Lives Journal 2

Rajko Shushtarshich




To patriotic Slovenes (III)*


We have been looking for a vision of the development of our country for twenty years. In vain! The chosen authoritative experts, among whom are mostly lawyers, economists, historians approved by the system and other experts, are persuading us in extremely complicated language, newspeak, what is correct and good for us and what is unavoidable. They have never mentioned those essential subjects that are of vital interest for the Slovenian nation, and it is very likely that they themselves do not now what they are any more. In the meantime our country is shrinking in front of our eyes, the nation is dying off, its historical memory is leaving us, and we see the future of Slovenians solely in terms of our standard-of-living within the European Union. The EU will now provide for its future and at the same time for ours, too. In the first place is of course the rate of development. The development of Europe will have two growth rates. Our piece of wishful thinking is to find ourselves among the States with a higher increase in the standard-of-living, affordable of course only at the expense of those States which will lag behind. We used to be in such a position within the former State structures. The fact that such a Europe is obviously based on conflicts relating to common values does not bother us, although it should have, because we would easily see from past experience (if only we had not erased our historical memory) that no good will come of it. Especially not for small nations. And above all not for those that do not care about themselves (their nation). What can we Slovenians actually expect from such a Europe which openly supports the nationalistic expansion of Croatia which is not even a member State of the EU?

A unique example of the vision of our future within the EU is the last achievement of our visionaries, that is the Arbitration Agreement and the manipulations (a ruse) when it came into force. Without hesitation I could designate it as a historical document on servitude - however, not the servitude of a nation but the servitude of the nation’s visionaries.1 (I will try to throw some light on this Agreement with my three-level explanation).


Interpretation 1 – Level of Interest (the level of interest of the governing policy and the belief of the public):

Determination of the State border between the Republic of Slovenia and the Republic of Croatia should be as per agreement left to the EU Board of Arbitration, as the States so far could not agree on the common State border in any way. For the EU and the USA (Croatia’s key messengers) this should be only a quarrel between two neighbouring countries over several miles of a State sea-border and several miles of an inland-border. The border in dispute is in particular the border at Piranski zaliv (Piran Bay), which has been already renamed by the Republic of Croatia as Savudrijska vala (Savudria Cove). Hence it follows that on the basis of good neighbourly relations this Agreement should only be approved by the National Assembly of the Republic of Slovenia and, if so decided in referendum by the majority of Slovenian voters, the dispute will be solved by EU arbitration justly and in accordance with international law. Once and for ever.

This is a short end concise explanation of the normative reality, i.e. a normative level of an interstate act; as such it is accessible to those who are not familiar with the issue and of course for a broader Slovenian public.


Interpretation 2 – Rational (the analytical level on the basis of cultural and up-to-date facts):

The focus of this dispute is somewhat deeper. Our visionaries prefer to keep silent about it. States and their boundaries are very changeable structures. They are continuously being established and breaking up. The reason for the dispute is not so well hidden in the international-law relations as to be invisible; its roots are in the nationalistic expansion of the "Great Croatia" which needs its own "lebensraum" and in the imaginary greatness of the "right man"; these ideas came into being upon the formation of the Independent State of Croatia2 (NDH/Nezavisna drzhava Hrvatska), led by its head-man Ante Pavelić.

Slovenians could not be nationalists (here I do not mean individuals but the official governing ideology), even if they wanted to. In all our history we have not been invaders, nor have we boasted of our national greatness. Our territory has been sustainably reduced as it should be in the case of small nations. With the (so great) development of good neighbourly relations we may expect that Croatian Illyrism will be revived in the territory of Slovenia soon.

It seems that the platform for the agreement did not include knowledge of the Slovenian and Croatian geostrategic interests3 and efforts. Otherwise the above-mentioned essential reason for the border disputes could hardly be overlooked. It seems, in fact, that the relevant (i.e. preliminary) rational analysis was not made at all. A thorough analysis of the geostrategic interest of three directly or otherwise involved neighbouring States (Italy in particular) was not made either, even though this would be appropriate for detailed settlement of this issue. The talkative indicator of our neighbouring States’ goals is their attitude towards the Slovenian minority (in particular the mysterious disappearance of the Slovenian minority from the territory of Istria, when it is known that several decades ago Slovenians were the majority population in Istria).

Well, this is the second or better hidden level of a certain normative act or a certain issue. This level is accessible only to the professionals and experts, who say nothing about these facts as they are obliged to be loyal to the governing policy. It is also accessible to rare independent researchers from the so-called interested public and they try to explain this issue by using all the available sources, and there are a great number of available sources. Many of them will say "a lot of work for nothing" and they will prefer the first, official explanation.


Interpretation 3 – Intuitive (level of values as the direct facts of consciousness)

However there is one more essence of our problem which is more sensitive, and it is about the Slovenian-nation issue; it goes beyond the level of a rational analysis and speaks through intuition from the sphere of our brain. According to this essence this dispute is not about borders, or about a negligible section of territory on the temporary borders in Europe, or about the balance of geostrategic interests in that part of Europe, but it is about something very important for the nation whose existence is being put in jeopardy. A nation is not just a changeable, short-term structure. A nation (population) was born, lives its life over the centuries (millennia) in its native land, and when the time comes to die off it wants to die on its feet! 4

This is the third the most hidden level of the issue. This level is accessible only to those who use their intuition to obtain the direct facts of consciousness. It is publicly unknown and none of the available documents include it, either. The public reaction here is the same: why should one try so hard to throw some light on the essence of problem? It is, again, easier to satisfy people with the handy official explanation.


Nine years after my first article about the nation I have to ask myself again about our nation: Where are we now, and how we exist? How long we can exist like this? I will again review my article Later Hypothesis About the Nation1  (Kasnejshe hipoteze o narodu) (i.e. only the postscript to the basic hypothesis On National Identity in 2001 [O nacionalni identiteti iz leta 2001]). I will read my hypothetical statements from that time and correct them as final statements in accordance with the present time.



Originality of the Slovenian nation – today, our national identity does not mean much to us, it means almost nothing;

We sell out our (native) land;

We hire ourselves out to foreigners beyond measure;

We neglect Slovenian culture in favour of the comfort of things (standard-of-living);

We take examples of foreign culture as exclusively appropriate;

We deform the Slovene language making it unrecognizable, whereever and whenever this is possible;

In the presence of each eminent foreigner we deny our originality – our own self.

All these facts, which have over the long years of our national history been less visible are today absolutely obvious.

Are we after all still a nation?

Yes, indeed; however, a small disappearing nation, which is visibly dying off; there is only a handful of people who are distinguished, interesting for the historical memory (of a certain nation), which was once free.

Here it is appropriate to say that the biggest adversaries of a nation are created by that very nation.

The biggest adversaries of a nation are not foreigners, or its own domestic masters, who first denied it, but the biggest are: "Nazis" – nationalists.

They glorify their State – and not their nation (population). The deeds of our former sister nations gave us the most important lesson on this issue.

We set ourselves free - but not as nation-population but as nation-State with one error – a small State (nation) which does not have possibilities for a historical existence.

The difference between the nation (population) and the State (nation) is not small, and it is not only about the intensity of the political demonstration of national awareness, or about the public appearance of nationalists.

We set ourselves free, or more precisely: those visible and invisible visionaries, representatives of the nation (until recently proletarian internationalists) who set us free from the SFRY (the Socialistic Federal Republic of Yugoslavia) and broke our fetters, shortly afterwards led us (as a significantly reduced nation) to join the new Union of the old Europe (EU). They explain to us that we are not only a nation (population), a community born in our land – native-land, but we are now the Nation of the Republic of Slovenia. Who cares for the nation (population), as it is now "promoted" into the Nation with its own State, although small and becoming smaller day after day. Not only territorially.

The substitute value orientation for an avant-garde proletarian internationalism is a bourgeois internationalism – globalism, neither of them care for the nation (population).




»Today I can say that my hypothesis of that time about the "free spirit" of my nation, was however just an illusion, which was increasing by 1991, when my nation achieved its independence. However that independence is still not freedom - namely, freedom of spirit. My nation has concentrated all its spiritual energy outside of its State, precisely where it has no chance to remain itself.  It concentrated its energy not only in relations with other countries, but also in the new community of the Nations of the expanding Europe. The nation embraced the "spiritual slavery of its free will". It wants to access this community so strongly that it lost its freedom, almost for ever, its own self, or as we call it today, its personal identity.   It wants to be a member-nation at any price. If Europe were a true community of nations and not only the beginning of the existence of the super-system, and if we, until now, had not had so much experience with unions of nations,, then such a fatal mistake might be understandable and it would be easy to live with it. But, like this…? To be a member-nation at any price?

However, every time I read this work I have a feeling that in my concluding hypothesis something is missing. I reject the thought that it is resigned. However, I have a feeling that it is a bit impersonal, soulless. To find a way out of this trying situation I may say that it (meaning the hypothesis) needs something living or maybe life itself, but this would be too cheap. This hypothesis speaks (I hope) just about my nation’s life as it throbs at the given time (when the facts of consciousness are fatal for its future). Is it maybe love for a nation which is missing? (I do not have in mind the love  from the trio of faith, hope, love). Could it be true? Will somebody tell me how can I could love my nation, if it embraced the (spiritual) slavery of its free will and betrayed itself, its personal identity, its own self? Was this the reason that Ivan [Cankar, Slovenian writer famous for his criticisms of his fellow countrymen] was so angry with his nation which is mine, too?«

(Ljubljana, June 2001, March 2010)



Regarding this Arbitration Agreement, humiliating for the nation, not to say treasonable, I would like to say the following to the patriotic Slovenes’ heart:

If the nation is free, its nationality cannot be taken from it by any other nation, any power, any force, neither by arms, army, occupation, nor can it be threatened by denationalization, provided that it defends itself in such a way as to increase its yearning for freedom and preserve its identity.

So, the essence of the nation’s freedom is not taking from others, but keeping what belongs to it and what is of essential importance to it! So little needed to be done this time – just do not give away any of your free will (consensual). Do not fall to your knees!.




1 Rajko Shushtarshich, About nationalni identity; About nation servitude, Revija SRP, June 2001, no. 43/44. p. 138

"We like so much to succumb to the influence of modern-day values regarding the servitude among Slovenians, and we usually think that servitude is only the characteristic of servants and not of masters, that we are ashamed of the servants’ servitude, and not of their masters’ servitude", from the article  Later notes to hypothesis, Revija SRP, June 2001, no. 43/44. p. 141

2 Rajko Shushtarshich, On proper neighbourly relations (between nations) and on a nation's sovereignty /To patriotic Slovenes, II/, Lives Journal 1, January 2010, no. 1, p. 115

3 Rajko Shushtarshich, Geopolitical strategic reflections /big wars?/, Revija SRP, June 2001, sht. 91/92, p. 129

4 Rajko Shushtarshich, National dying off and will for power; /I am giving a state for nation and nationality for freedomHuman development on account of the national originality?/, Revija SRP, October 2002, no. 51/52. p. 122


Translated from Slovenian Tajana Ida Feher




Slovenian (gajica)

Slovenian (bohorichica)