No matter how much you teach a person to love people, he nods and nods his head and goes back to the old ways. He goes out into the street and can’t hold back. And most importantly, the argument will be the most logical - “Don’t you see what they are like? And what are they doing?

We see. And we do not encourage anyone to fraternize with something that is unpleasant to fraternize with. It is impossible to love people, looking at the earth with earthly eyes. It will be a lie. And you know, you can study life-affirming videos on a service like YouTube as much as you like - this will not help us overcome the main punishment of existence - disunity, the isolation of people from each other.

So what can be done to overcome this curse of the descendants of Adam, the curse of original sin?

(Just in case, I’ll explain to the Meticulous Reader - I’m not engaged in religious propaganda. It’s just very convenient for me to express myself in the terminology of the Abrahamic religions. This is the mythology of our civilization, our language, images understandable to everyone. The same thing with ancient quotes. When a historian and archaeologist Sir Mortimer Wheeler writes the phrase " Clio rarely gives us such symmetrical episodes in history.“, we, of course, do not think that he “believes” in the existence of the muse Clio, dictating to historians their works. But we think that he has an excellent command of a slightly old-fashioned journalistic style... When the Christian Hellenes said at the market: “I swear by Zeus!”, slapping themselves on the knees, it was nothing more than a strong market word, and not a creed uttered aloud).

So, on earth, in the earthly dimension, it is difficult to love people. We are condemned to disunity. But this same fact is the reason for all human spiritual hardships. Philosophers call this feature their own term - “existential melancholy”, the feeling of being “thrown” into this incomprehensible world. The Orthodox speak in this case about “gracelessness.” Jews about "galut".

But without unity, neither love nor the feeling that you are not alone at all is possible. Without experiencing, at least occasionally, moments of unity, a person will not be happy. And for this you need an extraterrestrial dimension, an unusual feeling. We need an altered state of consciousness - changed from the usual, everyday one, forcing us to notice only its shortcomings in creation. The one who causes us to blindly not see behind the flesh is the languid Spirit.

We need meditation. Whatever you want, meditation is present in any religion; it is a mistake to believe that meditation is something purely Eastern.

What happens to the human mind during meditation? Why is it so valuable? Let's figure it out.

When a person meditates, his mind ceases to be separate, is freed from the prison of the body and merges with other minds. He dissolves into the Collective Unconscious, which can be verbally likened to the ocean. Our mind is a thin stream. In meditation, a stream-drop connects with the World Ocean, experiencing bliss. Sufi mystics say this: “Break your jug. Allow the water contained in it to unite with other waters.” “An explosion of the mind,” say Zen Buddhists.

There is a great Zen koan, a parable about meditation, that will explain once and for all what it is and what it is not.

How to fill a sieve with water?

The teacher ordered his novices to fill the sieve with water and show him the result. But no matter how hard the students tried, all the water poured out through the large cells, immediately leaving the sieve empty...

Each student held tightly in his hands an empty vessel, or rather, a mockery of the vessel, for it was full of holes.

Then the teacher went knee-deep into the water and threw his sieve into the ocean. It immediately sank and lay neatly on the sandy bottom.

« Now, the teacher said, it will always be filled with water».

When we are not immersed in an altered state of consciousness, we cannot fill ourselves with wisdom, grace, or love for the Universe. No matter how many sermons and wise words we scoop up, everything will pour out through the holes. And we will go out into the street as devastated as we came.

You shouldn’t reproach yourself for this - it’s a normal process.

What you need to do is drown your “sieve” in the ocean, get what meditation gives - unity with the Universe and all its creations.

Anyone who has returned from such a trip retains the memory that unity, in principle, is possible and this makes it softer, more tolerant, kinder, and all because it is happier.

Church, art and meditation

As we have already found out, meditation is bringing your mind to a state in which, overcoming earthly obstacles, it feels Unity. I'll add a small detail. If this is the “correct” unity, then the result of such unity will be the awareness of the principle of A-HIMSA, the principle of NON-VIOLENCE towards EVERYTHING. After all, how can you harm something with which you just felt like one - the Universe?

Therefore, unity means discord. If the unification of people leads to an act of violence, then this is a wrong unity.

Church in Greek is “ecclesia”. Eklessia means not only “church,” but also “assembly.” That is, what is the church? This is the place where that very gathering of the disconnected should take place, the unification, where people should begin to see their non-loneliness.

How is this achieved in the church? Not due to the formal gathering of a large crowd in one place? No. Due to the atmosphere created by: architecture, visuals, music, singing, measured reading of texts that have a special, rhythmic organization.

When the church wants to achieve the same thing that can be achieved in solitary meditation, but by other means, it calls for help... Art, Music... Without them, the church is just another bureaucratic body to keep the masses in line.

You can listen to Bach in a concert hall or in a church while contemplating the Crucifixion. You can master Eastern techniques for immersing yourself in a trance, in particular, reading the “Jesus Prayer” bequeathed to us by the Hesychasts.

You don't have to listen to Bach at all or sit on a yoga mat in the lotus position. Instead, you will put yourself into a trance in some other, personal way. For example, contemplate Nature.

The main thing is to do it.

1. Address to the virtual 2nd International Sakharov Congress "Peace, Progress, Human Rights", 2001

Why don't we remember the man in whose name this Congress is being made? What did Andrei Dmitrievich himself say about many of the topics raised here? What is his position on the issue of interaction, cooperation, partnership, if you like, between human rights activists themselves, and not just between society and the authorities.
Unfortunately or fortunately, I did not find in the works of A.D. assessment of internal problems of the human rights movement. It was not the time then.
But you can try to remember A.D.’s life style, his public speaking, books and articles.
I have never publicly recalled an instance of his instant reaction to direct everyday evil.
In '88 I complained bitterlyElena Georgievnathat one of the prominent human rights activists, a former political prisoner, opened a “public reception” right in the apartment of another political prisoner (we had all just been released then). The reception of the population took place on the first floor of a five-story residential building. There was a crowd in two rooms and on the stairs from morning to night, and there was drinking in the evening. Neighbors filed a lawsuit against the unresponsible owner of the apartment. Things were moving quickly toward eviction. All my persuasion and begging of the organizer to stop all this disgrace, to save the apartment, were met with his bewilderment: we must help people!
I was telling all this in the kitchen, in Sakharov’s apartment, when A.D. came in. and heard a snippet of our conversation. And, suddenly, he became so angry and angry that I got scared. It wasn’t enough for me to burden him with such problems, I thought sadly. Yes, and E.G. flashed lightning with her eyes. But it was too late. HELL. perceived this, in general, everyday story about people practically unknown to him, as if it were about a gross imbalance in the balance of strategic weapons or the revival of totalitarianism in the USSR. His assessments were not only accurate, as usual, but extremely emotional, which I certainly did not expect.
The next day I called the reception organizer and gave him, as accurately as I could, A.D.’s assessment. Comrade human rights activist understood everything and quite soon moved his “reception room” to a more suitable place. The apartment was saved! We won the case.
Here is a clear example of direct, head-on work by A.D. on specific people, on individual person, and not on “human rights” in general. Here is an example of his adequate (I emphasize this word!) reaction, now lost by many.
We don’t have a person now who is influential enough to not only hear, but immediately understand the problem and be able to correct it just as quickly. No S.V. Kalistratova, no G.S. Podyapolsky, no P.G. Grigorenko – relatives of A.D. people whose opinion could pacify, calm down the crazy actions and reasoning of the so-called. “heirs” of A.D., people involved in the continuation and development of his affairs and ideas. Former political prisoners can be sent far and long, both at the Memorial and at the Sakharov Museum and Center. A completely obscene trash can be made from the Sakharov Congress (see the “guest” book on the first page of the Congress website). In the MHG, in front of the eyes and with the tacit approval of its member, an Orthodox priest, for a wad of money they can agree with Scientologists-Hubbardists to publish a book about freedom of conscience (!). Etc. etc.
“Wonderful are your works, O Lord!” A lot of evil is happening, and the author himself, of course, is not without sin.
Only from memory can I cite another case when, in one of his dying interviews, A.D. answered a question about the possible future of the human rights movement (I don’t know the exact quote, but I can vouch for the meaning): “Probably,” Sakharov said, “some form of unification is needed.”
I thought about these words for almost a year. And in 1992, with the approval of the MHG, he created a “collective farm” - he pulled our first human rights organizations out of the kitchens (the Committee of Soldiers’ Mothers, “Prison Reform”, the Association of Disabled People, etc., 15 in total). I planted them all in the premises of the former Komsomol Central Committee, called them the Center for Human Rights, looked at it and thought it was good... It seemed to me that I had found some form of unification.
It was difficult to withstand the nearby presidential administration, against the owners of the building - former Komsomol members. But the most terrible blow came, as always, in the back - I did not at all expect the fierce and cruel attack that fell on me and the Center from a completely unexpected side - from fellow human rights activists (see the chapter “Center” on this site).
Why did this happen?
Maybe this article will clarify something?

4. I have long been confident that democrats and human rights activists, and indeed everyone normal people we need to unite. For evil is strength, and alone we are weak.
It is with bitterness that I observe the increasing separation of human rights organizations, and human rights activists themselves, from each other. We see with sadness the speculations of human rights demagogues on the topic of “society versus government.” Whether grants and money are to blame for this, or ambitions: I’m cooler than others, I’m an elite - it doesn’t matter.
Moreover, we need to unite or, as they accurately say in the West, partner. We must involve the same advisers, commissions and human rights ombudsmen in the study of all our external and internal problems public organizations, who know these newly minted commissioners and commissioners well. For these latter, no matter how they pretend, are flesh and blood of the very Soviet state that killed human rights activists.
They did not repent, because we did not have repentance akin to the post-war German or Japanese. Old sins prevail.
And to cope with them, to teach them something sensible, is possible only together, together, without sucking up, without applying to their wishes and terminology.
I tell everyone this, but they are not in a hurry to partner.
A kind of old-fashioned early perestroika individualism.
Or – calculation?
I risk involving Andrei Dmitrievich in theoretical debates about the problems of the human rights movement.
So what did Sakharov say about HOW we should act?
It is extremely important to remind many of our human rights activists (especially new ones, post-perestroika) what AD said about human rights; it is important to try to apply his approaches and considerations to modern times.
The main thing that I understood from his works, in this context, is that not only the whole world needs to overcome disunity, but also we, human rights activists.
In addition, our cause is human rights - not politics and moral values ​​should be in the first place in our work.
In words, no one is against it, but who reads and remembers Sakharov now? ...
All that remains is to find the original sources.
The best place is on the Internet. This makes it easier to select quotes.
I searched the entire Internet in search of A.D.’s works posted there.
Strange thing - there are almost none there! I went to the Memorial website (maybe they preserved the memory?), was on the website of the Samodurov House Museum, went to the American Sakharov Foundation...
Nowhere! Only from this very foreign Foundation did I find a link to the website... of Yabloko, where there were several AD articles. I left a bewildered review, but what’s the point, they won’t answer anyway, they won’t react - Sakharov’s style has been lost.
I took the books and began to retype them by hand.
Read, envy... Everything that A.D. Sakharov writes about humanity and the dangers in its development, which is also applicable to our society. Including for that social phenomenon called the “human rights movement.” It is also part of humanity
Let us apply Sakharov’s thoughts to the current moment, to ourselves:

1. Reflections on progress, peaceful coexistence
and intellectual freedom
“...The disunity of humanity threatens it with death...
In the face of danger, any action that increases the disunity of humanity, any preaching of the incompatibility of world ideologies and nations is madness, a crime. Only worldwide cooperation in conditions of intellectual freedom, high moral ideals socialism and labor, with the elimination of the factors of dogmatism and the pressure of the hidden interests of the ruling classes, meets the interests of preserving civilization...
(* The reader understands that this does not we're talking about about the ideological world with those fanatical, sectarian and extremist ideologies that deny any possibility of rapprochement with them, discussion and compromise, for example with the ideologies of fascist, racist, militaristic or Maoist, demagoguery)...
...For humanity to move away from the edge of the abyss means to overcome disunity.
A necessary step on this path is a revision of the traditional method in international politics, which can be called “empirical-conjunctural.” Simply, it is a method of maximizing one’s position wherever possible, and at the same time a method of causing maximum trouble to opposing forces without taking into account the common good and common interests.
If politics is a game of two players, then this is the only possible method. But what does this method lead to in today’s unprecedented situation?..
...International policy must be entirely imbued with scientific methodology and the democratic spirit, with the desire to fearlessly take into account all facts, views and theories, with maximum publicity of precisely formulated main and intermediate goals, with principled consistency...”

2. The world in half a century
“...I consider it especially important to overcome the disintegration of the world into antagonistic groups of states, the process of rapprochement...
...The role of international organizations - the UN, UNESCO, etc. - should be very large.
... the “ultimate task” of human institutions ... is not only to protect all born people from unnecessary suffering and premature death, but also to preserve everything human in humanity...
...And in any case, progress that saves people from hunger and disease cannot contradict the preservation of the principle of active good, which is the most humane thing in man...”

3. About the country and the world
“...The world needs demilitarization, national altruism and internationalism, freedom of information exchange and movement of people, openness, international protection of social and civil rights person. The countries of the “third world” must receive comprehensive assistance and, for their part, fully accept their share of responsibility for the future of the world, pay more attention to the development of material production, and stop speculation in oil...
...All of this is an indispensable condition for overcoming the disunity of humanity, saving it from the danger of thermonuclear death, hunger, environmental disaster, dehumanization"
One of the international dangers of current trends is the loss of Western unity and a clear understanding of the enduring global threat from totalitarian countries. The West must under no circumstances allow its positions to weaken in the face of totalitarianism. The internal (for each country) danger is a “sliding” towards state capitalist totalitarian socialism..”

4. Nobel Lecture “Peace, Progress, Human Rights”
“...I am convinced that international trust, mutual understanding, disarmament and international security are unthinkable without open society, freedom of information, freedom of opinion, transparency, freedom of travel and choice of country of residence. I am also convinced that freedom of opinion, along with other civil liberties, is the basis of scientific and technological progress and a guarantee against the use of its achievements to the detriment of humanity, thereby the basis of economic and social progress, and is also a political guarantee of the possibility of effective protection social rights. Thus, I defend the thesis about the primary, determining significance of civil and political rights in shaping the destinies of mankind...
...The final act of the meeting in Helsinki particularly attracts our attention because it for the first time officially reflects that comprehensive approach to solving international security problems, which seems to be the only possible one; The act contains profound language about the connection between international security and the protection of human rights...
... the protection of human rights is declared by the UN Universal Declaration to be an international, not an internal, matter. For the sake of this great goal, one cannot spare any effort, no matter how long the path...
... In an effort to protect the rights of people, we must act, in my opinion, first of all as defenders of the innocent victims existing in different countries regimes, without demanding crushing and total condemnation of these regimes. We need reforms, not revolutions. What is needed is a flexible, pluralistic and tolerant society that embodies the spirit of inquiry, discussion and free, non-dogmatic use of the achievements of all social systems. What is this - discharge? convergence? - it’s not a matter of words, but of our determination to create a better, kinder society, a better world order.

5. Anxiety and hope
“...The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Covenants on Human Rights, which now have the force of international law, the Final Act of Helsinki are legal and political base to combat intolerable violations
I welcome... the position of US President D. Carter. Carter, with the full force of his authority, based on the will of the American people, proclaimed that the protection of human rights throughout the world is based on the highest moral obligations...
I am convinced that we can and should go further and accept the work for human rights around the world as an essential part of all international relations, a guarantee of their moral strength and practical, lasting success...
…The defense of human rights is not political in nature. It is entirely based on moral principles and its connection with the protective peace on Earth. Therefore, all people of good will, regardless of their “right” or “left” political beliefs, can and should take part in it...
…The concept of active international protection human rights, which forms the basis of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights... and many other international documents..., is now acquiring the significance of an international ideology..."

6. Anxious times
“...The unification of all forces is one of the advantages of totalitarianism in its global offensive...
...The lack of unity of Western countries is the flip side of democratic pluralism...
...Decades of total terror, old and new prejudices... - all this has deeply disfigured the consciousness of the broadest masses of the population. The ideology of the Soviet tradesman... consists of several simple ideas
1. Cult of the state...
2. Selfish desire to ensure the well-being of oneself and one’s family, “living like everyone else,” through cronyism, theft... and obligatory hypocrisy
3. The idea of ​​national superiority..
...People in the country, of course, are to some extent disoriented and intimidated, but conscious self-deception and selfish self-removal from difficult problems are also very significant..
...But from the same people came defenders of human rights, standing up against deception, hypocrisy and dumbness, armed only with fountain pens, with a readiness for sacrifice and without the relieving belief in quick and effective success. And they said their word, it will not be forgotten, they have moral strength and logic behind them historical development... Their activities will continue in one form or another, in one way or another. The point here is not arithmetic, but the qualitative fact of breaking through the psychological barrier of silence."

7. Responsibility of scientists
“...What I am writing about... is not a struggle for power and therefore not politics. This is a struggle for the preservation of peace and moral values ​​developed by the entire development of civilization...”

8. Danger thermonuclear war. An open letter to Dr. Sidney Drell.
“... I once again emphasize how important it is for everyone to understand the absolute inadmissibility of nuclear war - the collective suicide of humanity. A nuclear war cannot be won. It is necessary to systematically - albeit cautiously - strive for complete nuclear disarmament on the basis of a strategic balance of conventional weapons. As long as there are nuclear weapons in the world, a strategic balance of nuclear forces is necessary in which neither side can decide on a limited or regional nuclear war. True security is possible only on the basis of stabilization of international relations, renunciation of the policy of expansion, strengthening of international trust, openness and pluralization..., respect for human rights throughout the world,..."

9. Election platform
“...Openness of salary data. Mandatory regular (at least once a year) publication of financial reports of all public funds, including employee salaries, entertainment expenses, travel ... "

Dear readers! Before proceeding directly to my story, I want to explain why I decided to write such an article. The fact is that I was born, raised and lived for quite a long time in a small mining town, which is located in the Donetsk region (Ukraine). Now I sometimes go there to visit my parents, and every time I go, I think how my native land will greet me, because literally 40 km from us is Donetsk, where military operations still periodically occur.

And I ask myself the question: what happened to the wonderful, soulful people of this country who have now taken up arms and are literally killing each other?! This has been my pain for several years now and I really want to tell people: wake up, look around you, killing others is not human! This article is my attempt to reach the hearts of those who believe that war is the only means to resolve the disagreements that have arisen in the country.

It so happened that my city is not part of the formed DPR, but belongs to Ukraine, and no shells exploded there, no bullets flew, but the residents heard very well how the rocket launchers worked when the war was at its height. Yes, I myself witnessed this on one of my visits and I’ll tell you honestly - it was scary.

Just imagine: morning, nature wakes up, the sun is shining tenderly, and suddenly in this pleasant silence there is a hum and whistle from rocket launchers. If you've watched war films where they showed Katyushas firing, it's very similar. The only difference is that this is not a movie, but reality, so I was literally pressed into bed from these sounds, because I understood that at any moment the fired shells could end up where I was. True, I knew that military operations were not currently taking place in our city, but it was impossible to predict what plans the two sides involved in the war had.

For some time, fear did not let me go, and I selfishly thought about what could happen to me, my parents, friends, acquaintances. But then human qualities began to slowly emerge, and I began to think not about myself, but about those people who now, at that very moment, really came under bombing. I tried to feel their condition and this is what I felt - the fear resumed with new strength, but many more shades were added to it: pain, anger, desire for revenge. These people experienced very powerful negative emotions, but how can we help them?

First of all, I decided to look deep into myself and figure out what led me to those life scenarios where in the 21st century there is a war because people cannot agree among themselves. And once upon a time, when I was still a child, I thought that in 2010 people would already fly to other planets, communicate with representatives of other civilizations, and cooperate with them. But while we are not like with aliens, we cannot even find each other common language. We kill people like ourselves, so what kind of interactions with other civilizations can we talk about?!

Yes, the disunity of people is a real scourge of our society, and very often it is the cause of aggressiveness. At best, we isolate ourselves in a narrow family circle, and we don’t care about others, although between close people, as a rule, there are also manifestations of misunderstanding and rejection. But is there really nothing that unites us? After all, we want our children to grow up and be happy. I'm sure everyone wants this! But how can they grow up, much less live well, if their very existence is called into question when someone gives the order to start military operation? It turns out that people participating in the war do not think about it at all. What drives them, what makes them pull the trigger of a machine gun or the button to launch rockets?

I have answers to these questions because I have been engaged in self-development since I was 28 years old. Now I am 49 and for several years now I have been studying Iissiidiology - new knowledge about who a person really is, how the universe works, and by what cosmic laws we all live. Thanks to this, I can not judge people, because I understand what levels of Self-Awareness are manifested in them at one time or another. And if a person can kill others, this indicates that while his Consciousness is very much in control low levels. They own it, that is, in fact, it becomes a doll in their hands if it cannot resist the onslaught of corresponding desires and ideas.

Actually, in any person there are different levels - from low aggressive and selfish to high altruistic-intellectual. That is why each of us has many interests, and sometimes directly opposite ones. But we always have a choice - which one to give preference to. However, some people literally identify with low-frequency levels, and you can't blame them for that. The time will come, and they themselves will be horrified by what they have done, because something human will definitely awaken in them, for example, compassion, mercy.

Knowledge about the multi-level nature of a person’s Self-Awareness helps me treat the situation in Ukraine with acceptance, that is, understand people, and both sides of conflicting relationships. However, I cannot and do not want to accept such a situation, that is, agree with it, because my dream since childhood was to live in a society where all conditions were created for the creative manifestations of people, where relations between everyone are built on mutual assistance and cooperation . That is why I am now in Ayfaar - the center of intellectual and altruistic development, where I myself am learning this way of life.

But I am a living person and I cannot watch with indifference how her child is killed in front of a mother. After all, this is not a film with a well-thought-out script, but the terrible truth of our current reality. I put myself in her place, and the question arises: for what? Theoretically, I can answer it, because I know that there are many development scenarios, ourselves in other versions, various karmic relationships. And who knows, maybe in some worlds events are happening with these same people, but absolutely opposite, that is, now there is a kind of retribution for what they have done.

Of course, this is just a guess, but in any case I know that there is a reason. However, I don't want to be in worlds where aggression and violence are still freely expressed in people. And this desire makes me look deeper into myself, because if I have such qualities at least to some extent, I will see similar situations. It’s not for nothing that they say that you need to change yourself in order to see the world differently.

But it’s not so simple, because working with yourself requires honesty, openness, and sometimes you don’t want to look into the dark corners of your own soul, much less tell others about them. But we need to talk about them, because such levels do not like publicity. Therefore, on Ayfaar there is a technique when a person can talk in front of everyone about what negative qualities he has discovered in himself, and at the same time he disidentifies with them, saying that he does not want to be like that.

I chose this particular path because I don’t want to come to my parents and hear the following phrase in people’s conversations: “Remember what it was like before the war?” Moreover, now they pronounce it calmly, because they had to get used to the situation in which they found themselves, otherwise there would be constant stress that the human body could not bear. Peace, harmony, cooperation - this is how I want to see life. Although I was brought up on films that often showed that defending the Motherland is noble, this was accompanied by various military actions.

Take just one phrase: “Whoever comes to us with a sword will die by the sword!” It is believed to belong to the famous Russian prince Alexander Nevsky and was shown in the film by Sergei Eisenstein, released in 1939. We are talking about the events of the distant year 1242, when the troops of the Livonian Order attacked Rus' were defeated, and the phrase was spoken to its representatives, who asked the prince for peace. Thus, he warned them that any new provocation on their part would be suppressed.

When I watched this film, I admired the courage and bravery of the prince and his squad. I was also impressed by other films that showed the events of the Great Patriotic War, in which soviet soldiers fought bravely against the Nazis. But I was fascinated by the qualities of people, and not by the events in which they manifested themselves. Then I didn’t think that aggressiveness, even if retaliatory, that is, seemingly justified, would sooner or later lead to aggressiveness again. In fact it's vicious circle, the way out of which is to try to understand others and resolve the situation peacefully.

Of course, in conditions when the country has already been attacked, it is probably impossible to do this right away, but I am sure that in our time and in the situation that has arisen in Ukraine, this is possible. Yes, just a few years ago I could not even imagine that I myself would come into contact with military events. Of course, even now, having a different understanding, I may not be able to stand by if I see that someone wants to harm my loved ones or friends. But I really want the word “war” and everything connected with it to become distant history for us, and for people to completely disappear ideas about violence and aggressiveness.

What can I do for this now? Work with yourself, that is, honestly identify any non-positive aspects in yourself, disidentify with them and, as a counterbalance, cultivate kindness, responsiveness and other real human qualities. And I urge all those who also want to live peacefully to remember that any manifestation of aggression in our ordinary lives is a step into those worlds where there is war. Aggressiveness leads to aggressiveness, but we need to live differently and it depends on each of us.

Academician Sakharov: “The disunity of humanity threatens it with death” MAY 21 is the birthday of the great Andrei Dmitrievich Sakharov. And today I would like to remember him wise sayings and aphorisms “I deny any significant deterrent effect of the death penalty on potential criminals. I am sure of the opposite - cruelty begets cruelty.” "Whatever high goals terrorists did not use this as a pretext... - their activities are always criminal, always destructive, throwing humanity back to times of lawlessness and chaos..." "Modern international terrorism trying to destroy democratic rule of law- largely a product of the ideology, strategy and tactics of totalitarianism, and in some cases - direct support of the secret services of totalitarian states." "I am convinced that the ideology of protecting human rights is the only basis that can unite people, regardless of their nationality, political beliefs, religion, position in society..." "Human society needs intellectual #freedom, freedom to receive and disseminate information, freedom of unbiased and fearless discussion, freedom from the pressure of authority..." "A nuclear war can arise from a conventional war, and a conventional war, as we know, arises from politics." "A nuclear war cannot be won." "Everyone a rational being, finding itself on the edge of an abyss, first tries to move away from this edge, and only then thinks about satisfying all other needs. For humanity, moving away from the edge of the abyss means overcoming disunity." "I am for pluralism of power, for convergence, for a mixed economy, for the “human face of society,” but what it will be called is not so important to me.” “I I feel indebted to the brave and moral people who are prisoners of prisons, camps and psychiatric hospitals for their struggle in defense of human rights." "I... am forced to focus on negative phenomena, since it is them that government propaganda is silent about, and since they represent the greatest harm and danger." "It is better to release a number of people who are guilty of something than to keep thousands of innocents imprisoned and tortured." "I am convinced that death penalty has no moral or practical justification and is a relic of barbaric customs of revenge." "In speaking out on behalf of those who were victims of lawlessness and cruelty, I tried to reflect the full measure of my pain, concern, outrage and persistent desire to help those suffering." "My ideal was an open, pluralistic society with unconditional respect for basic civil and political human rights, a society with a mixed economy, carrying out scientifically regulated comprehensive progress." "The disunity of humanity threatens it with death... In the face of danger, any action that increases the disunity of humanity, any preaching of the incompatibility of world ideologies and nations is madness , crime." "I don’t know, deep down, what my position really is, I don’t believe in any dogmas, I don’t like official churches... At the same time, I can’t imagine the Universe and human life without any meaningful principle, without a source of spiritual “warmth” that lies outside matter and its laws. Probably, such a feeling can be called religious." "Progress is inevitable, its cessation would mean the death of civilization."

It was written in the spring of 1968 in the corresponding international situation (reforms in the Czech Republic, youth riots and labor strikes in France and the USA).

Below is a summary with long excerpts. Following Sakharov’s “scientific” style, I write in the style of “remarks on a dissertation,” that is, with abundant citation of the author.

To summarize: the text is not anti-Soviet; on the contrary, it is intended to promote the USSR and Soviet values ​​in the West. The program for creating a world socialist government put forward in the text is simply Trotskyist; demagoguery about freedom and democracy, by the way, was quite typical for both Trotsky and Lenin; he himself here quotes Lenin talking about freedom. In fact, if you squeeze out the husk, it is proposed to suppress all non-Trotskyist forces in the USSR, after which a world revolution will be carried out (both in developed and developing countries), after which supposedly maximum freedom and scientific development with “smoothing out national contradictions” (that is, they will make Muscovites out of everyone, ban all nations).