Volkov: origin of the surname and famous noble families. Volkov clan: origin of the surname
A.Solomin- Good evening! The A-Team program begins. On the air of Echo of Moscow. We are working live. The most difficult program for Russian politicians and public figures. There are four Alexeys in the Echo of Moscow studio. Next to me are Naryshkin, Golubev and Osin. Today the guest of our program is Leonid Volkov, politician, member of the Progress Party. “The Gray Cardinal,” as you are also called.
L.Volkov- The first time I've heard. Good evening.
A.Solomin- It’s good that you don’t call yourself that. I have one request. We have glasses here. Please, no need to splash around. If anything happens, hit him in the face right away. First of all, it's fashionable. Secondly, it saves equipment.
Before we start “killing” Leonid Volkov, I would like to take this opportunity - different people will listen to us, including, I think, representatives of the law enforcement community will listen to us - this is what Lyubov Sobol writes about how the investigation is progressing in the case of her husband Sergei Mokhov, who was attacked: “In four days after the attack on my husband, what did the police do? - she asks - Nothing, fucking, sorry, nothing. No, I’m lying, they found and watched the video from Life News on their own. There is also a victory: the district police officer in charge of the case has finally been given money on his phone and now you can reach him. What does the district police officer say? “I don’t do such things, it’s too difficult. Now, if your husband beat you, I would do something. And this is clearly not my competence. At the same time, no one took the file from the district police officer. His immediate superior, Artem Vladimirovich Khomich, says: “This case is being handled by a local police officer, but why is he telling you that he’s not looking into it, I don’t know.”
It seems to me that representatives of the law enforcement community should hear this, because at a minimum it is in their interests that those who attacked Sergei Mokhov are found, and it is certainly not in their interests that people carry weapons and ensure their own safety, since the police and the law cannot do this.
Leonid Volkov. Hello!
L.Volkov- Good evening, again.
A. Naryshkin- My question is very simple: Leonid, is it hard to be number two all the time?
L.Volkov- Thank you, good question. I don't feel that way.
A.Solomin- First?
L.Volkov- And I’m not the first to feel it.
A.Solomin- Third, fourth?
A. Osin- Wooden medals?
L.Volkov- I like what I do at the Anti-Corruption Foundation. I have my own projects. Maybe such a feeling, such a question would make sense if I worked one hundred percent of the time only in the Anti-Corruption Foundation, although I am a team player and, in principle, this is not difficult for me. But I have projects for which I am fully responsible, which I manage - the Internet Defense Society, which I invented and founded. In the Progress Party, Alexey Navalny is the chairman of the party, elected through democratic elections of all its members. There, so much, my role is a little different. There are some other completely different stories. There is no such distinction in the head that “you are number two, and I am number one” - there is simply no such thing.
L. Volkov: I like what I do at FBK. I'm a team player and this is easy for me
A.Solomin-Are you a politician?
L.Volkov- I am a politician, of course.
A.Solomin-Are you fighting for power?
L.Volkov- I am fighting for power as part of a team of like-minded people.
A.Solomin- What role do you assign to yourself?
A. Osin- When this power comes...
L.Volkov- Will we share positions in the future government after we win? No, of course we don’t share. And if we speak objectively about the future government, whatever it may become under the new president, whoever he may be, it will be a very coalition one, made up of a very broad compromise. And it is far from a fact - we see this from very many examples of very many countries - that all the heroes of the revolution or anything else will find a place in it. There should be no illusions here. And it’s useful not to think in such terms: “We will win and I will become the Minister of Information Technology. Therefore, I never think in such terms and do not allow myself to think. This is simply wrong. Now, after all, we proceed from current situation, from the maxim: “Do what you must - and come what may.”
A.Solomin- I have a feeling that you are becoming poor.
A. Osin- I'm sorry. What are “heroes of the revolution”? What revolution? Tell me.
L.Volkov- A revolution is a change of power.
A. Osin- I understand.
L.Volkov- 80% of the revolution of the last 25 years in Europe was peaceful, bloodless, absolutely wonderful, but the term about which you, Alexey, asked a question, I used, of course, in a sarcastic sense and even made quotation marks in the air.
A. Osin- You understand that in your case, either you are the whole government, or you are not at all.
L.Volkov- I just said that it is obvious that after the change of regime, no matter how it happens, it seems to me that the next government will be very much a coalition one. Because it is obvious to me that one narrow political force cannot and should not take full power. We just have to re-build some kind of national consensus and build a broad coalition...
L. Volkov: After the regime change, no matter how it happens, the next government will be a coalition
A. Osin- No, look, the situation. There is a certain political spectrum, even if you don’t like it. This is 80-90 percent of the market. There is you plus a little bit more. So where will you put these 80 after the change of power? They will also have to... or how?
L.Volkov- There are no 80s. They are arranged terribly heterogeneously. There are 10% of “zaputinists” who are really very strong for him.
A.Solomin- How many?
L.Volkov― 10%
A.Solomin― 10%?
L.Volkov- And there are many people who have now joined the highway out of fear, out of conformity, out of the fact that they do not have a clearly expressed opinion of their own...
A. Naryshkin- Leonid, where do you get these numbers from? What kind of sociology is this, I wonder?
L.Volkov- I take them from my feelings, from my political feeling.
A. Naryshkin- Also, probably, sometimes we believe that VTsIOM takes figures in support of Putin, also guided by feelings.
L.Volkov- I don’t deny it. Now there is this pro-Putin consensus in society. It is quite shaky, and it does not rest either on economic prosperity, or on any serious political successes, or on the fact that people feel good and at ease.
L. Volkov: Now there is a pro-Putin consensus in society. He's quite shaky
A. Golubev- Leonid, the country supports Putin. There is such a reality: the country supports Putin precisely because of the political successes that relate to the annexation of Crimea and politics in Syria. People like it and people vote for Putin and the government he represents.
L.Volkov- Alexey, you are arguing with me, but I didn’t say anything contradictory.
A. Golubev- Like this? You said that all this is unsteady, incomprehensible and a measly 10 percent. And I say: 86.
L.Volkov- I don’t want to repeat the cliche about Ceausescu’s support rating several months before his...
A. Golubev- You already repeated it, yes.
L.Volkov- Well, I have to. That is, now there is this pro-Putin consensus, but it does not have serious, deep grounds. I think so.
A.Solomin- Leonid, politics is not done just like that. You are serious people, you do serious things. We had here different representatives different political ones... You are fighting for power, you want to replace Putin - these are serious things, I think.
L.Volkov- Right.
A.Solomin- Here we had representatives of different political parties. Some of them said: “If you come to the regions and say that “we are against Putin,” they tell you: “Go to hell!”
L.Volkov- This is not entirely true. We are based, in general, on a fairly broad sociology. We invest a lot in sociological research. For us, this is just an interesting task: to study this 80% and highlight their strata and layers, who are for Putin, who are sincere, who are because of Crimea, who are because of Syria, who are because of the economy, who are because of what . We understand that research is not always accurate... sociology cannot always give accurate answers, but it does not help to form some sense of what, in fact, this consensus is built from.
You see, Vtsiomov’s or Levad’s figures for support for the State Duma as an institution of power are 20%, for the government – 20%, for Putin – 80%.
A. Osin- Yes.
L.Volkov- That is, this means that there is no support and no serious fundamental commitment to the authorities, the system, the regime, the way the country is structured. There is a certain legitimacy of Putin, the Tsar-Father...
A. Osin- Yes, sure.
L.Volkov- Who is now protecting us from NATO, but will soon see the light and will also deal with embezzler governors and bribe-taking officials. And the fact that this did not happen...
A. Osin- What else? This is happening before your eyes. Just today Odintsov’s head... Happens every day.
L.Volkov- I think that this structure is really terribly shaky. This is truly a colossus with feet of clay.
A. Golubev- Hasn’t the moment come, when we are now observing this wave of purges in power, for you to say, as a fighter against corruption, well, now we support Putin, he is finally doing what we wanted?
L.Volkov- We are not seeing a wave of purges in power.
A. Golubev- How!
A.Solomin- Two were released, but well-known representatives of the Investigative Committee are in prison, Zakharchenko is in prison.
L.Volkov- Just a second! I'll finish though. This is a very revealing story about Putin’s fight against corruption. That is, people were accused of stealing a billion, they found 20 billion worth of assets that came from nowhere, they detained them very loudly - they released them very quietly, like Vasilyeva, like Serdyukov, and so on. In my opinion, this is characteristic and typical story. But the story of Zakharchenko or Maksimenko is not a typical story.
L. Volkov: They quietly released Serdyukov... This is a characteristic, typical story. And Zakharchenko’s story is not a typical story
A. Naryshkin- Fine. And according to Leonid Volkov and Navalny...
L.Volkov- Just a second! There are many more stories like this, when they grab you loudly, then come to an agreement and quietly let go, when people are sitting.
A. Naryshkin- Fine. According to Leonid Volkov and Alexei Navalny, how should the fight against corrupt officials be carried out? Under no circumstances should you imprison or torture a person so that in the first days of his stay in a pre-trial detention center he will confess to everything, even to what he did not do? Well, how? That is, if you don’t like the fact that the court is releasing you on your own recognizance...
L.Volkov- They were simply released. The Investigative Committee did not apply at all to extend the preventive measure in my example with the Development Corporation.
A. Naryshkin- Okay, you and Navalny - Navalny, I don’t know, the president, the prime minister, you are the head of the Investigative Committee...
L.Volkov- I hope no!
A. Naryshkin- Good reaction. And what? How will you fight corruption?
L.Volkov- The fight against corruption will follow well-studied and tested international models.
A. Osin- Like in Georgia.
L.Volkov- More like in Singapore. Let's be honest.
A. Naryshkin- How about in Singapore?
L.Volkov- Zero tolerance for corruption crimes at all levels, plus the creation of incentives for officials so that it is more profitable for them not to steal than to steal.
A. Naryshkin- Are we going to cut off our hands?
L.Volkov- It is not necessary to cut off your hands. The inevitability of punishment and equality before the law are enough.
A. Golubev- How is it in Singapore? This is a dictatorial, harsh method of struggle. Beautiful in their own way, but these are dictatorial methods of struggle.
L.Volkov- No, that's certainly not true. This is also some kind of stamp. I said that the world has accumulated enough successful experience in the fight against corruption. When I talk about the Singapore model, I, naturally, do not mean all aspects of this model - the ban on opposition parties or something else - I mean specific approaches to fight against corruption, which have proven to be terribly effective. Creating the right incentive system.
A. Naryshkin- Won’t it turn out that, being in power with Alexei Anatolyevich, you’ll imprison everyone and there will be no one to work at all levels of government?
L.Volkov- No.
A. Naryshkin- According to your feelings... You said a few minutes ago that according to your feelings, Putin actually has 10% support. In your opinion, what percentage of people now take bribes in Russia?
L.Volkov- In absolute numbers, not a very large number. In my model of the world - you can agree with it, you can disagree with it - roughly speaking, 10% of people behave immorally and incorrectly in any situation, 10% behave morally and incorrectly in any situation, and 80% behave the way they behave majority. If the entrance is generally not littered and is clean, then the majority do not litter. Broken windows theory. And vice versa. It depends on the stimulus, on the environment, on the situation in which we immerse people. Right now, socially approved behavior is lying and stealing. And therefore a large number of people who do not have sufficiently strong moral guidelines...
L. Volkov: Now socially approved behavior is lying and stealing...
A. Naryshkin- They succumb to the herd mentality.
L.Volkov- ...they lie and steal because everyone around them does so, and in general, you have to keep up, otherwise they will pass you by. In a different incentive system it will be different.
A.Solomin- We have on air a politician, a member of the Progress Party, a member of the central council of the party, Leonid Volkov. Do you think that if you begin to pursue this policy, if you manage to obtain the tools for this, will this be different from the Ukrainian experience, where there were also a lot of people who madly wanted to fight corruption and assured that they could defeat corruption? ? And while they can very timidly declare that they are doing something?
L.Volkov- In Ukraine, indeed, little has happened.
A.Solomin- Is there a guarantee that the same thing will not happen in your case?
L.Volkov- No, of course, there are no guarantees and cannot be.
A.Solomin- Just let us try.
L.Volkov- Not like let us try. We know what to do, we understand. But, of course, theoretical understanding and practical understanding are different things. No one says that things will go smoothly and no one says that in 3 months we will live prosperously, otherwise our heads will be on the rails. Conversation doesn't work like that. It is clear that the transition period will be very difficult. It is clear that there will be some thorny moments and problems, mistakes, we will make a lot of mistakes or other people will make a lot of mistakes, but now, comparing with the current moment, it will still be better.
A. Osin- OK! Now it's normal. And you say there will be a transition period. I see this in Ukraine. In any case, if angels came there, this would be there for another ten years. Why do I need you? I've already experienced this once. Why do I need you, dear comrades with your difficult transition period, when you will make your infant mistakes that your predecessors have already made.
L.Volkov- We will try to avoid infantile mistakes. Still, the team there is quite strong, there are quite a lot of smart people around us. And others have scored quite a lot of bumps. In 1991 there was no experience that people could rely on. People had no experience at all.
A. Osin- Do you have any experience, or what?
L.Volkov- We have both experienced and whatever. In general, the society around us has become more experienced, it is adapted to living in market conditions, and so on.
A. Osin- So, after all, why did you surrender to us for another ten years with these transformations of yours, because it seems to you that things are bad now? I don't think so. I'm ok.
L.Volkov- There are objective economic indicators that show that things are bad now. We have an objective situation with the costs of corruption, with the fall in incomes of the population, with how much money is stolen and what palaces, yachts, billions, cash they turn into.
A.Solomin- You know, probably, to try to round out this topic, we will probably return to Vladimir Putin more than once, but still. I once spoke with a high-ranking official who is completely confident that the Alexei Navalny project is a project of those who, in general, have already passed sentences on the current leaders of the country - these are lanterns. And, naturally, under no circumstances will they perceive you as real fighters, normal opponents. In case you come to power, what is the fate of Vladimir Putin?
L.Volkov- Corruption crimes of officials, oligarchs and many others who are guilty of causing enormous material damage to the country and some real trillions of rubles being stolen will be investigated according to the law, these people will be imprisoned and so on.
A.Solomin-Are you ready to give security guarantees?..
L.Volkov- Now, as regards Vladimir Putin specifically, I, of course, would also really like to try him and put him in prison, fortunately there is something for it...
A. Naryshkin- For what?
L.Volkov- But I, being a realist, understand that, probably, the situation will turn out like this - if we are talking about some kind of peaceful transit of power, we are not talking about some kind of palace coup, when someone hits him on the head with a snuff box or something like that something - and if we do achieve a peaceful transfer of power in the political process, then, probably, objectively we will have to make some compromises, give some kind of security guarantees, regardless of what my desires may be.
A.Solomin- I understand correctly that you are ready to give security guarantees to Vladimir Putin...
L.Volkov- If it is necessary for the country. If we see that there is a way for a peaceful transition of power and for the country’s development to move in the right direction, then, probably, such compromises will have to be made.
A.Solomin- This means immunity from prosecution, right - guarantees of security? What do you mean by this?
L.Volkov- There are a lot of ifs, buts. I repeat that if the situation develops in such a way that those political forces, probably coalition ones - once again: neither me nor Alexey Navalny, not two people, but probably some kind of complex coalition that can achieve political superiority and will be able to raise the question of the transit of power - if this coalition sees that in the interests of the country, in the interests of voters, citizens, in the interests of the world, it will be necessary to provide some kind of security guarantees, I will support such a decision.
A. Golubev- So you provoke the people yourself. You will not be allowed to negotiate with bandits... You write on your Twitter: “Vorobiev, the governor of the Moscow region is a bandit..., this is a swindler, this thief... Nikiforov, the minister is a swindler. Subscribe to FBK and hang the swindler and thief” - these are your statements. And then they will say: “Wow! He’s negotiating with these thieves!..” And the revolution will devour you and it will be like in Ukraine, and they won’t give it to you, and the Maidan will be under your windows around the clock...
L.Volkov- Firstly, if you quote my Twitter, I am, of course, responsible for all the words that I write there. Mr. Nikiforov stole the dissertation. This is a proven fact for me. And Mr. Vorobiev bears personal political responsibility for the beating of observers in Balashikha...
L. Volkov: Mr. Nikiforov stole the dissertation. This is a proven fact for me
A. Golubev― Bandit NRZB.
L.Volkov- Yes, bandit. And this is a serious responsibility. There these are some people I personally know who were beaten on the instructions of the Moscow regional authorities. That is, I don’t just throw around such words. These are quite important and meaningful words for me.
A.Solomin- But you are playing with those people for whom the law is nothing, who will raise everyone with pitchforks if a revolution happens.
L.Volkov- Who will lift?
A.Solomin- People who say about everyone that they are swindlers, that they are thieves, they use only this terminology, they don’t care what kind of person they are, the main thing for them is to lift someone up with a pitchfork. There are a lot of such people.
L.Volkov- In Russia there are no people who are ready to lift someone up with a pitchfork. If there were many of them, they would raise them. People who write that they want to lift someone with a pitchfork will never lift anyone with a pitchfork.
A. Osin- There are those who write, and there are those who are ready to raise - these are different things. They write this on Facebook.
A. Golubev- We have very bloodthirsty people. Listen, we all want executions.
L.Volkov- I beg to differ with you. No, it’s not true that they are in favor of the death penalty, it’s not true that the majority are bloodthirsty and want to raise pitchforks. These are objective sociological data with which I operate...
A. Naryshkin- Listen, Leonid, we just have a rule at the radio station: when you talk about sociological data, let’s explain what kind of sociology it is.
L.Volkov- Several have data from the sociological service of the Anti-Corruption Foundation, which I trust and which I rely on. Yes, of course, and this is a grave moral responsibility. The government has done a lot in last years, in order to increase nervousness and polarization in society, so that intolerance appears, so that all people do not talk... there is brother with brother, son with son because of Ukraine, Syria or something else - this is a huge moral responsibility that lies with Mr. Putin, on his team, on propaganda.
A.Solomin- And it lies on you too.
L.Volkov- Yes, this is a problem that exists, that people go into some kind of extreme rhetoric. However, I would not exaggerate the severity of this problem. Fortunately, no one will raise anyone to the pitchfork; fortunately, we know that in European countries most transits of power can be made peaceful and beautiful.
A. Naryshkin- Leonid, how are you better than the same propagandists who, for example, appear on TV?
L.Volkov- We're not on time.
A. Naryshkin- But Golubev says correctly: you immediately apply labels. Because I myself read your messages on Twitter: “I believe that Vorobyov is a bandit, and Nikiforov is a thief.” I immediately imagine criminal offenses, and you talk about some... “political responsibility for such and such, were indirectly involved in such and such, stole a dissertation” - you are misleading your readers, your audience, your voters .
L.Volkov- No, that's not true. I will repeat that I am ready to answer for my words. And in every word I put the direct meaning that it has. Let’s say, buying a dissertation is quite a criminal offense, quite a fraud. Technically, a person receiving payments for an academic degree is illegal.
A.Solomin- A bandit is responsible for this and that - this is a little different. What I mean is that you use the same propaganda techniques, which, by the way, are quite clumsy.
A. Naryshkin- You don’t bother yourself with evidence.
L.Volkov- Well, that's not true at all! We are trying to be very evidence-based. Naturally, the 140-character Twitter message format does not provide evidence, but every investigation by the Anti-Corruption Foundation, every investigation by the Internet Defense Society, as you well know, in more detail evidenced, sourced, and always based on facts and the truth. This is a very important difference between us and them.
A. Golubev- Leonid, you are ready to answer for calls to hang swindlers and thieves, as you say: “I am ready to answer for every word I say.”
L.Volkov- You are quoting my Twitter about the souvenir calendar of the Anti-Corruption Foundation. The calendar depicts swindlers and thieves; the calendar should be hung on the wall.
A. Golubev- Of course, this is a play on words!
L.Volkov- This is a play on words. Twitter is generally very good for puns.
A.Solomin- That is, it may look funny, but it definitely reads as a rather extremist thing.
A.Solomin- NRZB. I just want to understand why you use methods that are generally not ethical enough.
L.Volkov- We do not use methods that are not ethical enough. I believe all our methods are ethical, I believe that we do everything right. Of course, we often make mistakes, but we try to do everything right.
L. Volkov: Of course, we often make mistakes, but we try to do everything right.
A.Solomin- We’ll talk about your mistakes and successes later. Leonid Volkov, politician, member of the Progress Party. We'll continue in five minutes.
A.Solomin― The A-Team program continues on Ekho Moskvy. Hello! 20-35 - Moscow time, and in the studio - Solomin, Naryshkin, Golubev and Osin - these are four Alexeys.
A. Osin -- Let's remove one question now. Name our guest: Leonid Volkov.
A.Solomin- Our guest is a politician, a member of the Progress Party, a member of the central council of the Progress Party, Leonid Volkov.
A. Osin- Let’s remove one question. Public Opinion Foundation: from 2001 to 14, the number of those in favor of the death penalty decreased from 80 to 63 percent. Is it acceptable or unacceptable to sentence criminals to death penalty. So you were wrong, sorry.
L.Volkov- These are FOM numbers, I have others.
A. Osin- No, the communists, who are an interested party in this regard, have 76.
A.Solomin- I pinched it. So, Alexey Naryshkin.
A. Naryshkin- We remembered about Ukraine and the Maidan. Now, if Maidan happens in Russia, what role will Leonid Volkov play in these events? Where do you see yourself?
L.Volkov- Maidan in that so-called Ukrainian form will not happen in Russia. Still, Ukrainian society was split in a completely different way. There, I apologize, half of the Verkhovna Rada was there on the Maidan. We are now far from this situation.
A. Naryshkin― The NRZB society itself.
L.Volkov- The objective political situation is different, and therefore there are no prerequisites.
A. Naryshkin- It has been recorded: there will be no Maidan in Russia.
L.Volkov- The Kremlin is afraid of the Maidan and is at war with some ghost of the Maidan. In Russia, I really hope that some significant political changes will take place relatively soon - on the horizon of 5, 7, 3, 10 years, because, of course, a rather dull political system cannot remain mothballed for 20 years. I don’t think they will take place in the form that you mean when using the term “Maidan”. I think they will take place in some other form.
L. Volkov: The Kremlin is afraid of the Maidan and is at war with some ghost of the Maidan
A. Osin- In my opinion, you contradict yourself. What is Maidan, what is the “Rose Revolution”, what is the “Orange Revolution”? This one is non-violent, as they say... Well, Maidan is an extreme case. Are these basically the color revolutions you'd like to see, or not?
L.Volkov- We don’t want to see “color revolutions”, we want to see a change of power. We want to see a transition to a competitive political system with fair elections, an independent court, and so on. It’s difficult for me to say now what this transition will be like, or at least what it could be like. I live calmly and do what I do without this picture in my head that D-Day, 11/5/17 or something else will come - and that means...
A. Naryshkin- Hello Maltsev, right?
L.Volkov- ...some kind of radical transition will happen. I don't visualize this to myself.
A. Osin- There are three ways...
L.Volkov- No, there are no three ways.
A. Osin- How?
L.Volkov- So. Because everything happens very differently. And all unhappy countries are unhappy in different ways, unfortunately. And this is a useless fantasy. I just prefer not to waste time visualizing some picture that, for example, 5 million people will go out into the street and build a tent camp there or something else. When the time is right, change will happen. It is difficult for us to predict exactly what they will be. But we are very clear what needs to be done to bring them closer.
A. Osin- So you are engaged in fantasies...
L.Volkov- No, on the contrary, I don’t indulge in fantasies...
L. Volkov: We don’t want to see “color revolutions”, we want to see a change of power
A. Osin- There is a revolution, there are elections, and there is an independent revolution - three. No more. Name yours, please.
L.Volkov- I don’t know. The Moncloa Pact was in Spain. Is this a revolution, a violent revolution or an election? Not one, not the other and not the third. There is no need to try to reduce... cram in the history of the NRZB or try to somehow classify all possible revolutions or transitions of power based on existing experience. Reality is much richer, and there is everything to surprise us.
A.Solomin- Let's turn around. I only read one lightning bolt: “Putin and Erdogan held telephone conversations and discussed the situation in Aleppo.” I think the details will be in the news soon.
A. Golubev- Leonid Mikhailovich, why do you need all this? Here you are, a candidate of physical and mathematical sciences. You are an IT specialist, winner of world programming championships. Why do you need politics, why?
L.Volkov- Because I think what I do is right, because I believe that in this way I bring the maximum benefit that I can.
A. Golubev- But you could become second, maybe even better than some Kaspersky, who is the most famous in this area...
A. Naryshkin- Jobs.
A.Solomin- You were the deputy general director of a large company, as far as I know?
L.Volkov- Yes it's true. Alexey, this is a good question. This is how I answer myself. That is, firstly, you want to do the right thing. Now I come to work every day and am happy. I love what I do. It is very important to be in harmony with yourself. I believe that I am doing the right thing, that our team is doing the right thing, we are going in the right direction. This is the first and simple answer.
But there is a more complex answer. He is such a. I have political experience. I still won elections, was independently elected in a single-member district, led political campaigns, I understand something about politics. I have a third experience: I led a large company, released a significant number of successful projects, and so on. However, I am well aware that around us there are a lot of better politicians than me and a lot of excellent people better than me. But the combination of quality is quite rare. It’s not very often that you come across an IT politician or an IT politician.
L. Volkov: I have political experience. I still won the elections, was independently elected in a single-mandate constituency
A.Solomin- A sign of its time.
L.Volkov- In this biathlon, in general, I can bring something special, I can make my contribution. I try to find for myself and take on projects in which this combination of my competencies can be important and successful. The elections to the Opposition Coordination Council are a perfect example.
A. Golubev- It is associated with some kind of circus, failure.
L.Volkov- The Coordination Project itself was not a super-successful project, but the elections were a super-successful project, which I am always proud of, which I indicate in all my biographies and resumes and am terribly glad that I was involved in it.
A. Naryshkin- Is the process more important than the result?
L.Volkov- I was responsible for the process, and the process was very good. The result - you can argue why it worked, why it didn’t work, what worked, what didn’t work, but the elections themselves... At that time, before the elections to the Coordination Council, the largest vote in the history of mankind was the 2011 elections to the Estonian parliament, in which electronic Approximately 130 thousand voters took part in the voting. And they were extremely proud that they did it on a budget of 30 million euros.
A.Solomin- You implemented this project when Touch ID didn’t even exist, that is, it’s not very clear how...
L.Volkov- And we made electronic elections. In which there were 170 thousand voters, more than the Estonians had for a budget of 3.5 million rubles, that is, like 60 times less. That is, this is something to be proud of. Moreover, in an unfriendly environment, during government hacker attacks, and so on. The elections took place, the Coordination Council was elected. Then there were some problems. But I'm certainly very proud of this project. I gave it as an example of projects that I am trying to choose for myself, where it seems to me that a purely politician or a purely IT specialist could not cope.
Another such example, more modern, is the Internet Defense Society. I'm trying to put my political and IT experience into the right things.
A.Solomin- If you didn’t do this, but worked as a programmer and followed this path, would you get more money? Did you end up losing money?
L.Volkov- Yes, sure. I haven't worked as a programmer for a very long time. The last time, unfortunately, I wrote the lines of the year with my hands was probably in 2003. After all, I was an IT project manager, I was a manager of a large company.
A.Solomin- Politicians have a lot of actions, emotions, in general, their lives are occupied by the election period. Immediately after the elections, they are forced to look for something to do to provide for themselves and their families. Are you okay with this?
L.Volkov― I make my living as an IT consultant. What I do for a living is that I lead a number of IT projects and consult with a number of large companies where my experience is in demand.
A.Solomin- That is, NRZB work not related to politics...
L.Volkov- In politics in Russia you can either make money or be an honest man, Unfortunately.
A. Golubev- Navalny came here. “I,” he says, “are a lawyer, I receive money from one client, I advise.” Volkov comes and says: “Well, I do consulting there, IT consulting.” Everyone is so miserable.
L.Volkov- I’m not unhappy, I’m quite pleased with myself. Since I have, in general, a name and reputation, I choose the projects that I will take on and work on, I choose those that are interesting to me from the proposals that are available. And I'm happy with the projects that I do. I don't do things purely for the money.
L. Volkov: I’m not unhappy, I’m quite pleased with myself. Because I have, well, a name and a reputation
A.Solomin- I propose to play our almost traditional game: “Who would you hug sooner?” I will name 5 pairs of surnames. Please, please choose someone from this pair. Fidel Castro or Donald Trump?
L.Volkov- Consider that Castro died, and somehow... Donald Trump therefore.
A.Solomin- No, what kind of choice is this - Fidel Castro died?
L.Volkov- It would be more interesting for me. I will answer these questions in the sense of who would be more interesting for me to communicate with. With Donald Trump, of course.
A.Solomin― Alexander Voloshin or Vyacheslav Volodin?
L.Volkov- Rather, with Voloshin, again because I am interested in many historical issues of that time.
A.Solomin― Boris Yeltsin or Mikhail Gorbachev?
L.Volkov- Of course, Boris Yeltsin.
A.Solomin- And they didn’t explain anything. OK.
L.Volkov- Boris Yeltsin is more interesting to me. He is a very controversial character, but I have something to ask.
A.Solomin― Vladimir Lenin or Nicholas II?
L.Volkov- Probably Vladimir Lenin. Because I like him better as a politician. Because, it seems to me that he is more multifaceted and interesting, he thought more and killed fewer crows.
A.Solomin- Crow?
L.Volkov- Crow.
A.Solomin- He killed people...
A. Golubev- He killed a lot of people.
L.Volkov- I answer this question in the spirit of who would be more interesting for me to communicate with. It seems to me that Lenin, who killed more people than Nicholas II... He is more multifaceted, deeper and more complex...
A. Osin- You interpreted this task for yourself. Still, hugs... Just hugs, because you can’t shake every person’s hand. Then talking over a glass of vodka is another matter. A hug is an expression of some...
L.Volkov- Still, it’s difficult to take it so literally, because again, most of the people we were talking about just now, fortunately or unfortunately...
A.Solomin- You are interested in Vladimir Lenin. Okay, let's not waste time on this. Maxim Kats or Alexander Postupinsky from Life News?
L.Volkov- Neither one nor the other is interesting to me. But still, probably Alexander Postupinsky, because I know Maxim Kats much better, and it’s interesting to ask Alexander Postupinsky about what was behind this statement of his and everything that followed...
A. Naryshkin- Why, Leonid, not engage in independent political activities, regardless of Navalny? After all, Navalny is, in a sense, already a defective product. With his two convictions, he...
A.Solomin- Used, you mean?
A. Naryshkin- Used. He is discredited. You will not convince the whole of Russia that Navalny is honest and has never stolen anything from anyone. You seem to be with your microphone, for example, you are not so bogged down in all this.
L.Volkov- I have already explained my approach. I try to choose those proposals for myself where I can, as it seems to me, bring the maximum benefit, taking into account my experience. And I believe that in a team with Navalny I have much more prospects. And this team has much more prospects than a solo team. At the same time, I repeat, I have a solo project - “Society for the Protection of the Internet”, my project, which I designed and came up with to do something like this, to somehow apply my experience. Of course, I don't agree with your characterization. Navalny is honest, Navalny is a brilliant politician, and he, of course, has a great future. Otherwise I wouldn't be doing what I do.
L. Volkov: I have a solo project - “Society for the Protection of the Internet”, a project that I designed and came up with
A.Solomin- Does he listen to your opinion on issues not related to the organization, with IT and other things that you do?
L.Volkov- Yes, sure.
A.Solomin- For example, in terms of personnel, in terms of what kind of people are involved in this work.
L.Volkov- Our decision-making process is complex. FBK is a small organization, but not that small. And the “Party of Progress” is also a rather complex organization. In one circle or another – often very broad, often narrow – we consult on various issues. Somewhere, Alexey has the last word on many issues. Somewhere we argue and convince each other. Recently, Alexey, Vladimir Ashurkov and I published our program theses. This was our collective work between the three of us. And until we reached a three-way consensus on each point, we did not publish it.
A.Solomin- Do you participate in developing a position on which people should work, participate in your party, in your political affairs? Who to block with, who to ally with, who not to ally with – your opinion?
L.Volkov- Alexey, these are slightly different questions. My opinion is significant on issues of this kind. I try to make a positive contribution, if only because I have experience leading a fairly large team. For example, if we talk about the Anti-Corruption Fund, the director of the fund still has the main say. We have a wonderful Roman Rubanov who solves these issues. Politically speaking, with whom we are blocking and with whom we are not, of course, Alexey Navalny, as our political leader, ultimately decides such issues.
A.Solomin- I ask, are you participating, is your opinion significant?
L.Volkov- Yes, I participate. Weighty? Well, it's probably not for me to judge. I think yes.
A. Golubev- Let's talk about the soul. I've been studying your Twitter. And I got the impression that you are...
L.Volkov- Studying the soul on Twitter is a dangerous activity.
A. Osin- I read the pager, thought a lot...
A. Golubev- ... anti-clerical comrade. You are at rallies against the construction of a temple in Yekaterinburg, here you are against Orthodoxy lessons in schools. How do you approach religion, the place of the church in general, in society, in Russia.
L.Volkov- Quite a personal question. Although, why not...
A. Golubev- I’m not asking you how often you confess and receive communion.
L.Volkov- I am for a secular state. The Church, as stated in the Constitution, must be separated from the state. I believe that now the interference of the church in the affairs of the state and, so to speak, the interference between the Russian Orthodox Church and the state has reached completely indecent, incorrect, unnecessary and harmful proportions.
L. Volkov: I am for a secular state. The Church, as written in the Constitution, must be separated from the state
A. Golubev- How is this expressed?
L.Volkov- This was my first independent action, if you will, as a political leader or political organizer - here is a large rally in Yekaterinburg on Labor Square. And he was not anti-clerical. We, indeed, held a rally so that on a historical site, in a park in the center of the city, a rather ugly, in my personal opinion, remake - St. Catherine's Cathedral - would not be built. And we achieved this. It’s still not there, and the square on Truda Square is green and beautiful and continues to delight the townspeople. This cathedral is not there. But this was never an anti-clerical rally. It was a local government meeting. We then protested against the fact that the governor and the bishop wanted to stick this thing there without consulting the townspeople, although this was an issue related to local government.
A. Golubev- How do the state and church interfere in your life?
L.Volkov- I am for both the state and the church to interfere less in our lives.
A. Naryshkin- How do they interfere in your life?
L.Volkov- Why did I give this example? Because it was very important to protect this local community, local government, zemstvo, if you like. People have to decide what they want to have here: a dog run or a parking lot.
A. Golubev- Are you an Orthodox person, are you baptized?
L.Volkov- No, I am not Orthodox and not baptized.
A. Golubev-You don’t believe in God?
L.Volkov- I am Jewish by nationality.
A. Golubev- But do you believe in God? What religion do you belong to?
L.Volkov- I am a materialist by education. I believe in the Big Bang. I believe in the moral law. I believe that it is very important to have moral guidelines. I am close to the values of the NRZB
A. Golubev- Is there a God?
L.Volkov- This is a very simple question that is difficult to answer. Grandfathers on the cloud - no. Is there a universal moral law, a global correct concept of what is good and what is bad? There is, I'm sure he is.
A.Solomin- Since you said that your opinion is weighty, let’s construct a situation that President Navalny is forced to make certain decisions. And, naturally, he asks your opinion and even listens. What advice will you give him to solve the problem related to Crimea?
L.Volkov- On Crimea, our common position is set out in great detail.
A.Solomin- Yours, Leonida Volkova.
L.Volkov- I already said about this that Ashurkov and Navalny and I have not yet reached a complete consensus, we have not published... We worked on that program for three months, all summer, and our common position was formulated there. There is an international problem that was created by criminal, illegal actions Russian authorities, and now this problem does not have a simple solution, including the set of legal instruments that we have now cannot be used to solve it. To solve international problems of this level, it will be necessary to create from scratch by searching for a broad compromise in the international community a new set of legal instruments, approximately like Camp David or like Dayton, how the issue of Bosnia and Herzegovina was resolved, when a completely unique new structure was built.
A.Solomin- So, to put it simply, we can, in general, say that “Crimea is not a sandwich”, has it not changed?
L.Volkov- If I formulate it so aphoristically, then yes, this position has not changed. Yes, not a sandwich.
A. Naryshkin- What needs to happen for you and Ashurkov to go to the UK and receive political asylum there - what needs to happen here?
L.Volkov- Listen, thank you. This is a great question. I always thought the answer to this question was to file a criminal case. I somehow internally decided that I was not ready to go to prison, and if there was a criminal case, then I would probably just pack up and leave. And I always had this... And then he was aroused - and I didn’t leave. I realized that I am willing to take these risks and stay here. Because I think it's more important to do what I do. Life has shown that I myself am wrong. Therefore, I don’t have an answer to your question. Of course, I don’t blame Ashurkov. He made his personal choice in the interests of himself and his family. This is an absolutely normal right choice, in my opinion.
A.Solomin- NRZB.
L.Volkov- You can’t say that, because everyone has their own personal circumstances and everyone is in their own place. Based on what I know about myself - there, before the hunger strike in Novosibirsk, I think that the last thing I was capable of in my life was a hunger strike, it was an absolutely spontaneous, emotional decision. Then, after fasting for 13 days, I thought: wow! I learned something new about myself. It's about the same with a criminal case.
A. Golubev- You had no idea that you were so cool.
A. Naryshkin- About moving to the UK. But criminal prosecution is not the worst thing that can await here in Russia. What if there are direct threats of murder? We know that there are political murders in Russia.
L.Volkov- I will decide according to the situation.
A. Naryshkin- Well, how will you decide?
L.Volkov- I had situations when I was threatened back in Yekaterinburg due to my political activities. But I didn't leave.
A. Naryshkin- When will you realize that it’s time to leave? We won't give any hints now...
L.Volkov- When I check with my inner moral law and it tells me that it’s time to leave.
A. Naryshkin- Who else will you meet with besides the moral law? Whose opinion will be authoritative for you? If Navalny says: “Lenya, leave!”
L.Volkov- No, he will never say that.
A. Naryshkin- Why?
L.Volkov- As far as I know this man, he will never say that. We are discussing a very hypothetical situation, so here we always have to surround it with a bunch of if onlys, but first of all I will consult with myself, with my wife, with my family, with my parents. And, probably, I will also consult with Alexey.
A. Naryshkin- If your photo appears in Kadyrov’s sights on Instagram, is this a reason to pack your things?
L.Volkov- I don’t know, I will decide at that moment based on that situation. We have already gone through this, discussed it: I don’t really like it, it doesn’t really seem right, it seems like a waste of time to think through such hypothetical situations in the future. I am used to acting according to the situation, based on a general understanding of this very situation.
A. Naryshkin- Excuse me, please, when the power changes, we understood with Putin that there will be some guarantees for him. What will you do with Kadrov?
L.Volkov- This is one of the most difficult problems that the future government will inherit: the situation with Crimea, the situation with Kadyrov, the economy. In fact, to be honest, I think that Kadyrov will turn out to be a negotiable person, because he is not the kind of person who wants to run in the mountains with a machine gun again.
A.Solomin- So you are ready to buy it?
L.Volkov- I think that he will not be ready to escalate.
A. Naryshkin- You will buy Kadyrov.
L.Volkov- This will be a very difficult problem. But I hope that transit will be possible there...
A.Solomin- Are you ready to spend money for peace of mind?
L.Volkov- Yes. But limited time, and not on what they are being spent on now.
A. Naryshkin- That is, you will do as Putin does now.
L.Volkov- No. Putin is now buying the Chechen elite, which surrounds Kadyrov and his family, which further keeps the population in terror. And if money is invested over a significant period of time in creating jobs, in creating industries, so that the republic ceases to be subsidized and dependent on the budget, then in the long run something may work out. Everything Putin is doing now is an absolutely meaningless road to nowhere.
A. Osin- And in the short term, they will run through the mountains.
L.Volkov- I do not think so.
A.Solomin― Leonid Volkov, politician, member of the central council of the Progress Party in the A-Team program. Thank you very much. Alexey Osin, Alexey Golubev, Alexey Solomin, Alexey Naryshkin conducted this broadcast. Svetlana Rostovtseva – sound engineer. Bye! Thank you!
As many readers of my LiveJournal could not help but notice, Lately I was overcome by bedbugs and moths - in the form of a crowd of anonymous trolls. As a protective measure, it was even necessary to introduce IP recording of anonymous comments, which, however, only allowed us to establish that the trolls - all as one - are sitting behind different paid European anonymizers, fortunately this is now inexpensive. Therefore, I had to think further about protection. The results of my reflections are presented in the following very long text:
The general principle of troll activity is very primitive: they are crazy about different options repeat this or that question, while mentioning my first and last name as often as possible - apparently, in order to spam the search results search engines. (Instead of: “How much money are you building a house with?” they write “Tell me, Leonid Volkov, what money are you using to build a house, where does Leonid Volkov get that kind of money?”). As befits trolls, they are not interested in answers to questions (which is why there is no point in answering their questions) - and repeat their questions again, working out several typical “plots” that are “embedded” in them. To make their questions sound impressive and provocative, they spend a lot of time monitoring my Internet activity, reading not only the blog, but also all the comments to it, as well as all the posts on Twitter. In addition, they use several primitive techniques aimed at “increasing the significance” of their remarks - for example, one of them constantly pretends that he often “rubbed” around me, and the other allegedly possesses a certain insider information from "Contour". Checking with the simplest questions reveals that this is not true - but from the outside it is not visible! Other “technologies” are also actively used - for example, two trolls conduct a dialogue, and one of them at first seems to speak “in my defense,” but then begins to “doubt” under the pressure of the “arguments” of the other, and admits “yes... That's how it turned out..." They also try to compare information from different sources in order to identify “contradictions” - however, due to the absence of such, they constantly make mistakes, although they spend considerable effort on analysis. (For example, once, while at the birthday party of the Crypto-Pro company, I wrote on Twitter that it is rare to see so many FSB officers in one place - a couple of weeks later in some thread a troll wrote that that “And in general, Volkov is probably an informer-provocateur - since he communicates so actively with the FSB officers.” Anyone who knows the context understands that at the birthday party of the Crypto-Pro company, a leading developer of information security tools, the whole world gathered domestic information security industry - come from special communications units; they have always been a separate structure - FAPSI, but after the reorganization of FAPSI in 2003, for some reason they were annexed to the FSB, although the most intelligent signalmen-cypher operators have nothing to do with counterintelligence and state security , and they themselves are often quite offended if they are called security officers, even as a joke). But you won’t write such a lengthy explanation for every reason! But a person from the outside will not always understand...
Which, in fact, is another goal of their activities. In addition to polluting search engines with the phrases “Leonid Volkov” and the like, they are also trying to create the impression “but there’s still some sediment left” among the readers of my magazine - especially new readers who come from afar, do not know me personally, and are limited in their capabilities information verification. There is a third goal - to throw me off balance, force me to waste time on them, force me to say some harsh things in answers to their “questions”, attacks and insults, which can then be repackaged into new questions, and continue to provoke me.
I must admit with regret that they work well and, on the whole, achieve their goals. The search results are pretty crap. Many unfamiliar people ask me questions based on certain claims of trolls, and, at a minimum, these people and I have to spend time on correspondence, and, at maximum, “a sediment remains.” Finally, I am indeed sometimes forced to spend time answering at least some of the more “plausible” of their questions.
The effectiveness of their actions is related to the overall effectiveness of trolling as a technology. Asking a question takes less time than answering it. Being anonymous is easier than talking about yourself. It is easy to force a person to make excuses, but to prove that you are not a camel is almost impossible. That's trolling: cling to words, write nonsense, and force them to constantly prove that you are not a camel. “Volkov lives on American grants” - and here we come! There is no way to refute such a statement (it is an unfalsifiable theory), and the Internet is already crap. And if you erase it, the animal writes in the next post: “Well, he definitely lives on grants, otherwise he wouldn’t have erased it!”
Humanity has not invented an effective remedy against trolling. (This is why trolls cause such hatred, and this is why they are not easy to handle). I am often asked to disable anonymous comments - but I continue to be a categorically opposed to this measure. Firstly, I have already promised not to do this, since among the anonymous commentators there are a number of smart people who cannot or do not want to create an account on LiveJournal for a number of reasons. Secondly, because this is not a real protective measure - well, trolls will start empty magazines in batches.
After all, this is their job. Paid work. Just as the scum provocateurs from the “Young Guard” and “Nashi” go about disrupting opposition events, how they pollute the entire Internet with empty magazines used for cheating and throwing feces in the comments - so my personal troll reserve is also a well-funded event. It wasn't always like this - it's become like this in the last few months. (Apparently, I do something very well). They now generate 10-15 posts a day, and sift through a volume of information that requires at least 2-3 hours a day to read and comprehend. And this is very disgusting: it’s disgusting that very little money is needed (about 10 thousand a month would be enough for a Young Guard youth) for all this stream of crap, and it’s disgusting that the conditions are obviously unequal: you value every minute and second, but you are forced to spend these priceless quanta of their time for a stupid animal, whose time is worth a penny - but whose time is beyond the roof.
The active breeding of paid trolls is one of those things for which I especially want to someday luster on the nearest chandelier Mr. Surkov and the entire propaganda vertical of power downstream of the crap from him, right down to our local chicks.
So what to do with them? I thought for quite a long time, actually, and came up with two things. (If they don’t work, I’ll come up with something else, of course...).
First, I will now answer all their questions. Yes, I know you can't feed the trolls, but that won't be a dialogue. I will answer these questions only once, and in future I will not enter into discussions with them. I will boldly rubbish all their outpourings, knowing that under no circumstances will anyone be able to show me that I am avoiding answering. And you, friends, I will ask you to save the link to this post, and also to give it in response to trolling that will appear here or in other places: this way, in particular, it will be possible to at least partially solve the problem of the psychological impact of supposedly “informed” trolls on not very knowledgeable people who come from outside. Well, we’ll also solve the first and third problems - erasing their nonsense will allow you not to waste time on answers, and, at the same time, not spoil the information background in the search.
Secondly, I will state my guesses as to who is behind these trolls. I myself am more than 99% confident in these guesses, and I will give serious arguments in favor of my arguments - well, you will be able to assess their reliability, and, perhaps, understanding who is behind the trolling will also make it easier to combat it.
So, my first response to the trolls is to answer their “questions”. (It doesn’t work without quotes, because real questions presuppose a desire to hear the answer, but that’s not the case here). As far as I was able to systematize, all troll attacks are generally divided into five groups - so I will do the same. The funniest thing, perhaps, is that it is very easy for me to answer the “questions” of each of the groups, and they, puffing themselves up, are clearly very pleased with themselves each time and think that they are asking very difficult questions. In literally a couple of places I had to make a little effort on myself - where the trolls’ “questions” are simply stupidly boorish, but, in fact, this is useful for yourself: to step over internal barriers, and explain to yourself that a public person has taboo topics there shouldn't be.
1. Volkov and his financial situation.
A huge piece of trolling is devoted to the topic “where does Volkov get his money.” It's very funny, actually - because here the trolls' remarks contradict each other. For example, not long ago my iPhone broke (it just died, that’s all), and I wrote on Twitter that I felt absolutely terrible without a phone, and there was absolutely no device in the house that I could insert a SIM card into. And he immediately went, in fact, bought himself another iPhone - but in the hour spent on this procedure, he received a dozen and a half comments on the topic “someone give Volkov money for a phone, otherwise he, poor thing, doesn’t have one.” At the same time, another troll in another thread made a fuss about “where does he get the money to constantly fly to Moscow and back?” We couldn’t agree among ourselves, in short...
As a result, now the consolidated version of the trolls looks like this: “Volkov, of course, has no money, but no one knows where it comes from - these are, of course, American grants.” (They systematically misspell the last letter of the word “grant”).
So, about money. As a top manager at SKB Kontur, deputy general director and chairman of the board of directors committee for strategic development, I have recently earned, in general, about 300 thousand rubles a month. This amount varied a little, since there was a variable part in it that depended on the financial results of the company, but in general - this is the amount. Naturally, all this was absolutely white money, all taxes were paid on it - perhaps this is why I have long been very interested in what these taxes are spent on. By Russian standards, this is a very low salary for a manager at my level - vice presidents in companies with 1000+ employees and a turnover of 2+ billion rubles usually earn significantly more, but Kontur has always been, and remains, fortunately, not a company like everyone else. (I once estimated that the average income of the 10% of the highest paid employees in Kontur exceeds the average income of the 10% of the lowest paid employees by about 6-7 times - just like in some Scandinavia). My level of income allowed me, for example, to do something as stupid as spending my money on an election campaign in the winter of 2009. But, by the way, Kontur took on a significant part of the expenses then, because I was able to infect my colleagues with the idea that I would bring benefits to the city as a deputy.
What is even more important is that I was a shareholder of Kontur, and owned a very significant stake. (I don’t intend to announce the size of my share, but it can easily be found, for example, through SPARK). When parting with the company, I sold my shares (this is a fundamental position: in one of my recent posts I wrote that ideally an employee of an IT company should only be a shareholder when he works for this company). The size of the transaction, according to the terms of the agreement, is not subject to disclosure, but anyone can estimate on their fingers the order of magnitude of how much it costs, for example, 1% of shares (my share was significantly larger) of a company with a turnover of 2 billion, which has no debt load, has a bunch of real estate owned and very profitable (information about profits is, alas, closed in Kontur - by the way, one of the things about which I always sharply disagreed with other shareholders).
I assure you, dear trolls, I could not work for the rest of my days and not deny myself anything. Another thing is that this is terribly uninteresting, but I like it to be interesting. That's why "Prozhektor" was created, that's why I actively and riskily invest in startups and engage in new interesting projects. By the way, I just looked through the Internet bank - in the first half of November, “Prozhektor” earned exactly 128,500 rubles from consulting, which, of course, is still inferior to the “Kontour” level of my income, but very, very cool for a very young and start-up company.
And finally, to the question of American grants. I finance all my social and political activities myself, from my own pocket. I fully paid for all the expenses associated with holding the spring rally on Truda Square (but the September rally for the city manager has already been raised with private donations, among which, incidentally, there is also my money), I have been financing the activities of the regional department of "Solidarity" (so far, for a number of reasons, I have not become disillusioned with this activity), all of our round tables and other events are held at my expense. I sincerely believe that these events are not in vain, that in one way or another they will change our city for the better and will benefit it, that’s why I spend my money on them: it seems very natural to me. Investments in the environment, in the ecosystem, are always justified!
The only public activity in connection with which the issue of American grants could be raised is the work of the GOLOS association, which, as is known (and is not hidden), receives money from a number of Russian and international sponsors, including from NDI (national democratic institution). It is generally correct that a non-profit organization lives on the money of sponsors, and it is not the pride of Russia, but the shame of Russia that there are not enough sponsors within the country to ensure the normal functioning of an organization engaged in the very important and correct business of electoral monitoring. Yes, alas, GOLOS has to resort to foreign funding: it would gladly not do this, just as it did not do this until 2003, when Mr. Putin clearly explained to all Russian business what happens for financing social and political activities. Somewhere on the Internet there was even a complete register of NDI grant recipients - it included a number of structures close to " United Russia"and even structural divisions of United Russia (they are very good at imitating "civil society institutions" and fitting into these grant programs), there was also a VOICE with a grant amount, it seems, of 50 thousand dollars for 2010. (Here one troll went so far as to say that my country house is being built with American grants: I can assure you that even if the entire annual budget of GOLOS were spent on this house, it would not be enough.) In short, the salary of the regional coordinator of the GOLOS association is 8,000 rubles per month, among which, for sure, there are Scary-and-Terrible-Money-State Department a-US Naturally, I do not take this salary for myself - it is entirely spent on ensuring that our round tables have coffee breaks and good handouts materials; I hope that the State Department is not offended by me for this.
2. Volkov and his nationality (and attitude towards religion).
Perhaps the funniest trolling is, in the sense that on this topic trolls most clearly lay claim to an “unexpected revelation,” which turns out to be an open secret in its purest form. “Who is Volkov by nationality, what is his grandmother’s name?” - although I wrote about this a hundred times, and never thought of hiding it. (What can you hide when everything is written on your face!). I consider myself a Jew, and I am one according to the accepted formal canons (through my mother), although according to the same formal canons I could probably pass for Russian (my paternal grandfather, Vladimir Fedorovich Volkov, was from northern Kazakhstan, from a family school teachers) - which, by the way, once again proves how stupid it is in modern Russia, in our entire melting pot of nations, to talk about nationality. Whatever nationalist you dig for, it will turn out to be either a Jew, or a Tatar, or a Buryat, or even a Karaite; and the more he bows to the ground and shouts about “Russia for Russians,” the funnier and more complex his pedigree will turn out to be. But still, for those who like accurate calculations: three-quarters Jewish, one-quarter Russian. I think it’s an excellent combination, I would never trade it for anything. As Mikhail Moiseevich Botvinnik said about this, “I am Jewish by blood, Russian by culture, Soviet by upbringing.” When there were forks in my life’s path, at least remotely, looming: maybe I should leave? think about continuing to live, work, and develop outside of Russia? - I always answered this question unequivocally in the negative, because I could not imagine myself without the Russian language, my friends, cultural layer, social circle, connotations and meanings. I always understood that I would never be able to read books in English, German or, say, Hebrew (although I never thought about Israel, only about Europe), understand jokes and make jokes, write, communicate with people - and this for me is an integrally important, and perhaps even the most important part of existence. Vladimir Nabokov and Joseph Brodsky are two great bearers of Russian culture, who were able to take place again and on English language, but I can’t measure myself by them when there are millions of light years from me to the little toes on their feet! Therefore - only Russia. And that’s why I really want to make life in Russia better.
And by the way, as a child I had to (literally a couple of times) encounter manifestations of everyday anti-Semitism, but now it does not exist in our society; at least I don’t see it at all (minus the famous speech of Dyusha Kabanov - well, that’s the only exception that confirms the rule). Therefore, those who are trying to promote this topic are not only scum, but also idiots: they do not touch any strings in the souls of people (only, perhaps, in the souls of those who are already deeply sick with anti-Semitism - this shameful disease that is not talked about It’s customary to talk in polite society about something like enuresis), but they show themselves in all their glory.
Well, as for education, the word “Soviet” should be removed from Botvinnik’s triad, replacing it with the word “European” (you can even “cosmopolitan”) - for which thanks a lot to my wonderful parents. I have said many times that I am for free and simple relationships between people, for trust, honesty and freedom of thought. I want to live in a European country, and since I want to live in Russia, I want Russia to be a European country. That’s why I’m sick of imperial habits, of talk about the “third way,” of all the Asian stuff, the manifestation of which is, for example, nepotism and corruption. Therefore, for example, I am entirely in favor of building a high and strong fence around Chechnya and Dagestan - and this will not be the “collapse of Russia” at all, but its strengthening, because Chechnya and Dagestan are no longer Russia de facto, and I do not feel any pleasure from the fact that, supposedly on the territory of my country, women are forced to wear a burqa, and men kill each other according to the laws of blood feud: let them do this in some other place, not in Russia. As was recently correctly noted, Udmurtia is Russia, and Kamchatka is Russia, and Chechnya is not Russia, according to one very simple criterion: the governor of Chukotka and the president of Udmurtia do not and cannot have even nightmare battalions "West" and "East" personal guard, and the President of Chechnya has them and not only them.
But I digress.
Just as stupid are the trolls who try to incite someone against me on a national basis, just as stupid are the trolls who insert epithets like “templar fighter” or “atheist” or something else like that through a word. It seems to them (in their coordinate system) that they are hurting me, but in reality they are working, of course, on my rating. Because the question of attitude towards religion is one of those few issues on which my position coincides with the position of the absolute majority of my fellow citizens. After all, like the absolute majority of the inhabitants of Russia, I am a materialist (and this is true of at least 80% of Russians, regardless of whether they wear a cross or not), I adhere exclusively to a scientific and rational worldview (roughly speaking, Darwin is quite enough for me and Einstein to explain the picture of the world in which I live, and I am sure that after death I will be eaten by worms, and there will be nothing - neither heaven nor hell), and I do not at all hold anti-religious views, but I am very strictly anti-clerical.
This probably needs further clarification.
“Anti-religiosity” is when a person considers everyone who professes one religion or another to be idiots, strives to ensure that there are as few religious people as possible, etc. “Anti-religiosity” is militant atheism, in short.
“Anticlericalism” is when a person has a good or calm attitude towards religion, but sincerely considers faith a personal, intimate matter of every person, and opposes any forced instillation of faith, church intervention in state affairs, religious lessons in schools, illegal construction of churches ( even churches, even synagogues), especially for budget money. In short - against the clerics. Both atheists and believers can be anticlerical - to the same extent. And they, again, are the majority in our country (this can be seen at least from the same statistics on the choice of "Fundamentals" Orthodox culture"in schools), and this makes me very happy. This does not please only the militant clerics - who are ready to instill their faith in others at any cost, by fire and sword, and who for me are no better or closer than militant atheists.
I am for freedom of conscience: so that everyone can decide for themselves what to believe and how to live. And I hate people who try to force other people to think one way or another (that one should pray only this way and not another - or that one should spit on everyone who goes to church, mosque, synagogue or some kind of stupa).
3. Volkov and his professionalism.
A very active line: “Volkov is a loser, he was kicked out of Kontur, he lost everything...”. Or: “The only good thing is to organize rallies, shout and do nothing...”.
I won’t exaggerate my professionalism - I still have room to grow, of course. But I clearly know my strengths: the ability to select the right and good people, form efficient teams, set goals correctly and achieve results. These are all things that are usually associated with the cliché “managerial”, “leadership” or “organizational” qualities. Over the years at Kontur, I assembled several teams for different projects, and they were almost always very successful; I have an excellent team of deputy assistants, with whom we solve problems of any complexity; I have an amazing team of volunteers at VOICE, and so on. One such case could be an accident, two could be a coincidence, but there are many of them, and this means that, fortunately, I have some kind of talent for making teams out of disparate people. And I value it very much, and I try to develop it in every possible way.
One stupid troll tried to make fun of the words said in one of my recent interviews that “I don’t come up with ideas myself, I take them and implement them” - like, here he is, just a “petty clerk”. Perhaps this most of all reveals the pimply youth of the Young Guard in the troll - this is a lack of understanding that the idea itself means nothing without the ability to assemble a team, carry out a successful project and bring it to life. Coming up with ideas is also very important and great, but everyone should still do what they have a talent for. My talent at Kontur was in demand and highly valued (see point 1), I was involved in the strategic planning of a very large company, and now, as far as I know, the company continues to live mainly within the framework of these strategic plans.
But when these plans were created, a certain feeling of emptiness appeared. I worked at Kontur for almost 12 years, achieved a lot in it, and new interesting tasks appeared less and less often. Plus - accumulated differences in a number of fundamental views with other co-owners of the company. Nobody kicked me out, of course (and it’s simply impossible to kick me out as a shareholder), I left of my own free will. The reason for my departure was not political activity (I repeat, by the way, that Kontur co-financed my election campaign), although the catalyst that accelerated my departure was a personal conflict with another shareholder, Davydov, with whom we fundamentally disagreed regarding the Catherine Cathedral. Like any conflict situation, that outbreak made it possible to highlight the accumulated contradictions (not with Davydov, but with other co-owners, and not about the cathedral, but about the development of the Contour), which in the usual, peaceful life remained covered with the soft plush of everyday life, and came to the conclusion that the time had come to go in different directions. Which was done - with a feeling of mutual satisfaction.
As an illustration, I can say that on my 30th birthday, my colleagues at Kontur - my former subordinates, colleagues from related departments, and friends from partner companies - made up most guests.
I am not always successful in my endeavors, and I make a lot of mistakes - but only those who do nothing make no mistakes. But, of course, I don’t consider myself a failure, and I’m not one - too many visible traces of my work are scattered around, both in my professional activities and in my parliamentary work. (And I write about this regularly. Just recently I wrote about 15 million rubles saved by the city by interfering with the situation with the regulation on municipal information systems, or, for example, about the civilized parking organized in the courtyard at Pioneer 6... But trolls are such trolls. They are paid not for what they read, but for what they write).
4. Volkov and his appearance.
That troll who claims to have “wiped himself next to me” really likes to write all sorts of things about my appearance - all sorts of physiological nasty things, which, as far as I understand, should sound very offensive to me. This troll, however, does not take into account one factor - I have a good understanding of people and very rarely make mistakes: people with whom we would communicate very closely, who would “constantly rub each other around”, and then suddenly run away very violently - simply do not exist . (And I'm very proud of this). In essence, the claims are based on my way of dressing and dandruff. Yes, yes, sorry, we are talking about pieces of dead scalp. As for the manner of dressing, everything is very simple. We still don’t have strict standards in the IT world. appearance, and I really hate non-functional clothes - ties, for example. (A hat is functional, it warms the head and protects from the drizzling rain that is so frequent in our area, but a tie does not carry any functional load. I am still offended and do not understand why hats practically died out about 50 years ago, while ties remain an attribute men's wardrobe. Why?). I don’t really like jackets either, I like sweaters. Trying to troll me with this is like trolling a hedgehog because it has spines. Past the cash register. I simply insist on my right to dress the way I like - besides, this, in general, fits well into generally accepted norms. Yes, they also tried to blame me for wrinkled shirts: this, of course, is a manifestation of lack of time. Recently, I switched to good German wrinkle-free shirts that do not require constant ironing (and cost at least 100-150 euros, and often much more - this is point 1), and this trolling also began to fall through the cracks.
As for dandruff, there is such a problem, and yes, its constant mention offends me. Every person has one or another physical disability, and everyone hates it when they talk about them. (That is why talking about physical disabilities is extremely indecent). Indeed, for many years now I have not been able to overcome profuse dandruff; the most expensive specialized shampoos do not help. My doctor says that the problem is definitely in the metabolism. The latter is directly related to a diseased liver - ALT and AST are approximately 4-5 times higher than the upper limit of normal. And this, in turn (as shown by a long and painful examination) results from abundant fatty infiltration into the liver, that is, simply from excess weight. You need to lose weight and the problems will go away. Since winter I was able to lose about 9 kilograms, and it became noticeably better. I think just as much more - and the trolls will stop rejoicing at this current shortcoming of mine. Figures for you, not dandruff!
5. Volkov as a “puppet” of Tungusov and/or Chernetsky.
This last type of trolling is actively used in combination with the third - like “this loser was used once, he got an idea of himself, and now no one needs him anymore, so he’s puffing up!” But in my classification I singled him out as a separate subspecies, because he, in fact, carries an independent message: “he only pretends to be independent and honest, but in fact he is the same as everyone else, and he also has masters.” .
This trolling is perhaps the most important in the psychological sense of the word - because it the best way characterizes my trolls. Actually, in the previous four types they were reflected as in a mirror: unhappy people who have achieved nothing materially, professional failures, with inferiority complexes regarding their appearance, patients with the shameful diseases of zoological anti-Semitism and Orthodox clericalism, but this point is especially important : my trolls are people who are not independent, who are always pawns in the hands of someone, who work only for money, but never for an idea, who are unfamiliar with the impulses of the soul as a phenomenon. Pathetic, unhappy people...
No, I don't work for anyone. This is obvious at least from the posts with the tag “Corruption”, where it seems that both city and regional authorities get it quite equally. (The city one is still larger, since it is closer, and as a deputy, I know more about it). No, Chernetsky and Tungusov never tried to “buy” me - however, not at all because they are so wonderful, but only because they never had a need for this, because in the Duma they tightly control at least 23-24 votes, and when it is really necessary, then 32 (see amendments to the Charter). Well, if they came to buy, they would receive the same answer as the stupid woman Liliya Alikovna Dolganova.
It is these people (talking about how and how much Volkov was bought) who are now actively running around the city with the thought that “the rally on April 10 was paid for, and now that Chernetsky is gone, nothing can interfere with the construction of the Catherine Cathedral.” These poor in spirit are very deeply mistaken; I wonder what source of funding they will think about next time they see the reaction of the townspeople to Catherine’s new initiative?
In general, my principle (by the way, I also set it out in LiveJournal) is to try to judge not about people in general, but about specific cases, while always remaining yourself. It happened to me more than once or twice here to praise both Chernetsky and Misharin - and to scold both Chernetsky and Misharin. Each time - substantively and reasoned. And every time I express my opinion on this or that issue, those who like to read between the lines can roll up what they read and stick it in a certain place - because I don’t write between the lines, and my opinion is just my opinion, not more, but not less.
Well, by the way, a story on the topic of “Tungusov, who bought Volkov”: when the “Right of Choice” committee went to a meeting with Chernetsky before the public hearing, and, contrary to the latter’s requests, refused to support the version of amendments to the Charter he proposed, one of Sergei Gennadievich’s subordinates Tushina (and then Tushin himself confirmed this) called Echo of Moscow and brought it to the attention that never again would a single employee of the city administration appear as a guest in the Habitat program hosted by Volkov. And, to my great regret, this is what happened (and the quality of our program suffered enormous damage, because some topics simply cannot be discussed without the participation of competent city specialists). This is just an illustration of passionate love between me and the city administration...
The post turned out to be so long that I had to break it into two parts...
RUSSIAN SPRING (CONTINUED)
Cosmopolitans wear galoshes
Chapter from a book of memoirs
To avoid being branded as an anti-Semite,
Call the Jew a cosmopolitan.
Soviet folklore of the late forties
“Oh, don’t sew, Jews, liveries...”
Alexander Galich
PROFESSOR LEVIN, STUDENT WULF AND THE RUSSIAN PEOPLE
This story will not end up in Vitaly Vulf’s “Silver Ball,” although it would be worth it.
We followed him in the evening darkness carefully, at a distance, so that he would not notice us, but so as not to miss the moment when we needed to come to the rescue. And they talked to the crunch of our steps in the snow in conspiratorial whispers, although it was not very convenient. Vitalik towered over me by a head and a half, and at the same time he burbled heavily. Twenty-year-old Vitalik Wulf was already passionate about the theater, especially Androvskaya and Babanova. But then he was still a very thin, very slender and very handsome law student from Baku. But for some reason he could never be found among girls. It's a matter of older actresses.
We knew each other well, although we did not become friends. Vitalik, unlike me, was not interested in public affairs. But from time to time we crossed paths in the faculty corridors, and sometimes on the streets of Moscow. And then he would take me in a half-hug or arm, and we would walk to the rustle of his highly polished speech. They were good time. Terrible times.
That evening, the wave of Stalin’s pogrom of “rootless cosmopolitans” reached our faculty. The one-armed Tatar, associate professor Askerov, shaking his iron prosthesis, smashed the “rootless”. He thundered on behalf of those who died for their Motherland or, like himself, lost an arm or a leg in the war... He thundered passionately and terribly. Where can you go - the party ordered.
But his maneuvers with the prosthesis, it seems, were not so clear. Didn't they cover up the gaps in the accusatory speech, with the help of which the very intelligent Askerov tried to maintain the image of himself as a decent person? He didn’t seem to want to look like anything but an anti-Semite. The swings of the prosthesis were somehow evenly distributed between the names of such “cosmopolitans” as, say, Professor Yushkov (history of Russian law), it is unclear for what sins of his Aryan blood he ended up as “rootless,” and Professor Levin, the main character of the entire inquisition show. Associate Professor Kuprits, a personal friend of Askerov, was generally pardoned. And how can you find fault with a person who literally lectures from a textbook? Although back then one could find fault with anything, as well as invent anything.
I remember how a handsome Russian student tearfully repented and passionately beat himself on the chest in front of a good thousand Komsomol members in a “communist” audience for having once confessed to someone that he liked Dina Durbin. I didn't feel sorry for him. My only regret was that at one time I fell in love not with Deena Durbin, but with Vivien Leigh. Would I repent of this love?
Joseph Davidovich Levin did not repent. Is it philosophical training coupled with life experience? Either Jewish, half and Polish (came from Warsaw), a sense of dignity was not allowed. Professor Levin, without losing his ironic overtones, tried to dispute the accusations against his then sensational book “Sovereignty.” It was necessary to have the audacity in those days to come out with such a book, which even today could become the target of an attack by the patriots of “sovereign democracy.” Quietly, restrainedly, remaining outwardly calm, with thick glasses on his pale, thin face, Levin did what only needed to be done. Professor Levin, who somewhat resembled Mikhoels, structured his speech clearly, interrupting in response to angry shouts, and calmly resuming his speech after pauses. Nothing personal. Nothing extra. Only knowledge and logic.
And then student Migachev jumped up and croaked: “Professor Levin lectures to us in galoshes and does not look into the audience. And just as he despises and hates Russian students, he hates the entire Russian people.” Even now I can hear the voice of the hunchback Migachev, breaking into a scream and at the same time as if strangled. A voice that, as if from the pipe of an old gramophone, covers Levin's logic with Levin's galoshes.
Ostapbender's move of galoshes, I confess, stunned me. Despite the dramatic nature of the situation, I couldn’t help but laugh. Galoshes - a cunning Jewish weapon! I imagined half-blind Levin throwing galoshes one after another at Russian students. Moscow street dirt scatters like fragments of a grenade. Students are running. The professor, losing his glasses and poking at the walls, tries to detain them. And then a Russian hero stands in his way... Migachev... Hero... Defender... And I wanted to ask, has this hero heard about the Russian professor Kablukov, the hero of “galosh” jokes? Professor Levin actually lectured in galoshes. And I didn’t look into the audience, because due to incredible myopia, I held my notes right in front of my nose.
But, stop! You really need to stop here. For here an endless topic arises that I do not want to ignore. "200 years together." Centuries of symbiosis. Feuchtwanger's "friends-enemies". Centuries of what—alienation, anti-Semitism, racism, criticism, snobbery, galoshism, infantilism? I don't want to bypass it. I have not been and do not want to be a slave to stereotypes. It doesn’t matter whether they are Jewish or anti-Semitic. Confession - so confession!
I'M TIRED OF THE JEWISH QUESTION
Much, much later than the events described, I composed a song that began with the words: “I’m tired of the Jewish question...”.
I'm tired of the Jewish question -
Clothes for teenagers to grow into.
And although I have a long nose,
He was born and raised in Russia.
The Januarys got through it,
And the steppe winds dried up,
And centigrade “for three”
They decorated it with blue like frost.
And the Russian beauty is the nose,
When we parted, I kissed passionately,
Not caring about the damned question,
She called him noble.
And having drunk your natural pronunciation,
In Russian swearing, the nose was humped proudly.
But one day - in the Jewish question
He put his “Jewish face” in his face.
And just recently I came across a certain article on the Internet, the author of which, like many other similar ones, calls for the extermination of Russian Jewry, because... And I realized that I was not yet tired of the “Jewish question”. I didn’t want to throw out hysterical cries at the author - put him on trial, a Nazi... I thought about his main argument - Jews have a different mentality. Do Jews, in this case intelligent metropolitan residents of Russia with Jewish genes, really have a “different” mentality? And what follows from this? After all, in fact, it seems that this intelligentsia is constantly inclined to opposition, to criticism, to change. And looking into himself, he asked a not entirely rhetorical question - are these Jewish roots my own rejection of the empire of Stalin, Grozny, the two Nikolai Romanovs... In a word, what would now definitely be dubbed “Russophobia”.
Of course, I could refer to the “Jew” Ostrovsky, who I saw in Russia Dark Kingdom. Or even such an idol of anti-Semites as Dostoevsky, who brought the deep, mental horror of this kingdom to the judgment of the whole world. And this is just the beginning of the list. And yet, did the passion to end the “evil empire” come to me personally from them or...? After all, since childhood I have not belonged to the Jewish religion, Jewish culture, or Jewish history. When my grandmother, Vera Moiseevna, my mother’s mother, laid out a cut-out Hebrew alphabet in front of me, five years old (such things were still possible back then), my father asked her to remove the letters and never do it again. But I haven’t forgotten this.
And I haven’t forgotten anything else. At about the same age, children at the dacha suddenly asked me while playing “train” - are you Russian? And I, the bubble, suddenly felt strangely embarrassed and did not answer the question. Why?
The first grade teacher, Anna Petrovna, a kind, wrinkled woman, reproached the dunce Ivanov. “Look, Alik and Sema don’t seem to be Russian, but they write Russian correctly. But you can’t...” She seemed to praise... And I remembered that too. And also a scratch.
In my native school alleys of the Moscow center, two teenagers suddenly grabbed me, a baby, and burned the “Jewish boy’s” butt with a cigarette. It wasn't that it hurt very much. But I remember it for the rest of my life with a stigma. Only on whom is the mark? I was a pretty good-looking boy, and unlike my bosom friend Syoma, I didn’t look so “Jewish” at all.
But during the war, in evacuation Sverdlovsk, where I was almost the idol of teachers who listened to my “political information,” a crowd of high school students and high school girls caught me in the corridor, and, dragging me into the classroom shouting “they brought a little Jew,” they began to beat and pinch me . But the war was just against Nazism, that means against racism, against anti-Semitism, as I understood. And on my initiative, the school then raised money for a tank. And I received a letter of gratitude from Comrade Stalin, which is still kept in my archive. Just like the episode with the “kike” in my memory.
But despite this letter, I didn’t really love Comrade Stalin. And then, somewhere in the 9th grade, I hated it. For many things that I already wrote about above. But isn’t it also for a return to “empire”, to the Black Hundred old regime? To the cult of shoulder straps and uniforms. Towards medieval estates and serfdom. For the sudden turn in educational history in the middle of the year, when Shamil from a liberation fighter turned overnight into a simple English agent. For the historical meanness of a Georgian who spoke Russian poorly, when in his first post-war speech he injected the cheap drug of a “greatness complex” - I can’t call it anything else - under the skin of his “big brother”. Isn’t this, among other things, what ultimately led to the collapse of the USSR? An inferiority complex in response to a grandeur complex. After all, the Stalinist empire collapsed precisely against the background of widespread jealousy of the “elder” on the part of the “younger” brothers. Jealousy turning into hatred, which the majority of innocent ordinary Russians still cannot understand. But I hated the self-produced generalissimo, undoubtedly, for his Jesuitical anti-Semitism. Although it was Stalin who was responsible for the creation of the Jewish state.
I did not belong to Jewry either by faith, which was completely absent, or by culture. I was not specifically interested in Jewish history. But when I heard the call sign “Pumpkin” of the Israeli radio on a homemade receiver and imagined that there were Jewish soldiers and Jewish police officers, tears came to my throat. Why?
Maybe because he remembered my mother’s stories about how Jewish girls in a Ukrainian town were afraid of the tsarist officers. Or about the pogrom from which she, her baby sister and older brother were saved by the Ukrainian owner of the house in the underground. But there was also a story about how my sixteen-year-old father tried to enroll as a volunteer in Denikin’s army.
And yet, in general, I felt like a normal Soviet child, then a teenager. I read a lot, loved the “anti-Semite” Gogol, the intellectual Chekhov, Ostrovsky, Griboyedov, Lermontov, Mayakovsky. But since childhood I was fond of translated literature - from Walter Scott and Fenimore Cooper to Cronin, Maupassant, Fielding. I adored Cervantes and Swift. Knew the first volume of the History of Diplomacy by heart. I was friends with several Russian boys. But - and I catch myself doing this - my bosom childhood friends were and remained as long as I lived, boys from Jewish families. Why?
Another thing is women. I once calculated that, based on the total blood composition of almost half of my women, it was Jewish. And the longest ones have long been friendly relations I kept it with my first Jewish wife. Yet most of my women were not Jewish. At least purebred ones. And my longest romances and marriages - official and civil - were also not with Jewish women.
And I have never used “Jewish” connections according to the principle: “we are Jews.” It disgusted me. As a result, by my mature years I identified myself as a Russian-speaking cosmopolitan, a citizen of the world. And to the question about nationality he answered: Muscovite, Muscovite. And indeed, if by nationality we understand the deep layers of culture, attitude, speech, affection, then multi-ethnic and cosmopolitan Moscow, in my opinion, is much more homogeneous than Russia. Not to mention the USSR. And therefore my personal nationality – par excellence – is Moscow. At least that was the case until the latest changes. And here I find a place to talk about the “forks in the road” in the history of peoples. About Russian Jewry, about capital Russian Jewry, about Moscow Jewry, which is one of these “forks” in the paths of history.
I am not a fan of bringing Jewish history into the territory called “today.” Those Jews about whom we know something or think we know, from the sources of the Torah, Talmud and other things, have long gone into eternity. That people, good or bad, no longer exists, and all attempts to return them to the land of the present, to revive, revive, transform antiquity into modernity, in fact mean only doomed attempts to turn modernity into antiquity. But they are by no means harmless, both for the Jews themselves and for others. This is my view. I expressed it, in particular, in correspondence with the thinker and poet David Garbar regarding the attitude towards Jewish history and the role of religion in it. I risk reproducing it here.
Of course, there are ethnic genes. There is no need to renounce genetic Jewishness. And there is no need at all to abandon the study of Jewish history, however, only in the general flow of studying the history of the world. Without sacralizing this story. Without the mystification of Jewry in ourselves, in our consciousness, in our sublimated Russian-European culture. Attempts to revive the blood-related mythology and mysticism of antiquity in the souls and bodies of modern peoples led, as a rule, to one form or another of totalitarianism and Nazism. The most striking, but by no means the only example, is German National Socialism. Jewish Nazism would attract me no more than Russian or German.
I don’t quite understand the statement: “history own people" What is “your people”? In an attempt to answer this question, I come to the conclusion that tribal, genetic community with the population of ancient Judea or Israel, even if something of it has been preserved, does not give me reason today to consider the history of this population as “my” history. What exactly is “our own” there? What do these shepherds, farmers, traders, intriguers, cruel rulers, usurpers of power, fratricides and participants in internecine bloody wars have in common with me? I once tried to feel, to grope for this kinship. But I didn’t come from the idea that I needed to study the history of “my” people, but from an internal feeling of some of the features of my own genetics. That’s why I looked for it in poetry. Yes, distant genetic (tribal) kinship exists, and it is a sin to renounce it. But nothing more.
Anti-Semitism and the Holocaust are what primarily fuel my Jewishness. But not so much from the genetic position of “their people”, but from the position of a humane, liberal intellectual, not dependent or not very dependent on tribal affiliation. As an intelligent German politician once told me: “We are all Jews.”
I am a Jew by birth,
Russian - by education,
Muscovite - according to cultural foundations,
Skeptic and relativist - according to philosophical views,
Christian - by moral values,
Cosmopolitan - by conviction,
German - according to my current citizenship.
So who am I? -
- Human!
I recently found such a “verse” in the spirit of Ecclesiastes (!?) in my old diaries. But you’re a European,” David remarked to this. Interesting idea. However, my education was in Russian (partly, though also in English), in a Russian (Russian, Soviet) environment, although taking into account my reading in Western literature and many “Western” preferences. Whether this makes me a European by education, I don’t know. After all, Moscow is part of Europe.
But let's move on. Does the Jewish people even exist today? There is a population of Israel forming into a new “people”. In order, however, to really turn into a “people”, this population, multilingual, culturally and even religiously diverse, suffering from various complexes and contradictions between tradition and modernity, not to mention the specifics of objective conditions, will need at least a hundred years. I'm not sure he has them. It is hardly possible to go through again the stages of history that make a tribe a people if these stages are forever skipped. In any case, it will be a different people, little connected with that ancient one.
So what's going on? And there is an attempt to replace history with religion. Instead of a real people, create some kind of people-replacing ideology. Moreover, this is often done rather clumsily. Approximately the same way as “scientific communism” was implanted in the USSR. And also completely voluntary.
This is what my sober opinion tells me in a nutshell. And since I still belong to this breed of people marked by special traits - the Jewish tribe, I consider it my duty to treat it soberly and critically. Just as any liberal intellectual of any ethnicity should relate to his ethnic group, be it “people”, “tribe”, “nationality”, etc. What still makes me happy is the tendency of many intellectuals Jewish origin specifically towards a critical attitude towards the world in general, and towards “your people” in particular. And therefore I do not share the claims of my fellow tribesmen to “chosenness”. And if we talk about the history of Judaism, then it can truly be comprehended only in a comparative study with other ancient mythologies and religions, starting, say, with the tale of Gilgamesh. It is very likely that Moses, if he really existed, simply invented his God in order to give the horde he led a certain “highly” sanctified charter of life, which he more or less, although not God knows how definitely, succeeded. But was Moses really a Jew? And how did the Jews live before Moses and before his God? Or did they all go through “conversion” “before that”? They lived after all. And for a long time. And if Moses was the only Jew in spirit, then what can be said about the “people”, who before Moses had nothing in common with this spirit, and then, having received “instructions from above”, for the fear of God, were suddenly transformed and, moreover, forever? Doesn't this remind you of something well known from recent history?
It is also difficult for me to agree with the fact that it was religion that allowed the Jews of the Diaspora to survive as a “people”, while other “peoples” fell into decline. Even if this were so, I would not boast of such “self-preservation”. In fact, Jews as a “people” have long since fallen into decline - just read Yiddish literature. “Yiddishist” literature (in Russian translations) is talented in itself, but what it describes—shtetl life—is a picture of national decline. The Jews in it (as well as in the paintings of early Chagall or Tyshler) look touching, but very pathetic.
Religion helped only in two respects - medieval Christians and Muslims allowed Jews to do what they did not allow themselves. And this gave the Jews the opportunity to survive by adapting to the Christian-Muslim world in those industries where the road was closed to the indigenous (by faith) inhabitants - usury, medieval banking, financial policy, wine trading, etc. On the other hand, religion made it possible to create a kind of quasi-state power of the rabbinate, providing a hierarchical structure of communities. The latter, in turn, contributed to the success of Jews in international trade with a certain redistribution of wealth. Of course, these special conditions required many sacrifices, but they also stimulated the special abilities of the Jews. Just as outstanding logicians and philosophers emerged from Christian theology and theosophy, religious vigils and the need to live “according to the Book” contributed to the development of abstract thinking and gave birth to a whole galaxy of Jewish thinkers, and later, with emancipation, scientists, lawyers, writers, artists, musicians. But these were no longer so much “Jews” as “French”, “Germans”, “Russians”.
As for the “degeneration” of other peoples contemporary to the ancient Jews, they did not so much degenerate as transform into some new nations and peoples, creating new, somewhat higher cultures, which eventually passed into modern civilizations. And this is the main thing in the whole problem. It is the fruits of these civilizations, including literary ones, that today’s Jewry enjoys, making its feasible contribution to their cultivation, and not at all the fruits of religious alienation. In short, there is a broad, diffuse, liberal approach and there is, in my opinion, a narrow – religious one. When everything is brought to God. The will of God can explain anything, which means nothing. Or?
The question is about cultural component ethnicity is complex. But if there is a specificity of culture, then it must be genetically determined, otherwise it is not clear what else? The very concept of “ancestors” speaks of heredity. Culture is not biologically inherited. Jews retained character traits and behavioral characteristics, even the external traits of the breed, but did not retain statehood or rights, which religion does not replace. Moreover, we in the USSR (especially in the capitals) were neither religious nor culturally associated with a special Jewish tradition, were not organized into communities, did not have a special language and, nevertheless, considered ourselves Jews and were considered and identified as such. How can you deny genetics? But genetics in and of themselves does not lead to “racism.” This is just one of the system-forming factors of “nationality” or “ethnicity”. In general, the problem of “ancestors” doesn’t bother me much. We don't live in a tribal world. In any case, they are not obliged to live in it. It was the Nazis who recreated the Totem (read Nolte!). They had a cult of Germanic ancestors. The monument to Arminius and the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest still exists. But Lion Feuchtwanger created from it another, literary monument - a harbinger of the Holocaust. So, you can still imagine Jewishness without the Holocaust, but hardly without anti-Semitism. Perhaps it was Jewish conservatism that was the real cause of anti-Semitism. So the question is turned upside down - without the conservation (“preservation”) of Jewry and its inclusion in it as a necessary (including for the Jews themselves) component of the “culture” of anti-Semitism, would we feel like “Jews” or not? Most likely no. Thus, sometimes they would remember distant ancestors, just as the French remember the Franks, and the English remember the Saxons. Anti-Semitism, like the Holocaust, makes every decent person a Jew. The German deputy Weiskirchen said: we are all Jews.
I tried to answer the question of why the Jews survived as a people from a historical rather than a religious perspective, although I explained the function of religion (in particular, economic) and the rabbinate. The use of religion as a tool for the conservation of the Jewish community and, thus, in the interests, including non-selfish ones, of the rabbinical authority should also not be overlooked. This topic could be continued, because the conservation of Jewry, for example, was dictated by its lack of territory. Other conquered tribes and peoples remained on their territory and changed under the influence of the aliens, merging with them. Was it always for the worse? The thesis about religion, by the way, inevitably leads to the thesis about a special purpose. Otherwise, “religion” is just a non-obligatory and non-sacred set of contradictory rules of behavior - worse than a systematized and more or less rationally based “law”.
To this David objected: “... There is an opinion that the preservation of the Jews as a people (a set of nations) was also facilitated by the fact that early Middle Ages only they (of all the ancient peoples) approached having not only an established religion, but also a system of social, legal, cultural and other institutions, united in the Tanakh and a set of accompanying books (Talmud and others). So the role of religion (both as a system of worldviews, and as a system of institutions, and as a system of values, and even as literary and aesthetic guidelines) cannot be underestimated.”
Well, the thesis about “establishments” is strange to me. Other (reformed and EDUCATED) peoples approached the early Middle Ages with Roman law, Greek philosophy, Christian ethics and theology, monasteries, universities, libraries, urban architecture, chivalric codes honor, religious and secular music, iconography and partly already secular painting, universalism Latin language- in a word, with all the wealth of culture that made historical Europe a model national development, while Jewry (on average and mass) - in the history of the Middle Ages looks like a provincial people clinging to its cultural rags, which is partly demonstrated by Israel - a picturesque, contradictory country, admiring the achievements of modernity and depressing with its provincial backwardness. I am afraid that the great ancient texts, while remaining great in antiquity, from this historical reality they don't save.
So, I despise and hate anti-Semitism, but not from a personal, but from a generally humane, liberal position. And at the same time, I do not consider a critical attitude towards Jewry, free from bias, to be anti-Semitism. Just like a critical attitude towards any national group, and, above all, towards your own. And wasn’t I based on Russian critical classics in my rejection of the Soviet and Russian old regime orders? Not to mention the exploits of purebred Russian dissidents such as Sergei Kovalev or Orlov, or Sinyavsky, or Sakharov?
And yet... My old and very beloved friend, the Russian poet Alexander Timofeevsky, wrote the following lines:
The more I love my country,
The more I hate the state...
“Here, Sasha,” I said to him, “that’s what I think. And therefore he became the destroyer of this state.” “Yes, Lenya,” he answered. - I hate it, but I don’t call for destruction. Hate one thing and destroy another.” Slayed. Yes, THIS is the state, this callous, arrogant, wild and stupid POWER I passionately wanted to destroy. But isn't it for building? But didn’t the Russian peasant man Gorbachev want the same thing with his perestroika? Not to mention the Russian peasant man Yeltsin? True, the foundation of my perestroika was based on bricks of images taken from childhood from the same translated literature from English, French, German, Spanish. From the one where knights, gentlemen, constitutions, freedoms, parliaments acted... Where, it seemed, the concept of personal dignity and the inviolable rules of the game were in full swing. But was this Jewish literature? Were these Jewish customs? It’s interesting that it is in today’s Israel that a good half of the Jews blame the other half for “Westernism.” This is about the question of the “Jewish mentality”.
But let's say there really is a boy. There is something special in the psyche, in the constitution of Jewry, in this case Russian, that, together with grievances or independently of grievances, prompted or is prompting him to dynamism, to criticism, to the desire for change. So what? Is it that bad? The desire for change, the vision of change - is this a useless ferment of society? Nobody and nothing obliges people to follow such desires. Except... except for one’s own interest, one’s own perception of these changes as one’s own. Or we must recognize for the Jews some mystical, otherworldly power - the power of God (as some religious Jews believe) or the Devil, as the medieval Inquisition believed.
It is quite absurd to fight otherworldly forces, especially the providence of God or the plan of the devil, with earthly means. Therefore, people like the author of the mentioned anti-Semitic article came up with a kind of “world government”, the heir of the “Elders of Zion”, which imparts to the Jews a mystical power instead of God and instead of the devil. Only traces of this government are nowhere to be seen. In contrast to real governments and shadow lobbies of all kinds. Not to mention El Qaeda, the Wahhabis and the actual Muslim governments with claims to Islamic world domination and a terrorist grip. There’s no need to look for traces here. They are in plain sight.
Or, perhaps, various Eurasianists, fighters against postmodernism, Orthodox pagan Islamists, are precisely the agents of the “world government,” if not the Semitic devil himself? (Shmakov) They are very similar to those Jews inhabiting Israel who wear Hasidic hats, walk in medieval shoes with stockings and live in towns and neighborhoods the way their imaginary ancestors lived thousands of years ago. Is it not this kind of ancient Jewish life that the “superpatriots” of a special path are calling the Russian people today, without, however, forgetting about their own profits and salaries? Just like some similar “patriots” in other countries, by the way. Let my Russian, German, Ukrainian, Georgian, Israeli and other fellow citizens of the world decide about this.
Personally, I have not seen a single member of the “world Jewish government”, nor have I seen a single emissary. And although I met with foreign diplomats, journalists and politicians many times and visited both the USA and Israel several times, no one ever instructed me how to behave or what to do. Quite the opposite. They asked me what I thought about this or that matter. So I was the “government” myself, with my thoughts, ideas and projects.
I cannot unequivocally answer the question whether I would have joined the Russian democratic movement if Jewish blood had not flowed through my veins and brain vessels. And would I be just as consistently and passionately rooting for Russian freedom, democracy, federalism, the constitution, separation of powers, decentralization, pluralism if I were a purebred Russian? The answer lies beyond the rational. But I still want to remain a rational person. And as a rational person, I think that if the secret was rooted in “Jewishness,” then only Jews would be democrats in Russia. Jews, meanwhile, found themselves on both sides of the barricade. “Oh, don’t sew, Jews, liveries...”
AGAINST JEWISH TRADITIONALISM
The connection between modern Jews and ancient Jews is approximately the same as between the Franks and the French, or the Germans and Germans, or the Saxons and the English. Or between modern and ancient Greeks. Or between the Italians and the Romans - a continuity especially emphasized by Mussolini. All modern nations, or rather nationalities - where is this conventional border between nations and nationalities - have ancient ancestors. Who needs to cling to antiquity - politicians, priests, diplomats, pompous idiots who have nothing better to do?
What has been preserved from Jewish antiquity? Religion! What is religion in the 21st century? A set of fairy tales and superstitions that were once earthly wisdom, but have long lost their practical meaning, turning into a set of absurdities, like separate refrigerators for milk and meat. Or on Saturdays it is prohibited to use the telephone and turn on electricity, which did not exist at all in those ancient times. Study this antiquity for a good-natured laugh or a theatrical play on a tradition like Hanukkah. Today - to the Jewish one. And tomorrow - to the Christian one. And the day after tomorrow - to the Buddhist or Brahman school. And finish with some African. It is no coincidence that in modern Jewish theaters Jewish plots are played by non-Jewish actors, while Jewish actors play plots that are not at all Jewish. And isn’t it interesting that in Spain, which expelled the Jews, Spaniards now work as Jews in traditional Jewish places - Toledo, Cordoba, Seville.
What, for example, do the Jerusalem Hasidim, who wear medieval caftans and white stockings with sixteenth-century European shoes, have in common with the ancient Jewish tradition? Or the Antwerp diamond makers with their black hats and masterfully curled sidelocks? All this is as artificial as a monstrous language resurrected from the dead, which does not unite, but separates the natural Jews of the globe.
One can understand the Zionists - by the way, not at all religious zealots - who sought salvation in the acquisition of their own land by someone - the Jewish class, precisely the class persecuted by the Christian classes of Russia and other nations. They were looking for land, work on the land, and not the ancient faith and ancient language. They didn’t find another land, although it was probably possible. Hence theodicy, agriculture, search historical roots- in a word, ideology.
One can understand the founders of the State of Israel as a consequence of the Holocaust. But does this mean that all Jews are forced into artificial kinship? Compulsion to return to cultural prehistory, to cultural pre-geography.
Of course, Jews all over the world are connected by genetic kinship, which cannot but influence appearance, psyche, physiology and, thus, indirectly, culture. These are tribal traits that all nationalities have, but which are greatly worn out by time, that is, by climate, food, environment, and on which the surrounding life and surrounding culture lay in thick layers.
Who is he - a Jew by parental blood? The bearer of ancient genes that oblige you to go to the synagogue, read ancient prayers, observe halakha, observe kashrut, despise the goyim, obey the will of the rabbi? Or a free European who recognizes and declares himself a European Jew by origin, by blood, and therefore the heir to the entire bloody history of European Jewry and European anti-Semitism. But no more and no less. What is more in it - Europeanism or Jewishism? Try measuring! But the fact that the majority of natural Jews chose to stay where they were born - in Europe, the USA and other countries already contains a piece of the answer to this question. And there is no need for the Jews themselves to artificially drag a modern European of Jewish blood either into antiquity or into the Middle Ages. The Jewish state and the Jewish community in the states of the world are justified only insofar as they can serve as a bulwark against anti-Semitism. But is it possible to counter anti-Semitism by imposing the Middle Ages? The history of other nations is well acquainted with similar attempts. Fascism and Nazism were carried away by this. Later, Stalin’s “communism” is in quotation marks. Today the fascist regime in Russia is doing this.
So is it possible and necessary today to transform a natural American or European Jew into a traditional character of a ghetto or shtetl? These people clearly cannot become the kings and shepherds of ancient times. Is it possible and necessary to return these “Western” people to the East, to the East? Is it possible to thereby separate them from each other? Is it possible to thereby separate them from others? modern peoples? And if someone needs it, then who and why? Cui prodest? Or does the fate of world Jewry, and above all European Jewry, lie on a different plane - to move forward, to be one of the ferments of Cosmopolis - the rational world of the future?
They will tell me how you want to make everyone equal, deprive life of diversity, destroy colors, national flavor? Don't want! But I have already given an example of a Tatar actor playing a Jew in a Jewish theater. Or a Georgian actor plays a Russian in an American play. Where is the color here and where is the erasure of colors? What nationality are Othello, Iago and Shakespeare - to the question of coloring.
Sorry, I'm a political scientist and politician. So, don’t confuse culture with politics. The palette of colors should and maybe, or rather cannot help but be, the widest in culture - in theater, music, literature. Play professionally. Play independently. And go watch these games, just as Muscovites of different bloods go to watch Jewish plays in the Moscow Jewish theater, performed by actors of different ethnic backgrounds.
But don’t dare play politics with blood. Don't you dare force cultural segregation. Don't you dare sow racial or national or religious superiority. Don't dare set rights or revoke rights. Don’t you dare make a class out of genetics. Religion must be a private matter of a person and cannot be either racial or national. Religious communities cannot have any rights other than the right to worship.
Jewish national communities can only be secular and serve mainly the main political goal - opposition to anti-Semitism, which does not exclude common cultural goals. From this point of view, German legislation on Jewish communities, for example, seems controversial.
European Jewry, free from religious dogma, in many ways free from religion at all, was formed as a large cultural and scientific conglomerate in the general European culture. His contribution is unique and significant. This is a special socio-cultural layer, without which European culture, including Russian, is generally unthinkable today and will be unthinkable or very impoverished tomorrow. Of course, convinced cultural anti-Semites and national traditionalists will not agree with this different countries. They combine the provincial narrowness of small intellectual property owners with a completely unselfish desire to protect their class craft. Hence the cheap thesis about the poisoning of the “national” (that is, theirs - personal, corporate, formalized by class property rights) culture with foreignism, Freemasonry, in a word - Judaism.
But aren’t those Jews doing better - whether in Israel or in the Diaspora - who also strive to separate the “kosher” culture of the Jews from the national or universal culture of other peoples?
In true painting, colors are mixed. Herself abstract painting– the peak of emancipation – losing traditional content, it amazes with the richness of lines and colors. But also traditional painting makes us happy - in museums. Hitler and Stalin tried to do the opposite - to ban modern painting. Hitler drove her into a special museum of perversions. Stalin solved problems more simply - he sent creators to the Gulag. But creativity survived despite political traditionalism.
So, the clash between emancipation and tradition, inherited from the Enlightenment of the 18th century, continues. Traditions have a place in the theater, in a club, in privacy, in the museum. In public life there is only a place for a general public tradition, an integral of its various private components. And this integral is the public tradition of secular democracy, secular law, secular culture. So, Jews, do not sew livery for yourself, do not sew kaftans, wear freely the clothes of freedom.
***
But now it’s time to return to that winter day of 1949, with which I began this part of the chapter.
Vitaly Vulf and I followed Levin, who did not look back and did not see us. We decided to follow him one day immediately after it was announced in the audience that Professor Levin had been expelled from Moscow University. We were simply afraid for him, who seemed so old, physically weak and unprotected. Suddenly, after the experience, he will feel bad and he will not be able to walk home on his own. What if he has a heart attack or stroke and loses consciousness and falls. We didn’t know where he lived, and we followed, so to speak, in the footsteps of his galoshes. Where are these galoshes now - a museum rarity? What happened seemed scary and was really scary. Who knows what will happen next to the professor after the terrible words spoken to him. He could have been arrested right on the way. They could have beaten you, they could have killed you. There is something that I don’t really want to forgive Vitaly Wulf later on. But that evening he was a hero. We ourselves were scared. But we did our duty. Me and Vitalik Wulf, the future author of The Silver Ball.
Only many, many years later did I learn that this medieval Auto-da-Fé was in fact a tragicomedy, albeit a very risky one. The day after his dismissal from the University, Professor Levin peacefully moved to the Institute of State and Law, one of the most prestigious at that time academic institutions, where I met him again 15 years later as his graduate student. And all this was arranged by his former graduate student, Professor Senya Studenikin, an absolutely Russian person, with the tacit consent of other participants in the action. But Wolf and I didn’t know about this. Just as student Migachev, of course, did not know about it. And if they had known, would they have believed it in the atmosphere that then hung in the corridors of the law school?
BUT WE ALREADY ALREADY HAVE TWO JEWS IN THE NEWSPAPER
For some reason, at school, at university, and even at military training, I was often appointed editor of wall newspapers. And it so happened that a boy from my own school, a class younger, a certain Borka Brinberg, became a deputy at my editorial office of the faculty newspaper. A ruddy, fat man and such a modest lover of life. And sure enough, one of the students of Jewish origin brought an article to the newspaper and at the same time a willingness to work for the newspaper. Borka, who usually looked into my mouth as the editor-in-chief in age (by a whole year) and in “status,” suddenly took me aside with a mysterious look and whispered.
- “Do we need to publish this material? And should we take him to the editorial office?”
- "What's the matter? Why,” I was surprised at Borka’s conspiratorial tone and the idea itself.
“Well, we already have two Jews in the newspaper,” Borka explained, barely letting the words slip through his thick lips, and flashed his glasses at me significantly. I wanted to hit him with these points. “As long as I’m an editor, we won’t have this!” I shouted to the entire corridor. Not only is it mean, but also stupid. “Oh, don’t sew, Jews, liveries!” I immediately felt sick of looking at the life-loving Borka, and soon I tried to get rid of him. But was he the only one - Borka Brinberg?
At this point I could cut short the “Jewish theme” of my memoirs. At least her university section. But another scene within the walls of the law school corridors does not leave my memory.
I see a group of about 30 students who have been tossing around in the empty walls for an hour now, waiting for their fate at the doors of the placement committee. The remaining 170 have long since signed their referrals to the courts, prosecutors' offices, educational and scientific institutes, graduate schools, the KGB, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Supreme Council, the Bar... Only Jews, girls and boys, are waiting for something. Or something is waiting for them. A small Jewish ghetto in the building of the first educational institution in the center of the capital of the country that defeated Nazism. But they seem to be Jews only according to their passport... Except that their nose sometimes shows and gives it away.
Well, most of these girls and boys were sent to nowhere. It was called “nowhere” “free” distribution. This is truly freedom in a country where with the fifth questionnaire item it was impossible to “freely” get any job. A staunch Soviet patriot, Romka Lifshits, generally recognized as the most talented and educated student of the entire class, had to work for many years as a court secretary in a district court. He, however, eventually became a recognized expert in the field of labor law, a consultant to the All-Union Central Council of Trade Unions, and died as a member of the Presidential Council under Yeltsin. Paradox?
They will tell me completely decent people: Well, what do you want? State of Israel. Double loyalty. Stalin should have thought about this. Had. Agree. But for some reason this logic did not stop precisely those who in batches attracted “dual loyalty” to defense, nuclear and other secret matters. Yes, and there was a time when we went to intelligence service with “double loyalty.” Or is Mr. Savostyanov right – a different mentality? What is my mentality?
JEWISH MENTALITY AND ONE LOVE CATHOLIC
I didn’t think that just before graduation, in those same dark times, I would have to protect and, one might say, save a “Catholic” student. Handsome, intelligent and very serious, a typical Russian, Mishka Postnikov studied in a neighboring group that was “friendly” to me. He and I, however, only slightly and from afar gave each other credit. And I didn’t even know for a long time that the handsome Mishka was already in his third year picked up as a husband by one of his classmates. Early marriages were then not so common in the poor university environment. And suddenly, at a large Komsomol meeting a few days before graduation, I find out that Mishka has not only been married to the gray mouse N for a couple of years, but has also started an affair with a bright blue-eyed student V. and is going to get a divorce.
And then it turned out that for some reason he wrote his thesis about the Vatican, which means he is a Catholic!
And here I am sitting, outside the window there is spring sun, warmth, and in the audience the future Vyshinskys are heating up passions, demanding no less than the death penalty for the accused, that is, expulsion from the Komsomol, from the university, which means...
And such a correct, correct Komsomol member with a round face from correctness and round eyes bulging from zeal, Lida Garber, appears. She is the girlfriend of the victim, student N. “We tracked them down! – Lida triumphs. “There’s no place for people like that in the Komsomol!” And in detail, with aspiration, with gusto, this “Zoya Kosmodemyanskaya” tells how heroically she and her friends spied on a couple in love. And then another handsome man, a war hero, stands up and, flushed, makes Cicero’s speech against Catiline, demanding the blood of an apostate from Komsomol morality, and even a Catholic draft dodger... And this is no longer a joke. The mood of the meeting is clear. Now they will vote...
A wave rolled up to my throat. Oh, you Komsomol saints, are you passing off petty-bourgeois prejudices as Komsomol morality? I jumped up. Well, I knew how to speak, especially when I was burning with anger at other people’s stupidity and meanness. I didn't defend Mishka. I blamed the accusers. J'accuse... I blamed the baseness of surveillance, the baseness of peeping through the crack. Here they are, Komsomol members, savoring gossip, inflaming jealousy, and are ready to trample and pour mud on living feelings. And this is Komsomol morality?
It’s strange to me now that a short, albeit passionate speech broke up the meeting in a matter of minutes. It did not coincide at all with the norms that were prescribed to the people by the great moralist Stalin after the war. Then “illegitimate” children were suddenly deprived of their rights. Then officers, officials, scientists could be kicked out of work, from their positions in the event of a divorce or even just a love affair. Then the whole wave of unfreedom, as heavy as an atomic bomb, was transferred from the political to personal life of people. Isn't the current Russian government planning to do the same thing, by the way? But no one nailed me then to the familiar pillar of shame. Why?
Yes, Mishka Postnikov was saved. He graduated well from university. And a quarter of a century later, holding an important post in the Moscow City Council, he had the opportunity to thank me when I myself had a bad time. And Mishka was by no means a Jew. And I? Was it really the “Jewish gene” that prompted me to passionately stand against everyone in defense of the Russian “Catholic” Misha Postnikov? Just like later in defense of Russian democracy and its hero – Yeltsin? And did this gene really prompt me, a student of Professor Levin, who wrote the book “Sovereignty” in 1949, to write the “Declaration of State Sovereignty of Russia” in 1990, for which the German professor Gerhard Simon awarded me the title of a fair-haired nationalist?
Well, I walked around the circle and returned to the starting point. Will I remain until my death, which is just around the corner, a patriot of humanity, an all-European cosmopolitan, a citizen of that Europe that unites England with Russia, Germany with Israel, America with Japan and Turkey with China? Will Russia return to its starting point? Will the world return to its starting point? Into the jungle of tribal passions, otherwise - cannibalism dressed in military uniform? Or into the world of feudal loyalties with a rocket instead of a sword and a missile defense system instead of armor? Or is there still hope that it will leave the circle and move in a spiral upward, to something above the tribe, above the blood, above the ground? And is this very new hope good? The one who was born with almost already forgotten words: liberte, egalite, fraternite…
In any case, I was not kicked out of the university for speaking in defense of Mishka Postnikov. On the contrary, it was my “Jewish” mentality that seemed to turn the meeting around. And saving freedom, he saved a person. And Professor Levin quietly ended his days in respect and recognition. And Vitaly Vulf is now a famous Russian television theater director. And I myself am a former Russian deputy, one of the locksmiths who opened the locks of freedom of the Russian spring.
Reviews
“As a result, by my mature years I identified myself as a Russian-speaking cosmopolitan, a citizen of the world. And when asked about nationality I answered: Muscovite, Muscovite. And indeed, if by nationality we understand the deep layers of culture, attitude, speech, affection, then multi-ethnic and cosmopolitan Moscow, in In my opinion, it is much more homogeneous than Russia. Not to mention the USSR. And therefore my personal nationality – par excellence – is Moscow."
These self-feelings of yours are close to me. I
I lived in Moscow all my life, it so happened that I did not have to communicate with Jews in my youth. And I had no idea that I would ever go to Israel.
Growing up, I realized that I was attracted to
to Jewry - anti-Semitism. This is the most painful
feeling.
I am grateful for this article. I know Sasha Timofeevsky well.
And I also want to say
that I am eternally grateful to those Jews who managed to preserve the foundations of their faith. Although I myself am not a believer. Such different Israelis are united by their love for Israel and pride in their small country. I give you poems.
Yuliy Kim.
Reading the Torah.
---------------
They walk around the city and read the Torah.
They sit on buses and read the Torah.
They go to the market for fish, to the office for paper
They walk through the corridors and read the Torah.
They lie by the Red Sea and read the Torah.
They lie near the Mediterranean and read the Torah.
They lie, they sit
They are standing, they are walking,
They eat and drink - and then read the Torah!
Iceland is shaking - they are reading the Torah,
Beats Georgia - they read the Torah,
Persia delivered four games to Lebanon
Ground-to-surface rockets - they read the Torah.*
It’s great for me – they read the Torah.
It disgusts me - they read the Torah.
They are respected, humiliated, adored, offended, ayut, ayut,
And they read it.
Lying and standing
Walking and sitting
Reverently and confidently, -
And thus He sees
That all is not yet lost, all is not yet...
December 2008.
The daily audience of the Proza.ru portal is about 100 thousand visitors, who in total view more than half a million pages according to the traffic counter, which is located to the right of this text. Each column contains two numbers: the number of views and the number of visitors.
Question: is it true that the head of the Investigative Committee called Jews enemies of the Russian people, or who lied? December 5th, 2017
“Volkov: “Bastrykin demanded to “close” me, on the grounds that “Jews are the enemies of the Russian people”
“The head of Alexei Navalny’s election headquarters, Leonid Volkov, spoke about how the head of the Investigative Committee, Alexander Bastrykin, put pressure on the investigator who was looking into the case of Volkov’s conflict with the Life TV channel. According to him, Bastrykin demanded to “close” Volkov, including because of his nationality.
“On August 12, they brought me to the Novosibirsk department of the Investigative Committee, and they announced to me that a case had been opened, there I met investigator E.V. Nosyreva-Grishina. She announced to me my status as a suspect, and she also said openly: “We are under a lot of pressure , so that we close you, but I believe that there is no structure here, so you will be under my subscription,” Volkov said.
After some time, the following dialogue took place between the investigator and Volkov (in his words):
You see, Leonid Mikhailovich, I didn’t like the way Bastrykin said - they say, this young Jew came from his Luxembourg to make a revolution here, what was wrong with him, we all went through this a hundred years ago, when we had Jews from Switzerland in a sealed carriage sent; you, Ekaterina Vyacheslavovna, must understand that all these people are enemies of the Russian people.
- What did you tell him about that?
- What will I tell him to this... That my maiden name is Ginzburg?
Let us remember that the day before it was reported that the Investigative Committee will conduct a psychological and historical examination of the events in the Ipatiev House, where the royal family was shot in the summer of 1918, including investigating the version of ritual murder" https://theins.ru/news/81878?utm_referrer=https% 3A%2F%2Fzen.yandex.com
Does it smell like anti-Semitism?
Or does it smell like slander?
What do you say, God-bearer?
Orthodox and saint?
After all, Jesus is a Jew: did you know?
Does your people believe in Him?
Is it from Him that souls are saved?
He is waiting for heavenly life!
And the apostles are Jews!
And even the prophets - everyone!
Are they really enemies of Russia?
Are they for the head of the Investigative Committee?
In general, what is there to be surprised about?
It was like this for you: always!
After all, it is known that it is Russia?
Is it a Judeophobic country?
Although not the Reich, but Rome, and the third!
He didn’t pay me!
For my sorrowful work, Jewish!
Your most holy race - Cyril!
Because the enemy is the people?
Obviously, me too?
And paying me is an insult?
For the Holy One - priest?
Is there a hidden meaning in this?
Otherwise, how can we understand?
What kind of work have I done for so many years?
They don’t want to - no way: give it away?
And the silence is deathly!
From the people: of this country!
Why won't anyone say:
“ROC – quickly: pay!”?
Only complaints - do they play football?
Now - there, and then - here?
They're stalling for a while, I guess?
Until the Last Judgment?
=============================
Did you smell something fried?
Do you need to simmer it on time?
Was it hectic - very quiet?
So why: wake him up?
Pay me for my efforts!
If not, then what?
Can you guess it yourself?
Suddenly it comes to you: trouble?
A legend for Russian Language Day: how a Jew in Rus' preached the Gospel of Jesus Christ!
Question: are the authorities of the Russian Federation in a mafia relationship with the leadership of the Russian Orthodox Church, including the Prosecutor General’s Office?
Question: Did the Investigative Committee do the right thing by transferring my petition to the Prosecutor General’s Office or not?
A message to the head of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation: I petition to initiate a criminal case against the Russian Orthodox Church!
A legend in the ears of the governor of the Holy Trinity Sergius Lavra of the head of the Russian Orthodox Church-MP: I will file a complaint against you with the Investigative Committee!
The story of seminarians and priests about business in the Russian Orthodox Church: not a church, but a criminal organization - this?
A true story by a graduate of the Theological Academy about the Orthodox Church: in all its ugliness and uncleanness!
Legend former novice about the Orthodox concentration camp = monastery of the Russian Orthodox Church: will there be a criminal case or not?
The question is: should the state Orthodoxy of the entire Russian Federation be called to account, and the accounts of the organized crime group be arrested?
Question: does the government in Russia bear full responsibility for the criminal activities of the Russian Orthodox Church or not?
The story about the detention of the regional leadership of the Investigative Committee; has the fight against kleptomaniacs really begun in Russia?
Question: will the head of the Russian Orthodox Church honor the memory of the victims of the Holocaust and will he pay the Jew me for 5 years of work?
The statement of Bishop Tikhon Shevkunov and a significant part of the Russian Orthodox Church commission: “This murder was ritual!”
The legend about the inclusion of the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” in the criminal case: Rome No. 3 is ready for pogroms of the Jews
The philosopher's saying that royal family no one killed, but for the sake of money the Fed put feces in your brains!
Question: did Queen Elizabeth II really die, and was she the granddaughter of Tsar Nicholas II?
Question: will the Russian authorities and the leadership of the Russian Orthodox Church react to Nazi myth-making or not - where is the answer?
Chief Rabbi Shaevich’s message to the head of the Russian Orthodox Church: “Because of the film Matilda, your flock has already become brutal!”
Question: is there a sect of deputies - Tsarebozhniks in the State Duma of the Russian Federation, or not - give an Orthodox answer!
Question: do the priests have influence on the President of the Russian Orthodox Church and can they give the order to start the 3rd Pestilence War?
The researcher’s account of the execution of the royal family: “there was no execution!” - Is he lying, or the priests?
Question: could the Bolsheviks burn the royal family and then drink their ashes, or did they eat fish soup?
A story about a dispute between two Orthodox factions of the Russian Orthodox Church party: real royal remains, no?
Question: will the state sect of the Russian Orthodox Church be banned or will it receive a license from the authorities for violating the Criminal Code?
Question: has the government in Russia, together with the Russian Orthodox Church, built an antisocial state or not, give me the answer!