No surprise

 

Neutral picture

No real news here, tbh. Maybe somebody should show this to Greta Thunberg or Professor Dave. Or the Slovenian public broadcaster...

New report details systematic rape and sexual violence during Oct 7 Hamas terrorist attacks

Alpine demons (part 2)

 

Here´s the Slav connection, folks. 

Is there some connection between the Krampus traditions and Slav traditions, perhaps about the Devil?

Yes — there are clear historical and thematic connections between the Alpine Krampus traditions and various Slavic wintertime devil or demon traditions, especially in the areas where Germanic and Slavic cultures have overlapped for centuries (Austria, Slovenia, Croatia, northern Italy, Czech lands, Slovakia, and parts of Poland).

These connections are not identical origins, but rather mutual influence in a shared cultural zone where winter demon lore is very old.

Below is a structured explanation.

---

🐐 1. Geographical Overlap: Where the Traditions Meet

Krampus is strongest in:

• Austria (especially Tyrol, Salzburg, Styria)

• Bavaria

• South Tyrol

• Northern Italy (Trentino)

• Slovenia ← important overlap zone

• Northern Croatia

• Carinthia (Austria, with a Slovene minority)

In these areas, Alpine and Slavic folklore have interpenetrated for centuries. Many customs simply flow across linguistic boundaries.

Thus, Krampus shares motifs with Slavic winter demons, devils, chasing figures, and masked processions.

---

😈 2. Slavic Devil Figures Similar to Krampus

Across Slavic folklore, wintertime is full of demonic, horned, or beast-like figures who:

• appear during Advent or Christmas

• punish or frighten children

• accompany saintly figures

• carry chains or rods

• are hairy or beastly

• sometimes abduct the naughty

This makes them functionally analogous to Krampus.

Key examples:

---

🇸🇮 Slovenia: “Parkelj” / “Parkeljni”

This is almost the same figure as Krampus, and scholars view them as two names for variants of the same tradition.

• Horned, shaggy, demonic

• Accompany Saint Nicholas (Miklavž)

• Carry chains, bells, birch rods

• Frighten children

• Appear on 5 December

The word Parkelj is sometimes linked to:

• perk- (Slavic root for devil)

• or the German Perchten

This is the strongest Slavic connection.

---

🇭🇷 Croatia (especially Zagorje and northern Croatia)

Figures similar to Krampus are called:

• Krampus (loan from German)

• Krampuslauf traditions

• Djed Mraz’s devils (in some older areas)

• Krampusi (plural)

Catholics in northern Croatia adopted the Alpine Nicholas + demon pairing directly.

---

🇨🇿 🇸🇰 Czech and Slovak Traditions: Čert (Devil)

In Czech and Slovak folklore:

• Čert (“devil”) accompanies Saint Nicholas during Mikuláš festivities.

• He is blackened, horned, shaggy, with chains.

• He threatens to take naughty children in a sack.

• A benevolent angel accompanies Nicholas too.

This three-figure setup (Nicholas + Angel + Devil) is extremely close to the Krampus–Nicholas pair.

Čert is not identical to Krampus, but the functional role is almost the same.

---

🇵🇱 Poland

In southern Poland:

• Nicholas is accompanied by “diabły” (devils) in Christmas folk processions.

• They wear horned masks, furs, and chains.

• They test children’s behavior.

• They sometimes chase people.

In old Polish folklore, winter devils were part of the Dziady (ancestral) and Kolęda processions, which merged with Christian feast days.

---

🇺🇦 🇷🇺 🇧🇾 East Slavic Masquerades

While not directly linked to Krampus, East Slavic winter rituals include:

• horned goat demons

• devils who chase villagers

• “koza” (the goat spirit)

• masked beast figures

These belong to the same pre-Christian winter-cycle demonology.

---

🔥 3. Shared Indo-European Themes

Many Alpine and Slavic winter demons share:

• the goat symbolism (linked to fertility gods and liminal spirits)

• horns, furs, and wildness

• the winter solstice as a time when the dead or demons roam

• the threat of carrying away the naughty or impure

• ritualized inversion and chaos

These point to a broader Indo-European winter-spirit complex, not a simple borrowing in one direction.

The Christian framework (Saint Nicholas + demon) got mapped onto older winter rites across Europe.

---

📚 4. Did Slavic Devil Lore Influence Krampus?

Yes — in border regions.
Especially in Slovenia, Croatia, Carinthia, and South Tyrol, Krampus evolved in a cultural zone where:

• Slavic devils (čerti, parkeljni)

• Germanic Perchten

• Alpine Wild Men

• Christian Nicholas pageants

all interacted.

However:

• The core Krampus-Shint Nicholas pairing seems to have rooted mainly in German-speaking Alpine areas.

• It then spread into Slavic areas, where it merged with pre-existing devil folklore.

• But Slavic winter devils may have, in turn, reinforced and enriched the Krampus figure.

It’s a two-way osmosis, not a one-way borrowing.

---

🧩 5. So What Is the Relationship?

Short version:

The Krampus tradition is Alpine-Germanic in structure, but it blends seamlessly with Slavic devil traditions in regions where the cultures overlap. Slavic winter devils (čert, parkelj, diabły) play the same role and likely reinforced or shaped Krampus in border regions.

---

⭐ Summary

• Yes, Krampus has connections with Slavic folklore.

• In Slovenia, the Parkelj = practically Krampus.

• Across Czech, Slovak, Croatian, and Polish regions, winter devils accompany Nicholas just like Krampus does.

• These traditions come from pre-Christian winter spirits that Christianity “domesticated” by tying them to Saint Nicholas.

• Germanic and Slavic traditions blended in a shared Alpine cultural space for centuries.

---

NSK, come back, all is forgiven

 

Some kind of revival-retro-pagan stuff from Slovenia. 

Get me a light beer

 

An old classic. This is actually a speech by Martin Luther King translated into German, which makes it sound Nazi?!

Global communism: the answer to the corona crisis?

Slovenian gadfly Slavoj Zizek does his best to conjur that old ghost, Communism, from its tomb somewhere near Titograd. 

Coronavirus or the law of the jungle?

The Gadfly on climate kids

Somewhat surprisingly, based leftist Slavoj Zizek seems to support Greta Thunberg and the climate kids. From a feature at RT, of all places! Funny detail: Zizek assumes that Thunberg is only 10 years old!

The Debate of the Century: Basic Bitch Cold Warrior versus Full Loco Zizekist

This is the so-called “debate of the century” between supposed Alt Right icon Jordan Peterson and real gadfly Marxist Slavoj Zizek. 

I never seen Peterson in action before, but if this is representative, I honestly don´t understand what the fuzz is all about. Peterson comes across as a basic bitch non-conservative conservative from some of the more boring phases of the Cold War. His defense of free market capitalism and criticism of socialism is the usual one, and why on earth is he attacking Marxism anyway? Nobody cares about classical Marxism in 2019. And why does he start a debate with Zizek by a 30 minute attack on “The Communist Manifesto”? Zizek couldn´t care less, and neither could his fans. Also, Peterson sounds like (and sits like) a typical shrink, even psychoanalyzing Zizek at one point (LOL). 

Peterson isn´t Alt Right, he is simply a main-line Republican circa 1980 or 1990. I wouldn´t be surprised if the AR finds *Zizek* more interesting, I mean a “Marxist” who opposes immigration, has a soft spot for authoritarianism (despite claims to the contrary in this debate – unless you read the fine print) and doesn´t like post-modern political correctness. Even Peterson´s “conservatism” is really American individualism with some nods to family, community, Church and country – once again, nothing new or radical. (For the record, I know that Jordan Bernt Peterson is actually Canadian.)

In the debate, Zizek (who is quite the character – Peterson is right, there!) jumps wildly from topic to topic, indeed it seems as if he changes topic with *literally* every new sentence. Listening to him and his Slav-accented English was a mental exercise of major proportions. Still, he does make some interesting points. China disproves both the classical Marxists and the free market liberals who claim to believe in “democracy”, since its combination of state authoritarianism and markets is immensely successful, more so than any other form of capitalism today (or socialism, for that matter). The left´s obsession with identity politics and political correctness has nothing to do with Marxism or class struggle, but reflects the impotence of the left in actually changing the economic base of society, and is therefore a product of the left´s *defeat*. (Peterson rather believes that there is a direct line from Marxism to post-modern identity politics – this may be true of academic middle class Marxism, but hardly of the classical version.) The ecological crisis is real and difficult to solve, since the people doesn´t understand the issues and hence wouldn´t vote for radical eco-change if given the chance to democratically do so. Liberals who oppose Trump can´t explain why their own system can give rise to people like Trump in the first place. Opposition to Trump is therefore a "fetish". The contradictions of globalist capitalism is the real problem and can´t be solved by simply attacking "Trump".

Less convincingly, Zizek argues that Marx didn´t really believe in equality, that there will be hierarchies even in a classless communist society, that Hegel wasn´t teleological and hence can be used as an antidote to deterministic Marxism, etc. I won´t comment his bizarre theological meanderings. Funny detail: at one point, Peterson calls Zizek a “Zizekist rather than a Marxist”.

And yes, somewhere in there Jordan and Slavoj actually talk about “happiness”, the ostensible topic of the debate…

There is no Slovenia

Slavoj Zizek is a well-known left-wing intellectual and philosopher from the small Balkan nation of Slovenia. Zizek shocked the left during the recent European migrant crisis by taking positions which at least strongly implied an anti-immigration position. Some activists even protested Zizek when he spoke at a left forum in New York City two years ago. This is Zizek's book-length exposition on the crisis, “Against the Double Blackmail: Refugees, Terror and Other Troubles with the Neighbours”. Much of it is standard leftist fare, including calls for “class struggle” and “Communism”, and the author never explicitly opposes immigration. Indeed, in the last chapter, he actually says the opposite: that a large amount of refugees from Syria and other conflict areas *should* be allowed to settle in Europe (but only under military supervision, whatever that means – what happened to the “class struggle”?).

However, a large part of the book consists of anti-immigration dog whistles. Thus, Zizek argues that the refugees are serving the interests of globalism, that they are frequently criminal and violent, that they aren't the vanguard of the anti-capitalist struggle since they aren't poor and destitute enough, etc. Instead, they want to live at the expense of the welfare state without working. He also argues that the poor in general are disgusting, that poverty is like a virulent disease, and that it's better to avoid the company of such people. At one point, he ironically condemns the anti-immigration Hungarians for being too Asiatic (the ancient Magyars may have been a Turkic tribe), thereby implying that defense of Europe against Asia may indeed be a good thing.

Zizek frequently contradicts himself. Thus, on the one hand, he argues that the refugees refuse to integrate in Western society, that they are patriarchal, homophobic, etc. On the other hand, he argues that the West is evil, that no universal values exist anyway, and that the refugees are in fact too pro-Western, and should be repudiated for that reason! He tries to connect the dots by appeals to postmodernist philosophy, according to which no universality exists, and for that very reason, love of Neighbor is just sentimental moralism and impossible. This becomes the foundation for excluding refugees (or perhaps including them, but only under military supervision and strong assimilationist pressure).

Zizek accepts the right-wing populist stance he pretends to attack by arguing that refugees are particularly prone to violence, rape, trafficking and nihilistic terror. He tries to hide behind quoting others, including reports in the mainstream media about refugees defecating on the streets, and so on. His view of refugee violence is frequently just as contradictory as his other pronouncements. In his text on Robespierre (reviewed by me elsewhere), he supports terror and “divine violence”. Here, he condemns it, while also being morbidly fascinating by refugee violence, especially against women, seeing it as some kind of “carnival of the oppressed”…

Perhaps Zizek has to “speak esoterically” to avoid being persecuted for hate speech by the German or UK authorities? However, if he really believes that immigrants should be either expelled or forcibly assimilated, he should say so – and publish his books in Trump's America, where such things are protected by the famed First Amendment. Perhaps he simply likes playing the part of gadfly and provocateur? Of course, another possibility is that Zizek is genuinely confused. I get the impression that he longs for the good old days of the Cold War, or at least the 1990's, when politics were easier and the left-right divide more obvious. The sudden influx of millions of migrants, none of whom give a damn about Communism or class struggle, have disoriented him.

This doesn't mean that “Against the Double Blackmail” is uninteresting. Zizek's most intriguing point is that the left has turned towards “identity politics” and “post-colonial” relativism at exactly the same point as capitalism have become “colored” and compatible with non-Western forms of civilization (for instance in China). Thus, the seemingly super-anti-capitalist stance of the left is really an adaptation to the needs of globalized capital! The emerging left-neoliberal alliance hasn't escaped my attention either.

Overall, however, this book sounds like the confused meanderings of a profligate intellectual sitting and drinking at some café in Paris, while the rest of the city is burning. (Or does he *really* live in Slovenia?) Zizek should do us all a favor and come out as he really is. Only then can a real (exoteric) conversation begin.

Divine violence

A review of "Virtue and Terror. Slavoj Zizek Presents Robespierre" 

This is a book containing lengthy excerpts from selected speeches by Maximilien Robespierre, the central leader of the radical Jacobins during the French Revolution. It's not clear on what basis the selection was made, nor are they properly introduced except in the most cursory of fashion. They are not useless, but it seems the selection could have been better – according to other sources, Robespierre “named names” in his last speech before the National Convention, but this central section (believed to have triggered his arrest) seems to have been left out of this collection. Or was it never printed? The collection comes with a lengthy, rambling and slightly bizarre introduction by Slovenian philosopher and black sheep of the intelligentsia, Slavoj Zizek. More on that shortly.

Lenin famously called Bolshevism “proletarian Jacobinism”, and it seems the always outspoken leader of the Russian Revolution had a certain point. Robespierre is in many ways a precursor to modern Communism or revolutionary state socialism. He had no concept of nationalized property, Jacobin socialism being mostly redistributive in character (through progressive taxation, confiscation, etc), but a radical questioning of private property is certainly present. “Democracy” turns out to be the rule of a revolutionary vanguard, although Robespierre never quite puts it in those words. However, it's clear that he sees the Committee of Public Safety (or perhaps his own faction) as the “pure” and “virtuous” element in government, and he almost explicitly answers the question of who watches the watchers with the claim that they watch themselves, something accomplished through “purges” (it's possible that he has moral purification in mind here).

The goal is a politically homogenous republic, unsullied by vice and ruled by reason and virtue. Here, Robespierre harks back to older models of government, the virtuous city-state being as old as Antiquity. His ideals include the Roman Republic and Sparta. Yet, I somehow suspect that the Aristotelians, Ciceronians and even Machiavellians would have been shocked by Robespierre's creative development of their classical republican ideal! Perhaps Rousseau would have liked him better?

The most infamous part of Robespierre's political thought is of course his emphasis on terror. In his speeches, the Jacobin leader explicitly states that revolutionary terror isn't based on fixed laws detailing concrete crimes. Rather, terror is inherently flexible, striking the enemy hard and fast no matter what new schemes he comes up with. Terror is virtuous, while also being an instrument of vengeance on the enemies of the Republic. And there are plenty of those! In fact, virtually everyone is an enemy. No political opposition or criticism of the radical Jacobin regime is ever sincere or legitimate, everyone being a traitor or a vacillator (which is pretty much the same thing anyway), even people in Robespierre's own party (he violently purged the Danton faction). Groups to the left of the Jacobins also had their supporters condemned to death and sent to the guillotines. Sometimes, Robespierre sounds comical, as when he attacks atheism in favor of his own deistic cult of the Supreme Being. (I think Slavoj Zizek would have been condemned to death by Robespierre. Zizek is probably too nihilistic and profligate for the tastes of a virtuous First Citizen.) It's almost as if Robespierre literally exterminated his own social base, both the one to the “right” and the one to the left! The Reign of Terror ended with Robespierre's overthrow and execution, Thermidor essentially being a movement of “all against Robespierre”, showing his splendid and perhaps virtuous isolation. I suppose you could say that Lenin was a Robespierre with a stronger base. Leninism long struck me as, in effect, a synthesis of Blanquism (latter-day Jacobinism) and Marxism. Note also Lenin's words (as reported by Victor Serge) in 1921: "This is Thermidor, but we shall not be defeated. We shall become our own Thermidor". I suppose revolutionary practice evolves, dialectically or otherwise...

In his introduction, Zizek tries to draw the lessons of Robespierre for today. Needless to say, this gadfly of pseudo-postmodern Marxism draws all the wrong ones! First, he paints the Jacobin leader as a nihilist and existentialist, perhaps in the tradition of Frantz Fanon? He does this by more or less inverting the meaning of selected passages in Robespierre's speeches. After rambling on for a dozen pages or so, the Slovenian bête noire finally realizes that Robespierre's terror was connected to a political program. Zizek then advocates world-wide terror against everyone who refuses to accept a radical eco-socialist program. He calls it “divine violence”.

Zizek *does* make a few interesting points. First, he argues that terror is only necessary if you are on the *wrong* side of the historical process. This was the original Marxist position, according to which the socialist revolution would be accompanied by *less* terror than the French ditto, since socialism is on the historical agenda and will have majority support (Marx believed that the Jacobin attempts to carry out a socialist program in 18th century France were historically premature). Zizek calls for mass terror precisely because he *doesn't* believe that a radical Green program is historically inevitable. Rather, the materialist processes driving history are all pointing in the other direction, setting the stage for a gigantic ecological disaster. A Green program can therefore only be imposed on history, as it were, from without. Hegel's dictum (which was taken over by Marxism) that the rational is the Real and the Real the rational, is no longer operative. The Rational and the Real have been torn apart, and only terror can bring them together again. Second, Zizek believes that mass terror is the instrument used to radically alter the day-to-day relations in society in one fell swoop. If everything is politicized in a situation when large portions of the population oppose political change, the only way to drive change is by terror. In the same way, radical equality can only be upheld by terroristic means. Third, Zizek is probably right in seeing the middle class or “petty bourgeoisie” as the main obstacle to his revolutionary program. Presumably, they will therefore be the main targets of the future divine violence…

Four stars, not for the opinions expressed herein, but for the, shall we call them, clarifications!

Fake news

I actually managed to post this on Amazon, despite the hysteria around Pizzagate! Yes, it was a faux review of a book by Abramovic... 

Since you wonder, I don't believe in the “Spirit Cooking” conspiracy theory. I *do* believe that Marina Abramovic and her devotees have an incredibly bad taste in art, so bad in fact, that it's almost a “lesser evil” argument to vote for pro-wrestler champion Donald Trump, who at least knows how to decorate a hotel!

Personally, I think the decadent gay art of the 18th century aristocracy, the so-called Rococo, was about 100 times more artistically pleasing than Marina's happenings. I have a reproduction of a Rococo painting on my living room wall. In fact, I think The Donald should commission a nativity scene in Rococo style and put in on the White House lawn, just to show the Dadaistic “elite” that there's a new art czar in town.

And no, I don't necessarily oppose Yugoslav avant-garde. I'm old enough to remember Laibach. I admit that their irreverent attacks on Martin Luther King, the Rolling Stones and Austrian pop band Opus were great fun, LOL. Perhaps Laibach can perform that Rococo nativity scene…?

A Slovenian on the mountain

A review of "Socialni Ideali: Kako Si Je Clovek Ustvaril Boga" by John Keracher

Izobrazevalna Akcija Jugoslavanske Socialisticne Zveze (The Educational Campaign of the Yugoslav Socialist Federation) is the otherwise (?) unknown publisher of this pamphlet by John Keracher, also available in standard English as "How the gods were made". The language is Slovenian, indicating that the small Proletarian Party of America (Keracher's organization) had Slovenian-American members. Not so strange, since both the Socialist Party and Communist Party also had such supporters. For a more detailed review, see the English-language edition!

The birth of a nation

Laibach is a bizarre parody band from Slovenia (of all places). Well, at least we all hope it's parody!

"Laibach" is actually the German name for Ljubljana, the Slovenian capital. The band's lyrics, clips and general appearance often give a Nazi-like impression, and unless I'm mistaken, they were actually banned in Russia at one point. Laibach is part of a broader modern art collective, the NSK or Neue Slowenische Kunst.

For all I know, the band are actually "liberals", but their postmodern antics are easily misunderstood and, perhaps, counterproductive. After all, what do you do if the real thing (post-1989 fascism) looks very much like a parody of the parody? LOL.

"Opus Dei" is perhaps Laibach's most well known album, and includes a genial cover version of Queen's "One Vision". The original song is "liberal" and inspired by Martin Luther King, but by simply translating the lyrics to German and shout "Jawohl" here and there, Laibach transforms it into a Nazi propaganda tune! And, incidentally, exposes our most deep-seated prejudices about Germans. I mean, why should the language of Goethe and Schiller be considered Nazi? ;-)

Another classic is Laibach's absolute slaughter of Opus' "Live is life", which they also manage to transform into some kind of fascist agit-prop, despite the original song being more innocuous than puppy love. (The album title "Opus Dei" is presumably also a reference to poor Opus.)

OK, I admit that my younger and more frivolous side somehow likes this. But is it good music? Naaaaah. I doubt it. Unless you're a modern art student, you'll probably won't get this...

A strange new act of Pilate

"Relics of Repentance" is a short book compiled by James Forcucci. Its main item is a series of letters purportedly written by Claudia Procula, the wife of Pontius Pilate.

The letters were originally published in Pictorial Review in 1929 under the title "A letter from Pontius Pilate's Wife". The magazine classed them as fiction. The author was a certain Catherine van Dyke. However, a small book also published in 1929, claimed that the letters were genuine. The author of the book was the very same Catherine van Dyke. She also had the copyright to the "translations", together with Pictorial Review.

James Goodspeed considered Claudia's letters to be obvious forgeries, and mentions them in passing in his classic "Strange New Gospels". Nobody has seen the original documents the letters are supposedly based on, and as already mentioned, the magazine where they first appeared regarded them as a short story. On the web I found an old Adventist article from 1945, complaining about Claudia's letters being promoted by some Adventist ministers. The article quotes a correspondence with Goodspeed, who didn't considered them worthy of a detailed debunking. (The article is titled "Spurious Dream of Pilate's Wife" by Robert L. Odom, at the website of Ministry Magazine.)

Claudia's letters portray Pontius Pilate as a doubting Thomas and ivory tower philosopher who debates with Stoics and Rabbis, constantly consults his dusty books, and never reaches any firm conclusion about anything. (Oops, sounds like somebody I know.) He is also a careerist, constantly at loggerheads with Herod. For some reason, both Herod and the emperor Tiberius are portrayed as fishermen, i.e. persons who catch fish for recreational purposes.

During the trial of Jesus, Pilate turns out to be as weak, scared and easily swayed as usual. The main "plot development" is that Claudia meets Jesus already before the trial. Jesus heals Pilate's and Claudia's son Pilo. When Pilo hears about the crucifixion, he promptly dies while Herod wisks away Pilate and Claudia to Rome, where they are sentenced to perpetual banishment by an angry Tiberius. The letters themselves were purportedly written by Claudia during her exile in a small Gallic village. She prays to Jesus and asks the Virgin Mary for forgiveness. Here, the story ends but Catherine van Dyke added a note, claiming that her story was widely known all over Europe and that a manuscript was found in the private papers of the last Czarina of Russia, etc. etc. In this way, Dyke tied her little novella to the various "mysteries" surrounding the Czar and his family. (The previously mentioned article in Ministry contains excerpts from a letter from Dyke to the Adventists, in which she tries to make some sense of her own "discovery" of a medieval manuscript of the letters in an Belgian monastery. She doesn't succeed very well!)

I can't say that I liked the letters of Claudia Procula, but they probably worked as very light reading circa 1929. I'll therefore graciously bow and give these strange new "acts of Pilate" an OK rating.

UPDATE: It seems the story behind "Relics of Repentence" is more complex than I previously thought. A version of Claudia´s letter was published in a Slovenian journal already in 1865. It was supposedly based on a French original. Unfortunately, my Slovenian is very rusty, so I can´t really compare the American and Slovenian versions! I never seen the French version. Van Dyke claimed to have handled a copy of the original manuscript in a monastery at Bruges in Belgium, a manuscript in medieval French. Nobody else seems to have seen it, however, and my best guess is therefore that Claudia´s letter is some kind of 18th or 19th century forgery. Van Dyke may have edited the story and published it as "Relics of Repentence" in 1929.