Skip navigation.


Banka hrane

Srbija 2020

As McEnroe would have S C R E A M E D .."You Cannot Be Serious!!!!!!!"

The optimist in me recalls an old marketing maxim: "all publicity is good publicity". Thus I am encouraged when I read below that the Radicals are marketing Mahatma and Nelson as their icons and mentors with whom they would like their hero to share the podium. They assume their supporters are unlikely to go and check out these new honorary comrades-in-arms of their party. They are underestimating the intelligence of their supporters.

The optimist in me sees within weeks huge posters of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi and Nelson R. Mandela in the homes of all Radical supporters who will within months become campaigners for non-violence, tolerance, vegetarianism and forgiveness.

A new Tito will return to this land in the guise of Tutu..the Radicals will call their children Desmond/Desdemona, Nelson and Mohandas and we will all live happily thereafter....

Lepo sanjaj...

Radicals rally in front of U.S. embassy
21:18 | Source: B92, Beta
BELGRADE -- 25,000 thousand people protested in front of the U.S. embassy in Belgrade, in support of Vojislav Šešelj. Serb Radical Party (SRS) deputy president Tomislav Nikolić addressed the rally saying tha................
“This act puts him on level plane with Ghandi, who fought for independence. On a level plane with Mandela, who fought against the apartheid. Vojislav Šešelj is world’s pioneer anti-globalist”, one of the speakers said said.

Чекај, бре, Дејвиде

па зар ниси ти Радикал?
КО је то онда мене лагао?

Šaca Sweetheart...

I thought that was always gonna be just our little secret

sramte bilo
did you really have to tell everyone?!



Being radical...

The question is what aim or casue he radically pursues.

However, I've always been wary of radicals, even peace seeking ones. They always end up waging war when they have their way.

That is why in our political reality, we have to search for a balance that lies somewhere within the spectrum delimited by LDP and SRS.

The only problem is that radical options usually (and should) attract a minority of the electorate, those most active in tugging the rope in their direction. With LDP this is, and probably will remain the case. But SRS, on the other hand, for the past 15 years have been very good at the game of political deceit. Making use of the war-time years, where all structure and order disappears, they have managed to keep a much larger part of the electorate than they 'ought to' have in an ordered system, keeping it just below the threshold where they would have to officially become a mainstream party by entering the Cabinet and taking executive responsibilities. This way, they always manage remaining in the opposition, but powerfull enough to blackmail the whole society.

So while one part of the spectrum (LDP-DS) has been carved out properly, in the other the game of tetris is still on until we get the right pattern. By the look of things now, ideally in light of the values and ideas the respective parties nominally stabd for, an ordered pattern could look like:

LDP (radical liberals)5% - DS (mainstream liberals)35% - G17 (the technocratic glue) 20% - DSS (mainstream conservatives/traditionalists) 35% - SRS (radical conservatives/traditionalists) 5%

With room for deviations that would not radicalise the system out of balance in any direction.

The measure of optimal balance being overall prosperity, of course.

For a country of our size, this would quite suffice for a stable political spectrum in Parliament. I hope it happens soon for our sake. Once we attain this order, we can get poststructuralist - no shortcuts there :)

I guess Mr. Grossman might have meant the same in his impressive speech.

imagine someone "radically"

imagine someone "radically" commits some extremely nasty crimes, so he's a radical... so far so good... then someone else "radically" demands that the first guy is punished for what he did (like, bringing misery to millions of people), and now he's also a radical, and they are basically equal - two poles of the same entity... brilliant logics. very informative, though.

An overly simplistic

An overly simplistic explanation, I'm afraid. Just because someone's so radically anti-SRS does not mean they're different than the target of their fury. The methods are under scrutiny here, not the aims--and the methods betray a very undemocratic nature.

The party that requires the existence of a "mortal enemy" in order to exist itself is a party that will never get my vote. Such parties have nothing to offer... nothing good, anyway.


The word "radical" can

mean just about anything. In politics, it usually is used to imply something like "from the roots" (as in radically different). Similar is true of "progressive" - we are all for progress (increase?), but nor for progressive paralysis, for instance. And, finally, let us not forget "national socialism", which, as I understand it gramatically, means socialization on national level - not such a bad idea. Until you shorten it to Nazism.
So, perhaps, radical can also be understood as "radical solution" (another legacy of the past). How does Gandhi fit into this, I have no f**ing clue.

oh well...

How does Gandhi fit into this, I have no f**ing clue.

how about "radical populism"? i mean, we've seen it before, just remember sloba's "antiimperialism".

I suppose

that's why one wants to scream.

what to say, what to say... - edie weder

so what u want me to say? i dont care about radicals and i dont think that americans care about them eather, because america have enough bombs for everyone. i dont know Nelsons comment but i think he doesnt care too. nevertheless Gandhi would be probably pleased that everything went good without violence and broken noses. there is another thing, there is a man in jail for four years without a trial and nobody gives a f... about it. that is a shame. peace on earth and love your neighbour...
p.s. mogao bi da napises koju i na srpskom
p.s.no2.pardon my poor english

the reason..

the reason i wrote it is, i am drunkkkkkkkkkkkk


booze and blogs don't mix....

booze ang blogs..

booze and blogs mix perfectly....

to quote....


kodeks_chasti ovde...ponashaj se..

pa onda jel'

codex_casti ili kodeks_chasti? odluci se vec jednom....

suit yourself...

suit yourself...


was (almost) an archetypal moderate. If you have understood him to be a radical, you have totally missed his point (as have many others I'm afraid).

it's not clear which post

it's not clear which post you are replying to... to me it is also not clear what you mean by radical? ghandi was quite "radically" devoted to, for example, justice and non-violence, right? there was nothing in this world that would make him give up his goals... radical? i think that, as nsarski said, this word can mean just about anything. probably it would be better to use some other word, like zealot for example. and ghandi certainly wasn't one.

anyway, something ocurred to me. towards the end of (the latest edition of) military dictatorships in latin america, it became clear that the way to end the terror with least damage is to make some kind of deal with the "milicos". so they ware basically granted impunity in order to step out of power peacefully. was this just? it was necessary, it seems. now, a couple of decades later, their crimes are being investigated, and some of them are facing charges. this is maybe a mock of justice, after such a long time, but i am trying to say something else: those who demanded justice for decades already (e.g. las madres de plaza de mayo) would be deemed "radicals", according to some definitions in use here. but were they? they were just a) ahead of their time and b) impractical.

don't get me wrong, i am not drawing a paralel here with some overly ambitious young politicians in serbia. besides, compromising is necessary in order for a smallest community to function, and let alone a country. i am just trying to illustrate a principle that not every player in a political game can be judged by the number of harsh words they are using. it is not the same whether these words are directed towards some ad hoc ideological "enemy" or towards a party with the history of murderous behaviour.


adj. having extreme political views; fundamental, pertaining to a root; advocating complete reform

v. make temperate; reduce the intensity of, soften; appease, simplify; make less excessive; become temperate; become less severe;
adj. mild; intermediate; avoiding extremes, temperate; within reasonable limits; of medium strength

I think the second term describes what Ghandi was about. He tried to depolarise, deradicalise the society he lived in. And his methods were patient, reconciliatory, inclusive... This is not something I would associate with radicalism.

I don't even believe his aim was to uproot the society. He was just trying to bring people together.

It is interesting that every time someone appears with reconciliatory universal messages and ideas (Ghandi, Lennon, Christ), the opportunistic 'moderates' label him/her a 'radical'. The starting point for war and bloodshed is the abuse and manipulation of language.

That is what I meant when I insist upon calling Ghandi a moderate, not a radical.

ok t,

i see your point, and i agree comletely about ghandi.

"appeasing" (a beautiful word, and i am not being cynical) the contempt toward the architects of the 90's i wouldn't call moderate, though.

sleep tight

don't let the bad bugs bite...
Do I or don't I see the pun of the words - optimistic, bishop Tutu?
"Am I bugging you...don't mean to bug you...
silver and gold..."
Are these preying hands that are holding me down going to lift me up in prayer for vegetarianism?
liked your text...

Gandhi and Mandella did not start off saintly...

...They were fairly radical in their younger days.

Nelson was (and is) an unapologetic Communist who bombed civilian targets whilst Ghandi started out as a Hindu Nationalist.

It seems to me that the Radicals have their cause boosted by obviously unfair treatment of Vojislav Šešelj in the Hague (No family visitation, no right to defend himself).

His arraignment is deeply suspicious and reeks of political manipulation (as so much of the ICTY's activity does). I say this as a non-Serb pro-democrat anti-Radical.

The clumsy attempts by Western governments and proxies to undermine the Radicals plays directly into the Radical party's hands as it reinforces the paranoia of their base with real examples of meddling and victimisation.

I say release Šešelj immediately (the charges against him are specious and legally baseless).

Let the radicals go the same way as Jorg Haider's Austrian Freedom Party (FPÖ): Win an election, have a dreadful term in government, lose by a landslide to Democratic parties in the next election and implode. I don't want to hear any excuses that it all went wrong because Šešelj was not there to lead them.

Populists normally hit the buffers when they take office (unless they sitting on vast oil reserves like Chavez) and I expect the Radicals will fulfil that prediction if they take office.

I am starting to think that we might as well get this Radical phase out of the way forever so the country can get on with rehabilitation and normalisation.