On the same day, the historical January 15, at primetime, in a show "Forum" of the Croatian TV, Zarko Puhovski, one of Mesic's ideologues, revealed his true nature. Absolutely identical assertions - "tens of Serbs who were murdered only because they were Serbs" - jumping at Mesic's cue about "conscious provoking of the Serb minority". Everything Puhovski said in that TV show was a sly and intelligent variation on the old theories about the endangerment of Serbs, about equal guilt, about distribution of responsibility; all of that, as Puhovski said, based on the facts. For Puhovski facts are like holy gospel, axioms of his scientific-political analysis of the assertion that "the Croatian state was created from the murder of Serbs", that it is based on terror against minorities, and on an agreement between Tudman and Milosevic and "fake clashes" set up by the two of them, as Puhovski explains in a newspaper. Absolute respect for the facts, without placing them in the context and without their ethical interpretation, brings us to that terrifyingly merciless attitude of the modern ideologues of "the open society". In this context, what is the meaning of ethical interpretation of a fact? Nothing but taking into account reality, the subjective reality of a victim, because it is nothing but perversion to talk about objectivity of facts from the point of view of an observer in connection with a victim! How can Puhovski ignore in his factual observations the subjective state of an attacked nation, feelings of people who were suffering under Serb bombs, who were expelled from their homes, how can he observe all that as one factual-scientific chain!? Because, if he talks about "tens of murdered Serbs", then in the context of the wartime psychosis that fact is obviously a consequence of an imposed state of war, a consequence of the Serb aggression! No one is justifying those impulsive excesses and individual murders, but they cannot be separated from the context of the wartime psychosis, fear and chaos, and the traitorous activities of the Serb rebels!
When Puhovski talks about the fact of "tens of murdered Serbs" he ignores the fact of "thousands of murdered Croats" and the assumption that some of the "murdered Serbs" participated in the aggression! His fact cannot be an element of the historical perception of the Homeland War or its ethical corrective! Puhovski interprets the facts based on his ideological criteria and separates them from their causes. If someone kills, we say he is a murderer, and that is a fact. However, what does that fact tell us if taken out of context? In the end we find out that the "murderer" killed in self-defense the person who had terrorized him! In some countries he would be acquitted of all charges, while in others he would be treated leniently! And the search for mitigating circumstances would not be interpreted as providing excuses for a crime, bus as acceptance of actual circumstances of an event. But, according to Puhovski, we should take the fact that that man killed someone out of context because, for example, we don't like him, and we want to condemn him as a murderer! Here, that is how important bare facts are without their humane, real, ethical, legal and every other interpretation. Without subjective reality, without humane approach and elementary intellectual honesty, bare facts cannot say anything about a person, but can in the end lead to cold intellectual terror. Thus Puhovski manipulates the bare fact about "murdered Serbs" - it does not matter that he believes that they are victims of terror, but it is crucial that that fact then be used to manipulate the assertions about the criminal character of the creation of the independent Croatia, about terror against the Serbs in Croatia as a project, a premeditated plan! Everything Puhovski does is a double intellectual and moral crime, against Croat victims and the victims he exploits for his arguments! Some Serbs who died innocent did not die "because they were Serbs" and because someone had a plan to systematically get rid of them, but as victims of individual crimes, in some cases revenge attacks and in others ordinary criminal attacks. The context of the wartime psychosis does not justify crime, but it does create a realistic framework for interpretation and understanding of that murder. The simplest jury member anywhere in the world, a witness, or anyone, would be more honest in the interpretation of the facts than Puhovski. Besides, Puhovski has already demonstrated that he is an unreliable prosecution witness.
Reactions of other guests in the show clearly demonstrated all Puhovski's rigidity and bias. Slaven Letica openly told him that "he finds crimes because he is against the Croatian state", and one viewer told Puhovski over the phone that he was a traitor. But Puhovski has thick skin, he is one of small-scale power-brokers backed up by Soros who intend to become providers of ethical and ideological criteria for the Croatian society. His "Open society" is only open for the chosen and closed for all those he would, based on his totalitarian logic, put away. If that is so, then Soros should establish a "Closed society" for all those Croats who feel patriotic, and all those in Europe who believe that national is not an anachronism. The "Closed society" could serve as quarantine for "lepers" of the new era. Because, everything they are trying to do in Croatia is nothing but an attempt at isolation of every pro-Croat opinion by ideologues and ideology of the "open society". It is paradoxical that the "Open society" is becoming so exclusive that it has become a "Closed society", a society in which only one set of opinions is permissible while everything else is rejected and which in its circle around Mesic intends to tailor the future of Croatia as open to everyone but Croats.