“You can’t wipe your ass”: the leader of the Liberal Democratic Party proved the advantage of his newspaper article over Internet pages

“The ideology of the Liberal Democratic Party of the 21st century is anti-fascism,” says the headline of a fresh article by the leader of the Liberal Democrats, Leonid Slutsky, published in the government’s Rossiyskaya Gazeta. And this is definitely good news. The more anti-fascists in the country, the better. But there are also a number of not too comforting messages in the publication, which also cannot be kept silent.

Let’s start with a clear failure in theory. The subtitle of the article announces “a well-known politician’s view of deep fascism on the Day of Memory and Sorrow.” But the look at deep fascism turns out to be extremely shallow. Superficial. Alas, Slutsky does not give a clear definition of the subject of his reasoning.

And the question is serious. Is it a joke if, as the country’s chief liberal democrat writes, “deep fascism has already entered every home”, if it “corrupts the young through social networks”, if evil “can hide behind the familiar face of an official or even a deputy.” And then the author says in plain text that a significant part of the Russian elite is infected with deep fascism, which part he calls the “pseudo-elite” and predicts an imminent “final defeat” for it.

Moreover, as follows from the words of Slutsky, it is already clear who to smash: “All the accomplices of fascism in modern Russia are well known.” From this place, as they say, I would like to go into more detail. If Slutsky is well aware of which of the deputies and officials are collaborating with deep-seated fascism, then why not say so directly?

Leonid Eduardovich, give me an answer! Doesn’t give an answer. Only the bell is filled with a wonderful ringing … But we, however, digress. Let’s return to our sheep, in the sense – the difficult struggle of the Liberal Democratic Party with deep-seated fascism.

Perhaps Slutsky’s refusal to share details is due to the tactics of this struggle. It’s just that the politician is afraid to frighten off the lurking fascists ahead of time, before the “final defeat”, he wants the little darlings to be taken “warm”. In this case, silence is, of course, justified. But what, tell me, is it for us, a simple electorate: to listen to the speeches of deputies, to obey the orders of officials, knowing that among them there are a lot of unexposed enemies of the people and humanity?

Is it possible to identify enemies on your own, without the help of the anti-fascist Slutsky? Maybe someone will succeed, but the author of these lines was forced to admit his fiasco. The author tried to push off from the generic signs of ordinary, classical fascism – phenomena, whatever one may say, are related, which Slutsky himself does not tire of recalling.

So, the Great Russian Encyclopedia reports the following on this score: “Fascism as a form of state government appears as a totalitarian system that uses methods of violence and coercive consensus to maintain its dominance, relying on law enforcement agencies and multidisciplinary mass organizations, actively spreading hatred towards internal and external enemies and the cult of the leader… strictly regulating the economy and social relations, striving for territorial expansion and world domination.”

But it is impossible to find anyone similar to an adherent of such a state structure in our political elite. Let’s take the same Duma: not a single deputy betrays his commitment to deep-seated fascism, either by hint or half hint: all, as one, stand for democracy, internationalism and world peace. Well, how do you guess? In short, it would be necessary for Leonid Eduardovich to pull up the theoretical part, to pull it up a lot.

Identifies the text and certain problems with continuity in the Liberal Democratic Party. On the one hand, the article is riddled with quotes from Vladimir Zhirinovsky, whom Slutsky calls “the first post-Soviet anti-fascist.” On the other hand, it contradicts a lot his ideological and political heritage. Here, let’s say, what Slutsky writes about the origins of the Second World War: “The economy of the inventors of deep fascism – the Anglo-Saxons, did not allow starting a direct war with Russia … Fascism is a unique tool for the struggle of the Anglo-Saxons against Russia.”

Vladimir Volfovich taught something completely different: the cause of World War II was a worldwide Jewish conspiracy. Here, for example, what he broadcast from the Duma rostrum on May 11, 2016: “Do you know that there are already published diaries of the Rothschild family? Who was Hitler? He was a 100% Jew, not a German, and they deliberately adopted anti-Semitism, realizing that it was spreading in all countries of the world in the 30s, they saddled it, used it, it was beneficial for them … And this was done in order to create the state of Israel – this is the goal of World War II.

At the same time, the “first post-Soviet anti-fascist” treated Hitler himself quite condescendingly. Anyway, it’s ambiguous. Not only scolded, but sometimes even praised. “This is a political figure in Germany, whom we saw in a slightly distorted light,” Vladimir Volfovich said in 1992 in an interview with journalist Andrei Vandenko. “Of course, some of Hitler’s deeds and actions harmed Germany. Some ultra-radical statements played against, but in general his ideology does not contain anything negative.

In this, of course, one can see some contradiction with the previous quote. But it was precisely the contradictions and inconstancy – what the people call “seven Fridays in a week” – that was Vladimir Volfovich’s strong point, which made him a name and a rating. After all, it has long been noticed: the lack of logic does not interfere, but only contributes to political propaganda. Everything seems to be logical with Slutsky – well, in the logic that he himself proposes – but there is nothing to catch the eye on. Too smooth – no reason for scandal. And there is no scandal – there is no PR.

Well, in the end – again about the good. At the very least, Zhirinovsky’s successor manages to master the vernacular. “You can’t wipe a child’s ass with a page on social networks,” Slutsky writes, for example, justifying the priority of real life over virtual. Delicious and tasty too. And most importantly – the holy truth: indeed, you can’t wipe it off. In this sense, the newspaper with Slutsky’s article has an indisputable advantage over all network pages combined.