Word, Fornication, or Complete Albats

 

Alik Bakhshi

Word, fornication, or complete Albats

 

Words are powerful! As soon as the regal General Secretary Gorbachev foolishly granted the right to free speech to the subjects of the Soviet Empire, that very word brought down the mighty empire. And how can one not recall the biblical dictum: "In the beginning was the word?" It may have brought down, but unlike the biblical dictum, it created nothing. And what can be created if the people's mentality doesn't allow for creative activity? While the talkative democrats, competing and frantically practicing their words, to which the people remained deaf, the oligarchs hastily plundered the country. Fortunately, the Tsar-father appeared, dispersed the oligarchs, curbed their wordplay, drenched Chechnya in blood, established a vertical power structure, calling it sovereign democracy—that is, democracy for the sovereign—and thereby saved the remnants of the empire. However, Putin is unable to completely rein in the media. The Russian-language RTV and Echo of Moscow, inaccessible to Putin, continue the work of the Young Democrats.

I considered capitalizing the word "Albats" in the article's title, associating the sonorous "albats" with the equally sonorous word commonly associated with the word "full," which, in my opinion, most accurately reflects the range of issues discussed on the well-known Echo of Moscow program. Or capitalizing it, considering the name of its host, E. Albats. After some thought, I concluded that the program was named "Full Albats" after the popular expression of utter despair that accompanies failure. The literary version—"Full Affront"—not only wouldn't have been understood by the public, but might have even assumed it was German obscenity, which corresponds to its Russian translation. On the other hand, if I titled the article, for example, "Word, Fornication, or the Complete Shenderovich," then, firstly, "the complete Shenderovich" not only doesn't ring true, but also doesn't compare in any meaningful way to "the complete Albats" for the aforementioned reason, even though it reflects reality in the definition of "complete," where, judging by the video featuring Shenderovich in an orgy, it's difficult to mistake him for a bad guy. Secondly, by mentioning only Shenderovich, I would unwittingly offend other, more socially important figures who "starred" in the same video. (See http://www.kompromat.lv/item.php?docid=readn&id=5857), (https://ok.ru/video/1209338004 ).

 

Out of political correctness and deep respect for Echo of Moscow and its program "The Complete Albats," I wrote it as I wrote it. However, beyond the message conveyed by the Echo of Moscow editorial board in the program's title, "Full Albats," I also use "Albats" because, in the title itself, I want to acknowledge E. Albats as the first of my colleagues and opposition figures hanging out on Echo of Moscow to respond with outrage at the public disclosure of the immoral character of V. Shenderovich, M. Fishman, I. Yashin, E. Limonov, and D. Oreshkin. It should be noted that senior colleagues, such as A. Venediktov and G. Kasparov, have maintained an uncharacteristic stubborn silence regarding the incriminating evidence posted online regarding their comrades and associates. While the satirical writer and the Nazi politician turned out to be pathetic buffoons and petty liars, the extremely ambitious young oppositionists with a noticeable touch of arrogance—M. Fishman, editor-in-chief of "Russian Newsweek," and I. Yashin, leader of the "Solidarity" movement—see themselves as uncompromising fighters against corruption, criticizing the Kremlin government for its inability to address the vices corroding Russian society, have emerged publicly as drug addicts and bribe-takers.

The conscience-dealing of these individuals should probably concern their loved ones and colleagues, if, of course, the latter value the moral side of wordplay. However, E. Albats, editor-in-chief of the liberal magazine "The New Times" and a member of the Presidium of the Russian Jewish Congress, is not at all concerned about the morality of her colleagues M. Fishman and V. Shenderovich. In this regard, I wonder whether there are any decent people among today's liberal oppositionists. Isn't such a clear decline in morality in the Russian democratic camp, compared to the first wave of empty talkers like Nemtsov, Yavlinsky, and Khakamada, natural? I wasn't being unfair when I called them empty talkers, because their beautiful rhetoric was devoid of any substance, and they lacked a clear position on any important issue. For example, regarding the repression of Chechnya, both under Yeltsin and after, they, fearing to disturb the relict imperial worldview of the Russian people, did not advocate for Chechnya's freedom, thereby betraying the principles of democracy. After all, empire and democracy are incompatible. For the sake of minor government positions, they were able to push party interests into the background. Lack of principles, excessively ambitious rivalry, maneuvering to suit mercantile interests (what goals did Nemtsov pursue by running for mayor of Sochi? What's wrong with Uryupinsk, for example!) – all this has brought the democratic movement in Russia to naught. I have no doubt that they subsequently realized the Russian people's unwillingness to accept the values ​​of democracy, which determined their final, inglorious abandonment of the battlefield for democracy in Russia. "The unjustifiably grand political ambitions of each of Yavlinsky, Nemtsov, and Khakamada, ultimately burst the balloon of their empty rhetoric" (see "The People's Destiny, or Each Cricket in Its Own Place" https://alikbahshi.blogspot.com/2026/04/the-peoples-fate-or-to-each-cricket-his.html  ).

Against this backdrop, the emergence of Garry Kasparov, an overseas paratrooper who decided to make a new attempt to bestow democracy on the Russian people, appears quite audacious. In his search for "Another Russia," unable to find a democratic field to land on, he settled on a rather dubious and odious figure, the leader of the banned National Bolshevik Party, E. Limonov. It's safe to say that Kasparov's efforts are futile; there's no other Russia. There is a Russia that owes its existence to the mentality of the Russian people, a mentality that rejects democracy, which speaks to the utter futility of Kasparov's mission. All talk of democracy and freedom in Russia is like talking about a brick wall.

The chess player-politician's political position is permeated with cynicism. Realizing the hopelessness of the democratization of Russian society, Kasparov, placing himself at the head of a non-existent opposition and ranting about democracy, is allying himself with the founder of the National Bolshevik Party, which essentially has nothing in common with democracy, being a form of Nazism. Kasparov's calls to fight for democracy are more like an appeal to the people to overthrow Putin's totalitarian regime through revolutionary means—the very regime that restored the people's cherished empire and their faith in it. The desire to gain power by exploiting the country's emerging problems is literally present at a genetic level, if we recall 1917, when, having deceived the Russian people with the slogan "factories for the workers, land for the peasants," the leaders of the Bolshevik Party, among whom it was difficult to find ethnic Russians, managed to seize power. The situation repeated itself in the 1990s with the emergence of a group of Jewish oligarchs led by Boris Berezovsky. If not for the fatal mistake of Putin, who was supposed to play the role of a puppet, Russia would have been a dictatorship of oligarchs, because democracy in Russia is nonsense. Even if we hypothetically assume that the unthinkable were to happen and Kasparov were to become president, democracy in Russia is still not destined. Democracy is only possible when the people actively and freely participate in the country's economic and political life, and this is completely absent from the Russian people. The people, absolving themselves of responsibility, shift all their worries onto the shoulders of the Tsar-father, who can then easily be blamed for their failures, usually posthumously.

I have no doubt that Kasparov, too, understands the impossibility of democracy in Russia, at least at this point in history. But the example of 1917 and the thirst for power, especially when supported by overseas NGOs, are the reasons for the former chess player's reckless gamble, intending to checkmate the Russian people off the chessboard. Jewish media outlets like RTV and Ekho Moskvy are mobilizing to support Kasparov. However, the blatant search for and dissemination of dirt—which is precisely how it appears to the Russian people—on the airwaves provokes the exact opposite reaction: it unites the people around Putin. The campaign in defence of the failed oligarch Khodorkovsky, convicted of economic crimes, appears highly biased. I doubt that if someone like Ivanov had been in Khodorkovsky's shoes, he would have received the same attention and protection on RTV.

 

Hypocrisy, coupled with cynicism and double standards in reporting, particularly on the equivalent situations in Chechnya and Palestine, inevitably leads to a verbal bluff among those working on the matter, without any conscience. And without conscience, it's not far to fornication, as Shenderovich, Limonov, and Fishman so vividly demonstrated, or to criminality, as Yashin and Oreshkin demonstrated.

 

Democracy in Russia is possible under two conditions. First, when Russians themselves want it, and second, when Russians realize that empire and democracy are incompatible. Without these conditions, all the opportunistic attempts by foreigners through the media to persuade Russians to embrace democracy will look like a complete disaster. May 20, 2010

 

October 18, 2010

 

So, a completely logical conclusion for Editor-in-Chief M. Fishman:

"Russian Newsweek" is closing; the October 18, 2010, issue was the publication's final one. Naturally, the moral character of Fishman, the hero of a porn video and a drug addict, is in no way consistent with a reputable publication that exposes Russian corruption and defends freedom of conscience. The editor-in-chief's conscience is completely at odds with the magazine's goals.

In this article, I expressed my opinion of the editor-in-chief, anticipating the magazine's closure.