History with A.A.

Navalny, German hospitals (now, it seems, and not "Charite", but the hospital of the Bundeswehr) and the indispensable höchstwahrscheinlich (that is, highly likely) is developing, as sung in the aria of Don Basilio from "The Barber of Seville": "And from mouth to mouth flies like a hardened lesson. "

What was only highly likely at the initial stage is now seen as an undoubted fact, which is referred to in discussions, for example, about the Sputnik-V vaccine, which have nothing to do with Navalny.

The evidence of the accusation remains the same as at the beginning of the story, that is, none, but this does not interfere with strong statements by the G7, UN, EU, Bundeswealth government and the US administration.

Supported by a frantic choir of cyber activists.

Moreover, the technique is simple as the truth: "We will not show you anything, you must prove that you had no hostile intentions."

100% presumption of guilt, which has been met in history before.

In the centuries-old tradition of "blood libel", that is, the idea that Jews drink the blood of Christian babies for ritual purposes, the methodology was exactly the same.

The Jews had to prove that they do not drink, and so the society presumed in advance that they were drinking, and in large quantities.

The modern reasoning of the most progressive and liberal thinkers that if you have such a reputation, then you are obliged to prove your innocence, completely coincide with similar reasoning of the Middle Ages, when the reputation of Jews in the eyes of the then civil society also left nothing to be done.

So the Jews are guilty by definition.

Of course, the matter was not limited to the Jews.

At the dawn of modern times, in the 16th-17th centuries, Europe was struck by the witch-hunt epidemic, and its characteristic features were exactly the same.

The absolute presumption of guilt and the conviction of civil society that how could it be otherwise.

Voices that only timidly declare that it would be necessary to investigate the accusations, weighing the pros and cons, met with the same indignation as Dr. Roshal's letter to his German colleagues that it would be good to confer together and, with facts in hand, to discuss the differences and inconsistencies in Navalny's diagnosis.

Somewhere in the 16th century South German Regensburg it would have been the same, although, perhaps, in passing, they would have decided that Roshal was a sorcerer himself, and sent him there.

So far, we have limited ourselves to areal abuse.

Again, in the 20th century, during the construction of socialism in the USSR, the mood of power, justice and society was very similar to that described in the manual "Witch's Hammer" Sprenger and Institoris.

The only difference was that the ideology and practice of Vedic processes appeared in a new classless society - Institoris and Sprenger did not claim the last one. 

So in the slander itself and the subsequent demonic possession there is nothing new.

The only novelty is that the current edition of libel is in societies and communities that have declared themselves democratic and liberal.

And, according to this self-recommendation, they are 248% insured against the reproduction of Jewish pogroms, the persecution of witches, Yezhovism and other unpleasant phenomena of the past.

After all, impartial courts, life-giving freedom of opinion, etc.

as a reliable barrier they stand guard over the conquests of modern times.

True, it happened before that in difficult, albeit recent times, when both impartial courts and freedom of the press were not formally canceled, here and there there was a fair amount of stigmatization of another country and its citizens, then some parties and movements - in general, those who were currently assigned to play the role of Jews in the Middle Ages.

That is, when peace and quiet and God's grace reign, great Western institutions reliably protect against relapses of barbarism, when the state of society is far from prosperous, and its political system is in a crisis that is obvious to everyone, the guarantees promised by the institutions may not work, but barbarization can work - and what kind.

But today, when the powerful BLM movement is shaking America (and not only it) and - what about the institutions?

- when the United States is on the brink of a civil war, only the lazy does not speak about the political and economic crisis in the powerful powers of Europe, when the COVID-19 infection neuroticizes society at the very least, destroying the primary foundations of sustainable life, then the barriers that prevent barbarization turn out to be far not as strong as we were told.

And why in the previous epochs of the Great Fear, various forms of social psychosis were unpleasant, but, alas, a natural phenomenon, but in the current era, breaking any bonds and foundations of hunting and slander is absolutely impossible?

Rather, one should have been pleasantly surprised that, well, we managed to do without them.

But failed.

The author's point of view may not coincide with the position of the editorial board.