Writen by Peter Volgin; Originally appeared at A-specto, translated by Valentina Tzoneva exclusively for SouthFront
“Do we really have a state?” – A lot of people must have been asking this question while watching the Afghan migrants from the camp in Harmanli pelt officers with “stones and wood,” burn tires and crush everything that came across their sight. Those who vandalize and commit arson – whether they are Bulgarians, Afghans, Zanzibarians or Eritreans must be punished. And in this case, the cliché of “poor refugees” is completely inappropriate because it was not the refugees from the war in Syria who behaved like idiots. The Syrian refugees confronted the violence. Those who have decided that instead of living in native Afghanistan, it is much better to move to Germany, were responsible for the vandalism. And why shouldn’t they when Angela Merkel herself invited them? And because during the process, unexpected obstacles arose, the vandals decided to pour their anger on what was at hand. We should not forget that vandalism is punishable even in the most tolerant countries. And in normal countries, it should be punishable immediately. If the vandals get away with it, then the state simply does not exist. In other words, the state might exist on paper, but in reality, it is completely absent. The broken water cannon is a symbol of this absence.
Of course, the state is absent not just when it should apply the law. It has abdicated the main spheres of Bulgarian reality. Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say that it was forcibly removed. During the last quarter of the century, we were constantly told that the state is something very, very bad and that if we want to live well, we need to meet the state as rarely as possible. The functions of the state would be perfectly performed by the market and that imaginary thing called “civil society.” These spells had a beautiful sound, but attempts for implementation in reality suffered a complete fiasco. The failed Bulgarian transition is the clearest proof that neither the market nor “civil society” were able to replace the pushed-into-a-corner state. The purposeful defamation of all institutions led to a point where the people employed there went into passive mode and were reluctant to take any initiative. Look at the law enforcement officers standing in front of a raging crowd. Many of them do not apply the law because they fear, quite rightly, that tomorrow someone called a ‘Human Rights Defender’ will accuse them of xenophobia, racism, fascism, and various media outlets that are supported by the same foreign donors, including the so-called. ‘Defendants of Law’, will repeat the same slander with rapture. It is very interesting why this impure ‘media and human rights’ symbiosis is activated with such passion when violent migrants need to be acquitted, but are silent when they need to protect pensioners, the poor, the sick and all other suffering compatriots. Maybe because the main goal is replacing the most important issue for any society such as inequality, social injustice and exploitation with completely artificial problems of the sort of multiculturalism, sexual identity and ‘hate speech’. Generally, the agenda that the powers bring upon us has nothing to do with the vital problems of normal people. Normal people are excited about having jobs and not just what ‘politically-incorrect’ word was used by someone. Normal people want their children to not become victims of aggression and are not concerned about liberal crap like ‘respect the human rights of the different’. The rights of the different, dear liberals, stretch to the point where they do not abuse the rights of the .rest of the population. The moment you start vandalizing, get involved in arson, throw “stones and wood” at the police, you must be ready to bear the sanctions of the law. And ‘being different’ does not acquit you.