I propose as a focus the below observation of Noam Chomsky's
and want to approach it in the form of the wonderfully analytic question that the German novelist-historian of the Third Reich, Walter Kempowksi used in the 60 so as to elicit how people felt:
“Did you ever see Hitler”“Did you ever see Milosevic?”“Do you know Handke’s works?”
This inquiry, too, is apost mortem, on the two matters in the subject line of this communication, two related subjects, the second arising out of the former, at the developing
and its 20+ pages, Links to which are at the bottom of this communication.
Although you may wish to use other examples with which you are more familiar other than the Yugoslav/ Handke which serves me so well because I am fairly well informed on the former, and exceedingly so on the latter, which is no guarantee of anything as I at least know only too well.
"The nefarious atrocities regularly elicit religious fervor, dramatic posturing, baseless claims to inflate, them as much as possible - and fury if anyone does, not blindly join the parade, but seeks to determine, the truth, cites the most reputable authorities, exposes the innumerable fabrications. The common reaction to such treachery is an impressive torrent of deceit. There is an instructive record quite well documented in many cases. The reasons are not hard to explain. The topic should be pursued, systematically, but that is unlikely, obviously."
I reformulate Kempowski’s question slightly into:“Have you ever seen Milosevic”How did you happen to hear of him,What news sources did you trust?Say, the New York Times?What network and network of friends…At what point did you feel that you knewenough to make up your mind.What images stuck in your mind?Did you discuss him and the breakup of Yugoslavia with the same kind of discernment and conscientiousness as you would a bone of analytic contention? To what extent did group consensus sway you? Or did you decide that there was no way you could reach a conclusion unless you devoted a great deal of work and time, which you lacked, to unraveling the question? That is, that you would let “history” decide for you?
And my and your answers to this challenging question will be our 100 birthday present to Noam!
I also wanted to ask you to forward this communication to those who you think might be interested.
My own bi-partite attempt to unravel this complex that lies at the intersection of mass and individual and class psychology you will find for the Yugoslavia question, on line, both as main-text and on the comments page to facilitate continuity, at:
for background material, and at:
And for the Handke at:
Several very long piece of mine in which I sought to puzzle out Handke’s involvement for myself are at:
com/2010/04/this-is-first- piece-i-wrote-on-subject.html 
com/2010/04/sorting-out- handkes-intervention-in.html [ 9]]
One page is devoted to bringing together a lot of basic material about Yugoslavia from its origins in the 19thCentury and earlier to the present.
Here is a summary of my response to Noam Chomsky’s query which are elaborated at the breviary and analytic and discussion pages and their respective comments:
1] Once a match was struck to the tinder box that Yugoslavia had become by the early 90s the disintegrating forces of Nationalism and Ethnicity and Religious fanaticism produced general mayhem, the more so because of certain violent features of Yugoslavia’s immediate past in the 20th century history. It is foolish to assign blame to one or the other tribe or nationalities, even the International Court in de Hague, whatever you may think of it, seeks to be even-handed in prosecuting individuals from all parties, Kosovo Albanians, Croatians, Bosnian Muslims, Bosnian Serbs, and Serbians. Thus the Serbs indeed got the worst of it in each and every respect, ultimately.
2] Handke’s involvement was instantly suspect to me when I got wind of it in 1994, for its exhibitionism, also it seemed to contradict his recent [late 1980s] adoption of his grandfather’s Slovenian identity, his liking of small countries with difficult borders, yet also fit my understanding of him as someone who speaks up and goes to justice, for language, it had been as it were second nature to him since his first news-worthy appearance at Princeton in 1966. Thus I followed the 3+ anthing but pretty comings of the Handke part of the controversy with great attention and though my suspicions as to his exhibitionism and full use of his notoriety were confirmed, I came to agree with him on the chief point that no one tribe is to blame, and that THE MATCH that set this house on fire was German Foreign Minister Gentscher’s recognition of Croatia… we will never know whether the tinderbox might also have caught fire if circumstances had been other. And am delighted to report that Handke at least got a bunch of trips and some interesting accounts out of them, wrote two great works,VOYAGE BY DUGOUT: THE PLAY ABOUT THE FILM ABOUT THE WARand THE CUCKOSS OF VELICA HOCA [see the page devoted to it at:
3] To answer Noam Chomsky’s conundrum means to think on what it means to make people righteous, apparently babies can be, and it is one drive over which religions and political parties manage to acquire control. It means to address the psychic economy of the individual and of an educated certain class, information theory comes into it.You will find my long analytically formulated answer at the
com/2010/05/lead-page- periodically-updated_03.html [ 1-B]
com/2010/05/opening-salvo- open-letter-decimation-of.html