Einstein’s 1949 Article Still Powerful In 2017.

by Jerry Alatalo

egendary scientist/physicist Albert Einstein (1879-1955) lived up to his final moments on Earth experiencing his greatest regret: participating directly in the advocacy of, design and building of the 1st atomic weapons. His signing of a letter to U.S. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt which urged the leader to arrange for a scientific operation building the atomic bomb – in the (later learned) false perception Germany would win the race to the bomb – was a very painful action for Albert Einstein because it led to the situation (operative until today) where civilization possessed the destructive tools capable of ending life on Earth.

Because he understood the immeasurable, unprecedented, existential threat atomic weapons posed for humanity after their creation and use in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Albert Einstein felt it necessary to act strongly in ways which best might prevent another world war. Among his actions to prevent a potential apocalyptic war event from occurring, Mr. Einstein wrote the following 1949 article for the 1st edition of the New York City-based “Monthly Review” magazine.

Perhaps due to his training as a scientist, as part of his war-prevention efforts his writing comes to focus on the root causes of war during his time on Earth. Some might feel Einstein’s scientific analytic process related to world events is sadly too rare today in 2017, and serves as a good example or template for today’s leaders to follow. What Albert Einstein wrote in 1949 seems just as important today in 2017 as it was back then, some 68 years ago.


Monthly Review Magazine, 1st issue, May 1949

(Article originally posted at MonthlyReview.org)

by Albert Einstein

s it advisable for one who is not an expert on economic and social issues to express views on the subject of socialism? I believe for a number of reasons that it is.

Let us first consider the question from the point of view of scientific knowledge. It might appear that there are no essential methodological differences between astronomy and economics: scientists in both fields attempt to discover laws of general acceptability for a circumscribed group of phenomena in order to make the interconnection of these phenomena as clearly understandable as possible. But in reality such methodological differences do exist.

The discovery of general laws in the field of economics is made difficult by the circumstance that observed economic phenomena are often affected by many factors which are very hard to evaluate separately. In addition, the experience which has accumulated since the beginning of the so-called civilized period of human history has—as is well known—been largely influenced and limited by causes which are by no means exclusively economic in nature.

For example, most of the major states of history owed their existence to conquest. The conquering peoples established themselves, legally and economically, as the privileged class of the conquered country. They seized for themselves a monopoly of the land ownership and appointed a priesthood from among their own ranks. The priests, in control of education, made the class division of society into a permanent institution and created a system of values by which the people were thenceforth, to a large extent unconsciously, guided in their social behavior.

But historic tradition is, so to speak, of yesterday; nowhere have we really overcome what Thorstein Veblen called “the predatory phase” of human development. The observable economic facts belong to that phase and even such laws as we can derive from them are not applicable to other phases. Since the real purpose of socialism is precisely to overcome and advance beyond the predatory phase of human development, economic science in its present state can throw little light on the socialist society of the future.

Second, socialism is directed towards a social-ethical end. Science, however, cannot create ends and, even less, instill them in human beings; science, at most, can supply the means by which to attain certain ends. But the ends themselves are conceived by personalities with lofty ethical ideals and—if these ends are not stillborn, but vital and vigorous—are adopted and carried forward by those many human beings who, half unconsciously, determine the slow evolution of society.

For these reasons, we should be on our guard not to overestimate science and scientific methods when it is a question of human problems; and we should not assume that experts are the only ones who have a right to express themselves on questions affecting the organization of society.

Innumerable voices have been asserting for some time now that human society is passing through a crisis, that its stability has been gravely shattered. It is characteristic of such a situation that individuals feel indifferent or even hostile toward the group, small or large, to which they belong. In order to illustrate my meaning, let me record here a personal experience. I recently discussed with an intelligent and well-disposed man the threat of another war, which in my opinion would seriously endanger the existence of mankind, and I remarked that only a supra-national organization would offer protection from that danger.

Thereupon my visitor, very calmly and coolly, said to me: “Why are you so deeply opposed to the disappearance of the human race?”

I am sure that as little as a century ago no one would have so lightly made a statement of this kind. It is the statement of a man who has striven in vain to attain an equilibrium within himself and has more or less lost hope of succeeding. It is the expression of a painful solitude and isolation from which so many people are suffering in these days. What is the cause? Is there a way out?

It is easy to raise such questions, but difficult to answer them with any degree of assurance. I must try, however, as best I can, although I am very conscious of the fact that our feelings and strivings are often contradictory and obscure and that they cannot be expressed in easy and simple formulas.

Man is, at one and the same time, a solitary being and a social being. As a solitary being, he attempts to protect his own existence and that of those who are closest to him, to satisfy his personal desires, and to develop his innate abilities. As a social being, he seeks to gain the recognition and affection of his fellow human beings, to share in their pleasures, to comfort them in their sorrows, and to improve their conditions of life.

Only the existence of these varied, frequently conflicting, strivings accounts for the special character of a man, and their specific combination determines the extent to which an individual can achieve an inner equilibrium and can contribute to the well-being of society. It is quite possible that the relative strength of these two drives is, in the main, fixed by inheritance.

But the personality that finally emerges is largely formed by the environment in which a man happens to find himself during his development, by the structure of the society in which he grows up, by the tradition of that society, and by its appraisal of particular types of behavior. The abstract concept “society” means to the individual human being the sum total of his direct and indirect relations to his contemporaries and to all the people of earlier generations.

The individual is able to think, feel, strive, and work by himself; but he depends so much upon society—in his physical, intellectual, and emotional existence—that it is impossible to think of him, or to understand him, outside the framework of society. It is “society” which provides man with food, clothing, a home, the tools of work, language, the forms of thought, and most of the content of thought; his life is made possible through the labor and the accomplishments of the many millions past and present who are all hidden behind the small word “society.”

It is evident, therefore, that the dependence of the individual upon society is a fact of nature which cannot be abolished—just as in the case of ants and bees. However, while the whole life process of ants and bees is fixed down to the smallest detail by rigid, hereditary instincts, the social pattern and interrelationships of human beings are very variable and susceptible to change. Memory, the capacity to make new combinations, the gift of oral communication have made possible developments among human being which are not dictated by biological necessities.

Such developments manifest themselves in traditions, institutions, and organizations; in literature; in scientific and engineering accomplishments; in works of art. This explains how it happens that, in a certain sense, man can influence his life through his own conduct, and that in this process conscious thinking and wanting can play a part.

Man acquires at birth, through heredity, a biological constitution which we must consider fixed and unalterable, including the natural urges which are characteristic of the human species. In addition, during his lifetime, he acquires a cultural constitution which he adopts from society through communication and through many other types of influences. It is this cultural constitution which, with the passage of time, is subject to change and which determines to a very large extent the relationship between the individual and society.

Modern anthropology has taught us, through comparative investigation of so-called primitive cultures, that the social behavior of human beings may differ greatly, depending upon prevailing cultural patterns and the types of organization which predominate in society. It is on this that those who are striving to improve the lot of man may ground their hopes: human beings are not condemned, because of their biological constitution, to annihilate each other or to be at the mercy of a cruel, self-inflicted fate.

If we ask ourselves how the structure of society and the cultural attitude of man should be changed in order to make human life as satisfying as possible, we should constantly be conscious of the fact that there are certain conditions which we are unable to modify. As mentioned before, the biological nature of man is, for all practical purposes, not subject to change. Furthermore, technological and demographic developments of the last few centuries have created conditions which are here to stay.

In relatively densely settled populations with the goods which are indispensable to their continued existence, an extreme division of labor and a highly centralized productive apparatus are absolutely necessary. The time—which, looking back, seems so idyllic—is gone forever when individuals or relatively small groups could be completely self-sufficient. It is only a slight exaggeration to say that mankind constitutes even now a planetary community of production and consumption.

I have now reached the point where I may indicate briefly what to me constitutes the essence of the crisis of our time. It concerns the relationship of the individual to society. The individual has become more conscious than ever of his dependence upon society. But he does not experience this dependence as a positive asset, as an organic tie, as a protective force, but rather as a threat to his natural rights, or even to his economic existence. Moreover, his position in society is such that the egotistical drives of his make-up are constantly being accentuated, while his social drives, which are by nature weaker, progressively deteriorate.

All human beings, whatever their position in society, are suffering from this process of deterioration. Unknowingly prisoners of their own egotism, they feel insecure, lonely, and deprived of the naive, simple, and unsophisticated enjoyment of life. Man can find meaning in life, short and perilous as it is, only through devoting himself to society.

The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of the evil. We see before us a huge community of producers the members of which are unceasingly striving to deprive each other of the fruits of their collective labor—not by force, but on the whole in faithful compliance with legally established rules. In this respect, it is important to realize that the means of production—that is to say, the entire productive capacity that is needed for producing consumer goods as well as additional capital goods—may legally be, and for the most part are, the private property of individuals.

For the sake of simplicity, in the discussion that follows I shall call “workers” all those who do not share in the ownership of the means of production—although this does not quite correspond to the customary use of the term. The owner of the means of production is in a position to purchase the labor power of the worker. By using the means of production, the worker produces new goods which become the property of the capitalist.

The essential point about this process is the relation between what the worker produces and what he is paid, both measured in terms of real value. Insofar as the labor contract is “free,” what the worker receives is determined not by the real value of the goods he produces, but by his minimum needs and by the capitalists’ requirements for labor power in relation to the number of workers competing for jobs. It is important to understand that even in theory the payment of the worker is not determined by the value of his product.

Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands, partly because of competition among the capitalists, and partly because technological development and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of smaller ones. The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society.

This is true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature.

The consequence is that the representatives of the people do not in fact sufficiently protect the interests of the underprivileged sections of the population. Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights.

The situation prevailing in an economy based on the private ownership of capital is thus characterized by two main principles: first, means of production (capital) are privately owned and the owners dispose of them as they see fit; second, the labor contract is free. Of course, there is no such thing as a pure capitalist society in this sense. In particular, it should be noted that the workers, through long and bitter political struggles, have succeeded in securing a somewhat improved form of the “free labor contract” for certain categories of workers. But taken as a whole, the present day economy does not differ much from “pure” capitalism.

Production is carried on for profit, not for use. There is no provision that all those able and willing to work will always be in a position to find employment; an “army of unemployed” almost always exists. The worker is constantly in fear of losing his job. Since unemployed and poorly paid workers do not provide a profitable market, the production of consumers’ goods is restricted, and great hardship is the consequence. Technological progress frequently results in more unemployment rather than in an easing of the burden of work for all.

The profit motive, in conjunction with competition among capitalists, is responsible for an instability in the accumulation and utilization of capital which leads to increasingly severe depressions. Unlimited competition leads to a huge waste of labor, and to that crippling of the social consciousness of individuals which I mentioned before.

This crippling of individuals I consider the worst evil of capitalism. Our whole educational system suffers from this evil. An exaggerated competitive attitude is inculcated into the student, who is trained to worship acquisitive success as a preparation for his future career.

I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals. In such an economy, the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilized in a planned fashion. A planned economy, which adjusts production to the needs of the community, would distribute the work to be done among all those able to work and would guarantee a livelihood to every man, woman, and child.

The education of the individual, in addition to promoting his own innate abilities, would attempt to develop in him a sense of responsibility for his fellow men in place of the glorification of power and success in our present society.

Nevertheless, it is necessary to remember that a planned economy is not yet socialism. A planned economy as such may be accompanied by the complete enslavement of the individual. The achievement of socialism requires the solution of some extremely difficult sociopolitical problems: how is it possible, in view of the far-reaching centralization of political and economic power, to prevent bureaucracy from becoming all-powerful and overweening? How can the rights of the individual be protected and therewith a democratic counterweight to the power of bureaucracy be assured?

Clarity about the aims and problems of socialism is of greatest significance in our age of transition. Since, under present circumstances, free and unhindered discussion of these problems has come under a powerful taboo, I consider the foundation of this magazine to be an important public service.


Glen Campbell: 1936-2017

merican music legend Glen Campbell has passed away from complications associated with Alzheimer’s Disease. He was 81.

In his over 50-year career as singer and guitarist, including learning to play the bagpipe for on-stage performances, Glen Campbell provided an almost endless compilation of memorable moments.

The 1969 collaboration – during the massively destructive Vietnam War – with fellow American music legend Stevie Wonder in performing the Bob Dylan classic “Blowing in the Wind” still resonates today after 48 years. Glen Campbell in 1969 at age 33 was in his prime physical condition.

The message of songwriter and Nobel Laureate Bob Dylan, delivered with utmost passion by Glen Campbell and Stevie Wonder in the following performance, is a message which remains always relevant no matter the artist. True artists through their works reach places beyond space and time … beyond life and death on Earth.

Glen Campbell was a true artist.

(Thank you to Bluebird Guitar at YouTube)

The Magnitsky Act – Behind The Scenes.

By Jerry Alatalo

he highly controversial death of lawyer Sergei Magnitsky in a Russian prison in 2009 is the focus of the film “The Magnitsky Act – Behind The Scenes”, released to the public in 2016 by director Andrei Nekrasov – literally censored in every nation (but Norway), region and locale in the Western world. People might ask themselves why a film which puts forward a different narrative than that used by U.S. politicians to pass the Magnitsky Act in late 2012 has suffered from near unanimous censorship, especially when made by Mr. Nekrasov, an artist/activist whose previous efforts in Russia were in opposition to government policies.

Perhaps Arizona Senator John McCain, one of the leaders in drafting and passing the Magnitsky Act, with Maryland Senator Benjamin Cardin and others, would welcome a Senate screening of director Nekrasov’s film, as the Arizona senator and his colleagues surely believe in free speech. What could incentivise any U.S. government elected representative to oppose bringing director Nekrasov’s film to the awareness of the American people, surely a “win-win” proposition – for, on one hand, it exposes a very serious coverup, or, however, it exposes the uncomfortable, equally serious, necessary truth.

Mr. McCain has on many occasions since 2009 referenced Sergei Magnitisky on the floor of the United States Senate, recently on the seventh anniversary of Magnitsky’s death (captured in the screenshot above). Most men and women feel appreciative when provided information which corrects previously strongly held, but erroneous, perceptions. The sole avenue for determining if the information presented in the West-censored film “The Magnitsky Act – Behind The Scenes” is the truth, leading to potentially tremendous-in-scope, beneficially corrected perceptions – is by allowing people everywhere to simply view it.


For some context, here is what Russia’s Vladimir Putin said in late 2012, after the U.S. Congress passed the Magnitsky Act, in response to a reporter’s (lengthy) question during an annual news conference of 4-hours and 30-minutes. His exchange with a Russian reporter representing the Los Angeles Times came at slightly past the 4-hour mark.


Vladimir Putin: “Here is our colleague, his sign says Los Angeles – he was so angry that he did not get a chance to speak. Let’s not provoke him anymore. Please, go ahead.”


Reporter: “Dear Mr. President, I am Sergei Loiko, Los Angeles Times. … But coming back to today’s main topic, we could say that in 2009 Sergei Magnitsky found himself in 1937. … 1,500 orphans, whom State Duma deputies’ initiated draft bill prohibiting U.S. citizens from adopting Russia(n) children, of which (2012) 49 are seriously ill with American families ready to take them in.”

“You will agree with me that in any case these children will be better off in America than in an orphanage. My question is as follows. I’m going back to Sergei Magnitsky, because you talked about him yourself. Russia has had three years to resolve the case but this did not happen. And in that event (case resolved) there would have been no Magnitsky List, you would not have quarreled with the U.S., the children would have gone to America, and everyone would be satisfied and happy. But there has been no satisfactory answer. Why not?”

“You demonstrate a remarkable awareness of other high-profile criminal cases, which I will not name. I would like to hear your answer to the question about the $230 million that allegedly customs inspectors and the police – militiamen, as they used to be called – stole from the budget. These funds could have been used to rebuild beautiful children’s homes, and Mr. Medvedev would not have had to assert in vain that we should do something”.

“If we had already done something, we would have been able to keep our orphanages in normal conditions. What happened to Sergei Magnitsky? Why did he find himself in 1937? Well, this is not the case for everyone. But why does 1937 keep merging with our lives?”


Vladimir Putin: “Regarding Magnitsky… (Applause) Why are you applauding?”

Reply: We like the question.

“You liked the question, fine. When Mr. Magnitsky’s tragedy occurred, I myself was Prime Minister of the Russian Federation. I learned about this tragedy from the media. And to be quite honest, even today I do not know the details surrounding this person’s tragic death in custody. But of course I feel that I have to find out more”.

“But that is not the issue. I want you to listen, too. I understand that you work for the Los Angeles Times, and not for Pravda or Izvestia, and that you have to take a certain position. I want our position to be clear. Mr. Magnitsky personally is not the issue at stake. The issue is that U.S. lawmakers, having got rid of one anti-Russian, anti-Soviet act – the Jackson-Vanik Amendment (and they were forced to do so for economic reasons) – decided they would pass another anti-Russian act immediately. So we understood it as U.S. lawmakers making clear to us ‘who’s the boss here’, and keeping a certain level of tension”.

“If Magnitsky did not exist, they’d have found another pretext. That’s what upsets us. This is the first thing. Second. I don’t know the details, but I am nevertheless aware of the fact that Mr. Magnitsky did not die of torture. Nobody tortured him, he died of a heart attack”.

“The inquiry into his case is set to establish whether he received or didn’t receive medical assistance in due time. If a person is denied assistance, especially in a public institution, of course we must figure out what happened. This is the second thing. Third. Do you think that no one ever dies in American jails, or what? Of course they do. And so what? Must we make a story of each and every case?”

“Do you know how many people U.S. law enforcement agencies seize around the world in violation of national jurisdictions, drag them off to their prisons, and try them there? Is this normal? I don’t think so. I’ve already questioned once: Why does one country feel entitled to extend its jurisdiction to the entire world? This undermines the fundamental principles of international law”.

“In addition, as you know, Mr. Magnitsky was not some human rights activist, he was not fighting for the rights of all. He was a lawyer for Mr. Browder, who our law enforcement agencies suspect of committing economic crimes in Russia, and he was defending Mr. Browder’s interests. Everything connected with this case is extremely politicized, and this is not our fault”.

“Now about the children. I have said many times and I want to repeat again that we are grateful to the American citizens, who have adopted or want to adopt our children, Russian children, Russian citizens from the heart. And they do this very well, they do so in accordance with the highest principles of humanism”.

“You said that these children will be better off in the U.S.. But judging by what we know of certain tragic events, such as the case where a child was left in a car and died of heat stroke – is that better or worse? We know of other cases where children were beaten to death. Is that better or worse? But the issue at stake is not these particular cases; after all, children also die in Russia”.

“The issue at hand concerns official liability for these tragedies. People are exempt from criminal liability, and sometimes the judicial system does not even want to consider these cases. That’s what bothers Russian legislators, and this is what they are reacting to in the well-known draft bill that triggered such a reaction. I repeat: I must look at the details of the law, but in general I understand the mood of the State Duma deputies”.


Moving from late 2012 ahead to 2016 and the release of “The Magnitsky Act – Behind The Scenes”, the film’s director made statements perhaps impossible to ignore in an interview with Russian media group “Komsomolskaya Pravda”:


Author: Roman Golovanov

Translated by: Sergei Malygin

Who Stole a Quarter of a Billion?

Question: Andrei, why did you choose this story for investigation?

Andrei Nekrasov: In the West Magnitsky is known as a whistleblower who paid for it with his life. There is no other version. My movie is a bomb for the West, they did not know the facts. I did not plan to investigate anything. I thought Magnitsky revealed everything and Browder told us about it – I was confined in a simplistic narrative of this complex story. The staging shooting took place in Kiev in the fall of 2014. Even then I started to realize that everything is much more complicated. Browder words were not substantiated. For example, it was not Magnitsky who went to the police with revelations, it was the other way around: the law enforcement called him for questioning in the already existing criminal case.

Question: …You started filming firmly believing in good Browder and bad Russia who killed Magnitsky?

Andrei Nekrasov: Yes, even in the movie Browder’s account remains – searches in his companies, confiscation of documents. Browder’s companies are stolen and it is Magnitsky who goes to the police where he is beaten with batons. That is how our story begins.

Question: What did you come to at the end?

Andrei Nekrasov: This picture has almost nothing to do with Magnitsky’s death. The gist is in three Russian companies Browder owned through offshore companies. These firms paid taxes from sales of Gazprom shares. Then these companies declared that they had losses and the state returned their tax payments – a quarter of a billion dollars – huge money! That is what the crime was. The question was: who controlled the companies when the payments were returned? Browder says that at the time when money was transferred, the companies were already overtaken. But there are suspicions that he is lying, he returned his money through stooges.

Question: Do you have a proof?

Andrei Nekrasov: In the movie I am not accusing him in stealing the money, I do not have direct evidence. But Magnitsky, as an expert, possibly filled out needed documents. I came to the main question – were Browder companies stolen or not? I proved that Browder’s story about Magnitsky is a lie, possibly invented to divert attention from real machinations with huge money. “Rubber baton” turns into “beating”

Question: Who was Magnitsky?

Andrei Nekrasov: He was an accountant and auditor. He could be called a martyr only in comparison with Norwegian prisoners who have comfortable cells. One must not make up a whole fairy tale out of it! Human rights activist Borschev, for example, deliberately wrote in his reports that Magnitsky was kept in “torturous conditions”. When this text was translated into English, this term turned into “torture”. On that basis the US Congress passed “Magnitsky Act”. But that is not true! In another report a “rubber baton” was mentioned which in the process of translation turned into “beating lasting for 1 hour and 18 minutes”. That is a deliberate word play for achieving political purposes.

Question: Then from what Magnitsky died?

Andrei Nekrasov: He died from a heart attack. By the end of his life he had hepatitis, pancreatitis, diabetes, obesity – the whole bunch of diseases. I have sincere sympathy for Sergei and his family, but it is not me who is using his tragedy, it is Mr. Browder. Nobody tormented or tortured Magnitsky. There was a criminal negligence on doctor’s behalf. Even the doctor from the emergency psychiatric help Kornilov, who Browder often cites and who arrived on Magnitsky’s call three hours before his death never mentions signs of beating. In the conclusion made by the Public Oversight Commission, nothing says that Magnitsky was beaten or killed. Some believe that the auditor’s death was beneficial to Browder. There is no proof for that, but it is clear that Russia did not need the murder of accountant.

Question: Are the facts supported by documents?

Andrei Nekrasov: I used public sources. At first, trusting Browder, I used his two sites. All documents are there. I am sure they simply forgot to remove some of the materials. Comparing investigator reports, texts of interrogations, I came to the conclusion that Magnitsky was not killed. Also there was a forensic examination. Browder says that these are unreliable sources, but he quotes them where it is beneficial for him. Frau turns into Fury.

Question: Did Browder lobby Magnitsky Act in the US?

Andrei Nekrasov: Of course he lobbied it, that is the whole point.

Question: Did the movie change you?

Andrei Nekrasov: I was seriously worried about all this. I have developed my attitude towards the Russian government. I sincerely love the country, previously I contributed to its democratization – I was involved in opposition politics, knew Nemtsov, talked with Yashin and Kasyanov. Magnitsky was my hero, next after Litvinenko. I could make a movie in line with this, as intended. But what broke here is not the story itself, it was my understanding of my role in Russian society – it changed. I made serious conclusions and I cannot be silent about it.

Question: Why are there so many scandals around the movie in the West?

Andrei Nekrasov: This especially affected my position. Browder has lawyers in every country. They threaten organizers of screenings and companies who financed my film. But these organizers are all western state-owned, they are not financed privately! One cannot condemn the movie as Russian propaganda! They banned showings in Belgium, threatened German channel, in Norway we could only show the movie on second attempt. In the US there was a closed screening of the movie, but Browder tried to cancel it as well. He has unlimited financial resources, I don’t have money to sue him. I have always criticized Russia for censorship and I remain a critic of the authorities now. But earlier my movies have been banned in Russia, now they are not shown in the West. This is a joke with the truth in it! The most terrifying thing is that Browder can call you a liar and a bastard who is dancing on the remains, he can destroy your reputation, insult your mother. You cannot do anything about it.

Question: Did Browder sue for libel?

Andrei Nekrasov: No, because he would have to discuss details of the story then, give official responses, I think he is afraid of it.

Question: Can your investigation lead to abolishment of the Magnitsky Act?

Andrei Nekrasov: I want politicians who passed the Act to know the truth and to feel ashamed before their voters. Democracy cannot be abused like that! One Bundestag member was a polite, democratic frau, but after I told her about a few inconsistencies in Magnitsky’s case she turned into a fury and called me an FSB agent. To friends their political circle is more important.

Question: You supported Russian opposition and you are not a stranger to them now, but you made such film. Why?

Andrei Nekrasov: It is a problem for me. Friends accused me of some kind of betrayal. When I tell Ilya Yashin that Magnitsky did not investigate anything, he turns facts on their heads in bad faith. Opposition members tell me that the movie was released specifically to abolish anti-Russian sanctions. But I started filming from a different position when there were no sanctions! I thought my friends from the opposition will not exchange the truth. The opposition is good, but when their political circle is more important to them than the truth, that is sad. I have always been a rebel, but they don’t discuss the content of the movie, they just tell me: why did you do that? They are searching for financial motivation. I have a question for the opposition: how could you have such low thoughts? I am very disappointed.

Question: Before you have been filming movies accusing Russia..

Andrew Nekrasov: Yes, they caused a furore in the West – movies about explosions of apartments in Moscow, Litvinenko’s case, the war in Georgia in 2008, wounded and killed children in Chechnya.

Question: Did they have evidence base?

Andrew Nekrasov: I understood them as opposition documentary maker. I am not denouncing these movies, but in Magnitsky’s film I became a detective. I did not do such detailed scrupulous investigation in my earlier movies.

Question: Where do you live? In Russia or in Europe?

Andrew Nekrasov: I live between Germany and Scandinavia. I am completely independent of Moscow professionally and politically. The ideological war goes on.

Question: What topics are you planning to take in the future?

Andrew Nekrasov: Norwegian producers want me to film a sequel about Magnitsky. The West has great prejudices about Russia. When a Western journalist investigates corruption in his country, he must present irrefutable evidence. When it comes to Russia he can refer to an unfounded claim in a blog: courts are corrupt, police are criminals. Proof? Not necessary. Even Magnitsky’s case was built on prejudices. I know how the West thinks, I want to make a movie to dispel these prejudices.

Question: What is going on between the West and Russia right now?

Andrew Nekrasov: An ideological Cold War is taking place. It is happening not only between Russia and the West, but also within the Russian society. I suspect Browder has more allies in Russia than it seems. How could a not elected, private citizen Browder have such a huge political influence? Why? It should concern not only Russia, but I think the West as well.


Unfortunately it is disappointingly difficult to find any lengthy interviews about the film “The Magnitsky Act – Behind The Scenes”, either with the director or anyone else interested in what his censorship-victimized work conveys, reveals, and/or otherwise exposes. If what the director Mr. Nekrasov asserts is accurate, a global push for wide distribution and removing censorship of the film – involving people from all regions – has the potential for effecting timely improvement in U.S.-Russia relations.

If Mr. Nekrasov is speaking honestly, and while considering the amazing level of censorship of his important film in the West, one must seriously acknowledge the possibility information contained in the work is on the level of world-changing. In other words – extremely important. One place to demand the truth is at the doors of those in the U.S. Congress responsible for writing, advocating and passing the Magnitsky Act – in particular, the door of Arizona Senator John McCain.

Another place to act is worldwide through the many readily available channels on the internet.


On the very consequential state of affairs and relations between the United States and Russia… Nothing less than total transparency will do; practicing the greatest possible freedom of speech is paramount. Honoring truth is all that matters.

(Thank you to Russia Insider at YouTube)