slopes 

View the post "Why do we dislike Navalny so much?". “Whether Navalny is good or bad doesn’t matter anymore. It's about the survival of the country... Why people don't like bulk

Bulk politician. You must not love him. Even more, you don’t need to love him, for this he has a family. You have to agree with Navalny (and any other politician) or not. And it is absolutely not necessary to agree with everything, the main thing is to agree more than with other politicians. Accordingly, then you decide whether to support him or not, cast your vote for him or not.

In Russia, a unique situation has developed in its own way. There is Putin, who, thanks to propaganda, is loved. There are other politicians who are supported or not, but who will not even say a word against Putin. There are Putin's henchmen, who are tolerated because Putin is behind them. And there are those who speak openly against Putin. It is among the latter that Navalny is. Because of the location in which he is, a huge state machine is deployed against him. Propaganda, courts, police, military associations (like Cossacks), officials, all of them have one of the goals - Navalny. If you need to create a provocation, there are people. If you want to arrest, you don't even need formal reasons. The courts do not listen to his arguments, officials do not pay attention to the papers under which his signature. Among them, I am sure, there are enough people who do not like power. But they are inside the system and are not ready to rebel ("well, you understand ...").

And there is propaganda. When you don't need it, you won't even hear his last name. They can come up with hundreds of nicknames (“that character”, “famous blogger”, etc. But when necessary, films are released about him (“Navalny-Hitler”), programs, they say that he deceives children, steals money, forests, uses people for their own purposes, an agent of the State Department, a nationalist and much, much more.

Now think about it: you hear about a person on two occasions. On TV, when another “revealing” program is released about him, or on websites from all kinds of “patriots” and Kremlinbots, but only under various nicknames (“Anal”, “Navralny”, “Lesha-kirovles”, etc.). Accordingly, you get the feeling that he is promoting himself on invented, paid-for plums. He opposes Putin (and therefore against Russia - you love Putin, don't you?), he receives money from the State Department - which means he sold his homeland. He wants the Maidan - which is undoubtedly evil. So why love him?

Well, many have not heard anything about Navalny. Or heard, but out of the corner of your ear and only from all sorts of programs where he is "exposed". These Navalny either do not like, or have no opinion, as someone who is completely unimportant.

PS Don't like politicians. It's dangerous, it leads to a cult of personality. Respect them, agree with them and support them (but only if they deserve it). But if you don't love it, don't.

Eddie, these truths are only obvious to you. Therefore, to agree with them or not on the conscience of each individual person.

Just because a politician raises a certain issue and proposes a solution to this issue is not a reason to support this politician. But a reason to think about if you need to support. This becomes a reason when you agree (at least in part) with these decisions and are convinced that a politician can really implement these decisions.

Reply

Comment

I see no reason for many to love him. The love of many smells bad: leaderism and the cult of personality. Yes, and there is a biblical saying, "Do not make yourself an idol." I don’t want to love a single politician. I want these politicians to really work and benefit the country, but at the moment our politicians have either stopped working altogether or are showing off. Alexei Anatolyevich now has no real opportunity to work due to non-admission to the elections. Yes, and tear in the opposition, not without his help, does not add sympathy to him. Now, for now, we see another Grisha Yavlinsky, who does not need anyone.

Everyone has their own reason. If we highlight the main ones, then it goes something like this:

  • Differences in ideology. Most Russians are conservatives, and Navalny speaks from a position of leftist liberalism. Supporting the rights of LGBT people, advocating a reduction in state interference in people's lives (which is fraught with less security), for indulgence in foreign policy, Navalny relies on a small liberal stratum, and not on the broad conservative masses.
  • The already small percentage of liberals that Navalny is trying to influence have usually always supported large liberal parties like Yabloko, so there is skepticism about Navalny's appearance in the presidential election. The situation is worsened by Aleksey himself, regularly accusing the opposition of “pro-Kremlin orientation” and inaction.
  • Navalny often resorts to deliberate distortion of information in videos and in his speeches in order to inspire his opinion or achieve an increase in effect. His opponents skillfully use this to denigrate Navalny.
  • Navalny is eager to radically change the current system, and the population associates radical changes with the 90s and Euromaidan. Part of the population is afraid of change and insists on "stability".
  • Navalny's audience is often inadequate; on the channel and in Alexei's group, the administration cleans up any criticism, which undoubtedly spoils the politician's image.
  • Most Russian citizens support Putin, who openly criticized Navalny's personality. Moreover, Navalny makes sharp attacks in the direction of Putin, who they support, in his videos.

People were intimidated by the “new 90s”, the threat of the Orange Revolution, and they were told that Russia is surrounded by enemies, thus creating a need for protection and a strong state. “NATO is advancing to destroy us, the Islamists want to blow us up, the North Koreans want to bomb us,” the ruling elite broadcasts this every day. Most believe that Russia is in a trench, in a state of war, therefore they perceive all those who advocate change and compromise with the West as a "fifth column", supposedly preventing us from fighting our enemies. This applies not only to Navalny, but to the entire opposition as a whole.

Today I read that Navalny once again did not begin to replace the suspended sentence with a real one. Of course, I was glad, because I think, and the documents of the case confirm this, that the court delivered an unfair sentence to Navalny. In the case of Kirovles, by the way, there are also a lot of gaps - you can’t give a person a term for what is actually normal entrepreneurial activity. However, the information occasion gave me a reason, in turn, to get acquainted with the personality of Navalny himself. Actually, no matter how much the liberals keep saying that Russia is a dirty, disgusting country with a long tradition of corruption, and that Navalny is hated precisely because the slaves do not accept the insults of the master, and so on, but this is all, of course, a lie. Liberals simply cannot understand, due to their special mentality, the real reason for hating people like Navalny. His fight against corruption, of course, has nothing to do with it. He is simply not Russian, not his own. Reading his blogs, notes and notes on Twitter, you constantly come across the idea that this is not a Russian person, but some kind of American or Western European who has learned to chat in Russian, but has not mastered the Russian character. All his interests are disgustingly American. Either he writes about some Pokemon, then about Hollywood films, then he broadcasts a video from an American series. There are such people, and this is a type, I emphasize, who, being here in Russia, live as if in internal emigration, they hate everything - the people, language, customs, culture. It is not theirs, it is incomprehensible and alien to them. Their souls are there - across the ocean, wandering around New York's Central Park, sitting in Starbucks in Manhattan, shouting at the top of their lungs, welcoming New York Nets players to Madison Square Garden. These are people who have completely rejected everything Russian, who have become part of that other culture. There is nothing right about it, nothing beautiful, but nothing surprising either. To abandon Russia with its thousand-year history, with its culture, art in favor of a country like the United States is a terrible stupidity. There is nothing surprising about people doing this. These are individuals with poor taste, with undeveloped self-awareness and a sense of beauty. They are analogous to those ridiculous fools who give up fine beef with a glass of French wine in favor of a burger and cola, those who avoid going to the theater to see a Chekhov play in favor of going to the cinema with the next furious avengers and captains America, those who put aside a volume of Dostoevsky into the far corner, taking Dontsova and Marinina from the shelf. A Russian American in general is a proud, vulgar, naive rubbish. The more trashy and stupid a person is, the easier it is for him to accept the culture of fast food that America today represents.
In general, the transformations of human consciousness caught in the networks of American consumer culture are very interesting. Our Ph.D. who comes to the USA usually degrades culturally below the low, and becomes not at all on the level of an American candidate, but in his views and preferences is more like an illiterate Negro from Queens who says "Yo" and sniffs glue. These are not empty words at all, but the result of sad long-term observations. One of the clearest examples is the younger brother of a friend who moved to the USA, where he has been living and programming for a long time. Talking with him about literature, I was surprised at the stereotyped nature of his knowledge, their extremely low level. For example, he praised Stephen King as a kind of beacon of American literature. While King is an analogue of our Boris Akunin. He is famous, films are made based on his works, but he does not enjoy any respect in the literary environment, being considered a master of the tabloid genre. In the US, this opinion is widespread, but my interlocutor did not know about it. He was also surprised by his tastes in art - he collects collections of figurines of comic book characters, buys various films about them, even goes to exhibitions, for example, he was at Comic-Con in San Diego. Talking with him, I could not get rid of the thought that I was conducting a dialogue with a person morally deformed, some kind of degenerate. And, of course, there was hatred for Russia - a classic manifestation of the modern Russian cosmopolitan.
We, Russians, of course, feel and understand all this, and therefore we cruelly hate people like Navalny. Well, who wants to become like him, that is, to lose the Fatherland, Russianness, self-respect? Last Man, who knows nothing about his activities, except for the obvious, will consider Navalny a traitor, and, perhaps, will not be very mistaken. Of course, he did not betray the Motherland, that is, he is not a CIA agent, but he is clearly not Russian, not the kind of person whom we can call our own. Hence, by the way, his nationalist views. A real Russian person, with his all-humanity and humanism, can never become a nationalist, this would be a distortion of what, perhaps, lies at the basis of his character.

I work as a journalist, and I'm Navalny's volunteer. Mixing journalism and political activism is a professional sin. I'm sitting on these two chairs and I don't want to get off. The text that you have begun to read does not contain the main journalistic virtues: impartiality and balance of opinions. This is not an objective analysis, but an attempt to convey what drives me and thousands of other activists and volunteers who go to rallies across the country, stand on campaign "cubes" and donate money to FBK. Doing this, despite the threat of detentions, arrests, "problems" at work and in business. Despite the lack of understanding on the part of relatives, friends and colleagues who are accustomed to not trusting anyone or anything in "big" Russian politics.

First, you need to decide that "bulk" should be written in quotation marks and with a small letter. Because this is not the name of a particular person, but an idea. The personality of Alexei Anatolyevich Navalny, born in 1976 we shouldn't worry at all. In March 2018, a different set of ideas and concepts - "Putin" can determine our lives for another six years. Ours - that is, a multinational people Russian Federation, ours - that is, citizens, voters, taxpayers. I take on the audacity to say "we" precisely because this is not a journalistic text, but an agitation.

The choice between "bulk" and "Putin" is a choice between hope and change of power on the one hand, and a corrupt dictatorship on the other. I am trying to understand why so many of my fellow citizens, faced with this choice, instead of actively fighting for freedom, passively choose dictatorship. Why do we not like "bulk"?

We do not like "bulk", because we are shy of pathos. We are embarrassed to make a choice, we are embarrassed by sincerity and the truth backhanded. It's much easier and more fun to joke ironically over all these things. To be for "bulk" means to step out of the crowd and stand in a pose. And a person in a pose runs the risk of seeming stupid and ridiculous.

We don't like "bulk" because there is an awful lot of it. He climbs from all the cracks of the Internet, he is tired. But "Putin" for 18 years is not at all tired, we want six more. "Putin" is the darkness of filthy entrances, beggar grandmothers on the streets, militaristic hysteria on TV, broken roads. We cannot say that we are tired of all this. We're so used to it that it's like it doesn't exist.

We don't like "bulk" because it's too simple and clear. It is very difficult to say something smart or interesting about "bulk", he said all the smart and interesting things about himself. Everything is too obvious: here “bulk” is good, but “Putin” is bad. We need something more ambiguous, so that there is something to discuss and something to laugh at. Here "sobchak" is another matter.

We do not like Navalny, because we are annoyed by his dictatorial habits and nationalist past. And we are terribly comical in our irritation, because under “Putin” we already live under the prevailing authoritarianism, and imperial nationalism with hatred for everything American and Ukrainian is the official ideology.

We do not like "bulk" - because it is hope. Hope hurts. How many times have we been deceived, how many times have our best feelings been betrayed and trampled underfoot? Sincerity is expensive, and we are afraid to pay this price again.

We do not like "bulk" because it is uncertainty. What if he turns out to be worse than "Putin"? "Putin" is stability and predictability. But “navalny” can, for example, suddenly take away some peninsula from a neighboring country, or introduce censorship, or cancel elections, or quarrel with half the countries of the world. That is, it will do something unexpected, to which we are not yet accustomed. Everything new seems scary and unsafe to us. Therefore, “bulk” can be more frightening than the caricature monster that “Putin” will turn into by 2024.

We terribly, terribly dislike "bulk", because it is a responsibility. If you have made a serious and adult choice in favor of "bulk" - this obliges you to a lot. Now you need to get wet and cold on campaign cubes, distribute leaflets, collect signatures. Now you need to wear a T-shirt with his name and listen to the tantrums of the old ladies that you are an American spy. Now you need to go to rallies and receive 10 days of administrative arrest for this. What did I personally do for "bulk"? Every month I transfer him a miserable thousand rubles. A couple of times I stood on campaign cubes, a couple of times I handed out leaflets. I verified my signature for his nomination. I wrote this text. Dear reader, I urge you to be better than me and do more for Navalny.

But most of all, we dislike Navalny, because choosing it means admitting that we have nothing more to lose. In the political sense, we are all beggars, everything has already been taken away. If not "bulk", we are waiting for the infinity of collective degradation and dictatorship. This regime is certainly capable of changing, but changing only for the worse, which he has already demonstrated many times. Ours today is poverty, sanctions, war with Ukraine, Kadyrov and Nemtsov's grave. Where will we be in another six years? For many of us, political emigration is a very real prospect. Whether we like it or not, "bulk" is our last chance for a decent future.

And in 2018 we will either choose Navalny, or these elections may be the last.

A photo: https://vk.com/navalny_boys , https://vk.com/navalnygirl

"The constitution must be respected. I served two terms - and goodbye ..."

A businessman named Che Guevara lives in Irkutsk, and Dmitry Tolmachev according to his passport. In November, he provided Alexei Navalny with the private area of ​​his furniture center to meet with residents. After that, Irkutsk Che was accused of organizing an unauthorized action and imprisoned for five days. Dmitry Tolmachev told Activatika about his misadventures and political views. Our conversation began with a warning that the phone was being tapped...

Alexei Navalny and Dmitry

…

Navalny's anti-Putin rallies are taking place all over Russia

In large cities of Russia, actions are being held today in support of Alexei Navalny and for the termination of Vladimir Putin's actions as president of the Russian Federation.

In Moscow, walks are simultaneously taking place along Tverskaya, connected both with the day the last Soviet constitution was adopted on October 7, 1977, and with the call of Alexei Navalny to take to the streets to support his nomination for the presidency of Russia.
"By 14 o'clock people concentrated around the monument to Pushkin. It is difficult to assess

…

Simonovsky District Court of Moscow sent opposition leader Alexei Navalny today

…

UPDATE - September 22

released

«

…

…

Navalny in a cube. Everyday life of opposition volunteers

Officials of St. Petersburg and the Leningrad region, with a creak and disgust, but still coordinate the campaign cubes of the election campaign of Alexei Navalny. The correspondent of "Activatika" took part in the work of the cubes and found out that the Vsevolozhsk policemen, officials and pensioners are kinder and more well-mannered than those in St. Petersburg, and that the best propaganda material is road dirt.

Thousands of people sign up as volunteers, but only dozens really actively participate in the campaign. One of them is Vladislav Kornyushenko,

…

UPDATE - September 22: The FBK is dissatisfied with the decision to release the man who attacked Lyaskin

Alexei Shcherbakov, the man suspected of attacking Nikolai Lyaskin, head of Navalny's Moscow campaign headquarters, has been released. As a measure of restraint, a written undertaking not to leave was chosen for him.

« A written undertaking not to leave Shcherbakov was taken, and he was released

…

Political scientist: Navalny's arrest works to glorify his image

Opposition leader Alexei Navalny arrested for 20 days. Political scientist Igor Bunin sees this as a "warning" from the authorities for running too vigorously for the presidency. The arrest partly works to glorify the image of the politician, although it reduces the chances of a successful rally in St. Petersburg on October 7th. The head of the St. Petersburg headquarters guarantees that the rally will take place at 18.00 either on the Field of Mars or even on Palace Square.

On Sunday, September 8, elections of the Moscow mayor will be held. Each voter will independently decide for whom to vote.

The election of the head of the largest city in Russia is serious. The election of the mayor of the city, which is the capital and in which practically all the authorities of the state are concentrated, is very serious. The choice must be made consciously, understanding the consequences of your choice. The mayor of Moscow, in fact, is the fifth most influential person in the country after the president, the prime minister and the heads of the two chambers of our parliament. Navalny wants to become that "number five", but his ambitions do not end there. Most recently, he announced his desire to run for the presidency of Russia, which means that the Moscow elections for him are just a step towards a more ambitious goal. Consequently, Navalny must be evaluated according to the highest standard. And now, evaluating him, you immediately see that on September 8 you cannot vote for Alexei Navalny in any case.

Reason one: Navalny has no principles.

Candidate for Moscow mayor Alexei Navalny nominated by political party

Republican Party of Russia - People's Freedom Party (RPR-Parnassus). What's wrong with that? Many things. First, the leaders of this party are Boris Nemtsov and Mikhail Kasyanov. Two prominent figures of that period of our recent history, when they stole not money or real estate, but entire sectors of the economy. Former prime minister and former deputy prime minister. One is ready to fight against the Olympics in Sochi for the money taken from the Koreans, the other went down in history as "Misha 2%". What does Navalny have to do with it, you ask? Despite the fact that he is running from this party, from these leaders. This means that it is not shameful for him to stand on the same platform with them and in the future to appoint them to certain posts. A politician cannot have no obligations to the party that nominates him. You say, a forced step? Could Navalny have done otherwise? Just agreed to participate in the elections? No, he had a choice. Speaking about the fight against those who behave "dishonestly", you must be honest yourself. This means that Navalny, who, together with other oppositionists, carried out the "March of Millions", had to collect signatures from Muscovites. What is it for him to collect several tens of thousands of signatures if "millions" go to his rallies? If the support is so great, if the whole nation is groaning from the yoke of "crooks and thieves." Instead, Navalny does not collect signatures, but goes to negotiate with the party, whose rating tends to zero. After that, collecting the signatures of municipal deputies necessary for registration as a candidate, the fighter against United Russia easily accepts help from ... " United Russia". And it is precisely the “crooks and thieves” that provide Navalny with the opportunity to participate in the elections.

The unscrupulousness is complete. And this is with a supposedly principled fighter against corruption. By the way, have you read the RPR-Parnas program? . Do you agree that it is necessary allow private, including foreign capital, to build and own infrastructure facilities, including iron and car roads, pipelines"? And with what you need "significantly reduce the number of armed forces" Do you, against the backdrop of what is happening in Syria and Libya, agree? There are many words in the program, but the essence is this: this party wants new privatization, reduction of the army, reforms power structures, by which liberals always understand defeat and drastic reduction. Do you agree that it is necessary “gradually move towards the formation of the Russia-NATO Union”? Before you is a typical party from the dashing 90s, democrats of the Yeltsin sample. It is not surprising that they are gaining a number of votes in elections that is more like a statistical error. Ask yourself – would you run for THIS party? You have views, positions and principles. Navalny has no principles. Therefore, he calmly goes to the election of the mayor of Moscow from a party whose program refers to a reduction in funding for the capital: “We need to stop stimulating the growth of the already immensely swollen and already unsuitable for life in Moscow, directing resources to the development and improvement of the Russian province.”

Would you run for Nemtsov and Misha "2%" Kasyanov?

The second reason. Navalny is a new version of Yeltsin with all the consequences of this.

Navalny's similarity to Yeltsin has been discussed more than once. This similarity is multifaceted and external similarity is the most harmless part of this similarity. Navalny's program is Yeltsin's program rewritten under new conditions. Boris Nikolayevich fought against the privileges of "crooks and thieves" from the CPSU, his reincarnation is trying to build a career on the same struggle with another party, but under the same banner. One scenario, one training manual for recruiting the sympathies of the electorate. But even this is half the trouble. Yeltsin's main misfortune was his pernicious passion for alcohol, which greatly affected both the affairs of the state and the prestige of the country. Alexei Navalny has exactly the same destructive passion. He himself spoke about it in an interview with a gamer magazine, hoping to gather the sympathy of this part of the electorate:

“My twitter readers know that the last big game I played was Crysis 3. They know because I kept asking them for advice on how to beat the main villain. And this is the game I spent two weekends on. To the outrage of my wife, who told me, "Do something else!" and my children, who were unhappy that I took the prefix. I went all the way to the main villain, but in the end I didn't kill him."

“I also play a lot. The last game I play is Plague, where you spread an epidemic among humanity. I have perfected it. I passed it on the most difficult levels. And I can kill humanity in two minutes."

And this is a mayoral candidate declaring his presidential ambitions. will come out a new game and the head of a multi-million city "will fall out of the outside world for a week"? A clear, unclouded consciousness is needed to guide vast expanses and vast human collectives.

A gambling president is no better than an alcoholic president. We've already been through this. And quite recently. Literally two years ago, Russia was headed by a man who still cannot part with a tablet, but easily parted with Russian interests in Libya.

Do you want to have a leader who can “turn off” for a couple of days or a week?

Reason three. Navalny has a team made up entirely of liberals.

Since with a probability of 90% this name does not tell you anything - I will explain. Widely popular in liberal circles is the rector of the Russian School of Economics. At the first sign of restoring order in the country, being summoned for a conversation with the investigator, he immediately fled to Paris. After that, "Echo of Moscow" and the entire liberal press "sobbed" for a week about what great economists we had lost. However, as we see, Sergei Guriev safely returned to Russia to help Navalny, and no one does anything to him for this.

“The reform of the Russian Academy of Sciences, more reminiscent of an attempt to defeat it, stirred up the Russian public. Scientists and politicians demand the resignation of the Minister of Science and Education Dmitry Livanov, seeing in him the whole root of evil. Livanov, of course, is guilty, but we undertake to assert that the author of the concept of the reform of the Russian Academy of Sciences is not him. The real author is Sergei Guriev, who fled to Paris. Why are we saying this? It's very simple: Sergei Guriev himself, in collaboration with Livanov, published the justification for the reform of the Russian Academy of Sciences, now replicated by the Ministry of Education, at the end of 2009 in the Expert magazine in the article "Six Myths of the Academy of Sciences."

The article in which Guriev spoke about the dissolution of the Academy of Sciences was indeed published in the Expert magazine in December 2009.

And that is why the brilliant scientist Zhores Alferov really dislikes Sergei Guriev. “Guriev, the rector of the Russian School of Economics, Livanov and Severinov, a biologist, a professor who worked somewhere abroad, wrote a long article about two years ago in which they called for the liquidation of the Academy of Sciences.”

3.5 years will pass and Alexei Navalny will invite this "wonderful person" to his team.

Would you take on your team someone who wants to close the Academy of Sciences?

Reason four. Navalny loves money and is ready to do anything for money.

Many people have a weakness for money, but few are willing to do for money what is contrary to principles. Now, if there are no principles, then it is much more convenient. Navalny has no principles. Being a member of the Yabloko party and not just a simple one, but included in the federal list of the party, he received from Nikita Belykh from the Union of Right Forces a huge budget for advertising the Union of Right Forces. “The investigation established that in April 2007 an agreement was concluded between the Union of Right Forces and Allekt LLC for the provision of advertising services during the elections to the State Duma. AT total about 100 million rubles were received from the party to the settlement account of Allekt under the agreement. According to the investigation, the Allekt company, headed by Alexei Navalny, transferred the funds received to the accounts of about fifty companies, most of which had signs of “one-night stands”, since they did not conduct any financial and economic activities.

This, by the way, also explains the further "friendship" between Belykh and Navalny, when, having received the post of Kirov governor, former head The Union of Right Forces took with them, as an adviser on a voluntary basis, Aleksey, who was sensible and useful in the matter of scrolling through the budgets. The Kirovles case will come later, as will the strange privatization of the distillery, the details of which Navalny and Belykh will pour out in correspondence, and the hacker will make it public.

Ask yourself: how can an adult man, a father of a family, work on a voluntary basis? That is free. How does he feed his family? Say, did his business stay in Moscow? Suppose. But why did he go to Kirov for Nikita Belykh, like the faithful wife of a Decembrist in exile for her husband? Implement advanced management technologies? Can you name at least one? Can you name anything that Belykh and his team have done for this region of Russia? In addition to the purchase of Masha Gaidar, also an adviser to Belykh, tomographs at an inflated price. All that Navalny did for Kirov was an old-fashioned money-stealing scheme with the help of a shell company. And that's it. But then he had no other opportunities to earn money. Alexei did not yet know that the State Department would pay attention to him. And the State Department did not know that the past of the "greatest thinker of our time" is very muddy.

But even after becoming a famous person, Navalny has not changed. His love for money outweighs everything. After all, he writes, speaks, broadcasts always only about one thing: about money. Other topics are incomprehensible and alien to him. He never misses an opportunity to earn money - and now his correspondence with Berezovsky's henchman Stanislav Belkovsky appears on the Internet. It turns out that our candidate wrote articles against specific companies on commission. Now, in the mayoral elections, he has collected 35 million rubles for his promotion. And that's just the official part. And recently, two "not quite" activists were covered in an apartment with two tons of promotional products, which "passed by the cash register."

According to him, all 35 million are entirely donations from ordinary people.

Are you not embarrassed by the “principleness and honesty” of this fighter against corruption?

Reason five. Navalny does not have the flair needed for a politician.

It is quite characteristic that Navalny gladly went to work on the Board of Directors of Aeroflot. What painted it with a very strange paint. He, essentially doing nothing, received 1.6 million rubles a year. What he himself told Komsomolskaya Pravda. Tellingly, he himself spoke about the amount of his remuneration, although the journalist did not ask about it.

And there was absolutely no need for Navalny to come to the Kremlin for a banquet. But if there is no instinct, then no. Even the 90th anniversary of Aeroflot is not a reason to surprise everyone like that

Are you in favor of principled "fighters against the Kremlin" going to the Kremlin for banquets?

Reason six. Navalny is not a man of Russian civilization.

Russian civilization was created by the Russian people, but it is multinational. And all the peoples of Russia have traditions and rules. Practically very similar, largely unwritten, but which have been strictly observed for centuries. In the tradition of Russian civilization, a gay parade is impossible. Not in Makhachkala, not in Kazan, not in Moscow.

Navalny, a “liberal Yabloko” picked up by the Americans in Kirov, does not want to understand this.

“A. VENEDIKTOV: Alexei Anatolyevich, people here are asking about something more pleasant, about gay parades in Moscow.

A.NAVALNY: Come on.

A. VENEDIKTOV: "Let him say." Tell.

A.NAVALNY: My task as the Mayor of Moscow is to make sure that the Constitution is observed in Moscow, among other things. Here, the Constitution says that everyone can walk and the mayor of Moscow cannot allow or prohibit. I, as the mayor of Moscow, must make sure that they do not fight among themselves.

A. VENEDIKTOV: What about your political position? Not administrative, but political.

A.NAVALNY: My political position is that I will abide by the Constitution. The Constitution states that all people have the right to assemble peacefully and without weapons.

A. VENEDIKTOV: That is, under you as the mayor of Moscow, this will be possible?

A.NAVALNY: Everyone will go where they want. The main thing is that no one fights or runs naked, and, again, does not violate public order. Now, if there are people stripped naked and running, and children are looking at them, well, they probably need to be taken to the police. If everyone is dressed, decorously, decently walking with their slogans, I don’t care at all what their sexual orientation is and where they go, and what they say there.

Are you in favor of homosexuals marching in Moscow? Can you name at least one worthy and useful person for Russia, about whom the US State Department would care so much? And after all, both American and Swedish diplomats go to court in Kirov.

Reason seven. Navalny surrenders his.

Those of his who he no longer needs. Those of our own who can be the fuel for a breakthrough.

At the beginning of his career, he was a Yabloko member, then he went to bloggers, from there to Yale at the expense of the Americans, then to the “oppositionists”. By the end of the winter of 2011, while Navalny was leading the failed Orange Putsch, publishing articles with headlines about a violent change of power, a book about himself, Alexey Navalny. A storm of crooks and thieves. Such is the "coincidence".

And there, Alexei Navalny, in full, "surrendered" his native Yabloko, in which he was far from the last person.

Here are quotes from this book, where Navalny's direct speech is published:

“We wanted to promote specific people so that they become deputies. And we would be their assistants. The struggle of some people against others was what interested me most. We wanted to show that the election campaign does not mean that they immediately steal all the money and do nothing. We carried out a new type of campaign, at least for Yabloko: we handed out leaflets at pickets, campaigned personally.

We also competed with other regions within the party, because we were afraid to show a worse result than them. But when the elections were over, it turned out that other regions did not participate in the competition, but simply stole money. In general, all election campaigns take place in Russia this way. The task of any headquarters is to steal all the money at once. Elections will be held, no one will ask for anything; your superiors steal in the same way, only more.”

I wonder how many of the many tens of millions of rubles of his current electoral budget will actually be spent on the cause? The elections will be held, no one will ask for anything. And is it not the desire to hide the ends in the water is the desire to "destroy one's own election headquarters", which the Izvestia newspaper wrote about the other day?

Curiously, in the same book, Navalny talks about how false liberals' claims about "stolen votes" are:

“From that moment, this disgusting lie began that Yabloko did not go anywhere because of falsifications. It really did not pass then, because it did not gain 5%. And this lie has since been repeated in all elections: “They stole our victory from us! We scored 20, and we were left with 2%. We scored 10, and we were left with 1%. We scored at least 12, and they left us 0.5%!” But in fact, everything is so - that's how much you scored. They were all deputies of the State Duma and thought that it would always be like this and that it was possible to do nothing more in life. Then, out of inertia, they puffed out their cheeks for a couple of years, and now it’s just a political chant…”

And how rightly pointed out! Political scammer. And the election of the mayor of Moscow is a serious matter. You choose, dear Muscovites. There are more than seven reasons not to vote for Navalny. Specify everything - it will turn out not an article, a book.

... And it is best to stop a chantrap, especially a political one, long before she makes her way to the heights of power.

I am writing this text also for myself: when the text is written, it puts my thoughts in order. It is necessary to somehow describe what happened on June 12th and after. In general, this entire period from March 26 to today.

First, it became completely clear that the opposition has no other leader than Navalny. It is characteristic that right now Yabloko (from Shlosberg to Yavlinsky) rushed to criticize him harshly and uncompromisingly. This reaction of Yabloko is a litmus test: it means that a real leader has appeared.

Now the question is formulated simply: if you really want to change the government in the country, then you need to support Navalny. No one has such an extensive and powerful infrastructure throughout the country, no one has such an audience and such recognition, no one is so popular, etc.

In general, this is an interesting paradox: strictly speaking, we want there to be many opposition leaders and for every taste. If you want - here's a nationalist for you, if you want - a left liberal, if you want - a right-wing conservative, if you want - a technocrat, if you want - a moral authority. And everyone votes without any internal compromise with himself for the one whom he considers his leader.

But on the other hand, the reality is that it is impossible to put up a dozen warring candidates against the current government. Such a strategy is a gift for Putin: with such an opposition strategy, Putin is guaranteed to win every election on the horizon of the next 50 years (God bless him).

The principle of "divide and conquer", invented by the Romans, in this particular case is simplified to an anecdote: "rule while the enemies themselves are divided."

Moreover, they are divided of their own free will, without any pressure from the authorities. Separated because they themselves consider it right and for granted ...

Thus, consolidation around one leader (contrary to the literal reading of democratic principles) is a necessary condition for victory. Necessary, but, of course, far from sufficient. But a departure from this necessary condition closes any, even the most meager opportunity for success. It is pointless to discuss all other aspects of the struggle for power until this condition is met.

Who could be such a leader other than Navalny? In the years that have passed since the last surge of opposition activity in 2011-20012, Nemtsov, Khodorkovsky, Prokhorov, Yavlinsky, Kasyanov had such an opportunity.

But Nemtsov was killed, Khodorkovsky, being barred from entry, lost the opportunity for direct political dialogue with the nation, Prokhorov was frightened for his billions, Yavlinsky (once again!) Demonstrated his trademark inability to form a coalition with at least someone other than himself, Kasyanov turned out to be too much so to speak, he is cheerful (in every sense) and he was skillfully discredited ...

You can analyze the chances of this or that opposition figure as much as you like. Up to Zhanna Nemtsova, who, like Indira Gandhi or Benazir Bhutto, could, on the wave of sympathy for her and real charm, consolidate the opposition in the Duma elections last year on the lists of PARNAS. But that didn't happen either.

Now there is a given - Navalny. Yes, Navalny appointed himself such a leader. While the rest were measuring their charisma with each other, Navalny, having saddled the win-win skate of the fight against corruption, using social media and the methods of aggressive crowdfunding became out of reach for everyone else.

Why did it happen so? Probably in the future, not a single dissertation and monograph will be written on this topic. But even now the main thing is clear: he became the most popular opposition politician precisely because he did not listen to the demands of the opposition to him and did not begin to determine his political orientation. He is neither left nor right, he is not a nationalist, but he has not lost his identity as a “general person”, he is for privatization, and at the same time he is against it, etc.

Everyone in it will find what he needs. Pragmatic? Certainly! Reasonable? Of course! Moreover: otherwise - no way! The demand for Navalny will be determined in his preferences - this is a demand for him to commit political hara-kiri and close his entire project.

Simply put, the “Navalny project” is a cold-blooded and pragmatic attempt to build an “ideal” opposition leader who would consolidate all (!) who are against Putin. This is so obvious to me that anyone who requires Navalny to make up his mind is either just a blockhead or a provocateur in my opinion.

Do I like Navalny? Of course no. Why? The same reason why everyone else: because he was undecided. He is not a right-wing liberal, he is not a European, he criticizes the privatization that I did. I can name 100 more reasons why I don't like him. I will even say more: his fight against corruption disgusts me. It is so cynically calculated that it reminds me of Yeltsin in a trolleybus. Do you remember this booth that BN put up in the late 80s? I still can't think of it without disgust...

I do not like that he is a bad polemist, does not know how to give interviews, argues his position poorly in an interactive mode, “deflates” at the slightest face-to-face duel, when a counterpart “runs over” him. Remember how pale he looked in polemics with Chubais, with Lebedev, in an interview with Sobchak...

I met him a couple of times, a couple of times with his right hand Volkov. Feelings are the same. They only care about: analyzing sociology, studying focus groups, developing a strategy based on the reaction of the electorate, developing a target message, picture, slogan, topic ... And endless, primitive impudence. The audacity to run for president with a history of criminal conviction, the audacity to gut Chaika and Medvedev, the audacity to continue their investigations even with their brother sitting in the punishment cell, the audacity to take dozens of people to unauthorized rallies...

I just now corresponded with Yashin until the moment when his phone was taken away after the judge gave him 15 days. He wrote to me that the judge did not even deign to interrogate his witnesses, the testimony of the policemen was enough for the judge. I asked him: what are you waiting for? He answered me: I did not expect such impudence from her!

And I'll tell you what: exactly the same words I heard from Boris Nemtsov. Whenever the Kremlin made a fool of him, he repeated the same thing: I did not expect such impudence from them. Remember the iconic episode with the rally that Nemtsov led away from the unauthorized monument to Marx to the authorized Bolotnaya? Why did you take it? Because Nemtsov was not arrogant. And Navalny (in any case, the current Navalny) is arrogant.

Actually, it was Medvedev who called him "arrogant". The prime minister said: “You must have such impudence: to declare that he wants to be president!”

I studied in detail how Lenin and Trotsky came to power. I think that I will not discover America if I say that their main weapon was unparalleled arrogance. Before my eyes, Yeltsin came to power. I know exactly how it happened. It was an absolutely brazen stunt. Strictly speaking, Putin turned out to be a decent impudent person, spitting on the Constitution, the opinion of the people to whom he was indebted, and even on human and God's laws.

Probably arrogance is the only thing I like about Navalny. He is the only one who is ready to play “not by the rules”. In any case, not according to the rules prescribed by the Kremlin. You can criticize him as much as you like, but the presence of this impudence is the main argument for me in his favor.

Vysotsky sang in one of his songs: "Pure truth will someday triumph if it does the same thing as a blatant lie." Only an unparalleled insolent, insolent, who has surpassed Putin with his impudence, will be able to knock him over. This is clear to me empirically. Probably, some theory can be summed up under this, but for me the experience of mankind is enough to take it for granted.

Another argument of Navalny's opponents is that he is a project of the Kremlin. Here the proof comes from the opposite: if he had not been a project of the Kremlin, he would have been at least imprisoned a long time ago, and at most killed. I am not going to fight this paranoia, because, like any paranoia, it does not take into account those factors that do not fit into the Procrustean bed of this hypothesis. Neither a sitting brother, nor endless trials and administrative terms, nor a wounded eye, nor streams of lies and slander are taken into account.

But let's say. Let's say that Navalny is a project of the Kremlin. One of its towers, as it is now fashionable to say. But in these terms, Yeltsin can also be considered a project of the Kremlin. Why didn't Gorbachev imprison him? Why did a huge number of generals and first secretaries of regional committees remain in their chairs after Yeltsin's arrival? Were they not his secret assistants during his disgrace? Somehow the KGB and Staraya Ploshchad fought him very toothlessly. What? Gorbachev interfered? Oy! Especially on the eve of the State Emergency Committee, who could prevent the KGB from arresting him or even simply liquidating him?

I know, I know: now you will rush to convince me of the opposite. Yes, I don't think so either. But there are just as many arguments against the hypothesis that Navalny is a Kremlin project than in the case of Yeltsin. However, for some reason, in the case of Yeltsin, these arguments are heard by the same people who do not hear them in the case of Navalny.

Let's assume the worst: the Kremlin's Navalny project, Navalny is a populist and xenophobe, Navalny understands nothing about economics, and so on. But on the other side of the scale, one must put the fact that today Navalny is the only statistically significant phenomenon in the opposition camp. There is no one else with a support level above tenths of a percent. Vaughn Khodorkovsky tried to gather a rally - what came of it? Both Yavlinsky and Kasyanov... These are not even discussed...

And next to this xenophobe and populist, let's put Putin, the murderer and robber of the country. The man who destroyed Russian system education and healthcare, who finished off the Academy of Sciences, a man who quarreled Russia with the whole world and is openly proud that Russia has no allies at all ...

The darkest sides of human consciousness, all the human bottom, all the abomination that is in a person - he recruited all this for his own support and his personal power. Laziness, envy, superstition, ignorance, boorish self-confidence and selfishness, endless greed and depravity he called to serve himself. He disfigured Orthodox Church and turned it into a terrible den of blasphemers and pagans, he destroyed the institution of the family by his own example, discredited and ruined the court, turned the policemen into wild and stupid animals ...

Today's position: I'm against Navalny because I like Yavlinsky more (substitute the name yourself) - this is a betrayal of Russia, a betrayal of your children and, ultimately, yourself.

There is no Yavlinsky (substitute the name yourself). It is not on the political landscape and never will be. Dot. Whether Navalny is good or bad is irrelevant. It's about the survival of the country.

Will the country survive under Navalny's leadership? Don't know. It is quite possible that it is not. But at least she gets a chance. And under Putin, she has no chance. That's all. Here, as they say, there is no choice. So the cards fell...

And, finally, to soften the pill a little, I will tell you the main difference between Navalny and Yeltsin. Yeltsin came with an old, still regional committee, team (Lobov, Ilyushin, etc.). And Gaidar and Co. recruited and used only when he needed them and did not threaten his power. Navalny does not have the old regional committee team. His people are young people, without the old Soviet background. And I hope for them even more than for Navalny himself. Amen!