168: Real Armenian man against “Real Armenia”

There is still no opposition to the idea of ​​”Real Armenia” of the government, which would be able not only to crush that fiction that reduced the measure of existence to the level of gastric juice production, but to make its discussion shameful. Even for CPs. At least those who ever had a brain, nevertheless agreed to the Pashinyan degradation of replacing it with organs in the middle parts of the body.

And meaning is not contradicted, because unlike the government, the oppositions do not create new meanings, but are busy countering the ones invented by the government, that is, they create not meanings, but anti-meanings. The power’s ability to create meanings should not be confused with meaning-making in the substantive sense of the concept. Satanic curses can also, especially with today’s technology, be imposed as meanings, which is what the government does. Or all those who, through the government, are engaged in the new engineering of Armenianness, putting natural the antithesis.

And the oppositions, either due to the inability to create more meanings, or guided by the primitive principle “everything new is the old that is well forgotten”, contrast “Real Armenia” with the stories of the past, both real and pathos-filled texts quoted from legends and toasts, which are exciting only in ethnographic songs, but as a political text, they are roughly similar to the curse addressed to a child in response to the curser’s great-grandfathers. to be late.

The story of “Real Armenia”, with all its cheapness and simplicity, is about today’s Armenia, not the new Armenia, as a country risen from the ashes, as the government represents, but about the former Armenia, the broken country left from the Armenian world, which has a different citizenry, people living in different dimensions, for three years now, also lost from Artsakh.

Here, the opposition’s semantic response to “Real Armenia” should be not only and not so much (and maybe it should not be) a mechanical reminder of the previous victory, which hurts in the conditions of today’s humiliation, but a message that unites people, of a new person living in a depressed country, who did not become new by his own will, which will be opposed to the march of “Real Armenia”. But it will be opposed not just as a simple reflection, as a reaction, but as a new content, a new meaning, on which a new social and state structure with a chance to return the previous victory can ever touch.

The antidote to “real Armenia” is a real Armenian person, without quotation marks. But the Armenianness of that person, not even a hair’s breadth denying the codes of the past, should still be anchored on new realities, today’s reality. In this battle of ideas and meanings, the time factor is key. The government is selling the dream of “Real Armenia” as today’s project, but more so as tomorrow’s project. Oppositions are contrasted with archetypes from the past. And in the competition between the time dimensions of the past and the future, the past will always lose due to the nature of human beings. He will lose, with all his heroism.

Will the oppositions, individually and collectively, find the algorithm to contrast “Real Armenia” with a real Armenian person in the next two months? This is the most important question of this election cycle, but also of the times to come. Many times more important than the measurements of sociological polls and the decibels of inopportune voices that are presented as political speech, emitted by the self-satisfaction of those being measured.

—