Bosnia

Izvor: Wikipedia Rojalista
Idi na: navigacija, traži
KINGDOM OF BOSNIA
Bosznia Királyság (hu)
(1377–1463, 2013- )

PRINCEDOM OF BOSNIA
Bosznia Hercegség (hu)
"Bosna i Hercegovina" (bs)
(1141-1377, 1463-2013)
Zastava Bosne Grb Bosne
Zastava Grb
Moto: "In neutrality wisdom!"
Himna: In Medio Virtus
Položaj Bosne
Glavni grad Brod
Visoki
Bobovac
Jajce
Tropolis (since 2015)
Najveći grad Sarajevo
Službeni jezik Bosnian language
Državno uređenje usurped monarchy
 -  King Dr. Omerbashich
 -  Prime Minister Dr. Omerbashich
 -  Parliament dissolved
Suverenitet Usurped 1527[1] 
 -  Suverenitet od 1141[2] (by division from the Hungarian Crown, out of free will by King Geza II to Prince Boris Kalamanos
Površina
 -  Ukupno 68 846 km2 (123)
 -  Vode (%) 6
Stanovništvo
 -  Ukupno (procjena '14) 4 100 000 (116)
 -  Gustoća stanovništva 100/km2 (112)
Valuta Bosanska Kruna
Vremenska zona CET+1
Topografija
 -  Najviša tačka Maglić
2 386 m
 -  Najveće jezero Buško blato
56.7 km2
 -  Najveća rijeka Sava
945 km
Internet domena .ba
Pozivni broj 387

Sovereignty usurped by foreign persons and their quislings, while foreigners rig elections as needed.[3] Usurpation transferred via international conferences: Berlin 1878, Paris 1919, Tehran 1943, Dayton 1995.

KingdomOfBosnia flag.jpg Ova stranica na Bosanskom
Jajce, capital of the usurped Bosnian monarchy ("BiH") until 2015.

Bosnia is a country of usurped royalist sovereignty, currently in a non-sovereign regime "Bosnia & Hercegovina" ("BiH"). The constitutionally impossible quasistate of Protectorate BiH is governed by an authorized representative of international community.[4] Countless scientific references by leading experts in the area of international law also call Bosnia a protectorate, however the United States as the most powerful usurper of Bosnia sovereignty uses quislings to hide this essential fact from local public. That makes the Protectorate undeclared, which under international law renders Bosnia a colony - civilization's downfall to the shame of US from the era in which its foreign policy was created by Jesuit-ran State Department i.e. the Vatican.

The Protectorate's name cf. Bosznia Hercegség (hun.) for Princedom of Bosnia. Then Bosna i Hercegovina (bos.) and Herceg-Bosna (cro.) stand for "Princedom of Bosnia". It began legally in 1141 when Hungarian Prince Borisz (bs. Borić) got sovereigny over it [2][5], and, as customary in Europe, was later transformed into a kingdom under Kotromanićs. When that dynasty got extinguished in 1463, Berislavićs as also direct descendants of Bosnia's founding father Borić, kept the monarchy by arms. This Second Princedom lasted until the fall of the capital Jajce in 1527, from where princes Berislavić ruled as sovereigns.[1]

After 1527, Bosnia continued under the rules of international legal order ("on paper"), much like say, the League of Nations has continued "on paper" from 1938 until 1945 when its successor the UN was formed. Ahead of switching the Ottoman for Habsburg usurpation (Berlin, 1878), the land in 1853 got back its name in Hungarian legalese since sovereignty was obtained from Hungary's Crown: Bosznia Hercegség (hun.) of which "Bosnia and Hercegovina" was a sophism designed by Austrians who introduced the conjunction "and" so to lose the original Princedom meaning in translation of Hungarian legalese. Sovereignty usurpation has been transferred under rules of the international legal order (of which the UN International Law is but a small part and current framework), always under guise of peace treaties: Berlin 1878, Paris 1919, Tehran 1943, Dayton 1945 where solutions are created so to fail, not succeed[6].

The status of Jajce was also frozen, in 1527, so it remained the capital with, as usual, the lowest postal and area codes regardless of regime type.[7] This is why Sarajevo, although officially "BiH" capital, is no capital at all since the entire "BiH" regime does not exist under international legal order to begin with. This was the reason why the CIA World Factbook listed its regime bizarrely in future tense (as "emerging republic") instead of present tense.[8] For if the regime was listed in present tense, the entry would have to say Princedom/Kingdom of Bosnia, admitting that colonialism is still acceptable within the international legal order. (The CIA updated the record in the meantime, now falsely stating the regime in present tense as "federal republic" though according to the Protectorate constitution BiH is neither federation nor republic.) Not only that, but the CIA does not even list the 1991-1995 Republic of Bosnia-Hercegovina as though never existed, so Bosnia and Hercegovina officially (according to the Dayton Peace Accords) is the legal successor of a phantom (the 1991-1995) republic. This in fact is legally correct, since Bosnia and Hercegovina under the rules of international legal order is already a monarchy, as seen in the above. As a princedom, Bosnia and Hercegovina obviously can have no prefix like republic. Lately, the wandering CIA (dubbed by Americans and especially top military brass as the "Catholics In Action" since it's the pope's right hand modeled after Gestapo and SS), again changed its own label for the Protectorate's regime - into "parliamentary republic". That, of course, is again not based on facts as written in the Protectorate's constitution, and is also obviously incorrect since protectorates (because they are not republics) do not have sovereign parliaments but fake ones instead - so-called parliamentary assemblies - just like any international organizations do (like OSCE, NATO, etc.) as well as other protectorates such as Northern Ireland.

Thus monarchy is the only legal and legitimate regime in "BiH" under international legal order, so that Bosnia has become officially under rules of international legal order a kingdom again in 2013, with her own sovereign[9] and insignia (Coat of Arms; flags) declared by the sovereign, superseding those declared by foreign viceroy in 1998. In keeping with the land's ancient neutrality, the King ordered in late 2014 to EU and NATO to permanently leave Bosnia, while at the same time banning any activities for joining those organizations.[10] The monarch is still the source of all legal and legitimate rights in Bosnia proper (Bosnia as legal entity based on eternal international law), as well as the sole owner of so called societal property (a communist sophism) - around 60% of Bosnian territory usurped directly from the Bosnian monarch on first occupation, where the usurpation has been bartered at international conferences.

After assuming his powers in foreign affairs and international law, His Majesty on 24.5.2015 abrogated the Dayton Peace Accords international agreement of 1995 that served as the excuse for colonialism[11]. The Dayton agreement was abrogated in all of its international aspects immediately, as well as in all of its other aspects pending national consensus within a reasonable timeframe. Due to anti-civilization move by colonial judiciary that ordered sale of public company Geodetic Institute of BiH (key in proving territorial span of sovereignty right) thus usurping executive authorities, HM on 31.5.2015 declared absolute monarchy pending parliamentary monarchy, and declared state of emergency.


History of the monarchy

Legal beginning, First and Second Kingdom

Princedom began legally in 1141, when Hungary's Crown named Hungarian prince Borisz (bos. Borić) as Viceroy of Bosnia.[2] The land was subsequently ruled by Kotromanićs who, as a branch of Borić's dynasty Berislavićs, stayed in power until they were extinguished by invading Turk hordes in 1463. As Borić's direct descendants, Berislavićs took over most of the land, and held it in three generations of princes: Ivan, followed by his sons Franjo and Ivaniš, and then by Ivaniš's son Stjepan (Sztefan; Stefan) who was the heir to thrones of Bosnia and Croatia, as well as Serbia via his mother. Bosnia under Berislavićs endured for nearly a century, enabling parts of the country such as Krajina to the west, to remain free until the 17th century.

Thus the First Kingdom was preceded by the First Princedom, and succeeded by the Second Princedom that lasted legally until 2013 when, following the 2010 return of sovereignty right to his Omerbašić (previously: Berislavić) dynasty, Dr. Mensur Omerbashich declared himself King of Bosnia.[9] That marks the legal beginning of the Second Kingdom in the continuing Bosnian monarchy.

Legal continuity

The fact that Jajce was always getting the lowest postal and area codes regardless of regime, and that the reason for that is being censored regardless of regime also, cannot be a coincidence but is instead a hard evidence that under international law Jajce was still the capital until 2015 when the King moved the capital to Tropolis.

World's leading references in international law mostly ignore the current type of regime, as well as that of the preceding "Republic of Bosnia Hercegovina" (1991-1995) which, as it turns out, never existed for international legal order. Instead of stating the regime type in present tense, the shameful Protectorate and one of remaining colonies on Earth, having a foreign governor with viceroy's absolute powers is being a taboo in literally all media. Thus, instead of stating "usurped monarchy" as the current regime, the World's leading references list Bosnia's regime in future tense. For example, editors of CIA's World Factbook[8], considered to be world's top authority[12], tried craftily to preserve objectivity by not telling the entire truth. So CIA under government type states: emerging federal republic, thus avoiding to say what Bosnia is, althoug only real-time facts are expected from such sources; future "facts" are mere speculation. (In the mean-time, the Jesuit CIA changed this out of fear of returning monarchy, and went all the way with their forgery, calling the Protectorate's regime a "federal republic" - obviously a nonsense since neither FBiH nor RS were internationally recognized 1992-1995, meaning they had never gained statehood required to enter as a federal unit into a federal relationship.)

So for the international community, the present-day Bosnia and Hercegovina (Bosnian: "Bosna i Hercegovina") is in fact still a monarchy, but the one in which the Berislavićs (Omerbashichs) ruling dynasty saw their sovereignty usurped by force and subsequently transferred, always at international conferences at that. If the international community, specifically the self-declared (via so-called Peace Implementation Council) usurpers wished to resolve the legally impossible situation in Bosnia, which is holding millions of people captive, no international conference would be necessary at all. All that is required under the rules of international legal order which regulate the occupied country situations, is the transfer of powers back to the Bosnian monarch in writing along with guarantees for peace. In other words, the international community has both obligation and means to make Bosnia again a normal country, simply by returning the usurped sovereignty as outlined with a staggering precision in numerous legal documents such as the Hague Convention of 1899, as well as vast literature in international law.

However, the international community and their peons in Bosnia who rig elections since the Dayton conference of 1995 (while international community certifies such mockery[3]), treat the people of Bosnia-Hercegovina badly when it comes to joining international unions or pacts. Namely, no country may join any structured organizations without itself being structured first. In this case: Bosnia cannot join the EU, NATO, etc., unless it is a monarchy with its own sovereign monarch. Bosnia cannot become a republic as it does not meet the Maturity test of international legal order, requiring a minimum of 50-100 years spent in democracy and peace before that land's people could have a republican order.

Naming of non-sovereign administrative units of Bosnia-Hercegovina a "republika" (Srpska) and a "federation" (of BiH) was not a serious move by international community, as there cannot be a republic within a monarchy, or for that matter, a federation within a monarchy either. Obviously, local politicians are merely non-sovereign peons in a compartmentalized cat-and-mouse, which for its geostrategic end-goal has a long-time preservation of status quo.

The only solution for Bosnian nation as well as international community, which by subduing Bosnia into slavership is pragmatically preventing a geopolitical "anarchy" in international relations, lies in an equally pragmatic and the only just solution - the return of the usurped sovereignty.

Etymology of names

Royal fort at Jajce, previous capital of Bosnia proper ("BiH").

Aside from the continuing status of Jajce as nation's capital, and the way the usurpation has been transferred, Bosnia's monarchical status can be seen also from etymology of names of the regime and nation. Namely, in 1853, the country was named "Bosna i Hercegovina" as part of Austria's geostrategy for the region, when Croatia also got a colonial name of "Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia" (a nonsense, basically, as that translates into: "Croatia and West Croatia and South Croatia"). Croatia however did manage to rid herself of the divide-and-rule ancient colonial name rather soon after it was enforced. Bosnia on the other hand, and right before the Berlin Congress of 1878 where the Ottomans and the Hapsburgs would swap places as Bosnia's usurpers, was returned her legal name (within Hungarian legalese, since Bosnia got her sovereignty from Hungary's Crown) of Bosznia Hercegség or Hungarian for Princedom of Bosnia (Bosnian: Prinčevat Bosna)[13]. Likewise, a Hungarian term Bosznia Királyság means Kingdom of Bosnia (Bosnian: Kraljevina Bosna)[14] In short, "Hercegovina" is a generic term stemming from Hungarian word Herceg for a (ruling) Prince[15], and not from Herczeg which can only mean a duke.[16].

Thus, "Bosna i Hercegovina" is merely a corrupt form in Bosnian rendering of the country's Hungarian legal name as the only legal and legitimate regime in Bosnia, which has started legally as a princedom'. As already mentioned, following the extinction of the Kotromanićs, their parent dynasty the Berislavićs held Jajce and most of Bosnia by arms free long past 1463, all until 1527. Thus Bosnia managed to continue legally as a monarchy, alas princedom rather than kingdom, but it was rather a matter of formality since in the pre-Westphalian law the term "prince" meant all sovereign rulers: emperor, king, hereditary prince, great duke, archduke or sovereign duke alike.[17] Besides, when inherited, sovereignty was/is anyway defended by arms, which is precisely what Berislavićs had done. Finally, their original title of Ban (that which Prince Borić held) meant not only a princely status in general terms, but more specifically a hereditary status "in between king and viceroy".

That the above meaning od the country's name is true, is seen from the fact that the territory under Catholic majority in Bosnia was named Herceg-Bosna during the 1992-95 war, which is the straightforward translation of Princedom of Bosnia. In other words, the Roman-Catholic Church's permanent interest is to fetch the legal continuity of Bosnia for its Catholic minority, as Church is thus aware that legally Bosnia is a princedom.

Sophism, sophistry

Sophistry is defined as "quasi-arguments or false terminology planted instead of genuine terminology for the purpose of deceiving". As such, false terminology or sophism are integral part of any strategic (active) geopolitics, which for that reason is also termed by some "a mirror room". A successful geostrategy (geopolitical attack on a state) is regularly based on double meanings, as obviously the only legal and legitimate way to bypass rules of post-Antiquity international legal order. Thus geostrategy itself in general is a game of nerves, in which one side scores almost exclusively based on mistakes by the opposing side. A successful countergeostrategy (geopolitical defense of a state) is then inevitably based on the success of deciphering of sophistry. In case of Bosnia, this encompasses a minimum of 3 categories of easily identified sophism:

  • Austria has used the above-mentioned partial (German) rendering, for local (Bosnian) use in order to achieve a colonial-style sophism for covering up the full (Hungarian) rendering: of all here relevant languages (German, Hungarian, Latin), the Bosnian word "Herceg" phonetically means both duke and prince only in Hungarian. On the other hand, the German word for duke is Herzog (not Herzeg!) only, and the only word for a prince is Prinz. If German language had a predominant influence in this case, then the German word Herzog would stand 400% more chance to transform into either Hercogovina or Hercagovina or Hercigovina or Hercugovina rather than "Hercegovina", while Hungarian language leaves no doubts of that sort. Then, the Hungarian term contains consonant c as readily seen in the Bosnian rendering, "Hercegovina", unlike the German term where consonant z dominates; meaning the corruption in the Hungarian term would be unnecessary as the Hungarian term is naturally much closer to the Bosnian term "Hercegovina" then the German term is. And as it was mention in the above, on the etymology of country's name: the Hungarian Herceg is an expression which is reserved for a (mostly ruling) prince only[15], but not for a duke, corresponding to Herczeg in Hungarian[16]. Also, the MARC official international list of country names lists Bosnia in English as "Bosnia and Hercegovina"[18], not "Bosnia and Herzegovina" as often (and erroneously) believed to be the correct English rendering, which by the way transforms the Hungarian original into the (allegedly) German rendering (via insisting o "z" instead of "c"). That sophism is one of the most persistent ones in case of Bosnia. Based on the above, as well as Austria's clear motivation, the swapping of two renderings could not have been coincidental either. Nor is there coincidence in the fact that this goes precisely for Hungarian language of them all. Namely, it was Hungary's Crown which founded the first Bosnian state within Roman legal order (a Banate), meaning it is the Hungarian sovereignty which is the source of Bosnian sovereignty too. Then the first Bosnia's sovereign, Prince Borić, is the source of all legal order in the land, or "founding father" in the modern-day terminology. Austria has therefore rather successfully misrepresented the southern region, under duke Kosača, as if it was a princedom, however it is a common knowledge that Hum or Zahumlje (historic names for "Hercegovina") never were princedoms. In other words, Austria could have picked any other duke for its "Bosna i Hercegovina" sophism. So the matter is purely legal. It is worth noting that any legalese is unrelated to either historic or political terminology. Therefore, a thesis by historians that "Bosnia fell in 1463" has no legal weight whatsoever: within frameworks of international legal order, Bosnia "fell" only in 1527.[1]. Otherwise the Berislavićs would not be systematically ignored (for instance: censored from the Fojnica Armorial, Bosnia's only) despite having a lion share in defending the land for over a century past 1463. Neither would the country in any, let alone original (Hungarian) legalese, be named Princedom, and endure in that legal form for so long, until its Dayton, 1995 form in fact.
  • Likewise within Hungarian legalese, the allegedly ethnic term Bošnjak is in fact national: "s" is pronounced "š" (sh) in Hungarian, so that Hungarian word "Bosnyak" [bóš-niâk] simply means "a man from Bosnia", or a Bosnian. This means that, as with most countries, it was geographic (not religious, ethnic, etc.) attribute that was taken as the national one. Therefore, "Bošnjak" (a Boshnyak) and "Bosanac" (a Bosnian) are synonyms under rules of the international legal order.
  • Also invalid are claims that "Bosna i Hercegovina" means two geographic regions: an imaginary (undefined) "Bosnia" and, separately, a "Hercegovina" (where the latter, as mentioned, allegedly cf. German nobility title of Herzog for duke, as in south-Bosnian nobleman duke Kosača). Namely, legal considerations are far more relevant than geographic ones: Bosnia simply had to be given back her legal name prior to swapping the usurpation within the western legal system (in Berlin in 1878) as that swap was actually about to bring her back into the western civilization. That was the only name which would faithfully reflect the state of affairs legal-wise within the western world, which sticks to its own legal order without making compromises about it and where the right to nobility titles belonged to Christians only.

So in addition to the above stated proofs: the status of Jajce as Bosnia's capital, and the way her sovereignty has been transferred (at international conferences), even the name in its colonial form Bosna i Hercegovina (Princedom of Bosnia) is a proof that Bosnia is a continued monarchy. Undoubtedly, the main characteristic of the western geopolitics is its firm allegiance to its (basically: Roman) international legal order that they would not jeopardize for anything or anyone, be it the powerful Austro-Hungary then, or the USA nowadays.

It is worth noting that the International law of the United Nations (UN) is not same as international legal order, but merely a current temporary legal framework that will cease to apply with the demise of the UN. In the same manner for example, the International law of the League of Nations (LN) ceased to be valid when the LN de facto collapsed in 1938, while at the same time rules of the international legal order remained in effect, such as Geneva conventions that saved numerous lives in wars. That was the case because the World's legal order is older than a specific law, or even an entire legal framework of an era. UN troops are often unsuccessful not because their soldiers and officers are unable or unfit for service, but because their orders within the UN legal framework often collide with rights that stem from the international legal order and which override the UN law. Generally speaking, older rules are legally stronger; such is the case with the sovereignty right that is "neither created by recognition nor destroyed by non recognition".[19] The example of League of Nations, which continued as a legal person ("on paper") under the rules of international legal order until the UN was formed in 1946, is another proof that Bosnian monarchy too could legally continue since its sovereignty got usurped by force in 1527.

Continuation of Bosnia within international legal order

Geopolitical context

From the late 18th until mid-19th century, during 350 years of occupation (1527-1878) and thus as part of the Ottoman Empire as well, Bosnia spanned the space which is nowadays freely referred to as "Hercegovina". Namely, the first Ottoman administrative unit, called Eyalet Bosnia, was established only in 1527[20](en), meaning after nearly a century of resistance, especially in northern and western parts of the country. Eyalet was transformed into Pashaluk Bosnia (which was divided into "sanjaks"), and which eventually became Vilayet Bosnia.[21](en) Thus no Ottoman administration in Bosnia has specifically mentioned "Hercegovina" in their name, not because Turks were less educated in geography than Hungarians or Austrians, but for purely legal reasons: namely the Ottomans did not recognize Christian nobility titles, same as Christians did not recognize Turkish ones. In other words, unlike Hungarians or Austrians, Turks never dared call Bosnia also "Bosnia and Hercegovina" because by doing so they would have admitted her monarchical continuity as well as illegality of their own presence in Bosnia (as a temporary usurper at that). Usurpers who admitted their status were rare in history; otherwise no sophisticated sophistry with such a rich vocabulary would have been invented, where we all are witnesses of various bogus justifications for usurpation, including: "spreading of civilization", "protection of ethnic minority", "national interests", "provocation reaction", "fight against terrorism", and so on.

Under rules of the international legal order, present-day form "Bosna i Hercegovina" is undoubtedly a non-sovereign territory, or a colonial protectorate since it is administered by foreigners (6 always Roman-Catholics at that) with absolutist powers of a viceroy. At the same time, that territory makes a geographic region of Bosnia. So it is often thought that "Bosnia" is just a shorthand for Bosna i Hercegovina, but this is wrong though it can be seen often and especially used abroad. However, in international legalese and therefore geopolitical use as well, term Bosnia marks only the continued legal order of Bosnian monarchy that therefore exists as such (on paper) today as well, but in a covert form; meaning outside the bounds of international law of the UN, however still within the international legal order since anything else would constitute a major legal precedent that would open a possibility for "anarchy" in international relations.

To make continued usurpation possible within that, oldest frame, "Bosna i Hercegovina" has no prefix which normally states regime type (such as Kingdom; Republic, etc.). This because the Dayton regime, just like all others that were created for Bosnia at international conferences, was designed with failure in mind: as a temporary system ahead of yet another change of the occupying foreign person. Besides, as mentioned above, the name "BiH" itself already contains the regime type within: "Hercegovina" is a corrupt rendering of Hungarian Hercegség for Princedom. As in the case of Jajce and the mentioned legal conflict concerning the existence of two capitals, there can be no "Kingdom Princedom of Bosnia" and especially no "Republic Princedom of Bosnia", either.

In accordance with her prefix-less name, it is obvious that "BiH" also in practical terms is under a "princely" absolute power of a foreign governor. For instance, and in the manner of a full monarchical sovereign, he unilaterally determined and enacted insignia of the current usurpation of the Princedom (which were then adopted by non-sovereign parliament, obviously as a formality for portraying the land as free and independent, instead of what it really is). He (they) also reconstructed the colonial "constitution" as well as enacted laws of the usurpation, then established major usurping institutions such as "Court of BiH", sanctioned as well as pardoned individuals without due court process, etc. Just like with any governing powers, monarchical powers too can be either exercised or not but only temporarily. An example of this is the will of English Queen Elizabeth II who is largely not using her constitutional prerogatives for the past few decades, although there is nothing whatsoever in law that stops her from doing so. Most of other monarchs, and even heirs to the throne, in fact are using their powers in full capacity; thus Prince Charles (Duke of York) for example, has been publicly criticized, more than once at that, for overstepping his constitutional authority by meddling in Britain's foreign policy as well as exerting pressure on members of the UK Parliament. However, apart from public scrutiny, there is no and there can be no legal mechanism which would prevent the Prince, since he, via his dynasty, is the source of all governing authority under the rules of international order as well as British legal system. In the international legal order, hierarchy of authority in not bound by hierarchy of norm, unlike within a specific legal frame such as the international law of the UN, the EU legal system, etc. Thus within the international legal order, documents from Antiquity and after can and often do supersede documents from the UN era. Simply, chronological order is the law of law within any legal framework, and so within the main legal framework as well. A regularly stated justification for such a "divine" status of the ancient legal system, is the supreme importance of the order itself (for World stability), which of course can be misused by powerful interests. It is the international legal order, not the international law of UN, which enabled Israel to be restored after 2000 years, Gibraltar to remain under British rule based on a document more than 300 years old, and so on.

Geographical context

The southern subregion "Hercegovina" has no official borders, same as other subregions: Krajina, Podrinje, Posavina, Semberija, Uskoplje. Namely, these are subregions (undistinguishable subordinated categories) and not regions, because after naming them, all that remains is an undefined territory without own genuine regional name, and which is therefore called mid-Bosnia. In other words, besides the legal and historic (and by extension geopolitical context), Bosnia in geographical context too is the only sovereign name for the present-day territory of "Bosna i Hercegovina".

The Bosnia region largely spans Meditereanean and continental climatic belts, spreading on the north to the southern frontier of the Pannonian plane, with rivers Sava and Drina as Bosnia's northern and eastern borders, respectively.

Geostrategies of foreign interests

Coat of Arms of so-called. Office of High Representative - in fact the masked colonial (always Catholic, with Caesar's golden instead of green heraldic wreath as the alleged peace symbol) governor with classical absolutist powers of a viceroy.
Borders of "Croatia" (Latin: land of cretins), coincide with penetration direction of Roman legions from west, along the planes rather than through high mountains as due to semi-primitive military technology of the era.

Parts of Bosnia fell under Turks due to a conspiracy of Rome, the Ottomans and other geopolitical factors of the time.[22] As usual in a necessarily compartmentalized geostrategy, it cannot be expected for all its participants to have been aware of all the aspects of occupation. It is certain however, that Rome and its successor Vatican consider(ed) themselves as owners of Illyrian provinces, ever since the occupation of Illyrian Empire of 9 A.D.[23][24], when Rome split the Illyrians within a divide-and-conquer geotactics into "peoples"[25][26][27] by naming them mockingly as: Serbs (servi, Latin: slave, servant[28]) and Croats (croatini corrupted cretini, Latin: cretin[29]). When they too grew demographically big enough to cause problems, Rome added in the 10th century the province of Bosnia (bos+nae, Latin: genuine[30]+vo[31], true ox). And when they too grew into a potential danger for Rome, starting to form alliances with "Croats" and "Serbs", Rome felt strategically endangered and hired the Ottomans in the 15th century to conquer Bosnia and obliterate any trace of its statehood. This was done in a way that would enable Turkey to claim for domestic Muslims as their minority, the Bosniaks; practically that serves as the excuse for meddling into Bosnia's internal affairs. This is seen from the meaning of the word Bosniak, which too is nothing but a mockery: Turkish core boşuna marks a homeless bum[32].

It is worth noting that the term "Bošnjak" (a Bosniak; also: Boshnyak) itself was introduced into legalese by Hungary's Crown, a long time before Turkish use, so that the Turkish claim on that term (which some use as an excuse for interpreting Bosniaks as Turkish ethnic minority) has no legal power unlike the Hungarian claim: "s" is pronounced "sh" (š) in Hungarian, so Hungarian "Bosnyak" [bóš-niâk] simply stands for "a man from Bosnia", "a Bosnian". As mentioned above, this means that "Bošnjak" (a Boshnyak) and "Bosanac" (a Bosnian) are synonyms under rules of the international legal order even today, and that the monarchy is continued. In the mean-time the Vatican, its "tenants", and their servant quislings have pushed these facts out of broad use via manipulation: censorship and self-censorship of media and education system, creation of public opinion using official state agencies as well as pressuring individuals and organizations alike, and so on.

Thus ever since Illyria fell to Rome, her people are at Rome's mercy, so that Illyria even nowadays fills only margins in history textbooks.[33]. The main consequence of this artificially created historic discontinuity is a long-term, constant internal fighting amongst various Illyrian tribes. Today, the extremely complex (geostrategically dangerous) Dayton framework only aids such fighting as it was designed by foreigners so craftily that the local tribes never realize it is Rome and resources-starved dynasties of Europe that are behind everything.[34]

So for example, the Vatican uses a medieval last will by one Katarina Kosača, duke Kosača's daughter and a queen consort ("via marriage") to the next-to-last king of Bosnia. In the will, she allegedly "left Bosnia to the popes", and Vatican uses her will as a proof that indeed "Bosnia belongs to Rome". But as a consort and just a princess and not mother to heirs on King Stephen Tomašević's regicide, she had no right to sovereignty, which renders her last will null and void.[35]. For renting of Bosnia to foreign interests, Rome as de jure government of Bosnia charges a fee including exploitation tax in exchange for letting "tenants" use Bosnia's natural resources. Rome thus rented Bosnia so far to: Ottoman, Habsburg, Windsor (Karađorđević) and Savoy dynasties. For instance, in case of Austrian colonization 1878-1918 alone, and counting just timber (that is, without ore that was being shipped out via a specially built railway system), the value of looted timber according to detailed reports by British spies (as a primary historic source) amounts in today's value (inflation-corrected) to more than 1100 billion Euro.[36][37]

After the war in which it managed to split Yugoslavia (modern-day state of all Illyrians) in blood in order to rent its parts to new "tenants", Rome in 1995 appeared in the local political arena as the absolute ruler via "Office of High Representative" so-called OHR. Their Coat of Arms is a golden (Caesar's) wreath, instead of a green wreath as the peace-symbol since the mission was officially about "securing peace". The Office has been led by six, always Roman-Catholic governors with absolute (above judicial, legislative and executive branches') powers of viceroy, so it is a clear case of destroying Yugoslavia in order to re-colonize Bosnia.[11] Such a mischief is enabled by the would-be consequence of Katarina's last will, known as the No Man's Land status (Latin: terra nullius); however, it is clear that her last will is invalid, and as such of no legal consequence so the whole affair is just another farce for tricking the locals. To make things worse (and more obvious), the obvious lack of legal authority has been made up in the eyes of the locals, by glorifying Katarina's historical role and place instead, despite being crystal-clear that she lacks even notability let alone sovereignty right.

So whenever self-awareness arises amongst Bosnians, or the Illyrians in general, the Vatican simply rents the land out to a new colonizer. Earlier, it was dynasties that appeared as tenants, while today's "customers" are also large corporations that took the role of former nation-colonizers; for example, the arrival of Dutch-British Royal Dutch Shell in the region in 2013, coinciding with murder of Bosnia's leading ecologist Academician Redžić, akin of murdering top Nigerian ecologist Ken Saro-Wiwa as Shell was enslaving that country also.

Non-sovereign economy - first and foremost in a foreign interest

Royal Dutch Shell.
Confidential report by British spies from Bosnia, detailing Austrian looting during occupation, while explicitly stating that Austria saw herself as no more than a colonizer in Bosnia.

Bosnia's economy is based on electrical power, which accounts for majority of production capacities of the country, income-wise. Of other branches of economy, financially most relevant are tourism and food industry. As a land of usurped sovereignty, Bosnia is seen by foreign usurpers primarily as "their colony", as was the case with Austria, according to the secret report (primary historic source) by British spies of 1919.[36]


Illegality of exploiting Bosnia's underground resources, under Hague Convention of 1899

However, any concession for exploitation of natural resources such as gold, oil and gas, etc., other than timber and agricultural produce (both only in exchange for just remuneration) would be illegal and illegitimate as under the rules of international legal order. For example Article 52 and Article 55 of the Hague Convention of 1899 regulate this issue in detail. Namely, Bosnia was occupied by force, and her sovereignty usurped. After that, as already mentioned, the usurpation has been transferred in a correct manner under the rules of international legal order, i.e. at international conferences.


There is virtually no doubt that Kingdom of Netherlands has ordered the Dutch battalion in Bosnia in 1995 to enable Srebrenica genocide, and that, subsequently, and as part of the same geostrategy, a British judge who presided over the International Court of Justice at Hague influenced genocide verdict. Namely, those two strategic moves combined (hardly explainable separately: former is a dire violation of Geneva conventions, and the former ruled "municipal genocide") have created a real potential for long-term instability via the mentioned conquest geotactic of divide-and-rule, and an opportunity for looting Bosnia's Dinaric Alps using Nigerian model of "instability for irresponsibility". The intention was to drill rock in high Bosnia using a horrific method of hydraulic fracturing or oil/gas fracking for short, that has been banned globally, and in Europe already in France, Bulgaria and even Shell's own Netherlands. Shell specializes in that utterly inhumane method, called also "the raping of Earth", as it simply destroys the environment beyond repair; permanently polluting water and soil, in return for a short-term profit since supplies last for a few decades only, before they are fully exploited. Majority stake in Shell is in hands of Dutch and British Crowns. Amongst countries involved in the Bosnian war of 1990s, it was Britain and Netherlands that behaved most bizarrely overall.[38]

The genocidal plan for bringing Shell to Bosnia could also have a much wider motivation: according to a US university professor who appeared on Bosnian national television show "Centralni zatvor" (Eng. Central Prison) from mid-2000s, there exists an unspeakably horrific geostrategy by the Netherlands. According to the scientist, they plan to move the entire Dutch people over to Bosnia within the next century or so as the rise of sea-level takes away most of the Netherlands. For this, Bosnians must be forced into exile by Shell using a ruthlessly intensified Nigeria-model, with millions of oil spills all over the country.


Normal Bosnia

The only way to a normal Bosnia lies as usual in matter legal: the reinstatement of the previous legal order, in this case the Bosnian monarchy i.e. Kingdom of Bosnia. From the above examples (Gibraltar, Israel, etc.) and numerous others, Bosnia clearly has all prerequisites for such a move, where time-distance obviously is not an obstacle from the legal point of view. Since it is the matter of pre-Westphalian law as well as due to other reasons, the return of usurped sovereignty in accordance with international law can occur in one of, or by combination of, three ways:

  • (1) by free will of the international community giving up usurpation to HM accompanied by peace guarantees, for which no international conference is necessary; namely, Dayton 2 or similar conferences would mean mere transfer of usurpation to some new usurper;
  • (2) by acclamation in the domestic parliament regardless of its type, meaning a colonial parliament suffices, say at the request from intellectuals, declares by acclamation the return of monarchy. The return requires no referendum since in case of Bosnia the usurpation occurred before Westphalia Treaty;
  • (3) by guarantors of the international (legal) order, primarily the US and Russia as the most relevant outside factors that contributed to liberating ex-Yugoslavia from interests of Greater Germany axis's expansionism, that will recognize HM's Act on abrogating the Dayton Accords, and return the usurped sovereignty right, i.e., royal prerogative to HM.

The return of sovereignty cannot be accomplished via use of violence, revolution, etc. as that is the way for abolishing a monarchy. And since, as it was shown in the above, Bosnia under international legal order is 'only a monarchy' (not for our sake but for the international community's, which sticks to the order), violence can only be part of the projected culmination of Project Dayton for final destruction of monarchy, i.e. "final solution" for Bosnia in form of her permanent territorial division along the borders drawn in blood by oil cartels.


Insignia

Flags

  • National flag of the Kingdom, is a horizontal tricolor in tradition of most European monarchies. In compliance with the Kingdom's neutrality, the flag respects also the achievements of the French Revolution (namely the republican flag, traditionally a vertical tricolor which was a sign of protest against monarchism). Therefore, the flag contains no monarchical markings of any kind. Going from top to bottom, the three rectangular fields of same size, which span the frame of 3:5 ratio, are: blue, red and green. They symbolize Bosnia's tragic history as due to her central geopolitical position. Blue marks clear skies, while symbolizing desire for freedom in peace and prosperity. Red represents blood that Bosnian people spilled through centuries of its eventful history, while symbolizing always defensive wars i.e. internal confrontations for foreign interests. Green paints a land covered with natural resources, while telling that our future is in the land and in ourselves. Thus the flag, with its overall symbolism, represents a "land soaked with blood of its people, all that more resolved to search for their opportunity within own potential, for freedom in peace and prosperity.". The tone is dark, as a permanent warning that dark colonial times are never far enough behind us, and that they are even closer ahead of us unless we avoid them. Monarch's personal flag, is a combination of the National flag and Kingdom's Coat of Arms. Use of the Monarch's flag is regulated by law, and its purpose is both ceremonial and complementary to exercising of sovereign's constitutional powers.


Colors Blue Red Green
RGB #0000CC #FF0000 #006600


National flag of the Kingdom Monarch's personal flag
Flag of Kingdom of Bosnia Monarchical flag of His Majesty

National flag of the Kingdom, small size

Monarch's personal flag, small size
small size small size


Coat of Arms

  • National Coat of Arms of the Kingdom, which at the same time is the Monarch's Coat of Arms, is a multi-meaning symbol of complex historic conditions in which Bosnia was born, grew, fell and stood up. It is designed in warm tones, on a fabric texture, with usual heraldic elements such as shields with war equipment as well as globe and crest of city of Brod as Bosnia's first, 12th century capital. The Coat of Arms symbolizes harmony of human warmth that persistently flows for centuries from most different influences that often brought misery and suffering due to central geopolitical position of the land. The motto of Coat of Arms as primarily imperial status symbol of the Bosnian royal dynasty, is a modified Latin sentence: "Illyria ruat caelum" or "Ilyria above all". Main goals of the Coat of Arms are strengthening of self-confidence i.e. belief in own strength, as well as developing and increasing awareness of the need for preserving tradition. The crown is of the same fabric texture as the rest of the Coat of Arms, so that together with other motifs the crown creates a unique composition, thus symbolizing unity of the Crown and the people.
National Coat of Arms of the Kingdom, and Monarch's personal Coat of Arms
Coat of Arms of Kingdom of Bosnia, and Coat of Arms of His Majesty

National flag of the Kingdom, small size
small size


Anthem

  • Royal anthem, is a symbol of common sovereignty of King of Bosnia over all territories and interests of Illyria proper (Bosnia, Croatia, Serbia, Montenegro). Respecting the (geo)political relations, Royal anthem is a compromise (for example, anthem of Italy, written in 1847 and adopted as a temporary solution in 1946, and has the same status today) written for the Bosnian Royal Family, and based on a fundamental determination of man to defend his own, where "own" is based not on any newer but civilizational roots of a common geographic region instead, so that the anthem does not mention the country's name explicitly (for example, anthem of Sweden, written in 1844, and inspired by local tradition, celebrates the Nordic region while making no reference to Sweden). Royal anthem describes the departure of locals to 3rd Illyrian War 6-9 A.D., which in its entirety took place in present-day Bosnia. The anthem depicts the misfortune of the country's geopolitical position that brings her troubles even today. Choosing the Illyrians (original political inhabitants of Bosnia) as anthem's central motive is suitable since the word Illyrian itself became banned during another occupation, by Austria, full 19 centuries after the fall of Illyria. Therefore, the first known and one of the last occupations (symbolically then: all occupations) are being looked in the face. (Motives of foreign occupation and/or tyrannies exist in national anthems of other countries as well; e.g., anthems of China, France, etc.) Then, suitably selected within the Illyrian settings was the departure of precisely the Brčko Regiment towards Adriatic Sea, since Brčko, temporarily a district, is defined as "belonging to no one and at the same time to everyone". Anthem's title In medio virtus (Latin: "Strength comes from moderation") reflects the spirit of the anthem in the context of Bosnia's central geopolitical position that is shaping the country's destiny, with lyrics in the spirit of the melody. Thus besides being syllable-wise symmetrical, the Anthem is fit for multi-voice as well as mixed-sexes performances. Stylistically and contextually, the Anthem follows a change in intensity i.e. tonality of music. So for instance, the 1st and 3rd verse warn of approaching evil, while symbolizing support for the defenders, so that those verses can be performed by female voices alone (daughters; mothers). The 2nd and 4th verse on the other hand, deliver a thunder of determination to defend own, so that those verses can be performed by male voices alone (fathers; sons). The 5th verse symbolizes culmination which can then be performed by mixed chorus and in multi-voice. Anthem's music is called Intermezzo, and was composed by Dušan Šestić. Royal Anthem's lyrics:

In medio virtus

Kad dušmanin krene
Prokletstvo navali,
Nadvija se usud nebom
Tama zavlada...

To stiže nas kletva
A munja ognjena,
K'o jedan ustaj'mo svi
U stroj borbeni...

Savom plove, nebom jedre
Hite sokoli,
Plavetnilom, nad oblakom
Moru sinovi.

Nikog se ne boj'mo
Ničijega zla,
Naša zemlja nebu mila
Dušmanima kraj.

Bukte, plamte, srca poje:
Ilirija!


Notable individuals

  • Culture and Art
    • Literature: Ivo Andrić, Musa Ćazim Ćatić, Mak Dizdar, Skender Kulenović, Meša Selimović, Abdulah Sidran, Derviš Sušić, Aleksa Šantić.
    • Music: Franciscus Bossinensis, Oskar Danon, Aleksandra Romanić, Jadranka Stojaković, Dušan Šestić.
    • Scene: Jasmin Dizdar, Hajrudin Krvavac, Emir Kusturica, Danis Tanović, Jasmila pl. Žbanić.
    • Painting: Mersad Berber, Vojo Dimitrijević, Emir Dragulj, Ismet Mujezinović, Roman Petrović.
  • Economy: Fikret Abdić, Edin pl. Arslanagić, Emerik Blum, Mehmed Drino, Senad Džambić, Nijaz Hastor, Dragutin Kosovac, Slobodan Stanković.
  • Sports: Marijan Beneš, Mirza Delibašić, Vahid Halilhodžić, Razija Mujanović, Zlatan Saračević, Emir pl. Spahić.


References

  1. 1,0 1,1 1,2 Pinson, Mark [1993] (1996). The Muslims of Bosnia-Herzegovina, the Historic Development from Middle Ages to the Dissolution of Yugoslavia, Second, United States of America: President and Fellows of Harvard College ISBN 0-932885-12-8. Pristupljeno URLu 2014-08-01. “The Ottomans conquered Bosnia in 1463; ... though last fortress in Herzegovina was to fall in 1481, and in Bosnia Jajce under Hungarian garrison actually held until 1527”
  2. 2,0 2,1 2,2 Bálint Hóman (1938) Geschichte des ungarischen Mittelalters I, Berlin, p. 391. "In 1158, Duke Ladislaus came to Bysanz, in whose Bosnian duchy Geza had already appointed Banus Boris as a regent some years ago." His Regency was on behalf of Duke of Bosnia prince Ladislaus who was a minor when, in 1137, he got Bosnia at age 6.
  3. 3,0 3,1 Bosnia Election Results Certified by West Despite Fraud Charges, Mike O'Connor, New York Times 30.9.1996.
  4. Kuljiš, Denis (2015) Rusi dolaze, research journalistic analysis, 3.8.2015. www.zurnalisti.com
  5. Nada Klaić (1994) Srednjovjekovna Bosna: Politički položaj bosanskih vladara do Tvrtkove krunidbe (1377 g), Grafički Zavod Hrvatske, Zagreb, p.48-49. ISBN 9536112051, 9789536112050. PDF Klaić quotes Hóman as saying Banus Boris got Bosnia from Géza II to rule as Regent, and then identifies Ban Boris as prince Boris Kalamanos. Regency was precisely on behalf of then-minor prince Ladislaus, the Duke of Bosnia, but who after coming of age in 1149 never took the possession of the province, so Bosnia became Boris's permanently.
  6. A Failure in the Making: Human Rights & the Dayton Agreement, Human Rights Watch & UNHCR. Document D8081, June 1996
  7. Poštanski brojevi BiH. Poštanski brojevi Online portal.
  8. 8,0 8,1 Bosnia-Herzegovina, CIA's World Factbook.
  9. 9,0 9,1 VIAF International Authority Database record censored by US Library of Congress https://viaf.org/processed/LC%7Cnb2014019221
  10. King orders EU, NATO to leave Bosnia immediately, The Bosnian Royal Family Press Room, 7.11.2014.
  11. 11,0 11,1 Chossudovsky, Michel. Dismantling Yugoslavia, Recolonising Bosnia, CA Quarterly, Spring, Frontline 13:5, 1996.
  12. Ukraine or the Ukraine: Why do some country names have 'the'?, BBC News Online, 7.6.2012.
  13. Translation of Hungarian "Hercegség" to English, Google Translator Online.
  14. Translation of Hungarian "Bosznia Királyság" to English, Google Translator Online.
  15. 15,0 15,1 Translation of Hungarian word "Herceg" to English, Google Translator Online.
  16. 16,0 16,1 Translation of Hungarian word "Herczeg" to English, Google Translator Online.
  17. Pine, L.G. (1992). Titles: How the King became His Majesty, New York: Barnes & Noble ISBN 978-1-56619-085-5.
  18. MARC Code List for Countries, Library of Congress. United States Congress. Washington, D.C.
  19. The New Encyclopedia Britannica. Ed.15, Part 3, Vol.17, 1981, p. 312.
  20. List of Ottoman conquests, sieges and landings, Wikipedia.
  21. Province of Bosnia in the Ottoman Empire, Wikipedia.
  22. Lovrenović, Dubravko. “Crni bosanski kralj u historiografiji i narodnoj predaji”. International scientific conference “Stjepan Tomašević (1461-1463) - fall of medieval Bosnian Kingdom”, Jajce 12-13.11.2011. (Note: after delaying it for a few years, Zagreb Jesuits censored this paper from the conference proceedings Zbornik radova as if it was never presented.)
  23. Bojanovski, Ivo. Razdoblje rimske uprave u Visokom i okolini kroz historiju (Prvi dio: predhistorija, antika i srednji vijek). Visoko, 1984.
  24. Bury, John Bagnell. History of the Later Roman Empire, Macmillan & Co., 1923.
  25. Tibor Živković (2012) De Conversione Croatorum et Serborum: A Lost Source. Istorijski institut Beograd, Posebna izdanja, Book 62. ISBN 9788677430962, 255 pp.
  26. Bury, John Bagnell (1906) The Treatise De administrando imperio. Byzantinische Zeitschrift 15(2):517–577.
  27. Bury, John Bagnell (1907) The Ceremonial Book of Constantine Porphyrogennetos. English Historical Review 22:209–227.
  28. Latin rendering of the word "servi", latin-dictionary.net
  29. Latin rendering (corrupt form) of the word "croatini" from "cretini", Google Translator Online
  30. Latin rendering of the core "nae", latin-dictionary.net
  31. Latin rendering of the core "bos", Google Translator Online
  32. Turkish rendering of word boşuna, Google Translator Online
  33. Wilkes, John. The Illyrians, Oxford Press, 1996; 2000.
  34. Yee, Sienho. The New Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina. European Journal of International Law 7:2, 1996.
  35. Kajan, Ibrahim. Katarina kraljica bosanska. Bosanska riječ, Tuzla, 2004.
  36. 36,0 36,1 Intelligence Report: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Confidential Report No.10, February. Historical Section of Foreign Office UK, 1919.
  37. O‘Donoghue, J, Goulding, L., Allen, G. (2004) Consumer Price Inflation since 1750. Economic Trends 604:38-46.
  38. Brendan Simms (2020) Unfinest Hour: Britain and the Destruction of Bosnia, Penguin, 496 pp. ISBN 0140289836


See also