Ljupcho Georgievski - The Traitor

[lavce pelagonski]

Dnevnik, Macedonia: Ljubco Georgievski - the key for reform of the next government?
16 May 2011 | 10:10 | FOCUS News Agency
Home / Southeast Europe and Balkans
Skopje. Leader of VMRO-NP Ljubco Georgievski provoked reactions with decision to resume his political career for the upcoming elections in Macedonia, writes Macedonian Dnevnik daily.
According to the newspaper, the move is explained with the fact that there is a chance for the VMRO-NP to win voter’s support that the other parties – VMRO-DPMNE and the Social Democratic Union of Macedonia (SDSM), would not be able to ignore.
Dnevnik comments further that in contrast to the rest of the smaller parties, Georgievski does not have any megalomaniac expectations about the MP seats his party could win in the next parliament. Some time ago he said that party’s basic goal was to win 15 MP seats but it was well-aware that even 7 or 8 seats will be a good achievement, too, Dnevnik writes, adding that so far there is no hint about which other party or parties the VMRO-NP would possible enter into a coalition.

[Mikail]

Pasko Kuzman & Lubco Georgievski ` Borjan Jovanovski - Anticki Makedonci ili Sloveni?

Anticki Makedonci ili Sloveni? Pasko Kuzman & Lubco Georgievski ` Borjan Jovanovski 1
Anticki Makedonci ili Sloveni? Pasko Kuzman & Lubco Georgievski ` Borjan Jovanovski 1 - YouTube

Anticki Makedonci ili Sloveni? Pasko Kuzman & Lubco Bugarofilski ` Borjan Jovanovski 2
Anticki Makedonci ili Sloveni? Pasko Kuzman & Lubco Bugarofilski ` Borjan Jovanovski 2 - YouTube

Anticki Makedonci ili Sloveni? Pasko Kuzman & Lubco Georgievski ` Borjan Jovanovski 3
Anticki Makedonci ili Sloveni? Pasko Kuzman & Lubco Georgievski ` Borjan Jovanovski 3 - YouTube

Anticki Makedonci ili Sloveni? Pasko Kuzman & Lubco Georgievski ` Borjan Jovanovski 4
Anticki Makedonci ili Sloveni? Pasko Kuzman & Lubco Georgievski ` Borjan Jovanovski 4 - YouTube

Pasko Kuzman & Lubco Georgievski ` Borjan Jovanovski - Anticki Makedonci ili Sloveni? 5
Pasko Kuzman & Lubco Georgievski ` Borjan Jovanovski - Anticki Makedonci ili Sloveni? 5 - YouTube

Pasko Kuzman & Lubco Georgievski ` Borjan Jovanovski - Anticki Makedonci ili Sloveni? 6 macedonia
Pasko Kuzman & Lubco Georgievski ` Borjan Jovanovski - Anticki Makedonci ili Sloveni? 6 macedonia - YouTube

Pasko Kuzman & Lubco Georgievski ` Borjan Jovanovski - Anticki Makedonci ili Sloveni? 7
Pasko Kuzman & Lubco Georgievski ` Borjan Jovanovski - Anticki Makedonci ili Sloveni? 7 - YouTube

[Mikail]

Some interesting viewing. Ljupco is at it again and only proves he is on the take. This guy has received millions of Euro to put up this performance. He is one of Greece's monkeys.

He gets money from Bulgaria, he gets money from Greece and what does the Macedonian get out of all of this shit stirring

[George S.]

pasko wears a couple of watches he thinks he can travel into time.He looks like one of the moorlocks with the long hair.

[Ljubanec]

pasko wears a couple of watches he thinks he can travel into time.He looks like one of the moorlocks with the long hair.

And LjuBcho has a nice suit and has more money than Pasko. LjuBcho has more watches ( I bet a few Rolex's maybe even a Movado), but he wears them one at a time. LjuBcho has Bulgarian citizenship and can travel freely throughout the E.U. Pasko has Macedonian citizenship and can not travel as freely. I have only watched the first two videos, but I don't understand the irrelevant comments about his appearance.

[Soldier of Macedon]

I have watched the first few minutes of it, will try and watch the rest, but I can say even from that brief observation that most Macedonian historians, be they for the ancient or Slavic theory, do not know how to argue our case convincingly - despite the fact that the evidence is staring them right in the face. I have also made it clear in the past that trying to be selective while arguing our history by saying it is only ancient or only Slavic is a gross misinterpretation and misconception. How can one argue against the other, when both have a presence in our history? How can those that argue in favour of the Slavic view say pretend that there is no history prior to the 6th century, conversly, how can those that argue in favour of the ancient view pretend that there is no history after the 6th century? It is a stupid debate, fuelled by people who are either too ignorant or a pushing some sort of idiotic agenda like that moron Georgievski. Do these people not understand the concept of evolution? Sometimes I think that both 'sides' of this argument are to blame, because if they gave the matter some serious thought and did some adequate research they would realise that their opinions aren't all diametrically opposed. In the end, this argument will not move forward until both sides come to a proper understanding of the Slavic period and what it truly represented.

[makedonche]

I have watched the first few minutes of it, will try and watch the rest, but I can say even from that brief observation that most Macedonian historians, be they for the ancient or Slavic theory, do not know how to argue our case convincingly - despite the fact that the evidence is staring them right in the face. I have also made it clear in the past that trying to be selective while arguing our history by saying it is only ancient or only Slavic is a gross misinterpretation and misconception. How can one argue against the other, when both have a presence in our history? How can those that argue in favour of the Slavic view say pretend that there is no history prior to the 6th century, conversly, how can those that argue in favour of the ancient view pretend that there is no history after the 6th century? It is a stupid debate, fuelled by people who are either too ignorant or a pushing some sort of idiotic agenda like that moron Georgievski. Do these people not understand the concept of evolution? Sometimes I think that both 'sides' of this argument are to blame, because if they gave the matter some serious thought and did some adequate research they would realise that their opinions aren't all diametrically opposed. In the end, this argument will not move forward until both sides come to a proper understanding of the Slavic period and what it truly represented.

AMEN to that!

[Zarni]

The Slavic and antquity time frame of what makes todays modern Macedonian Identity should compliment each other they are not at odds it really is obvious
Macedonian scolars cant defend our ancestral lineage
It is the Oxford British folk cant get beyond the slavic element of modern macedonian indentity and assume why venture to Macedonia to ask questions when all they have to do is ask us

Whilst the Macedonians just need to do exactly as SOM highlighted

[Mikail]

If you listen to the whole debate you'll see that Kuzman does do this.

It appears Kuzman was decieved as to what the purpose of the interview would be. He is left shaking his head in absolute astonishment many time throughout the course of the interview. He is even bewildered by some of the remarks the host makes as he makes stupid statements out of pure ignorance.

Kuzman states many times throughout the interview that he can only speak from an archialogical perspective. Gjorgievopoulos keeps trying to rope him into a particular debate, Kuzman many times fininshed sentences for him, highlighting the fool doesn't know what he's on about.

Gjorgievopoulos would have chosen Kuzman as his oponent thinking he could easily discredit him. Kuzman held his own in the end, Gjorgievopoulos comes out of it a as a pure Greco-Bulgar sellout, the host is left dumbfounded by the discussion having absolutely no idea what was going on and Kuzman finishes off by saying, "this is not the way or the place to discuss such matters"

[lavce pelagonski]

Abe bolem e covekot.

[Soldier of Macedon]

Why don't the opponents of Georgievski question him about his own quasi-identity? He claims to be a Bulgar these days, he always harps on against some so-called 'antiquitisation' yet he lives in a country where they erect statues of Turkic Bulgars, like the 7th century figure below:



Isn't that a form of antiquitisation? Here is what the neo-Bulgar had to say some years back:

http://www.macedoniantruth.org/forum/showthread.php?t=1065&highlight=ljubcho

I cannot agree I have to be proud with Huns and Kalash relatives and to be ashamed of Slovenians, Czechs and Polish,” is said in the publication.

Interesting how he tries to manipulate the picture by overemphasising on the partially shared heritage between the people of Macedonia and certain lands that were conquered by the Macedonian Empire during antiquity. Does this fool realise the historical association of the Bulgars and the Huns? Does he realise that it is the state doctrine of Bulgaria that the progenitors of the Bulgarian people were these Bulgars, who were related to the Huns? Does he have a problem with that sort of 'antiquitisation'? I would like to see his next opponent in such a TV debate raise these questions, and then ask why somebody from Macedonia would claim a Bulgar heritage when there is a much older Macedonian heritage in the country which is also indigenous to the region. Perhaps he can also be asked if this statue in Bulgaria of Spartacus the Thracian is exempt from his criticism towards 'antiquitisation':



Or if this proposed statue of a mythical figure from antiquity for a Bulgarian town symbol is exempt:

http://www.bulgariaski.com/smolyan/pages/orpheus_smolyan_en.html

Sculpture of Orpheus to Be Erected in Smolyan

The southern Bulgarian town of Smolyan has chosen Orpheus for the symbol of the town. The sculpture will become the trademark of the town and the Rhodope Mountains. The author of the project is Georgi Chapkanov. He managed to capture the moment when the mythical singer holds the arm of his beloved Eurydice leading her towards the light of our world. The moment before she turns her back and he loses her forever. The idea about the monument came from the famous expert in Thracian studies Ivan Marazov. A model of the unique sculpture is exhibited at the art gallery of the town.

Perhaps Georgievski is blind when in Bulgaria, or perhaps he is just a tool of Bulgarian propaganda against the Macedonian people.

[Pelister]

I have watched the first few minutes of it, will try and watch the rest, but I can say even from that brief observation that most Macedonian historians, be they for the ancient or Slavic theory, do not know how to argue our case convincingly - despite the fact that the evidence is staring them right in the face. I have also made it clear in the past that trying to be selective while arguing our history by saying it is only ancient or only Slavic is a gross misinterpretation and misconception. How can one argue against the other, when both have a presence in our history? How can those that argue in favour of the Slavic view say pretend that there is no history prior to the 6th century, conversly, how can those that argue in favour of the ancient view pretend that there is no history after the 6th century? It is a stupid debate, fuelled by people who are either too ignorant or a pushing some sort of idiotic agenda like that moron Georgievski. Do these people not understand the concept of evolution? Sometimes I think that both 'sides' of this argument are to blame, because if they gave the matter some serious thought and did some adequate research they would realise that their opinions aren't all diametrically opposed. In the end, this argument will not move forward until both sides come to a proper understanding of the Slavic period and what it truly represented.

Spot on SoM. I am not even going to bother, because the question they are asking is stupid. For one it assumes we know the identity and language of 5th and 6th century invaders. We don't and there is not a single contemporary source, that reveals it.

[Soldier of Macedon]

Actually Pelister, we can deduce some solid conclusions from the sources relating to the 6th century invaders. For example, there is absolutely no doubt that the language spoken by the majority of the military elite in the enclaves (known as Sclavinias) was Slavic, that is why after the 6th century Slavic placenames are recorded in abundance across the whole of the Balkans and gain prevalence over Greek and Latin placenames. In many cases, these Slavic placenames were fresh to the region, but in other cases they are merely adaptations of the older Paleo-Balkan placenames.

From that point onward, there was a new socio-political order that reigned in the Balkans, and, together with the pre-existing linguistic commonalities between the local majority and invading minority, conditions were created in which the Slavic language (already a lingua franca north of the Danube) could spread across the length of the region and homogenise the rest of the related languages and dialects. This is the reason why, despite Slavic being spoken all the way down to the Peloponnese, it took its strongest hold in Macedonia, Thrace and Illyria - where the Paleo-Balkan languages were traditionally spoken.

The stupidity of this discussion arises when scholars and others don't grasp the fact that the Slavic languages of today (together with the Baltic languages) are the closest living descedants of the Paleo-Balkan languages within the Indo-European family. They belong to the same broader group, just like Indian and Iranian languages are classified under the one umbrella.

[Soldier of Macedon]

Here is what this traitor was saying back in 1991, claiming that there are no bulgarophiles in the VMRO party in Macedonia, but he eventually became the biggest one himself:

Георгиевски дава изјава во 1991 дека ВМ�*О ДПМНЕ нема бугарофили - YouTube

[lavce pelagonski]