On the side of good

A month ago, I wrote for the colts an article “On the side of evil” about people who in one form or another make their life choice in favor of the state, find a common language and common values ​​with it, find themselves in the state and, as a result, turn into features what. The pointed formulation of the “side of the evil” is a trap for the author in the sense that if you have taken to describe the other side, then do not be shy, describe and the other - and then you yourself will see how illusory and controversial good, and therefore the evil, because it can be unconditional and unconditional only in comparison with the unconditional and unconditional good, but where this is good. Darkness that is not opposed to light is not quite and darkness; At least without light to her, any definition will be applicable to the point that she herself is light, just so imperfect, and try to mind when you have no flashlight in your hands.

Actually, this is a question on the margins of the article “On the side of evil” - where to look for a side of good and how to understand that it is she. The simplest (and impudent, but certainly not a problem) would be the answer “good is us”, but it will be a pure error 404, a link that does not lead anywhere. What is "we"? There is no “we” in our conditions. "We are good people"? In response to this, a million people will come out, sincerely considering themselves good, including the most unimaginable ghouls, from whom they want to immediately run away with shouts "No, I am not bad." Any narrower definitions? Well, let's sort the most vulgar: “We, the Russian intelligentsia” - yeah, now try to exclude at least Nikita Mikhalkov from the Russian intelligentsia, and it is interesting that you will succeed. "We, opposition"? Oh yes, and the Parnas party and a dozen parties, including the famous spoilers of Mason Bogdanov, snap behind his backs - try to say “we” about them. "We, creative class"? Then you at the Urbantino festival , and you can not read further.

And someone is clean as a tear, did not participate in anything, you can declare it a kind of good, but it is like a historical movie, where the operator tries to move the camera so that an electric socket or glass-packet does not get into the frame.

At the same time, intuitively, after all, everything is clear. The wolfhound is right, a cannibal - no, but when the artist Pavlensky tried to give his prize to those whom he considers wolfhounds, it turned out that for many they were Pavlensky at the same time with them - cannibals, and there are no formulas for which the exact answer will be able to calculate. This is the problem-we have our own wolfhounds, and cannibals (as well as shit-dodes and shit-eaters ). Stop, I now said “with us”-means someone I mean, but who?

Yes, of course, I have, but it will be easiest to call these “us” by name; There is such a bad word “Facebook” in its strange meaning, narrowing a billion bills of up to several hundred people who write in Russian, familiar with each other, partly hating each other, part of those who suffer, part of those who love, and appreciate, and respect. An indicative example is the scandalous manifesto of the “side of evil”, written by collaborating with her within the framework of the “arrow” Grigory Revzin - in explanatory interviews he said that Moscow, which he wants to build, should perfectly fit “Facebook”; Describing this Moscow, Revzin even calls the people from Facebook by name, who will walk along it and rejoice-I am also named by name there, so I can catch the rules of the game and look for the side of the good in this Facebook, especially since there is more and more.

These several hundred or several thousand are “we”. The super -small part of Russian society, which plays a little other rules than the rest of the society. Probably, in normal conditions, this would be a subculture that risks getting played to social schizophrenia, but the conditions that have developed in Russia apologize to almost everyone: in Russia today, everyone is free to set their own rules at their discretion, such freedom is probably directly dependent on the general lack of freedom - in fact, this is not a secret, the most free people are always discovered in the most terrible dicks (more often, of course, their hands) them They turn out to be all the more unleashed, the more he is trying to tie their power. Mandela is impossible in modern USA, Valens is impossible in Norway, Solzhenitsyn in Germany. Our current tyranny is disgusting, but not yet monstrous, so Mandela and Valens do not even have these several hundred or thousands in the range from Shenderovich and Babchenko to Revzin and Serebrennikov. Probably a side of good-somewhere where they are. Well, suppose this, at least.

It is easy to be good when you are immersed in a good environment; It is more interesting that it will happen to you when the environment will be destroyed, and where you will be received - here, too, there are a lot of all kinds of fork.

And here you can not do without additional reservations. Everything is just to understand about someone-yes, the smartest, yes, talented, but apparently proceeds from that (and not the fact that it is wrong), that the mind and talent somehow expand the space for a compromise, and in the summary of him-the Strelka with Sobyanin, and the Egida Foundation with Surov, and “Skolkovo” with Medvedev, and much more to friendship with Voloshin. During the times of his highest power (the very “Putin's days of the Putin’s beautiful beginning”, when they smashed NTV, bombed Chechnya and accepted another timid, but at that time a rather monstrous anti-extremist legislation-but many liked it at that time). These are good people, but they still have a place at least in the notes to the article “On the side of evil”, and not in the article “On the side of good”. But it's simple.

And you look at the questionnaire (well, not the questionnaire, of course, but the quote for at least fifteen years)-it was cleaned as a tear, Putin first called X ** scrap on New Year's Eve of 2000, did not participate in a bad collective letters, but signs good, without missing. He doesn’t go to television talk shows, does not answer the Life-Yuzyuz calls, does not give his hands at all, a wonderful person, and as it were, you can declare his goodness and calm down-there is still nowhere else to look for, but this will turn out like a low-budget movie about some long-standing historical epochs in which the operator tries to move the camera so that a modern electric power does not get into the frame A socket or double -glazed window in the window - here, anything can be in the role of a socket or double -glazed window. The nineties, or Ukraine, or the attitude to the people-for some reason, every such person has a string, affecting which you will hear from him to “torture and hang” unusual for any good-whether “our tanks in 1993 shot a Bolshevik bastard”, or “in Odessa, they burned the coloras”, or “kill as many Syrians as possible”, or “in honest elections,” or “in honest elections” Anything, from which you also want to hide and not hear this person anymore. Since everything happens on Facebook, a minor case from personal practice: I once raised the post of a stranger, some kind of very good post, one in one of my thoughts that I myself could not formulate, I don’t remember what, but about something important, about freedom, probably. And so I put it, and they write to me: hey, what do you know, who is it? It turns out that the author of the post at one time became famous, taking off his sensational video in VKontakte, in which the girl brutally kills the kitten. Even an arbitrarily taken little -known person from Facebook on a background turned out to be such a video. Is there really no people with the right words and thoughts, but without such a video, and without Sobyanin, without Surkov, and without “coloradas”?

This should be the most ordinary person for whom we write and say, controversial and ambiguous, hating and afraid of each other. It’s just that we, apparently, have nothing to do with him.

I believe what happens. Let these several hundred people from Facebook find one person who has the most chances to claim to have nothing to do with evil at all. The first property of such a person is unfortunately, youth. Youth-because the fewer years, the less opportunities to do something or get somewhere. Unfortunately - because there are a lot of risks ahead, and behind is not only to boast.

But even if at least such a person will be. It is better that he is from the province, so that it does not have Moscow estate snobbery and cynicism and that he does not have that acquaintance from the childhood of Princess Mary Aleksevna, who will be upset if he says something wrong. At the same time, he probably should have a good Moscow education: and because education is generally good, and the Moscow one - because in the regions above risk, if you study well, get to the “territory of meanings”, and there is already not far from United Russia.

Probably, he works as a journalist - otherwise where would we know about him, and alternatives to journalists in this sense are gloomy: what other insanity people are in today's Russia? He is a journalist, and his first place of work - the legendary media destroyed in the middle of the tenths, whether it be the "tape", RBC or even the "Russian planet"; Why is it important that this media already survived the “fucking chain”, because it is the easiest test for such a person. It is easy to be good when you are immersed in a good environment; It is more interesting that it will be with you when the environment will be destroyed, and where you will be received, after all, there are also a lot of all kinds of fork, and if one is passed, it will become clear about the following.

This should be the most ordinary person, not some nugget or genius there, whose word I want to catch, no. This should be the most typical representative of the society as he should be. This should be the one for whom we write and say, controversial and ambiguous, hating and afraid of each other. He will read, and appreciate, and likes one of us on Facebook. He will forgive Revzin flirting with Sobyanin, and to me - work on Surkov, he will understand why Grebenshchikov went to Bastrykin, and judge the dispute about the transcript of the RBC team with the new authorities merged into the “Medus”. When I am talking about the side of good, I imagine such a person-he cannot but be, because there is definitely evil, which means that there must be good. It’s just that we, apparently, have nothing to do with him.