Why aren't we liberals

This is “Vedomosti” : “Any society has its own natural pace of integration of visitors, which it can withstand without negative consequences for itself. Judging by many signs, in recent years in Russia, the speed of arrival of people of another culture has exceeded this natural limit and our society has ceased to cope with this task. ”

And this is “Izvestia” : “Every machine has a power limit, if during operation it is not reckoned with this, assuming the power unlimited, the final is obvious: the stop di is the machine. <...> Big ethnos is able to painlessly <...> to digest and assimilate a certain number of aliens. <...> But - within certain limits. When the number of migrants exceeds these limits, the assimilative machine can no longer cope. ”

And - “New Gazeta” : “Mass import of labor from regions that are enormous in terms of development, the quality of life and culture, in history invariably led to a disaster, regardless of whether this labor force was formally slaves or free.”

In addition to the love symphony between such different publications, there is also the similarity of metaphors: machine, pace, speed, disaster-authors see Russia as a complex, but mechanism devoid of any human features. And, in addition, the only mechanism on the pillar road of history.

In some ways, these texts are elusively reminiscent of car advertisements. In any such advertising, your beauty is always alone, on a deserted road - in an extinct, sparkling city, without others - cars and people. This is a deception that misleading the consumer: “in the world” your car is always surrounded by others. More precisely, in imprisonment. She literally already crowns among other cars. And it’s stupid at least for a minute to believe in this deception, and everyone knows this, but it is so alluring and bewitching that the brain ceases to resist.

In any such advertisement, your beauty is always alone, on a deserted road - in an extinct, sparkling city, without others.

“The World without others” is such a collective utopia, the mainstream in the media in recent weeks. This is a “civilizational view” on the problem of migrants.

There is, however, another approach: rational-economic. For example, Konstantin Sonin in the same “Vedomosti” writes that Russia will not live without migrants: in fact, he protects migrants, and there are still a dozen such articles. But all of them also appeal not to a person, but to mechanics - “is it profitable or unprofitable”? That is, here the same type of reasoning "within the car". The fact that we are talking about millions of people is somehow forgotten.

The migrant question equalized the media-liberal and conservative-in the "machinery" and the ineffectiveness of the approach. The topic of commentators on this issue was equalized: they are now indistinguishable - what's on colta.ru , what is in Visit.ru. In a good, bad or “rational” article, in any case, migrants are “they”: those whose fate has the right to dispose of as a thing. We want - we will rearrange. We want - put it. Or back back. Important: we solve here only “we”. “Their” voice is not heard, “they” are now depersonified. In any case, this conversation is already taking place without “them”.

Until 13.10, migrants were present in the media as people. After Biryulev, a noticeable turn occurred in the media. In newspapers and magazines, the migrants somehow disappeared. Now they are indistinguishable, dark mass. Frightening. After Biryuva, that perhaps one Vadim Dubnov noticed, to protect migrants and sympathize with them “can become an indecent and even slightly risky” occupation.

The writers are silent. The church is silent. Liberal publicists are silent. Akunin is silent, to whom the Supreme recalled his "real name and ethnic origin."

“... The driver Kholmurod, a citizen of Uzbekistan, told us that ...” - this is no longer this after October 13. The “Housewife from Belyaev or Biryuva”, in whom the neighbor cannot pass “calmly by the metro”, and “manager Nikolai”, who in his area “does not see Slavic faces”, were individualized. This company "Housewife and Nikolai" now - regular participants and important sources of information. The opposite party is represented by the voices of the “heads of communities” : “To discuss the situation around Biryulev and options for preventing ethnic conflicts gathered <...> Member of the Presidium of the All -Russian Azerbaijan Congress, Rustam Arifjanov, Chairman of the All -Russian Public Movement“ Tajik Labor Migrants ”Karomat Sharipov and president of the All -Russian Uzbek Congress of Uzbek Ibrahim Khudaiberdiev. All three, as it turned out, have been living in Russia for a long time. Everyone has children perfectly in Russian. Therefore, they seem to understand the situation from the inside and outside. "

I'm afraid, just because of this, they do not understand the situation from the inside. Actually, if the leaders of the communities themselves were migrants (which, in general, is logical), perhaps then we would hear their votes in the media. And then the media monolith “Our car is sick” would be diluted with something. But it is precisely because people who nominally representing migrants, in fact, are exactly the same “bosses”, approved by power, they cannot say anything in defense of their compatriots. The system deprives itself of the right to defense.

In fact, there is no alternative agenda in the media: it turns out that “everyone” says the same thing. Either "power must protect us from them," or "the authorities brought them to such a state." But “they” - the perpetrators themselves - in any case are no longer important. This can be called a wide consensus on the platform of non -recognition “them” by people.

From the perspective of humanity. From the perspective of our common history (in the center of Tashkent on gilded boards, the names of the dead in the war are listed; this is fascinating when you see hundreds of repeating, identical surnames - Abdullaev, Abdurahmanov, Akhmetov ...). From the standpoint of human rights, from the perspective of humanism. Actually, from human positions - today in the media migrants no one protects at all. Well, almost - and, probably, you will remember a couple more articles.

This company "Household and Nikolai" is now regular participants and important sources of information.

The writers are silent. The church is silent. Liberal publicists are silent. Akunin is silent, to whom the Supreme recalled his "real name and ethnic origin."

From the standpoint of internationalism, not a single more or less public left decided to speak. On the website of the Communist Party, the text of the first secretary of the Leninsky district committee of the Communist Party of the Communist Party of Moscow, from which it is completely unclear what “fundamental” position the party occupies. This is a masterpiece of dialectics. The author seems to admit that the migrants are the same oppressed, but: “... at the same time, the Communist Party must consistently prevent attempts to undermine the ethnocultural balance of Russia, resolutely withstand attempts to replace the indigenous peoples of our country by immigrants from near and far abroad.” "Natives, indigenous, ethnocultural." What are the words wonderful for the communist. “Workers have no fatherland”, isn`t it ? Dad, as Dovlatov wrote, so which of us is the first time in the ballet? ..

The migrant issue in the media is actually a hidden question about liberalism and values. The Russian liberal (and besides him, in fact, is nobody) matured enough to protect the rights of minorities, even if it does not share their views (LGBT community, political prisoners, “green”), but did not ripen before the protection of “strangers”. This is a high level of freedom. And very scary. But it is necessary to climb it. You cannot be a liberal without others. Actually, there is no liberalism without others.

In the name of justice, in the name of reason and philanthropy, we raise a voice against a new outbreak of fanaticism and dark untruth. Castard is the eternal struggle of humanity, calling for freedom, equality and the brotherhood of people, with preaching slavery, enmity and division. And in our time, as it has always happened, the very people who stand for the rejection of their own people, most persistently wake up the spirit of religious enmity and tribal hatred in it. Without respect for either folk opinion or folk rights, ready to suppress them with the most severe measures - they flatter people's prejudices, inflate superstitions and persistently calls the violence over alien compatriots, and I deliberately bring this quote without quotation marks - so that you present such a text in today's media.