Oleg Kashin: The luxury of uncompromising

Director Andrei Nekrasov was published by the book version of his sensational film about Sergey Magnitsky, and journalist Zoya Svetova once again asks Nekrasov why he defends those who tormented Magnitsky. It is difficult to say whether such questions make sense; Defenders are needed by everyone, including those who tormented, and the fact that investigator Karpov and his friends were lucky to get the director Nekrasov in this capacity - yes, this is the luck, five or ten years ago they would be so unlucky.

Because five or ten years ago there were still people who needed other films from Nekrasov - “Distrust” or “Russian Lessons”. Now there are no these people, only investigator Karpov remained, but I least would like the conversation on such a topic to be analyzed the personal file of director Nekrasov. In his place, anyone could be or almost any of those who curses today about what happened to the director of metamorphosis. That is, yes, it is more pleasant to think that the whole thing is in one specific confused, deceived or even sold person, but actually the matter is not in him, just that is how life is arranged.

We have accepted to laugh at the mortgage of state television journalists, with his foreheads mowed from constant lies and all that way, and somehow embarrassed to pay attention that the position of absolute moral superiority is almost always supported by the most prosaic things-good work, which allows not to go against conscience, the material heritage of past times (he sold something successfully at the beginning I put the money at interest and cheerfully joke about someone else's mortgage), ties that allow you not to look for happiness in the circle of investigator Karpov. The degree of dependence of people on such external factors is traditionally undermined, and for some reason it seems to everyone that the moral choice will always be only a moral choice, that is, you want-you serve good, but tired of serving evil.

In fact, uncompromising is a luxury accessible to everyone to the same extent in which other, understandable and tangible objects of luxury are available to everyone, that is, literally: not everyone can buy a Lamborgini car for themselves, and not everyone can afford to throw the executioners and villains into the face of those executioners and villains. Proceeding the possible “but myself!”, I can say that yes, personally, I have achieved this luxury for myself at some point and enjoy it with pleasure, but I am aware that I have achieved it thanks to a very complicated coincidence of many different circumstances. If it weren’t for them, I am not at all sure that I would have enough to go to the stoker, and rather I would have chosen my work between TASS and RIA, reasoning where there are more acquaintances and where there are fewer bad opportunities, and, retreating to pre -prepared positions, I would prove to myself that even in such conditions I do not do anything bad - I do not sing, for example, about Putin, but about Putin. With restraint, albeit within the framework of a censorship guideline. I, too (albeit not like Karpov and Nekrasov), was lucky, and with luck, the excitement probably comes, and then I want to protect the luxury that you get, and this is still a knowingly easier work than to resist the fall of bad opportunities.

Recently, discussing the next trick of Mikhail Leontyev, in social networks we drew attention to the details of the Rosneft of the Doleontiev period from the massive attention-everything was publicly, it was no secret and not a gossip, no one was just interested. But it turns out that in those days, the PR of the Sichinsky department was engaged in the now popular radical anti -Putin blogger, and even if there is no that ugly sequence in his transformation, when a person is silent, and having lost his salary, he begins to act, he himself would not be able to prove that he would be disappointed in Putin’s Russia, remaining a Sechinsky PRA.

In massive affordable conditions for immorality, there is the main secret of the stability of existing orders in Russia

A person is weak by nature, a person is far from the angelic standard, and very often, if not always, a person does not turn into a completely disgusting feature only because there is an acceptable, non -insisted lower boundary of the affordable fall in society. The peculiarity of Putin's Russia is that in it this border is lowered to the lower bottom, and those people that in any other society we would not think to what extent they are disgusting, leaving there, leaving behind an ominous gurgling. When a passerby falls into a non -horned open sewer hatch, the main wine still lies in the municipal service, who forgot to close and enclose it, and to bring everything on a passerby is so easier, of course, but less fair. Incidentally, the risk of falling into this hatch is much higher among a refined intorist than to the finished outskirts of the gopnik, and this is the nature of the mass attraction to Putin from the Western world, who theoretically should shy away from all Russian state attributes, but for some reason do not shy away. It’s just that Depardieu or Oliver Stone does not have the immunity that many Russians have, and often it is a foreigner in Russia that acquires the most odious features of the most hypertrophied Russian (it is not only about the stars of show business, because foreigners have both Rosneft and Timchenko, and how many of them are on RT !

There is another not very noticeable thing of the same order-among the people crowding the throne, there is always one who will be able to reach out to the desired official and do a specific good deed, and one who does not hesitate to ask an important question, the answer to which will save someone or something to fix. The spine can be arbitrarily flexible, and the reputation of arbitrarily nasty, but this flexibility and muck turn out to be advantages when the ability to speak with the authorities is required to achieve the desired answer from it. And just the opposite, people with a strong and frantic spine at the first contact with the authorities are lost and broken. As a grotesque example itself, the apologizing to Kadyrov comes to mind, although, of course, a correction that this is still the wrong government-the power is not the same, but the principle is the same. Former informals of the eighties and the democrats of the first wave, who once became officials and have now turned into typical representatives of the Putin nomenclature-against the backdrop of the conditional Andrei Isaev (a man in the USSR was an anarcho-syndical!) The people of the Poznerovsky type look much more sympathetic, even if their spine and similar to the cut of Karelian birch.

Perhaps, in massive accessible conditions for immorality, there is the main secret of the stability of existing orders in Russia. And there is no point in asking the director Nekrasov at all, why he justifies the tormentors-he is not on purpose, he is simply put in these conditions with the rest of the society, and if Zoe is light, I or you are lucky to somehow avoid these conditions-this is also a special case of luck that should not be proud of.

Oleg Kashin - journalist

Opinions expressed under the heading "Law" may not reflect the point of view of the Radio Liberty editorial