Translated material
About strength and violence
All of us who consider ourselves disagree, the opposition or who is simply dissatisfied with something specific - today we are physically weaker than the authorities. Our only weapon inside us. This is ours, different than in power, morality, faith in justice and strength of spirit. And therefore, in the words and thoughts of our thoughts, lies are unacceptable and even "not quite true." Any distortion of concepts, inaccuracy only weakens us. Unfortunately, we allow them too often.
Mokhnatkin I think that many defended him because they saw him first of all an innocent sacrifice. It seems that he, accidentally passing along the triumphal square in the next 31st, simply stood up for a woman beaten by a policeman. And the truth was mixed with a lie, creating a confusion in the brains and on paper. It so happened that the “facets” were the first to meet him immediately after the rally and began to illuminate his business . I know that he came to the square quite consciously and not for the first time. Yes, they "loaded" him for reproaching the riot police in rudeness. But already in a police bus, reacting to the video, which the nameless operative frankly led in the face, he himself hit him. And he defeated the camera, apparently (although not everything is clear here). For which he was a bit of the police there, but in the end he was planted.
We would even then speculate about a person’s right to a reaction. About the stress that all these hordes of the "astronauts" gave rise to the few people who came to the square at that time. About the sense of physical and moral pressure, surroundings, hopelessness that they experienced in such conditions. This pressure did not weaken even when the rally seemed to be allowed. These feelings are well acquainted with me, because I visited almost all 31.
One could also talk about the legal unpreparedness of the shares: in fact, anyone has the right to shoot in a public place - I say this as a reporter. But in those conditions, the nervous breakdown of Mokhnatkin is not just logical, but directly provoked by the actions of the police. People were crushed, crushed, provoking resistance, causing response aggression. Who had more rights in this situation: a policeman protected by armor and law, or a little man with a portfolio, who came out alone against the enormous state? Is he guilty of the law and society, violating the principle of non -violence that we value so highly?
But society did not discuss the topic of human rights to the answer. Because it is scary, and the topic of violence we have a taboo.
By the way, the principle of peaceful protest on the triumphal was originally declared by the National Bolsheviks that composed the strategy-31.
National Bolsheviks 
They really set a goal to change the system without hiding this. Only they did not apply violence, but to them. You cannot attribute an abandoned egg or water spilled into the face to violence! This is not violence, this is a public slap in the face, a symbol. Which, by the way, in past centuries led to an honest duel. But now the slap only reveals the aggressiveness and tendency to violence of the powers that be. Mikhalkov, in response to her, beats his foot in the face of the connected Bakhur. The prosecutor is absurdly trying to prove that the water was not in the bottle of Scythian, but a certain poisonous rubbish. And - plant, plant ... Why don't the authorities go to an honest duel in the old fashioned way - not to register their party, not let them participate in the elections? They will fail - killed (like a party, of course)!
And why does public opinion attribute the image of dangerous warlike militants? All these years, they consistently forced the power to apply violence to them themselves. More than 300 members of their parties were visited by bars - this is the response of the authorities to non -violent shares. Is this not enough? I think the fact is that true resistance with non -power requires a person too high readiness for self -sacrifice - to be beaten, to lose all the benefits of all the blessings, to go to prison. It was with the warning about these possible consequences that Gandhi began his agitation behind Satyagra. He believed that a person should independently and consciously make a decision, making sacrifices. National Bolsheviks were always able to answer for themselves. For this they did not like them, tried to humiliate them, proving their eternal dependence on the leader.
Real Satyagraha is the victory of the spirit over physical strength. But even if we lack the strength of the spirit, why condemn those who are more spiritually stronger than us? We can admire such people, we can learn this ourselves. But instead, we accuse themselves of a tendency to violence themselves.
And I always liked the National Bolsheviks with my liveliness and optimism. What was they sad? They splashed all their negative emotions and all aggression into peaceful actions. But wasn't it aggressively by Gandhi peacefully obtained the forbidden salt to the seashore?
But society did not seriously discuss the topic of non -violent resistance, because the present - extreme and sacrificial - non -violence is also scary.
Swamp was not there. But many eyewitnesses that I interviewed later similarly described my feelings. First, amazement from the sight of hordes of soldiers on the Stone Bridge. Then a feeling of compression, suffocation, fear of being trampled . And finally, the hatred of the police who brutally beat everyone out of analysis.
And the prisoners appeared, who either beat the police, or not, and it is not clear how to relate to this. And it is not clear how to protect them and protect them at all.
But if we had previously thought about what aggression and violence are, and what is true non -violence, today it would be easier for everyone. One is easier to restrain, the other is easier to understand those who could not restrain themselves.
The recognition of the right to violence is by no means the same as a call to him. I have already said that our power is conscious. But if someone did not find another way, did not hold his feelings, and if at the same time he did not embark on the path of terror, which carried danger to civilians, but simply gave the policeman to his face (the limits of this aggression can also be discussed - this is important and interesting), it is necessary to protect him and his right to response aggression. People deserve this right. It must be believed that most people do not want blood, not bloodthirsty in essence. Just believe your eyes: after all, the hundred thousandth crowds of Muscovites neither in 1991 nor in 2012 did not cause the slightest harm to their city. After all, these Armades of astronauts did not surround us in the 90th, but we still did not smash anything.
Aggression is a feeling, and as a feeling it cannot be prohibited. Non -power - an action that transfers aggression into a constructive, creative act. And he should study. But...
Who in the described cases gives rise to aggression in a person and to whom it is directed? State. Can we talk about the fault of a person in this case? If aggression is not directed against a neighbor, then there is no guilt in front of a neighbor (society). Probably, we can talk about the fault of a person before the state. But the state itself is intended for serving a person. So, if it gives rise to aggressive, destructive feelings in a person, then it is itself the main culprit of this conflict with a person. To him, the state, and answer. And tolerate if they were inadvertently given in the face: it asked for itself!
Girls. 1991-2007