Valeria Ilyinichna is angry

To get out of literary tenet, no one managed to be so simple. This did not work out with Valeria Ilyinichna Novodvorskaya in her last text .

I leave aside all her insulting attacks at my address. Such a manner of controversy. She is without vile suspicions, like other people without parasitic words or obsceneity, is unable to argue. There is nothing to be done about this. Nobody is offended by this. But if we say on the merits of the dispute, then why not continue it.

The actual irritation of Novodvorskaya itself is already indicative that the mirror of the Russian counter -revolution - Fedor Dostoevsky was put in front of her. Jupiter was angry: "And they were given to them all (Lyudmila Saraskina also sinned with this)" Demons "Dostoevsky and Petrusha Verkhovensky with his" five "and the drowned student Shatov."

And in order for her to be behind all these demons, she is explained by the classic in love: “Demons” is my favorite novel by Dostoevsky, and Dostoevsky is a favorite writer. ”And they say, get rid of.

Today, in "Faces" she loves him. And in her book "On the other side of despair" dated 1992, we read:

"Dostoevsky committed a great sin - he slandered the revolution, he slandered it, surpassed it in" demons ", he, like a mander, took away from the executed people for the ground and will that they did not take away the enemies: the name in the offspring, immortality, honor. Nechaev - it was the same scholars of the revolution, but" demons "was not for Nechayev. The ashes of Zhelyabov, Perovskaya, Mlodetsky defiles. "

It is said from the heart, from the heart.

Well, Valery Ilyinichna forgave the sin of the great writer, changed her anger to mercy to the author of “demons” and mercy - to anger against his characters, but she does not succeed in getting rid of the “Maraudier” himself. She now and then returns to him and even tries to take him to the allies, in connection with which she remembered that "Dostoevsky planned to make Alyosha Karamazov a terrorist." This is a kind of argument in favor of the fact that terror can be holy and right.

Strictly speaking, Dostoevsky was not so much “planning” as he felt that his brother Alyosha, the most positive of the Karamazovs, could come to terror. It is precisely because of its righteousness. As the pure young man Erkel came to him - he was one of the "five" of the younger Verkhovensky did not save before the murder of the unfortunate Shatov for the "common cause".

In large writers, the characters at some point begin to behave regardless of the will of the author. Dostoevsky penetrated the secret of radical and consistent idealism, which will willy-nilly can turn into bloody pragmatism.

The pre -October terror of Perovskaya, Figner, Mlodetsky, Khalturin, Kalyaeva turned to them. It ended in the Office terror.

The extreme idealists (and not the Black Hundreds of all kinds of shades) are the most important and reliable resource of all revolutions and terror. Mr. Limonov selects them in his squad, so that then they should be substituted at the right time in order to manipulate them, exactly as Peter Verkhovensky did.

Now, according to Novodvorskaya, it has been cured of the disease of "children's Bolshevism." Now she, it seems to her, is ready to separate entirely and completely liberal ideals. But still, Shigalevshchina is not, no, and and it looks out from under the cover of its liberal rhetoric.

This is how she looks at the horror of Hiroshima: “It cannot be said, of course, that they (the Japanese. - Yu.B.) thank the United States: thanks for dropping an atomic bomb on us. But imagine if this would not happen, what would be Japan. It would not be the second economy in the world. It would not be a kind, bright, liberal country. And they would not have any robots, and they would not have a“ Tom. ” There would be no. "

And this is how she looks at the Pinochet dictatorship: “We are democrats and liberals, our business is to protest against human rights, against attempts to suppress democracy, it is not our business to establish dictatorships. But now, retrospectively, if we want to be objective, we must admit that there was no other strength in Spain from the fate of Eastern Europe and from the fate of Russia, that Franco still saved Spain, Spain saved Spain. And then he returned it to the democratically tuned king.

Logic familiar to the same "demons". And a familiar desire to separate benign terror from the terror of malignant.

The publicist Yakov Krotov commented on such an apology of Pinochet: "utilitarianism and pragmatism are the essence of totalitarianism, and Novodvorskaya, alas, argues totalitarian as the usual secretary of the party committee: the goal is all that is morally that it serves victory."

True, Valery Ilyinichna adds to the apology that "normal democrats during all these excesses, of course, had to ... protest." And then she live in Chile, she, of course, would give her life so that the tyranny would not pass. But, making mentally fascist power as a tool of liberal reforms yesterday and in another place, why not resort to it today and in your country?

I believe that, turn to Novodvorskaya today "galoshes of happiness", she would immediately go in Chile from the early Pinochet, where she would immediately be taken to the ill -fated stadium. I believe that she would be happy to suffer. But this is her personal business and her personal choice.

In the order of a mental experiment in the same galoshes, we teach the corpses of the freed -loving Chileans shot at the same stadium so that they will be transferred in our time and, having listened to the record of Novodvorskaya’s speech, would be filled with gratitude to their executioner. Then they would finally recognize the price of the "fanatics of liberalism" (formulation of Dostoevsky).

Radicalism is a great equalizer in inhumanity. The irreconcilable ideological opponents (say, Prokhanov, Limonov and Novodvorskaya) also believe that the barricades are located on different sides, but in fact they already stand shoulder to the shoulder in a single system.

As for Smerdyakov, whose way of thinking threw a shadow on some considerations of Novodvorskaya, here the Karamazov library has nothing to do with it. Like "Organizations of Mikhail Andreevich Suslov."

For those who did not bother to look into my article that caused Valeria Ilyinichna, I will allow myself to remind the "sewage" of Novodvorskaya and Smerdyakov.

“If suddenly the UK would like to win Russia, I am not one of those who would resist this” (Novodvorskaya).

“In the twelfth year, the great invasion of the emperor Napoleon of the French first, the current father, was on Russia, and well, if these very Frenchmen conquered us then: a smart nation would conquer a very stupid one and annex to itself. There would even be other orders” (Smerdyakov).

As you can see, Smertyakov’s speech (like Novodvorskaya) is not about Russia not to fight with the West, but that it is won by the West.

Smerdyakov is a footman. It is important for him that he always has a master. Even on a scale of a foreign country. And it would be good noble.

My "Organizational": Smerdyakov thinks and reason completely as Novodvorskaya - totalitarian.