Daily Journal:

I have more than once noticed what an exceptional place in Russian everyday speech the imperative mood occupies: the word “must” or the characteristic excited intonation of an administrative shout (in extreme cases, a call) can be heard at every step, and this is by no means some new phenomenon - in childhood (and this was back when), sending me to the bakery, my mother habitually said, “ We need to force Andryushka to go buy bread,” although no one was against it anyway.

This clearly visible and much more widespread manner of behavior (“habitus”, sociologists would say) is itself evidence of a certain very specific state of affairs, observed everywhere where one encounters “dear Russians”, in particular, it determines the current operational situation on domestic roads: there are (or at least are assumed) certain well-known and absolutely fair “rules of the game”, the implementation of which is really a “matter of life and death” for everyone who, by the will of God, finds himself behind the wheel of a car. But at the same time there is also so-called anomie, i.e. widespread systematic neglect of these “rules”, and besides, it is completely incomprehensible how to ensure that they are observed at least within the boundaries of ordinary common sense; I believe the reader will easily recall many very similar collisions elsewhere in other contexts.

From this point of view, A.V. Tsipko, even despite his pedigree, is a true child of the time and people, on whose behalf he usually has the habit of speaking in the mass media: after all, it is difficult not to agree that the generally accepted, certainly effective and (preferably) institutionalized “paradigm” for coordinating private interests, ensured by the so-called “social contract” or even primordial national traditions, is really a “matter of life and death” for any community that claims to have any long-term and prosperous existence, while the irreducible initial prerequisite for this state of affairs is religion with its specific values, patterns of discourse and patterns of everyday action; in short, there is no society without cult practices (this, excuse me, is the “ABC” of sociology), therefore, “phobia” in relation to one religion means in practice hidden or obvious complicity with some other.

Nevertheless (and this is also known to everyone who has had to “concretely” think about the future of their “native ashes”), it is completely incomprehensible how to make sure that some generally accepted and “functional”, as sociologists say, are finally established in our country. , "rules of the game"; for this purpose, they once called the Varangians to Rus', established a monarchy, first established and then overthrew Soviet power, finally elected those who were elected presidents, but the problem, apparently, remained exactly the same as it was: you have to either count on the introduction impeccable “social order” by decree, the strict implementation of which would be ensured by an all-encompassing, unconditionally effective and again institutionalized system of supervision, next to which the “cheque” or the Inquisition rest, or agree that the times when the agenda was the development and implementation of some kind of any “truly correct” ideology are left far behind.

In conclusion, let me remind you that respect for “human rights” is the very sign that distinguishes the arrest of a person (even if guilty of a serious crime) from the capture of a wild animal or a runaway slave (this, in any case, is the “history” of this concept itself), the notorious “liberalism” has been the primordial national tradition of fairly successful and prosperous peoples for many centuries, while the questions “what to do?” or “who is to blame?” are purely technical, their correct formulation is only possible if we know where we are and what we really want.