Protest through the lip

Appeal to those who know how to deal with the regime

The opposition has gradually achieved respect and fame. This is facilitated by the courage of protesters and, of course, the stupidity of the authorities. Navalny has long been included in the five of those to whom citizens tend to trust, protest actions are shaking the country, and critical assessments of the authorities - both their activities and their power figures - are already supported everywhere.

But the dynamics of the electoral situation is clearly lags behind public moods. Yes, in protest, to show the cuckoo chiefs, people are ready to vote even for poodle. Yes, real opposition leaders sometimes appear in the regions, for which they do not vote so that the candidate from United Russia does not pass, but because they want to see this particular person in the local parliament. But in general, even many of those who reject the current vertical are not ready to give the power of the opposition, do not see in it a genuine alternative. I often hear obscene vocabulary addressed to the current system, but talking about how it would be good for the president to be a bulk or wider that those who act so actively against the system come to power - rarely.

Something is not in the relationship of the opposition and society, the dialogue does not develop.

One (only one!) Of the reasons - the arrogance of those who position themselves as an oppositionist.

A person who does not consider the authorities for a person (contempt for slaves-one of our traditional values) suddenly discovers that the opposition speaks with him from top to bottom. Vannik, they say, is to blame for everything.

The authorities are trying to plunge the country into a permanent hysteria. It is understandable - the enemy surrounding Russia, striving to put it on his knees, to take possession of oil, envious of our spirituality and wants to destroy us, justifies poverty, lawlessness and corruption by its very existence. All for the front! Raising other issues is evidence of insufficient patriotism, and often belonging to the fifth column. Who is not with us, he is against us. Every doubtful, not singing, leaning out with a portrait of a veteran from the window, in the war would be a policeman (remember the madness for the last 9 of May).

But the Grands of protest allow themselves to talk with citizens through the lip, building a picture of the world almost as primitive as the one that the authorities creates, evaluating everything - and everyone! - Only from the point of view of strengthening or weakening of Putin’s power.

However, the life of most of our compatriots is not reduced and cannot be reduced to confrontation with the system. This does not happen, this was neither under Stalin, nor with Hitler-under any regime, people need to earn money, be treated, get married and get married. And someone also has creativity and a favorite thing. Nobody has the right to despise them for living their lives. And if only a weakening of power is valid, then then approve the order of Stalin to burn houses in the territory occupied by the enemy - they died, of course, but Hitler was harder.

Protest is a voluntary matter. You have the right to risk yourself, but you cannot demand this from others. If we are for freedom in general, then we are for freedom of non -participation, for freedom not to listen to us - those who speak of the villains of the system, for freedom to believe that opponents of power are no better than itself. And if someone thinks so, this does not mean that you are smarter and cleaner. Maybe you behave so much that you do not cause trust and sympathy?

For me personally, there is no doubt that the current regime is evil, that the longer the current team is in power, the longer then it will be necessary to analyze the ruins into which it turns our country. Therefore, I am against the regime. In terms of blood spilled, in the scale of violence to our state is still far from the champions. But by the level of hypocrisy,

By vomiting, we are already with Stalin, at least we were equal.

And at some point I decided for myself that no form of cooperation and compromise with the system is impossible for me. And following this decision. But I decided for myself, not for others.

There are many people - in industry, in medicine, in art, and, despite the negative selection, in public administration - whose activities make life better or at least slow down its constant deterioration. They all compromise, and someone even participates passively in some abominations. But to a certain limit (we do not take obvious criminals - the chairmen of regional election commission, judges who carry out the wrong sentences, executioners in prisons) - people themselves are free to determine the scope of compromise and complicity. I don’t know what as a result is more - good or evil. It is not for me to judge. But they - in order not to mention those living without their permission, I will call, for example, Dr. Lisa, they definitely do not need advice on this, and even more so in the arrogant teachings that come from each iron, that is, from each account to the FB.

The aggressive feeling of its own moral superiority is disgusting and repels even in case of substantial proximity. It was not without reason that Sinyavsky spoke precisely about stylistic disagreements with the Soviet regime.

I can find a common language with a nationalist or with a left, but not with someone who, climbing a stool, teaches fellow citizens,

Including other oppositionists who are not in the way he seems to him the only true one. Especially if he himself is safe.

But from those who participate in a real struggle, the position of the guru is ethically unacceptable. Once Ernest Renan explained the cruelty of the Church by the fact that the first Christians, sacrificing their lives for faith, thus gave their followers the moral right to sacrifice the lives of others. In fact, they did not give this right, the hierarchs simply assigned him to themselves. I do not like the current system that violates all the divine and human laws. But I would not want the right to judge the right to judge those who today confidently explain how it should. Especially for the eyes.

I was lucky to be familiar with outstanding people, whose courage and sequence is unlikely to doubt: with Sakharov, with Voinovich, with Alekseeva. And with some and friends. Neither they, nor the others belonging to this heroic circle, never allowed themselves to contempt for fellow citizens.