Ymer erupts in criticism of VVA officials who took no note of resignations

By his resignation he had expected a reflection from his former party but in fact it had happened the opposite, writes Periscopi.

Ymer has declared himself ready for open discussion, accepting when and where they have erred but also removing doubts about each other's motives.

You can read it as follows:

I have hoped that my resignation will serve, among other things, as kind of an alarm for the situation created within the organization. In order to start treating him seriously. To make the move together. To stop activist animations against each other. In order that they will not fabricate lies. So they don't dig in. So far I saw exactly the opposite. I saw only arrogance. What a disaster!

This resignation and others were not treated as concerns that were, inconsistencies with what's going on, protesting this desecration campaign that we are now seeing within a year and now a month on social networks. But as a plan. Well coordinated. Through resignations, leaders and deputies of the Movement managed to find the inner enemy. Who along with the foreign enemy has been preparing this attack on Albin Movement for a long time. Since we found them, we now fight them easier. And it's easier to prevent the plan because we tell everyone who their enemies are, and anyone who talks to them has to know that you're speaking, and it's going to be influenced by “pucists”, the inner enemy. If you listen to what the inner enemy is saying you will inevitably be the inner enemy. You're definitely going that way. You will be deceived! Otherwise it can't be. So at this point we don't have anything to talk about. That's objective truth.

We're talking about the rest. But not before this objective truth is accepted. Because otherwise the discussion doesn't make sense.

However, there were also calls for discussion. From Headship to Albin Kurti now recently. Very good. What are we gonna talk about?

I met Albin twice after he was released from prison - on Saturday (December 30, (2017) and Tuesday, January 2, (2018). We both spent most of our time discussing the matter. This problem we've been facing for a while. I didn't see a moment's reflection on him at these meetings. Unfortunately. No regrets for the entire campaign of lynching and abusive speech, once within the organization and now finally in public. As there was no word of that in his post yesterday. That worries me. Because if you don't punish him or distance him, then are you supporting him?

More than that, it is very painful to see as well as in postings and public statements, first from prison with the letter sent to the Council, and then after its release and this last post, there is a terrible similarity between those told by Albin when he speaks of the problem, with what we read by activists assigned to their public discussion (naturally the final ones referred to so with a much more shocking dimension to the public). Like. Albin calls Aida deceived. That means there's a scheme prepared in which she's trapped. Then you got activists calling the ShIC Baskda! Or that it has “saved” Dardan. Say, "Aida has no right to himself, to judge for herself, and to decide for herself. Or in Albin's yesterday post, the ranking of the victory of Movement chronologically along with power attacks on the Movement to come to the latest developments and resignations, there's a terrible message within: chronology here has a purpose, to submit the resignations as a continuation of the attack of power, that is, against the victories of the Movement! This message is then amplified and distributed by social media activists. Here it hides, not to mention, another chronology: that of developments within the organisation that were not public but have been present long before general elections during them, prior to local elections.

All this to solve the problem? That's the problem. We've been facing this kind of problem for a while. The sophisticated charges, without any basis, which are then transported to activists and converted to “the undeniable truth”.

We've discussed this many times over this last year. At least five times in leadership at different stages. Dozens of times at various meetings, with Albin, with Albin, and others. Such discussions have faced a major problem: Albin's absolute lack of readiness to admit his mistake.

And now the same thing: the evil “ ” on one side is being portrayed that the vital mission has to damage Movement, and on the other side, the holy “ ” that cannot be mistaken. The meaning of these two sides. They find no compliance. They can't talk. They can only be subdued. One against the other. Of course, holy must subject evil to it. Thus, no discussion, much less democracy, but submission!

We have to discuss it anyway. I remain part of the Parliamentary Group. The Parliamentary Group, along with the rest of Headship, should also have something to discuss. But the discussion of meaning should be free of fear. This method of intimidation type “if you're not with me, you're against me” has nothing to do with democracy. It's not about honesty. It's not about unity. It's not about moving. The discussion should be open. We should be willing to accept it when and where we have erred. We must remove doubts about each other's motives. He must restore confidence. We must focus our movement, not ourselves! That's the way ahead. The other road ahead is the degrading road of deviation. Not everyone participates in it.