I am watching the news about the “boy who led 100 people out of Crocus” and it occurred to me that whenever heroism emerges in such situations, it indicates that normal function has completely failed, and for every hero, there is always an anti-hero thanks to whom heroism was necessary. The one who, as we see, is still in the shadows. Emergency exits, security, the whole “Pavshino” police station in the same building, just opposite the Crocus Mall complex of buildings of the Moscow and Moscow region government and assembly.
Normal life should not include anything heroic at all. In a normal country, there is absolutely no need to march and shout slogans at a forcibly convened rally, glorifying the next father of the nation.
All this is required when the government fails to enable normal development and needs heroism as the last resource and cohesion as a substitute for normally functioning structures and institutions.
As soon as the authorities start talking about heroism and exploits, it is quite certain to say that they are thereby shifting the “blame”. A properly organized process does not require any heroism to overcome difficulties. On the contrary – a good leader does not like heroes and tries to avoid dealing with them.
Heroism is used to patch up holes and failures, and the worse the process is organized, the higher the demand for deeds and bravery, and the louder they are talked about, diverting attention from the mess and ineptitude of the leadership itself.
I wonder if anyone has heard about the building owner’s involvement in any case? It could, for instance, be compared with “Winter Cherry”. Snips-cries turned out to be needed after all.
P.S. By the way, why do Tajiks need rubles in Ukraine on the Russian “Mir” map?
Hi, I'm Rauf Aliev. 