Between violence and justice: the murder of Daria Dugina will not bring peace closer

Sergey Mitroshin

A well-known tragic event blew up both parts of the de facto divided society. It is not surprising that after that, patriotic circles received a banner and a motive to escalate the special operation. What is surprising is that waves of sympathy for the patriotic philosopher, whose daughter had just died in a clear act of political terror, literally flooded the Internet and went from the segment that we would attribute to the opposition.

Here is how the well-known human rights activist Yuri Samodurov, who was repeatedly detained, arrested and fined for his anti-war position, reacted: “The murder of Darya Dugina struck me because, first of all, it was the murder of a young woman. Whatever articles she writes, who do you have to be to kill young women?!»

Who should be? Well, of course, the villain!

Then he continues: “The key point of this story, in my opinion, is that a young woman, a Russian citizen, a journalist who spoke and was a propagandist of a special operation in Ukraine in the press, but who is not a Russian military woman, a woman who did not yet have and who did not give birth to children was not killed with weapons in her hands on the Russian-Ukrainian front, but was killed unarmed while driving her car in the Moscow region. I think that the approval of this murder is itself shameful! My post is about just that”.

The same was expressed by some other users: there is no excuse for evil monsters, moreover, the very gloating about the tragedy in the family of the “enemy” is criminal. Despite the fact that these users seemed to condemn both the philosopher himself and his philosophy, his political creed, which undoubtedly underlies the current social conflict and the real deterioration of the situation of many social corporations, but the thought, they believe, is still impossible to kill. In any case, it must also be fought with thought, and not with bombs, and, moreover, not to take out your disagreement on children.

The titan of political science Gleb Pavlovsky today is a supporter of peace negotiations. Nothing else is given! (With the exception of two rather big exceptions, he also admits this - the First World War and the Second World War. Those did not end with negotiations. But the rest end with negotiations!) If we want to get out of the situation of political discomfort, in which our country also found itself , then we need to insist on launching a negotiation process that is hindered by acts of terror, like the tragedy that happened. In relation to the deceased G.P. just as full of sympathy: she de “was not malicious”, in contrast to the “extremist father”, i.e. innocent victim.

Thus, we are entering a consolidated ethical platform. Murder is evil, gloating over the misfortunes of the “opponent” is unacceptable, terror does not oppose ideology, in the sense that terror is not an opponent, but is itself evil. Children should not suffer for the sins of their parents, especially if we have a young, beautiful and gentle woman among our children.

And she, this position with the denial of murder, would be absolutely indisputable, leading us to the idea of the imperative of eternal peace and the complete denial of violence, if it were not for one important circumstance: “others” do not profess this!

There is no guarantee that the adversary, pressed against the wall, being at the point of threat to his political regime (the financial position of the elite group), will not use his most powerful weapon at the last moment, and will not violate the protective ethical barrier built between parents involved in the conflict and not involved. children in it. Between the involved militants and the uninvolved population. In fact, the eternal humane world is so far only a utopian project that is born (if it is born, and does not become a miscarriage) in the throes of the present.

And now, as always, I will give an example from world cinema on this topic.

This is the film Vostok (Elite Squad, 2020) by the Dutch director Jim Taihuttu, which beats a little-known historical episode of the Dutch colonial war in Indonesia. World War II has just ended, and from the point of view of the Dutch, shaking off the sin of their fathers who collaborated with the Nazis, their mission in Indonesia is quite ethical at first glance, since those who advocate the country's independence are half-wild Indonesians armed with spears and swords, moreover also nationalists - opponents of a stable pro-European regime.

However, the ethical conflict is not resolved simply, because the more "progressive" Dutch (resisted the German fascists, ideologically armed with European law) themselves turn out to be racists against ... nationalists.

The scene of an impromptu trial arranged by the demonic Dutchman Westerling is symbolic (a reference to the image of Colonel Kurtz from Apocalypse Now). He looks into his notebook, in which God knows who knows how he entered the names of the Indonesian insurgents, and immediately carries out his sentence. This is also fascism, or something indistinguishable from it. It is not difficult to predict that the “just” violence he spreads will eventually eat him and the main character of the film, the young fighter Johan de Vries. This is the end of the movie. The finale of our drama today is that we have not yet found a balance between violence and justice.