For decades I have been preaching to my younger colleagues that it is very important to read the so-called the regime press, because it contains all the unpleasant truths that its bosses and patrons try to hide. But isn't the purpose of the regime's press to "lye" relentlessly? Of course she is, and she does just that. They lie about "opportunities in the country and the world", about the past, present and future, about political opponents, even about the weather. A lie is, therefore, its essence, and if we were to look at it only in the light of the so-called relation to the facts, even the date in its header should be viewed with extreme reserve. But none of that should discourage her reader, because she does not exist to inform him - for the sake of which illusions the naïve constantly lament that she "fails her mission" - but to be a mirror of those who make her and those who control them. who make it.
Okay, this also sounds a little strange and contradictory. Why would they want us to see them in a realistic and not beautifying mirror? Well, of course they don't want that. But the problem is of a structural nature. Just as no one can outrun his own shadow, so he cannot overcome his own nature. Let him talk, and you'll see what he's made of. Let him lay out his understanding of social relations and apply that understanding to as concrete and "down-to-earth" situations as possible, and you will get a perfectly authentic self-portrait of government, the order of values on which it is based, and the functioning of the entire machinery.
Okay, that's enough theorizing, let's go to a concrete example. It is always necessary to follow the writing of "Politics", not because of age-old myths about its non-existent independence, but precisely because it has always been - sometimes in a very broad sense, and sometimes in a very narrow sense - the mouthpiece of every regime. The phases are not too difficult to define: it was a respectable newspaper of respectable regimes and a disreputable newspaper of disreputable regimes. In the first case, she lied when and as much as she had to, and wrote the truth when and as much as she could. In the second, she lied when and as much as she could, and no one restricted her, and wrote the truth when and as much as she had to - and no one forced her. That is why right now it is the most disreputable in its history.
Citizen Vladimir Đukanović, somewhat less reputable as a lawyer, and somewhat more as a political guru of the ruling party and generally a charismatic influencer of the old school who does not hesitate to write something that some others, even from his firmly fortified observation post, do not hesitate to write such a columnist. they wouldn't even think. And he is particularly good, unsurpassed in fact, in deconstructing the renegades from the main stream of the political torrent, excuse me, mother, which is leading Serbia... where it is already being led.
Skilled in court games and scheming, VĐ already in two sequels relentlessly seeks out the unnamed renegade from Vladarska, and therefore his mercy, calling him Brutus, admittedly Brutus in an attempt, since this contemporary, unlike the original, has no chance against Caesar. "Bruta" Đukanović portrays him as a perfect synthesis of incompetence, corruption and excessive self-love, and he really does it very well: it can be seen that he knows the political half-world and the way it works very well, truly insider-like. Not all CINS, KRIK and other BIRNs together could match him!
In order not to play hide and seek, the Kremlinologists on duty claim that Brutus' civil name is Bratislav Gašić, from the mercy of Bata, which is probably true, unless it is not. To tell you the truth, I don't really care. But there is something else that is just as important, much more important than a column in a former newspaper, its author and its unfortunate anti-hero.
Appreciating Brut's ingratitude, the VĐ will also say this: "Now you should go back a little to the period before your political father dug you out of some hole and made you something that you never deserved to be by any parameter." Let's take a closer look at this sentence, I argue that a more important one has not been published in at least the last dozen years.
Who is the "political father"? Of course, Aleksandar Vučić, regardless of the name of the public office he holds at any given moment and the legal powers he has or does not have. It is a direct mockery of democracy, legality and separation of powers. Furthermore, what does the self-proclaimed "political father" do in "some shack" when that place is unworthy of a public servant (even in his free time), and why does he look for - and worst of all, find - future collaborators in a shack? Isn't the most basic public interest that the country be run by the best, not the most obscure, among us? In the end, why did the "political father" pull out of the meme and launch to dizzying heights someone who did not deserve it "according to any parameters"? We all have flaws, maybe some of them can go unnoticed for too long, but if you are just as universally unworthy of serious public resources as Brut/Gašić/whoever, it is something that must be noticeable at first and hundredth glance. That is, therefore, possible only as a "Caesarian" act of tyrannical arbitrariness, in open mockery of the public interest. There can be no structural fault of "Brutus": he did not determine the rules of the game, he just used the opportunity that presented itself to him without a worthy reason and cover. And if he already undeservedly got there, why wouldn't he want to undeservedly get even further, ie. more?
I'm telling you, read Politika, especially its thinkers, it says everything you need to know about the budjak in which you live.
