Tell me, Tesak?

Because of the scandal surrounding the top Runet blogger Rustem Adagamov (Other), accused of pedophilia, I paid attention to his “creativity”. Adagamov is a prolific blogger, but I will focus on his single post from two years ago. Namely, on the text “Do we need another Russia?” dated January 9, 2011, which contains criticism of my party’s program. The same program that, according to the law, wasprinted in Rossiyskaya Gazeta before we submitted documents for registration to the Ministry of Justice. According to the old law, of course.

So, Adagamov, then still at the peak of popularity and beyond suspicion, dissected the mentioned program, choosing for criticism the five most shocking points: about moving the capital to Siberia, about the possibility of introducing Sharia law in Russian Muslim regions, about solving the problem of housing shortage through state control over the construction industry, about the voluntary army and the Foreign Legion, and about demographic policy, including the ban on the adoption of Russian children by foreigners.

All these points, in his opinion, are a “wicked joke” and a “parody,” and the people who propose them are “buffoons.” That’s exactly what I wrote, see for yourself. Now, after two years, I, as a co-author of the party program, intend to answer this character on all the points mentioned, and I call you, dear readers, as witnesses.

Point one:

“We will make an absolutely necessary move of enormous historical significance. The capital of the country will be moved to Southern Siberia, a new city will be built from scratch. We will do this in order to balance the geographical, economic, infrastructural and political bias of Russia towards the West. The implementation of this grandiose project will provide millions of jobs , will employ the unemployed. Airports, railways and highways will be built. The transfer of the capital will create a new infrastructure for Russia. It will stop the expansion of China."

Agadamov compares this passage with the famous speech about New Vasyuki by Ostap Bender. The same style of presentation is ironic. I’ll say to this, what’s so funny? Is it possible to deny that Russia is indeed extremely unevenly populated and its eastern regions, for all their wealth, are in decline compared to the west of the country? Don’t we have an example of the construction of a new capital from scratch - St. Petersburg - when Europe was the economic center of the world? Isn't the economic power of the world now shifting to the East, to Asia? Yes, it’s unusual, yes, it’s unusual, and bold, and daring, but REASONABLE and JUSTIFIED. What would the zealots of “old Petersburg” now be defending, screaming, if the madman Peter had not realized his project? Swamp hummocks?

Even the stupid authorities understood this - the “Greater Moscow” project was precisely an attempt to please the healthy expansionist ambitions of Russian society. Of course, they were afraid of Siberia - they have little guts, so they decided to just cut a piece to the capital. For them, this is already bold. But even this castrated option ultimately did not work due to the powerful resistance of the bureaucracy. Those in power turned out to have no more insolence than blogger Adagamov.

Let's move on.

"Policy in the Caucasus should be based on an understanding of the characteristics of Muslim regions, and not on blunt violence as now. Where the majority of the population wants this, people should be given the opportunity to live in accordance with Sharia law. Russia will only become stronger."

Is the rejection of “blunt violence” and respect for the national characteristics of the regions reprehensible? Is taking into account the opinion of the “majority” reprehensible? But what about democracy and the principles of federalism? Or well, them?

Point three.

“The housing problem will be solved as soon as possible (time is of the essence!). All construction companies involved in the construction of residential buildings will be nationalized. Control over the prices of building materials will be established. The constructed housing will be rented or sold at prices affordable to the population. The state will encourage renting rather than purchasing."

The main words here are “time is running out.” Perhaps supported by the largest Russian corporations , the Other does not have housing problems, but a huge number of people in the country do. And people want to live now, and not wait their whole lives in the name of the triumph of Adam Smith’s correctness, when the invisible hand of the market will put everything in its place.

In addition, please note, we are talking about encouraging rental housing, that is, increasing the mobility of people, which is extremely necessary for Russia.

“With the army, everything is also simple,” Adagamov further sneers:

“We will create a professional army of volunteers. To carry out particularly important military operations, we will create a unit within the Russian army called the Foreign Legion, where professional foreign soldiers will serve for the benefit of Russia.”

What's wrong? Refusal of conscription in favor of a voluntary army? Or is "Foreign Legion" too much? Does it hurt your ears? What if there were no precedents in our history? What about the Wild Division ? Or maybe this resident of Norway hates the very fact that Russia has and will have a strong army?

Well, Another concludes with the point “demography in Limonov’s way”:

“We will expand the system of fertility propaganda. We will introduce into practice “motherhood for a salary,” which seems extravagant today. We will ban the adoption of Russian children by foreigners. The state will take care of them.”

Please note that we are talking specifically about demography, about demographic policy. For the stupid, I’ll put it in other words. A big country like ours needs more and more citizens. A healthy nation must grow . Methods also follow from this goal: propaganda, advertising of fertility (it’s normal to advertise goods, so why not advertise social goals); using for this purpose the material resources that the country is rich in (motherhood for a fee), banning adoption by foreigners (responsible people solve their problems themselves).

I repeat, we are not talking about this or that particular case, but about the principles of demographic policy. For example, I would not extend the ban on adoption by foreigners to children with disabilities precisely because this does not fundamentally affect the overall picture - population growth or decline.

Only a person who, in principle, does not want the Russian political nation to grow and develop can deny these sensible measures.

Well, in general, as we now know, it’s not Agadamov’s place to rant about children. Or do you think it doesn't matter? For me, that's all there is to it. Tell me, Tesak?