Andrey Levkin: Well, all through Europe!

First, the New Gazeta published an article by Y. Latinina " Europe, you are awesome! " Then - an open letter of a group of creative workers and activists about the previous publication. In fact, in the quiet Potapovsky Lane (there NG editorial office), the battle for the future of Europe unfolded.

Since there is a discussion, you need to start with the second text. The authors of the open letter report that Yu. Latin in his manifesto (they determine the article) made a combination of " anti -egalitarism, anti -marksism, Islamophobia in touching unity with commitment to conservative values ​​and ideology of the free market ." Further details and conclusion:
" We consider the views presented in the text of Latynina are extremely dangerous and are convinced of the need for publicly and harshly opposing them.
Such a discussion ... It is necessary not so much to comply with the pluralism to the Ritaules, but first of all to counteract the muddy reactionary wave that overwhelmed our public space . "

The letter is open to sign here , and there, as reported at the time of publication of my note, "55 signatures".

This note is written because there are many acquaintances among the authors of the open letter and these are good people. But they do not quite understand (they have other professions), how sometimes journalistic statements are made (this is about the reason for the letter). Therefore, my goal is not to support the discussion, but they, or something, reassure them: not everything is so scary. To do this, it is enough to treat the case stylistically. The nature of the initial journalistic statement can already be understood by its first three elements: heading, subtitle, weighing. They look like this:
" Europe, you are awesome! "
" It would be nice to make an inventory of European values ​​on the Hamburg account ."
" They tell me here that I scold European values. That, they say, the current state of Europe is to go out of the development of development, and everyone needs to look, opening their mouths and imitating ."

On points. " Europe, you are awesome! " Reports about the discomfort of the author, to which a certain Europe did something wrong. This, of course, is intimate journalism, and what can be done to it with open letters? In general, there is already just Privacy? And it can be noted stylistically that the appeal of this kind (“Europe, you went nuts“ similarly ”do not go to the fool America!” Lyube group (who does not remember, can see here ). Of course, both of the Soviet regime dates back to the early years of the Soviet regime, referring to various demonstrations under the slogans such as “Lord Kerzon to answer!”

" It would be nice to make an inventory of European values ​​on the Hamburg account ." There is also a lot of intimate. It would not have any subject near him, who would (which) would be “good”. It follows that the subject is somewhere inside the author himself. “Inventory” has the future time when someone appears, who draws conclusions according to its results, despite the fact that the inventory itself has not yet been set. "According to the Hambur account" suggests that the alleged appraiser can assemble anyone (with his conclusions). Next comes the insert, which relieves the question of who exactly will conduct an inventory through the Hamburg account.

" They tell me here that I scold European values. That, they say, the current state of Europe is to go out of the development of development, and everyone needs to look, opening my mouth, and imitate ." Of course, this is a personal statement, which - as it should be - is romantic to sincerely. Well, “they tell me here” - who, in fact, speaks here and, if possible, accurate quotes? Not then to dispose of them, but for the certainty of the subject of speech. And the inventory, of course, will be carried out by Latynina herself.

It is not entirely clear why her article is named in an open letter "Manifesto". Unless, if any personal attitude that the author of the statement gives itself gives to manifestos. But, in logic, there should be two jokes in such a statement: his addressee and reason. The reason is "they say to me here" and "it would be nice to make an inventory." For private life, this is, of course, an occasion, but who is then the addressee of the published text? It can be readers of Novaya Gazeta, who will then tell about the content of the article to all the people he meets, etc. However, the production of creativity in these circumstances looks like this: the author went into the field, survived a certain inner feeling (unknown property), and, looking towards the sunset (there, in fact, the West) loudly said "Europe, you are awesome!" Then he retired, conduct an inventory.

Further, about five conditional "European values" are refuted in the source material - Euro -Union, multiculturalism, etc. - Bearing in mind their discrepancy in the real position of European affairs. In particular, it is reported that universal suffrage cannot be European value, because it was invented before. And in general, “ you can’t tell me for what democracy Columbus opened America, and Sir Francis Drake robbed Spanish ships? ” The same applies to integrity, which is also fictitious, because “ from the moment of the collapse of the Empire of Charles the Great and until the formation of the European Union, Europe has not been unified .” Of course, on the topic of integrity, one could read at least the older school age of Le Goff "Birth of Europe" (Moscow, Alexandria ", 2007: here you can download, although piracy). But logic is understandable: all these values ​​were not ontological for Europe. And now they are flying, declaring them as ontological, and so - no need to foully!

A certain stagnation of the historical process can be noted here. In the Russian version, such an approach would give Len, hemp, bears, vodka and golden gates in Kyiv as Russian values. Also, the author was not without household observations of the morals of the European Commission, which measured the curvature of cucumbers and issuing decrees on the sale of eggs for weight. This, of course, is good-because the classic Latynina, who honestly believes in the sale of eggs for weight and intentional discrimination of gyes-gyubov cucumbers.

But here, the hardening of the historical process. The author overcomes this moment, agreeing that values ​​could change. But this does not include her to reconcile with Europe, everything becomes even worse. Because new values ​​are still not European values: " There is nothing to be attached. The cat must be called a cat, not a platypus. Do not call your values" European ", but honestly call them" social democratic . " No, well, who are these "we" who only do this? And again: " Do not tell me, please, that the freedom of entrepreneurship remains in Europe ." Someone walks all the time and goes to Y. Latinina and tells, tells her about the freedom of entrepreneurship in Europe. How in such circumstances you can’t write on awesome Europe?

But the main thing: “ Of course, everything changes in the world - except for the desire of the crowd to live on a freebie and have a leader who will give this freebie. 500 years, a tiny part of the world - Europe - dominated the world ... and over the 20 years that have passed since the unification of Europe and the triumph of“ universal values ​​”, this leadership has been picked up .”

The theme of the connection of freebie and "leadership that they have" was "not disclosed, and it is not entirely clear and what the world Europe has dominated the last 500 years: the traces of the occupation of Brussels are not like Siberia and the Middle Russian Upland. What about China, Japan and Antarctica (because penguins). But the matter is different. Okay, about the fact that the crowd wants and about the leader is its personal, but about “rule over the world”: Latynina is indignant at the Europeans for not solving the task that - in her opinion - they must have. Perhaps there is its private version of leadership and freebies, but why could this be the reason for entering into the discussion? This is completely Privacy.

If there is a problem here, then it does not consist in the “muddy reactionary wave that overwhelmed our public space”, but in the fact that publicists from time to time tend to give pictures from their own brain for reality. Of course, these are the products of their inner life, so why replicate them in the "our public space"?

Yes, and what was Europe there?