Original article (in Serbian) was published on 16/5/2025; Author: Stefan Janjić
Tragac’s “Blockade Notebook” features and classifies manipulative and suspicious claims from tabloids into three categories, based on whether their source is the media, a politician, or another public figure. Among non-partisan figures who are often sources of manipulation is Professor Cedomir Antic of the Faculty of Philosophy in Belgrade. For months, he has been tirelessly appearing on TV shows, and his statements about student protests are then repeate by Informer, Alo, and Novosti.
Professor Antic went viral after appearing on the show “Direktno sa Minjom Miletic” on Euronews, in which Patrick Drid, the dean of the Novi Sad Faculty of Sports and Physical Education, was also a guest. Antic, having misunderstood that students wanted to “send Drid back to Karlovo” (an imaginary place), constructed a series of claims about nativism among the protesters. Dean Drid then stopped him and pointed to the cartoon reference: “Professor, you didn’t understand. They want to turn me into Patrick Star, so they said I should go back to Koralovo (Serbian for Bikini bottom), it’s from a cartoon”.
Later, when asked about Koralovo (Bikini bottom) on the next show of his tour (Bez pardona, KTV), Professor Antic shrugged and said: “I have no shame, I’m only human, I make mistakes”. In light of that admission, we’d like to highlight a few more “mistakes” from Antic’s Euronews appearance.
On violence
“From the beginning – that anarchist model is violent. There’s this theorist, Johannes Galtung, who says that violence has now expanded. Just like with harassment now – people used to laugh if someone reported harassment (the host says ‘mm-hmm’ in agreement). They’d say – what does that even mean, someone shouted something at you, so what? Now it’s punishable by jail, by social exclusion”.
The Norwegian theorist he’s referring to is not Johannes, but Johan Galtung (1930–2024). His concept of violence wasn’t expanded “now,” but more than 50 years ago, and was largely established nearly 30 years ago. We contacted two experts familiar with Galtung’s work, and they offered insightful responses – important for interpreting other statements by Professor Antic.
Professor Nils Peter Gledic, a well-versed expert on Galtung’s work, told Tragac that Galtung indeed expanded the concept of violence by introducing the notions of structural violence (1969), cultural violence (1990), as well as the violence of nature and the violence of time (1996).
After correctly framing violence in a broader context, Professor Antic goes on to state that “the regime has made a point of never showing force” and that “in recent months, it is the opposition, not the government, that has been spreading violence”. Since Antic often jumps quickly from topic to topic and from specific cases to general claims, it’s difficult to determine how universally these statements are meant to be interpreted, or whether they refer to specific events (e.g. the atmosphere in parliament or the unrest in front of the Faculty of Sport and Physical Education – DIF).
Regardless of the starting point, in recent months we’ve witnessed the government using every form of violence – except for the violence of nature, which is unintentional and stems from natural or bodily causes. Another expert on Galtung’s work, Professor Primitivo Ragandang, told Tragac that this theorist contributed to “expanding the understanding of violence beyond direct physical harm, precisely to shed light on how seemingly ‘normal’ conditions can cause deep harm and injustice”.
The blockades began when a group of people, including an SNS (Serbian Progressive Party) official, used direct violence against students of the Faculty of Dramatic Arts. When the protests started, Damir Zobenica, then Vice President of the Assembly of the Autonomous Province of Vojvodina, instructed SNS supporters to provoke conflicts, and the President of Serbia spoke approvingly about breaking through blockades with cars. At the end of January, SNS activists beat a group of students from Novi Sad, dislocating one female student’s jaw. During the unrest in the Serbian National Assembly on March 4th, opposition representatives were accused of attacking MP Jasmina Karanac, but it turned out that she had been hit by a bottle thrown by her own coalition colleague Zika Gojkovic, from SNS.
Of course, this does not mean there was no violence from the other side – some state and local officials were pelted with eggs, and some MPs reportedly became ill from the smoke bombs brought into the chamber by opposition members. But we are far from the conclusion that “the regime has made a point of never showing force” or that “in recent months, it is the opposition that has been spreading violence”.
In addition to examples of direct violence, we are also witnessing (following Galtung’s framework) examples of structural and cultural violence – through repression, surveillance, media targeting, and a host of manipulative narratives, which – as our Notebook demonstrates – Professor Antic himself significantly contributes to.
On the sound cannon
“We’re talking about this… One of the demands now is the sound cannon. Where are the victims of the sound cannon?”
The Share Foundation, CRTA, and YUKOM collected and presented data from more than 3,000 witnesses to what has been described as the use of a sound cannon. They created a visual representation of the locations, physical and psychological experiences, and health consequences, such as hearing problems, headaches, nausea, heart issues…
On Savo Manojlovic
“We have a doctor of legal sciences, Savo Manojlovic, who says – That’s the future. It’s a bit of a problem when you have a legal doctor leading a parliamentary party who says plenums are the future. And before that, he had an organization for the defense of legality and constitutionality – imagine that”.
Savo Manojlovic does not lead a parliamentary party. His movement Kreni-Promeni has no seats in the Serbian Parliament, has not participated in the last parliamentary elections, or any prior elections at all.
On vague quotes
When Professor Antic refers to sources for the quotes he uses, he often does so vaguely – without naming them – making them hard to trace. Here are a few examples:
- “I read a news story, I think it was on N1, someone told the professor ‘Go back to Karlovo’”.
- “A Mexican politician once said that Mexico’s misfortune is that it’s too far from God and too close to the United States. We are too far from Russia and too close to Germany”.
- “Unfortunately, early last year, the dean of a very prestigious faculty that is part of the Sorbonne said: ‘The future is fighting with anarchist means’”.
- “I’ve never really dealt with media laws, but I know one alternative is for headquarters to be in cities where national minorities are the majority. Is that the future? Is that the meaning of these flags they’re showing?”
Let’s unpack this. The quote “Pobre México, tan lejos de Dios y tan cerca de los Estados Unidos“ is most often attributed to Mexican dictator Porfirio Díaz (1830–1915), but his biographers argue that there is no evidence he actually said it. Multiple sources dispute the attribution (1, 2, 3, 4), noting that the saying became popular only after Díaz’s death.
As for the alleged statement by the dean of a Sorbonne faculty endorsing anarchist tactics – we found no trace of such a quote. If any readers have this information, they are welcome to share it.
The statement about media law – that some headquarters should be in cities where national minorities are the majority – is so vague and abstract that any interpretation is speculative at best. Perhaps Professor Antic meant Novi Pazar, but who actually made such a legislative proposal? If such a proposal exists, is anyone, besides Antic, taking it seriously? We found no source for it, just a blurry assertion designed to score rhetorical points.
On Schmidt’s statement
Finally, we come to a quote where Antic did cite a source – but the quote was still inaccurate. In fact, his paraphrasing was so distorted that it bore no resemblance to the original. Antic begins the sentence:
“We have their agent Schmidt who says – ‘What a misfortune, Serbia is too big to dominate, unfortunately…’” Then pauses briefly before completing the alleged quote, helped by the host:
“…too small to disappear”.
As retold, it sounds like Schmidt, the High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina, is regretting that Serbia won’t easily vanish. But even if one imagined such a cynical remark, doesn’t the phrase “too small to disappear” sound illogical?
The host and guest were most likely trying to reference the quote with reversed claims: “Serbia is too big to disappear, and too small to dominate” – which, at least stylistically, makes more sense.
But that’s not the end – because Schmidt never said that either. That quote was misreported by media outlets like Vecernje novosti. Schmidt was tricked by Russian pranksters Vovan and Lexus, believing he was speaking with Ukrainian President Zelensky, when in fact he was being interviewed for Russian state TV.
In the contested part of the interview, Schmidt actually says Serbia is the only strategic country in the Western Balkans, “with all due respect to Montenegro and North Macedonia”. He then says:
“Serbia has strategic influence. Someone recently told me – this country is too big to fail, and too small to dominate”.
To summarize: Schmidt never said Serbia is “too big” or “too small” to disappear, and certainly didn’t express regret with phrases like “what a misfortune” or “unfortunately.” The media misrepresented Schmidt, and Antic confidently – with help from the host – further distorted the quote, misleading viewers.
But, as SpongeBob once said, “If you believe in yourself, with a tiny pinch of magic, all your dreams can come true”.
