Translated material
Freedom of speech
Freedom of speech on February 17, 2014, Julia Latynina
Shenderovich wrote a column in which he compared the Sochi Olympics with Berlin, and the Putin regime, respectively, with fascism. After which a powerful stripped persecution campaign began against him.
The most amazing thing in all this campaign is that, although our regime is not much like fascist, this campaign like two drops of water is like a totalitarian ghost campaign, unleashed by the Nazis, Stalin and Mao. That is, the more powerful the campaign, the more justified the thesis of Shenderovich seems to be.
Of course, in fact, the campaign against the Shnderovich blog on Echo has nothing to do with the content of the blog. There is simply a group of people who with all their might want to destroy the “echo”, like “rain”. They stood at a low start, they needed any reason, they would not have gutted to the column about fascism, they would have been indignant at why Shenderovich had red (black, yellow, white) socks.
The art of whitening - that is, for any reason to yell the chosen victim: you offended my mother, dad, offended my spiritual scrapers - equally well mastered by criminals and propagandones. In this case, it is known that Putin is very reverent to the Olympics that comparison with Munich will especially infuriate him, so Putin is primarily the addressee of the campaign - they want to convince him that all these liberal villains, including “echo”, must be closed and that the indignant public requires this.
Now about the important.
Comparison of the Putin regime with Hitler, in my opinion, is incorrect. The organizers of the shielding campaign took me the opportunity to argue with Shenderovich, because you can’t argue with those who are poisoned, and in addition they are just trying to demonstrate the similarity, but still I will say.
It is incorrect not because “it is impossible” and “this is too much”, but simply because the nature of the Putin regime and the nature of all totalitarian regimes of the mid -20th century, in my opinion, are different.
There are two fundamental differences. Firstly, these regimes were aimed at conquering the whole world and technological progress. They inspired their citizens: we are the most perfect and we will win the whole world. The Putin regime does not want to conquer the whole world, because then how then to relax in Miami and where to buy Mercedes? The Putin regime exists as an appendage of a free world, exporting oil there and importing everything else - luxury cars, personal planes, toilets, door pens, architects that cut off the Putin Palace in Gelendzhik, etc. What is the conquest?
Secondly, totalitarian regimes held on to violence. People did not plug their mouths - people pulled out languages with the root. With all the aversion of the campaign against Schenderovich, we understand that it will not end in arrest, Auschwitz and Gulag. This is also a fundamental thing. When the society had few resources, the dictator was sitting upstairs, taking everything from the majority, and the majority hated him, but it was afraid - it was, or so, at least, it seemed fans of freedom and democracy.
Now, when technical progress has made a possible society where the majority does not work or almost does not work, we are observing a fundamentally different type of regime - when an authoritarian populist sits upstairs and receives a rent from the country, and the majority, which also hopes for free, supports it. This happened and occurs in Venezuela, Thailand, Argentina, Bolivia, in African and Arab countries. In this sense, it is typologically correctly comparing Putin's Petrocracy not with fascism and not with Stalin, but with a bunch of retrograde Muslim or populist regimes somewhere in Sudan or Venezuela, which explain to their obviously backward country that, yes, those bastards behind the ocean are poor, and we are poor, but we have spiritual scrapers and which we have and which are under This, with all of their Allah and spiritual scrapers, is eaten in three throats, they write out millions of Western diva for corporate parties, teach children in America, they buy villas in Nice, and keep accounts in Switzerland.
Once again: the comparison is not therefore incorrect that “it is impossible”, but simply because the modes are fundamentally different. In addition, calling someone a “fascist” is a liberal bad snop. In the modern political correctly, the word “fascist” has degenerated and in translation means this: “I don’t share your point of view, but since I have nothing to object, I will call you a fascist.” You are against universal suffrage - it means that you are a fascist. But nothing that George Washington was also against universal suffrage, and the first European constitution with universal electoral law was precisely the Mussolini Constitution?
But the most important thing that I want to say is not about that. It so happened that the public campaign of Schenderovich’s persecution coincided with another campaign - against Irina Rodnina, who published Obama's collage with a banana on Twitter.
Of course, the difference between the two campaigns is visible to the naked eye. The campaign against Shenderovich is organized persecution, which has a specific goal - to compose, and if it turns out, then to close the “echo of Moscow”, the campaign against Rodnina was born spontaneously, in a herd liberal impulse.
And both of her defendants behave differently. Shenderovich defends his point of view. Rodnina at first said vileness (insult is always vileness, because the essence of the insult that it cannot be logically refuted can be answered only by oncoming insult or slaps in the face), and now he also holds us for idiots. For six months, she triumphed and wrote on Twitter: “Freedom of speech is freedom of speech. For your complexes, and answer yourself, ”and six months later she suddenly stated that her account was hacked.
Nevertheless, the main thing in them is similar: the question of the jurisdiction of the word. Both Shenderovich and Rodin said something. And Rodnina, with all the vileness of her tweet, is absolutely right. Freedom of speech is freedom of speech. Either she is, or she is not.
And I want to draw the attention of the liberal public to the fact that the principle of freedom of speech cannot be observed only relatively liberal statements. In the modern Western world, a very strange atmosphere has been created, in which for a tweet, considered "racist", can be expelled from work, withdraw from the Olympic competitions. The campaign against Irina Rodnina was preceded by a campaign against Ivan Okhlobystin, who once again proposed to do something with gays-not to burn his heart, or to bury in the ground, and gays of the whole world began to send letters demanding to dismiss Okhlobystin from Euroset. And they did not find anything strange in this. And Okhlobystin was fired.
Guys, how so? Freedom of speech either is or not. And not as it is written on the Greenpeace website, in the section “Frequent questions” that “Freedom of Speech Doges Not to Misinformation and Propaganda”.
Because in a world where the liberal community believes that freedom of speech does not apply to Okhlobystin and Rodnin, Kremlin and propagandons will assume that it does not apply to the liberal public. And there will be nothing to cover the liberal public.
Freedom of speech either is or not. And if freedom of speech does not apply to those who say a lie, then who will determine what is true and what is not?
| Print version |
-
Julia Latynina -
Nikolai Svanidze: A shameful and absolutely ideological solution, completely political. It has nothing to do with the marking, the authorities want to shake our memory ...
