Posted 25 февраля 2021,, 08:53
Published 25 февраля 2021,, 08:53
Modified 25 декабря 2022,, 20:57
Updated 25 декабря 2022,, 20:57
Alina Vitukhnovskaya, writer
However, on the official website of Amnesty International, there is no statement to withdraw the recognition of Alexey Navalny as a prisoner of conscience. However, if this information is still based on real ground, then such a decision would look extremely unworthy.
In this situation, Alexey is precisely a prisoner of conscience. It would be nice and honest if he (and for a long time) publicly apologized for his statements about the citizens of Georgia in 2008.
But by virtue of the tradition that has developed in Russian culture, admitting one's own mistakes is a symbol of weakness. Eh, Russian culture! All meanings are inverted in it. Admitting mistakes is a sign of strength, not weakness, since this is the first step towards overcoming them.
It turns out that Amnesty International recognized Eduard Limonov as a prisoner of conscience. A person with very specific views. One of those cursed figures for me, who, like Dugin, created the ideological basis for an authoritarian regime. The only slogan "Stalin-Beria-GULAG" is worth something. Therefore, I do not understand those who continue to be touched by the "talented writer Edichka." Who did not even bother to distinguish between his literary and political images.
For those looking for inconsistency in Amnesty International's position, I want to point out that Western society, due to its cultural traditions, is always more supportive of writers than politicians. The answer to the mystery of why Limonov was recognized as a prisoner of conscience, while Navalny was not, is simple. It lies in the fact that no one took Eduard Veniaminovich seriously as a politician.
The situation with Navalny is becoming dangerous for Russia. Because as a result of the fatal consensus, which I have written about more than once, arrogant systemic liberals have bet on the wrong horse, literally driving it into prison. We needed several political leaders, not one. And it seems that the West is simply pouring out Alexei, and with him spilling out Russia.
The other day, fans of the writer Eduard Limonov celebrated his birthday. Which looked more than modest. I think this is due to the fact that Limonov took the wrong path, turning himself from a cementing monument into a national-patriotic buffoon, a scarecrow on the fence that encloses the "Russian field of experiments." His fate is not surprising and planned and tragic. Being a representative of a certain alternative version of the red project, he almost completely merged with the authorities in the main worldview points, was nevertheless rejected by them, both as a smarter and as not completely controllable agent. Young competitors - Prilepin and Co. For all his charisma and talent, there is a certain elusive personality trait that did not allow him to become the monument that he planned to be embodied during his lifetime. Literary talent is not a bonus that sends you straight to a cultural and historical paradise. Rather, talent is an aggravating circumstance.
While Limonov was a political marginal-provocateur, his leftist stupidity, his “Russia is everything, the rest is nothing!”, All these teenage pimply chants and horror stories were perceived as postmodern games. When the program of his party became the basis of the current Russian state ideology, saturated with the poverty of Russians and the blood of the passionaries of the “Russian world”, when it became obvious that the NBP project (banned in the Russian Federation - ed.). However, like the Limonov project, is no more than an operational development for the introduction of agents into the youth environment and the dissemination of revanchist, militaristic ideas, none of the sane people have any silly illusions about the notorious Limonov's "genius".
I am not a moralist, especially when it comes to philosophy, art and literature. But as a citizen and politician, I am a moralist. If we consider morality as social expediency. I believe that the damage caused to Russia by Limonov and similar “ideologists” is enormous. And its consequences will haunt new generations for a long time.
What happened in the 90s and which we naively did not suspect at one time, namely, that the special services initiate and create "extremist" organizations, and then successfully "expose" them - this is the practice that we observe since the time of political gatherings, for example, in the Mayakovsky Museum, where, in fact, any political movements were available and open, all kinds of political theses were voiced.
It was a place of get-togethers, specific literature was sold there, and the legs of a number of national-Bolshevik and nationalist organizations grew from there. Many Eurasians and traditionalists also went from there. And the whole saga in the Mayakovsky museum ended with such a character as Galkovsky. He flashed there as some kind of "creative leader", after which all these seething ceased and, in fact, the place of active political life in museums, on the streets and cafes, safely moved to the Internet.
There were a number of surprising cases, I remember, for example, after an event where quite radical texts were heard, and after it was covered in the press, books that were being sold at that time in the museum were suddenly seized. And for some reason, among the confiscated books were mine and Limonov's. Why is not clear. By the way, these books were never returned. Unlike openly nationalist literature, which was returned to the market in just a few days.
Of course, I have no questions or complaints about the museum itself as a cultural space, nor towards its leaders, because they were hardly directly related to the actions of the Lubyanka provocateurs who were spinning in this environment. This space was a real focus, a concentrate of operational developments. The same place for provocations and deliberate plantings of people was the headquarters of the Limonov party on the Frunzenskaya embankment, the so-called. "Bunker", under the leadership of the aforementioned Eduard Limonov (Savenko), in the building of which the police station functioned and this fact for many years did not cause any suspicion among the National Bolsheviks themselves.
The National Bolsheviks are still a political bargaining chip - they still go to prisons, and they do it with great enthusiasm and to the delight of the operatives. That is, I can say with great confidence that organizations of this kind are supervised and generally do not perform any progressive social task. Yes, in the early 90s, the “neo-Bolsheviks” party could be viewed as a kind of cultural phenomenon, but this only lasted for several years.
Many nationalist organizations are also heavily created and supervised by the secret services. Certainly not from start to finish. There are no clear rules, there is no general homogeneous environment. Let us recall the film "Fanatic, The Believer, 2001" about how a person came to a nationalist organization with some crazy ideas, where he was surrounded by agents. It's just a classic of the genre. But now we see how people's fates are mutilated, for example, Dmitry Demushkin was in prison, who did not cooperate with the special services. But it is obvious that such people, such ideological passionaries from the beginning to the end of their activity are surrounded by agents.
Of course, if we compare the current Russian state with tsarist Russia, especially from a literary point of view, then we can recall Dostoevsky. Of course, in those days there was more passionate energy, there was more existential rebellion and we, in general, understand with what and why the tsarist secret police worked. We may disagree with how she acted, but we understand that in this way she was trying to protect herself and the state. And now there is some kind of completely empty, postmodern fuss, which is useless to anyone - this is a waste of budget money and in fact, as I noted above, there is lawlessness and violence against citizens.