Efim Fishtein: I hear from the liberal!

The year turned out to be rather strange. On the one hand, a solid movement continues in the global economy, which seems to have nowhere to come from, because this year did not present any additional grounds for the growth of the national economy. On the other hand, uncertain anxiety, as if spilled in the air, grows just as noticeably: there is a sharp exacerbation of old "frozen" conflicts and the emergence of new ones. The universally arising pain points and growing tension subject to the system of international relations to a break. It is becoming increasingly difficult to search and find societies, pleased with their position. It feels like everything was ripening for breaking, for raving, to shock the foundations. How long it will last and what such uncertainty will be resolved is difficult to say if you are not a prophet. I am not a prophet.

The Russian who had not yet lost faith in the possibilities of democracy and did not allow himself to be rackets about the phenomenal efficiency of mating, in this confusing situation have to look for like-minded people, to occupy someone's side. It is not easy to do this competently, given that everything in this world lives on the principle of "not to be, but to seem." In an impassable thicket of ideas and traveler strategies at every step, a trap is waiting for, into which the Russian liberal, as it seems to me, falls too often. The only measure of his attitude to the actors of political life in the West is Vladimir Putin.

Indeed, who wants to go to the friendly of the Kremlin villain? The thought flows like this: if the European Union in its current form is the only alternative to Putin's autocracy, then it is our first ally. And everything that is opposed or opposed to him deserves exposure as retrograde and obscurantism. This logic is undeniable only on the first, superficial look. The populist movements of the West, which were attached to the camp of the developed Putinism, are guided by the same way, only the logic, only turned inside out: since the GDP confronts the bureaucratic makhin of the EU, it means that it is the main thing-its decadent potential, its vector for the delivery of traditional values in favor of the disgusting "multi-culture", its unconscious, or perhaps the intended purpose: Change the demographic composition of the European population in such a way as to make any revival in the future impossible. Then who we get Putin, if not a closest friend and an associate?

I repeat, the world does not work in black and white, life is more complicated, both logical constructions are erroneous. By the way, it was for the same purpose that in order to drive those who doubt the intellectual trap - by the end of communism the theory of "real socialism" was developed by the Kremlin craftsmen. The meaning was the same: if you do not want war and inequality, if the world of the yellow devil is alien to you, then you will have to love socialism as it really is, and not in your infantile dreams. And you will have to protect your executioners and tormentors as they are in reality, even in dirty boots and with a burdened breathing, and not in the hypostasis of the revolutionary in the White Manica. As Stalin would say, I have no other bosses for you! But then the system fell, and it became clear that the contrast was far -fetched. Who was ready to accept the mythologist slipped, remained in fools. It will remain this time.

The Russian liberal is as it were clear: the democratic truth is on the side of supporters of European integration, as it is composed in Brussels. Of course, there are still objective difficulties and certain disadvantages, but they are corrected. If you do not experience dizziness from success and move faster in the same direction, then the goal will certainly be achieved. It doesn’t matter that no one knows what this goal is. As always, and this time is nothing, the movement is all.

If this is good, then the opposite is bad. Therefore, the Russian liberal has developed as a whole a negative attitude to the inherent Eastern European provincials. They only insert sticks into the wheels of integration, do not allow the international nomenclature to do business. They have a lot of reservations and objections. Brussels leaders, you see, do not have a mandate from voters, they are all appointed by their governments. The governments are changing once every four years, the electoral cycles do not coincide anywhere, therefore, the European Commission presents all colors of the political spectrum; Swan, cancer and pike harnessed to the European WHO and pull so that they are torn on the neck of the veins. With the complete opposite of political ideals from such artel, it is difficult to expect whole projects of the future. But the work is arguing, the couple regularly go into a whistle. Matters of a non -vocation to the very pension.

Even the naked eye is noticeable that the EU difficulties are congenital vices. The widespread separatism, from Catalonia and Veneto to Flanders and Scotland, populism, nationalism, no one -denied "deficiency of democracy", Greek failure and other "Flowers of Evil" bloom the more quickly and deeper the integration is faster. These difficulties do not look temporary, and with what kind of joy they disappear tomorrow?

The Russian liberal is accustomed to believe that the West of Europe is closer to a democratic ideal than its central and eastern parts, therefore, and all the trouble. Like, in the east gives an undigested communist past. Then why did the Nazi past of Germany and Austria manage to overcome a maximum of ten years, and here there are few decades? And why in Germany, the Communists receive 10 percent in the elections, and in Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, the Baltic states they are at the mark of the "perone" (in the Czech Republic - 7.5 percent). This is impossible to explain, because this is a deliberate stupidity. And Brexit can not be explained at all by the birthmarks of communism.

The fact is that with an incorrect message, the conclusion usually turns out to be incorrect. I’m not going to act as an apologate to Viktor Orban or Yaroslav Kachinsky (they do not need them at all, they are doing business so well). For my taste, both of these politicians suffer from a biased in social engineering and statehood. Being a person of a conservative warehouse of mind and character, I prefer a “limited” state in the service of an independent person, and not vice versa. The problem is rooted in another: the Russian liberal refuses to understand that Europe ceases to be liberal in the classical sense of the word.

Signs of such development cannot be counted. There are marginal signs and it seems that they are not egregious to the sky. For example, the restriction of parental rights in favor of the state, which knows better what the child needs. In countries such as Norway, children are separated from parents according to the first neighboring denunciation. But it is worth considering how such classic liberal values as freedom of speech, self -expression, and religion evolved here. After in Europe, a ban on “hateful manifestations” was introduced in the American model, many cases of expression that are going against a conditionally accepted and deserving rewards were included in the rink. Moreover, the whole concept is characterized by rareness and uncertainty. The hateful is not only the justification of crimes or calls for them¸ but also any criticism of privileged minorities or even publicity of any non -metabolic facts related to them.

In Germany, an activist of the anti-immigrant movement Michael Sturzensberger placed a well-known photograph on his Facebook page, which captured a visit to the Nazi Germany of Jerusalem Mufti Hajjamin al-Husayni. Most likely, he was going to illustrate that while some Muslims fought in the ranks of the British and French armies, others turned out to be collaborators who connected their hidden aspirations with the third Reich. Since one of the hospitable owners in the picture shows a sleeve bandage with a swastika, the unlucky activist was sentenced to 6 months of conclusion conditionally and at 100 hours of socially useful work in the summer. It is clear that I would like to condemn him for defamatory information about the respected Islamic confessor, but the photograph is well-known, a reprint from historical monographs. I had to punish him for the propaganda of Nazism. What is it, if not an attempt to plug the mouth under a far -fetched pretext? The judges cannot be refused in ingenuity, but this has nothing to do with liberalism.

In April 2014, on the eve of the elections to the European Parliament in the British town of Winchester, a candidate from English nationalists Pol Veston was arrested. Nationalism always deserves censure, but it seems that they do not put him in prison. Weston was detained for quoting the book by Winston Churchill "River War" in public. In it, the hero describes his service in the army during the war against the Mahdists (jihadists of his time) in Sudan. The future prime minister did not escape evaluative judgments about the controversial values of the faithful, but Veston did not add any gag. Nevertheless, he was arrested and judged on suspicion of "insulting the feelings of believers and the spread of racial prejudices." The madness of political correctness was one of the factors that expressed the British on Brexit.

There is no good when a person is forced to extol the gods and praise faith, which he does not share, only because this requires falsely understood political correctness

In non -obvious cases, the problem of discrimination, religious freedoms and beliefs should be approached as subtle matter, and not cut the splash. But the second is typical. In 2015, the newlyweds Daniel and Amy MacArthura opened confectionery in Belfast. Everything would be fine if one day the customer did not demand to bake a cake with the inscription "We support homosexual marriages!" Young bakers, being deeply believers, refused to fulfill an order that is contrary to their religious beliefs. First, the commission to combat inequality, and then the district court sentenced the newlyweds to a fine of £ 500 and to cover legal costs in the amount of 88 thousand pounds for violation of the anti -discrimination law. The court caused a violent reaction in the country.

The young family of Makanturov had nothing against gays and was ready to serve them with a professional smile. They just insisted that no one had the right to force them to publicly promote the slogans that contradict their conscience. They were paradoxically supported by representatives of the local LGBT community-on the grounds that the verdict theoretically implies the obligation of pastry-ghosts to order products with homophobic inscriptions.

To plug the dissenting mouth, to prohibit expressing some thoughts aloud, of course, is not good, but there is nothing worse than to force to pronounce aloud what the forced fundamentally disagree. Under certain circumstances, one can prohibit someone in the Muslim quarter to curse the Qur'an or insult the prophet Mohammed. But even worse, when a person of other beliefs is forced to extol the gods and praise faith, which he does not share, only because this requires falsely understood political correctness.

I give one an example of a hundred, but the principle is the same everywhere: fear fetters the mouth. The fact is checked not for truthfulness, but for compliance with bad, but political correct laws. In the city of Roterham in the north of England, the Pakistani gang for the period from 1997 to 2013 raped 1,400 girls aged 11 to 15 years. Only white girls from poor families, who are easy to intimidate or from which are easy to pay off a three -lash, chose. Local police, social workers, school teachers and healthcare service knew about this. They knew, but for years they were silent - out of fear of being accused of racism, of exciting nationalist sentiments. If you look at the root, it becomes clear that the meaning of political correctness is not the high morality of society, not the education of decency and well-heartedness, but only the suggestion of the fear of touching some side by a minority that left liberalism considers progressive today. To the honor of the British, it is said that in January 2015 the whole story was described in dozens of publications, including an explanation of the reasons for such a long silence. So, the homeland of Winston Churchill is not yet lost for freedom.

The Russian democrat loves to criticize the countries of the Voskhrad city for retrograde. For the fact that they cling to Judeo-Christian ideals, which in the West have not been considered self-esteem for a long time. The progressive liberal has already risen to the landfill what distinguished Western civilization from all others. For example, attitude towards a woman, the principle of monogamy in marriage. At least you may not be true, but you must be monogamous. By the way, this is a purely western principle, other civilizations - Islamic, Hindu, Buddhist, Confucian, shamanic - never shared it. But how to maintain this value when doubts arise regarding the very concept of "woman"? How does it actually differ from a man? And why, in general, a modern person may need monogamy in a society where polyamorous families flourish and encouraged, which are the most bizarre combinations of people and animals, where, instead of separated toilets, more democratic recent places for everyone are introduced? The relationship between the floors received such an expansion interpretation that they finally lost all meaning. What can mean anything you want, practically nothing.

The same applies to the problem of European development by immigrants. Western figures perceive the process of settlement of the continent by the Middle Eastern contingent as a phenomenon is extremely progressive and fruitful. Manifestations of an alien culture, in particular intolerance to dissent, they are ready to consider the "features of national hunting", deserving respect. Patriotism, as you know, is the last refuge of villains. And we, God, are not patriots. We are the whole man.

In Brussels, the Poles were sheltered the other day. Both laughter and sin: at the EU summit, the Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras, Levaks and Cryptocumanist, taught the new Polish prime minister Mateusz Moravetsky, hereditary dissident and graduate of the best world universities, how to observe Western values. Can you guess from three attempts on which side will be in such a dispute of the sympathy of the Russian liberal?

The fact of the matter is that this is not just about standard political disassembly. Before us is the European version of the conflict of civilizations. Civilizations of the western, grew out of the Judeo-Christian root, and the civilization of the post-wandering, still waiting for its definition. The hatred of the post -west politicians to their eastern colleagues is so hot and all -legged precisely because the former are already confused in three pines, and the latter are still guided by the stars. So leaned hates healthy. The Western values seeker will find them in the east of the continent today: not only in the countries of the Vsegrad group, but also in adjacent limits - in Bavaria and Saxony, in Austria, Slovenia and Croatia, in Galicia and Lithuania.

It is worthless to pretend that Orban with Kacinsky and Putin with Recep Erdogan - by and large the same thing. Both of them are non -liberal democrats. There is a difference between them, and not small. In Poland and in Hungary, there are no political prisoners, not a single one at all, but in Russia and Turkey their dozen doe. In Warsaw and Budapest, the right to meetings and demonstrations is almost as meticulous as in Spain or Ukraine. And the courts do not always carry out orders of prosecutors.

You can, of course, cut under one comb Ronald Reagan and Leonid Brezhnev - they say, both were conservatives. It is possible, but stupid. Reagan canned classical democracy, as the founding fathers understood it, and Brezhnev kept the legacy of communist totalism, as the great Lenin bequeathed. In real life, they were political antipodes and opposed each other. Erdogan would prefer to Islamize Europe, Orban in this case is a hindrance. Putin would like to clean up the “near abroad” to his hands, but Kachinsky does not let in. Different people do different things.

Efim Fishtein - International Radio Observer Freedom

Opinions expressed under the heading "Law" may not reflect the point of view of the editorial office