From guardians in Vertukhai

From the editorial office. One of the ideologists of the “ours” movement Boris Yakemenko, who oversee the Orthodox Corps project, in his article on Libya actually approved the actions of Colonel Gaddafi, who “showed the whole world how to treat the provocateurs who strive for a coup, destabilization and a civil war.” It is clear that the statement of Yakemenko does not apply to Libya, it belongs to Russia. This statement gave rise to a fairly active discussion within those people who attribute themselves to the supporters of the current government and even call themselves “guardians”. The dilemma is quite simple: are the guardians ready to support the actions similar to the actions of Gaddafi, if the excitement does not begin in Tripoli, but in Moscow?

One of the first to pay attention to this dilemma, which has become a point of bifurcation , which has split the once unified guarantees workshop was Alexander Shmelev , ex-head of the Hyper-preserving Internet publication of the "look". In his living magazine, he raised the question by an edge: are the guardians ready for blood, are they ready to go to the end and where is that line that not a single power and not one of its defender should cross?

The “Russian magazine” decided to turn to Alexander and ask him about what he was thinking about Boris Yakemenko, violence and the current state of guardians and protection as ideology.

* * *

Russian magazine: What exactly prompted you to start a discussion around the statement of Boris Yakemenko? What exactly in his words hurt you?

Alexander Shmelev: I did not like that a person who is perceived in the mass consciousness as one of the “Rupors of Power” (among other things, it is clear that people will not distinguish between the Yakemenko brothers and will remain in the memory that this is the opinion of the “federal minister, the main youth), publicly calls for mass killings, without any reflection on this occasion.

Therefore, when I saw a similar commentary to Yakemenko, I asked the question: how much other people who associate themselves with the authorities agree with his statement, and they would not want to say that it was a private opinion of Yakemenko, which we never share. Amazingly, there were practically no such people . Of the more or less known persons, perhaps only only the editor-in-chief of the United Russia site Misha Budaragin, said that yes, Yakemenko did not speak well. And all the other people who are customary in the mass consciousness to be ranked to the guards, defenders of power, and so on, amazingly, they began to say as one: what is this in this? Of course, we must shoot!

RG: Does it seem to you, the use of violence in relation to the rebels somehow affects the legitimacy of power or not?

A.Sh.: A difficult question. It happens that and so. I understand what answer you bring me to, they say, in this case, the authorities are losing legitimacy. But, unfortunately, life shows that it happens differently. For example, the Soviet government calmly shot people who went out onto the streets in Novocherkassk, and after that another 25 years existed calmly. As it will be with the same Gaddafi, we also do not know yet. And so on.

Of course, both about Gaddafi, and about the Soviet government, we can say that they were originally illegitimate, but then it is necessary to raise the question, what is the validity of the legitimacy and illegitimacy of the authorities? For example, how legitimate was the Soviet government in the 70s or 80s? (Of course, once the Bolsheviks seized power absolutely illegally, but since then they formally legalized the adoption of two constitutions). And how legitimate is the current Russian government, which declared itself the successor of the Soviet? And so on. At the same time, I do not see much practical meaning in such discussions - these are such Talmudic disputes for an amateur.

RG: This is not the first time the performances of one or the other brother of Yakemenko are caused by a rather stormy public discussion and a fairly negative reaction. Probably, we can talk about this as a sign of a crisis of protection. What is happening with protection today?

A.Sh.: Unfortunately, many people from the “guards” simply turn into “guards”, if not “Vertukhaev”: in people who have the main task “to press and not let go”. However, I am afraid that what is happening is now a logical development of protection as an ideological course. I, say, never liked to define myself as a “guardian”, as this definition suggests that the main component of your ideology and political activity is to maintain the existing power, whatever it may be. And in my opinion, neither “protection” nor “liberation” can be an end in itself, but only a means to achieve more important goals, for example, the notorious “savings of the people”. So that people on the streets are not killed, so that they have freedom of activity, various rights were observed, etc. Indeed, in most cases, the preservation of the existing regime contributes to this, since during revolutions, as a rule, they are killed more often than during stability. But if people begin to say: for the sake of maintaining our power, we will kill from all types of weapons, as the aforementioned Yakemenko, there is no value in such protection.

RG: Do you agree with the statement that protection and loyalism are now not in fashion and are in crisis?

A.Sh.: Well, in some special fashion they have never been-fashion usually focuses on “advanced city youth”, and this layer, in general, usually prefers a protest. But, indeed, in recent years it has intensified at times. The fact is that each regime, even the most beautiful, sooner or later people are bored. When this or that ruler comes to power, in the first year he almost always has a tremendous credit of trust, the second less, in the third even less, etc.

Accordingly, by 2011, people who are tired of the existing regime are just tired, they have no particular complaints, but “I want something new”-it became significantly larger than in 2005. Citizens understand that nothing has changed in the last presidential election, the power remained with the same people. Plus a minus of several new faces, but, in fact, those who ruled the country for the last decade and rule. And this contributes to the fact that more people turn to more opposition views.

In principle, this is a natural psychological cycle. If we look at our history of the last century, on average every 10-15 years, such a change in public mood took place in it. When moderated by power, when spontaneous, but quite cardinal. And those things that were massively supported in the past period began to sound funny, people stopped taking them seriously, began to mock them. Accordingly, a new ideology appeared, first separated by the majority, then gradually losing supporters, and everything is new ...

Conversed Ksenia Kolkunova