Once, in an era when “Boeings” were falling on American cities, the author of these lines happened to write an article about terrorism. It occurred to me that the only way to fight terrorism is by changing the attitude toward it. Terrorism must be treated like weather. Well yes, a tsunami happened, there are destruction and victims. Recovery work is underway. And that’s it. It is meaningless to discuss “demands.” A tsunami cannot have demands. It is equally meaningless to discuss the demands of terrorists. People who kill in mass quantities other people who did nothing to them become a natural disaster. There is nothing to understand about these people, nothing in such understanding that could bring benefit. Yes, they need to be studied, but studied the way one studies earthquakes or epidemics. Sympathy, and therefore complicity, here is simply impossible.
Terrorism exists only because it is shown on television; it is treated as human activity by its nature. As soon as such an attitude stops, terrorism will lose any meaning and disappear.
I have long thought that the same change in attitude is necessary for all of us. I mean our attitude toward the state, politics, and politicians. We can free ourselves only if we treat them as a natural disaster, clearly understanding where we are and where they are.
Immediately I want to clarify. They will tell me that the division into “we” and “they” is incorrect, that it removes responsibility from “we” for this same “they.” I won’t argue—I fully agree. In this case, the question is that “we” and “they” exist in our public consciousness as a definition of the quality of the state. “We” designates “good,” and “they” designates “bad.” It is implied that if “they” is replaced with “we,” everything will immediately become good. But I am saying something completely different. I believed and continue to believe that the Ukrainian state is a direct continuation of the Ukrainian people, a place that enables some Ukrainians to rob, oppress, and mock other Ukrainians with impunity. And now I am talking about what gives such power to some people over others and how to reduce this power to nothing.
Imagine newspapers don’t write about politicians. News mentions them only if they happen to attack people, and names, parties, positions, and so on are not mentioned, since this has no significance. Motivation doesn’t interest anyone—only a statement of fact, only the elimination of consequences and preventive measures are discussed. All these TV shows, demonstrations of rudeness, boorishness, and self-importance are closed as unnecessary. No one posts condemning demotivators on social networks, no one “likes” political articles. What do you think—how long will “power” last in such conditions?
All power of some Ukrainians over others exists only in their heads. Some Ukrainians oppress others exclusively because both parties believe that this is how it should be. And it all starts with the attitude toward officials as if they were just people, with attempts at understanding, and therefore at complicity. This is very reminiscent of communists in Stalin’s camps with their “you are all enemies of the people here, I alone ended up here by mistake.”
Ukrainians expect good from the state because the state appears omnipotent. It is high time to understand that this omnipotence is of a natural disaster, of chaos. Ukrainians remain emotionally attached to everything that happens inside the state; they eagerly consume all the details of official life down to who married whom and why. Officials govern us precisely because the state is perceived as part of our lives, emotionally very significant. And here the only way out is the full and conscious implementation of advice one girlfriend gives to another girlfriend—“just throw him out of your head.”
How often one has to hear maxims beginning with the words “unfortunately, our authorities. . .” It is time to understand that any “authorities” are not ours. They are strangers. By definition. A person who has put on the uniform of a state servant crosses the line. He becomes part of a natural disaster. He becomes part of a locust or rat invasion, an earthquake or tsunami. Yes, this is a hostile natural disaster, but it is a natural disaster. Emotions toward it are meaningless. It is an external force; one cannot conduct dialogue with it or enter into negotiations.
It may seem that I am calling for “political illiteracy” and similar things considered a sin by progressive society. No. On the contrary—when hunting rats, it is very useful to know their habits. However, it is completely meaningless to ridicule these very rats in angry demotivators. The attitude toward them must be calm, businesslike, and, I would say, technological. And then everything will work out.