Translated material
Bezrybier
In the Kremlin
Bezrybier
September 20, 2006 George Satarov
“What is this white matter
You can see in chicken shit? "
"Chicken shit."
Kurt Vonnugut. "Time"
I do not want to write "on the anger of the day." There is already enough anger. I want about the eternal (type of whim). The reason gave the last Saturday broadcast by Yulia Latynina on Echo of Moscow. I always cling with pleasure to the fruits of her work, which is written, oral. And this time I did not lose. The journalist pushed me to think with her unexpected statement that Mr. Surkov, de, is an incomparable master of PR, a peaceful person, moreover, the most educated and intellectual in the Kremlin. True, what his education and intellectual merits he had, Latynina could not indicate, although the listeners asked the radio.
I understand that such a statement was rather the result of improvisation than an expression of a thoughtful point of view. (What does not happen when it is necessary to quickly answer the question on the air.) After all, it is clear that the most effective technology from the PR Arsenal Mr. Surkov is a ban on competition with him for everyone else. Its failure projects at the same time become a regular laughing stock not only in Russia. Take at least the presidential election in Ukraine. You can also discuss its other positive qualities, with enthusiasm marked by Latinina. But I'm not writing about Surko. This topic is uninteresting.
I am more concerned about our inaccessible desire to look for in power and in persons, personifying it, something outstanding and majestic. Moreover, the less power gives this reason, the more zeal is manifested by people in this search (to some explosive limit, of course). That's what I want to express a few thoughts about this.
I’ll start with the thesis, which has become the slogan of the positive philosophy of the Modern period: “Everything that exists is reasonable.” The paradox is that this thought, very controversial, went to Art Nouveau from religion. As a result, the idea of the rationality of divine creation was revised into the idea of rationality (therefore - explainability) of all things. Whatever we observe, everything has its own cause, its rational explanation.
Modern science has long found out that this, to put it mildly, is not so. If you bring any idea to the point of absurdity, then the thought characteristic of the era of postmodern, “everything that is accidentally” is much closer to the truth than the previous maxim. But I will not go into philosophy, I will return to practice.
Working in the Kremlin, I faced a depressing frequency with this situation: in the corridors of the authorities there was an event, a decision was made, etc. Extremely insignificant, caused by a mistake, haste, an ill -conceived reaction to a turnover (power is full of such nonsense). And then “political scientists” and political commentators rushed to explain to everyone the essence of what happened. This essence has always been incomparably deeper and wiser than reality. For power, it was invented by its supposedly multi -way combinations, non -existent confrontations, extensions for unexpected and important steps. (God! Why didn’t they fence!) And all this had nothing to do with real life. There was no more sense than in fortune -telling on the insides of animals or the flight of birds.
Such fabrications of journalists and political scientists are akin to cannibalism. Cannibal, eating the liver of the murdered enemy, acquires, as he believes (both his fellow tribesmen and his future opponents), the important and useful abilities of the murdered. The journalist, revealing (nonexistent, however) deep intentions of the authorities, acquires this depth - in his eyes, in the eyes of colleagues and, of course, in the eyes of the public. The wiser you came up with something about power, which, of course, hides everything and refuses everything, the more sophisticated you are as a professional. Here is such a grub.
Want an example? Let us recall the last Moscow elections, at the same time with which they were conducted in the State Duma in one of the Moscow districts. Khodorkovsky advanced along it, and somewhat later Kvachkov, who attempted, as they say, on Chubais. At this moment, one famous political journalist, regularly speaking at Echo of Moscow, explained to the radio listeners the genius of the Kremlin’s plan, who organized, as he was sure, the nomination of Kvachkov. There was a break for news, and the radio listeners were informed of Kvachkov’s statement, who expressed the deepest respect for Khodorkovsky and willing to take off his candidacy if it interferes. The break ended, and the journalist, as if nothing had happened, moved to another plot.
Do you know what the “cannibal” will say, an explanatory, if you poke it with your nose in the inconsistency of the fabrications created by him, in their contradiction to the facts? He will say that all these contradictions testify to the temptation of those whose machinations he reveals, their ability to disguise and deceit. Therefore, any contradictions only confirm his version. That is why conspiracyology is so popular. And practically not obsoleable. Meanwhile, ninety percent of conspiracies are invented after some events for their rational explanation either by participants or historians. The remaining ten percent of the conspiracies end in failure.
Why am I all this? On the same air, Latynin enthusiastically spoke about the brilliant propaganda course of Surkov, when he, in response to the press of presidential ambitions that appeared in the press, extended information about his Chechen roots. It is possible that the journalist received information from anyone that the last leak was organized precisely by Surov.
And tell you how it really happens in life? Please!
So, a certain agency receives an order: "Wet Surkov." The leader of the group collects employees, and the “brainstorm” begins: everything that can be used in a negative way is invented and involved. As a result, everything is falling into a heap and spilled into the information space. The final effect that Latynina correctly caught is one “leak” extinguishes another, the campaign failed.
After some time, Surkov’s colleagues gather in the office and joyfully discuss the mediocre campaign of their opponents. They make the same diagnosis. One overshadows: “And let's say that we conducted a counter -cab and threw out information about the Chechen roots!” Joyful hum. Everyone diverges.
Once again, this story is not about Surkov. She's about life. And in it there is a random, irrational, non -conceived incompetitionly more than it seems to us or wants to think. It's hard to put up with this. This is contrary to many dogmas of science of the century before last, which we are powdering brains at school.
Political scientists and journalists are not alone in their fabrications about power. Biologists tried a lot, explaining to us the wisdom of nature. For example, explaining the origin of one of the varieties of a butterfly, the scientist writes: "The eyes of a large animal, clearly visible on the open wings of the butterfly, are called upon to scare away the birds eating these butterflies." (Remember? "Everything that is reasonable.") Only many decades later, another scientist proved that among the natural enemies of birds eating this butterfly, there are no animals with such eyes, so they do not scare anyone. In the end, evolutionary biologists guessed that there could be mutations that are fixed, since they appeared together with other, really useful for passing through natural selection filters. Such mutations have no rational causes, nor justifying their consequences. They are just a random game of nature.
I cited this example to justify the next thesis. Not all that we observe has a beginning in the form of some rational cause. Much of the existing place is due to random reasons. There is a great many evidence of this: from physics of elementary particles to history. I will need this in the second part of the article.
But one conclusion can be formulated now. Firstly, not all actions of the authorities need to rush to interpret and justify. Secondly, not all that needs interpretation should be explained by wise fishing. Most of the actions of the authorities are the result of the vulgar mess and the first ill -conceived reaction to events.
Author - President of the Indem Foundation
Georgy Satarov
All rights to materials located on the EJ.ru website are protected in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation, including copyright and related rights. With any use of the site and satellite projects, hyperlink (Hyperlink) on EJ.ru is required.