- Peščanik - https://pescanik.net -

Beasts of Serbia

Even the wounded beast, backed into a corner by hunters, makes this last, instinctive attempt at salvation, attacking its persecutors – so why wouldn’t the insulted, robbed, humiliated and disempowered people make an illogical and desperate move if the authorities face them with another, certainly not the last, but symbolically the most painful humiliation?
Ostoja Simetic[1]

Fascism can be defined as a form of political behavior obsessed with the collapse of the community, humiliation and the status of victim, as well as with compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass movement of dedicated nationalist militants, working in un uneasy, yet effective cooperation with traditional elites, abandons democratic freedoms and pursues goals of internal cleansing and external expansion through redemptive violence without any ethical and legal boundaries.
Robert Paxton[2]

Ur-Fascism is still around us, sometimes in plainclothes. It would be so much easier for us if there appeared on the world scene somebody saying, “I want to reopen Auschwitz, I want the Blackshirts to parade again in the Italian squares.” Life is not that simple. Ur-Fascism can come back under the most innocent of disguises. Our duty is to uncover it and to point our finger at any of its new instances — every day, in every part of the world.
Umberto Eco [3]

Let us not kid ourselves – October 10 was an attempted fascist coup. Weak, stupid and unsuccessful, but certain and certainly fascist. Those who do not recognize this, and instead use euphemisms about “social uprising”, “youth without perspective” and “the defense of traditional moral” either know nothing, or are blind, or, perhaps, shamelessly lie.

The joint statement issued by “Dveri srpske”, “Vidovdan”, “Novi Standard”, “Srpski nacionalisti” and the “Slobodan Jovanovic fund” clearly shows that it was an attempted coup.

The statement calls for:

“Urgent public discussion and a new social agreement between all government political parties and opposition, as well as syndicates and media on one side, and alternative media, patriotic organizations and the Serbian Orthodox Church on the other, with the goal of pacifying the alarming social tensions and avoiding a state of emergency and civil war”. [4]

What do these organizations, which do not participate in the elections, and hence represent no one but themselves, believe is the basis for their demand for ‘a new social agreement’ where they would become an equal partner with parliamentary parties? On the basis of what, in a country with free and fair multiparty elections, do they demand serious political concessions from parliamentary parties which were put in power by the citizens? On the basis on one thing alone – threat of new violence, that is, civil war. Why would negotiations with them prevent a civil war? There is only one reasonable answer – because they are the ones who decide whether to incite it or not. If it were not so, negotiations with them would be pointless and completely incapable of preventing the ‘civil war’ they refer to. They do not speak for the citizens, but for the perpetrators of violence; this is why their argument is not democratic, but terrorist.

It is obvious from several clear indicators that it is a fascist coup, and not any kind of economically motivated revolution. Firstly, the reason that the putschists themselves offered for taking to the streets is not of an economic, but of a recognizably fascist nature (we will talk more about this later in the text) – preventing “the parade of sodomites”.[5] “Demonstrators”, as they were euphemistically labeled by nationalist press, did not join any of the existing strikes around Serbia, nor did they stand up to protect workers or any other disempowered category of citizens. Mladen Obradovic and his comrades from Genoa are not members of the lowest social classes, they have enough money to travel to Italy, drive bikes, buy torches. They are members of the “frustrated middleclass” [6] who did not reach the status they privately believe they are entitled to by legal means, and are now playing heroes by breaking shop windows, heads and mammograms. There is a large number of people in Serbia who really live on the verge of poverty, and have never opted for using violence. To compare their real suffering and legitimate claims with the rampage of fascist scum is not only stupid and banally wrong (because it confuses the left with the right, legitimate economic protest with fascist terror), but also insulting.

Secondly, organization which are in any way connected with the Sunday riots, either as organizers or as those tasked with relativizing, have explicitly fascist program and demands. Thus, these are, without a doubt, fascist organizations. To try and prove this on the example of “Obraz”, “Nasi” and “SNP 1389” would be superfluous: this is not only obvious, but the Constitutional Court of Serbia will also be dealing with this very soon, so let us not interfere here with its work.

It is more interesting and more important to point out the fact that “Dveri srpske”, an organization which is being treated as part of the mainstream, and whose representatives are often guests on RTS, B92 and Studio B, as well as in mainstream papers, such as Politika and NIN, is also a fascist organization. Furthermore, this is not just arbitrary “name calling” in order to demonize political opponents. Fascism at hand here is a notion on which there is a relatively broad consensus amongst historians and political scientists. Roger Griffin formulates this broadly accepted definition of “fascist minimum” in the following way: “Fascism is a political ideology whose mythic core in its various permutations is a palingenetic form of populist ultra-nationalism.“[7] Palingenesis here refers to revival, more precisely, the revival of a deeply decadent and weak nation. Regardless of its forms of appearance, which vary from pagan, racist and anti-Christian Nazism, to eclecticism of Italian fascist and clero-fascism of the Ustasha movement, fascism is based on the myth of the revival of the nation and its salvation from decadence through fascist revolution. This thorough myth implies some other necessary characteristics of fascism – anti-liberalism, anti-conservatism, anti-rationalism, false socialism, etc. Griffin writes:

“The notion about the ‘nation’ as an organism that can ‘decay/fail’ and “revive itself’ represents exactly the opposite of what liberals understand it to mean/be. The notion of nation understood in this way denotes an organism with its own life cycle, collective psychology and common destiny, which generally includes the entire nation (not only its ruling elite), and in practice all of those who are ethnically and culturally its ‘natural members’ and who are not infected with anti-nationalist forces. When the nation is understood in this way, sometimes called “integral nationalism”, hyper-nationalism” or “liberal nationalism” – it transforms into a reality of a higher order and transcends the life of an individual, which has meaning and value only to the degree to which it directly contributes to the wellbeing of the entire organism. A comprehensive study of the primary sources of fascism convinced me that in the core of the fascist mentality lies the idea of devotion, and, if necessary – sacrifice of individual existence in the fight against forces of degeneration which have allegedly declined/weakened the nation, as well as the effort to return ones nation to its glory and strength. A fascist feels like he (and most of times it is a he) was born on the crossroads between national decline and national revival. This feeling alchemically transforms all pessimism and cultural desperation into manic feeling of purpose and optimism. A fascist knows that he is one of the “chosen ones” from the otherwise lost generation. His task is to prepare the grounds for a new breed of men, homo fascistus, who will instinctively form a part of the revitalized national community without the need to first cleanse himself of selfish reflexes spread by the civilization which is immersed in egoism and materialism.” [8]

How does “Dveri” fit into this definition of fascism? As a textbook illustration – perfect. Let us take a look at their manifesto, which was published last year by the spiritus movens of the movement, Bosko Obradovic, under the title “A chance in the crisis: seven basis of our revival”. It is important to mention that the text, in somewhat abbreviated form, was also published in NIN, under the title “For new enthusiasm”.[9]

What is fascinating, even during the first reading of this “program”, is the amazing lack of substance – there is actually no program contained in these words. Problems which Serbia is facing today are very concrete, and the programs that should deal with these problems must offer concrete solutions. Economic crisis, Kosovo, EU integrations, are all questions to which different solutions can be offered, but some (type of) solutions have to be offered. Obradovic’s manifesto offers none. The only contents of his manifesto is the fascist myth on palingenesis, i.e. revival. The nation is immersed in decadence and hopelessness/despondency, and “Dveri” are here to “alchemically transform” these feelings into “enthusiasm”, or, as Griffin says – “manic feeling of purpose and optimism”. Every life is sacred, but only because every life can be “useful to the Serbian cause”. The birth of every child should be a national celebration, but only because children are our “national program”. (A reminder: when nation is understood in this way, it transforms into a reality of a higher order and transcends the life of an individual, which has meaning and value only to the degree to which it directly contributes to the wellbeing of the entire organism.”)

Obradovic lists the general stand points of the fascist project with almost disarming innocence. “Every division, schism and discord amongst the Serbs is in the past and is a mortal sin against new patriotism”, he writes, ten long years after the Serbian translation of the famous text “Eternal fascism”, in which Umberto Eco writes: “In modern culture the scientific community praises disagreement as a way to improve knowledge. For Ur-Fascism, disagreement is treason”[10]. More than seventy years after Mussolini’s “moral and spiritual revolution”[11], Bosko Obradovic calls for “a moral and spiritual uprising”.

Stanley Fish talks about the fact that many contemporary extremist right-wing organizations, in order to adjust to the standards of political correctness, codeproblematic messages, translating them into acceptable forms, but in such a way that the real contents of these messages is easy to decode. Here, however, we are faced with completely open fascism, touchingly unaware of any need to hide behind codes. [12]

Let me offer another simple example. One of the general standpoints of the study of fascism is that the fascist ideology has, through history, represented itself as “neither left, nor right”[13], that is, as “the third path” [14] between capitalism and Marxism. George Moose says: Fascism around the globe was “a standpoint on life”, based on national mysticism which varied from nation to nation. It was also a revolution, an attempt to find ‘a third road’ between Marxism and capitalism, but with the emphasis on ideology more than on economy, ‘revolution of the spirit’ that Mussolini, or Hitler’s ‘German revolution’[15], spoke about. Griffin, on the other hand, writes about the alleged socialist aspect of fascism in the following way: “It is clear that it [fascism] axiomatically rejects the Marxist internationalism and materialism, but it can represent the revival of the national community as overcoming the class conflict, destruction of traditional hierarchies, eradication of parasitism, as well as rewarding each productive member of the nation, joining the energy of capitalism and technology into a new order in which they stop exploiting and enslaving the people.” [16]

And here is what “Dveri” writes in its manifesto “Let us be unrealistic, ask for the possible!”[17]:

A necessary precondition for the realization of the new national program is rejecting the division (in)to the right and the left, as an useless prop of old-party scholastics. This stale ideological level has not only been surpassed, but is also a self-limiting and harmful form for contemporary national activism.

A new ideal reality needs a new self-consciousness from both ends of the ideological scale. The so-called Serbian national right should renounce intellectualism, pseudo-elitism and all kinds of detachment from the people and their real life, while the so-called Serbian left must admit that without resolving the national problem there cannot be a solution to social problems either.

For the right wing, this practically means that we cannot rely on mere theoretical forms of religiosity, moralism, monarchism, unity and patriotism, if we have not given them a real, social content. The lesson for the left is that there is no real social solidarity without common historical values in the spiritual base of familial and national community.

If we were to look for the right ideal description today, the most accurate description would be to say that we are (NEITHER) LEFT (NOR) RIGHT. Because if the right means: religiousness, statehood, national self-worth, the sanctitude of traditional marriage and family – then we are on the right. But if the right means: a new monopoly and irresponsibility of the privileged classes, capitalism without a social function, a ceremonial religiosity without missionary and charitable characteristics, then we are not on the right.

Also, if the left entails anti-globalism, a socialization of spiritual and material goods by the people, a readjustment of the capitalist machine for the benefit of the individual and the collective, a revolutionary zeal of moral self-awareness against corruption as a spiritual form of capitalism, in short, a social patriotism with a Christian face, devoid of neo-Marxist warfare waged against religion and nation, then we are on the left. If, however, the left means: a resolute struggle for the withering away of the state, national individualities and religious consciousness, a further nonacceptance of private property, freedom of thought and action, as well as persistent internationalism and the dictatorship of different minorities as the new proletariat, then we cannot and will not be on the left.

Examples such as this one are countless, but I would like to point out two more, which I consider to be very important. Going back to Eco: “Ur-Fascism is based upon a selective populism, a qualitative populism, one might say. In a democracy, the citizens have individual rights, but the citizens in their entirety have a political impact only from a quantitative point of view – one follows the decisions of the majority. For Ur-Fascism, however, individuals as individuals have no rights, and the People is conceived as a quality, a monolithic entity expressing the Common Will. Since no large quantity of human beings can have a common will, the Leader pretends to be their interpreter. Having lost their power of delegation, citizens do not act; they are only called on to play the role of the People. Thus the People is only a theatrical fiction. There is in our future a TV or Internet populism, in which the emotional response of a selected group of citizens can be presented and accepted as the Voice of the People. Because of its qualitative populism Ur-Fascism must be against “rotten” parliamentary governments. Wherever a politician casts doubt on the legitimacy of a parliament because it no longer represents the Voice of the People, we can smell Ur-Fascism.”[18]

And this is what Bosko Obradovic, in his latest article “The Regime Will Not Parade Through Town”[19] suggests as a way to “ease the tensions and avoid a civil war”: “It is extremely important to stop offending and humiliating everything that is Serbian in our society, and for the Church, the patriotic organizations and free intellectuals to gain access to the media and the public arena, so we can articulate the voice of the people, which today have no representatives in the political life and in the media.”[20]

Therefore – The People’s Voice is not something which is expressed by voting in the free and fair elections, but something which The People are ready to whisper in the ear of the Church and “patriotic organizations”, which will then “articulate” this voice so we can all hear it. This is selective populism, or a textbook example of Ur-Fascism.

Finally, Eco writs: “At the root of the Ur-Fascist psychology there is the obsession with a plot, possibly an international one. The followers must feel besieged. The easiest way to solve the plot is the appeal to xenophobia. But the plot must also come from the inside: Jews are usually the best target because they have the advantage of being at the same time inside and outside.”[21]

As for the siege, “Dveri” is again touchingly open, not only creating the feeling of being besieged in their followers, but even openly claiming that Serbia is under siege: “For this program to succeed, the first requirement is to define Serbia as a country under occupation and to discontinue all internal disagreements until Serbia is free again.”[22] On a side note, just a couple of years ago, the besieged country adopted a constitution which “Dveri” strongly supported.[23]Moreover, as mentioned earlier, this is a country with regular democratic elections, a country where not a single political party was banned since October 5th (including the one supporting the border along the Karlobag-Ogulin-Karlovac-Virovitica line), and finally, a country in which the representatives of “Dveri” regularly appear in the mainstream media, spreading wisdom on issues such as faith, patriotism, family values and so on. Therefore, either this is a very shoddy occupation, or every systemic political party is in on it, including “Dveri”.

However, it is even more interesting how “Dveri” are dealing with the conspiracy problem. Obviously not with anti-Semitism. Then how? Who is simultaneously both “inside and out”, so that both international pressure and internal subversion can be explained? Instead of answering this question, here are a couple of passages from Vlada Glisic’s article “The Homosexual Ideology”[24], originally published before last week’s “Pride parade”, and then posted several times on “Dveri’s” website.

The homosexual ideology is, in its final instance, extremely inhumane, and maybe even anti-humane.

Since this ideological movement is made up of different and dissimilar political organizations and activists, some of them are apparently interested only in fighting discrimination and want the society to accept homosexuals, while there are others whose ideology goes as far as to suggest that most people should have the courage to publicly “come out” as homosexual. The trouble is that in the end every encouragement of homosexuality as a cornerstone of the homosexual ideology leads to this completely unexpected and inhumane concept, which is the concept of trying to drag in as much people as possible to the homosexual preference. As crazy as this appears to be (and however useless it may be), the intention of the ideologues to go this way speaks of their inhumanity. That this is an inhumane concept is confirmed by the fact that survival of humankind by natural means would be endangered if this were to come true. Modern science, of course, has artificial methods of insemination and birth, but it is also a fact that this is a new scientific field and that the future will show whether it has side effects. If the ideologues of homosexuality were to claim that artificial birth was an ideal model, then they would face the problem of this being unacceptable for many believers around the world. Which means that the advancement of this attitude would have to rely on severe repression, so we are again entering the domain of totalitarian and aggressive nature of homosexuality.

However, what speaks of the anti-humanist nature of this ideology is not only the fact that its extreme advocates are playing with the idea of a homosexual planet, but also the fact that their egocentric hysteria is much more compatible with what is basically an anti-humane method of human reproduction, which is being increasingly and illegally experimented with. It is called cloning. Knowing full well that the whole human civilization is clearly against this method, gay and lesbian activists are not demanding this publicly, but they are noticeably always close to those who practice these illegal experiments. The homosexual ideology is very compatible with global social engineers, who promote the “golden billion” idea (a theory which suggests that world population should be reduced to a billion people, so they can reach a high standard of living, while the rest of the world’s inhabitants should disappear – usually those from poor and deprived nations.) Taking all this into consideration, it is clear that the homosexual ideology has got very inhumane and, in its extreme form, even anti-humane features.

We all understand what the ideologies of Nazism, communism and fascism are, and how each of them could be analyzed – by analyzing books, texts, declarations, manifestos as well as the practice of their supporters (for instance, like I am doing in this article.) Nevertheless, what exactly is the homosexual ideology and how it can be analyzed is something that probably only Vladan Glisic understands, simply because this term, like everything else that it seemingly involves, is his own invention. And not only did he invent it – he assigned invented characteristics to it, based on his invented claims. Who are the “homosexual ideologues” who are “playing with the idea of a homosexual planet,” and where did Glisic get this information? Who are the “gay and lesbian activists” who are “always close” to those who practice illegal cloning experiments? How and when did Glisic “notice” that?

These are all, of course, pointless questions, because they presume that the point of Glisic’s text is to present a reasonable and empirically verifiable theory of a real existing phenomenon. But this simply is not the case; the point of Glisic’s text is to offer his readers a convenient solution to a conspiracy – a conspiratorial fairytale which turns a vulnerable social group into a scapegoat. Stopping the Pride parade ceases to be an attack on a vulnerable minority and turns into a heroic resistance to a global conspiracy. (As Eco writes: “The followers must feel humiliated by the ostentatious wealth and force of their enemies. Jews are rich and help each other through a secret web of mutual assistance. However, the followers must be convinced that they can overwhelm the enemies. Thus, by a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus, the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak. Fascist governments are condemned to lose wars because they are constitutionally incapable of objectively evaluating the force of the enemy.”)[25]

It is time for “Dveri srpske” to stop euphemistically calling themselves a “conservative” movement[26] – conservatives do not advocate revolutions, be they spiritual, moral or economic ones – and start calling themselves what they really are, according to all relevant characteristics – a fascist organization. This is not an insult or “branding”, but a proven classification based on contemporary theories of fascism. Whoever disagrees with this classification is free to rebut it with counterarguments, but cannot dismiss it as arbitrary, tendentious or pointless.

Furthermore, this text is not a call for the banning of “Dveri” or for any other legal repercussions against them – a liberal democracy can and must extend the freedom of speech and assembly even to fascists, as long as they are not calling for violence or violent change of the constitutional order. However, proper political organizations and the media must know who they are dealing with, and must accordingly keep the fascist fringe in its place – on the fringe. “A democratic state of law cannot prosecute false thoughts and indecent intentions. The freedom of state intervention is limited. But precisely for that reason it can survive only if intolerance, before the state uses its means of coercion, is countered by civil intolerance. Democracies can be free if serious forces which are able to govern refuse any discussion with hateful, fanatical and aggressive groups, if no decent person is willing to be seen in the company of advocates of hateful, fanatical and militant ideas. As long as this condition is met, the supporters of democracy can rest peacefully: freedom cannot be abused against freedom. But only then.”[27]

“What can a man deduce, amazed at what he read, but that the problem of this, yet another exponent of the group gathered around the so-calledNew Serbian Political Thought (NSPM),is not the ideological mumbo-jumbo (because it is actually irrelevant here whether you agree with NSPM or not), but something far more simple: a deep and aggressive illiteracy, which is visible at the basic level, in the inability to even read the text in front of ones eyes, the incapability to communicate with this text and to deduce at least the basic intent or standpoint of the author, as well as the most obvious facts.”

Peščanik.net, 21.10.2010.

How to protect beasts?

These lines, written by Djordje Matic, refer to Dusan Kovacevic, one of the participants of that infamous press conference. However, they could also refer to Miodrag Zarkovic, Kovacevic’s colleague from NSPM and the author of the text “A word on antifascist beasts”. “Deep and aggressive illiteracy” appears to be the family illness of this group of intellectuals.

When I wrote the text Beasts of Serbia, I expected negative reactions, but I also expected commentators to be able to understand it at least at the basic level. Alas, I forgot who I was dealing with.

In my text, I ask the following question: “What do these organizations, which do not participate in the elections, and hence represent no one but themselves, believe is the basis for their demand for ‘a new social agreement’ where they would become an equal partner with parliamentary parties? On the basis of what, in a country with free and fair multiparty elections, do they demand serious political concessions from parliamentary parties which were put in power by the citizens?”

And I answer: “On the basis of one thing alone – threat of new violence, that is – civil war.”

Zarkovic, however, claims that I ask the question: “What gives the signatories of this announcement the legal right to ask what they are asking?” This is a banal misinterpretation of my perfectly clear words – I am not wondering at all what gives them “the legal right” to demand X, but what is their rationale for demanding X. This rationale, in their own words, is the following: “in order to avoid a civil war.”

Further on, Zarkovic generously proposes: “Let us, for a moment, accept the otherwise disputable logic of Ratislav Dinic, and agree with him that attempts of nonpolitical subjects – or subjects with insufficient political legitimacy – to act politically and achieve political goals important for the state, automatically represent ‘attempts at a fascist coup’ and ‘terrorism’.”

But no matter how generous Zarkovic is, he will not be able to agree with me on this subject, simply because I said no such thing. Various social subjects may attempt to influence political decisions in the most diverse ways (by petitions, lobbying, arguments, etc.) I claim that the attempt to influence political decisions is not an act of terrorism per se, but only if it is based on a threat of violence. In my text, I say this unequivocally: “Why would negotiations withthem prevent a civil war? There is only one reasonable answer – because they are the ones who decide whether to incite it or not. If it were not so, negotiations with them would be pointless and completely incapable of preventing the ‘civil war’ they refer to. They do not speak for the citizens, but for the perpetrators of violence; thisis why their argument is not democratic, but terrorist.

In this context, Zarkovic’s claim that every person who attended the dinner with Biden, without previously gaining a mandate in an election, should according to “Dinic’s criteria” qualify as a ‘fascist putschist’ and ‘terrorist’ is simply meaningless, and especially has nothing to do with any “Dinic’s criteria”. Once again, this is a banal misinterpretation of a completely articulate text.

Finally, Zarkovic concludes that, according to “Dinic’s logics”, high representatives of DS, who, “for years, and especially during electoral campaigns, have been repeating that Serbia could avoid new wars, sanctions and isolation, and successfully complete European integrations, only if they maintain executive power”, should also be classified as terrorists. This is indeed an amazing lack of understanding, both of the text and the issue in question. The Democratic Party did not come into power by a threat of civil war, but by winning the elections. “Dveri” and their comrades, on the other hand, did not participate in the elections with the slogan “If you don’t vote for us, civil war will ensue!”, but are instead demanding to participate in the government without any democratic legitimacy, only on the basis of a threat. This is a recognizably terrorist demand, since political concessions are demanded on the basis of a threat of violence.

And what to say to the fact that the unfortunate Zarkovic takes the word “beasts” from my title and adds the attribute antifascist, failing to understand that my title did not constitute a simple insult, but a qualification that the members of Dveri themselves use in order to describe the “uprising of the people” on October 10 (“wounded beast, backed into a corner by hunters…”). This “wounded beast” is the best metaphor for the fascist ressentiment, the fascination with humiliation and irrational, redeeming violence. Not to mention the alliteration dveri-zveri(the word beast translates to Serbian as zveri, which rhymes with Dveri)… Nothing else to say, but to repeat Matic’s conclusion that what we have here is “primarily a deep and aggressive illiteracy, which is visible at the basic level, in the inability to even read the text in front of ones eyes, the incapability to communicate with this text and deduce at least the basic intent or standpoint of the author, as well as the most obvious facts.”

Translated by Bojana Obradovic

Peščanik.net, 26.10.2010.

[1] “10.10.10 – Ko je kriv?“, from the website “Dveri srpske” (http://www.dverisrpske.com/tekst/1873451)

[2] Anatomy of Fascism (New York: Vintage Books, 2005), p. 215.

[3] “Ur-fascism”,The New York Review of Books [vol. 42, No.11], 22.06.1995.http://www.pegc.us/archive/Articles/eco_ur-fascism.pdf

[4] http://www.srpskenovinecg.com/srbija/7502-dveri-srpske

[5] http://www.obraz.rs/index1.htm    Eco writes: “Since both permanent war and heroism are difficult games to play, the Ur-Fascist transfers his will to power to sexual matters. This is the origin of machismo (which implies both disdain for women and intolerance and condemnation of nonstandard sexual habits, from chastity to homosexuality). Since even sex is a difficult game to play, the Ur-Fascist hero tends to play with weapons – doing so becomes an ersatz phallic exercise. “Ur-fascism”, The New York Review of Books [vol. 42, No.11], 22.06.1995.

[6] Eco writes: “Ur-Fascism derives from individual or social frustration. That is why one of the most typical features of the historical fascism was the appeal to a frustrated middle class, a class suffering from an economic crisis or feelings of political humiliation, and frightened by the pressure of lower social groups. In our time, when the old “proletarians” are becoming petty bourgeois (and the lumpen are largely excluded from the political scene), the fascism of tomorrow will find its audience in this new majority.” ibid.

[7] „Fascism, general introduction“, Comparative Facsist Studies, Constantin Iordachi ed. (New York: Routledge, 2010.), p.118.

[8] ibid.

[9] Vol. 3032, 5 February 2009, p. 27.

[10] “Ur-fascism”, The New York Review of Books

[11] See: Robert Mallett, “Fascism as the Expression of a Spiritual Revolution in Italy”, The Sacred in Twentieth-Century Politics (Palgrave Macmillan, 2008.), as well as Stanley G. Paine, History of Fascism 1914-1945 (Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2003.), p. 106.

[12] Which, of course, does not mean that “Dveri” never use coded language. It is enough to recall Obradovic’s moaning that by allowing “Pride parade” orthodox Christians are being discriminated against, as well as “Dveris’s” demand to ban the Parade because it is supposedly unconstitutional. Here homophobia is shrouded in a language of human rights.

[13] This is also the title of Zeev Sternhell’s book about the birth of fascism in France: Ni droite ni gauche: l’idéologie fasciste en France (Editions Complexe, 1999)

[14] See: George L. Mosse, „Toward a General Theory of Fascism“,Comparative Facsist Studies, Constantin Iordachi ed. (New York: Routledge, 2010), also: Ruth Ben-Ghiat, “Italian Fascism and the Aesthetics of the ‘Third Way’”, Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 31, No. 2, Special Issue: The Aesthetics of Fascism (Apr, 1996), pp. 293-316.

[15] George L. Mosse, „Toward a General Theory of Fascism“, Comparative Fascist Studies, Constantin Iordachi ed. (New York: Routledge, 2010.), p. 89.

[16] „Fascism, general introduction“, Comparative Fascist Studies, Constantin Iordachi ed. (New York: Routledge, 2010), pp. 120-121.

[17] http://www.dverisrpske.com/tekst/1757521

Originally published in “Pečat”, 10 April 2009, vol. 58, pp. 31-33.

[18] “Ur-fascism”, The New York Review of Books

[19] Published in the latest edition of „Pečat“, vol. 136 (http://www.pecatmagazin.com/?p=8803)

[20] ] Lidija Glišić also in a recent article: „Although I wish that all the things I mentioned are part of some virtual reality made by an unimaginative creator, which can be stepped out of the same way you step into it – with a click of a mouse, I am still glad that I know what is real. Those who are not like Plato’s “cavemen” will be hiding in shadows, and will not hear a recent cry – Vox populi, vox Dei!” (http://www.dverisrpske.com/tekst/1873413) It is hard not to notice that led by the same logic, this pious Christian would probably gladly set free Barnabas and crucify Christ.

[21] “Ur-fascism”, The New York Review of Books

[22] http://www.dverisrpske.com/tekst/1757521

[23] “Za Ustav Srbije!”, 25.10.2005. (http://www.dverisrpske.com/tekst/147)

[24] http://www.dverisrpske.com/tekst/174663

[25] “Ur-fascism”, The New York Review of Books

[26] A recent example is here :http://www.nspm.rs/hronika/đorđe-vukadinovic-organizacije-sa-kojima-se-hilari-klinton-srela-bez-kredibiliteta-i-uticaja-u-srpskoj-javnosti.html

[27] János Kis, Neutralnost države (Sremski Karlovci: Izdavačka knjižarnica Zorana Stojanovića, 1996), p. 162.