Standard

Comparative analysis of small needs

It was at the junction of Bronny Streets, where a luxurious Novikovsky restaurant was widely spread on the site of the ever-memorable Soviet cafe "Aist" ...

I walked along Bolshaya Bronnaya towards Malaya. Opposite the restaurant was a red Ferrari, the opposite side was also crowded, to put it bluntly, not by Zhiguli. And then a company consisting of three men in their forties got out of the jeep and headed to the restaurant.

And one said after two:

— Shas possu only.

And pissed.

Slowly, on the hunt, to the joy of the crowded body, on the wheel of your own jeep. On a clear sunny evening, in the center of Moscow. I wanted to write - "to the amazement of passers-by", but I realized that this would not be true. There were passers-by, but I was amazed, it seems that I am alone ...

Again out of touch with reality.

It has long been noted that the law works only where it does not go too far beyond the limits of customs. That is, if the Danish constitution is fraudulently put into effect in Guinea-Bissau, Denmark will not succeed anyway, but the same Guinea-Bissau will turn out, but in great bewilderment.

Russian law does not allow urinating on the streets - neither during the day, nor at night, neither in Tyutyushi, nor at the Mausoleum. But that is the law... The all-powerful custom shifts reality towards the tacit and much more differentiated semi-Guinean norm, according to which - somewhere it is really impossible (in the latest linguistic practice this "really" is denoted by the word "strictly"), somewhere it is impossible, but if if you really want to, then you can (and God himself ordered at dusk), but somewhere you can openly in broad daylight, because everyone is yours and, as Chekhov said, “tea, not England.”

Therefore, my amazement of the past concerned, of course, not the violation of the law (we have seen these laws), but the next shift in the norm. For until recently this, conceivable against a blank wall, was here and so - completely unthinkable.

More than twenty years ago, in the original "dashing nineties", we already went through a similar collapse, but that collapse was of a completely different nature: it accompanied the collapse of the state. The Soviet fear of the "cop" and the party committee collapsed, there were no other restraining mechanisms in the plant, and the wild post-reform field was walking in all its glory.

Then, little by little, social norms appeared.

Then the state began to grow stronger.

It grew stronger, stronger - and stronger so that it left nothing in the country at all but itself. Today, all around are the security forces, morality and total control: where there is no Bastrykin, there is Chaika; where there is no Gundyaev, there is Kolokoltsev! So why does this gentleman from the jeep urinate so freely in the middle of Moscow, near the house where Richter lived, and why does no one even squeal about this?

And what is the difference between this urination and similar (and perhaps in the same performance) twenty years ago?

It seems to me that this is it.

In the early nineties, the savagery of this man symbolized his falling away from the state - today it symbolizes complete unity with the state!

Rudeness, contempt for the law and the right of the strong, cultivated throughout Putin's years and peaked in his third term, have long become an unspoken custom, much stronger than any letter of the law. A custom that corrupts daily.

The impunity of their own has become flesh and blood - this is what exists, so to speak, by default ... So why shouldn't this man piss on the wheel, if he was impatient? He didn't go out to a solo picket, did he?

Well, here are the goodies.

He is within the norm, which means that everything will be fine with him.