Translated material
Freedom of fame
The reasoning that people cannot judge the story from the height of their current ideas about life, false and hypocritical. Firstly, to "judge" in this case means giving a negative assessment. To test "patriotic pride in their history" is not at all forbidden. Those who refuse us to “condemn history” in moral law deny the right to dispute their own - “positive” assessments.
Secondly, behind the abstract formula “people cannot judge history”, another formula is always hidden, much more specific: people cannot judge the state. This is the basic principle of archaic, essentially slave consciousness. People cannot condemn the actions of the deity, even if it saturates hunger and illness on them, burns entire cities or arrange worldwide floods. Religious myths reflect the realities of cruel social relations in archaic societies, justifies the right to unlimited violence of some people over others. You can do anything with people. Their existence has no independent significance.
The highest form of this type of consciousness is the deification of the state, state worship.
The state -worship consciousness is formed in societies in which the "small person" is humiliated, suppressed. He seeks to compensate for the feeling of his own insignificance by the illusion of involvement in something great. To the great power. To the powerful of this world. Galanterer and cardinal - strength. Such a peculiar form of Stockholm syndrome.
State worship is primarily intended to disconnect in a person the ability to sympathize with the victim. Suppress natural instincts that cause aversion to murder, robbery and deception, violence, cruelty and humiliation, and injustice. But if one group of instincts is suppressed in a person, this means that another group will intensify in it. The one that the first group is designed to restrain and balance. The state -worshiper is characterized by aggressive internal swinging. It is not enough for him to lick a bronze boot himself selflessly. He needs to make him do it.
The devil is right. People have changed very little over the millennia. Unless the apartment question ruined them a little. Both the desire for the Palace, and the aversion to the palace is equally relying on the deep instincts that are originally inherent in human nature. Any normal Roman who did not have “alternative moral abilities” felt and understood that the procication of Sulla or Guy Octavia was an abomination and crime, no matter what historical circumstances they explain them. It was the Roman authors, and not the modern "modernizers of history" left the description of this horror causing shudder. And that is why today we can and must judge our ancestors. Sulla, Guy Octavia, Genghis Khan, Ivan the Terrible, Peter the Great. And further on the list.
We can and must say: by the degree of crime and disgust, the Stalin regime is equal to the Hitler's regime in the scale of atrocities. Stalin is the same cannibal as Hitler. We can and must say this, and not to be touched, that, they say, our dragon not only ate people, but also raised his gratification in the spirit of the ideals of enlightenment, while the “their” imposed exclusively wildness and barbarism.
The story itself clearly refuted these pseudo -relevances. Today, all the nuances of ideological differences between Stalinism and fascism were finally erased. Today's Stalinism is the Black -Hundred "Orthodox Stalinism". He finally dissolved in Rashism - the ideology of the regime of the whitecks who triumphed the "Neogenicines" in the civil war. Only the cult of naked state violence, cruelty, stupid imperial self -affirmation remained from Stalinism. Strong is always right. The dream of a non -violent and humane society of freedom, equality and fraternity is forgotten. The red banner is replaced by the Colorado tape, which was a symbol of the participation of tsarist Russia in the imperialist massacre, and which became a symbol of the treacherous and vile anxia of Crimea. The application for participation in collective rape. The festival of victory over fascism was the holiday of the end of the war as the greatest tragedy, a holiday of victory over the war. His pathos is "never again." Today, this holiday is turned into a revenge -free demolition under the slogan "We will come again."
People can judge their story. It should not have places protected from criticism. It should not have anything taboo, not subject to doubt. Any taboo is a tool for deception and manipulation. Always. Another question is whether the state can judge the history. Rather, can it be a sentence that will be forbidden to question stories? That is, can the state make a decision that will be taboo? Definitely not.
Can it be forbidden to question the decision of the Nuremberg Tribunal? Today's Hague processes on war crimes are much smaller for years. Is it possible to purely technically in a few months to thoroughly study and check for reliability that gigantic volume of materials that was represented in Nuremberg? Considering that the fair part of the materials was collected by the Rusish Gestapo - the Stalinist NKVD? Even if a quarter of these materials is true, this is more than enough for the sentence that was issued. But does this oblige us to forget that "Rusish Gestapo" widely used fabricated, false, illegal, unfair accusations? Should we write off numerous "judicial errors" for special circumstances?
What all kinds of prohibitions on "denial" are turned into, on "justification", for symbolism, Putin's Russia demonstrates. To the edification of political correct Europe. Fascism simply pretends to be anti -fascism. Under the pretext of fighting fascism, frankly fascist laws are adopted. And then the nonsense of Prosibaev covered by administrative zeal begin to retouch the posters of the war years and remove scientific research on the history of the Third Reich from the shelves of stores.
Are members of the Board of the Memorial International Society and Boris Vishnevsky, who supported them, do not understand that the ban on the public glorification of Stalin , which they achieve, if, the hour is uneven, such a ban will introduce, will work just like that? What to draw a line between those who "directly glorify", "indirectly glorify", "objectively glorify" and "pours water on the mill who glorify", will it be impossible? That Stalinism simply pretends to be anti -Stalinism, and the eternal nonsense will remain?
Are members of the board of the Memorial and Boris Vishnevsky believe that only an authoritarian state and only authoritarian methods can protect society from the spread of infection of human -naval ideas? In fact, the practical benefits of all these prohibitions are zero. Any taboo, even positive, even negative, is primarily symbolic. The desire to worship with “their” symbols, as well as the desire to trample the symbols of the “enemy” is rooted in the deepest layers of the archaic, savage consciousness. The manifestations of this archaic can be relatively harmless until it comes to taboo, prohibitions. Where any ideological prohibitions appear, there, on the site of one chopped head, the hydra of totalitarianism sooner or later will certainly begin to grow two new ones. From this, even societies with a developed legal culture are not insured. Well, how it happens in the homeland of Unter Prosibeev, we all see right now.
To avoid this, two things must be admitted.
First. Any most disgusting criminal has the right to defend himself. He has the right to make excuses. Do not plead guilty. He has the right not only before, but also after the sentence. In the same way, any person has the right to sympathize with any most disgusting criminal. Find excuses for him, softening circumstances. To believe that he was brought, forced, and in general everything was completely wrong. And not only to think so, but also to talk about it publicly. This is the basic principle of justice. Discarding this basic principle, we ourselves are likened to state -worshipers - Stalinists and Nazis.
Second. The right to one’s own beliefs, no matter how disgusting they are, is an inalienable human right as the right to life and the right to human dignity. Human beliefs are an integral part of his personality. The right to own beliefs is inseparable from the right to publicly express them. The deprivation of a person of the ability to express his views is the deepest humiliation of his human dignity, which any human being has, even if it is such a moral freak as a Stalinist or a fascist. Refusing anyone else in this right, we ourselves are likened to state worshipers - people with alternative moral abilities.