Why scary Academician Pivovarov
How often, on various occasions, I read a rather worn-out phrase: “If this had not happened, then it would have to have been invented.” Just because without this the world would be a little more boring. Darker, if you will. Like, for example, any phrase that mentions Putin’s surname in a positive way. You’ll write a phrase that the president was right in some ways, and (the probability of the event is 100%) someone will immediately run after the dung to put it on the landing in front of your door ...
However, this statement also works in the opposite direction. It is enough to go to any discussion platform of the liberals or to the channel of a more or less adequate and clever liberal to see the “Kuchkonosos” from the opposite camp. Exactly with the same zeal, they encircle the doors of the authors there too.
What can we say, we can argue. We have such a tradition. Today's young people rarely use one expression, which was only recently known to everyone, from the vocabulary of bazaar traders: “And he put on his glasses, a lousy intellectual! ..”
A new block of constitutional amendments on the “nation-forming nation”
Now for public discussion, President Putin has proposed yet another constitutional amendment. This block of amendments concerns the foundations of the constitutional system, or rather, the concept of “state-forming people”. The topic is really serious, requiring a thoughtful attitude. On the one hand, it is necessary to consolidate the role of the Russian people in the creation of Russia, and on the other hand, not to forget the role of other peoples in this process.
Each of us, citizens of the Russian Federation, has his own thoughts on this matter. However, to form an objective picture, it is worth looking at the opinion of the opposite camp. What I did, visiting the personal page of the historian Yuri Pivovarov, academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences. On March 4, he posted his own thoughts on this subject under the saying, “I'm scared.”
It is clear that the author laid down his vision, his attitude, his feelings for what is happening in the title of his material. He is really scared. Not because changes to the articles of the constitution will lead to some significant change in the state system of the Russian Federation. No, the author is afraid because the first time he will be openly told about the social character of our state. For the first time, we are openly returning to the national idea of Russia. To the nationality, if you will.
If we discard tinsel, which has stuck a lot to the most liberal idea over the past years, then in the bottom line we will see a fairly simple and understandable idea to everyone. Society, people, nation - nothing, man - everything. Man is the measure of everything. So, it is necessary to "turn" into Europe or America. Each for himself, do you remember this "law of the jungle" in the mouth of the jackal Tabaki?
Great idea. If we discard the centuries-old history Of Russia. For the millennium, we had everything. Including "every man for himself." True, it was during these periods that they strangled us. It was just those who strangled us precisely such ideas, who supported separatism, who advocated the separation of principalities, and so on. But as soon as he was the one who collected the scattered fingers into a fist, the country again came to the leading position in world politics.
The essence of claims to the proposals of the president
It is clear that everything that Putin proposes is unacceptable to liberals. Not because it does not match their position. No, simply because it was proposed by Putin. Let's see the essence of the claims. I do not want to interpret the author. Direct quoting is always better. The reader himself has the right to evaluate any statement.
“Immediately questions: who will receive the right to enter the“ state-forming ”people? Who will prove their Russian identity? And why, in fact, the constitutional theme of the equal rights of all citizens is replaced by the legally irrelevant theme of the equal rights of the "state-forming" people with other peoples? Have we really witnessed interference in the “inviolable” chapter I of the “Foundations of the constitutional order”? Article 3 says there: “The bearer of sovereignty and the only source of power in the Russian Federation is its multinational people.” Who is now the bearer of sovereignty? "State-forming people"? Or is this people, together with their equal rights? ”
Agree, correctly posed questions that many people ask themselves, regardless of their political views. They ask simply because it’s scary to conceal any sin. It is terrible to destroy the world order in a state that has existed for many years. It’s scary to offend someone or to elevate someone. And who are we afraid to offend? And whom do we exalt?
Show me a man who with 100 percent certainty will tell what his nationality is by blood. Even in a forgotten mountain village or on a Siberian settlement, not to mention the Russian steppes, there was always a daredevil who brought his wife from another people to his house. And this woman became her own for the people. And her children were their own. History “kneaded” us so abruptly that the resulting “bread” became its own for everyone.
The same bunch that liberals carry under our door
“And I would also like to ask: is a“ state-forming ”people the same people that once created the Russian state? Or do we mean today's ethnic Russians, on whom the state mainly relies? That is, we are talking about the past or the present? What were other “equal peoples” busy with? Participated in the "formation of the state", interfered with this process, remained outside observers? And is there any historical and legal gradation of “equal peoples”? "Fellow travelers", historically close, historically alien, historically hostile? Or are all the “non-state-forming” peoples in the same position, in the same category? ”
I honestly admit that the academician hit very nicely on the "national issue" in Russia. Sneakily threw up the idea that in the process of joining Russia, to Russia, in any nation there were those who did not agree with this. Those who had to fight. Everything is in the style of liberals. So what if the majority of the people decided to become part of Russia? But there was a man, even many “people” who were against it!
But there is one more thought in this quote. Deep buried, but understandable. This is a “historical memory” of hostile peoples. Oddly enough, but the author uses a trick condemned by liberals at all venues. "Fellow travelers", historically close, historically alien, historically hostile? " In fact, they offer us their attitude to the traitors who were in any nation, to transfer to the whole nation. As it happened during the war with some peoples of the USSR.
Let us remember the deportation of the Chechens, but forget about the five Heroes of the Soviet Union who were representatives of this small nation. It is necessary to add here and four Heroes to whom this title was awarded for feats in the Great Patriotic War in the years 80-90. Let us remember the deportation of the Crimean Tatars, but forget about the six Heroes of the Soviet Union. Forget about the twice Hero of the Soviet Union Amet Khan Sultan. Well, it doesn’t work out that way.
And then the academician slides completely to the level of a schoolboy. To be honest, reading this from a reputable person is disgusting. I understand that for want of a better one needs to be content with what you have. But it’s not frank to pour slops. To flirt with the "representatives of progressive youth" there are other "opposition". Like Alexei Navalny or Ksenia Sobchak.
“And how can one distinguish a representative of a“ state-forming ”people from the rest? Maybe some obligatory patches on clothes? Is there any clarity here? Already started to solve this important problem? I have a proposal - a patch on which is written: "The representative of an equal non-state-forming people." This is necessary to do first of all in big cities, where various ethnic groups live. ”
Russian Federation - a state without a past
“Well, firstly, the USSR was a country of aggressive atheism and atheism. Secondly, what kind of “memory of the ancestors” and what “ideals” are we talking about? Bolsheviks are one thing; pre-Bolsheviks are another. In addition, it should be remembered that the USSR did not consider itself the successor of Russia. That is, clinging to the USSR, we are disconnecting from Russia (pre-Bolshevik and Bolshevik). Thirdly, “faith in God” becomes a constitutional provision, a principle. Thus, voluntarily or involuntarily, confusion is introduced into the issue of sovereignty. ”
Like this. The USSR is a country of aggressive atheism and atheism ... But tell me, “atheists” from the USSR, how many of us were baptized in Christian churches, how many converted to Islam, how many Jews have always been Jews, and how many were giyur? I will not list all the religions that were and remain on the territory of our country. And most of the representatives of these religions joined the faith back then, under the USSR.
Do not confuse militant atheism of the post-revolutionary years with post-war atheism. No one ever asked a person about faith. And atheists and believers differed only in one, for the most part. Some said, “There is no God,” others said, “There is God.” But both of them did not bother looking for evidence or reading any books, including the Bible. What for? This is a personal matter.
And the fact that faith in God, according to the proposed amendments, becomes a constitutional provision, again does not affect our attitude to God as such. Rather, this provision legalizes religion as an integral part of our lives. Just tired of lying to ourselves. And yet, if the edition that is now being proposed is adopted, then it is faith in God. Not in Allah, not in Jesus, not in Yahweh, not in Buddha ... God can be called in different ways.
On the attitude to "diminishing the feat of the people in the defense of the patronymic"
At the end of my thoughts today I will touch on this issue. Moreover, Academician Pivovarov left this question for the "basement". Until the end of his material, which for most modern readers, alas, remains "Terra Incognita." This is how modern man works. Understands and can argue about the article without even reading to the end.
"It is not allowed to diminish the feat of the people in the defense of the Fatherland." The right and duty of the state to “protect historical truth” is established. What is it? About what? - “The feat of the people in the defense of the Fatherland”? When, in what era? Or always? - Then the history of Russia comes down to a “feat”. If it was said about the Patriotic War, then it is clear. Maybe in general this is the main feat of our people. And what is “historical truth”? Who formulated it? What is she doing? “It’s somehow not legally foggy, generally.”
That's how it is. There is no explanation of the moments when you can spoil the history of your own country, and when you can get a deadline for it. And it doesn’t matter at all that crap and sorting out causes and effects are two different things. It doesn’t matter at all that already in our memory, our grandfathers and great-great-grandfathers poured mud over our fellow citizens many times. Descendants of war heroes who “see” the events of those years.
How many pseudo-stories are now pouring from television screens, from Internet sites, from the lips of freedom-loving politicians! Take any modern political talk show. There is always a type that is always unhappy. Won the war? And who asked us? Have you taken Berlin? And how many people died in this? .. And most importantly, all this, coupled with no history teaching at school, is in the head of our youth.
“It was, it is, and it will always be so!” Anthem of the Soviet Union
When I started reading the post of academician Yuri Pivovarov, I did not have an understanding of why it became scary. I myself am not distinguished by the ability to write beautiful and attractive headings for the reader. But, having read and thought over the material, I realized that the author was really scared.
He was afraid that the time was coming when Russia as a state was becoming what the liberals wanted it to be. When democracy becomes truly democracy, not permissiveness. When the rule of law will be real, and not just declared. Paradox? Not at all.
“Is it possible to criticize the behavior of the Russian upper echelons (= belittle?)? For example, for the outbreak of the Soviet-Finnish ("winter") war and the invasion of Afghanistan? I suspect that this is now a "diminution." And thereby undermining the constitutional foundations of society. ”
“We are clearly on the way to an antidemocratic, repressive-suppressing order. Some archaic potentially violent strata of consciousness and psyche become actualized. Again, not a man, a citizen - a measure of things, but "peoples", "historical truth", etc. Once again we are entering the time of the “official nation”, “enriched” by the terrible experience of the XNUMXth century. ”
“We are clearly on the way to an antidemocratic, repressive-suppressing order. Some archaic potentially violent strata of consciousness and psyche become actualized. Again, not a man, a citizen - a measure of things, but "peoples", "historical truth", etc. Once again we are entering the time of the “official nation”, “enriched” by the terrible experience of the XNUMXth century. ”
The fear of traitors, the fear of those who advocate the destruction of the country as such, is understandable. What can be called a great holiday for every Russian family, or rather, for every Soviet family, simply because then we were a single whole, Victory Day - “victory”? How can we seriously talk about the outbreak of the Second World War of the USSR?
How should I, the people, relate to liberals after saying that “the majority of advanced youth are leaving abroad because of a lack of prospects”? I can think of a continuation of thought very well. It turns out that only ignoramuses and morons remain in Russia. Not advanced youth. Herd…
Usually I suggest adding something to the proposed amendments. I won’t do it today. I will not yet. Indeed, the issues that are brought up for discussion are extremely important. The answers, in principle, are known to me. But the wording really needs to be worked on. So that later, after a short time, it was not necessary to accept a bunch of amendments to the new constitution.
And I specifically took the words from the Anthem of the USSR from the material of Yuri Pivovarov. Just because Russia was, is and will be ... Russia. Not Germany, not the USA, not Switzerland or any other country. We are strong in our faith, our friendship, our diversity, our courage. We are different, but we are Russian ... Russians of different nationalities.
Information