Analysis of one attack

As some noticed, a group of comrades led by Ostap Karmodi in ardent expressions condemned the appearance of an interview with Gleb Pavlovsky on the Colt. I think this is a curious example of an outbreak of an uncontrolled nature, which is quite capable of telling us something about the nature of the moment. What is it, we can assume, based on the absurd untime of this reaction, similar to a sudden seizure. Pavlovsky appears with us as a hero of the interview for years (as well as “Freedom” , where Karmodi, “Rain” , “Elephant” , in the “Novaya Gazeta” and so on acts). This is clearly not news. What is it suddenly?

Let's start with what Pavlovsky is accused of. He “won Russia”, because of him “we found ourselves in shit,” we “owe him our bright tomorrow”, “he is not a shame”, “he brought Russia and half the world to the tsugunder.” What should Pavlovsky do now? “He must declare his repentance”, “to disown”, “He must sit at home alone, not before the interviewer of a decent edition.” Let us pay attention to the childhood of this dictionary. The collective prosecutor is very bad, it hurts, he does not follow the choice of vocabulary, and he obviously searches for the guilty man. The guilty cannot be far away, he should be near. Crackers in a state of excitement always go to the one who can reach. Is such an attack possible to Putin or Bastrykin? Of course not. This power is deaf, inaccessible, suppressing, far. The victim can and should be the one who does not belong to her anymore and therefore weakened, but it embodies it for the patient right here in this room. He must answer not so much for himself as for all trouble - and this is a great prerequisite for spontaneous lynching and lynching. What exactly hurts? Putin hurts, this is obvious. But not so much Putin, as his own helplessness, insignificance, disappointment, abrupt. An attempt to struggle, ridiculous, ridiculous, which did not lead to anything. But the pain prevents me from looking rationally, soberly. She burns and seeks an exit outside.

The second object that I want to pound is even closer - this is a site with which “there is a lot in common”, “decent edition” that changes collective ideals. In response, the prosecutor promises "to try to make you fewer readers and less money." In other words, the site is to blame for illegibility, the indifference of good and bad. What hurts in this case?

The convulsions and cramps of the campaigns in handshakes grow from the internal impurity of the environment, which tries to justify itself by choosing ritual sacrifices.

A lot was said about the fall in modern Russia of the Institute of Reputation. Intellectuals undermined this institute together, together, controversial-starting from the 90s. And it is no accident that one of the prosecutors should apologize that he once collaborated with Pavlovsky, but repented, the other claims that “there is some difference between Pavlovsky and Helman,” but this is a “long and offtopic conversation”. Both Pavlovsky and Helman worked in the Effective Policy Fund, which did a lot for Putin, but Helman, who has close personal and labor relations with one of the prosecutors, of course, is nominated in offtopus. And the flame is torn from this offtop.

The naked truth is that the quantity and quality of compromises, geshefts with the state for good and mundane goals, hugs with an oligarchy, tightly connected with the authorities, speechwriting and counseling, campaigns in cabinets, self -censorship and just general cynicism of the cultural environment in Russia of the last 20 years are immensely. Among people, in different periods and, for various reasons, there are few who did it openly for these compromises and transactions. But this is also a difficult experience, and it will also saddle. The convulsions and cramps of the campaigns in handshakes grow from this inner impurity of the environment as a whole, which tries to justify itself by choosing ritual demonstration sacrifices. The rage with which public executions are undertaken is directly proportional to the feeling of their own guilt, sinfulness.

I want to be correctly understood: I do not specifically mean anyone and do not blame anyone. I am sure and I know that among people who took part in this suddenness of Pavlovsky, there are many those who have nothing to blame for themselves. Nevertheless, these same people with their pathos of cleanliness live daily in an environment, which is anything, but not that. Collective wine lies with them and requires obsessive-compulsive exorcism.

We live in a very difficult time poisoned by miasm. I would not want as much to know about many acquaintances as these years showed and continue to show. I have long been thinking what to do with this difficult experience, and I do not find an answer. But in this case, I would like these couples and miasms not to obscure a person at least from himself. Because, in the end, this is radically the little that remains today.