26.04.2007 On the Nature of Sincerity

We can speak of two forms of sincerity:
- one proceeds from foolishness, when a person lets out what should be kept in silence;
- the other results from honesty and frankness.
In his TV program “Real Politics” (April, 24, 2007) Gleb Pavlovsky was absolutely sincere. That’s the resume of his eloquence: Yeltsin was revolution, Putin is counter-revolution. The alternative was framed using the evaluation marks: Yeltsin was bad, Putin is good.
By an unknown reason Pavlovsky draw Pushkin on the side of Putin, portraying the former as a counter-revolutionary and an opponent to radical reforms of Peter I. That’s nonsense! Pavlovsky needs to go to school again. The window to Europe, hacked by Peter, inspired Pushkin and only thanks to oxygen which flowed from there could Pushkin thrive as a poetical genius. Pushkin was a European to the core.
Even toadying must have its proper measure. Putin in no way resembles Pushkin, but in the first two letters of his surname. If there be an antithesis to Peter I, it must be Nicolas I. Developing Pavlovsky’s dubious analogies, one can build the following scheme:

Peter I = Yeltsin
Nicolas I = Putin

Such schemes are always superficial. But they are heuristically fruitful. It is worthwhile remembering that Pushkin’s sovereign censor disliked freedom, he was a reactionary. It is not bad in itself. History loves the tongue of opposites. It is good there are conservatives and reformers, reactionaries and revolutionaries – it is arguing between them that provides for the functioning of a society. Both revolutionaries’ upsurges and reactionaries’ reins are necessary to direct history, if not in the optimal, still in more or less reasonable way. Yet its main energy is generated by the revolutions – no matter, political or technical or spiritual. Counter-revolution is often associated with betrayal, leading to power untalented and immoral people. Sometimes they are praised for bringing stability to society. But what is easier than letting the big waves calm? Stabilization often results in stagnation. Society begins to feel oxygen-hungry. Reaction is always mediocre.
With some unclean triumph Gleb Pavlovsky spoke of an end of Yeltsin’s era. It looked like gloating over the dead. At last Putin can walk out of Yeltsin’s shadow! As if Yeltsin’s death has at last completely untied his hands. It’s no good thing. Such tactlessness makes one feel uneasy. Gleb Pavlovsky greatly lacks culture. There is one positive thing in the truth he involuntarily denudes – we can plainly see what sort of people came to replace Yeltsin.
Among Pavlovsky’s glorious tirades there was one, that the best thing Yeltsin ever did was the nomination of strong Putin. It is a very controversial point! I think, Yeltsin repented the choice he made and the painful understanding that it can’t be unmade has led him to an untimely death. These are my own guesses and I don’t think they should be sounded, but Pavlovsky’s insulting attitude towards the memory of the first president makes silence impossible.
The so called real politics is charged with ideology. It was this ideologization Yeltsin fought against and was right. I would call Pavlovsky’s ideology national conservatism. This line was followed by many outstanding thinkers, namely Leontyev, Danilevsky, Panarin. With all due respect for them, one has to acknowledge the wrongness of this way. Russia cannot be isolated from the liberal world. The iron curtain has fallen for good. Globalization does not threaten our national peculiarity, which our reactionaries are so afraid of. B.N.Yeltsin half-consciously felt that liberal values are compatible with the love of Russia and its people – having turned his face to Europe he remained deeply Russian. In this respect he is several feet higher than his successors and the petty dwarves cannot shake down his crown.
Revolution made by our people and B.N. Yeltsin cost great sacrifices. They can’t be unavailing. Let Gleb Pavlovsky thrill over the victory of counter-revolution. It is temporal. The flow of history can be impeded, but not frozen or directed backwards. The ideals of Yeltsin’s revolution are beautiful. The nation will not betray them. Counter-revolution traitors are spoken of with despise. First their names sound pompously, but as time passes, they become proverbs of treachery, cowardice, fanaticism and baseness.
Nationalism often heralds the advent of fascism. But I feel that thanks to B.N. Yeltsin Russia has gained immunity to this peril.
Thanks to Gleb Pavlovsky for his sincerity. It has made a lot of things clear. In the end I quote an old saying: tell me who is your councilor and I will tell you who you are.

YURI LINNIK, doctor of philosophical sciences, poet, Russia’s honored worker of science