Targeting, belittling those who think differently, spreading hatred and inventing enemies, whether foreign or domestic, are part of the rhetoric used by officials of the Serbian Progressive Party for years.
Anyone who publicly disagrees with the regime's policies, whether they are politically active, belong to non-governmental organizations or are public figures, is the target. Lately, young people and students have been mostly targeted.
As a guest on the show "Hit Tweet" on Pink TV, the President of Serbia, Aleksandar Vučić, once again addressed the students and their "colored revolution" which he "won".
Only naive people believe, said Vučić, that the student protests are really the students' initiative, and that the external enemies of Serbia who organize and finance them are actually behind it.
"They received money from USAID, NED, the Swedes and everyone else, and now they are asking for money from IDI. There is another fraud organization in Brussels and they have already applied for the money. It is naive to think that they do not want the overthrow of Vučić", said Vučić.
Along with that went the already established story of fictional Vojvodina separatists and internal enemies who want to destroy Serbia.
He called lawyers "scum", accused professors of being Alawites, called Djilasaredov a "criminal", Ponoš is an Ustasha, opposition politicians are "the biggest scum" who would come to power to rob, students were "foreign mercenaries" at the beginning of the protest...
How abnormal became normal
Aleksandar Baucal, a psychologist and professor at the Faculty of Philosophy in Belgrade, tells "Vreme" that political divisions, otherwise a completely normal phenomenon, are presented as something disastrous.
"Political divisions are normal in every society. It is very difficult to say who is right on complex issues, and that is why a culture of dialogue is important, which currently does not exist in Serbia. It has been replaced by hate speech and a culture of hate that turn political differences into moral ones," says Baucal.
In such a society, there is no room for diversity and any form of pluralism is stifled, and those who think differently are presented as immoral and even harmful to the functioning of society.
"Hate speech is fatal if it is practiced by someone who holds a public office. Even if it is done by a person who holds the office of president, it is disastrous. The president should symbolize national unity".
It is up to the citizens, in such circumstances, to strongly condemn any form of hate speech.
"With us, these are no longer individual incidents, that's why I say that there is a culture of hate speech. This has all become the norm here, and we should ask ourselves how to oppose it and bring it to the level where the people we vote for, if they spread such rhetoric, will be sanctioned", says Baucal.
Seselj's school
Aleksandar Vučić's long-time "teacher", whom many consider to have instilled such rhetoric in the president, was Vojislav Šešelj.
Šešelj is still remembered by many today as the man who brought street expressions, curses, insults and verbal violence into the political vocabulary in Serbia.
The similarity can also be seen in the fact that the president often targeted students and young activists by name.
Just as Vučić makes a list of ineligible students, Seselj made a list of ineligible journalists.
"Vučić was under the influence of Seselj for years, and in the formative years of his career. He participated in hate speech in the 90s, for example, everyone remembers his speech about 100 Muslims for one Serb," Baucal recalls.
When Vučić was in the role of Deputy Prime Minister in 2012, he tried to appear cultured, while trying to convince the public, especially the foreign ones, that he had transformed from Seselj's Great Serbian radical into a European, he tried to cultivate a different style of communication.
However, as problems and crises accumulated, and corruption became greater, the only line of defense for the government was hate speech.
"It is not enough for them to speak only positively about the results of their policies or about themselves and their colleagues. They have to portray those who are not in power as the source of evil," says Baucal.