During the late regime Aleksandar Vučić on the public stage in Serbia suddenly a word appeared Ustasha. It seems pointless. From where Ustasha in Serbia? Do those who use that word know what they are talking about? If they know what they are saying, do they know what they are doing? If they don't know what they are doing, then they are already a social danger. If they know what they're doing, there's nothing they won't do.
photo: lenka pavlović...
Words have not only their own meaning, they also have their own history. In the case of words Ustasha the meaning has completely coincided with the modern history of the word and is inseparable from it. The Ustashas are one of the darkest military organizations of the Second World War. Among the fascist movements of that era, the Ustashas are one of the most terrible and bloodiest. They were also threatened by the German Nazis. Ustashas resorted to more monstrous and mass murders. These atrocities often had a ritual content.
This is all well known from history, and the rest is preserved in the collective memory, which we will return to a little later.
How then can anyone be called Ustashi if they are not members of the Ustashi movement from the Second World War? There are contemporary sympathizers of the Ustasha movement, those who relativize its atrocities or consciously keep them silent. But even that, strictly speaking, is not Ustashi. These are revisionists, relativizers and falsifiers of history, ideological fanatics and successors. It is a neo-Ustasha sentiment in the new era of populism and general tension. And none of that has anything to do with Serbia.
It is no coincidence that the word neo-Nazis was coined in the modern political vocabulary of Europe. It was necessary to preserve - and untainted by current political discussions and relations - the awareness of a malignant historical phenomenon such as Nazism.
A PROPAGANDA ATTEMPT TO REVIVE TRAUMA
How did they do it then? Ustasha appeared in Serbia? What is the meaning of reviving words Ustasha in the established political reality of Serbia? The Ustashas appeared in Serbia thanks to the regime of Aleksandar Vučić. By all accounts, a different context for publishing that word here is impossible, and its use shows the ultimate moral bankruptcy of that regime.
Word Ustasha, directed at political opponents, and even just dissenters, and even entire generations of young people who do not reconcile with the political reality of the country, is used by the top of the regime, followed by the regime's propaganda, the regime's media, and even some companions of the regime. They use that word out of base motives in order not to frighten, sway or drive their opponents into confusion and abstinence. They are left without usable topics: in fourteen years of daily propaganda, so much has been spent, so the last sources of propaganda content are resorted to. Controlled media are the extended arm of propaganda, they do not publish information about reality, but try to produce a politically desirable reality. Regime companions, invoking a commensurate, terrible danger with that terrible word, try to justify their own collaboration with the regime.
Thrown in the face of political dissidents, individuals, groups and entire generations, that word has the role of performing, once and for all, a rite of dehumanization. Against the so-called opponent, all means are allowed. None of them are redundant or impermissible. The dark logic of propaganda does not stop there. It is not enough to dehumanize and stigmatize opponents and thus prepare them for social and political neutralization and isolation. It is only the first and necessary step: to produce an inner enemy, name it and describe it in the most horrible terms. The next step is to confront this internal enemy, different from all people, with an alarmed and morally panicked public. This is where the circle should close. Because the regime's propaganda, not choosing the means and destroying the greatest moral capital for the sake of the smallest goals, calculates with a collective memory that cannot react indifferently to the word Ustasha. Repeated many times, that word should stimulate the deepest fears of generations who carry within themselves the trauma caused by the Ustasha movement, either in a personal or more often in a family experience. There are many people living in Serbia today who come from the regions that were killed by the Ustasha during the Second World War. When that word is aggressively revived in the regime's propaganda orgy, many people should speak out from their deepest fears and past traumas.
REGIME RELATIVIZATION OF USTASH CRIMES
This is where we encounter something worse than political irresponsibility and more poisonous than propaganda. The total propaganda of the Vučić regime never exceeded a single word or content if it would bring even the slightest propaganda benefit. If there is a greater emotional identification of a part of the population with a certain content or a certain word, then such content and such a word will be used all the sooner and more emphatically. If Kosovo is needed, Kosovo will be used. If the mention of Kosovo is an inconvenient witness for the outcome of the regime's Kosovo policy, then Kosovo will be removed from public consciousness and as a geographical term from the public. If necessary, Jasenovac will also be included in the propaganda matrix. That's how we got to the Ustasha.
However, if political dissenters can be called Ustashas, then maybe Ustashas are not so terrible?! This is where political propaganda becomes the hand of historical revision, but because of its dubious utility, it is ready to pay even that price. Let the reader, for a moment, try to imagine a hard-to-imagine situation: is it possible for political dissenters in Israel to call each other Nazis? Those who call political dissenters Ustasha relativize the Ustasha as a historical evil, minimize the victims of the Ustasha movement and trivialize the terrible historical experience. That alone would be reason enough to remove the regime that uses such propaganda from the historical stage.
Starting as an unforgivable insult, continuing as a reckless stigmatization, a shout Ustasha it ends up as a pragmatic political decision by a regime that doesn't care about the consequences. As a mobilization matrix, the cry is addressed to the most hardened core of supporters and intended to revive fears that should be a substitute for politics.
If someone so lightly uses the most terrible and dramatic content as the basis of his propaganda, not caring for the peace of the victims, nor for the historical truth, nor for the feelings of the living, nor for the basic self-respect of society, then he is not only reckless, he is ready for anything.
