I'm tired of the noisy campaign against all dissidents with elements of spy mania and conspiracy theories, unleashed by the media controlled by the security officers in connection with the antics of the left-wing outrageous girls from Pussy Riot, whose views are interesting, but which I do not share at all. I have my own, almost the opposite. Well, someone took off his pants somewhere and showed his ass.
But is this a reason to blame everyone? who does not share the only correct point of view (naturally, the point of view of the head of the house) in selling out to the West. in a conspiracy to overthrow the foundations and foundations? And a reason to show this ass in a thousand programs in different angles. The Kremlin arranged this PR for this ass. This is deliberate debauchery and an insult to the feelings of believers. Because at the moment of conditional removal of pants, i.e. performances of punks (translation: scum) there was not a single believer in the KHS. Don’t consider security mugs as such... But the media showed this ass a hundred times to everyone without fail and a million Pharisees cried out about the insult to their tender feelings and the need to burn the damned witches at the stake.
It is necessary to separate criticism of the church and criticism of religion. All liberals have a tolerant attitude towards religion. In the end, you can profess the point of view that you need to love your neighbor as yourself. That's what it is Orthodox Christianity and Christianity in general. Or is Orthodoxy not Christianity? Please love me. But don't meddle in my bed or my affairs. And this is done by a gang that undertakes to speak on behalf of 90% of the population, only because they want to love me as themselves. Faith is a personal matter for everyone, and the church is a totalitarian sect, meddling with its banner bearers in the affairs of society. They did not intend to love their neighbor, but to beat them. And they privatized religion, in this case Orthodoxy, like their accomplices from secular gangs, state property. As for other faiths, I can say that they do not interfere in my life yet. and I don’t care about them. Don't look for evil intent secular society. whose feelings were offended by the interference of the church in his affairs. I don’t forbid carrying money to church, I don’t mind, but I won’t go either. And let the Dkraks believe in love for one’s neighbor or the love of one’s neighbors. I'm not a Christian, but an atheist. Although they signed me up without asking.
|Oleg, I am also against perverted love in relation to myself and my loved ones. The rest must choose their own beds and partners, but this should not affect public morals. If the church and the majority of society are against sexual perversions, then everyone must submit to these demands, especially since physiology is also on the side of the traditional view. I’m more likely an atheist too, although I’m baptized, but no one pulls me into church. They don't force you there either. Let those whom faith helps to live, regardless of religion, believe, but do not impose faith on others. They don’t force it on me, and if they try, I know both the Old and New Testaments well enough, this sobers up neophytes.
Modern politics is, on the one hand, an extensive network of knowledge in the political aspect (philosophy, political science, economics, geography, history, sociology, ecology, ethics, anthropology, etc.), and on the other, a way of action aimed at achieving something. something determining the nature of interaction between state and society in the internal aspect and between states in the external aspect. Most often in politics, the course of action in the internal aspect is aimed at achieving power, usually in the form of a struggle for power. In the external aspect, most often the course of action is associated with achieving the maximum possible benefit in relation to other states, as well as ensuring external security. And here, in most cases, the principle is realized: in politics, “the method is not important, but the result is important.” That is why political practice at the time of the appearance of the “Protocols”, and even more so in our time, is permeated with hypocrisy, meanness and deception, largely due to the insidious fetishization and slippery mythologization that have become established in it. But let us give a few characteristic excerpts from the “Protocols” concerning various aspects of the implementation of policies by the “elected”.
“Politics has nothing to do with morality. A ruler guided by morality is impractical and therefore not secure on his throne. Whoever wants to rule must resort to cunning and hypocrisy. The great national qualities - frankness and honesty - are vices in politics, because they overthrow the strongest enemy better and more faithfully. These qualities should be attributes of the goyim kingdoms, but we should not be guided by them” (from protocol No. 1).
“In order to distract too restless people from discussing political issues, we are now pursuing new supposedly political issues - industrial issues. In this field, let them rage!... Weaning themselves more and more from independent thinking, people will speak in unison with us, because we alone will begin to suggest new directions of thought, of course, through such persons with whom we will not be considered in solidarity” ( from protocol No. 1).
“Our password is strength and hypocrisy.
Violence must be the principle, and cunning and hypocrisy the rule for governments that are unwilling to lay down their crown at the feet of the agents of any new power.
Therefore, we should not hesitate to bribe, deceive and betrayal when they should serve to achieve our goal. In politics, we must be able to take other people’s property without hesitation, if with it we achieve obedience and power” (from protocol No. 1).
“We need to take into account the modern thoughts, characters, and tendencies of peoples, so as not to make mistakes in politics and in the management of administrative affairs. The triumph of our system, the parts of the mechanism of which can be arranged differently, depending on the temperament of the peoples we meet along the way, cannot be successful if its practical application is not based on the results of the past in connection with the present” (from protocol No. 2).
“The main success in politics lies in the secrecy of its enterprises: the word should not be consistent with the actions of the diplomat” (from protocol No. 7).
“When we introduced the poison of liberalism into the state organism, its entire political complexion changed: states became ill fatal disease− blood decomposition. We can only wait for the end of their agony” (from protocol No. 10).
This, in particular, is where the poisonous shoots in the nature of dirty politics in our time have largely taken root. We have already quite convincingly revealed this character from the political aspects discussed above (democracy, freedom, equality, fraternity, human rights, civil society, freedom of speech and economic policy) through the prism of the attitude of the authors of the “Protocols” towards them. And in order to make it possible in practice, in the interests of the well-being of society, to implement progressive options for these aspects, constructively justified at the end of each subsection, policy should be carried out by professionals with clean hands and thoughts. It is precisely such people who will be able to most positively perceive the scenario and technology proposed in this book for carrying out a restructuring that is truly necessary for the benefit of human society in the form of its transfer to SPM, based on IP. Therefore, the success of this restructuring will lie in how perfect it will be personnel policy upon the arrival of this type of people into the system of power and management. To approach the solution of this difficult problem, let us once again dwell on the objective nature of people.
Initially, no person, no society is responsible for what they are. After all, even by their natural heredity different people endowed with well-defined individual physical, physiological, psychological and mental characteristics. In addition, after birth, a person is formed in very different natural and social conditions. But if a person is born a physical freak, which is clearly visible to everyone, he himself, of course, is not to blame for this. The parents and the conditions under which it developed are not chosen after conception. But the birth of potential moral monsters (people prone to murder, villains of all stripes, unscrupulous in their actions) can be determined, especially in initial stage their existence can be quite problematic. This is precisely one of the rather complex problems of any society, what every person may be capable of in the future. If a person exhibits some kind of vicious tendency, then society should try to protect such a person from the manifestation of this social negativity throughout his life. Well, on the other hand, for the positive development of any society, it is very important to select from among your environment the most preferable people in various aspects and create conditions for them to perform fruitfully.
The above arguments are, of course, a trivial truth that the well-being of societies on any scale, including humanity as a whole, directly depends on its ability to localize social negatives as much as possible and develop social positives as much as possible. And here it is also quite obvious that the success of solving such a problem will also directly depend on how professional and moral the first leader of society, at the level of an individual country, the head of state, is. Unfortunately, within the framework of the modern world community, the heads of individual states various reasons There are quite a lot of people unworthy for such a role, who in their characteristics correspond to the pseudo- and anti-elite types of elitism. We will dwell on these reasons a little lower, but here I want to dwell in more detail on the above-mentioned in my opinion and the opinion of my extraterrestrial Teachers, clearly outstanding heads of their states, namely: Fidel Castro and A.G. Lukashenko.
Head of the Republic of Cuba Fidel Alejandro Castro Ruz, who before his voluntary resignation combined two positions - Chairman State Council Republic and Supreme Commander-in-Chief - he is a highly intellectual, very honest and strong-willed person, despite the fact that he himself is not from a poor Cuban family, he became not just a revolutionary, but the leader of a revolution that overthrew the virtually puppet regime of Batista in Cuba. For me personally, a miracle simply happened when, after the collapse of the USSR and the Socialist camp, Cuba, under the leadership of Fidel Castro, preserved and continues to successfully develop truly humane human principles of its existence. It’s only a pity that Fidel Castro, over whom we, as we know, have no control, has now abdicated the above-mentioned powers. True, these powers were also entrusted to the legendary revolutionary, namely his sibling Raul Castor Rus. However, I would like to present to you, my dear reader, at least some of his views on the current situation in the world. The judgments presented below were expressed by him back in 2000, with which I personally completely agree:
“The advanced capitalist system, which later evolved into modern imperialism, ultimately imposed a neoliberal globalized order on the world that is completely intolerable. It has given rise to a world of speculation, the creation of fictitious wealth and values that have nothing to do with real production, and fabulous personal fortunes, some of which exceed the gross domestic product of dozens of poor countries. It is unnecessary to add to this the robbery and waste of the world's natural resources, as well as the miserable life of millions of people. This system promises nothing to humanity and is not needed for anything other than self-destruction, and they will probably be destroyed along with it Natural resources, serving as a support for human life on the planet.”
“What happened 10 years ago (let me remind you that these judgments were made in 2000) was a naive and unconscious destruction of the great social and historical process, which should have been improved, but not destroyed. Hitler's hordes could not achieve this, even killing more than twenty million Soviet people and devastated half the country. The world remained under the auspices of the only superpower, which in the fight against fascism did not suffer even 5 percent of the victims suffered by the Soviet people.”
I also admire the President of the Republic of Belarus Alexander Grigorievich Lukashenko. This person, in my opinion, and, I think, in the opinion of all honest and decent people, is close to the ideal of the head of state, the nature of the formation and construction of which we substantiate in the 4th section. The newspaper “TOMORROW”, and above all, its editor-in-chief, the famous Russian patriotic writer A.A. Prokhanov, reflects on various aspects of the formation of this state as the 5th empire at the current time (this was in 2008) from issue to issue. . The fact that a person like A.G. Lukashenko was able to legitimately, in the current conditions of “democratic reforms” that Shushkevich had already begun to implement in Belarus, also according to the scenario and patronage of “overseas consultants” with powerful financial support from outside, win in 1994 on presidential elections all the rivals vying for this post, and now even retaining it for the 4th term is a significant and even significant purely positive event not only for Belarus, but also for the entire post-Soviet geopolitical space. Below I present a fragment of A.G. Lukashenko’s speech, delivered at a UN session in early 2006, from which it is clear how much his judgments on the same tragic global event coincide with the above judgments of Fidel Castro:
“15 years have passed since the collapse of my country, the USSR. This event completely changed the structure of the world. Soviet Union despite all the mistakes and blunders of its leaders, it was then the support and hope of many states and peoples. The Soviet Union ensured the balance of the global system.
Today the world is unipolar. With all the ensuing consequences:
flourishing Yugoslavia was destroyed and disappeared from the map of Europe;
multiethnic Afghanistan has become a hotbed of conflicts and drug trafficking;
The carnage in Iraq continues to this day. The country has become a source of instability for a huge region;
Iran and North Korea are targeted.
Belarus is a country like the majority in this room. Emerging from the rubble cold war, Belarus has become a knowledge-intensive, high-tech state with ten million highly educated tolerant people. The UN classified us as developed countries With high level human development.
We, like you, want little from the planet: peace and stability. We will create the rest ourselves with our own labor.”
We will need such knowledge in order to human civilization and its constituent elements, it is most correct to design the conversion technology for the transition to SPM, based on the IP. Naturally, such a transformation should begin with Russia and its immediate environment, i.e. from the post-Soviet geopolitical space. The quality of such technology will largely be determined through the correct understanding of the state of culture of the corresponding society. In turn, the degree of correctness of such an understanding will depend on the adequacy of the understanding of the phenomenon “culture”, which, in my opinion, in particular, is not entirely correct in modern conditions. Therefore, below, through the diagram in Fig. 1.3, I present my version, confirmed by my extraterrestrial Teachers, that in the very general case should be understood by this phenomenon.
In accordance with the diagram in Fig. 1.3, the culture of any intelligent substance in the most general case includes 3 constituent substantial elements: science, esotericism and art (see Fig. A). Theoretically, if this intelligent substance exists enough long time, then culture can fully become synonymous with art (see Fig.B), where Fig.B symbolically depicts the nature of the mutual transformation of the substantial elements of science and esotericism towards their mutual transformation. As for the symbolism “REALITY” and “IDEALITY” adopted in the diagram, this means that at any stage of maturity of an intelligent substance, the reality of its existence and interaction with the outside world from the point of view of evolutionary expediency should strive for an ideal corresponding to a 100% state “the degree of realization of creative creativity.”
In order to more consciously perceive the symbolism presented in the diagram of Fig. 1.3, we present a disclosure of the concepts indicated on it: culture, science, esotericism and art, with the addition to them of objectively determining the state of culture of any intelligent substance, namely religion and philosophy, which can also be perceived as its constituent substantial elements. We will make this disclosure through the interpretations traditionally accepted for these concepts at the current moment in time according to the dictionary of the Russian language by S.I. Ozhegov, and for the concept of “esotericism” from Explanatory dictionary on esotericism, occultism and parapsychology, compiled by A.M. Stepanov and published in Moscow in 1997, which I mark with the index “T” (traditional version). Due to the fact that, in my opinion, agreed with my extraterrestrial Teachers, traditional interpretations contain varying degrees of imperfection and inaccuracy, I present their more correct formulations, the interpretations of which are marked with the index “P” (proposed option).
07:00 / 22.10.2014
Last week's number one topic was for funds mass media, and not only Belarus and Russia, was the press conference of the President of Belarus Alexander Grigorievich Lukashenko to Russian journalists. And in this press conference, despite the abundance of diverse issues, the main one was the most pressing and painful topic of Ukraine today.
I think that the position of the Belarusian president, more than openly expressed at this press conference, was not liked by either Ukrainian, Russian or Western politicians. And among the Belarusians, even their comrades-in-arms, probably more than one frowned: why so openly? I should have been more diplomatic, I should have been more careful... Politics is a dirty business...
But Alexander Lukashenko swung – and not for the first time, not only at this press conference – to the unprecedented. The Belarusian leader is trying to prove, and first of all to his people, that politics can be done with clean hands, that it can be honest and not determined by what and who benefits now, with whom and against whom. this moment It’s better, more profitable to be friends, but in other, completely “non-political” categories: honesty, decency, loyalty to one’s word...
Well, really, who in today’s official Kyiv would like the truth, publicly expressed by a person on whose support everyone was counting heavily, that an unconstitutional seizure of power was committed in Ukraine, in fact, a coup d’etat? But if we discard all the verbal fluff on this matter, then the bottom line will be precisely this fact. Why, why, whose fault, who started first, and who gave or did not give back - these are questions of a different order.
What, will Russian leaders like to hear from their closest, and today practically the only reliable, unconditional ally, that the annexation of Crimea is not the restoration of historical justice, but a banal seizure of part of another state? And that the self-proclaimed Donetsk and Lugansk republics would not have lasted three weeks without Russia’s help?
And at the same time, Lukashenko just as firmly and unequivocally declares: whether someone likes it or not, whether we share Russia’s policy or on some issues we have our own opinion, different from the “big brother”, but this is our closest ally and friend.. And no internal disagreements, no promises will force us to betray him and, if something happens, let tanks through to Moscow. Whatever happens, whatever happens...
Well, tell me: you would like to have a friend or brother who would honestly say: they say, it was wrong for you, Vovka, to take your friend’s wife away - even though you once loved each other, and life was hard for her, and she herself you asked for it - but you shouldn’t have... No one will feel better from this - not you, not your friend, not your wife. But since this happened to you, since a friend didn’t give a damn about his wife and allowed her to be taken away, I will help you in any way I can... And you started a fight with your friend in vain - now you both have black eyes, and those who pushed their heads against you, they stand on the sidelines, chuckle, and teach how to behave further. And you would probably be glad to make peace, but you don’t know how - you’ve “messed up” so many things... But keep in mind: if this friend suddenly gathers a gang and comes to take revenge on you - for his wife and everything else, then I will stand for you to the last, regardless of whether that gang beckons me with carrots or threatens me. Because we are friends, brothers, allies!
I think it’s everyone’s dream to have a friend who won’t hesitate to tell you everything he thinks, but won’t go over to the side of your enemy just because he’s stronger or richer, justifying his betrayal with lofty words, political circumstances and the interests of the state. But not everyone is capable of becoming like this...
A recent friend of mine, a Belarusian, former power engineer, who, due to circumstances, spent most of her life in the Russian outback, and, upon retirement, returned to her “historical homeland,” sent a letter last Friday, part of which I will allow myself to quote: “Today I listened to the press -Lukashenko's conference for Russian journalists. He, as always, performed brilliantly. And I listened for 6 hours in one breath, with my mouth open. Year after year I love him more and more. Belarusians will appreciate it only when someone else comes and what happens in Ukraine.”
I would like my friend to be wrong and that what happened in Ukraine would never happen in Belarus - because not only Russians and Ukrainians value our president, but also Belarusians themselves - at least the bulk of them. And so that Alexander Grigorievich Lukashenko still proves to the whole world that the unprecedented happens, and a politician can also be an honest and sincere person with clean hands...
---------------------
62% of respondents think so
53% of those surveyed by the fund " Public opinion"(FOM) of Russian residents agree with the popular opinion: “politics is a dirty business,” 22% disagree. Moreover, for representatives of relatively “politicized” groups, a disgusted perception of politics is even more typical than for relatively apolitical ones, a leading FOM analyst told the correspondent Grigory Kertman.
Coordinator of the international expert group Sergey Sibiryakov spent in social network Hydepark poll on the topic “Do you agree that politics is a dirty business?”
Results of a survey on the topic “Do you agree that politics is a dirty business?”
Here are the most interesting comments to the survey:
Boris Schwarzkreun:
Politics is a type of fraud, and a politician is always a fraudster, and an IRRESPONSIBLE fraudster. Therefore, there is only one way to counteract politicians: assign responsibility. For example, a presidential candidate concludes a contract with citizens in which he promises, as president, by the 13th year to provide every woman with a man, and every man with a bottle of vodka. The 13th year has come, all the women don’t have men, the president is on TRIAL, all his property is taken away, and he himself is imprisoned for a long term without rights early release. Then specialist managers, not political criminals, will come to govern the state.
Sergey Ochkivsky:
“Personnel decides everything!” - this principle works and it would be stupid to abandon it, just because many consider it a legacy of Stalinism. Therefore, whatever the politicians are, so is the politics. You can refer to another competent opinion: “Some scoundrel said, as if he was spoiling people’s power, not understanding that it’s a misfortune that more often than not people spoil power!” (Yu.V. Andropov, who doesn’t remember the chief of the KGB, then the Secretary General of the CPSU).
Lyudmila Ermilova:
Honest people also come into politics, but society is too lazy to protect them from being eaten. And even, on the contrary, they find fault with the honest ones more than with the dishonest ones. They say that a dishonest politician is like water off a duck's back. By the way, even on the Internet I managed to find fault with two politicians who, in my opinion, began their careers as honest, principled people. Namely - to Ella Pamfilova and Maria Arbatova. It seemed to me that they had abandoned their principles. But, probably, this is just the case when you treat decent public people too biased.
Leonid Sheinin:
"Politics is a dirty business." A favorite thesis of dirty politicians, who (though) pronounce it in other variations. First, they justify their dirty deeds. And secondly, they are trying to turn away all honest people from these matters, who (naturally) do not want to get dirty. The desired result for high-ranking thieves and bloody dictators is achieved: their impunity and even the purity of their dirty name.
Evgeny Minin:
Political activity is activity INSIDE the legal field of the state. The road to who knows where is paved with good intentions. A person who is actively or passively involved in politics, in any case, acts according to the principle “the end justifies the means.” That is, he acts dishonestly. Non-political activity = civic activity. Civic activity = the end matches the means. Civic activity has nothing to do with politics, because This is the activity of a person OUTSIDE of government structures in relation to the state, of which he, the citizen, is the owner, and in his OWN legal field.
Yuri Abrosimov:
In my opinion, politics, like all public spheres, has a class character. A bourgeois politician serving a handful of exploiters is forced to hide his goals and objectives from the people, to cover them up with unbridled demagoguery, the appearance of “zeal” for the people’s interests - therefore his policies are extremely dirty and deceitful and its results are almost always disgusting. But there was socialist politics and socialist politicians who served the people, who had nothing to hide from the people, so there was no place for demagoguery and lies in their politics. If we talk about the leaders of Soviet politics Lenin, Chicherin, Stalin, Molotov, Gromyko, then their policies are crystal clear, almost always supported by the people and gave excellent results in the interests of the people. Lenin taught that in all spheres, in all phenomena and actions, one must always look for class interests.
Victor Derevtsov:
Politics is truly a dirty business. A talented and effective politician cannot help but lie and remain an honest man, but at the same time he can be guided not only by personal, but also by public interests and benefit society. Last of Russian politicians The first rank, who was guided not only by personal, but also by public interests and brought benefit to society, was obviously Stalin. Others don’t remember something.
Konstantin Gastev:
Politics cannot be a dirty business. Too much depends on a correctly chosen policy, on the ability to bargain, on the ability to combine, calculate, manipulate, move secretly, talk secretly, hide your thoughts and your true interests. But arable farming is also a “dirty business” - hands are always in the ground... And painters, and scavengers, and butchers, and potters - in their own way, do “dirty” things. Without getting your hands dirty, you can’t build, you can’t dig, you can’t grow. Only glamorous slackers can always have perfectly clean hands. And so much depends on politics that only by knowing how and not disdaining to “wallow in the mud” can you get at least some result.
We would like to add that the survey was conducted from October 16 to October 18. 1224 bloggers took part in it and left 152 comments on the survey topic.
Let us remember that men consider politics a “dirty business” much more often than women (59 and 47%, respectively), and significantly less often challenge this thesis (19 and 25%). Holders of secondary specialized or higher education share this opinion almost one and a half times more often (59 and 61%, respectively) than people who only graduated high school or who did not do even this (42%).
But, according to the expert, more interesting are the differences between age groups: Thus, among people aged 31-45 years, 63% are disgusted with politics, among young people this figure is 48%, and 28% do not consider politics a dirty business.
“Such significant differences cannot be accidental. Perhaps they are due to the fact that the political socialization of these generations occurred at different historical stages. And “politics” (whatever is meant by this) more often appeared as something obviously unattractive in the last three decades of the last century: during the times of late Soviet “stagnation” and doublethink, on the one hand, and the endless excesses of the 90s (with “ information wars"for destruction, improvisations of the Kremlin and Duma clownery) - on the other. But this, of course, is only one of the possible hypotheses,” explains Grigory Kertman.
Also, according to the survey, those who vote for the “party in power” consider politics a “dirty business” somewhat less often than people with other electoral preferences. However, even in the electorate of United Russia this opinion has 1.5 times more supporters than opponents (42 and 28%, respectively), in the electorate of A Just Russia - approximately 2.5 times, LDPR - 3 times, Communist Party of the Russian Federation - almost 4 times.
At the same time, those who are confident that politics is a “dirty business” are much less likely to declare interest in it, and also feel a desire to understand the realities more deeply political life than those who disagree with such a characterization. “That is, such disgust really contributes to distancing and alienation of citizens from politics. But at the same time, those who are characterized by it are more likely to consider themselves competent in politics (and less likely to consider themselves incompetent) than people who are not ready to clearly label this area public life. There is nothing surprising in this, of course: stereotypes, as we know, exist for the purpose of ordering and at the same time simplifying the picture of the world, to give a person confidence in the adequacy of his perception of reality and, therefore, to increase self-esteem,” notes the analyst. FOM.
Russians who are squeamish about politics point out, firstly, the immorality of the methods, the “code of conduct” of politicians: “there are lies, deceit and provocations everywhere”, “dirty issues are often resolved there using dirty methods”, “there is a lot of falsehood”, “this is a dishonest business , that’s why it’s dirty”, “everyone there lies and doesn’t keep their promises”, “to be popular, you have to lie”, “man is a wolf there”, “politicians are dishonest, they deceive the people”, “everyone lies, you can’t trust them”, “they throw mud at each other”, “they use any means in the struggle for power”, “they eat each other”. Secondly, on selfish motives, which almost entirely determine, in the opinion of a very significant part of respondents, the behavior of politicians. Many people talk about corruption, theft, mutual responsibility: “corruption”, “bribes”, “only thieves”, “everyone is corrupt”, “this is prostitution”, “everything is bought”, “yes, everything is bought and sold in politics for money”, “complete corruption, they support each other and exchange jobs”, “money decides everything”, “there was a gang gathered there that stole everything”, “money drives you crazy.” Moreover, it is often emphasized that it is the desire for profit that is the main, if not the only, incentive to participate in politics: “they go into politics in pursuit of their own selfish goals,” “they go there for easy money or self-esteem,” “politicians think more about their own profit.” “,” “they go there for big rubles and buy places,” “everyone gets into politics to get their piece, everything is for themselves, not for the people,” “all politicians work only for themselves.” It clearly follows that a decent person will not get involved in politics, some people say: “people who have a conscience will not go into politics,” “in Russia, decent people do not go into politics,” “the most unscrupulous people get into politics, who dream of their enrichment." Well, or a little more “tolerant”: a decent person can still get involved in politics, but he will never succeed without becoming morally corrupt (“those who made it through have already wallowed in the mud, and those who are honest will not make it there,” “politics changes a person completely, spoils").
“From a practical point of view, this stereotype is at least no less important than the maxim about a “dirty business” - after all, we are actually talking about a “presumption of guilt”, about a total denial of trust to everyone involved in political activity or just intends to go down this path. We found out how widespread this position is: according to 46% of respondents, “you cannot remain an honest, decent person while being involved in politics for a long time,” according to 39%, “you can.” As we can see, the misanthropic point of view is found a little less often than agreement with the definition of politics as a “dirty business” (which, we recall, is shared by 53% of respondents). But the opposite, optimistic point of view is found here almost twice as often (only 22% of respondents refuse to recognize politics as a “dirty business”). And it is not surprising: quite a few (28%) of those who believe that dirt is immanent in politics as a sphere of activity nevertheless believe that a politician can remain an honest person, apparently considering such people as “black sheep” and almost heroic figures.” ,” comments Grigory Kertman.
It is not surprising that young and old Russians are somewhat more likely than middle-aged people to believe that a person involved in politics can remain decent, and supporters of the “party in power” share this opinion more often than people with other political preferences (45% among supporters of “ United Russia", 37% and 34% - among adherents of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation and the Liberal Democratic Party, respectively). “But, no matter how interesting these nuances may be, the main thing is that almost half of our fellow citizens are a priori convinced of the dishonesty and dishonesty of everyone who has been in politics for more or less a long time,” the expert sums up.
