Chapter 5. A Star is Born. Maybe.

The flight, that lasted 11 hours, exhausted me completely, and I was glad that they took me straight to the hotel, where I fell asleep right after lying on the bed. After I woke up at a late hour of the morning, I ordered breakfast, and then decided to go on a half tour/half shopping spree in the city. Even though I was supposed to get most of the money only after the interview, I have already received a decent amount of money in advance. The show for which I was going to be interviewed, was scheduled for that night, and I understood that I had very little time for touring and shopping.

The tour of the city was very interesting, and I was able to see wealth and luxury that I never had a chance to see, at least not since the time I was a little boy, before my country was torn by Guerrilla organisations such as the Organisation. The luxury of the hotel was also way beyond what I was used to in my house, but I was sure that in the other part of the world, most people could not afford themselves such luxury in their houses either.

The time passed very quickly and it was time for the interview. Two hours before it was held, they drove me in a limousine to the company’s studios, where the show was shot live. I was brought to the makeup and dressing room where I was dressed for the occasion, had makeup applied to my face, and was prepared for the show.

In the middle of applying the makeup, the makeup lady asked me: “Do you feel like you’re ready for the interview?”

“I think so.”, I told her.

“Are you calm and everything?”

“Yes. Do I have any reason to be nervous?”

“Maybe. Did you have the chance to see one of the shows of this interviewer?”

“No. Why?”

“She’s just a tough interviewer and is very candid with her guests. If there is an embarrassing or a controversial issue in their background, she will not hesitate to ask questions about it. Many people don’t feel comfortable with her.

Maybe you want to see a recording of one of the shows to prepare yourself?”

“No, that’s O.K. I love surprises. In fact, I noticed that I respond better after something unexpected happened than after something that I knew was already going to happen.”

“As you wish. By the way, how much did you get for the interview? Really?!”

After they finished dressing me and making me up, there was still some time left until the beginning of the show, and I spent it in the studios. I was offered to meet the interviewer before the interview, but preferred not to, as being spontaneous requires a little planning. Then the show started, yet I wasn’t the first person to be interviewed there (out of rating considerations). The interviewer first interviewed two cinema actors who came out with a new film, a psychologist who published his first book, and a physicist who recently publicised a finding that his colleagues and he discovered. I was supposed to enter after the interview with the physicist was finished, the physicist being present during my interview.

“So,” the interviewer asked the physicist towards the end of the personal interview with him, “what would be the implications of the discovery on the industry?”

And he replied: “Well, the material is useful in many areas of the industry, but because until now its price was relatively high, companies used cheaper alternative materials instead of it. Our discovery, which lowers the price of its manufacturing, will allow factories to use it instead of the alternative materials and thus improve the quality of their products.

My labs are in the advanced stages of writing the patent on the improved manufacturing process, and I hope my colleagues and I will receive a generous sum of money from the royalties on the patent.”

“I hope it will be so, because you probably invested a lot of works in its development.”

“Yes. Definitely.”

“That’s all for now, Doctor. I ask you to stay here in the studio to receive our next guest, which many of the viewers waited to see the interview with him impatiently. This is a man who is frighteningly logical. A man, whose actions have implications on the whole world. A media hero, that a week ago no one knew who he was. Is he a hero for a moment, or has a new star been born in the skies of the world’s politics?

Ladies and gentlemen, please welcome the ex‐Member of the Organisation!!”

This was my cue to come in, and so I entered the studio to the tempered claps of the audience that sat there. I advanced towards the interviewer, greeted the people who were present, and shook the interviewer’s hand and the hand of the physicist. Right after that, I sat down in the vacant chair next to the physicist. And then the interview began.

The interviewer waited for the end of the hand clapping, while moving her gaze from the audience in the studio to the physicist and me. After silence prevailed, she looked towards me and said: “The ex‐Member, I must say we are very happy to have you here on our show. Tell me: how do you feel here, in the other part of the world?”

“Excellent. The conditions are much more comfortable than what I’m usually used to.” I answered.

“Very well. ”, she said, “Please tell us a bit about your service in the Organisation? How did you feel back then?”

“Oh, it was definitely an instructive service. However, there was one thing which bothered both me and my late comrades: they kept lecturing to us how bad the Enemy was, and why we must fight it. I think half of our training time was wasted on such lectures. We knew the Enemy was bad, and that was the reason why we joined the Organisation in the first place!

In my opinion, it was completely unnecessary. Perhaps they thought that without those brainwashes we would have reached the conclusion that there is no rationale behind the activity against the Enemy. Most of us reached that conclusion a few months, if not less, after we joined the Organisation and we still kept fighting. So they didn’t have a reason to go to this length and just bother us.”

“Yet, you are content with your retirement from the Organisation and with your interesting suggestion for improving the efficiency of its actions?”

“Of course.”

“Tell me: do you, personally, hate the Enemy?”

“Sure. That’s why I proposed my constructive suggestion, which will allow the Organisation to fight it better.”

There was a short pause. “Can you tell us, following your visit to the land of the Supporter, how they eventually decided to handle it?”, she continued.

“Actually, I could tell you. We reached the conclusion that my suggestion corresponds to the philosophy of the Supporter and of the Organisation, and it will probably be implemented to a greater extent in the Organisation and in other establishments of the Supporter worldwide.”

The Interviewer then said: “Speaking of the philosophy, according to many people who live here, in the other part of the world, both the philosophy and the actions of the Organisation are completely irrational.”

I replied: “The Organisation anticipated that such a thing might happen, and therefore it printed its philosophy on a note.”

The interviewer then responded: “I’m sorry, but I don’t understand how it contributes to its validity. Everyone can write the world’s biggest nonsense on a note, and yet it will remain illogical and subjective to whoever said it.”

“Yes,” I said, “but this note was printed in eight milliard copies, and thus there’s plenty of it for every man alive, which makes it objective for all practical reasons. You can receive it from the Organisation for free, by enclosing mail payment only. Likewise, you can find it on the Internet in the following address:”

The interviewer seemed shocked for a moment. Some media experts would claim it was unprofessional, but in my opinion, it was pretty much in place. “Indeed a strong argument, and I’m sure many of the viewers would take your suggestion, and will check the philosophy of the Organisation themselves. Whether they will accept it — that it is a different question.”

“Well, the objectivity of a certain thing is not dependent on people accepting it.”

“Of course. Let me move on to the next question, which interests me and probably many other people very much. It is known that both the Enemy and the Occupier invaded your country, after actions of terrorist organisations such as the Organisation caused it to lose stability. Both countries had one share or another in its destruction. Today, the Occupier occupies a large part of your country directly, and controls most of the other part with a puppet government. The Enemy, on the other hand, occupies only a small part of your country which is close to its border, for security reasons, and the condition of the people who live there, is, as far as I know, not so bad. Why, if so, do the residents of your country act mostly against the Enemy and not against the Occupier?”

“An excellent question, Madam. There is, probably, some activity against the Occupier’s army, but it is much limited and doesn’t receive as much media coverage. Furthermore, it is a lot easier to fight the enemy, because the Organisation receives the support of the Supporter and the acceptance of the Occupier. Moreover, the Enemy’s country, as opposed to the Occupier’s country, is a free country, and therefore is committed to behave in a moral manner, even towards the members of the Organisation, that are, out of self‐definition, immoral.

If those reasons are not enough, then since the beginning of the Occupier’s occupation, our country has been peaceful, which was disturbed only by the activity in the southern border. The civilians are happy that there’s peace at last, and so they don’t really mind that the country is under foreign occupation.

In my opinion, even if we had all the reasons to fight the Occupier, then like the man who looks under the light of a street‐light for a coin he lost in the dark, we would have still preferred to fight the Enemy. It’s much more convenient, and still satisfying.”

“In that case, ” the physicist said, “from what I understood from what you said, the war against the Enemy doesn’t bring your country much good, and it would be better better if you did not fight it at all.”

“Definitely Not!” I replied to him vigorously “The very fact that it would be better to fight the Occupier, doesn’t mean that fighting the Enemy, even tough it isn’t beneficial for us in the long run, or even the short run, is useless.”

“O.K., we could say you cleared that point.” The interviewer said and continued, “Several forces in the Enemy’s country suggest that the Enemy’s military will retreat from the security‐zone that they hold at the moment in the south of your country, and will try to protect their civilians only from within their sovereign territory. This action might stop the fighting between the Enemy and the Organisation, because the Organisation reasons the continuation of the fighting in that it does it to liberate that territory.

Yet, the Supporter’s country despises the Enemy, not because it hurt your people or holds part of your country, but out of ideological motives. Therefore, its interest is that the fighting against the Enemy will not be stopped at all. Moreover, even for the Occupier, the withdrawal from that territory will not change anything, and it will still want the fighting to go on.

Thus, assuming the Enemy withdrew from that limited territory he is controlling at the moment, do you think the Organisation would continue its activity against the Enemy?”

Undoubtedly, this was also a very good question. I thought about it a little and replied: “Look, it’s not a small dilemma. On the one hand, it would be more difficult for them to get support for the actions from the civilians, unless they will manipulate the desire for revenge on the Enemy’s past crimes. Still, both the Supporter and the Occupier, which now sanction the aggressive activity of the Organisation, will want the Organisation to keep on fighting out of their own motives.

As you may well remember, I met with those who are responsible on the Organisation’s activity in the Supporter’s government and I concluded that except for the fact that they reject Aristotle’s Organum, they are very reasonable people. Therefore, I am forecasting that in such a case, they will take the reasonable decision. For people who reject the Organum, of course.”

“That is, will continue to fight the Enemy?”, the physicist asked.

“Or vice versa. When the Organum is rejected, it’s difficult to tell.”

“I’d like to ask the ex‐Member a question.”, the physicist said.

“Please do.”, the interviewer said to him.

“Some of the actions of the Organisation were followed by bombardments of the air force of the Enemy’s military, which were, at times, even very massive. These bombardments sometimes caused civilians of your people to get hurt. The Organisation knew in advance that such bombardments could come as response to its activity, and yet didn’t stop it. In your opinion, can one say that the Organisation is responsible in killing its own people?”

“No!”, I replied to him, “It is absurd to believe that if someone performed an action with an expected cause, then he’s guilty of the cause. Thus, for instance, as opposed to common belief, Adolf Hitler is not responsible for instigating World War II. All he wanted was for people to hear his command to invade Poland!

Furthermore, a man who positioned a gun at the forehead of another man and shot him, is not responsible for killing him. All he wanted was that the bullet will be emitted from the barrel, or even just for the trigger to be set backwards!”

“Speaking about bombardments,”, the interviewer said, “many criticisms were directed at the Enemy for hurting the civilians among you, although they are only trying to hurt the Organisation’s soldiers. As someone who is now an objective viewer, do you think those criticisms are justified?”

“What do you mean?” I asked, “I have always been completely objective.”

“But you served in the Organisation!” the physicist burst, “The Organisation tries to hurt the soldiers or even the civilians of the Enemy, who are innocent. In my opinion, you were a criminal.”

“You are right,” I told him, “But I have been a criminal from an objective viewpoint.”

“Let’s get back to the question. Are the accusations against the Enemy’s Military justified?” The interviewer addressed me again.

“Absolutely.” I replied, “Even if they were completely accurate, they would have hurt the Organisation’s soldiers and kill them.”

“But we just agreed they were criminals!”, the physicist said in half‐bewilderment, half‐anger.

“And wait — is it justified to kill a criminal? Is the stealer from a thief exempt?”

“So, you are a pacifist?”

“No. After all I served in the Organisation.”

“Very well.” Said the interviewer to both of us, “In my opinion, we, more or less, saturated the political aspect of this conversation. The ex‐Member, would you allow me to ask you a couple of personal questions now?”

“Wait a second, do you think the questions so far were not personal?”

The interviewer stopped for a moment and moved her hands, “No. What kind of questions do you consider as personal?”

“I consider all questions as personal except for the questions ‘Is question X a personal question?’ and ‘Is question Y not a personal question?’. You see, I don’t want to create a private case of the Russell Paradox.”

“Well, so let’s proceed with your permission with some further personal questions.”

“Please do.”

“How do you describe your outlook on the world?”

“Well. In my opinion, everything in the world ranges from the very stupid to the completely illogical.”

“That is a bold statement.”

“No it’s not! It was a stupid and irrational statement.”

“Oh yes, it makes sense.”

“If you say so. In my opinion, it’s just stupid.”

“Speaking of lack of logic: many told me that they found your behaviour very… ahem… unusual and your logic also seems to them to be very insane.”

“I agree with them.” I replied to her. “Had I not already been insane, I would have long ago driven myself mad.”

“Do you have any plans for the future?”

“Absolutely. I intend to publish a book with my memoirs from the last period. In my opinion, it will be one of the most revolutionary books since Aristotle’s Organum, and I hope it will help lower the prestige of the last treatise. I noticed that the contents of this treatise receives an almost full consensus, even in the wide public, and this is despite the fact that most people had never read it. Doubtless, this treatise had an enormous conscious and subconscious effect since it was written — unjustifiably in my opinion — and I hope my book will help decrease it in considerably.”

“Tell me, the ex‐Member, do you have any hobbies? What do you do in your spare time?”

“Among the activities I do in my spare time I can list the following: finding closer and closer solutions to a set of differential equations from the second degree. I also deal in trying to understand the sentences I said in the past. Aside from all that, I planned a political simulator that forecast the two World Wars after I entered all the relevant data until the year 1000 AD.”

“Do you have a computer at home?”

“Oh, no! At present the program is written on a paper. Don’t ask how much time it took me to fully eliminate all bugs out of it. But it was great fun!”

“Is that all?”

“No… there’s another thing. Let me just remember what it is. I also like… come on… ”

“To try to disprove the Theory of Relativity?” suggested the interviewer.

“To plan how to take over the world by investments in the stock market?” the physicist said.

“Ah… I like to play the guitar!”

A few laughs were heard from the direction of the audience, while the interviewer and the physicist silenced for a few seconds. “Interesting habit.” Said the Interviewer.

“I would have never guessed you did such a thing.” The physicist added.

“Why?” I asked with wonder, “As far as I know, many people play the guitar.”

“You know:”, the physicist said, “in my opinion since you left the Organisation you acted without thinking a lot before you did things. I would describe your behaviour as deriving from spontaneousness and fickle‐mindedness that border rashness. Do you also think so?”

“Of course!” I answered him, “Except for arrogance, rashness is my only defect!”

“Gentlemen, I would have been glad to continue this interview and I’m sure the viewers would have wanted to learn more about the exciting life of the ex‐Member of the Organisation. However, I am being told that our program has reached its end.”, the Interviewer said after I finished my sentence. “Dear Doctor and the ex‐Member of the Organisation, I thank you for getting interviewed here with me. As for you, the viewers in the homes and in the studio, I hope you enjoyed the interviews that were in the show. We wish you a good evening and a pleasant continuation of viewing.”

And then came the signal that ended the show, and the ending music was broadcast around the studio. The audience in the studio began to clap their hands, while the interviewer, the physicist and I went on to sit in the studio for a few minutes. Then we went backstage.

“Madam, I think it was an excellent interview!” I said to the interviewer while the three of us were standing backstage, along with the guests that had been interviewed before, and discussed the program that was just broadcast. “The questions were really top of the line, and I believe that it was a challenge to answer them, even for me. Doctor, you had your share of brilliant challenges too.”

“Thank you.” The Doctor said.

“Likewise.” Added the interviewer and said: “Your answers were also very… unusual.”

“Although this description cannot testify on their quality, I take it as a compliment.”

Then, one of the production people approached her and gave her several video cassettes. “Here”, she addressed me as she gave me one of the cassettes. “This is a taping of the show which we prepared for the guests.”

“Well, I don’t have a VCR at home right now, but thanks, anyway.” I thanked her and started to walk in order to get out of the studio. But then I stopped for a moment and turned to her: “By the way,” I said, “I still have not understood why the questions you asked me during the first part of the interview were more personal than the questions you asked me at the second one.”