In one of Levon Javakhyan’s narratives, a man approaches the story’s hero and, pointing in the direction of his book, asks: “Are you writing on Nicole’s behalf or theirs?” probably was referring to the “hateful exes?” One of our main problems is that people do not believe that anyone can write “on the side of himself,” and according to the majority, they should write as “the people want” (if we refer to the same story). Even if we know 100% who can be called “the people” and what they want, it is not necessary to necessarily please them.
For example, “the people” wanted me to consider the armed attack on the police regiment and murder as “heroism” and “rebellion.” I did not do what the people wanted. By the way, the interesting is that those who welcomed that bloodshed have now become “strictly law-abiding” and are full of anger towards the people who illegally lived in the former Ministry of Defense building.
The utilitarian attitude towards murder, in general, has always surprised me. Recently, the 15th anniversary became an occasion to discuss the events of March 1 again. And now, Kocharyan’s supporters have found a “brilliant” formulation to justify the bloodshed. It turns out that the killing of ten people “saved Armenian statehood” and “postponed its destruction for ten years.” So, falsifying elections, attacking those who protested against it, and finally suppressing the protest with blood were actions to save the state?
Here I see certain symmetry in the present and former propaganda approaches. Today’s people justify their incompetence and disastrous failures with “but in their time…” references. And yesterday’s justify the crime of March 1 because ten years later, people came to power and led the country to defeat: “Is it good that they came?” No, it didn’t go well. But it does not clean the bloodshed on March 1 in any way.
Read also
There is no justification for killing someone, regardless of what happened before or after.
ARAM ABRAHAMYAN
