Guest Comment: To Die for the State

I read Evgeniy Dainov's article "Will You Fight for the Homeland?", in which he is outraged that most of his students have no desire to fight against foreign invaders. Leaving the "Left" and the "Right" aside, I recall what a Macedonian told me about a year ago:

- "There is a difference between homeland and State. My homeland is the house with the yard in the village, the tree where I played as a child and so on. And the State is those in parliament who only do stupid things, steal and don't care about us."

If we use this distinction, then the reflections should be in two directions – probably, when it comes to the “Homeland” as a home and property and family, some of the students would defend it at the cost of their lives, and another part would flee while there is a chance. An example from real life – the Syrian refugees, who have been fleeing the war in their homeland for several years, are not people who think only with their “Belly” and are selfish, as we can probably think after reading the article. Nor are they right-wing just because they did not stay to participate in the bloodshed. They are people who, with great difficulty, have abandoned their homes and are trying to save what is most precious to them – their own lives and those of their loved ones.

When it comes to the "Homeland" as a "State", can we blame Dainov's students for not wanting to die for Boyko, Stanishev, Dogan, Barekov and Volen Siderov? Is it bad that they don't care whether Putin, Obama or Merkel will rob them on the one hand and the already listed Bulgarian politicians on the other? What would be the point for them to die in battle against a professional army, and in both cases their surviving relatives will not be well off?

This is throwing away your life impudently. And it reminds me of another moment in Bulgarian history – during the Second Bulgarian Kingdom, wars between Bulgaria and Byzantium were often fought in the following way – the aggressor who declared war, attacked Thrace and liberated the fortresses there. An interesting fact is that the population in these fortresses always opened the doors voluntarily, regardless of who the aggressor was and thus managed to survive together with their property. Obviously, these are people for whom their lives are the most precious and it makes no difference whether they are robbed by a Byzantine or Bulgarian tax collector and whether a Bulgarian feudal lord or a Byzantine one will decide about their lives.

Returning to the present day, I often hear from people much older than Dainov's students that the situation in Bulgaria can only be improved if some normal country occupies us - Germany and Switzerland are most often mentioned, but we also remember how cheerful the idea of annexation by Monaco was. And in general they are right - with the current political elite and the current electorate, things are not going to get better anytime soon.

In conclusion, it is the right of every individual to decide for himself whether he will defend a given idea (in this case, the idea of his own nation-state) and whether he will do so at the cost of his life. It is not morally reprehensible for someone to prefer to survive rather than die for a supposedly "pure" idea, which in reality turns out to be more than unpleasant. And as I have said before - what does it matter whether a Turk, a Bulgarian or a Russian robs you, as in the end you are robbed?

Did you like it? Take a minute to support the EKIP on Patreon!