged in some way, claims to be neither left, center, or right.
They are producing a combination of orthodox and heterodox material. Today we want to learn a little more about the Center itself and also how they are approaching some of the general economic and geostrategic questions of the day, and also about the Kosovo question in Serbia.
A condensed variation focused on the finer points below can be read in Serbian, >here<
Краћа верзија на српском језику >је овде<.
Tešanović: It’s possible people have seen some of the work by your colleagues and yourself, as we’ve been made aware of your Belgrade based think tank, the Center for Syncretic Studies. You’re dealing primarily in ideology and geopolitics, and in the periphery in economics, philosophy and geostrategy.
We won’t need to take the reader’s time talking about what the center is all about generally, because they can simply follow the link and read the mission statement. But something which struck us as different is your editorial approach. You seem to be targeting both experts and the general public, and you aren’t requiring submissions to have the standard citations and footnotes or endnotes typical in academic literature. This must be intentional, why?
Flores: Thanks I’m glad to we are able to speak, and yes – if we are lucky, people have seen some of our articles floating around some of the social networking platforms or have followed a link to our site.
While our backgrounds are academic, we’ve made a decision to present information in a way that is coherent and in depth, but not caught up in the process of bibliogenesis. Bibliogenesis produces evolutionary drift, but we are hoping to add some punctuation to that equilibrium.
It occurred to some of us some time ago that a lot of what was passing as academic literature suitable for peer review and journal publication was simply being extremely loyal to format and form, astounding the lay reader with overwhelming footnotes and citations, while saying things which did not reflect the source material. We think a decent search engine can resolve any questions a reader may have.
In many other cases, the source material itself was based on a citation of a citation, ultimately leading to an unsubstantiated primary source. These ‘tactics’ certainly ‘smarten up’ a submission for those who go for that, but again we’re trusting that we’ve targeted our audience the right way. We think our readers are apt enough to cross reference anything interesting or contestable on their own. Most of our readers are familiar with enough of the source material, where we might provide footnotes or endnotes they are merely suggestions for further reading.
Tešanović: Great, that helps clarify the editorial bend there. This interdisciplinary, we suppose ‘syncretic’ approach and ‘open’ method towards source material may strike some as somewhat unconventional even problematic, and others as very refreshing.
Certainly you’ve been trying to develop a methodology and this is going to affect your analysis of the pressing matters of the day. So to move forward today and tackling the real world situations, we want to address another subject. How does the Center for Syncretic Studies help us understand the world, for instance the explosive situation in Syria?
Specifically, in light of the crisis and foreign intervention in Syria, you have written that geopolitics and geostrategy are more important today than ever before, why is that so? And if you could tell us, how exactly would we know? Connected to this, how has the popular discourse lost sight of these areas of study?
Flores: Yes these are important areas to us that are underrepresented in a lot of western thought. Which ties in with the crisis in Syria – it is really the best example to illustrate the problem. That crisis really is an Atlanticist manufactured one. The academics and the liberal intelligentsia are generally behind it too. Media audiences in the west, as well as the ‘gatekeeper’ intellectuals who are politically motivated, end up understanding the events that take place in a country like Syria as being primarily an internal matter.
Western voters and community activists whose work shapes the public discourse, often are then going to view the events in the ‘Arab spring’ and also the ‘color revolutions’before them, as being actual popular uprisings based upon irreconcilable contradictions: the revolution hypothesis. This is a sort of vulgar Marxism, or Marxism light – a ‘class struggle’ without a real analysis of either class structures or of capitalism. Like some anarchists, they reduce the question of power itself to being a question of degrees of … for lack of a better word: evil.
But we know that this is not the case. We understand now that these ideas were promoted primarily by Gene Sharp in a US backed CIA project, who plagiarized Marx and modeled much of the organizational questions from Saul Alinsky’s ‘Rules for Radicals’. This is a practical and intellectual problem in the west.
Tešanović: So your positing some kind of conspiracy regarding these events? Or am I misunderstanding you?
Flores: Yes and no. In the objective, prosecutorial, legal sense of the term – yes it is absolutely a conspiracy. In the conspiralogical sense, not really. Its more like an emergent phenomenon, the product of the perfect storm.
We published the editorial work of one of our colleagues, on the question of Gene Sharp. In another piece we also looked at power itself, through the lens of the antiquity philosopher, Xenophon, student of Socrates. Setting aside some of the post-left thinkers among the post-structuralists or post-modernists – where there is a lot of good and promising material to be found – what primarily remains is post-modern anarchoid, neo-liberal, and vulgar Marxist ideas which really do violence do some of the better ideas and solutions found in liberalism, anarchism, and Marxism.
They are creating a lot of confusion around the question of power itself, then they apply this nirvana fallacy to Syria. In their contradictory paradigm, wielding power, having power, using power is in itself an abuse of power. This is a great and simple meme to spread if you want to destroy a society, but don’t want to have anything better in its place.
This places one forever in the camp of the repressed, oppressed, under-dog in psychological and political terms. Using this ‘victim’ mindset, all actions, however irresponsible, violent, or heinous, are justifiable within this matrix of revenge as justice. They cannot be positioned to actually make a revolution, for this would require something like a vanguard party with a leadership structure which can seize institutional power, overturn those institutions, reform them, whatever, but at any rate this would require the use of power itself.
Tešanović: So it’s a criminal conspiracy, the use of 1968 ‘new left’ hyperbole as a vehicle for neocolonialism and imperialism?
Flores: Yes, and it’s also an emergent phenomenon. While we are open to it, we are not inclined to believe that there was a long standing conspiracy to generate a reformist left-wing social movement within the 1st world countries, co-opting the 2nd International, that later could be flipped into a script which justifies the attacks on Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, and now Syria 30 and 40 years later.
It’s more like this: the ‘powers that be’ are sort of gliding along all sorts of social movements and then directing or redirecting them to suit their own interests. This has been written about by others, how capitalism can ‘recapture’ tendencies apparently opposed to it.
But liberalism is particularly dangerous, because of its universalism. It’s the new way that people can be self-righteous and can externalize or ‘other’ everything wrong within themselves or within their own society. It’s also an ideology which says that your own aspirations are shared across the world. I’m not here talking about food, water, etc., which are universal biological needs. I’m talking of course about specific liberal, democratic, and pluralist institutions.
In psychology this is connected to the ideas of both Hume’s Law and ‘false consensus fallacy’. The idea is that their own liberal ideas are not ideological but naturally arising, and that therefore their own dreams and aspirations are really their own, really ‘natural’ and really universal. They then project onto all the people of the world, this specific set of values which they wrongly think are the norm. Also here are nearly the whole layer of the published ‘left-wing’ academic intelligentsia. Most of the NED (National Endowment for Democracy) and Soros backed NGO’s working in the ‘Arab spring’ countries, as well as Color Revolution, and before that Otpor! in Yugoslavia, also promoted this ‘revolution’ hypothesis.
Tešanović: And as for Assad?
Flores: So concretely to them, Assad is a dictator. People in the west hear this not only from the center and center-right mainstream media, they also here it from the center-left and left. But a geostrategic and geopolitical analysis creates a different picture. It is first clear that events in Syria are of great interest to any number of either regional hegemonic or global hegemonic powers.
While Syria will define its future, its centralized political organization and market-mercantilist economic policies are standard norms for nations undergoing development; this is a developmental model.
‘Dictatorships’ in countries that experienced post-war development, whether they were ‘right wing juntas’ or ‘communist states’, or something in between, all used this developmental model regardless of their apparent ideological allegiances.
But only dictatorships witnessed any real growth, because the national state was also reflecting a nation, a national will, and the state had a monopoly of power and the societies were not pluralist. In practical terms, they did not hemorrhage surplus capital, and were able to reinvest into developing their own means of production and national welfare. They did not generally allow foreign investors in the model of neo-colonialism to come in and buy everything up.
After the destruction of the Soviet Union, we witnessed a general erosion of multi-polarity and a general erosion of international legal norms which deal in the area of sovereignty. It was indeed the single most significant geopolitical calamity since WWII.
The Atlanticist powers want to put Syria into tutelage and massive debt. So far, Syria doesn’t owe more than 14 or 15 million to the Washington controlled World Bank, has no balance of payment problems and as such hasn’t had to turn to the IMF for ‘help’.
The Atlanticist powers would like to see Syria’s obligation to the World Bank increase by 10,000% – they would like to see Syria owe 14 or 15 billion instead of 14 or 15 million.
Syria would rather borrow, lend, and trade with its friends and allies like Iran and Russia. They would like to see stability in Iraq and a final solution to the Zionist problem in the Levant. Syrian civilization has already affirmed its commitment to multipolarity and world peace.
Tešanović: The US and its allies have interesting things in store for Serbia. Between the EU, the World Bank, and the IMF, they have the lion’s share of the controlling influence in Serbian budget and economic policy. This much is widely understood but findings at your center tells another story, that there is something more at work. What is that and why is it important?
Flores: Yes, it’s clear that economic and internal budget policy is being mostly directed through those entities. But this is only the tip of the iceberg. What we have also noticed, as horrifying is it may seem, is that there is a concerted effort to change the entire culture and eliminate the Serbian identity, and more-over to redefine to its very core the moral and ethical compass which directs day to day decisions in business, romance, life, education, and family. By alienating them from their distinct cultural and historical reality, they are atomizing the Serbs.
We found that consumerism, self gratification, and personal debt and credit becomes the primary mode of life. It is clear now they are attempting to reduce the self-esteem of Serbians, promote various ‘neurosis’, and then create a culture of consumerism and austerity.
This process has been underway for some time now and has found much success but fortunately it has limitations and can reach a maximum point. In plain economic terms, consumer culture relies on an able consumer, and under the present conditions this requires debt. But the Atlanticist powers are having a difficult time selling debt, at least since the 2007 bursting of the housing market bubble in the US.
Now in Europe, their own quantitative easing has failed to produce an increase in GDP, even when the increase of printed Euros is included in the GDP figure.
The US has to manipulate its own figures in order to show a meager 2% increase in GDP ever since their own quantitative easing measures began in 2008 under Bush and carried forward under Obama.
Tešanović: So this goes back to 2007?
Flores: It goes back to the Clinton era deregulation of financial institutions in the early 90′s, which generated speculative bubbles in certain key industries.
These ripped open in 1997, first affecting the so-called Tiger Economies in Asia, where debt-to-GDP ratios rose from 100% to 167%.
More than US 40 billion was printed from thin air to ‘solve’ that problem. But post 1970′s capitalism can only use bigger bubbles to solve the problem of bubbles bursting. That led to the doctrine of ‘too big to fail’. The Tiger bubble was ‘solved’ with the ‘Dot Com’ bubble going back to 1999, and when this burst open they replaced it after 9-11 with two separate but related speculative bubbles, the Military on the one hand and ‘New Home’ construction and home value speculation on the other. After the staged attacks on 9-11, there was created the political will to make significant increases in military expenditure. This in turn allowed for foreign consumers of US debt like China and Japan to be more optimistic and buy more debt. This justified the printing of more dollars which were funneled into the housing market bubble.
When the housing market bubble predictably burst open, it was ‘solved’ with quantitative easing, QE1, QE2, where trillions of dollars were printed by the Federal Reserve from thin air.
These bailed out the banks but were also used to corner the perishable goods markets in various stock markets around the world. This was used to create a speculative bubble here, and the cost of grain significantly increased. This had been planned to create an increase of food costs, targeted at ‘Arab’ countries and was the single most important economic factor contributing to the food riots which western media called the ‘arab spring’. We covered this situation in greater detail in an article we published exploring the possibilities of mass social unrest and revolution in the US.
Tešanović: From what you’re saying then, the present wars and cultural and economic assaults on somewhat more traditional societies is a product of the US’s internal machinations?
Flores: I’ve probably focused too much on that dimension. Again, really the US had banked everything on the total destruction of the USSR which really did not ultimately happen. Between then fed chair Greenspan on the economic front, and Kissinger and Brzezinski on the strategic front, the US had placed most of its eggs in the basket of containing and then destroying the ‘center’ of the grand chess board.
Contained, yes they did for about 10 years. That success was really only possible because of the Soviet failure in their ‘Finlandization of Europe’ project, as Russian sociologist, geostrategist and theorist Alexander Dugin has explained. Destroyed, Balkanized, and made piecemeal? No, the ‘far west’, to borrow a useful idea from Guenon, failed here.
Depending how you look at it, its an endemic problem of capitalism, but much of what is currently at play seems actually to go back to the failure of the Atlanticist powers to entirely disassemble the USSR, because the CIS/Russian Federation was more resilient than the Atlanticists had calculated. Russia really began to rebound by 1998 or ’99 and the ascension of Putin in that year, and the sudden end to the military angle of the war on Yugoslavia after the intervention of the Russian military on Serbian soil.
Tešanović: And so with Serbia? Certainly if we can see that the ‘far west’, the Atlanticists, were not successful entirely in Russia, they were more successful in Serbia.
Flores: Yes, much more successful with Yugoslavia and Serbia. Contrary to much of the common knowledge though, the Atlanticist war against Yugoslavia – in particular Serbia – was only partially successful. Maybe as much as 75% or 85% successful, but not entirely so.
This was related to the re-emergence of Russia as a Eurasian player less than 10 years after their collapse. The Atlanticists also failed to win the battle of hearts and minds within Serbia. While certainly German and French banks dominate much of the Serbian financial institutions, about 70% of Serbians even today would oppose any government which officially supported the recognition of Kosovo as an independent state, for example.
Tešanović: Is Kosovo a key issue then?
Flores: It’s so important on so many levels. It has ramifications in many areas ranging from international law and sovereignty to sociology and social-psychology.
But this doesn’t mean that every effort must be mounted right now to bring it rightfully back to Serbia. In the long run, though, there is a good chance for this to happen. If Camp Bondsteel goes, Albanians won’t be able to manage the security apparatus, and by the laws of natural accretion Kosovo that we understand from the wave of Geostrategists like Reich and Mackinder, would more than likely return to Serbia as the region’s natural, though presently frustrated, hegemon. This relates to the weight of the Serbian economy vs. the weight of the Albanian economy. Who has the greater gravitational power? The artificially inflated $12.5 billion GDP of Albania? Or the artificially deflated $37.5 billion GDP of Serbia?
Tešanović: And what do you think we can learn from the Kosovo situation?
Flores: A lot. Still the Kosovo case is critical in understanding that the Atlanticists are in many ways ‘inventing’ capitalism problems, and artificially creating scarcity and the related austerity programs in response, because the real issue is about social control and the destruction of traditional structures and even spirituality itself.
It isn’t enough to have economic slaves, really that can be somewhat unstable. Slaves rise up. They need a population of people who have been defeated in every way, who have internalized this defeat to the extent that their souls are owned.
Tešanović: So the matter isn’t simply about Empire and Capitalism, and Kosovo helps us see this?
Flores: Yes. If the matters were simply the banal economic and geopolitical, pragmatically speaking then, since the Atlanticists give orders to Albania, Albania could be forced to give up their theft of Kosovo and Albania would still be in relatively the same relationships with European banks and the US military. Albanian Jihadis and secular nationalists alike would be up in arms, but would not likely dominate the mainstream Albanian discourse in the long run.
Albania has no alternative. They haven’t built up good relationships with Russia like Serbia has been developing. Serbia can drift towards the Eurasian bloc much more easily. Meanwhile Albanian rallies often feature US flag waving, which is really as strange as it is pathetic.
Strategically it would make sense for the Atlanticists to entice Serbia in their direction, and incentivize them away from the emerging Moscow-Tehran-Beijing axis.
In that scenario, Kosovo could be ceded back to Serbia as approved by the EU and NATO, and that 70% of Serbians would view the EU and EU integration in entirely different, more positive, terms. Any Serbian government would be able to usher Serbia into the EU the following day, and this is only exaggerating a little.
Also, the biggest threat in Serbia to foreign control is the Radical Party. Now, the Radical Party platform covers a lot of ground, but enough of their public support comes in part from their unwavering position on Kosovo. Imagine how easy it would be for the Atlanticist powers to undercut the Radical Party by ceding Kosovo back to Serbia. Still the Atlanticists wouldn’t like the Radical Party’s platform in general, but the Kosovo piece is somewhat large entity looming in the crevices of the Serbian mentality.
Tešanović: Speaking of Serbian politics and parties, who has the best platform?
Flores: Hahaha, well you might be happy to hear that in my opinion, that’s the Radical Party. Still, this is not for me to judge, but rather for Serbians in all of the West Balkans.
But back to the main idea: We can then understand that the present global struggle, in which Serbia is a microcosm, relates to traditional social structures and the role of spirituality for the human race. The Atlanticists are rather bent NOT on capitalism for profit sake – again the technologies already exist to move towards a post-scarcity or gift economy if world population growth can be stabilized – presently there are 75 million new people added to the world population each year. But capitalism is the emergent suitable vehicle towards the enslavement of the soul and the atomization of communities and ethnicities. Communities and ethnicities, and on the smaller scale the extended family, are the key points of resistance against Atlanticist homogenization, wrongly termed ‘multiculturalism’.
Tešanović: Their aims aren’t for multiculturalism and diversity?
Flores: That’s right. Really it is anti-culturalism. The Atlanticists are contradicting themselves when they brand their homogenizing project as being a celebration of diversity. Really it is aimed at the destruction of human diversity: ‘racial’ in the spiritual, Evolan sense, but also cultural, linguistic, dietary, moral, biological, , historical diversity.
The Kosovo question strikes at the heart of what it means to be Serbian and digs deep into the assault on human conscience, consciousness, spirituality, and our relationship to creation and meaning.
This is perhaps why, when so many practical or pragmatic indicators seem to make a good case for NATO ceding the Kosovo region back to Serbia where it belongs, they still cannot. Atlanticist Imperialism and global capitalism are certainly a factor, but in many cases serve as a rouse or a disguise which conceals aims which are, and I go out on a limb saying this, even more dark and indeed frightening.
Tešanović: Does this mean that Serbia is finished?
Flores: Surprisingly, Serbia is in a better position today than had originally been planned for it by the Atlanticists. Of course the Atlanticists are somewhat able to ‘surf’ this, and recapture Serbia to a large extent through finance and culture. Yet Serbia still exists.
The Serbia they had in mind would have seen Belgrade as the northernmost city, with Pristina exerting some influence all the way up to Cacak, with a weak Serbian corridor moving southward to the east of Cacak. They wanted the Hungarians to absorb Vojvodina, with Novi Sad as a capital of a nominally independent statelette until finally absorbed the Hungary. ‘Sandjak’ would also be it’s own micro-state, to be absorbed by Kosovo or Albania. The Sandjak project is particularly sinister because theoretically it exists in part of Montenegro and part of Serbia, thus cutting off Montenegran Serbs from the rest of Serbs in today’s Serbia.
While Serbia is still in grave danger, the promotion of the debt and and credit cycle based on usury, often called ‘capitalism’ or ‘financial imperialism’ by some, has its limitations on the ability to take on future debts.
The promotion of consumer culture reaches its realistic limit where the credit cycle does the same. But neither advertising firms nor the many companies they represent are able to tackle that problem.
This is why the cultural element, and the permanent establishment of and promotion of the ‘Serbian ideal’ in terms of culture and style of life are so critical. What it is that makes Serbia unique, and what really is the essence of Serbianess.
In cases where Serbians have already fully embraced consumerism as a goal unto itself, this creates enmity and social strife when those consumerist dreams cannot come into fruition. These in turn can express themselves in all sorts of deviance from norms. We can track a parallel rise of prostitution, gambling, drug addiction, youth violence, and social alienation. These are problems in Serbia, but not anywhere nearly as serious as in the western NATO bloc countries.
So while on the surface the Atlanticist cultural policy for Serbia may seem to be just secondary to the economic problem that can be overcome, it is in reality a frontal assault on the very things it means to be Serbian.
Key among these is deterring any growth in the Serbian birth rate. US military policy has seems to involve a long term population control policy, through the use of depleted uranium which causes decrease in fertility and increase in cancer and deformities.
Tešanović: Yes, this has been documented too, however astonishing. If reducing the Serbian population is one of the goals, isn’t this connected to the struggle to maintain pensions and access to health care? Should we not also look also at issues revolving around pedagogy, psychology, gender, and sexuality? In what ways are these areas being manipulated by the western powers to conform to their policy to control birth rate? What kinds of policies might Serbians fight to implement that can reverse the trends at hand?
Flores: Absolutely, and since the destruction of tradition and the extended family are key to destroying Serbia, we hope that those fighting against the Atlanticists understand that the struggle is not simply an economic or territorial one. They are importing all of the elements that destroy a civilization. In the far west, they’ve already tested this on their own populations with much success.
Tešanović: Indeed, and here in Serbia we are constantly assaulted by CNN, Fox Life, and consumer culture. All of these undermine Serbian sovereignty, surely, but which foreign ideas, institutions and structures are most effective in destroying a civilization?
Flores: In a word, Feminism. Feminism is divide and conquer, and pits women against men and later a backlash of men against women. It comes in various forms, and has a pro-consumerist pro-capitalist wing but also a ‘radical’ anti-establishment wing too that has a vulgarized critique of capitalism. So they have a method of applying that tactic regardless of the ‘season’.
Tešanović: There’s a left wing feminism and a right wing feminism?
Flores: Yes, and fighting it can feel like whack-a-mole. Some feminists fought for pornographic depictions of women to be acceptable in advertising, and capitalists supported this. Then other feminists turn around and blame these depictions on ‘the patriarchy’ and more traditionally minded anti-capitalists supported them here. But there are no feminists calling for a dismantling of female social advantage in the far west which feminism has brought all women.
Tešanović: Is feminism manipulating men?
Flores: Men and women. I also want to clarify – women’s rights is not the same as feminism. Women’s rights are very important and in the past there were a number of imbalances and injustices in that regard which needed to be rectified. Feminism, though, is a gender ideology which promotes some wrong idea of what is good for women at the expense of men, children, and society. Women are less happy today in the far west than they were 50 years ago. That’s not just my opinion. Women are actually unhappy on average when they take on male roles, similar to how men are unhappy when they are engendered to take on historically female roles, and some studies really back this up, this can be googled.
Tešanović: You say there is a distinction between women’s rights and feminism, can you elaborate on that a bit?
Flores: Indeed, there were some good elements in struggle for women’s rights, particularly in regards to inheritance and economic opportunity. This was a 19th century struggle in the west, and had a pretty good result. When one speaks of feminism today, we are talking about 2nd, 3rd or even 4th wave feminism which has gone well far and beyond the scope of the initial cultural struggle.
Today it dehumanizes both genders. It is gender warfare liberalism. It uses most of the sleights of hand and dirty tricks that liberalism uses. It takes divide on conquer to the ‘next level’, striking at the root of what Aristotle rightly called the primary social and political unit – the family.
Feminism manipulates biologically determined elements of psychology and in many ways is a vulgarization of chivalry. It ‘liberates’ women from their responsibilities and roles in society which existed under traditional norms, but only works if men maintain their identity as providers and as somewhat disposable. The old traditional family was based on compromises and trade offs, and feminism by working through both ‘wings’ creates a sense of entitlement among women without having the responsibilities that these entitlements used to require when men had them.
Tešanović: That seems rather complex! Many of us aren’t unfamiliar with critiques of feminism, but most seem to define the issue as feminism being a radical departure from tradition.
Flores: Feminism would be much easier to combat if it were simply a radical departure from tradition. It’s a complex matter because, probably for evolutionary reasons, men are programmed to sacrifice for women. Feminism is all about male sacrifice. In purely material terms, women are very valuable to the continuation of the species because it takes both men and women to reproduce the species but women are limited in the number of children they can have whereas men are not. A village with 99 women and 1 man can reproduce very well, but another village with 99 men and 1 woman isn’t going to survive.
So feminism exploits the tendency for men to place the needs of women ahead of their own. This is a traditional value which has worked well for humanity for thousands upon thousands of years, but feminism vilifies male sacrifice while simultaneously requiring it, and utilizes apex fallacy and double-think. Historically men did sacrifice for women, especially when technological factors made economic life somewhat hard and favored the rewards of hard, male, labor. Women had the responsibility of creating an environment where children could survive infancy and imbibe the values of that culture. Women were also so important in creating a colorful and warm village life that men could return home and to and take solace from the harsh realities of nature and the elements. Women had the power and responsibility of creating a society worth defending.
Tešanović: So you’re saying that feminism ignores the fact that women have always had power, and does so by defining power along male terms?
Flores: Women have always had a form of power and have always been the one with romantic choice, by in large. Female power is in her ability to inspire men to sacrifice for her, and she symbolized and realized the civilization itself. Hence towns, villages, boats and other important hubs of human civilization have always had a female identity. This power is hypoagency. It commands service. Women have always had some power to control elements of masculinity and the male in part by defining what a ‘real man’ is and isn’t. Women have historically been free to use various social tests to weed the desirable from the undesirable men, the strong from the weak, and reward the victor with both sexual gratification and the ability to have children and a multi-generational legacy.
Male power historically and today is hyperagency, being one’s own agent and doing one’s own work. To be clear again, both men and women are capable of using both hyperagency and hypoagency. So again, I’m generalizing for brevity’s sake.
Feminists use double-think to define power as being essentially male power, and focuses on male hyperagency while neglecting the role of female hypoagency.
When one does this, it makes power seem male, and makes it easy to define power along male terms. It is a matter of mere tautology.
Tešanović: And you think these ideas can be imported into a society in order to destroy it? It exploits innate aspects of the human being, I understand that. But you mentioned ‘apex fallacy’, what is that?
Flores: Sure, and I’ll end with that. Women are prone to apex fallacy for evolutionary reasons. In numerous studies – especially as they relate to crime scene witnesses and memory – women quite literally do not notice men who are below their fathers and brothers on the social hierarchy ladder. A middle class woman will not notice a working class laborer who is in her field of view. She will not remember seeing him, unless he had unusual physical characteristics either positive or negative.
This relates to how feminists view male power and create the patriarchy theory, while ignoring the fact that the majority of men are laborers, soldiers, and other gears in the vast social machine. Feminists have little desire to see women fill those ‘lowly’ positions, and if they do it is merely symbolic and do not really enact forms which would jeopardize a woman’s well being in the immediate sense. .
There is no ‘good’ way to be a man in a feminist culture and so in the far west there is a crisis for men and boys. People in the far west like Warren Farrell have written extensively on this subject. Probably as important spiritually and pragmatically for Serbia that Kosovo is, fighting off feminism ranks right up there.
I think that women had to organize a cultural campaign to demonstrate that they had earned their place at the table, particular in intellectual areas of work in technology and medicine. They’ve done this already. This is not what is meant today by the struggle against feminism. Women have demonstrated their intellectual and academic parity with men: in fact some studies indicate that the average woman is more intelligent than the average man, with men leading in the extremes in either direction. Profound stupidity and profound genius still tend to be male traits though.
Tešanović: So what is your prescription?
Flores: That’s a tough one, and we at the center haven’t tried to tackle it. We see a lot of others working in this area, and are in a better position to do so. Much of what I’ve said here about this subject is from the work of others.
But if I were pressed, the immediate and practical elements of the struggle are to oppose gynocentric reforms in marriage and family law in your country which incentivize divorce for women. In the US, over 70% of divorces are initiated by women, and they have the most to gain from it. If you are in a political party, form a caucus to fight to have this included in the party platform.
Obviously, that destroys the family, and is therefore connected to everything we’ve talked about today.
Tešanović: Is Serbia undergoing the same gender problems as in the far west?
Flores: The Atlanticists would like to see that. But the women in post-socialist states in the Balkans and Eastern Europe have a different mentality and disposition on average than their same gender counterparts in the far-west bastions living under the yolk of Atlanticism. While men and women both have frailties and weaknesses, women in this part of the world are still heads and shoulders above the far-western woman.
Women are biologically predisposed to not be risk takers and are more conformist. A non-conformist woman in general is in reality supported by many like-minded friends, especially male protectors or a community of women, who have the same non-conformist views. Of course there are some notable exceptions, but they are notable in their exceptionalism, and their rarity demonstrates the rule.
The truly ‘lone wolf’ phenomenon is almost a purely male one. Women in general tend to support the norm or new regime, whatever it is, whereas men can retain a loyalty to a forgotten idea or a defeated group.
Tešanović: So, you are saying conclusively that far western ‘Feminism’, but not the gains of women in the struggle for women’s rights, as consciously part of a foreign strategy to destroy Serbian identity?
Flores: Yes, I am not speaking in vague terms. These feminist initiatives are concretely funded and supported by known foreign NGO’s and non-profits, funded by Atlanticist interests and power groups. It is connected to an ongoing cultural occupation by the far west in Serbia.
It connects also back to social pressure and conformity. Thus a foreign occupying power is going to be more successful in getting the women on their side, and women are more prone to abandon the old order and the old values, particularly if the immediate well being of her existing or potential offspring are in question. The Romans used this tactic in Gaul, and the Atlanticists are trying to use this in the world. They would kill the obvious leader of the tribe in front of the women and children, and then encourage the women at home to talk sense into the men. Pillow talk goes a long way.
Feminism as a tactic of Imperial foreign policy is key. Feminist organizations in arab speaking countries are NGO’s and non-profits and are funded by the same US and CIA backed NED and related groups which also fund and back the Gene Sharp inspired ‘democratic’ fronts that we see and saw in the so-called ‘arab spring’.
Tešanović: So first stop feminist legislation?
Flores: Yes, and with that momentum move forward in removing far-western cultural influence in general. I would hope that in Eastern Europe and the Balkans, especially in Serbia, more can be done to ban American television programs in general, and especially those which universally portray males as clumsy idiots and absent fathers, and women as omnipotent and omniscient figures. They may seem like parody at first, but as we have seen they eventually become a model which is emulated in real life.
Tešanović: We’ve covered a lot of ground today, and I was glad we could talk. You’ve brought a lot of different issues forward that are all related, and I look forward to future collaboration.
Flores: Great, thanks, I was glad I could be here and promote these ideas. Ave.
For more information contact: The Center for Syncretic Studies