Second letter: on the 80th anniversary of Mikhail Gorbachev

The second letter

To the 80th anniversary of Mikhail Gorbachev

My enemies - and I, believe me, are pleased - they say that I am conceited. These people, devoid of imagination, wit and self -irony, are not able, even trying to humiliate the enemy, brilliant and divorced at the attack. They are just the miserable descendants of the Count de Gi, who, trying to hurt Sirano de Bergerak, strained all his eloquence and told him: "You ... uh ... a big nose." Here are my enemies. Am I conceited? Complete! I am brilliantly narcissistic, there is no hint of modesty in me, I feel the waves of happiness from my own mind and wit, from my success in the ladies, from liveliness of my own speech, from the wit of my own epigrams. But - enough. The appearance of my first letter in this beautiful magazine greatly excited me, and especially the idea of ​​what envy and rabies would cause me to cause the old donkey of Rousseau. Old Jean-Jacques always suffered from the narrowness of views ... I am the heir to the great Rabelais, with whom I would dream of a glass of a glass or two of the good Burgundy. However, back to our rams!
History is bizarre, right? She, as if accidentally, makes amazing tricks. Think about it: on February 1, 80 would have turned 80 to Boris Nikolaevich Yeltsin, on March 2, 80 years old was 80 years old Mikhail Gorbachev, and two others were located between these two dates: on February 19, 150 years old was the manifesto on the abolition of serfdom, signed by Tsar Alexander II, and on March 1, 1881, exactly 130 years ago, the “king-consumer” was killed Russian terrorist. As you say now, not weak? And what do you say that the words “thaw” and “publicity” first appeared at all the same king immediately after the defeat in the Crimean war? Do you know that this anointed of God by its highest decree closed the Supreme Censorship Committee?
And he was killed.
Neither Yeltsin nor Gorbachev (sorry, but forced to insert the word “so far”) no one killed. However, they do not like. Neither one nor the other. Ah, how they do not love! To foam on the lips. To complete hysteria. For what, you ask? In response, hear a stream of slurred word-block, foggy accusations that they “ruined everything”, sold, betrayed. They ruined, sold and betray, they will tell you, the Soviet Union.
What, in essence, stupid, I would say even a miserable accusation. There is neither grace nor thought in it - I do not talk about logic. After all, the logic of history firmly says that all empires - Persian, Ottoman, Spanish, Portuguese, British, and mine, French - all fell apart. And the Soviet Union was just a continuation, albeit modified, of the Russian Empire. He could not fail to fall apart. But let me make an assumption - even confidence - that the Empire is not for the loss of Gorbachev and Yeltsin, not because of which there are anger in many Russians. The matter is completely different, namely, in slavery.
You see, every empire is held primarily on slaves - in the literal and figurative sense of the word. There are no empires without slaves - this is an axiom. And the slave, the dear ladies and gentlemen, is a special and worthy category of your close attention. Think about it: the slave does not have to take care of anything - neither about the daily bread, nor about clothes and food. This is the concern of his master. If the owner is greedy and cruel, if he is deprived of an elementary understanding that you should not saw the bitches on which you are sitting, as a result of which he does not fulfill this care, the slave can rebel and kill him - but he will remain a slave.
The slave does not bear any responsibility, the owner bears it, and this applies to everything: education, treatment, participation in public life. This is all not the work of a slave that only performs, receiving either a reward or a kick in the ass for this. If the owner is poorly, ineptly fulfills its function of responsibility, the slave will ultimately rise and kill it - but it will remain a slave. And what, let me ask you, then this is? The slave to be, you see, is extremely convenient. Even comfortable. Because everyone, absolutely everything decides for you. You - a slave - are provided, you don’t have to think about anything, because they think for you.
Now imagine that slavery in your genes, because your ancestors and ancestors of your ancestors and their ancestors lived in slavery. Available for ourselves? Well, Monsieur and Medam, and now imagine that on one terrible/wonderful day a person comes who should be your master, and says:
Everything, your slavery is over, you are free.
Ah, what a joy, what a blessing, cheers, finally! This, so to speak, for starters. But then he begins to find out that it is a very big problem. You must decide everything yourself. No one feeds you. Doesn't dress. Does not give instructions. They tell you: come on, come on, yourself. Hard. But this is not enough. It turns out that some in the past slaves break forward, achieve success, wealth. It used to be all equal in slavery. And now everyone is equal in freedom-which is completely different. Because this is equality - what Galit is called in our country - suggests that we are only equal to seek what we want, that we are equal to the law, that we are equal in some rights, nothing more.
The slave who received freedom has no idea about freedom and, having received it, begins to yearn for good slave times.
The dislike of Gorbachev and Yeltsin is an expression of this longing, heavy and unsafe melancholy, longing with consequences. But transient.
Dear Monsieur Gorbachev, happy birthday!

From the editorial office: not in the rules of The New Times to publish anonymous. But proposed by the author, by the way, a public and famous person, the game seemed interesting to us. Readers have the opportunity to guess who is behind the pseudonym of the Great Voltaire. The prize is an annual subscription for 2012. Guess to health!