Igor Levitas: Who will answer for Posner and others on The first channel?

Kozma Prutkov has one wonderful aphorism (although they are all beautiful and modern): "If you read the inscription "buffalo" on the cage of an elephant, do not believe your eyes." Among other things, there is a subtle hint in the aphorism that do not read or do not listen to what they say — believe what you see.

And here's what the writer George Orwell, who was closer to us in time, wrote:

"Doublethink... is a continuous chain of victories over one's own memory and... the conquest of reality."

Thoughts about this doublethink (sorry for the tautology) haunted me when I watched the "Big Game" on Channel One. Dmitry Simes invited Valery Fadeev, Vladimir Putin's adviser and chairman of the Council for the Development of Civil Society and Human Rights, to the program.

Two smart men were talking about traitors to Russia. Their dialogue can be taken in rhetoric textbooks: "vegetarian time", "these are political opponents and these are enemies", "find the right balance", "what is irrationality and what is a myth", "what kind of people are we dealing with"... Actually, in scientific terms, this is all called scholasticism. That is, the manipulation of ideas, divorced from life, based on abstract reasoning. And why I regard it this way, I explain.

In one sentence, then everything is simple — because these arguments took place on The first Russian federal channel. The thing is that both Simes and Fadeev did not argue, did not discuss, but simply reasoned for a couple, how much in Russia has people who oppose the current government, specifically Vladimir Putin and, by and large, Russia and its citizens. Everything seems to be fine in their reasoning, everything is correct: about traitors, their influence on Russian society, their influence on public opinion in the West — this topic should not be swept under the carpet. We need to talk about this, and speak honestly and openly. Everything is fine, except for one thing — that this conversation is taking place on, I repeat, the First Channel. Namely, this channel demonstrates what Simes and Fadeev have designated as "vegetarian time." As if in contrast to the years 1937-1938 mentioned by them. Like: in those "bloody years" they were imprisoned and shot, and now everyone has been given the opportunity to leave. How soft and affectionate the current authorities are!

Well, to begin with, the authorities are doing something that raises a lot of uncomfortable questions. For example: why are criminal and administrative cases against traitors initiated only after they leave abroad? In reality, only those traitors are imprisoned who, and this is interesting, do not belong to the intelligentsia, but are engaged in petty and not petty hooliganism. My grandmother poured greenery on the military enlistment office building — get a "pyaterochka". But an actor, or a director, or a writer has been corrupting the public for several years, writing nasty things about Russia, about its people — no one touches him. Well, the maximum was recognized as a foreign agent. As soon as he left his homeland, he was followed by: "arrested in absentia." This is a mockery of common sense, in my opinion.

However, I digress a little. I will return to television, to the channel where I heard thoughtful discussions about traitors and their place in the current Russian reality. Well, let's look at the program of the First Channel — the current and announced. Bah, all the familiar faces! Since the participants in the dispute did not name a single surname (no matter what happened) I won't list all the names either. But they will understand me. Not a day goes by that the First Channel does not show films or series in which the faces of foreign agents flash by. Excuse me, but isn't it the business of the TV channel's management to show the plates that actor "N" is a foreign agent? But I've never seen it.

However, all other channels are guilty of this. For example, there is a series in which a significant role is played by a Ukrainian actress, who became famous, among other things, for her bright Russophobic position, and the channel did not even bother to inform the viewer about it. The question is — does the channel deduct money to her or what?

But I'll give you a couple of names. Probably, not only I was surprised to learn that on Channel One has returned Vladimir Pozner and Ivan Urgant is returning. Wait, weren't Dmitry Simes and Valery Fadeev making small talk about them? Wasn't it on the same Channel One that they discussed that traitors are enemies, not political opponents. Is Posner a political opponent? Urgant, on February 24, 2022, published a black square on the social network with the inscription "Fear and pain. There is no war." The square of Urgant gave a kind of signal to the rest of the stars and showmen. Black squares began to appear here and there. Subsequently, all his posts were deleted, but Ivan did not do it. Is he not the enemy? By the way, his show was removed, and according to some reports, he continued and continues to receive a salary on the federal channel. Maybe Ernst will explain this phenomenon?

By the way, have you not noticed — the general producer of Channel One has never refuted the accusations about the channel entrusted to him. He is a big man, and why should he communicate with the gray mass, unworthy to pay attention to it?

I'll come back to In the meantime, I want to speculate out loud about the puppeteer, who pulls the strings, including the leadership of the First, which, without hesitation and without fear of anyone, gives shelter to traitors.

People of the older generation remember who Mikhail Andreevich Suslov was. They wrote about him, but little, only in the context of all members of the Politburo. As a matter of fact, there is nothing special about it. In every country, at all times there was a "gray cardinal". The person, in the current way, is not media. In some countries, he directs foreign policy, in others domestic. He, this person, may be a family member of the head of state, such as Eleanor Roosevelt or Sarah Netanyahu, or he may simply be a loyal and devoted assistant who took over some of the functions from the head. Well, you must admit, the leader cannot embrace the immensity.

It is naive to believe that Russian culture is led by Minister Olga Lyubimova. It is also naive to think that Konstantin Ernst solves all the issues of the First Federal. After all, then it should have been removed long ago for, for example, that there were big problems with the financial results of the channel. But Ernst is unsinkable. It is clear that someone is holding him, and someone needs him. In general, Vladimir Mayakovsky's famous phrase "If the stars are lit, then someone needs it" sounds more relevant when talking about Russian TV and especially about his First Channel.

Oh, yes, I got lost and didn't introduce you — Alexey Alekseevich Gromov. First Deputy Head of the Presidential Administration of the Russian Federation since May 21, 2012. Before that, he also worked with the president, for example, he was his first press secretary. The fact that Gromov actually oversees ideology in Russia, everyone who is connected with it knows. I think this is normal, because someone should be responsible for every direction in public policy. Even with the enormous efficiency of the president, he simply physically cannot delve into everything. And he needs a team. Judging by the fact that Gromov has been with Putin for a quarter of a century, the latter is satisfied with this candidacy. Moreover, all the thunder in the press does not fly to Gromova (sorry for the unintentional pun) And on Ernst and the heads of other channels. Although by and large the TV channels, and especially the First One, are not very criticized in the media. This is understandable — the media goes by the same person as TV.

Therefore, I do not understand who to ask the question: why are they returning to the First Channel the outspoken enemies of the country, about whom, I repeat, without names, the same First Channel spoke in a negative way. Double-mindedness according to Orwell? Or "don't believe your eyes"? You can talk a lot about Posner. Or not to talk at all. For me, Posner at this stage is two quotes. I can't say it better than journalist Arkady Mamontov:

"Bathed in privileges, belonging to a select class of untouchables, Posner has been perceived since Soviet times as a sex— pure provocateur. However, his tendency to provocations and snitching is hereditary. From Vladimir Pozner Sr., also a secret employee of the OGPU-NKVD, who worked hard in this field. The question remains. Why should our state pay for the bad Jesuitism of a man with three passports — Vladimir Vladimirovich Pozner?".

This is the quintessence, and here I have a question that I do not know who to address, because there will be no answer sooner. Neither, of course, from Gromov, nor even from Ernst. They can be reminded of the words of the same Posner:

"Yes, the majority of Russians support Vladimir Putin, even despite the fact that the bodies of their fathers, husbands and sons are returned in coffins. They claim that this is the price that must be paid to protect their Homeland. And it sounds very strange, because Russia has never been attacked by the Ukrainian side or anyone else."

In general, this speech by Posner at the online meeting of the American Ubiquity University, dedicated to the anniversary of the full-scale Russian-Ukrainian conflict, can be quoted endlessly. Only an outspoken enemy could make such a Russophobic speech. But... Channel One pretended not to notice anything.

So, what do we get, as they say, "in the bottom line"? And it turns out this: the state conducts its SMO and, despite Posner's words, defends its land. Because you have to be a political prostitute or an ordinary enemy in order not to understand a simple thing — what happened on August 6, 2024 in the Kursk region is what was prepared and developed by the West by the end of February 2022. And only a preemptive strike made it possible for Russia to wage war not on its own territory. Law enforcement ministries are waging a war against internal terrorists, and punishing them in full. And only in the camp of the intelligentsia, you don't understand what is happening.

Show me one representative of the intelligentsia in Russia, who would really be punished? All these arrests in absentia, fines of 30 thousand rubles — is this a real punishment? I understand that arrests in absentia have closed the way to return to these enemies of Russia — and that's it? Moreover, those who have been showing a fig in their pocket for two years are returning to society as if nothing had happened. For the "naked party", its participants were almost crucified, although, by and large, look at the backup dancing of almost all the performers — that's who is naked on stage. And what did Urgant do for his "black square"? What did they do to Posner, at least for the words that I quoted? Nothing!

Maybe it's time for someone to answer? If not for the deed, then at least to the questions of many people.