Half a meter past

The text sent by Evgeny Gontmacher, apparently, was conceived as a polemic response to my intellectual investigation " Aesthetics of liberal sanitation ." The very first paragraph of the dough, where Putin’s words are quoted, “ an ideal option for the country would be a population of 500 million people are cited.” Thus, Mr. Gontmamer (consciously or unconsciously) is trying to distance himself from liberal aphorism attributed to Chubais, according to which death as a result of reforms of 30 million people is not a tragedy for Russia-“new ones will grow” (this was discussed in the first paragraph of my article).

Alas, this is the only example of a polemic (even hidden) with the article "Aesthetics of liberal sanitation." But in the response of Gontmamer there are many good and correct words, under which any sane person will probably sign. “ I would like a person to see cleanliness around Russia, feel safe and be protected, because he is an honest taxpayer and paid for his well -being. This person should have a well -paid job, return home after a working day, spend an evening with a family, be able to go on vacation. He must be sure that this philistine (yes, just like that!) The system will not be broken by anyone , ”writes, for example, Gontmamer. But who will argue with the fact that cleanliness and security are bad? You can argue only with the fact that the “philistine system” is considered here as a kind of social ideal. While it is nothing more than a means that ensures social stability and allows the best people of society to develop science, conquer space, create masterpieces of painting and literature, etc. That is, to engage not only in your personal, small, philistine happiness, but to make a certain superiority on yourself, similar to Gagarin’s flight into space. However, these discrepancies are purely aesthetic in nature, and do not cause a desire to enter the author with the author.

As for the criticism of the political “style” existing in Russia, which occupies a significant place in the response of Gontmamer, many claims of Yevgeny Shlemovich (the nationalization of local self -government, the capture of NPOs, contempt for the population, which has become good in our political “elite”) are also quite fair. But only in my article there is not even a hint that the Russian political regime is a role model. If I accused Gontmamer that he did not understand the whole greatness and uniqueness of the concept of sovereign democracy, such an answer would be more than appropriate. But just of this, I did not blame Gontmamer, if only because I myself do not really understand the greatness of this concept. In my article it was about the fact that liberals (and gontmamer in particular) tend to look at a Russian person as a rather cheap consumable, which could not really work or implement Western values. The fact that millions of people should be ruthlessly “cleaned” from the budget sphere and must finally “start working”. The fact that, from a liberal point of view, it would be nice to make up for a lack of workers at the expense of countless migrants, and Russia's sovereignty is partially delegated to international organizations. These rather serious statements, but all of them are supported by numerous statements by Evgeny Shlemovich himself, published in different years by different media. And about this in the response of Gontmaker, to my deep regret, not a word is said.

One of the heroes of the Strugatsky brothers used to speak out "very weighty - and half a meter past." Unfortunately, it is necessary to state that the text “will Russia become a white spot on the map” is designed in the same style.