The "Venomous Ideals" project grew out of a general lack of perspectives, of any orientation or attitude within the "counter-culture" (what a suspicious term!) scene in MK. For truly, apart from several, well thought and organized, direct actions, little has been demonstrated in the past couple of years: unsuccessful attempts of establishing squats, couple of public protests, mostly incited by some "big news" in the country or abroad, the anti-border camp In between these bright events, the scene vegetates, in the shape of a more or less conformist life-styles, passively survives under the safety shield of sterile, and often very suspicious ideologies. That is how it re-integrates in the system, time and again; it becomes an article in the repertoire of possible life-styles, a part of the consumer's economy. Thus, it directly contributes to the rotten liberalist concepts of diversity and multiculture: one may become whatever one wishes, an anti-war activist, a feminist, a straightedge or simply a punk. It doesn't really matter, as long as this remains an issue of a private choice, a private or a group way of life. Mainstream analysts are right when claiming that the growth of sub-cultures or various movements strengthens the modern democratic society.

So, we were primarily motivated by this horrible passivity of the minds that has in fact caused that vulgar commercialization of any revolutionary attempt. The "counter-culture" has been tamed, fragmented into dozens of "sub-cultures", that are but ornaments on the body of society. But we were directly inspired by the written media, that massive assemblage of stupidity, proliferation of humble opinions, disgusting affairs and advertisements. At first, we wanted no more than to parody them, but then a much more ambitious plan was put in perspective. We thought of creating an antipode of the newspaper, a fanzine that will reduce all those countless information to several major themes that have totally preoccupied Macedonian society in the past decade and a half. For all that makes it way through the news can be deduced from or related to some of these ideals that have taken a complete possession over this society. Affairs and scandals come and go, and opinions are changing at almost every disturbing instance, what remains are the values, the ideal concepts that this sick society generates. We want to make a diagnosis of this society, from our own perspective, from below.

It takes no great effort to recognize these ideals, to isolate and criticize them, as they are constantly being appraised in the media, among the masses, in the intellectual elite (much as we were used to this type of propaganda during our state-capitalist past): westernization of the country, complete professionalization of society, multiculturalism, democratization, to number just a few. In fact, they are so well known, that they have reached a point where they have become trivial for most ordinary citizens. (They are like the images of dictators, of a deity; no one takes them really seriously, but their sacredness remains - that is how the modern secular society functions) Not surprisingly, among underground groups they are mostly seen from a strictly negativist perspective, they are despised with the greatest easiness. But this is where the danger lays, the danger of not realizing their potency to underlie almost every aspect of social life. We are turning our heads away, saying, "all of that is simply a large lump of shit". True, but this lump of shit plays its role, it functions, no matter how ridiculous it looks. That is why we need to assume a different, a positivist perspective on this whole issue. By positivist, we mean affirming, recognizing critique; the point is not to discard them right away, at the very first instance, but to open our eyes, identify them as ideals in the very strict sense of the word, understand their role in the system, for nothing is purposeless here.

In general terms, we are trying to understand what ideals are in the first place, and at this very point we are already facing a most delicate problem. Much depends on how one is going to answer this question. The word ideals it self causes a number of misunderstandings because of its loose, shifting meaning (values, socio-political concepts, or even the term national priorities may equally be used). Now, as this is not the appropriate place to elaborate in details on this theme, we'll try to state our position straightforward: by ideals we'll mean orientation markers, delusionary termination points, collective goals suspended "almost to eternity".☺ Theirs claim is to direct socio-historical processes, to entrap and channel all social energy and desire, and this inevitably means distortion, falsification of strives and desires (or rather projection, production of individual and collective goals). Their virtue, as we'll attempt to demonstrate, is sheer unachievability. But ideals also operate in "retrospective"; they justify political acts, alliances and policies, violence and (in)justice. We committed this or that deed for the sake of, in the name of", always something unachievable, impossible to achieve. Ideals are in that sense, lies, the very negation of reality, of free, unbounded, intrinsically anarchic reality.

There are basically two points at which we direct our angry piercing looks: first, the innate falseness of every ideal, and second, their lucid ways of operating, of manipulating. These two points are tightly related, because ideals are effective as far as they are practically unachievable. Let us take an example; the ideal of a civic, liberal, or still better, multicultural society, a vision cherished by a number of politicians or analysts in MK. This is expectedly one of the most exploited themes in the press, in the political or the analytical discourse. As it's well known, the concept was imported from the large, western European nations, and in the later part of the last century, from the American experience, in a slightly modified version. The goal was to neutralize the nationalistic renaissance of the 90's on the Balkans, to create a new "anational", zero identity, instead. Or, in other words, to homogenize the masses, to eliminate or to amortize, the striving of the minorities (let us remember that by minorities we also mean old, mentally ill people, women, substance addicts, criminals, not only the stupid national minorities).

The principle of this ideal is quite obvious: "we may all cultivate our private or national values and traditions, but only as equal citizens and under the sovereignty of a single territorial polity". What a brilliant solution ah! This of course works all too well for the big, powerful nation states of the West, where minorities have been wiped out by the dominant culture centuries ago (Pierre Clastres, in his deliberations on the origin of state societies, coined the term "culture-cide" for this process in modern France). There, as in the Americas (though here for historically rather specific reasons), minorities can freely be given the status of cultural heritage, a place in the museum. But what about the Balkans, or the Middle East, where blood, identity is soil, where every visible difference is seen as an opposition, where even the most trivial, everyday detail, plays a role in the formation of identities? How to implement this ideal here? How naïve was to hear, to read in the news (from the pen of analysts, intellectuals) that MK should be proclaimed a civic or multicultural country in the constitution! Only blind, retarded minds can put a dot after such a conclusion. They have totally misunderstood the operation mode of multiculturalism. This is a concept that arrives only in the aftermath, at the end, when the victorious party has won indisputably, and all minorities have been vanquished, or nearly destroyed. For zero identity is a fairytale, it simply cannot possible exist, though it stubbornly aspires to universality (the paradox of every ideal). When a minoritorian tradition is eliminated or rather suffocated, the subjects do not disappear, they are instead, given another identity, that of the victorious majority. In the United States, the Africans, the Asians, the Hindu have become Americans, and we know what in essence lies under the term "American": the white, Anglo-Saxon, capitalist male. That is their zero-identity, the Universal Man (even the woman is a hu-man). In Germany, a little Kurdish boy wants to speak German fluently, wants to dress up like the other kids, wants to marry a German girl&Not so long ago, the French language and literature was the language and literature of the World, of Humanity; now, it is the Anglo-American&It is easy to recognize the old imperialist concept, sold under a new brand name, modified and reformed (for the global market, market for political ideals and strategies, the market of global culture).

But it is difficult to fully eradicate traditions, and just as one can see the old imperialist interests under the new banner of multiculturalism (or the slightly outdated liberalism), so the minoritorian particularities lurk underneath the shield of the dominant culture. They are ever changing, constantly refining or deteriorating it, they are making it their own: Mexican American, African American, Asian American&The original layer is always visible, though it be in shades, in bare epithets. Assimilation can never be absolute, (and here lies the fragrance of the system, a chance for a way out). This of course, was not the goal of multiculturalism in the first place; it is enough to render tradition as something ephemeral, relative, to place it behind (or under) the dominant, reigning values. Our purpose was to briefly demonstrate the impossibility of a zero, absolutely neutral values, and this is the tacit, but the cardinal tenet of multiculturalism ("always something illusionary, unachievable&").

Let us go back now to MK, and the surrounding countries. MK is a particularly interesting case for our example, because it is a fresh nation-state, and most of all, because there is a relative balance of power between the dominant national identities, the Macedonian and the Albanian. (In the other countries of the region, with the exception of the Bosnian federation, the good old European recipe was  or is just being  applied: genocide, assimilation first, then we can built a happy, multicultural society.) To be sure, here the ideal of a multicultural society was just recently imported; it still needs to fight the old nationalistic ideals. Nevertheless, it has been utilized by both sides, mostly for their own nationalist sakes, but also as a mode of finding truce, maintaining the balance. Thus, ironically, the very practice of nationalistic politics in this country has plainly demonstrated the empty (but efficient) nature of the concept of multiculturalism (its very supposed opponent!!!).

Both, politicians and the masses, quickly realized that the prospect of molding the Macedonian and the Albanian entities into one is next to impossible. None of the sides would give up their almost opposing values, but there were attempts of finding a common ground. Especially when some of the neighboring polities is about to be confronted, or with regards to the rest of the minorities (the Roma, the Vlachs, the Turks&no party is even thinking of other, subnational, "aterritorial" minorities). In instances such as those, alliances from the distant (even the ancient) past are being recalled, the mythic time when the two nations lived peacefully side by side (though both nations, are barely a century old!) and the like, and the like. A dim prospect of a new nation is perhaps arising! More important and more to our present point however, is the interpretation of multiculturalism in this particular circumstances. The concept is completely (and deliberately?) misunderstood, or rather employed for the realization of the nationalist cause (which again, nicely uncovers its futility). Multiculturalism here simply means tolerance for the other party's nationalist exigencies, celebration of national heroes, national emblems and language, historical events&In reality it is a bi-nationalism, for the other national minorities are left the option to choose a side. Thus, instead of amalgamation of the two traditions under a single, "neutral" entity, which is the original goal of the multicultural ideal, in MK we have a cultural alloy, the opposing elements exist side by side, and constantly struggle to overthrow or regain the balance. For instance, the Macedonian party often stresses the needs of the rest of the national or religious minorities, but only to make the position of the Albanian block relative, of an equal importance as the other minorities. And when the Albanian party puts forward its nationalist demands, it is always in the name of a multicultural, diverse society!

Much to the disgrace of intellectuals and political analysts, the pig-like nationalist politicians and demagogues have better understood the efficiency of this ideal, and are making a good use of it. Now, some of the most radical nationalists in the country have proclaimed themselves the great patrons of multiculturalism and inter-ethnical understanding. Others will surely follow, though there is still a great distrust as with anything novel. Sooner or later, the old nationalist concept will be outdated, strategically unsustainable, but it'll survive within the bosom of the new ideal of multiculturalism. (How boringly sad is to read an analyst, hear a member of the parliament saying: "I firmly believe that this law, or that constitutional act will definitely settle our inter-ethnic problems." The ideal is a pool of wishes). No idyllic co-existence will ever happen between nationalistic subjects, and we saw that multiculturalism was born where there is but a single subject.

In short, this is the kind of analysis we're preparing: unmasking the ideal, demonstrate its unatainability, but also demonstrate, or at least think about its consequences, its practical implications. We decided the case of multiculturalism would be a convenient example; it is an ideal (as they were defined earlier), a trick and a powerful political tool, applicable in various circumstances and constellations. We thought of devoting at least one issue for each of these "grand themes" of contemporary Macedonian society (and we think, some of them will be relevant for other Eastern European countries as well): the NATO-EU application, the myth of political leadership, of absolutely democratic elections, the compatibility of corporate capitalism and equal economic prosperity, the compatibility of small scale capitalism and revolutionary activities&Our purpose is two-fold: to create a body of critique, founded on firm, specific grounds, and to animate the dissatisfied circles, to make them assume an attitude, a stance. Actually, the latter aim is even more important considering the dwindling, the complete decadence of critical theory among underground groups. We called it an attempt for auto-positioning, of defining our perspective against the current system, and even inciting a debate within the groups that oppose this system. Both are equally important, because two dangers are threatening to us: a tendency to cluster, to disappear under the cover of an ideologically oriented movement, and from the other side, the grim perspective of a private life, with its idiocy and humbleness.