Typology

User Arguendi wrote a letter to Marat Gelman with a pogrom video and a message that the people in the video are the Russian people.
Based on this alignment, the user Arguendi pointed out to Gelman in his place at the bucket.
Gelman, of course, is an excellent object for a pogrom - and a Jew, and a liberal, and with glasses, and understands a lot about himself, so the addressee was chosen impeccably. But I'm not talking about the simple pathos of this letter - there is nothing new and cannot be, and there is nothing to argue about, only disinfect it if possible ...
I'm talking about typology, about common denominators sticking out from the impudent text of this Arguendi.
The letter begins with the appeal "Maratych". Already at this point you can interrupt the reading: everything is already clear, isn't it?
Well, not all, of course. As it turns out from the following paragraphs, the Arguendi user has moved up the Lamarck ladder somewhat and is ahead of his simplest brothers in a number of indicators. And she calls herself in Latin, and does not confuse cases, and even knows who Katya Degot is ...
But the familiar "Maratych" unmistakably betrays in him a mental kinship with the usual network midge, "trolling" - by order or from a personal inferiority complex - of any more or less successful person.
There can be no mistake here. When I see the message “Vitek” or “Shender” in the forums, I can be calm about the content: one hundred out of a hundred are boors.
„

But note the regularity: like Likhachev or Sakharov, there is a personal signature under the text and no matter how firm, but emphasized the private nature of the opinion. And as an unknown name with a diagnosis - so certainly on behalf of the people!

”
A little more typology.
Hams almost always speak on behalf of the masses - in fact, this is the pillar of public rudeness. A decent person will write: it seems to me ... I think ... in my opinion ... And if he enters into a controversy, he will not misrepresent the name of his opponent and will sign himself as correctly as possible in order to be on an equal footing. Hamu these simple rules are not a decree.
The point here is not “liberalism” or “patriotism”, but in education, in ideas about what is permissible, and when Artemy Troitsky refers to Putin as “Vovan” and “dude,” I am no less jarred by this.
But note the regularity: like Likhachev or Sakharov, there is a personal signature under the text and no matter how firm, but emphatically correct, private character of the opinion. And as an obscure name with a diagnosis - so without fail with whooping-hooting and on behalf of the people!
Another pattern: I don’t remember that on behalf of the people they asked to release someone! Chekhov, Korolenko, Shostakovich, Akhmatova, Ulitskaya, Yursky, Strugatsky... - at different times and on different occasions they appealed to reason, law, mercy, but every time - on their own behalf!
And how to “crucify” or “shoot like mad dogs”, so without fail on behalf of the masses, as a rule, working on something ...
This work did not make a man out of everyone.
Another pattern: aggression is inversely proportional to education. Like Pope John Paul, so is humility, understanding and forgiveness. And as soon as the dropouts gather in a bunch, then you immediately have a pogrom - and, mind you, every time on behalf of Christ (the existence of which their fathers learned in the late eighties from the newspaper "Pulse Tushin").
So the user Arguendi on the front page of his online magazine places a program article "What kind of Russia the Orthodox want to see." For some reason, he is firmly convinced that the stupid fundamentalism that has sprouted in his brain is the only guideline for Orthodoxy, and the Orthodox philosophers Shestov and Lossky should go through the forest as not matching the measure. (If only Arguendi heard the names of Shestov and Lossky, which, we note, is completely optional in Gundyaev's modification of Christianity, just as Luke and Matthew are optional there.)
Herzen, long before Gundyaev and the user Arguendi, called this variety “gendarmerie in Christ.”
All this, of course, is primarily a problem of Orthodoxy, in the name of which in Russia for centuries they have been sawing away Caesarean financing, crushing freedom and inciting ethnic hatred. But alas, in recent months, this intra-confessional problem has once again quickly and terribly crawled out and began to concern all Russians.
And either in the very near future there will be forces in Orthodoxy itself that will put obscurantists in their place, or Orthodoxy will face the fate of Islam, which became a hostage of the Middle Ages after September 11.
What awaits Russia in this case is also not particularly difficult to guess. As they say, passed ...
By the way, when was the last time you heard the word "modernization"? That's it. What is Skolkovo really like, for whom? For Tkachev's costumed Cossack patrols, for priests with a Kalashnikov assault rifle? What other scientific breakthroughs? That part of the people, on which the Putin-Gundyaev corporation relies, does not even need spelling rules. Mathematics - within the calculator; contemporary art - Shilov (for advanced - Nikas Sofronov). It will be just right, ask Ekaterina Degot ...
But let's get back to the user Arguendi with his rude tacks, pogrom film and comments, the essence of which boils down to the fact that the pogromists in the frame are Russia.
Yes, and they too, of course! But, thank God, they are not the only ones. Of course, if on state television they talk about Jews who stole a Christian baby, as Vesti allowed itself to do, then there will be much more rioters, but so far, with all the sad results of negative selection, the vast majority of Russians are still not all banner-bearers. There are also people with glasses, and not necessarily Jews ...
Sharikov and Professor Preobrazhensky, Uvarov and Chaadaev, the Novgorod veche and the oprichnina - all this is in the Russian tradition. The only question is what we will choose as a guideline for development. The future of the country is every single day! — is determined by the total vector of our efforts.
It is also determined by the rules of public dialogue. It is on this point that I would like to make a final, very clear and simple proposal.
Citizens! Orthodox and not so, Muslims and railroad workers, Kuban Cossacks and Jehovah's Witnesses! Let's speak on our own behalf, shall we? Let's not implicitly spread our personal visions and tastes to our neighbors. From myself to speak, from myself! I, such and such, hate pointillism, believe in Christ, love Alla Pugacheva… Signature, date.
It's so simple!
The country is big, you can always agree and peacefully disperse into clubs of interest ... Here they believe in Christ, they love Kandinsky there, they pray to God Perun, they cut off the foreskin in the neighborhood ... But they cut off, mind you, for themselves, and do not try to do it with those who loves Kandinsky!
In general, guys, let's live, if not amicably, then at least - correctly.
And I propose to consider anyone who starts broadcasting on behalf of peoples, social groups and confessions a dangerous son of a bitch - and immediately turn off the sound of the impostor, regardless of belonging to one or another camp.