Does money smell... if you are an artist?

By Vladimir Golstein

So I am still thinking about this Chernobyl special, which somehow managed to touch a nerve. A lot of people, far from politics, were very moved by the way it was shot, with coloring reminiscent of Tarkovsky's Stalker. Grim Soviet reality that somehow looks cool and artsy when shot through specially tinted lenses. Tarkovsky, apparently, wanted this look, and had to ostracize a lot of people when he decided to re-shoot Stalker, because the original tape was defected by his standards.

In any case, the director, Craig Mazin, must be a talented dude. Yet, the film was obviously more that an artistic project. There must be some CIA/MI5 money involved. Like they do in all other stupid projects of theirs, especially when they feel that it is time to counterbalance Russians. So let's pour money into White Helmets, and all sorts of propaganda films. But why stop there. If the plight of the free world is at stake, let's give money to Armstrong, and Pollack, and Faulkner, and Elton John, and all other important western artists who should promote western values.

And the artists do take money and keep on doing their art! Should we condemn them? All these modernists who were on the CIA take? But if we don't condemn them --these greats of the XX century --why do we condemn the Soviet artists, who took money from their government: Shostakovich, and Eisenstein, and Sholokhov and so on?

"Brave" Solzhenitsyn had a nerve to condemn Eisenstein in his "One day," decrying the "pseudo" genius, who condones violence on the cue from the tyrant. Implying -- following Pushkin - that a genius -- can't serve evil. But didn't he see the irony? Didn't he imagine himself a genius, while being on the take from the west, serving the American imperialism and getting western money in the forms of prizes, and contracts and all other accouterments? So if you take western money, you are OK, if you take Soviet money, you are a sell-out? A new doctrine and strange!

How are we to judge? Should we use this criteria (where the money are coming from) or should we just convince out selves, that we are following art?

I think the source of money is important, yet, it does not really matter to me, where they are coming from: east or west, communists or capitalists, Arabs or Zionsists, and so on. What should matter is who is an underdog!

If Craig Mazin, or White Helmets take money from the bullying and controlling regime, which is ready to kill for the sake of its hegemony, they are serving the devil. If the money are coming from an underdog, fighting for its independence or existence, that's a different story. There is a moral responsibility, but it is unrelated to a story, while directly related to who is using the story. If the Jews in Polish Ghetto hired me to tell their story and paid me with gold that they've collected, it is one thing. If the Nazis hellbent on destroying them, are paying me with the gold, this gold sucks. And so is the story!

Source: https://www.facebook.com/vladimir.golstein/posts/10214266894962058

Share:

Read More

[Video] We know who people named as suspects in Skripal case are, they are civilians – Putin

 

 Moscow is aware of who the people named as suspects in the Skripal case are, President Vladimir Putin said, adding that these people are civilians. 

 

Saying that there is “nothing criminal” about the two, Putin also hopes that the people in question will eventually come forward and talk to the media.

 “I want to address them [the suspects]... [I hope] they contact the media. I hope they appear and tell everything about themselves,” he said, addressing the audience during the Eastern Economic Forum (EEF) in the Russian city of Vladivostok.

British prosecutors name the 2 Russians suspected of poisoning the Skripals

 

Earlier in September, UK prosecutors named two Russians they suspect of poisoning Sergei Skripal and his daughter in Salisbury this March. According to London, their names are Alexander Petrov and Ruslan Boshirov. Russia denies any involvement and accuses Britain of spinning the case to stir anti-Russian sentiment.

Beyond identifying them as Russian nationals, the prosecutors gave no indication as to who the men are.

After London again blamed Russia, implying that officials at the highest levels of power could be responsible for the poisoning, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov rebuffed the allegations.
“Neither Russia’s top leadership nor those with lower ranks, and [Russian] officials, have had anything to do with the events in Salisbury,” he said at that time.

The Kremlin spokesman added that Putin didn’t personally speak to the two individuals identified by the British authorities as suspects in the case. Russian law enforcement has not made any moves to prosecute them, Peskov said.

According to the investigators, the suspects who arrived in Britain from Moscow left traces of the poison used in the attack in the hotel room they stayed in. They were also caught on CCTV cameras in Salisbury twice, including on the day of the attack, and traveled back directly to the Russian capital.

READ MORE: Skripal saga aimed to stir anti-Russia sentiment of Cold War - Ken Livingstone to RT

This trail of evidence from the supposedly highly-trained perpetrators casts doubt over Moscow’s involvement, according to a number of security experts. “It seems very strange that these people have absolutely left what seems to be a very reckless and clear trail of evidence, which almost seems to be designed, or at least would almost inevitably lead to, the conclusions that the police and the authorities have come to today, in other words that Russia were to blame,” Charles Shoebridge, a security expert and former British military officer, told RT.

Annie Machon, a former MI5 intelligence officer, said the inquiry into the case has effectively turned into a trial by media, based on “bits of evidence that may look pretty compelling but will never be tested in a real court of law.”

London also insists that a counterfeit Nina Ricci perfume box was used as container and delivery device for the chemical used in the poisoning. It was later found by Charlie Rowley in the town of Amesbury, not far from Salisbury. They also claim that the noxious agent was in a bottle that had been altered to make it “perfect cover for smuggling the weapon into the country and a perfect delivery method for the attack against the Skripal’s front door.”

Reacting to the prosecutors’ statement, Russian envoy to the UN Vasily Nebenzya joked that the nerve agent attack has so far had only one benefactor – Nina Ricci.

Share:

Read More