In the opposition

We continue the conversation

November 4, 2013 Viktor Shenderovich

Navalny’s post - the answer to the critics of his position on the “Russian march” - is good at least because it is well structured.

Hello, Alexey! - And let's go on the points.

1. “We all need to strive to realize that the political diversity, democracy and real parliamentarism, which we strive to mean not only“ they stop chasing us ”, but“ we do not strive to drive someone else ”. After all, Boris Akunin, whom I love and respect very much, in fact, in a very totalitarian way declares: nationalism in our country is unacceptable and should be prohibited ... "

This is overexposure.

Akunin does not write about the prohibition of nationalism - he writes about its most severe consequences for the country in case nationalism becomes a dominant ideology. No one suggests prohibiting the discussion of a “migration law”, but for the call to violence to expel the society! And this is not a restriction of an ideological enemy in the possibilities for dialogue, but a sanitary measure for self -defense (see the decisions of the Nuremberg Tribunal).

The game with the replacement of “nationalism” in the Akunin post with “liberalism” is very elegant as a polemic move, but does not roll at all in content: in countries where “liberalism” is an ideological basis, nation, ethnic groups and religions are quite successful; No disintegration of the country in Canada or Australia is observed. But where nationalism wins, everything always ends with Auschwitz, Srebrenic or Rwanda.

So Akunin is right, but you are not.

And in our case, it is not about the stupid “prohibition of nationalism” (you should not make an idiot from the opponent), but about what idea can unite people for positive changes in the country, and which puts them through ethnic caves and lead the country to decay.

“Nationalists have an extremely complex and painful process of ideological demarcation, and of course we all must support those who acts with the ideas of equality before the law and observe human rights. There are a lot of them, and most on the RM should be just like that. ”

Show me this is “a lot”, Alexei. I have not seen a single one yet. And explain what this means: they “should be like that”?

They do not owe a fig to anyone, and they will not.

A person who acts from the standpoint of equality before the law and human rights is called just a liberal. And “a nationalist who acts from the standpoint of human rights,” is an oxymoron, dry water. This does not happen. Nationalism in fact implies the preference of one nation by another.

And the “ideological demarcation” in today's Russian march takes place between those who believe that they need to start with the “Jews”, and those who would prefer to start with “churok” - well, and along the line of tactical behavior: to rush with pogroms right now or to break into the legal field first.

2. “Liberals through one prime ministers and ministers, and nationalists from the underground cannot get out. Where do they get good manners and experience? Let's compare not Vasechkina and the ideal, but Vasechkina is now Vasechkina five years ago.

The dynamics of changes is obvious and very positive. If Vasechkin is oppressed, then he, not finding sympathy, will go with the flag about Boromir again. Or worse. Do we need it? "

I want to upset you, Alexey.

“Vasechkin” is exactly the same as it was five and twenty -five years ago. Simply, since the country degraded most of this quarter century, and robbery and lawlessness flourished under the flag of liberalism - there were much more “Vasechkins”, and the country's transition under the command of this collective Vasechkin no longer seems impossible.

As for the “good manners”, which there was nowhere to get to the leaders of nationalists - the terminology, it seems to me, should be clarified. The problem of Torah is not that he does not know how to wear a tuxedo and use a fork to take out snails, but that he is a Nazi. There was, apparently, it will be.

Good manners have nothing to do with it - we are talking about ideology.

And the “Russian march”, in an ideological sense, and portraitively (see fresh photos), is precisely Thor and Co., but not Vasily Rozanov or Ivan Ilyin. And solidarity with today's “Russian march” automatically means solidarity with the Thor.

I don’t know to what extent your reasoning is self -deception, and to what slyness - but it would be nice if at least you have realized this yourself.

According to the third and fourth paragraph - there are practically no discrepancies:

“People just don’t go to marches. If you come out, then they have a problem. Sing - a problem. The rally is a problem ... "

Everything is so - and the taboo leads to the explosion, and the special place of the Kadyrovskaya Chechnya in federal financing is an object for a separate concentration of public attention ... That's it!

Political work with the electorate of Biryulev, Kondogoga and Sagra, the transfer of the destructive energy of the pogrom into a positive direction associated with the restoration of the law in the country - the work is necessary, and give you God, Alexei, to do it further: you first began to be hired by this seriously.

But today it was about the attitude to the “Russian march” with its pogrom recipes, sooooo far from the law and respect for human rights. And your references to France, alas, are also not changing: if the Le Penovites walked along the streets of Paris with their hands raised in a Nazi greeting, they would immediately have a case with the police, and in the next morning, the daughter of Le Pen would crawl at the feet with the Minister of Justice.

We are not in Paris, Alexei. And neither the state system nor public institutions guarantee us today any protection from the Nazism of the most classic varieties. And today in Lublino today is not “dubious formulations”, as you carefully put it, but the proposal of amputation of the head instead of hot water and shampoo from dandruff.

Do not join this and call others on this holiday.

Or, you know, Akunin-Cheartishvili, or Belov-Potkin. I'm afraid the four of them will not gather, only two - and we must choose.

To choose now, Alexey, because we have recently chose, and just you.

More than six hundred thousand people voted for you in Moscow. Maybe among them were advanced users of the Russian idea, with a craving for the swastika and the work of the Kolovrat group, but the vast majority of this, I assure you, were mentally normal people, of different ages, nations, ethnic groups and social groups, and by no means a single religion.

And they voted precisely for the need to return the law to Russia, for respect for human rights. It seemed to them (us, me) that you symbolize this particular.

I hope it did not seem - but you are more careful.

And the last, personal. Of course, it is very difficult for you today: the bestial power holds you and your family on the hook, and then the liberals also ran away from everywhere and pressed for every careless word ...

But what to do: you called you a load!

You caused great hopes, Alexei, - get used to symmetrical responsibility.


In the photo : Russia. Moscow. November 6, 2011 . Alexey Navalny (right) during the campaign of nationalist movements "Russian march" in Lublin.

Photo by ITAR-TASS/ Maxim Novikov