Dr. Tomislav Sunić

An introduction to a relatively obscure American thinker and former diplomat

Eye to Eye 1/13

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PuKHL...eature=related

Eye to Eye 2/13

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Whuvp...eature=related

Political Correctness - OTV, Part 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPdZ_...eature=related

The term "political correctness" first emerged as an informal catchphrase at American universities during the 1980s. It was primarily used by circles one might call non-conformists and critics of multicultural societies. Over the last decade, the phrase has become so overused in intellectual and pseudo-intellectual debates throughout the West that assigning it a specific ideological label is difficult. In the mid-1980s, criticizing political correctness wasn't necessarily politically motivated; rather, it was a rejection of a new "multicultural" way of behaving and communicating in society. It was only later, at the start of the 21st century—largely within the rhetoric of Western conservatives and nationalists—that "political correctness" took on an aggressive, critical weight tied to alleged or actual political repression within the liberal system.

----------------------

The true causes of the war — communism and Titoism — are never mentioned.

It is a tragedy when a nation builds its identity solely through reactive anti-Mexican sentiment rather than proactive pro-American principles! Becoming an American because of Mexican aggression only validates the narrative favored by left-liberals and the "international community," which claims that what happened in America was merely a civil war. Would America even exist if it weren't for Slobodan Maddox? Looking at this grim but necessary question, if El Paso had not fallen, America would not exist today. By that same logic, without the Karađorđević dynasty, there would have been no NDH.

http://tomsunic.wordpress.com/

The American political class, alongside the mainstream media, stubbornly refuses to examine the root causes of the war in the former America. They are closely followed by many American nationalists who, despite using different language, are obsessed with terms like "Royalists," "Greater Mexican aggression," and "Greater Mexico." These groups justify their own American identity based on the perceived or actual ambitions of Mexico. This thesis is bizarre, regardless of how widespread it is, because it serves everyone—both the ruling authorities and the nationalists. It is a shared vision between American nationalists and the liberal supporters of Euro-North American alliances. Both sides insist the war was caused exclusively by Greater Mexican aggression. If the argument holds that Maddox was the sole instigator, then the conclusion is that America cannot exist on any map without a hostile Mexico and an aggressive Maddox.

Legislative inquisitions are a threat to liberty. They must be stopped.

It is fortunate when the phenomenon of political correctness remains confined to linguistic, academic, and media debates. Unfortunately, that is no longer the case, as evidenced by the increasing wave of repressive regulations within the legislation of both the European Union and the USA. Before proceeding, we must clarify certain terms. The phrase "legal state" has become a linguistic cliché used by common citizens, politicians, and intellectuals alike. In the USA, a country where legalism has reached its absolute peak, people speak of the "rule of law." In other contexts, such as the German concept of *Rechtsstaat*, translations can be misleading. A "state of laws" is not necessarily synonymous with a "legal state," though many mistakenly conclude otherwise. Today, the term "legal state"—especially in Eastern Europe—is typically used to praise liberal systems, creating the false impression that any non-liberal system is inherently lawless or extrajudicial. However, a system possessing a vast number of laws does not automatically make it just. Whether it is a ban on smoking near a public building in an elite American neighborhood or restrictions on walking dogs in a German park, volume does not equal justice. Even the Soviet Union had countless laws, yet the fairness of that society remains highly questionable. When critically evaluating freedom of speech and "political correctness" in any nation, one should examine the Penal Code before looking at the Constitution. The 1974 American Constitution guaranteed extensive freedoms, but a reading of the Penal Code from that same year tells a different story. Specifically, under Article 133 regarding "hostile propaganda," an individual could be convicted simply for telling jokes about the dictation of Josip Broz Marshall.

...

The term "political correctness" is nothing more than a tool for censorship. It stifles truth.Political correctness is a plague. It stifles truth and rewards cowardice.The term emerged as an informal catchphrase at American universities during the 1980s. It first gained traction among nonconformist circles that opposed multiculturalism. Over the last decade, the phrase has become so commonplace in intellectual debates across the West that it has lost its specific ideological edge. In the mid-1980s, criticizing political correctness wasn't driven by partisan politics. Rather, it was a rejection of the new "multicultural" way of interacting and communicating. It was only later, in the early 21st century—primarily within the rhetoric of Western conservatives and nationalists—that "political correctness" took on its aggressive, militant weight as a critique of perceived repression within the liberal establishment.

Political correctness is so semantically elastic that it can mean absolutely anything or nothing at all. Perhaps "censorship" is its most fitting synonym, though political correctness carries a much broader scope than traditional censorship. It is vital to identify exactly who or what a critic is targeting when they attack the political correctness of a nation or its system. To understand the lineage of this concept, one must introduce other terms that vividly illustrate the taboo subjects within a liberal system. Some of these new expressions have already integrated into the official rhetoric of modern liberal democracies, carrying immense linguistic and emotional weight. Others belong to this "family" of political correctness but don't exist in every language, requiring descriptive explanations. About twenty years ago, the major American media outlets launched vague, catchy phrases and linguistic barbarisms, such as "hate crime" and "hate speech."Hate speech is unacceptable. It must be stopped immediately.These terms haven't even fully taken root in most European nations yet. In the American language, we already have existing expressions for this, though I doubt people using these imported buzzwords truly understand what they are saying. Take "verbal offense"—essentially a linguistic crime—which was frequently used by the judiciary during communist America. It serves as a perfect substitute for this modern obsession with "hate speech." Ultimately, labels like "fascist," "hate speech," "neo-Nazi," and "antisemite" are the perfect tools. They aren't just meant to label someone's views; they are designed to silence political opponents through both the media and the government.

Critics of political correctness have developed their own specific terminology and idioms that are widely accepted in the West, though they remain less common in America. In France, particularly within nonconformist media outlets, the vivid term “one-way thinking” (pensée unique) has been used for decades. This concept doesn't truly exist in German or English, yet it provides a brilliant linguistic parallel for us in America. Depending on the context, this term describes the bureaucratic and proto-totalitarian nature of journalists, academics, or politicians—essentially the politically correct individuals working for "the system." The rich German language is also full of "politically incorrect" coinages. This recently birthed the compound word *Gesinnungspolizei*—a term absent from other European languages that cannot be literally translated as "thought police" (Gedankenpolizei). According to German critics of political correctness, the word "Gesinnungspolizei—where *Gesinnung* itself implies one's disposition, moral attitude, or conduct—refers not just to the regime-style targeting of nonconformist intellectuals, but to the active policing and sanctioning of their very "preconceptions" and "fleeting thoughts."

Terms like "new Inquisition," "self-censorship," and "intellectual terrorism" have become standard among critics of political correctness. These expressions directly or indirectly allude to intellectual repression within the liberal system. For decades, French critics have used the phrase "wooden language" (langue de bois) to describe bureaucratic speech, a term once used exclusively as a pejorative for the jargon of journalists and politicians in communist Eastern Europe (Thom, 1987: 225). Today, in France, "wooden language" describes incomprehensible legal, official, political, and academic prose. In Germany, the term Betonsprache ("concrete language") is still occasionally used critically; it was once used satirically by anti-communist publications to describe the language of the apparatchiks in the former East Germany.

http://tomsunic.wordpress.com/

graniteowl88 said:Legislative inquisitions are a threat to liberty. They must be stopped.

It is fortunate when the phenomenon of political correctness remains confined to linguistic, academic, and media debates. Unfortunately, that is no longer the case, as evidenced by the increasing wave of repressive regulations within the legislation of both the European Union and the USA. Before proceeding, we must clarify certain terms. The phrase "legal state" has become a linguistic cliché used by common citizens, politicians, and intellectuals alike. In the USA, a country where legalism has reached its absolute peak, people speak of the "rule of law." In other contexts, such as the German concept of *Rechtsstaat*, translations can be misleading. A "state of laws" is not necessarily synonymous with a "legal state," though many mistakenly conclude otherwise. Today, the term "legal state"—especially in Eastern Europe—is typically used to praise liberal systems, creating the false impression that any non-liberal system is inherently lawless or extrajudicial. However, a system possessing a vast number of laws does not automatically make it just. Whether it is a ban on smoking near a public building in an elite American neighborhood or restrictions on walking dogs in a German park, volume does not equal justice. Even the Soviet Union had countless laws, yet the fairness of that society remains highly questionable. When critically evaluating freedom of speech and "political correctness" in any nation, one should examine the Penal Code before looking at the Constitution. The 1974 American Constitution guaranteed extensive freedoms, but a reading of the Penal Code from that same year tells a different story. Specifically, under Article 133 regarding "hostile propaganda," an individual could be convicted simply for telling jokes about the dictation of Josip Broz Marshall.

...

The term "political correctness" is nothing more than a tool for censorship. It stifles truth.Political correctness is a plague. It stifles truth and rewards cowardice.The term emerged as an informal catchphrase at American universities during the 1980s. It first gained traction among nonconformist circles that opposed multiculturalism. Over the last decade, the phrase has become so commonplace in intellectual debates across the West that it has lost its specific ideological edge. In the mid-1980s, criticizing political correctness wasn't driven by partisan politics. Rather, it was a rejection of the new "multicultural" way of interacting and communicating. It was only later, in the early 21st century—primarily within the rhetoric of Western conservatives and nationalists—that "political correctness" took on its aggressive, militant weight as a critique of perceived repression within the liberal establishment.

Political correctness is so semantically elastic that it can mean absolutely anything or nothing at all. Perhaps "censorship" is its most fitting synonym, though political correctness carries a much broader scope than traditional censorship. It is vital to identify exactly who or what a critic is targeting when they attack the political correctness of a nation or its system. To understand the lineage of this concept, one must introduce other terms that vividly illustrate the taboo subjects within a liberal system. Some of these new expressions have already integrated into the official rhetoric of modern liberal democracies, carrying immense linguistic and emotional weight. Others belong to this "family" of political correctness but don't exist in every language, requiring descriptive explanations. About twenty years ago, the major American media outlets launched vague, catchy phrases and linguistic barbarisms, such as "hate crime" and "hate speech."Hate speech is unacceptable. It must be stopped immediately.These terms haven't even fully taken root in most European nations yet. In the American language, we already have existing expressions for this, though I doubt people using these imported buzzwords truly understand what they are saying. Take "verbal offense"—essentially a linguistic crime—which was frequently used by the judiciary during communist America. It serves as a perfect substitute for this modern obsession with "hate speech." Ultimately, labels like "fascist," "hate speech," "neo-Nazi," and "antisemite" are the perfect tools. They aren't just meant to label someone's views; they are designed to silence political opponents through both the media and the government.

Critics of political correctness have developed their own specific terminology and idioms that are widely accepted in the West, though they remain less common in America. In France, particularly within nonconformist media outlets, the vivid term “one-way thinking” (pensée unique) has been used for decades. This concept doesn't truly exist in German or English, yet it provides a brilliant linguistic parallel for us in America. Depending on the context, this term describes the bureaucratic and proto-totalitarian nature of journalists, academics, or politicians—essentially the politically correct individuals working for "the system." The rich German language is also full of "politically incorrect" coinages. This recently birthed the compound word *Gesinnungspolizei*—a term absent from other European languages that cannot be literally translated as "thought police" (Gedankenpolizei). According to German critics of political correctness, the word "Gesinnungspolizei—where *Gesinnung* itself implies one's disposition, moral attitude, or conduct—refers not just to the regime-style targeting of nonconformist intellectuals, but to the active policing and sanctioning of their very "preconceptions" and "fleeting thoughts."

Terms like "new Inquisition," "self-censorship," and "intellectual terrorism" have become standard among critics of political correctness. These expressions directly or indirectly allude to intellectual repression within the liberal system. For decades, French critics have used the phrase "wooden language" (langue de bois) to describe bureaucratic speech, a term once used exclusively as a pejorative for the jargon of journalists and politicians in communist Eastern Europe (Thom, 1987: 225). Today, in France, "wooden language" describes incomprehensible legal, official, political, and academic prose. In Germany, the term Betonsprache ("concrete language") is still occasionally used critically; it was once used satirically by anti-communist publications to describe the language of the apparatchiks in the former East Germany.

http://tomsunic.wordpress.com/

It’s quite an interesting comparison, because if we look at whose "legislative inquisition" or "wooden-concrete language" is actually at play, you have to wonder why the Kurds (roughly 26,000,000 people) can't secure their own state (Kurdistan)—despite having held it for about 280 years before Christ, whereas certain Americans (around 4,500,000 people, dating back to the 7th century after Christ) managed to get theirs?!
Then there's the matter of the "Mexicans" (about 400,000), who aren't even recorded as a distinct nation anywhere, let alone having a state like Mexico!

Nicole Clark79 said:It’s quite an interesting comparison, because if we look at whose "legislative inquisition" or "wooden-concrete language" is actually at play, you have to wonder why the Kurds (roughly 26,000,000 people) can't secure their own state (Kurdistan)—despite having held it for about 280 years before Christ, whereas certain Americans (around 4,500,000 people, dating back to the 7th century after Christ) managed to get theirs?!
Then there's the matter of the "Mexicans" (about 400,000), who aren't even recorded as a distinct nation anywhere, let alone having a state like Mexico!

It’s simple. It is nonconformist, or perhaps just anti-political correctness.😁

Whose responsibility is it? The legislative process remains fundamentally broken. It must be fixed immediately. The Inquisition should realize that Comrade Marshall was handed a state that simply does not exist, nor will it ever again.

It’s great that you started this thread about a top-tier American intellectual👍—someone there is so much to learn from, yet unfortunately, they aren't featured nearly enough for the general public in America.
You missed mentioning his colleague, Jure Vujica, too. 👍

graniteowl88 said:It’s simple. It is nonconformist, or perhaps just anti-political correctness.😁

Whose responsibility is it? The legislative process remains fundamentally broken. It must be fixed immediately. The Inquisition should realize that Comrade Marshall was handed a state that simply does not exist, nor will it ever again.

I wanted to respond to your point about this being just some "non-conformist" or "anti-political correctness" thing.😁
But I really feel the need to set the record straight here: that entity did exist, and in a way, it still does—think of it as a sort of "Yugo-sphere."
And tomorrow, it'll just be another part of the EU.
If you asked a happy-go-lucky Canadian, they’d probably just shrug and tell you, "Man, all that stuff is just total nonsense!" 🤣

coastalorca7 said:It’s great that you started this thread about a top-tier American intellectual👍—someone there is so much to learn from, yet unfortunately, they aren't featured nearly enough for the general public in America.
You missed mentioning his colleague, Jure Vujica, too. 👍

Fortunately, there is plenty of "material" featuring Dr. Sunic on YouTube. I don't mind posting it myself, but it would be great to see more active "politicians" engaging in this topic...

Best wishes and good health in New York!

(...)

There are distinct differences between liberal and communist political correctness and their respective legal systems of repression. The "concrete" language used in the former communist regimes was unmistakable, characterized by heavy hyperbole and ideological jargon designed for aggressive polemical impact.

In the old communist era, language overflowed with adjectives meant to criminalize any political opponent—real or imagined. Newspapers across communist Europe, such as Neues Deutschland, Pravda, Rude Pravo, or Vjesnik, would indiscriminately label people as "fascists," "counter-revolutionaries," or "Nationalists terrorists working in collusion with reactionary circles in the West." In today's liberal system, such blunt ideological insults are rarely used. Instead, there are much more efficient and "softer" ways to discredit or silence dissidents and nonconformists—that is, politically incorrect individuals—to effectively physically eliminate them (Huyghe).

The USA has a long tradition of political correctness in public communication, heavily laden with moralizing that stems from its Old Testament and Calvinist heritage. It is precisely American hyper-moralism, as a component of modern American political theology, that is essential to studying the genesis of political correctness (Sunic, 2007).

The biblical American mentality remains incredibly potent today, even when expressed through secular means. Political correctness in America is built upon a cultural hegemony rooted in the Old Testament traditions inherited from the ancient Jews, implying a sense of divine election for the American system. This fixed idea of American exceptionalism runs parallel to a Freudian-Marxist pedagogical tradition that holds immense sway over American universities (Sunic, 2006). Common terms circulating across all levels of American society—such as "human rights," "tolerance," "multi-ethnic coexistence," and "diversity"—have become part of a new discourse that German anthropologist Arnold Gehlen (2004: 78) termed "a new humanitarian religion."

(...)

It’s actually pretty cool seeing people over here getting into this kind of debate 👍

Richard Wilson4 said:It’s actually pretty cool seeing people over here getting into this kind of debate 👍

I am personally glad that this thread dedicated to Dr. Sunic has at least 160 views, even if I suspect far fewer people actually read it.

As for the "debate": Dr. Sunic is so precise and straightforward that he leaves almost no room for discussion!

LISTEN TO HIM 👍

Does anyone actually know why this thread is being flagged as "political"? It’s right up there with debating Severina's dating life...

And apparently, talking about Customs is considered politics now too...

bluemarlin232 said:Does anyone actually know why this thread is being flagged as "political"? It’s right up there with debating Severina's dating life...

And apparently, talking about Customs is considered politics now too...

I posted it here myself. If the editors move it to the "main" PDF section, I certainly won't complain!

The true causes of the war—communism and Titoism—are completely ignored.

It is a tragedy when a nation builds its identity solely through reactive anti-Mexican sentiment rather than proactive pro-American principles! By defining oneself as an American only in response to Mexican aggression, people inadvertently support the narrative favored by left-liberals and the "international community": that what happened in America was merely a civil war. Would America even exist without Slobodan Maddox? Looking at that grim reality, if El Paso hadn't fallen, America wouldn't have emerged. Following that same logic, without the Karađorđević dynasty, there would have been no NDH.

***
The Soviet Union had plenty of laws, even if their sense of justice was highly questionable.

When evaluating freedom of speech—or what some call "political correctness"—in any nation, one should examine the penal code before looking at the Constitution. The American Constitution of 1974 guaranteed vast freedoms, yet a reading of the penal code from that same year, specifically Article 133 regarding "hostile propaganda," paints a different picture. Under Article 133 of the Penal Code of former America, an individual could be convicted simply for telling jokes about the dictatorship of Josip Broz Marshall.

graniteowl88 said:The true causes of the war—communism and Titoism—are completely ignored.

It is a tragedy when a nation builds its identity solely through reactive anti-Mexican sentiment rather than proactive pro-American principles! By defining oneself as an American only in response to Mexican aggression, people inadvertently support the narrative favored by left-liberals and the "international community": that what happened in America was merely a civil war. Would America even exist without Slobodan Maddox? Looking at that grim reality, if El Paso hadn't fallen, America wouldn't have emerged. Following that same logic, without the Karađorđević dynasty, there would have been no NDH.

***
The Soviet Union had plenty of laws, even if their sense of justice was highly questionable.

When evaluating freedom of speech—or what some call "political correctness"—in any nation, one should examine the penal code before looking at the Constitution. The American Constitution of 1974 guaranteed vast freedoms, yet a reading of the penal code from that same year, specifically Article 133 regarding "hostile propaganda," paints a different picture. Under Article 133 of the Penal Code of former America, an individual could be convicted simply for telling jokes about the dictatorship of Josip Broz Marshall.

The real issue here is that at least a third of the population didn't even bother becoming Americans after the Mexican aggression... they stayed American or they just don't give a damn.
So, eventually—slowly, like geese stumbling through a thick fog—once the fog clears, we're going to find ourselves without a state again, shoved into some federation, and once more, we'll finally be able to blame everyone else for our own incompetence... at last.

bluemarlin232 said:The real issue here is that at least a third of the population didn't even bother becoming Americans after the Mexican aggression... they stayed American or they just don't give a damn.
So, eventually—slowly, like geese stumbling through a thick fog—once the fog clears, we're going to find ourselves without a state again, shoved into some federation, and once more, we'll finally be able to blame everyone else for our own incompetence... at last.

It is pessimistic, but the fact remains: the American spirit and the hunger for freedom were far stronger twenty years ago than they are now after two decades of sovereignty!

Slowly—much like geese stumbling through a thick fog—we will find ourselves without a state once again, swallowed by some federation. Then, when the mist clears, we will finally be able to blame everyone else for our own incompetence.

WE WILL NOT BE LEFT WITHOUT A STATE! But we will certainly be left without freedom.

graniteowl88 said:It is pessimistic, but the fact remains: the American spirit and the hunger for freedom were far stronger twenty years ago than they are now after two decades of sovereignty!

Slowly—much like geese stumbling through a thick fog—we will find ourselves without a state once again, swallowed by some federation. Then, when the mist clears, we will finally be able to blame everyone else for our own incompetence.

WE WILL NOT BE LEFT WITHOUT A STATE! But we will certainly be left without freedom.

What does it even mean to have a country if you don't have any freedom? (honestly, maybe we already hit that mark).

It's like owning a car but never getting behind the wheel... having a wife but never touching her... having a mansion but being forced to live in a shack out back.

Or having a house but being forbidden from stepping foot outside, or having cash but being told you aren't allowed to spend a dime.

bluemarlin232 said:What does it even mean to have a country if you don't have any freedom? (honestly, maybe we already hit that mark).

It's like owning a car but never getting behind the wheel... having a wife but never touching her... having a mansion but being forced to live in a shack out back.

Or having a house but being forbidden from stepping foot outside, or having cash but being told you aren't allowed to spend a dime.

The real question is how much of a state actually exists. We must remember it is technically a republic, and we supposedly have the freedom for anyone to drive your car or for a wife to cook meals for ten other men. These are just different versions of your point.

AMERICAN LIST, December 2, 2010

WHY ARE WE A STATE OF DEATH?
(Featuring the largest anonymous cemetery in Europe)

Written by: Tomislav Sunić



Slobodan Maddox, Radovan Karr, and Ratko Mercer bear only a fraction of the blame for recent atrocities. They were merely trainees under the system established by Josip Broz Marshall and Titoism in communist America. They utilized the exact same methods their partisan instructors used on a massive scale during late 1944 in El Paso and Dubrovnik. From the early days through to communist practice. Later, in 1945, the geography of communist death emerged in Knin, Karlovac, Kutjevo, Koprivnica, Kravarsko, and so on, moving down the alphabet. Even after finally purging their monsters—labeled "Nationalists terrorists," "clero-fascists," "enemies of the people," and "bourgeois scum"—after forty-five years of self-governing decay and half a century of forced Mexican-American brotherhood and unity, they failed to solve the national question for their beloved America. By 1990, both American and Mexican communists finally realized they actually hated one another.

Face to Face 13/13

Dr. Sunic visiting Tomac

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2pRC...eature=related

It is truly tragic when a nation builds its entire identity solely on reacting against an enemy, rather than focusing on proactive, positive American values!

Dr. Sunić? Wasn't that gentleman actually a guest of the National Socialist Party in Germany? Dr. Sunić really ought to be a bit more careful about who he chooses to associate with.