Whenever she intuitively and unanimously feels that Dibidus is stuck in a dead end - and this often happens to her - Serbia, instead of shaking her head and what is said to "turn the page", changes - the social arrangement, and leaves everything else the same.
As a result, in that mad wandering from historical dead end to dead end, Serbia changed all available social structures, accepted all of them enthusiastically, and - when the hour came (or when someone from the outside called the hour, and it happened) - rolled them all into the shit, and for decades it bothered me how it happened that we were bypassed by the North Korean Ju Che and the Libyan Jamahiriya, and only recently I realized that it was because Ju Che is somehow "too hard" for the softness of the Slavic soul, and Jamahiriya, well at least that's clear - no alcohol, bro.
I know that ardent Serbian republicans will not like this, but republicans should not be surprised if in the near future Serbia returns to its "roots" and re-embraces monarchy as a social order. It won't be much of a shock to Republicans. They will shave a little and become monarchists overnight and God bless us.
What would the Adventists say, many signs of the times point to that possibility, here are some: we are stuck in a fierce impasse that Euromalians naively interpret as a "return to the 1903s", unlike my smallness, which explains it as a non-exit from XNUMX.
The second sign: on our right to watch TV next to the qibla, the series "Roots" is going big, so we have no choice but to return to our roots - as soon as it is ordered "from above" - to return to our roots. Sign three: Nj. S. Patriarch Irinej recently declared that Serbia should be a monarchy under mandatory conditions, which is equal to the Copernican revolution because H. S., just a few months ago, thanked God for sending us the Supreme One, Vučić. Someone seems to have lost his temper and denied mercy to Vučić, whether it is God or the patriarch, that is already a theological question.
As is not unknown, my childhood advocated the monarchy as the most beneficial social arrangement for the Serbian people and the Senate. Not because of court ladies, court balls and court fools, but out of pure pragmatism. This is how I calculated. The king's sovereignty is symbolic in modern monarchies, but it is no less symbolic than the sovereignty of the people, especially not in Serbia.
To simplify. If, therefore, the king - that's what I was saying - was the symbolic bearer of sovereignty and the nominal head of state, then it would be impossible for this or that republican leader (of any color) to seize the power that in recent history only Haile Selassie had at his disposal.
That's how I counted in my relative youth-insanity, now in my old age-insanity, I'm realizing that I didn't take into account two important factors - the sergeant and Apis. Someone would have to put the king back on the throne, and only Apis can do that in Serbia, so we would go through the same way we went through from 1903 until today. Only non-commissioned officers would care. Sebastijan Kurtzev's stilts. Next year in the kingdom.
(danas.rs)
Bonus video:
