Translated material
I liberal
Once, by the word "liberal" was ambivalently. (In general, most of the political terms from the foreign dictionary of a hundred years ago seem to me dying and requiring attentive rethinking, and even better the discovery of some new words. Suddenly they begin to say that in France and Sweden socialism, then the Liberal Democrat is Zhirinovsky, well, these are the most banal examples, a deeper question, that in the post-industrial global epoch The fronts of the struggle and coordinate systems are shifted, and here politicalists and politicians still plow and plow.)
I was clearer purely everyday, not political significance: a person, inclined to gently and tolerate to my neighbor, give a neighbor a little more freedom than is accepted by a pore society.
And in the atomic desert, which became the public consciousness after the invasion of the Leninist -Stalin Troglodytes (and they have not gone anywhere, as we see), the use of cozy Western terms is a rather insidious thing and can only confuse.
In general, I would not want to personally led myself against any abstract liberals, nor socialists (especially given my sincere tendency to patriotism and conservatism - but it’s not to use these words either - no one understands them in our time either). You can, in short, hide for something such "general-degree", "general democratic" ...
But! Life arranges a lot in places without our permission.
In recent years, everything here has become much simpler, and again, not in the scientific and political sense, but in the household and everyday.
Who now scolds the "liberals" (whoever they mean), what kind of people are these? First of all, I am concerned about the elementary level of their mental development and the lack of basic knowledge about the world. You can conduct experiments: if you noticed that a person has a little porridge in his head, if he writes “silver”, and not “silver”, if he confuses legitimacy with legalism, the probability that one day he will protrude his lip on “liberals” to about 2 against 1 (and when this happens, of course, a control shot - ask him to give a definition of liberalism, it starts simply here Glossolalia).
The second - what are the moral and ethical guidelines of people scolding the "liberals"? There is no need to spray for a long time: their moral appearance is very clearly revealed by such ringing tuning forces as Mikhalkov, Peskov, Prilepin, Kiselev-Solovyov and other screaming, awarding, aggressive and anti-human evil spirits.
The third - from the negative go to the positive part: if I see a person calm, reasonable, competent and honest, the likelihood that he adheres to liberal principles (and he is called liberal) - 5 to 1.
Well, of course, he is a categorical opponent of war and aggression not only against Ukraine, but also of war (you can calmly argue with him, for example, about the bombing of Yugoslavia, while it is not known who will be in what position, and at the same time you can part with friends).
And if official propaganda stigmatizes these people, if they lose their jobs, freedom or life for this, then there is simply no choice.
Yes! I liberal.
You can even sew such a strip on the sleeve as the King of Denmark did (yes, I know that he did not, but this is just a clear symbol).
If Boris Nemtsov was a liberal, then I also liberal, write down in the list. And when the war ends, then we will already understand.
PS But please stop writing Latinin from the market in liberals, this is terribly unscientific.