In this book, we will focus primarily on what is happening in the world of the press. With amazing ease, it flashes statements that are offensive to those "who still love Russia." It seems that no logic of the article prompts us to immediately ascend from criticism of some particular event or lawlessness to generalizations of culturological capture and to reasoning about the fundamental vices of Russian history and Orthodox consciousness. But suddenly - you stumble:

"The odious example of Saltychikha, who slaughtered more than 100 of her peasants in the Moscow region with her own hands, is an ugly national symbol of Russia"[11].

What a measure of contempt for Russia, for its history and people stands behind these commemorations of Saltychikha. Well, who is still compiling textbooks of our national history, if even now neither journalists nor even schoolchildren know that Saltychikha was arrested, tried, sentenced to life imprisonment?..

"Two peasants, whose wives she killed, managed to submit a request to Empress Catherine II in the summer of 1762. The Justice Collegium conducted an investigation that lasted 6 years.

Not once did she show remorse."[12]

She was a degenerate, not a "national symbol." As Bunin once rightly cried out: "What an age-old baseness it is to cheat, this Saltychikha, the most ordinary madwoman"[13].

But still: if any Orthodox journalist dared to write in this style – "The odious example of Sverdlov, who initiated the campaign of "Cossackization", is an ugly national symbol of Israel" – he would quite rightly be slapped on the wrist.

However, it is allowed to write about Russia in this way. Many publications of the "democratic press" cause pain to Orthodox residents of Russia. People who inflict this pain often know that their action will cause this pain. And yet, without any surgical subtlety, they go so far as to invade a very sensitive area of national-religious feelings (as NTV did when it was warned that Russian Christians would take the screening of The Last Temptation as an insult).

The "democratic" consciousness allows any measure of rudeness when addressing Orthodox themes, any measure of lack of evidence. "Talk about the revival of the Russian Orthodox Church seems meaningless. This is like hoping for the resurrection of a doll lying in the Mausoleum or, rather, a short-lived neighbor buried nearby. We must get rid of all this: both the dead and the Patriarchate, as from a protracted illness that will certainly leave traces on the body, but will finally become yesterday" (Lev Levinson)[14].

А это: «Сколько зла причинила вся „наша“ водочно-христианская культура…»[15].

Или: «Темная жестокость, соприродная русской жизни»[16].

Или: «зверства русской армии в Чечне свидетельствуют о безнравственности русского народа»[17].

Увы, лишь одно ограничение пока наложили на себя еврейские публицисты, говоря о России: не матюгаться. «Красиво сказано: „Умом Россию не понять“ — и этим оправдывают тысячи заведомо алогичных рассуждений о России. Лишь через сто лет гипноз тютчевского „мо“ развеял русский писатель Губерман (не вздрогнули? поздравляю) своим „давно пора, честная мать, умом Россию понимать“. „Честная“ следует либо произносить на церковнославянский манер, с ударением на втором слоге, либо заменять тем словом, каковое Губерман и употребил, а мне непозволительно»[18].

Что ж, спасибо, что хоть не матом… А в остальном — «все позволено».