A rebuff to fame

We must pay tribute to Andranik Migranan - he endured for a long time. Two months after the famous article, the professor paused. Collected reviews. He accumulated strength. I was going with my thoughts. And finally he performed , sharing the readers of Izvestia with a very important information. Now he told us about "how to give birth and how slander is replicated."

Who did not follow the fate of Migranan (and who followed?) After the publication of his free notes about Putin and Hitler, he will be amazed at the scale of his figure. For the text of the political scientist, it turns out, was discussed not only in our social networks and on sites, mainly blocked , this is exactly what for slander and encroachment. Andranik Movsesovich learned world fame.

They wrote about him in The New York Times. His name was in vain on the pages of The Washington Post. "A certain Vladimir Kara-Murza" (from those unthinkable heights that the political scientist rose to, we all, you know, "some") falsified his statements on the website of The World Affairs. And another Liberal Fantaser replicated the slander about Putin, Hitler and Migranan on the English-language website of the Radio Free Europe/Freedom.

All these and many other gentlemen, including, as I hope, the author of these lines and his accomplice along the "faces" , the professor gives a worthy rebuff. “The demonness of the Russian Demshiza”, the “owners of the unstable psyche”, “People deprived of moral representations”, “Russian Demshizoid blogosphere”, “Wretched or vile interpretation”, “Bredin of the Russian Demshiza” - the whole article was written in this spirit, and it is good that the editor did not delete all this impressive tautology from it. The author is clearly excited, but how else to convey his feelings, if not a continuous monotonous swearing using a manic dictionary?

Actually, here it was necessary to stop. List the world editions, brand bastards, divert your soul and, without deepening further into the discussion, immediately move on to the conclusions that are contained in the last paragraph. Like, "the West constantly teaches us the standards of journalism, urging us to objectively inform the public about events in the world," but yourself? An article could turn out very convincing. Whole, monolithic.

Unfortunately, the author failed to maintain the unity of form and content. A professor, a researcher, a lecturer suddenly woke up in it, and he settled in explanations, trying to prove that the “politician of the highest class” called the German Fuhrer in 1938 in discussion with another professor, Andrei Zubov. As if ridicurating this professor and bringing his miserable thoughts to the point of absurdity.

"And everything seemed so radiant. And Hitler's glory shone at Zenith. And before Great Germany, the world tremble. The accession of regions and countries to the Reich without a single shot, without a single drop of blood - is the Fuhrer not a brilliant politician?" - quotes Migranan Zubov. And he does it in vain. For the author of the article in Vedomosti, who almost paid for it in MGIMO, compared the "radiant" Putin's exploits of the Crimea of ​​the Crimea with the Angley of the 30s of the last century, and it was necessary to find out to see Hitler's apology in it.

However, Migranan saw. “The author’s rhetorical question, I think, has, at least for Zubov, a definitely positive answer,” writes our famous political scientist, and then you begin to think with anxiety about the spiritual health of Andranik Movsesovich himself. He does not jerk, in fact! In the academic environment where the head of the New York representation of the Russian Institute of Democracy and Cooperation rotates, such things are simply unthinkable. This means that he was fraught with the service, protecting Putin from Zubov, Hitler from Putin and himself from the insulating Western paparazzi.

For some reason, he still recalls Solzhenitsyn, who, in his autobiography, was imprinted by Dina Reed, the then Snowden, who stigmatized the shame of our classic. The Migranes, as you can understand, compares himself with the author of the Gulag, and in a skeleton, he considers all his critics to the persecutors of Alexander Isaevich. Rushing judgment. Solzhenitsyn was then the most hateful of the whole cohort of Soviet national traitors, the “literary vine” and the henchman of the American special services, and everything that the Kremlin and extended Kholuis wrote about him in those years did not look like the texts dedicated to Migranana. Rather, his voice from the choir makes us recall the political zongs of a cursory American singer in relation to Dissent Zubov. However, this comparison is also lame: the times are different in the yard.

As for the mentioned leaders, quite soon we will find out how much Vladimir Vladimirovich looks like Adolf Aloisovich. The Ukrainian tragedy is played literally before our eyes, the Civil War in the southeast, provoked by the annexation of Crimea, has already passed into the regime of everyday counter-terrorism operation, and Putin’s choice: to evacuate her people from Donbass or introduce troops.

Yesterday, with all the pre-war stiffness, Kiev urged Kiev to immediately stop the “punitive operation”, and this means that the bismarck laurels, if again quoted Migranans, is not very seduced. He also has other role models, and if he does not stop or does not stop him, then historical discussions will be interrupted at half -word, as well as political. As has already happened in the past - September 1, 1939, for example. There will be nothing to argue about, although the professor (probably out of habit) will also scold someone who dared to distort his words.