Moscow 2006

The name of the book of the German writer Lyon Feikhtwanger " Moscow 1937 " became the name of the common house - the synonym for blindness, conscious or involuntary, left -western intelligentsia. Feihtvanger was not such a frank smug bastard as Bernard Show, who, refuting the “speculation” of the bourgeois press about hunger in the Soviet Union during collectivization, said that he had never eaten so well as when visiting the USSR. He had a different role in the system of Soviet propaganda. Feikhtwanger, speaking the language of special services, was used in a dark one. And the highest of all the devilish special services was engaged in this - Personally, Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin.

Feihtwanger came with some doubts and began with a daring question: “And you yourself are not annoyed by thousands of portraits of a man with a mustache”? The owner smiled softly and answered in the spirit that, of course, you and I, Mr. Writer, intelligent people, we understand all the absurdity of this idolatry, but we must be generous and condescending, reckoning with the tastes of my subjects, most of whom are yesterday's peasants. The outstanding intellectual was so subdued by the trusting intonation of the great man that he had already believed in everything and so much that the curators considered it possible to bring him to the "open" process of the enemies of the people the next day. From there, he told the city and the world how convincingly and sincerely the accused exposed their monstrous crimes.

Almost seventy years have passed, and the new collective Feihtwanger - leading Western political scientists - came to meet with the new owner of the Kremlin.

The Patriarch of Sovietology and post -Soviet Goldman daringly asked Vladimir Vladimirovich if he was ridiculous and counterproductive as the main propaganda ideologues of the regime of the last two years - the Great Energy Power and Sovereign Democracy.

Yes, professor, willingly agreed Dr. Vladimir putin. You and I, as intelligent, educated people, perfectly understand the whole absurdity of the concept of "sovereign democracy", for example. Sovereignty refers to the foreign policy sphere, and democracy to the domestic political. But I do not have other political scientists for you except these, dear professor. I cannot forbid them to express my miserable thoughts.

Publicly drain into the toilets of all his Pavlovsky-Markov-Lion-Fluff-gun, the owner fascinated the audience so much that she was all a queue for his autograph on the menu of a luxurious dinner (carpaccio, lobsters, climbing, sherbet). Now for a whole year (until the next dinner in Golitsyn - 2007) they will talk about the lone liberal in the Kremlin, surrounded by terrible Chekists and mediocre political scientists. Not forgetting to warn that any criticism of Putin in the West will only pour water on the mill of monstrous Chekists and undermine the positions of the august liberal.

The virtuoso of the recruitment, feeling inspiration, appointed Nikolai Zlobin, who was sitting on the right hand of Nikolai Zlobin, the chief Feihtwangger and for dessert already without a microphone intimately and confidentially deprived him of a philosophical masterpiece of morality and politics.

“I am just a lonely monk, wandering in the rain with a holey umbrella,” Mao Zedong once said to some other Western Feihtwanger. “I’m not a politician at all,” Putin Zlobin whispered inspirationally. “I consider myself just a citizen who has become a president. It’s not easy for me to work with politicians. We have a different mentality. The decisions that I make are based on the moral feeling of rightness, and not on how it affects my career, on the supporters. For me, the political career has never been an end in itself.”

Naturally, this spontaneous stream of consciousness was, as was supposed to be propagated the next day by million circulations. The question that was most often asked Zlobin was this: did his interlocutor give examples of decisions, where he had to choose between moral right and political expediency? No, unfortunately.

Meanwhile, there is one such tragic example for everyone in memory. It was September 3, 2004. The authorities faced the choice: to finish the script with the invitation of Maskhadov to Beslan, which gave high chances of saving the children captured as hostage, but had obvious political costs, or to storm the school, condemning the children to death, but demonstrating their innocence in the struggle with international terrorism, the very adamantly will applies the best publicists of Russia the best publicists of Russia - From Prokhanov to Radzikhovsky.

The authorities made its choice. And whether his supreme commander personally made his helpful subordinates personally, in the Last Judgment there will be no importance. It would be better if he chewed Sherbet.