Obaconic polemic

About the statement of Boris Vishnevsky

Boris Vishnevsky can accuse me of tolerance of a frank abomination, which is the statement of Ms. Skiibeda. He can even accuse me of popularizing this abomination. And yet I will start by translating this statement into a normal Russian language. In fact, this is a somewhat overwhelmed very popular thesis of non -stopped in their polemic with supporters of the theory of the identity of the Stalinist and Nazi totalitarianism. In the original, he sounds like this: "Here you are Smersh on the same board with the SS, but if this SMERSH with his not quite intelligent methods, I would have borrowed the lampshades of you."

I will not go deeper a hundred times expressing arguments for and against this thesis. The dispute on this topic was, is and will be. And to any conscientious observer, it is clear that in the back of this dispute it is not the desire to get to the bottom of the historical truth, collecting and correctly decomposing all the existing historical facts, and, let's say, a philosophical and ethical position. This is all the same eternal dispute between "it was necessary" and "it was impossible." Supporters "so it was necessary" believe that, unlike other people's atrocities, their atrocities can and should be justified. Good goal. The need to fight other people's atrocities. Yes, just because it is your own, not other people's atrocities. They cannot, but we can.

Next. The adherent "so it was necessary" believes that those who refuse to justify "our" atrocities and "slander" equates them to the atrocities of "strangers", the essence of the enemies that prevent us from living. And they can and should be eliminated from our lives by any means. They will shoot them "their" in the cellars of Lubyanka or "strangers" will make lampshades from them in Buchenwald - this is already unprincipled. Everything is good. Such views can be called fascist or Nazi. Although fascism and Nazism are certainly vivid, but not the only manifestations of philosophy, which implies the violent elimination of those who prevent us from living and triumphantly walking towards our great goal.

And now I want to ask Boris Vishnevsky, who has already applied to the relevant authorities to bring Ms. to criminal liability under the 282nd article: will we plant everyone who thinks so? Is the Gulag enough for them?

The articles punishing for the “justification of fascism” should not be, if only because it will be impossible to prove “justification of fascism” without turning this article inside out. You want to say that Ms. Skyubed justifies the manufacture of lampshades from people? But she just “sometimes regrets” that the lampshades made not from all liberals. Recognizes in such sin. That is, it seems to admit that this is a sin. That is, he admits that the lampshades should not be made of people.

We all, of course, know that she is lying. That she actually does not “sometimes regrets” in passion, but only about these lampshades and dreams. So we will judge that the person did not say, but thought? In the relevant organs of our country, the rich experience in identifying what a person actually implied or what he was hinting at. And in this they always showed a creative approach. Hello Boris Vishnevsky from the Ulyanovsk police, who detained people for distribution on Easter leaflets with a portrait of Marx and the inscription "Truly Marx!" This is how we are now fighting with an insult to religious feelings. The idea of ​​criminal protection of all sorts of insulted feelings has now become extremely popular. The statement of Ms. Skiibeda certainly offends feelings. Insults the memory of the victims, insults their descendants. Want a new trial about offended feelings? One is few?

The world is so arranged that some offends a mocking reminder of the lampshades, and others are equating Smersh to the SS. Ms. Skyubed considered herself offended and answered an insult to an insult. By the way, as a private person. It is much worse that a considerable number of our citizens are ready to seek satispulation for their offended feelings not in private, but referring to the repressive machine of the state. And I suspect that I know on which side this car will end up. The will to plant their ideological opponents will always be stronger than the supporters of the conditional scum than that of the supporters of the conditional Goman. And in the state that legalized criminal prosecution for statements, they will always be closer to the levers of influence on the judicial system. Boris Vishnevsky wants to put Skoibed, and he will put Gozhman. The Duma is already checking it for the “excuse” and “denial”.

And yet. Of course, I understand what to make the lampshades from my opponents and just put them in jail is not the same thing. But the differences between these things are purely quantitative. But qualitatively between them there is a community: the willingness to justify the forcibly withdrawal from the life of those who are ideologically unpleasant to you. So it turns out that our grandfathers shed blood in vain. There was no great victory. Hitler defeated us from the inside. Fascism is spilled in our veins and triumphantly walks around Russia.