In society

Choir named after V.V. Putin

March 11, 2014 Igor Yakovenko

I admit, I do not like the choir. They do not argue about tastes, and I respect the choice of people who prefer group singing. Moreover, there are spheres and situations in which the choir is functional and organic. For example, the military choir serves to raise the fighting spirit. The church choir is to glorify God. Or, for example, a festive feast in which choral singing serves as a substitute for communication in the absence of common topics for conversation, and also allows you to digest the eaten and, creating intervals between toasts, at least slightly reduce the amount of drunk.

But in some areas, the choir, that is, the collective performance of the same song to the same music, is unacceptable. These areas include, for example, science and journalism.

How would you appreciate the functionality of a scientific conference in which a hundred scientists in two votes performs a song with one verse, for example, “Two to two to four!”. Imagine, the tenors-documents are delaying: "Twice two-four-and-r-re!" Then the bass academics enter: "Twice two-four, oh, four!" Then the tenora again. And again - academics. With a good arrangement and a talented conductor, this may look quite decent, but few can call such a scientific conference.

In journalism, choral singing also means going beyond the limits of the profession, which was happening with the Soviet press. But since today Russia is increasingly penetrated by aggressive ecstasy in connection with the Anschlus of Crimea and religious ecstasy in connection with the cult of Putin, the choir becomes the only adequate form to express these two ecstatic states. The choir, which more and more captures journalism and in general, the sphere of publicity. Collective letters “In support” and collective letters “Concern”. Rallies "For" and rallies "against". The choirs come and become more deciber.

The Russian world is not a place for discussions. He's no place at all
In the first months of the information war with Ukraine, Putin's television troops used the format of imitating discussion, when the invited special sacrificial liberal was indicatively trampled by the duty imperial with the active support of the host and glee of the hall. The standard of such an Erzats-discussion was Solovyov’s program “Stug”, which has been withdrawn from the air for several weeks.

Instead, on the air, “Sunday evening” with Vladimir Solovyov, who (Sunday evening ”, and not Vladimir Solovyov), like a shaft bear, can suddenly attack the viewer, except, except, perhaps, perhaps, perhaps, perhaps, perhaps, perhaps, except Sundays. The formats, in which, even formally, but still there was a discussion, dialogue, were replaced by the format of the choir.

In the Sunday evening, which Soloviev appointed on Friday March 7, there were two soloists, one of whom, having fulfilled his party, set the necessary rhythm to the choir, and the second, not at all a choral person, for some reason came to this scene and thereby created the illusion that the most intelligent and worthy people could participate in this choir. The first soloist was Dmitry Peskov, the second was Mikhail Zhvanetsky.

Peskov spoke for a long time and said many important things. To Solovyov’s question, whether our troops in Crimea e (for some reason Solovyov stubbornly bowed the unfortunate peninsula as if he were a feminine, I did not even understand what kind of “Crimea” it was), Peskov resolutely supported his employer and said that there were no troops there. At the same time, the eyes of Peskov were completely round with honesty.

Then he said a few amazing things that you just need to quote, since it is completely impossible to understand them. The first: "What is happening in the east of Ukraine and in Crimea has nothing to do with Russia." The end of the quote. “Anyway”, apparently, means that the Crimea parliament did not initiate the joining of the peninsula to Russia, and the folk gatherings of state employees in support of this process do not pass through the cities of Russia. That is, Peskov essentially denied everything that Putin's television troops have shown the last few days.

Then Peskov noted that Putin’s rating goes off scale and introduced the expression “nanopsy column” into the political and mathematical turnover. Since the prefix “Nano” means one billional initial unit, the Russian fifth column has much less than one person, and it was completely incomprehensible why it was a microscopic formation to spend time and words.

But then Peskov said a very important thing. He, in fact, formulated a new geopolitical topology. Judge for yourself. I quote: “Will Russia be able to remain indifferent if the rights of Russians are infringed somewhere? Russia is a country in which the Russian world is based. Putin is the guarantor of the Russian world. " The end of the quote. In ancient times, people thought that the Earth rests on three elephants, which in turn stand on the back of the turtles. Peskov knows that the huge Russian world relies on Russia, and all this person, Putin, holds on his shoulders, is holding all this bulky design, Russia.

Since Peskov is obliged to say what Putin thinks, it means that all this phantasmagoria settled in the head of our president. In the head of a person who has a nuclear button in his hands. And from this it becomes uneasy.

There is another consequence of the design of the Putin world described by Peskov. The protection of the rights of citizens of their country, including abroad, is normal. To protect the interests of people selectively by ethnic, linguistic, confessional or cultural attribute is Nazism. So Hitler did, building his Aryan world and a new world order. The introduction of troops into Ukraine to protect the Russian and Russian -speaking population is a completely Nazi practice.

What is this same “Russian world”, and how can Putin be its guarantor? British sociologist Benedict Anderson defined nations as “imaginary communities”. That is, people in their heads have an idea of ​​those who are close to them in language, culture, blood kinship and general history. This community, which lives in the head, is a nation, unlike the "political nation", which lives within the boundaries of the state and is fixed by citizenship.

The “Russian world” is an imaginary design living in the heads of people who speak Russian, considering Russian culture their culture and perceive Russian history as the history of their ancestors, in fact, as their pre-biography. The Russian world is more than Russia: it has about 200 million people on the planet who called the Russian language to the relatives (2009), Russia is a little more than 140 million. In addition, the dimensions of the Russian world are cringing in front of the eyes like shagren skin.

And here much depends on who to consider the guarantor of the Russian world. If we proceed from the fact that such guarantors are Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Chekhov and Nabokov, then the Russian world has a chance to change the cycle of bouncing to the expansion cycle. If we consider Putin such a guarantor and Putin himself will think so, then soon the Russian world will become equal to Russia, and then it will decrease to the size of part of Russia, that is, there will be less than its state basis. The policy and rhetoric of current Russian politicians makes this option for the development of the Russian world the most realistic. If the ether in Russian is filled with Zhirinovsky, sand and, for example, mammoth, then the number of people who want to explain in a historically short time in this language will rush to zero.

The Putin choir blushed. Not from shame, but from pride
On Friday "Sunday evening" Solovyovsky chorists came in a festive mood and in festive clothes. They had an extraordinary Victory Day and in the studio was the situation of triumph and light sadness in the lost Soviet Union and the Red Army.

Zhirinovsky in a red suit and red butterfly explained that the Crimean War (1853 - 1856) was the beginning of the First World War (1914 - 1918), and this very first world was the war of the whole world with Russia. Since the choir regulations does not provide for questions to the choristers, no one asked Zhirinovsky if there are often wars in world history, inside which there is a world that lasts almost 60 years, and how it happened that, within the framework of the same war, England and France first fought against Russia, and in the second act of the military battles became its allies.

But this was not the most vivid performance. Zyuganov, as something well-known, said that NATO is fascists. And he also added everyday: "The Nazis began to shoot in the furnaces of Russians, Jews and all the other Slavs." The end of the quote. I was shocked, because several years ago I conducted a large sociological study of the Jewish people in Russia and in this regard I studied the Mountain of Judaic literature, but nowhere I met the statements that the Jews are Slavs. I believe that for this discovery, as well as for the systematization and publication of the facts of mass destruction by the NATO fascists, “Russian, Jews and all the other Slavs” Gennady Andreevich will be waiting for world scientific fame. The main thing here is to urgently state all this on paper and publish under their own name, otherwise the laurels can be stolen.

But the true hero of Sunday evening was the political scientist, historian and politician Vyacheslav Nikonov. For the first time, I see that if there is Zhirinovsky in the studio, someone’s performances are brighter (in this context the word “bright”-the synonym for the words “crazy”). First, Nikonov, answering Solovyov’s question, whether the situation with the transition of Crimea from one country to another was unique, instantly replied that this was a routine world practice, based on the right of nations for self -determination. And then he built a row in which, according to his, Nikonov, the situation, the situation with the Crimea, the unification of Germany, the division of Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia, organically.

And again, the format of choral singing excluded a number of obvious questions to the historian Nikonov. What, for example, he, Nikonov, sees the similarity between the situation with the Crimea, when part of the country (Crimea) against the will of the country as a whole (Ukraine), with the participation of the troops of another country (Russia), is going to be part of this other country, what is the similarity of this situation with the section of Czechoslovakia, committed in the mutual desire and legislative will of both parts of the divided country? What is the similarity of the Crimean situation with the unification of two Germany, which also occurred with the mutual desire of citizens of both countries to unite? What is the similarity with the section of Yugoslavia, in which the full -scale civil war managed to stop only the introduction of the UN troops? In the absence of issues and connivance of the conductor, Koror Nikonov continued to further fake. His triumph was at the very end of the first part of the Friday Sunday evening.

When, at the end of the first part of the evening, Soloviev gave the floor to Nikonov, then, according to the silence established in the studio, I realized that something would happen now. Always a quiet and nomenclature-sustained historian and political scientist Nikonov suddenly pouted, became red, bent a little skate and a skate and yelled at the whole studio: “As my grandfather said, our right business! The enemy will be broken !! The victory will be behind us !!! " Zhirinovsky, who clearly envied the triumph of Nikonov, threw a malicious replica: “Well. Finally. And then everything was ashamed of his grandfather, Molotov. " To which Nikonov proudly retorted: “He was never ashamed. I was always proud. "

The grandson for his grandfather, of course, does not answer. But here is the matter in the public atmosphere, in the moods that Nikonov always captured very sensitively. In 1990-1991, working in the presidential administration, he loved to emphasize that he was a member of the Gorbachev team. Then in 1996 he was one of the leaders of the All-Russian movement in support of Yeltsin. Now he is part of the circle of Putin ideologists, heads the same Russian World fund. In my memory, Nikonov first publicly pulled out the skeleton of his famous grandfather from the family cabinet and presented it for such a wide view, and even with such undisguised pride.

There is something to be proud of the granddaughter. Vyacheslav Mikhailovich Molotov is one of the main organizers of the Stalinist repressions, the absolute leader in the number of shot lists signed by him personally. There are 372 of them, Stalin only 357, not to mention the rest of the Stalin Politburo members, the aggregate palack indicator of which had less than two main shooters, of which the Molotov, I repeat, was the first. On Molotov’s resolutions there was always a postscript made by his hand: “Replace 10 years with execution.”

The exploits of the grandfather, which are proud of the Russian World of the Foundation, should be attributed to the key role that Vyacheslav Molotov played in the organization of the Holodomor in Ukraine in 1931-1933, as well as the direct guilt in the organization of the Katyn execution.

Recently, Russian television showed the film “Chikatilo on the Maidan”, for which, wanting to denigrate the Maidan, they brought the son of a serial maniac Chikatilo to Kyiv. At the very beginning of the film, it was said that the son of a maniac lives in eternal fear, that someone knows whose son he is, hides, changes addresses, make up, walks bending and hiding his face. On the conscience, Chikatilo is thousands of times fewer corpses than in Molotov's conscience. Hiding a face and hiding Vyacheslav Nikonov is not at all necessary. But somehow to stick out his kinship with a love grandfather and not to bring him publicly as a historical example to follow it would be reasonable. Alas, for the performances of the Solovievsky choir, such parting words do not make sense, and millions of viewers received another dose of 100 percent Stalinism directly into the brain.

Zhvanetsky, plunging into Solovyov
In the third part of Sunday evening, the choir of experts answered the question about the sanctions that the West could arrange for Russia for the capture of Crimea. The choir protruded harmoniously, no one was knocked out. Everyone said that sanctions are our chance to develop our own production, and "the USA and Europe chop the bitches on which they are sitting." This is a quote from a deputy of the State Duma of Zvagelsky. This deputy is generally the source of many wise ideas, and I am surprised that he is not included in the main composition of television experts along with Zhirinovsky and Markov. The deputy Zvagelsky, for example, said that "if we are blocked by imported food, we will immediately raise agriculture." The end of the quote. In continuation of this idea, one could propose to close the boundaries, stop all foreign trade and eliminate the Internet. Then everything will rise at once.

"Russia is concentrated." These words of Gorchakov’s diplomat said after the Crimean War today have become a favorite phrase of experts and politicians along with the “Russian world”, the guarantor of which is Putin. Another masterpiece of economic thought was shown by deputy Kalashnikov from the International State Duma Committee. He is also pleased with the future isolation of Russia, because "we will then better develop our strength." It was trite, since almost everyone set out this thought in different words. But Kalashnikov’s voice was not lost in the choir when he resolutely stated: “If the European gas market is closed to us, we gasify Siberia.” I thought it would be the best economic solution to the evening. I was mistaken.

The best economist in Sunday evening was the political scientist and member of the OP of the Russian Federation Dmitry Orlov, who said: “Sanctions are very good. At a course of 35 rubles per dollar, the budget becomes deficiency and all social obligations will be fulfilled. ” The end of the quote. Really, "die, you can’t say better." True, one of the experts mumbled that the salaries would dry out with the ruble, and the prices to grow with the dollar and the euro, but few people heard this envious hiss. So the economic recipe for the evening rightfully belongs to the political scientist Orlov.

However, the main event of Sunday evening took place in the second part and was dedicated to the anniversary of Zhvanetsky. It was hard to see MMG in Solovyov’s program, and I think not only to me. No, Mikhail Mikhailovich did not say anything shameful and vulgar. On the contrary, in response to Solovyov’s vulgar question, "Is it hard to love the homeland?" He answered asymmetrically and subtly: “It’s hard to love two homelands”, and immediately explained that he and Odessa forever and Peter forever.

But these two or three phrases of Zhvanetsky did not make the Sunday evening Solovyov less disgusting and harmful for the country. Diamond in a dung pile does not make manure better. The diamond itself is objectively worse and does not lose its properties. They can still cut glass. But many of those who saw this diamond in this substance will not want to insert it into the frame and wear it on the body.

Mikhail Mikhailovich Zhvanetsky is one of the main teachers of several generations of Soviet people. He taught us to speak Russian. And to see how our teacher with his consent uses to give himself scale and brilliance the mentioned substance was embarrassed. And most importantly, I did not leave the question: why? I saw and knew where and to whom it goes, in which company it turns out ...

Shit in the grass
I understand that the abundance of non -appetizing metaphors makes reading this pamphlet not the most pleasant. In justification of my own, I can say that those who see the object of my observations are live and are familiar with the sources, as a rule, they sympathize and amazed at the restraint of my texts.

The expression put in the subtitle, I first heard more than half a century ago from the middle -aged and gall friend of our family, who came to our house to play chess and discuss the current moment. "Shit in the grass is much worse than just shit, because it is easier to get into it." Исходя из этой логики, я полагаю, что Александр Минкин хуже, чем, например, Дмитрий Киселев или Аркадий Мамонтов, поскольку субстанция последних вполне открыта для наблюдения, а то, что представляет содержание некоторых текстов Минкина, скрыто яркой и густой травой его литературных метафор, обилием верных высказываний, остро критичных по отношению к власти, да еще и изложенных хорошим русским языком.

В колонке, опубликованной в «МК» под заголовком: «Крым, ты чей?»(Кровь уроков истории), Минкин с размахом бичует пороки западных политиков. Он задает вопрос: «Кто решает судьбу планеты — народы или политики?» И тут же приводит ряд политиков, которым явно нельзя доверять планету: Гитлер, Буш-младший, Янукович, Медведев. Заметим, что Путина в этом ряду нет. Ему, видимо, Минкин судьбу планеты доверить готов. Далее Минкин делает экспресс-обзор выступлений ведущих политиков Запада и приходит в ужас: «Все думают о деньгах и о ж… А где же душа?!» — спрашивает Минкин. И делает неизбежный вывод: «Люди, которые думают только: а) о деньгах, и б) о ж… вообще не имеют права руководить народами». The end of the quote.

Я готов согласиться с Минкиным в том, что люди, думающие о такой ерунде, как деньги и ж…, недостойны руководить народами. И мне бы тоже хотелось, чтобы ими руководили только те, кто думает и говорит исключительно о душе. Немного смущает, что о душе, о духовном, о морали и патриотизме много говорят в основном тоталитарные диктаторы. При этом тоталитарные диктаторы никогда не говорят ни о деньгах, ни о ж… Вы когда-нибудь слышали, чтобы о чем-нибудь подобном говорили Сталин, Гитлер, Ким Чен Ир? А Кастро или Чавес? Да и Путин не уделял особого внимания этим двум табуированным Минкиным темам. Зато о душе, духовности и патриотизме сколько угодно.

Но это все была густая трава, за которой спрятана главная субстанция, то главное содержание, ради которого писалась статья. «Если Крым хочет вернуться в Россию после 20 с небольшим лет очень условной разлуки, то он имеет на это право», пишет Минкин. А все, кто такой поворот событий называют аншлюсом, применяют двойные стандарты. Для превентивной дискредитации всех «этих» и были сказаны все слова про пристрастие к деньгам и ж… западных политиков, чьи мнения на этом основании должны быть признаны морально ничтожными.

«Говорят:''Народ Украины – против!''А кто это? Сколько их?»—вопрошает Минкин. Опросам общественного мнения Минкин не доверяет, поэтому вопрос «Сколько их?» неизбежно повисает в воздухе, иначе можно было бы ответить, что, по февральскому опросу, лишь 12,5% граждан Украины хотят присоединения к России.

И, наконец, квинтэссенция минкинского текста, в котором автор цитирует самого себя прошлого и соглашается с самим собой: «Крым? Yes. Это та цена, ради которой мы переживем любые ваши (наши) подлости. За возвращение Крыма я бы всех украинских уголовников произвел в генералы». Можно представить себе размер индульгенции, которую Минкин готов выдать Путину за «возвращение Крыма». Думаю, она, эта индульгенция, накроет всю Россию, и еще останется, чтобы накрыть все постсоветское пространство.

К хору имени В.В. Путина присоединяются все новые исполнители. Такова логика военно-патриотической истерии. Тем более что участие в военном хоре — дело довольно безопасное и, как правило, очень прибыльное.



Фотография ИТАР-ТАСС / ЕРА / HOW HWEE YOUNG