Tag Archives: VMRO

Ivan Stoilković, a Parliamentary Deputy in FYROM, Denounces the Ustaši Song Incident [23-IV-2009]

Ivan Stoilković, a Serb politician in FYROM, reacts to the public glorification of Croatian Nazi songs by Ivica Georgievski, a Deputy from VMRO-DPMNE.

VMRO-DPMNE Parliamentary Deputy Georgievski Names Opposition “Freaks” and “Traitors” [22-IV-2009]

Ivica Georgievski, a Deputy of VMRO-DPMNE in FYROMian Parliament, in an interview given to A2’s journalist regarding his recommendation of Croatian Nazi songs as a way to energize patriotism in FYROM, defends his decision to call the opponents of VMRO-DPMNE’s Clerofascism “freaks”.

Branko Geroski Criticizes the Dogmatism of FYROMian Government [16-IV-2009]

Branko Geroski, editor-in-chief of “Sega” weekly, attacks the stubborn lack of desire by the Government of FYROM to find a compromise solution in the name dispute between Skoplje and Athens.

Lazar Elenovski Calls for Compromise on the Name Dispute with Greece [14-IV-2009]

Lazar Elenovski, a centrist political leader and former FYROMian Minister of Defense urges for compromise with Greece with regard to the name dispute at a conference of local Euro-Atlantists.

President-Elect of FYROM, Đorđe Ivanov, Lashes Out at Journalists [13-IV-2009]

FYROMian President-Elect Đorđe Ivanov meets with DUI leader Ali Ahmeti to negotiate future political strategies. At the contact with the press, Ivanov – visibly distressed – addressed journalist about the name dispute with Greece with а quite caustic tone.

Professor and Writer Jasna Kotevska Against Pseudomacedonism [08-II-2009]

Jasna Kotevska gives her opinion about the Pseudomacedonian fascist regime, making parallels with other totalitarian regimes, in an interview by A1’s Biljana Sekulovska.

Antifascist, Anti-VMRO Demonstrations by Liberal Youth in Skoplje [11-IV-2009]

A display of opposition by antifascist youth composed of moderate, centrist, liberal and libertarian intellectuals in defiance of Pseudomacedonian fascist policies of the regime of VMRO-DPMNE.

Đorđe Ivanov, the New President of FYROM, About the Name Issue

Đorđe Ivanov, a day after he has been elected President of FYROM, gives a statement about the name dispute in context of current relations between Skoplje and Athens.

FYROM: Fascism in Action

nikolagruevski2The 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).

The international community must intervene energetically if this abomination is to be stopped and the people of FYROM saved from ultranationalist, collectivist fallacies. What is in stake is a wholesale cultural genocide over the countries remaining Slavic populations compromised of Serbs and Bulgarians which remained true to the type, the later being particularly exposed to repression and obstacles to creation of even the most diminutive forms of political and cultural association. The outgoing administration of George W. Bush, in a catastrophic mismanagement of Balkan policy, blindly supported the Pseudomacedonian side which nourishes ambitions of territorial expansion towards Greek Macedonia. This policy, motivated by US support for creation of east-west communication and transport infrastructure traversing FYROM, created an island of instability in the southern Balkans and obstructed the peaceful harmonization of the region in the European Union. Hope remains that the incoming administration of President-Elect Barack Obama will, after the initial adaptation during the transit of power, have a clear, coherent Balkan policy, a hope strengthened by the fact that it will be shaped by Vice-President Joseph Biden and the next Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, individuals with profound Balkan expertise and history of their involvement in Balkan affairs.

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.

The Early Pseudomacedonism: A Legacy of Bulgarian Irredentism

Historical review of the earliest start of the process termed by the Greek scholar Evangelos Kofos as “mutation”, regarding the creation of the “Macedonian” nation furnishes evidence of exponentiation growth of the Pseudomacedonian secular ideology. This ideology has its roots in pseudohistory, Communist totalitarianism and information darkness within a culture strongly marked with dogmatic thinking and lack of incentive for a serious countercultural opposition instead of complacency.

During the entire national period of FYROM, stretching from the 6th century to 1944, the alleged “Macedonian”nation, precursor of the modern-day, elaborated ethos of Pseudomacedonianism, there is no testimony of “Makedonci (Macedonians) of the type established in 1944 and redefined occasionally ever since. Few Western and Russian scholars wouldn´t agree that the primary relationships between FYROM and Republic of Bulgaria is based on sharing cultural and linguistic features which show marginal change over the wider space constructed from today´s borders of Bulgaria and FYROM. Attempts of Pseudomacedonian Slavs to produce a consistent and referenced historical synthesis are unsuccessful due to lack of historical sources which would facilitate an impression of developed Macedonian nation of Slavic type throughout the history.

Yet the creation of a distinct vis-a-vis Bulgaria and Serbia ethnicity is today an accomplished work. In the light of the problems the construction of a “Macedonian” ethnicity of Western Bulgarian language has posed both internally (identity crisis, fractioning of the population, deconstruction) and with regard to the wider Balkan region (irredentism in form of ethnocentric expansionism), the nature of emergence of “Macedonian” identity remains a valid open question. The primordial “Macedonism” among the Bulgarians and Serbians of today´s FYROM was a spontaneous provincialism after the political separation of Bulgaria and the area of Povardarje via decisions of the Berlin Congress in 1878. The consequent lack of what may be described as intensive enforcement of enlightenment, caused by the lack of statist instrument that would provide the process of national-building left only the preexisting rudimentary institutions, chief of which was the ecclesiastic and schooling system of the Bulgarian Exachate, established in 1870. Because the Serbian factor was diminishing from early 1800´s and the newly-liberated Greek state was spiritual Piedmont of northern Greeks inhabiting Ottoman Macedonia, the Pseudomacedonian identity in the later half of the 19th century represented a prospective option which would serve as basis for Pan-Macedonian irredentism. The Poet Rajko Žinzifov/Xenophon Zinzisi (1839-1878), a Bulgarized Vlach from Veles summed the conflict for symbolical preeminence in verses from his poem “Guslar vo sobor (1862)”:

“Ohrid and Tyrnovo already gave a call Macedonia, strange land Greek she shall never be!

The forest and hill, and a mountain the very stone of that land bird and fish in Vardar river living and dead on their limbs shall rise and give the answer to all of Europe, to the entire world.

I am a Bulgarian woman, I´m a Bulgarian man Bulgarians live in that land!”

The term “Macedonian” quickly became a designation for a Povardarje Bulgarian in Bulgaria, and together with the-undoubtedly artificial-revival of regional names Moesia and Thrace constituted mnemonic and irredentist evocation of areas which were not ethnically exclusively Bulgarian.

As evidenced by the frequent appearance of the term “Macedonian”, coexisting with Bulgarian, the Slavs of Povardarje were becoming more and more influenced by this dual identity. This was the first sign of ethnic mutation, although in this period they do not designate separate identity to the traditional Bulgarian one. The first author that set the proposition of a distinct, nominally Macedonian ethnicity was Ѓorѓi Pulevski. His rather undistinguished, but voluminous literary and historiographic opus didn´t attracted any substantial following. The lack of any success by exclusive Macedonism in late 19th century is flagrant as evidenced by foreign observes which considered the bulk of region´s Slavic population as Bulgarians.

It is only after the foundation of BMORK (Bulgaro-Macedonian Adrianople Revolutionary Committee) in 1893 the idea that the usage of the Macedonian name may be diplomatically lucrative gained prominence.

Memoirs of one of its founder, Hristo Tatarčev, state that the name, including the organization´s slogan “Macedonia to Macedonians” was essentially a trick, designed so that this organization could attract

Macedonian Greek and other Christian following, something that did not happened. Indeed, BMORK changed its name and statute and its eminent members and sympathizers begun to use the ethnic name Bulgarians quite sparsely, if at all. Instead the name “Macedonians”and the corresponding adjectives were used, certainly with the intention to deceive observers from the Great Powers and to create an impression that annexation of the region to Bulgaria was not the political goal of VMRO.

Thus, the Bulgarian “Macedonism” represented a crude dissimulation. Monopolizing the name “Macedonia” elevated the Bulgarian primacy over the entire region, regardless of demographic, political and other realities. The increasing frequency of its usage in political, journalistic and other contexts within the south-western Bulgarian area was the first nucleus of differentiation among the local Bulgarians and those of Bulgarian state although only few of the Povardarje Bulgarians took this identity in order to separate themselves from Bulgaria and Bulgarian heritage. In retrospective, not only that Macedonism before 1913 wasn´t a form of self-identification separate from those of other Balkan´s Slavic and non-Slavic populations, which is evidenced by multitude of contemporary sources, but the earliest concrete manifestation of Macedonism was a case of a naïve artificial nativism, a construct without authentic foundation in that era´s ethnographic reality and without historical, deeper tradition.

Vasko Gligorijević

Skoplje, FYROM