Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
Serbs in FYROM are an extension from the central parts of Serbian ethnicity, related to
archaic groups in Kosovo and Metohija as well to a larger degree, with the basin of river
Morava. That Serbs are found among early medieval Slav settlers of the Vardar/Axios region
is confirmed by sources which identify the city of Gordoservon in Asia Minor as founded by
introduction of Serb captives from the aforementioned area. The exact nature and scope of
this early Serbian settlement in FYROM is not known, but it can be safely assumed that it
was minuscule and any demographic and ethnolinguistic influence was probably lost in the
Byzanto-Bulgarian struggles of the next few centuries.
Serbians established their massive presence in Povardarje (today’s FYROM) and parts of
Macedonia (Northern Greece) after King Milutin’s conquest of Polog, Skoplje and Ovče
Polje area in northernmost Povardarje in 1282. The catastrophic defeat of Bulgarians at the
Battle of Velbužd (Ćustendil) in 1330 inflicted by the Serbian army removed the final
challenge to Serbian authority in Povardarje. Conclusive with the act of coronation of
Stephan Dušan in his capital Skoplje, Serbian population was implanted in both Pologs, in
enclaves around Debar, in the wider regions of Skoplje and Ovče Polje and in small extent in
Greek cities of Kastoria and Serres, which together with the southern area of FYROM
compromised the part of Dušan’s Empire whose Greek character was observed as the cultural
policy of the Nemanjić court.
The period of the Serbian rule in Povardarje was characterized by strong cultural initiative in
the domain of ecclesiastic art, primarily architecture. Several hundreds of Christian temples
build or substantially reconstructed in the relatively brief Serbian period of Povardarje testify
to the intensity and maturity of Serbian culture of the era. “Dušan’s Law”, a legal codex and a
de facto constitution of the late medieval Serbian state proclaimed in Skoplje as well as the
great number of manuscripts and epigraphic monuments produced in that era do not mention
“Macedonians”, in contrast with other ethnic groups such as Greeks, Albanians, Vlachs,
Bulgarians and Saxons.
The abrupt end of Serbian domination of Povardarje came with the invasion of Ottoman
Turks, a militant Asiatic tribe which confronted the Serb defenders at Marica (Černomen) in
1371 in a battle described by the contemporaries as clash of Serbs and Greeks against the
Turks.
Devoid of freedom and without centralist institutions, with the exception of the inclusion of
northern FYROM under jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Peć in 17th and 18th century, Serbs
as well as other local Christians were forced to the status of “dhimi”, marginalized and
enslaved population that theoretically enjoyed scriptural protection granted by Muslim
overlords.
It would appear that there are the central trend in the history of FYROM was its De-
Serbization in cultural and demographic sense and the reemergence of the Bulgarian rural
population. While this process was not either linear nor it is complete, in the light of total
absence of works about the history, language and culture by science of FYROM organized
along lines of Pseudomacedonian supremacy, few aspects of Serbian presence in early and
middle Ottoman period deserve mention.
Western and local Catholic sources generally acknowledge that Skoplje (today’s Skopje, the
capital of FYROM) as well as Kratovo, a town located east from Skoplje, have a Serbian
character. This was reported by Jakov Sorranzo in 1575, Martin Crusius and Aleksandar
Komulović in 1584, Nicolo Longi in 1622, Bishop Peter of Sophia in 1665, Urban Cerri in
1680. Bishop Peter Bogdani in 1685, Bishop of Cotor Marin Drago in 1690 are more specific,
mentioning Skoplje’s Serbian and Greek population. These ethnic groups are mentioned also
by Bishop Matija Masarek in 1770 and 1790.Orthodox clerics Bratan Ivanov, Dimitrije
Petrov and Mihailo of Kratovo were registered in historical sources as Serbs upon their
arrival in Russia, during the middle phase of Ottoman rule.
Furthemore, one of the most common male names among the Slavs of Povardarje registered
by Turkish demographic records is “Srbin” (a Serb) which was popular even at the beginning
of the 20th century. Undoubtedly, it was given as a way to express nostalgia for the
Nemanjići period, the last Slavic epoch of freedom.
The beginning of the last phase of De-Serbization of Povardarje started with the partial forced
assimilation out of the circumstances created by the Serbian uprisings in 1804 and 1815 on
the territory of today’s Serbia, when a number of Serbs took the Bulgarian ethnic name out of
conformism. This phenomena was accelerated with the dying of Serbian schools in northern
FYROM by the middle of the 19th century and their replacement by the school system of the
Bulgarian Exarchate founded in 1871. The emancipation of the surrounding Bulgarian
population, primarily as a reaction against perceived eminent status of the Greek clergy and
the emerging class of Greek bourgeoisie in southern towns of FYROM further created
preconditions for assimilation of the Serb population already weakened and marginalized
from participation in the wider emergence of nationalist sentiments. It is only after beginning
of propagandist activity sponsored by official Belgrade in the late 19th century and the
appearance of Serbian paramilitary, the Četniks, after 1904 that the described process of
ethnic melting was halted and partially reversed. It should be emphasized that the competition
of nationalities in the Povardarje region in the closing years of 19th and the first years of 20th
century caused more often than not a confusion with regard of self-determination of local
individuals.
Among ethnographic customs the archaic and exclusively Serbian custom of “Krsna Slava”,
festivity in honor of a Patron Saint, observed even today in spite of decades of Communist
oppression of spirituality in general and the Christians in particular, serves as a certain marker
of Serbian ancestry of a great number of “Macedonians” of South Slavic type, chiefly in
northern and western Povardarje regions.
The legacy of decades of Marxist-Titoist concept of social organization in the Ex-Yugoslav
republic and the post-1992 process of symbolic De-Slavization of the “Macedonian” identity
in FYROM proved as an obstacle to consolidation of the Serbian identity at local level. The
name “Macedonia” for a region belonging to the ancient regions of Paeonia and Dardania
substituted the geographic name (southern) Serbia from the north of the country. Scholarship
about the Serbian language, folklore and ethnology became non-existent due to the acquired
reorientation of the public discourse towards building a fictional “Macedonian” identity
rooted in classical antiquity. The presence of ethnic Serbs in FYROM, which numbers over
180. 000 people, mostly undeclared as such due to social pressure, was acknowledged by the
constitution of the young Balkan nation only in 2002.
Vasko Gligorijević
Skoplje, FYROM
A note should be made about Early Slavs and their original habitat. This is one of the most
puzzling issues in Europe’s ethnic history. Principal Slavic homeland was sought from
Central Europe and the Baltic all the way to Danube and steppes of Central Asia. Today the
most accepted theory supported by archeology and paleolinguistics (Slavic character of
hydronymy, otherwise a remarkably conservative feature) is that the primitive area of
formation and ethnic living of Slavs is to be sought between the Middle Dniepar and southern
tributaries of the river Pripet. Another type of evidence is furnished by retention of the
common Proto-Indo-European (PIE) words for birch, oak, ash, alder, aspen, elm, maple and
hornbeam in modern Slavic languages. This fact conclusively establishes their homeland in
the temperate zones north and northeast of the Carpathians. This would be the area of
collapse of the Balto-Slavic linguistic commonwealth and crystallization of the Proto-Slavic,
probably well before 1st millennium BCE.
The most plausible theory about the origin of the ethnonym Slav (Slowene) is that it is
derived from “slovo” (word, speech) having the meaning of “(people) who speak a same
language”, in contrast to the ethnic name given by Slavs to Germanic peoples “Nemci”
(speechless, mute, dumb people).
Based on the archaeological and linguistic research, it may be deduced that Slavs retained a
stability with regard to the occupation of their primordial space. Challenges related to the
expansions and regrouping of the nearest ethnic groups, the Germanic people in particular by
all likelihood caused a certain reorientation of the early Slavic society to a more stratified
(but still without a centralized authority) form of organization which included a military
aspects as evidenced by the Germanic loanwords signifying economic terms and weaponry.
This early deficiency of basic military structuralism is evident from the fact that some of the
terminology for certain types of arms in early Slavic is of Germanic origin: mečĭ “sword”
from Gothic mēkeis, Helmŭ, Old Church Slavonic Šlěmŭ, “helmet” from Germanic helm, as
well as military term vitȩdzĭ “knight” and *pǔlkǔ “military formation” from Common
Germanic *fulkaz “armed troop”.
The Slavic word for king/duke knez is derived from Germanic kuningas. Družina-the
Slavic council of noblemen is probably a Scythian influenced formation. According to
Procopius, Slavs were not ruled by a single men, but the lived in a democracy. The rule of a
tribal chief and council is an Indo-European vestige.
As a derivative of their mythology, the name of the god of horned animals “Veles” became a
name of the town of Veles, south-east from Skopje. The cult of Veles-Volos was present in
Russian folklore until recent times.
The name of the supreme Slavic god, Perun, the god of thunder, cognate to Lith. Perkǔnas
was given to the mountain peaks Perun on the Kozjak mountain, and Perun over the village
Vitolište in Mariovo, both localities being in FYROM
Scholars generally agree that the “Slavic problem” started with the Huns in the first half of
the fifth century, although there is no firm historic or archaeological hypothesis. It is known
that Slavs were in company of Attila’s Huns at whose funeral Jordanes mentions the feast as
the Slavic word “strava”. Priscus, a Byzantine diplomat sent as envoy to the Huns, noticed
that the people in Banat and Bačka drink “medos”, also a term with Slavic root.
After the death of Attila, Hunnic tribes roamed between the Dnieper and the Ural mountains.
From these, the Bulgarian groups of Kutrigurs and Utigurs raided Thrace, Macedonia and
Thessaly from 493 to 517, a period after which the Slavic raid escalated in intensity.
Procopius, in his work “About the Gothic Wars” mentions an event regarding German, a
military commander: “When Justin, uncle by German’s grandmother, held the Imperial
throne, The Antes which lived quite close to Slavs passed through Danube and with a great
army they went into the Roman land”. The ferocity as well as the magnitude of the attack is
well presented by Procopius : “Illyricum and all of Thrace, i. e. the whole country from the
Ionian Gulf [the Adriatic to the outskirts of Byzantium, including Greece and the Chersonese,
was overrun almost every year by Huns, Slavs and Antae, from the time when Justinian
became Roman emperor [527], and they wrought untold damage among the inhabitants of
those parts. For I believe that in each invasion more than two hundred thousand Romans were
killed or captured, so that a veritable ‘Scythian wilderness’ came to exist everywhere in this
land. “
The Empire under Justinian started a mass program of establishing fortifications throughout
the Balkan. According to Procopius, 11 cities had their fortifications significantly expanded.
These measures were not sufficient not only to stop the Slavs, but the incoming raiders from
Asia, the Avars. Organized around heavily militarized horsemen formations, the Avars were
joined by Huns and Bulgars. Often aligned with Slavs, Avars managed to impose their own
dynamics in the military relationships in the later half of the 6th century. Byzantine historian
Menander Protectors states: “In the fourth year of Tiberius’s rule [578] , around 100. 000
Slavs ravaged Thrace and many other areas. . . . . Hellada was devastated”. The occupation of
Sirmium by Avars in 582 and of Singidunum two years later marked the devastation of the
Byzantine defense system. John of Ephesus states in his “History of the Church”[585] that
Slavs attacked and devastated the Roman areas from Constantinople to Thrace, Thessaly and
Hellada. With the murder of Emperor Maurice in 602, the possibility of concentrating the
defense effort against Slavs, obtained after his victory over the Persian, was lost. A wholesale
invasion and settlement of Slavs was to follow.
The source “Miracula Sancti Demetrii” mentions how Thessaloniki was sacked and how all
of Greece and the Aegean islands were attacked between 610-626. The tribes mentioned are
Draguvites, Sagudates (perhaps a tribe of Hunnish origin) Velegezites, Vaiunites, Berzites
(Brsjaci of modern-day FYROM?) and others. This book uses the term Σκλαβιναι in order to
designate every land populated by Slavs.
According to Bishop Isidore of Seville , the Slavs “took Greece from the Romans” (Sclavi
Graeciam Romanis tulerunt”), which must be consider an exaggeration, since the highly
fragmented and insular character of Greece in the narrower term of the word wasn’t
convenient for mass settlement by Slavs , who used their primitive vessels, the monoxyles , to
perform limited raids. The Slavic invasion ended before the middle of the seventh century.
The scope of Slavic colonization is evident from the “Armenian geography” which mentions
that Thrace and Macedonia, among other lands were populated by Slavs.
Analysis of Slavic hydronyms in Bulgaria by the linguist V. Georgiev demonstrated that the
bulк of Slavic river names are to be found in North-Western Bulgaria and Eastern Serbia,
thus demonstrating the route of Slavic colonization via Vardar and Struma rivers.
G. Pisida mentions the newly-introduced Balkan ethnic group as Σκλωοις. The source
“Paschal Chronicle” from the first half of the VIIth century speaks about Σκλαβους.
Theophanes the Confessor is the first author who mentions Sklavinias in relation to
Macedonia (”Sklavinias throughout Macedonia”).
Slavic pits for keeping grain with ceramic vases in Berovo, Prilep, Bašino Selo near Veles.
Belt application from St. Erazmo, Ohrid, Amphorae, Vases, Torc and fibulae from the same
location, ceramic vases from Prilep.
The monk Hrabar in his tractat “O Pismeneh” (9th century) uses the following terms to
designate ethnolingustic realities of his time :словѢане (Slavs), словѢньскы (Slavic),
словѢньскаа писмена (Slavic letters), словѢньскоу рѢчь (Slavic word), родь
словѢньскыи (Slavic breed), словѢньскы книгы (Slavic books), по словѢньскомоу
іазыкоу (in Slavic language).
Teophilactus mentions that the brothers from Thessaloniki found “Slavic letters”
(”Σθλοβενικα γραμματα”). The Pope John VIII issues a document in which he calls that
language: lingua sclavinica, sclavina.
After the colonization of Slavs on the area of FYROM, much of the old geographic
terminology was replaced with Slavic names: towns of Struga, Ohrid (Lihnid), Velbužd
(Pautania), Kičevo, Debar, Raven, Kočani, Radoviš, Prosek, Delčevo, Stena, Sokolec, Črnče,
Trnovo, Modrič, Belica, Železnec, Dobrun, Črešče, Lukovica, SlaviÅ¡te, rivers Sateska,
Bistrica, Lepenec, Pčinja, Kriva Reka, Treska, mountains Korab, Bistra, Belasica, Vodno etc.
Slavic personal names attested in medieval period are: Bratan, Bratislav, Boleslav (cf. Polish.
Boleslaw), Boleslava, Vladimir, Verota, Vŭlkan, Grdju, Dobri, Dobresin, Dobroslav,
Dragomad, Desislav, Dragan, Draža, Krasna, Kurica, Litovoj, Milju, Miroslava, Obrada,
Prodan, Prevo, Rado, Radoslav, Stana, Stano, Slava, Slav, Tihomir, Černikosa etc.
From all of these matters combined we can conclude that the area of FYROM was indeed
colonized by Slavic settlers who changed the ethnic make-up of the population, consisting
mostly of Greek and Vulgar Latin speaking people. The Slavs were novelty to the Balkan
peninsula which brought rudimentary material artifacts in their cultural inventory, but
nevertheless managed to establish themselves demographically and later politically. The
process of Slavic settlement from Eastern European core homeland to FYROM can be traced
via historical, archaeological and linguistic evidence. The Slavic character of
Pseudomacedonians is evident from their language, folklore and mythology. Slavs are not
autochtonous population in Northern Geographic Macedonia, as some pseudo-scholars,
motivated by aprioristic ideological fixations suggest.
Vasko Gligorijević
Further reading:
Humanities in FYROM tend to be highly reflexive of the social zeitgeist that articulated itself
after their inception in 1940’s. Doomed to a life of subservience to what history has
demonstrated were grossly erratic Marxist doctrines, the chance of fresh start after the
pluralization and liberalization promised by liquidation of the Titoist regime was soon wasted
in fruitless effort to secure scholarly plausibility to the previously marginal idea of synthetic
“Macedonian” history, which never existed as a coherent narrative of event which furnished
the genesis of an alleged “Macedonian” nation. The typology of the phases of interaction of
politics, common mentality as well as certain determinants goes\related to the
development of ethnic sciences in FYROM in author’s opinion, through six phases:
The first phase encompasses the period from 1944 to early 1960’s that saw a transition from
the initial didactic propagation of “Ethno-Communism, the apologetic local genre into the
more analyticalapplication of Marxist theories of economic determinism, in context of severe
split from Serbian and Bulgarian roots of humanistic investigation. At the same period, the
entire infastructure represented by Faculties, Museums, Institutes was created. According to
the most prominent exponent of local national studies, “the Macedonian people is product of
early differentiation from other South Slavs, based on adoption of the name “Macedonia”,
which facilitated a set of discrete, yet present ethnic characteristics, that came to establish the
“Macedonian” people in the 19th century.
The second phase from early 1960’s to mid-1970’s, strongly supported by the Croatian
historian Stjepan Antoljak, further straightened the narrative structure of the myth, enriching
it with pseudoscientificstudies of middle age. Recognizing the Samuel’s state formation as
the first “Macedonian” state and thus projecting the alleged continuity between the
contemporary generation of Pseudomacedonians centuriesback, this mixture of politically
correct doctrine based on falsification gave energy to wealth of speculations, which were
massively produced with pretensions of genuine academic quality. Manyworks considered
magnum opus of the Pseudomacedonian history, archeology, linguistics and philology were
published in that period. Assertive translation and export of the domestic material was
oftenmet with ridicule in the Western World, but nevertheless was a way to attract more
foreign scholars for the purpose of obtaining a credibility from authority.
The third phase from mid-1970’s to late 1980’s saw exponential rise of productivity and
newly found interest in Paleobalkan studies, non-Marxist sociology and anthropology and
publishing a number ofarchaeological as well as Byzant ological works. Emphasis was for the
first time put on the construction of model of ethnicity which emphasized biological and to a
certain extent cultural continuity in the formation of the “Macedonian” people. While Marxist
rhetorics, preoccupation with the largely fictional epical presentation of WWII and Slavic
studies were represented, they had a marginalized role, especially in the process of
differentiation of FYROMian academia into three camps: conservative communist,
ethnocentric liberal and pro-Serbian, the latter trend having a number of adherents after 1986.
With the fall of the Titoist system and the subsequent disintegration of Yugoslavia, the
national humanities of FYROM restructured themselves into two camps: the “Ancient
Macedonian” group ofhistorians which sought a wholesale revision of the national
historiography and the transformed ethnocentric liberal.
The fourth phase of historiography displayed the eclectic method of the both camps, the
appearance of activity by amateur/dilettante historians which would exponentially rise in
terms not only of production, but also in influence among the general public and idiosyncratic
influx of greater number of approaches. These not rarely included non-sequitur and lack of
polemic inclusion of multilateral views. The main trendscrystallized by mid-1990’s, adding to
common outburst of national hysteria in conditions of challenged identity.
The 5th and 6th phases are two subperiods in development of the contemporary clash of
adherents of several methodological approaches:
the commercial pseudoscience, often supported by sponsorship from the official academia,
then the “mainstream” current based on models which propose a polymodal ethnogenesis, a
school of thought which although of apparently more moderate type is nevertheless erroneous
in some basic assumption that determine its lack of usability.The first phase coincide with the
first government of VMRO-DPMNE, from 1998-2002 which manifested itself with several
policies that modeled the development of the distinct flavor of academic thought. Among
these were attempt of slow, but steady liberalization of cultural communication with Bulgaria
which facilitated exchange of ideas and common projects. In terms of academy, it manifested
itself with a number of works dealing with Bulgarian aspects of FYROMian history and
ethnolingustic characteristics of the local Slavic population, although with strong provincial
emphasis. The 2001 military conflict among local Slavs and Albanians and the
implementation of egalitarian policies which strongly discouraged systematic ethnocentrism,
but in practice shifted the energy of ethnocentrism into stronger emphasis of alleged
exceptional ethnic character of the Pseudomacedonian population. Inaddition, an autarhic
development of the Vlach ethnos was furthermore emphasized and resources begun to be
mobilized into the support of investigation of its ethnology which never included the Greek
aspectof this old Balkan entity. The process of De-Slavization of the history of FYROM
accelerated during the revival of sociological and anthropological studies which shifted their
working paradigm fromethnocentric to liberal, with forced egalitarian themes complemented
by integrative policies within FYROM. Furthermore, the “Bulgarian Spring” period was
obliterated with withdrawal of official support in terms of state sponsorship, further
degrading the status and eminence of the authors which stood by rationalist principles.
The trend in national sciences, established with these tectonic social changes andescalated
since the 2006 elections, are the following:
1. The principle of dialectic debate is replaced by dogmatic selection of preexisting data.
2. The local school of Slavic studies is based on senior authors and lack of interest by
the general public for Slavic-related aspect of their identity, insofar its members
recognize such identity which often more is no more the case.
3. The Bulgarian position has a stable, but marginal support by small number of authors
and remains actively opposed by a de facto governmental policy.
4. Scholarship regressed to the early false dichotomy of defending the “uniqueness”
trough real and imagined arguments for defense of ethnic typology.
5. Fictional kinship with the Ancient Macedonian is vigorously defended and is outside
of any polemical realm, having obtained a monopoly in perception of the plebeians in
FYROM.
6. Themes of even greater, pre-Indo Europian antiquity rooted in the Neolithic era are
making their occasional appearance, stirring public sentiments of ethnic supremacy.
One final observation should be made:
while relatively adequately founded, the Academia in FYROM is strongly correlated with the
policy makers, existing in authoritarian atmosphere in place where ethos ofcritical
individuality is almost non-existing. Decades of mismanagement of funds which accounts for
poorly equipped infrastructure and limited access often even to capital scholarly publication
together with a tendency of overproduction of cadres also contribute to the current
conformism, coupled with a common,commercially-driven outlook
In conclusion, the only way to secure a restoration of FYROMian academia and restitution of
the national science is formulation of a more idealist working philosophy. Cultural policy of
layman education less depended on state centralism, but on grassroots activism by individuals
and groups which realize the absurdity is needed and should be strategically implemented.
The atmosphere of doctrinal populism is the major obstacle to the realization of capital works
and communication between the intelligentsia to the people. The alternative is a stagnation
and continuous isolation of those whoinvested their being into liberal arts investigating the
real nature of identity, but opted not for truthful formulation but for an futile exercise of
creating and supporting the construct of a fictional nationality.
Vasko Gligorijević
Skoplje, FYROM
The other large population in FYROM is the Albanian. Compromised from descendants of
the Paleobalkan ethnic group of Dardanians which was to a certain extent influenced by
Roman culture and Latin language and which took refuge in the mountains of present-day
north Albania (”Ghegnia”) in late antiquity/early middle ages, the Albanians which converted
to Islam under Ottoman rule spread to Kosovo and western FYROM in 17th and 18th
centuries. Today, in FYROM, they number near 600. 000, with a compact presence in the
towns of Tetovo, Gostivar and Debar and representing a significant population in Skoplje,
Kumanovo, Kičevo and Struga. Cherishing an archaic formalized code of conduct based on
family and clan loyalty, ethos of reciprocity and obligation, Albanians have been historically
more successful than the Bulgarians/”Macedonians” in preservation of means of private
entrepreneurship and achieving a more vertical socio-economic stratification coupled with
elaborated social network designed to minimize contact with the “Macedonian” non-Muslim
population.
Among both the “Macedonians” and the Albanians, collectivist, anti-individualist attitude is
deep-seated. Within the daily affairs of both ethnic groups there is a strong reverence for
authority and hierarchy. The notion of “state”, a concept held identical with the actual
government, which has to be obeyed and respected and which represent the supreme reality
in which any individuality is lost is particularity prominent among the “Macedonians” having
its root in their quite recent and long-lasting premodern feudal historical phase. It is no
wonder that having realized that after the 2001 conflict and the subsequent signing of the
Ohrid Agreement they lost the privileged status and that both factually and symbolically they
cannot cherish the FYROMian state as their own, the elite of the “Macedonians”, realizing
that any confrontation with the Albanian factor would be too dangerous, designed a national
idea with the purpose of keeping the wider “Macedonian” public mobilized against non-
issues. This recent idea is composed of the recycled concept of “Macedonian
autonomism”-Bulgarian idea that that any initiative of the Slavs of Geographic Macedonia
has to be labeled “Macedonian” in order to gain sympathies by deciding external political
factors and the concept of “Ancient Macedonism”, the idea that the Slavs of FYROM are
direct descendants of Ancient Macedonians.
The idea of “Macedonian autonomism” needs no further explanation of its perfidiousness and
absurdity. Regardless of the trick character of the concept it still remains a doctrine of the
Bulgarian nationalist originating from FYROM: The Bulgarians of Geographic Macedonia
should claim that although their singular ethnic identity is the Bulgarian one they are,
nevertheless, the exclusive Macedonians. As late as 1960’s this doctrine was restated by the
leader of VMRO Ivan Mihailoff with the words “the name Macedonia should be preserved
because it is a thorn in the eyes of Greeks and Serbs”.
The enormous success of the idea of “Ancient Macedonian continuity”, which originated
among the most primitive sections of FYRO Macedonian emigration in 1970’s (in Sweden,
Australia and Canada) needs careful analysis. Although the fallacy of the crude ethnogenetic
theory which claims that the “Macedonians” of FYROM and elsewhere speak the tongue of
Phillip II and Alexander the Great and that their customs, folklore and other aspects of the
culture are either intact or evolved form of the civilization of Ancient Macedon is quite easy
refutable, this is not the case in the current conditions under which the national discourse
articulates itself in FYROM.
Briefly, Ancient Macedonians were a Greek entity with Greek ethnic name, using exclusively
a Greek Doric dialect and later Koine Greek and practicing the same Olympian religion with
the rest of the Greek. Ancient Macedonians participated at the Olympic Games, where only
Greek were allowed to compete and had theaters on the soil of Macedon, an uniquely Greek
concept. All names of Macedonians (with several exceptions) are Greek as confirmed by their
Greek etymology. Conclusive to 2008, no scholar outside FYROM has even remotely
claimed that the language and culture of Ancient Macedonians are an ancestral type of the
present-day FYRO Macedonians, which are descendants of Slavs, an ethnic group originating
from North-East Europe. Slavs settled the Balkans from 5th to 7th century and the FYRO
Macedonian tribes were homogenized under the rule of the Turkic horsemen tribe of
Bulgarians. These Slavs never called themselves “Macedonians”, while Byzantine, Bulgarian,
Serbian, Ottoman sources as well as western travelers and others failed to furnish any
reference to a “Macedonian” ethnic group prior to late 19th century.
The issue of the ethnic, cultural and linguistic nature of the Ancient Macedonians deserves a
wider and detailed expose, referenced and structured according to the scientific method.
However, in light of the present state of knowledge, based on the enormous archaeological
wealth and a plethora of historic sources, modern historiography universally accepts the
conclusion that Ancient Macedonians were Greeks. The key issue with regard to the
“Macedonian” nationalism is how the opposite and improbable conclusion could became a
“valid” and all-pervading form of public discourse and the root of national self-identification.
The problems arouse with the way in which the totalitarian VMRO-DPMNE government
energized the masses among which the national confusion brought by media exposure of
contradictory data grew. Firstly, it reactivated the conflict with Greece by multitude of
irredentist moves. Secondly, within FYROM it carried massive policy of introduction of
Ancient Macedonian symbols (names of institutions, statues) after the expected and natural
Greek negative reaction. The population, feeling threatened, mistook the attitude of
aggressive “Macedonization” sponsored by the government as “defiance” against a hostile
state (the hostility of which was precisely provoked by FYROM’s initial provocations).
Capitalizing on the fact that the vast majority of the general population does not have neither
a capability nor a will for sustained scientific research regarding ethnology, history and
linguistics, the government managed to capture attention of the whole body of citizens. One
can presume that the sheer authority the organized government yields in a conformist society
where libertarian principles of critical thinking and individual self-reliance regarding the
process of opinion-forming are practically absent is sufficient to impose an entirely absurd
idea of identity. In FYROM it is unchallenged by organized bodies from which a better
knowledge of the true state of affairs might be expected, including universities, institutes,
museums etc. With the sole exception of Internet, all electronic and printed media are
participants in government’s monopoly over identity dogmas. Only few individual voices of
distaste and revolt against the lies have insofar voiced their concerns (Denko Maleski, Petar
Hr. Ilievski) but they got a hostile, unsympathetic public response.
While the prospect of organized challenge of the pro-governmental stances regarding the
identity issues is something expected given the conventional political dynamics within
pluralist societies, this is not quite a case. Nikola Gruevski achieved dominance of his party
by calling premature elections in 2008 at the time of peak in the approval rating of his first
mandate caused by populist measures. That gave him an unprecedented might against which
FYROM has no institutionalized mechanisms of control. Furthermore, in a state of affairs
whereby the larger part of the Slavs have abandoned their Bulgarian and Serbian culture in
belief that they represent a separate ancient ethnicity in a category of its own, creators of the
policy of the opposition (led by the leftist SDSM party) must carefully measure their words
of opposition to the lavish Pseudomacedonian rhetorics, since they may be branded as
“traitors” given the appropriate circumstances. Consequently, in such occasion they would
find themselves ostracized from the ongoing debate.
This leads to the conclusion that the solution to the Pseudomacedonian hysteria which totally
dominates public life in FYROM is not only confined to the change in the internal situation
which may come as a result of economic collapse or a full-scale civil war, but also from
strong pressure from outside which would enable FYROM to conform itself to reality and to
rational way of conducting cultural policy. The reign of VMRO-DPMNE, characterized by
collectivist, group-centered policies, extensive role of the police in society, new legislature
sponsoring religious education, subsidizing biological procreation with wealth redistribution,
enforcing ethics of service to the “common good”, emphasizing the feral, folklorist and
medieval aspects of local national culture in opposition to modern as well as apolitical high
culture, is the greatest political catastrophe FYROM faces in early 21st century. A hope
remains that the Slavs of FYROM will reject the artificial and overbearing attempts to instill
a connection with chronologically and ethnically distant Greek kingdom as well as to make
history the most important aspect of their everyday lives. Only through enduring action from
within and from abroad the local state-worshiping, centrally-planned tribal way of life may be
liquidated and replaced with a political system based on freedom, a change which will
forever put the era of Pseudomacedonism behind, as a doomed ideology based on lies
Vasko Gligorijević
Skoplje, FYROM
Tuesday, December 09, 2008
VMRO Reign in FYROM: Europe's Only Modern-Day Fascist Regime
by Vasko Gligorijević
The ultranationalist regime of the "Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization"
(VMRO), an awkwardly and anachronistically named rightist political party of FYROM is
likely to reach the zenith of its autocratic practices within the first quarter of 2009. The
merciless wave of the Global economic crisis, although slightly curbed by measures in US
and EU is likely to hit the economy of the small Balkan state throughout the winter, the
period of the greatest expenditure of home budget. This will negatively adverse on Gruevski's
rating due to the prevalent mentality in FYROM that the government rather then the Free
market is responsible for living standards ups and downs. Yet the reason for the fall from the
grace are not to be sought in economy only. The expected withdrawal of support by official
Washington after the takeover of Presidency by Barack Obama to Skoplje will add to the lost
of support for government by the local Slavic population. The quite naive belief cherished
internally that FYROM has a priority position in US Foreign policy on pair with Israel and
South Korea, based on oil pipeline project and building of a CIA station of imposing capacity
in Skoplje's center, slowly fades within this small Balkan population of 1.200.000
indoctrinated for nearly two decades with belief of its exceptionalism and global importance.
So far, what remains is to assess the legacy of two years of VMRO's reign of terror within the
puppet-state. The most important aspect is the complete destruction of any possibility of good
relationships, primarily with neighboring Greece (the name or rather, identity theft issue) and
Serbia (the recognition of "Kosovo"). Relationships were uneasy with Bulgaria, regardless of
the fact that the ruling VMRO also has a Bulgarian nationalist aspect. The only neighbors
with which the young Balkan people has any substantial ties and mutual sympathies are
Albania and Kosovo, although VMRO, representing FYROMian Slavs is in a state of latent
civil war with its numerous ethnic Albanian population, numbering nearly 30% of the
population. Unlike Serbia and Bulgaria, there are no Russophile thinkers in FYROM due to
the fact that the population, termed "Macedonian" ceased to consider itself Slavic for a host
of political and cultural reasons. Instead, it claims continuity with the Ancient Macedonians, a
Greek tribe unrelated anthropologically, linguistically and cultural with present FYROMian
population, inhabiting in antiquity mostly the region from southern borders of FYROM to the
Aegean Sea around Greek port of Thessaloníki.
Turkey, an Asiatic power which enslaved FYROMian peoples for 500 years in a most brutal
way imaginable is FYROM's preferred strategic political and military partner in the wider
region. Not much sense can be made from this absurd realpolitik except through the
perspective of Pseudomacedonian "archaeological nationalism". Reminiscent of Mussolini's
and Ceausescu's grandomania, the practitioners of Pseudomacedonism put emphasis on
revival of real or imagined ancient ancestral links via extensive public propaganda, sporting
of ancient symbols, erection of forceful, imposing exemplars of architectural and plastic art
evocative of glorious past, but out of place and any meaningful context.
The VMRO of today is not much unlike its predecessor, the historical VMRO (1893-
1934). The Bulgarian terrorist organization created a fame in the world by being as ferocious
in guerrilla warfare and assassination campaign against Serbia, later Yugoslavia as it was
known for fratricidal campaigns for internal power. Based on income gathered by
racketeering, VMRO integrated itself with the regular Bulgarian army in both Balkan wars
(1912-13) and WWI, being responsible for the 1917 massacre in Toplica, Serbia, when 14.
000 civilians were slaughtered by "komitadjiite", the squad men of VMRO. Puzzled by the
usage of terms "Macedonia" and "Macedonians" in organization's document, younger
generations of the "Makedonci" people erroneously think that this organization was centered
around ethnic, categorical "Macedonism" segregated from Bulgarians and all other peoples, a
notion rejected by the multitude of recorded statements and literature produced by members
of the original VMRO. The name "Macedonian" is simply a Bulgarian subterfuge used to
create impression of native character of the VMRO struggle and to reject accusation of
Bulgarian irredentism. Such "Macedonian" character was cherished by VMRO groups
operating in Communist Yugoslavia so that they could gain confidence of Anti-Communist
governments which would lack if they proclaimed direct unification with Bulgaria, then a
dogmatic Warsaw pact country, as a goal.
The only significant difference which shapes the way modern-day VMRO articulates
itself is that today, "komitadjii" have traded uniforms for suits, mountain shacks and
caves for offices, donkeys for limousines. The Bulgarian core of the organization is evident
on close inspection: while vast majority of its members, mislead by the atmosphere of
decades-old, powerful, "Macedonizing" propaganda and especially its nebulous escalation,
the "intellectual wing" is still "Crypto-Bulgarian". One recalls the essayist and poetic phase
of Antonio Milososki, current Minister of Foreign Affairs, marked by allusive, yet firm, often
emotional Bulgarian patriotism. DRUM, a minor explicitly Bulgarian party led by A.
Milenkovski and A. Čibišev was absorbed in VMRO-DPMNE in 2006, a process which
failed to gather comments. Miroslav Rizinski, one of the unofficial leaders of Skoplje's small
right-wing Bulgarian element currently preoccupied with commemorations and anniversaries,
was a high-ranking member of the current administration and member of VMRO-DPMNE
regardless of his vehement denials of a "Macedonian" nation.
In retrospective it is easily to deduce that VMRO has all the characteristic of a fascist regime,
not only in terms of conforming to historic political archetypes but also possessing
peculiarities which, nevertheless, are perfectly explained with Fascism's most ubiquitous
feature: forced sacrifice of oneself to the altar of the Ethereal State via continuous reform
imposed by the Top Leadership/the Big Government.
2. Historicism, not only reminiscent to the types present in historical regimes of modern
times, but of a more bizarre, eclectic, pompous type.
4. Grip on journalism through pressure, draconian laws and integration of the loyalist media
into state's giant megaphone. An extensive program of TV and magazine budget-payed
advertising of the "successes" of the government, in essence a prolonged pre-election
campaign.
5. Enforcement of a 1996 totalitarian law that forbids private research and foundation of
private institutes and projects studying the identity cultures of peoples living within FYROM.
While plenty in the development of internal relationships in FYROM remains to be seen and
are yet to be studied, certain calls to actions come to the mind. It is clear that the individual
will never have a peace of the mind in the vertically stratified command-type society of
FYROM. The genocide of Bulgarians is the single greatest atrocity in FYROM, perpetrated
by Pseudomacedonians, a number of which have Crypto-Bulgarian tendencies but the
implementation of which is likely to prove itself fatal. Hellenism is the largest external victim
of Pseudomacedonism: both as a colossal historical legacy and as a living reality, its symbols
are expropriated zealously by Pseudomacedonians. The territorial pretension of FYROM
against Greece are real, although they may seem in their preparatory phase as of now. The
Slavs in general and the Serbs in particular are also threatened with their forced incorporation
into the VMRO's Big Brother State. What remains to be done?
As of now, no opposition worthy of name exist in FYROM. Public voices against the regime
are rare. Hope remains that the world, drawing analogy between the consequences of actions
undertaken by the doomed ideologies of the past, will awake. The world has an obligation to
stop FYROM from being the trouble-maker of the Balkans and a source of major instability
which could affect the wider region. The regime may implode, or even get overthrown by the
dissatisfied masses. Yet apocalyptic scenarios are not necessary part of the solution-bringing
equation. What is certain is that a long process of detoxification of entire FYROM must
follow the fall of VMRO. Old politicians must be banned from any participation into politics.
The educational system should be reformed, while the public culture sector should be
privatized as much as possible and reformed. The collective delusion should be brought to an
end through a public program. If reformist forces from within, ready to invest effort into the
enterprise of DeVMROvisation, fail to be up to the task or even fail to appear, the
International, primarily European Community should step in and impose order.
Only through a fall of Gruevski and his clique a full restoration of freedom-based values in
FYROM may occur and fresh solution to the identity-crisis of the troubled
Pseudomacedonian Balkan nation may be found. The one thing that is sure is that time is of
essence and the time is getting late.
Vasko Gligorijevic
"Slavic Philhellenic Network"
December 10, 2008
Skoplje's public "St. Cyrill and Methodius" University (UKIM) via its Philosophical Faculty
(FZF), country's most important institution in the process of production of historians,
classical philologists and archaeologist, most important professions dedicated to exploring
and revealing the past, including the matters of ethnicity and cultural identity. Due to the fact
that private research on matters of national identity regarding the genesis and ethnic
anthropology of peoples historically present in FYROM is forbidden by the 1996 Law for
scientific-exploring activity ("Zakon za naučno-istražuvačkata dejnost"), article 16, which
reads:
"The approval (for performing public scientific work-V. G. ) can be given for all areas
designated as a public interest in scientific-exploring activity, with the exception of scientific
research in the area of historical and cultural identity of the Macedonian people and the
nationalities which live in the Republic of Macedonia, defense and security. "
Added to this draconian, totalitarian enslavement of free thought, designed to keep the state
monopoly over the nationally important sphere of identity study is the fact that the state
institutions, to which the aforementioned law gives a monopoly over the process are not only
funded by the budget, but have their managers ("direktori") appointed by decree. It is
axiomatic that this configuration of the circumstances breeds conformism, inefficiency,
rigidity and consequently, sustained dogmatism. Subservient to the politicians, university
postgraduates remain firmly tied in Big Brother's iron mold, having no chance to get support
for projects outside the politically-imposed correct collectivist thinking. The political line is
clear on this matter: a "Macedonian" ethnicity of a non-Greek type emergent in Balkan
Neolithic period exists. It is completely culturally, anthropologically and linguistically in a
category of its own. It is destined to dominate the ancient fatherland, partitioned in 1913 by
the evil neighbors which had no ethnic and cultural presence in the region, nor was their
action legitimate. This is the official, sacrosanct and all-pervading mythology of the young
Balkan nation.
External scholars of Balkan affairs, classicists, archaeologists, byzantologists, slavists and all
others focused on region's culture, history and politics disagree firmly. Yet their voices of
protest over the farce are not mentioned in FYROMian media. Their books, articles and other
publicized works are not available in bookstores and public libraries in FYROM. Programs
for study abroad are expensive in relation to local standard, at least for most students. Only
few of those who study abroad take a curriculum in humanities. As a result, for anybody
aspiring towards a carrier in history and for those who find this profession which offers little
financial award, yet provides intellectual stimulus as few others, the only path is enrollment
in UKIM. Neither the University of Monastiri/Bitolj nor other private educational institution
do offer programs in the science of historiography.
The FZF of UKIM issues a eclectic guideline for each curricula containing the University's
statute and regulations, practical general advice and a program, divided by study subjects.
The program for each subject is left to the chair-holding professorship's discretion, however
the entire course is planned centrally. A brief review of the plan for four-year study of history
as exposed in the UKIM's current official guideline ("Priračnik-institut za istorija-nasoka
arhivistika" Skopje 2004) follows:
Apart from the usage of the word "ethnogenesis", which is out of the place in relation to the
phyllogenetical study of tribal and politically separate units within the same ethnic group, in
this case the Hellenic one is puzzled by the usage of the phrase "sources. . [. . ]. . found
among us". Is this to be understood in terms that only historical sources-recognizing their
primacy within the theoretical framework in the historiographic sources-only the
quantitatively small part of Macedonian sources found in the southernmost parts of FYROM
have any relevance whatsoever to the history of Ancient Macedonia and Macedonians?
Regarding the statement that "the understanding of the contemporary historical processes" is
the only reason why Ancient Macedonian history is studied today-so that one can be
professionally equipped to cover the gaps of 900 years from Alexander the Great's death to
the arrival of Slavs and the subsequent gap of 1400 years to the first idea of separate
"Macedonian" ethnicity with falsified abrogations-the observer finds unintentionally
humorously, but truly expressed reality.
2. The list of basic bibliography ("osnovna literatura") contains only 6 books, among
which are:
Inclusion of the book "Demosthenes" by P. Carlie in FYROMian translation puts a too heavy
spotlight on this protagonist of ancient History. The motive here is to put emphasis primarily
on Demosthenes usage of anti-Macedonian rhetorics in his comment against the political
clash between Macedonia of Phillip II and Athens for leadership in the Greek world.
The bibliographical sections lists 7 works by ancient authors translated in Serbian and
Croatian language among which the only body of works translated in FYRO Macedonian
language is-unsurprisingly-a collection of speeches by Demosthenes (Demosten, "Govori",
trans. Danica Čadikovska, Skopje 1995).
3. The Greek history is treated separately in the subject „History of the Old Age"
together with the cultures of the Fertile Crescent. Here, the influence of the discredited
archaeological-historical paradigm Ex Lux Oriente formulated by the British Marxist
Scholar Gordon Childe is visible. Out of 4 monographs mentioned in the guideline for the
second part of the course Carlie's biography of Demosthenes is mentioned again (!). Fixation
with the ancient rhetorician by FYROMian scholars is obvious.
The blunt segregation of the Ancient Macedonian history from the general Hellenic one
fortifies the impression in the student that these two entities should be viewed separately in
an ethnological sense. Left without a proper bibliographical guidance, the caricature of which
contains mostly suitable collections of sources and politically-correct foreign monographs,
the student is being mislead at the formative academic years. Overt usage of FYROMian and
South-Slavic language books also raises suspicion. The rest of the program puts a heavy
emphasis on the medieval and 19th/20th century history of the Geographic Macedonia (an
ahistorical and geotechnical concept whose northern borders are set quite further than those
of Macedonia proper). Furthermore, synthetic (in contrast with more topical) published
material from the Communist era often carries not only the baggage of wrongful statement on
the Macedonian problematic proper but employ a broad set of devices to fashion a monist
(and thus fluid) materialistic-deterministic, economistic and quasipositivistic worldview ,
quite often laid out in a descriptive and didactic fashion. True knowledge about Macedonia,
its development as a territorial and political concept, its Greek ethnological and
anthropological character eludes the student. Tragically, this is the place where future
generation of FYROMian historians, those patron-saints of ethnic identity in its modern and
political context learn their craft. What was a world of their past, its idiosyncratic character
left within confines of a hermetically sealed educational process grows in UKIM in a more
elaborate, rich and detailed scheme. The interplay of awakened distant ages will, however ,
continue with its disharmonious, cacophonous sound , having no truthful meaning , in the
next phase: creation of dogmatic and sanitized "truth" for internal purposes in a variety of
genres: primary and secondary textbooks, lexicons, atlases, encyclopedias. These are widely
available forms of expression against which most rigid standards of conservation within the
dogma are set. Classic monographs and articles are products for which slightly more liberal
circumstances for creation in the spirit of science and rigorous scholarship is in existence.
But, even here, within the almost paramilitary structured state institutions, the difference is
one of small quantity, not quality.
FYROMian writer, the Bulgarian nationalist Mladen Srbinovski called the neighborhood
where the State Archive, the s. c. MANU ("Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts"), the
Institute for National History (INI) are located "The institutional belly of Macedonism" in his
essay "Turbo Makedonija" ("Turbomakedonija" in "Obedi ništožnost", Skopje 1999). He
could have added UKIM, too. Perhaps the striking methaphore would have gained even
greater potency.
Situated right to the bulevard "Aleksandar Makedonski", UKIM, under the shell of gray
Brutalist architecture encloses the corridors of totalitarian misery, libraries of PC decrees
disguised as literature and teaching halls where the "virtue" of conformism is forced with an
iron hand of the Big Government. It is an institution that cannot in itself teach anything about
truthfulness, self-discipline, aspiration towards excellence which are values through which
any enthusiasm results in quality and productivity. For maximum efficiency, those
FYROMians who cherish history as it is should strive toward autodidactism, mastery of
several global languages and reliance on sources and non-FYROMian literature. Although
UKIM is nominally autonomous, strong mechanisms of factual dependence to the
government of FYROM in general, and on the actual Pseudomacedonian leadership set in
particular are in existence, mutually reinforcing each other. Nevertheless, Skoplje's
university is bound to its mission which is cherished by all institutions of its kind
belonging to the European tradition: to stand above politics, to espouse principles
leading to proliferation of science and increasing the sum of knowledge and the
capability to act upon it.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
FYROM: Fascism in Action
*
by Vasilije (Vasko) Gligorijevic
taken from Slavic Philhellenic Network blog.
The new provocative measures undertaken by the regime of Nikola Gruevski show that the
political leadership of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia decided to create a virtual
reality as a substitute for normal free life of its citizens. The Prime Minister of the small
Balkan nation, termed “the immortal and eternal shepherd and leader of his people” by the
state TV continued the policy of historical revisionism carried through occult usurpation of
the space much to the disbelief and revolt among outside observers which slowly but steadily
begun to understand its eerie monstrosity.
Since its separation from Yugoslavia in 1991, FYROM struggled with its troubled past
originating from the ideology of separate “Macedonian” nation formulated by the Bulgarian
VMRO, later by Communist Internationale in 1934 and implemented on its soil from 1944
onwards by Yugoslav Communist dictator Josip Broz “Tito”. While there is a convergence in
the global Balkanology-oriented historiography that prior to 1944 most of FYROMian so-
called “Macedonian” population was ethnically Bulgarian, energetic Titoist policy of
allocating large funds to creation of schools, media outlets, institutions, museums and other
cultural institution among the hitherto extremely backward people managed to instill a strong
sense of one’s “Macedonian” ethnicity, neither Bulgarian, nor Serb and categorically as well
as diametrically opposed to any other interpretation of local culture and politics. After 60
years of such totalitarian “national-communist” model which is continued today in altered
form by the ruling “Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization” (VMRO), this view
escalated into widespread belief among the general public that the Pseudomacedonian ethnic
group has its direct ancestry from Ancient Macedonians, a Greek entity bulk of which
historically inhabited modern-day northern Greek province of Macedonia.
A mountain of evidence exists against this postulated linear connection brought by two
centuries of historical and linguistic studies against any connection, including those of
cultural, linguistic and demographical type between Macedonians of antiquity and
FYROMian Slavs of Bulgarian and Serbian type. However, the lack of any kind of public
discourse as well as absence of alternative media brought confusion about the national
identity of the population of self-styled Bulgarian-speaking “Macedonians”. Although, with
the possible exception of North Korea, the phenomenon of collective government-imposed
delusion in FYROM is the largest and most profound such example in modern times, it didn’t
attract the due interest from scholars and thinkers worldwide. History and politicology never
hitherto witnessed that a massive disposition in an ethnic groups towards symbolical
connection with a imagined ancestral stock whose alien character is apparent from a cursory
glance over history, geography and facts of language may function as a central foundation of
both internal and external politics in their totality.
Yet, the politics of lie and eradication of the true history of Pseudomacedonian people
continues unchallenged. From 2006 onwards the entire landscape has been turned into a
theme-park celebrating the Ancient Macedonians. In what was named a “renaming spree” by
some observers, enormous number of public facilities were named either “Philip the
Macedonian” or “Alexander the Great” and plenty of statues of these ancient Greek historic
persons were erected. Usage of the names of other Macedonian figures is avoided most likely
because their Greek character would be more salient. The “Vergina Star”, the political and
dynastic symbol of the historic Macedonians is cherished and implemented in a number of
architectural and decorative projects. The state-organized education instills a sense of ethnic
superiority , namely the idea that the entire human civilization originated among
FYROMians. Private historical research is forbidden and challenge of the official identity
dogma is a criminal offense carrying lengthy prison sentence (article 179 of the Criminal
Code).
However, the primary place in the process of destruction of the VMRO regime in FYROM
should be given to Serbia and Bulgaria, which should, coordinated with other leaderships and
thinkers within the Slavic word, work on the palliative process of restoration of country’s true
Slavic identity which will be a precondition of cherishing libertarian values in politics,
economy and culture. At the same time, a process of healing the catastrophic relationships
between Skopje and Athens, which will take certainly more than a decade should start. The
first step of this process should be rejection of Skopje’s irredentist program and its machinery
and a wholesale reform of public education, universities, museums, institution.
The latest provocative act of FYROM is the erection of a 50ft tall horseman statue of
Alexander the Great at Skopje’s central square, scheduled for the later half of January. It
remains to be seen whether the resident diplomats, including the representatives of EU will
protest over this farce. The expected massive hysteria will coincide with the time of downfall
of the economic parameters. The occult symbolism of “Alexander returning abroad” and the
apparent manifestation of “our king” as the crowd shall cheer will be a prime example of
futility of emotions and moods manipulating politics which isolated a European country into
a brainwashing camp. In the war between freedom and individuality and collectivist
groupthink , FYROM is the most acute hotspot in Europe. Decisiveness in the treatment of
VMRO gang is what the civilized world owes to itself.
==================================================