“Get married no matter what. If you get a good wife, you will be happy; if you get a bad wife, you will be a philosopher,” said Socrates. The introduction of the divorce procedure virtually eliminated this natural institution of reproduction of philosophers. Socrates' wife was grumpy. Apparently I went to the first extreme. Galkovsky is single, although he claims that he is all in search (as they say, it’s not evening yet and, perhaps, a robe with mother-of-pearl buttons will flash somewhere). So, the discussion in this topic will be conducted by a non-professional about a non-professional.
Galkovsky often positions himself as a philosopher. He graduated from the Faculty of Philosophy of Moscow State University. But his own opinion about humanities education in the USSR in general and at the philology department in particular is quite well known - fraud and sabotage. Galkovsky has no actual philosophical works (a philosophical novel and philosophical tales- this is still a novel and fairy tales). Yes, and he is no longer interested philosophical problems and not even philosophers, but the historical context. “Perhaps this is the point of view not of a philosopher, but of a historian of philosophy, but I am a historian of philosophy by education,” Galkovsky admits in one of his interviews.
Since own philosophical system Galkovsky is not formally stated anywhere; we will have to restore it bit by bit from “accidentally” dropped conclusions scattered in a dozen works, articles and LiveJournal pages. The starting point will be the following quote: “If we take the “train of thought”, then my philosophizing probably resembles Russell, adjusted for less mathematization and much less nationalism.” Well, I don’t know... I’m practically not familiar with Russell’s philosophical works; I know him better as a logician and the author of the Russell paradox. In my youth I read “Why I am not a Christian,” but somehow I was not at all impressed, rather the opposite. In the margins, we note that Russell is an Englishman, he evaded military service (albeit, demonstratively, for which he was imprisoned, and not through a mental hospital), received Nobel Prize on literature. Let us also note the following thought: “Whoever, like me, considers free intelligence to be the main engine of human progress, cannot help but oppose Bolshevism as fundamentally as he opposes the Roman Catholic Church.” Is very similar. (And, by the way, a thought with a huge boomerang charge.) Russell has many wonderful aphorisms. For example, “Thought is not free if it cannot be used to make a living.” Very on topic.
So, what is philosophy according to Galkovsky? On the one side Philosophy is a synthetic concept that means little specifically. This can be a speculative part of a specific science, lightly powdered theology, propaganda, intellectual horseplay in front of a female (very often). With another - The real definition of philosophy is so terrible that it is avoided at all costs, blocked with screens. “Philosophy is the knowledge of how things really are.” Such a nebulous subject is impossible to explore. Therefore, I will use a more traditional understanding of philosophy, namely the study of the root causes of all things and the science of thinking, which has as its goal the comprehension of truth.
The result of my reconstruction looks like this:
1. At the base lies a certain SECRET, which through evolution sets all the diversity of the world.
2. Cynicism was chosen as the method, i.e. reducing motivation to the most primitive, and behavior to function.
3. Self-induction of moral ideals.
Let me expand on the above points a little.
Evolution Galkovsky is not of a progressive nature, i.e. is not actually Darwinism. This is not a direction of development “from simple to complex,” but only an algorithm for adapting to the environment. "Evolution is a subprogram of the gene code." The idea is this: leave one single species on Earth and after a certain number of years you will get the current diversity of species up to a reasonable person (well, maybe with horns or a tail). It is important to note here that Galkovsky considers the emergence of intelligence to be an ordinary phenomenon, not much different from the growth of a fin or another section of the stomach.
And this is the first strange thing. Because the gene code itself - "computer program. FACT - ...numeric number, certain formulas. Everything is very reasonable".
The gene code has an AUTHOR. At the same time, the mind, unfolded from the gene code, can itself create its own gene code, which, through evolution, will lead to the emergence of a new mind, which... Such a nesting doll, without end and beginning. One can imagine another option: someone wrote a biological code that led to the emergence of man, a person wrote a computer code that led to the emergence of a robot that wrote... In any case, the world is knowable, the world is arranged intelligently, the world is arranged by someone .
Thesis about cynicism I won't unfold it. Those interested can read articles about the Cynics and see that the coincidence is almost complete. Despite the fact that Galkovsky himself denies cynicism and is even offended, I think this thesis is quite obvious. The master's argument for accusations of cynicism boils down to the phrase: “I am not a cynic, but a realist. And I am a realist largely because in my life I have always had to solve practical problems on which my well-being and the well-being of my loved ones depended.” But there is cynicism "behavior or personal position that expresses a conscious or demonstrative disdain for certain moral traditions and ethical rituals, as interfering or redundant for solving practical problems". The next objection is that Galkovsky is not at all against traditions and rituals, quite the opposite. But the fact is that, even when defending a certain tradition or norm, he does this for completely utilitarian reasons of practicality and functionality. And even this would be quite acceptable if it were not for the denial of a basic cultural norm, namely the prohibition on highlighting other people’s personal sins and shortcomings, real or imaginary. This goes against the entire Russian culture (and especially Orthodoxy).
Now about ideals. Moral standards according to Galkovsky are of a social nature, set by upbringing, developed by education and, finally, strengthened by one’s own intellectual activity. Those. On average, the more educated a person is, the better off he is. There is no absolute moral principle. Galkovsky recognizes the existence of God, but “from a philosophical point of view.” What does it mean? And the fact that “God” is “a personified expression of the highest human aspirations,” i.e., ultimately, a product of mental activity. Moreover, everyone has their own “God”. “In my deep conviction,” says Galkovsky, “a philosopher cannot be a believer.” Galkovsky denies religion, while stipulating the usefulness of the ritual as a “spiritual ration” for intellectually underdeveloped individuals.
Here is another interesting passage: “the recognition of the existence of God and the statement of his absence are two PHILOSOPHICAL concepts.” From my point of view, this phrase is impossible from the lips of a philosopher. Let me explain with an analogy: “the recognition of Galkovsky’s existence and the statement of his absence are two PHILOSOPHICAL concepts.” If the real Galkovsky does not exist, then both statements are equally unverifiable, since in the first case the “object” cannot be presented, and in the second, even more so, nothing can be presented in principle. Those. both statements are abstract and meaningless mind games, where the word “Galkovsky” can be replaced with any abracadabra. This is not an activity for a philosopher, but for a schizophrenic. But if Galkovsky exists, then you can read his “philippines” on LiveJournal, ask a question, you can go to the Sunday tea party of the RJ club and look in reverence, shake his hand, punch him in the jaw. But what does philosophy have to do with it? Thus, in any case, both recognition and denial are not concepts, especially “PHILOSOPHICAL”.
Philosophical concepts are Christianity, Buddhism, Confucianism, materialism, etc. Materialism does not deny God, it DOES NOT USE this idea to build a picture of the world. Atheism denies God, but because of this, atheism is not a philosophical concept, since it is secondary and does not exist without theism. Atheism is a position, a dialectical "antithesis". Here, by the way, it’s a good time to remember Russell’s Teapot (otherwise we somehow forgot about the starting point of the study). This is a very funny analogy. After all, the question is not about proof, but about correlating your life, worldview, and actions with an unverifiable belief. A person pays for his beliefs with his life. Not in the sense that he goes to death (in that too), but in the sense that he lives this life in a very specific way.
Since the word “dialectical” was mentioned, I consider it necessary to dwell on this powerful philosophical method. It is clear that studying philosophy (yes, almost any degree) Soviet times) faculty, it was in principle impossible to ignore dialectics. In “Endless Dead End,” Galkovsky tried in every possible way to distance himself from dialectics: “the Hegelian triad is a way of thinking of an incompetent consciousness” (BT 453). And because The author considered himself quite “competent”, but when he heard about “thesis/antithesis/synthesis”, he expected nothing but a catch and hurried to put his wallet in his inner pocket, or even in his underpants. But over time, Engels and Marxism-Leninism ceased to hang over the strengthened intellect, Hegel generally became a tame character in historical sketches, and dialectics turned into “the basis of any philosophizing,” although it was reduced to a dialogue, where thesis/antithesis was reduced into argument/counterargument, and synthesis disappeared as unnecessary. “On the one hand, this accustoms one to resourceful argumentation, on the other hand, it creates indifference to a specific result.” Evolution.
What else is important to say in the context of this article? There is a common opinion: “Galkovsky came and abolished Russian philosophy.” In fact, with Galkovsky everything is much more serious. He also canceled Kant, Hegel, and Descartes. But okay, he canceled it, he also tried to close the topic altogether: “It seems to me that philosophy is a certain state of culture that humanity has long overcome.” Overcame in the sense that the state took up philosophy: “After all, thinking is very dangerous. This Pandora’s box needs a state lock.”
Before analyzing this non-trivial conclusion, you need to understand the driving force of cognition. Since Galkovsky threw out the unity and struggle of opposites, the only cognitive stimulus remained interest. There is nothing else to fuel the eccentricity and play of the “half-drunk” mind: “What will happen if...?” Interesting. "The car was driving dark forest/ for some interest. / Inte, inte, interest, / go to the letter..." And the state comes out. And what is the state's interest? That's right, the state one. The treasury is the head of everything. And let's quote Bertrand Russell once again: "Thought is not free if it cannot be used to earn money life." So it happened: supply and demand have found each other! Hence Galkovsky’s pessimism regarding the future of philosophy.
Fortunately, Galkovsky’s point of view is not the only possible one, and interest in knowledge is very indirectly related. Great amount discoveries were made accidentally and even contrary to the interests of researchers. Interest is in the game, in the “Film Travelers Club” and in the program “Obvious-Incredible”. And at our physics and technical school they joked: “A chicken is not a bird, Seryozha is not Kapitsa.” And that Kapitsa, who is Kapitsa, said: “When a theory coincides with an experiment, this is no longer a discovery, but a closure.” "Close" is good for expense reporting budget funds. And “Opening” is joy, delight, name day of the heart, glory, dream, passion. A discovery is a contradiction of reality to the existing picture of the world, it is a “thorn in one place” that will itch thousands of people until a new understanding of the world order emerges. Then everything will calm down again, calm down for a while, turn into a routine and a plan of events, until one day someone again runs naked shouting “Eureka!”
Contradiction, exception, inconsistency, gap, mistake, flaw, sin. Sin is the true engine of knowledge. Sin must be covered up. This is deep in human nature, in nature, corrupted, cursed.
So what is still wrong with Russian philosophy? After all, it really looks very scanty against the backdrop of the mighty edifice of Western European thought. Galkovsky quite rightly notes: “Among Russian cultural figures of the first rank there is not a single priest or monk. There are very few of the second. This is a striking difference from the culture of France, Great Britain, and Germany.” If you don’t fall into the “Russians are a stupid nation” hypothesis, then the problem is somewhere in the “engine”.
All Western philosophy (and culture in general) came out of theology, where for a millennium such an intensity of passions raged that it led to the deepest church schism, reformation, Protestantism, atheism. Western thought has moved along the path of greater and greater secularization of knowledge and culture. Nothing like this happened in Eastern Orthodox culture. If you look at the history of Orthodox theology of the last millennium, you can see some kind of “intellectual stagnation” with a small surge in the 14th century around disputes about Divine energies. However, it is worth paying attention to the extreme “reactivity” of the theology of the 1st millennium. The scheme is this: a certain heresy arises; theological thought is boiling (sometimes quite bloody); finally, a doctrine is formed that cuts off the heretical idea; fixed by the Ecumenical Council; and everything calms down again.
Western philosophy has been moving towards Hegelian dialectics for centuries: the thesis, by its formulation, generates an antithesis and thereby enters into a relationship with it. What is new here for the Orthodox consciousness? Compare: God the Father eternally gives birth to the Son-Word, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and rests on the Son. Dogma of the Trinity. And for Western consciousness Hegel's triad is a revelation! Because the filioque: the Holy Spirit comes from the Father and Son. Where does it come from? Question! This is such an awl that it was necessary to pile up redoubts, walls, towers, dugouts, underground communications, false airfields, and distracting facades. But it still stings.
And Russian philosophy of the Silver Age all revolves around the idea of “the Soul of the world - the Wisdom of God”, the Sophian heresy, too small for the construction of the Tower of Babel.
Russell, whose “train of thought” is so close to Galkovsky, said: “World history is the sum of everything that could have been avoided” and “even if everyone holds the same opinion, everyone can be wrong.” This is deep and true. What is the opposite of “Yes, love one another”? Only - “Hating enemies is easier and more exciting than loving friends.” Here's an activity for the bored "reality contemplator." What about internal dialogue and self-commentation? And for this there is an aphorism from the many-wise Bertrand: “Sanity could be defined as a synthesis of madness... Anyone who wants to preserve sanity... must gather in himself a whole parliament of all possible fears, each of which would be recognized as insane by everyone else.” Democracy. :)
To close the circle, I would like to quote Norbert Wiener: “There is only one way to describe Bertrand Russell, and that is to say that he is the spitting image of the Hatter.”
I will respond briefly to the comments in the previous thread.
1. I was surprised by the amazing naivety of many users about Abkhazia: “Abkhazians love Russian people”; “The Russians will get a wonderful resort for themselves.” The reality is that a small ethnic group has driven three or even four times its population out of its area and is living in half-empty cities. Cities are gradually being destroyed due to the economic crisis and low level of culture. Russians were expelled from Abkhazia just like Georgians. 1/5 of the original number lives there, and only on paper. As long as the Russians are politically advantageous, the Abkhazians will pay them oriental compliments and treat them to Turkish delight. As soon as the Russians get in the way of the political interests of the emerging Asian state, they will begin to hammer nails into their skulls.
To what extent is Abkhazia a capable state? None. Achieving independence by a people whose number is less than 1 million people is a thing perpendicular to international law. This is possible in the case of island territories, they have a special status. An exception may be made for the richest territories - this makes it easier for an international consortium to manage. But no one is interested in creating a kaleidoscope of Voronye Slobodki. Abkhazia does not have not only a million, but also 200 thousand. The territory is microscopic, there are no natural resources. There are very, very bad tangerines and very, very bad people(roaming thieves). Culturally, the Abkhazians are of course included in the Georgian area, adjusted for even greater backwardness and greater alienation from Russia (due to Islam).
It is said that the Russians must take care of the Abkhazians and protect them from the Georgian massacre. There will be no massacre there; this is not Africa, but relatively cultural Asia. Perhaps they will fight a little - this is even beneficial for people at such a stage of development. Anything is better than selling drugs.
There is also talk about betrayal by Russia of the noble Abkhazians - I will leave this without comment. Learn international law. In this regard, I will emphasize once again (I have already said this) that obtaining citizenship of a particular country is a Privilege, not a right. If a “potential subject” appears on the threshold and declares in a relaxed tone that he will live here, this is not a reason for immoderate enthusiasm, but an incentive to close the door more tightly. The Abkhazians must explain long and hard why the Russians need them. Seriously. Not at the level of “I love you”, but “what can you offer”. Ethnically, the Abkhaz are a foreign people, and religiously too. The cultural level is extremely low. The dowry is as big as a gulkin's nose. The claims are the most incredible.
The Abkhazians could be accommodated in the newly created North Caucasus Republic - a sunny leper colony for brilliant Asians. Let them live for 20 years before finally being thrown into outer space (not into independence, but into oblivion). But since such a buffer (with its own monetary system and armed forces) no, 100 thousand Abkhazians the next day after joining will not be in the autonomous cabinet of curiosities, but in Moscow. Some will engage in wholesale trade, some in restaurants, some in banks, some in drug sales, some in smuggling, some in the hotel business, some in publishing, some in television, history, philosophy, painting and sculpture. Abkhazia will receive a colossal loan “for development” hotel business"- it will be stolen even at the stage of receipt (“branzulette!”); if the Russian cashiers (poor women) remain alive after this “financial operation” - very good.
2. Now the thing is more abstract, but actually more concrete. Core. People do not understand that in politics, and in the social field in general, truth and lies not only do not exist, but play a subordinate role. The main thing is interests. For example, in almost every thread of my LiveJournal there are several fools who graduated from the Uryupinsk Agricultural College and are shaking the received tugament before their eyes: I am the history of the CPSU, and soil science, and the diagram of a combine harvester with excellent marks, the teachers are in my arms, I am assembling a lawnmower blindfolded . What are these, cretins? No, normal people. They have INTEREST. They believe that the introduction of a law against fools, at least indirectly, can undermine their social status and splay out in a wind tunnel (not turned on). In such a position, some social demagogue will grab them under the white hands: “That’s right Vanechka, YOU DON’T NEED ANYTHING AT ALL. Get a bubble and watch football on TV. Just vote for me." The demagogue has his own interests. But what in reality? AND NOTHING. "Struggle of forces." Because to manipulate a dude you need some intelligence, so most likely the demagogue will have a university education, or even two. A la Zhirinovsky-Mitrofanov. The manipulator doesn’t care how to play – up or down. Amplitude and dynamics are important. Therefore, it makes no sense to talk in politics about “good” or “bad” peoples or social groups. Whoever took the stick is the corporal. Since he is a homo sapiens, his teeth are knocked out with a stick, as a rule (but not always), by a more highbrow individual.
In reality, a person can identify only elementary interests in the vacuum of social mechanics. This is the “truth”. “It’s not that the house is dilapidated, so it will collapse,” but “give me a new apartment.” And reinforcement: “otherwise I’ll pick at the wall with a nail and you’ll all die.”
Something can be corrected by adjusting interests. Sometimes people make mistakes, because mechanical actions and calls (“let’s eat!”) are accompanied by emotions in people. Under the influence of emotions, people make mistakes. They start gnawing on stones or reproaching the attending physician for his isolation from the people and his university education. As a rule, life itself corrects people here.
It’s interesting to read how two posts about Georgia caused diametrically opposite reactions. An anteater deftly pulls cockroaches out of cracks, a jellyfish sours in the sun, kombucha grows gratefully in a sugar solution, a woodpecker unsuccessfully knocks on a saucer of porridge. And vice versa: the anteater waddles around with a meter-long cord of its tongue in a bread bowl, the jellyfish is blissful in sea water, the kombucha arrives on the asphalt, and the woodpecker gratefully hollows out the bark beetles: “Dmitry Evgenievich, thank you for the post”; "This is a provocation"; “Out of my mind”; “I completely agree.”
The person has a university education: “Dmitry Evgenievich is ours, from the university.”
No: “You bastard, I dismantled the harvester overnight with these hands.”
Ossetians say one thing, Georgians say another. Khokhol third. What unites all these people? A lot of things are INTERESTS. Not specific interests, but their very presence. Recognition of interests is, consider, 75% of political culture. Next is a matter of technology. I mean, politicians.
The same applies to the interests of states. The USA is a hegemon and behaves like a hegemon. The hegemon's accusations of hegemonism are INSANE. Unless, of course, this is an element of the classical defense of the sub-hegemon and the diplomatic coalition created by the sub-hegemon. Georgia is an outsider. Again, accusing an outsider of playing without rules, duplicity and focusing on the strong is meaningless. This is the political weight and position of the object.
Here you can make complaints about political leader in the CORRECTNESS of his actions. Saakashvili is acting CORRECTLY. Putin is a political pederast standing on his head. In psychiatry there is such a definition: “wrong behavior.” This is a clear sign of mental illness. For example, the actions of a thief are generally correct. Although immoral. But a kleptomaniac who has a bank account, publicly steals cheap chips from a supermarket and then runs from a dozen police officers in his underpants is acting WRONG. The guy has PROBLEMS.
I'm not saying Putin is crazy. We just see part of the picture. His actions are absurd from the point of view of the head of a large state. Or maybe he is the head of a small state. Or not states at all. And not the head. Saakashvili is the head of his country. Georgia is operatic, but Saakashvili is not. And his goal is to make his homeland a small, capable state of the Balkan type. Like Bulgaria. - REASONABLE. Especially in light of the policies of our northern neighbor.
“... You can’t pretend to be something for a long time - you have to be. It’s easier to pretend to be a jerk and a boor than to be decent and whole - and entropy carries players along this path. But you can’t pretend to be a boor - you can only be one. Therefore, virtual games inevitably lead to schizoidism and degradation of the personality of their creator.”
Not long ago, the well-known Galkovsky D.E. allowed himself unprovoked, malicious rudeness towards the famous Russian philosopher and writer K. Krylov. The said Galkovsky, in extremely offensive terms, unprovenly accused Krylov of “Gebism”, they say, Krylov is a primitive puppet of the Gebni - the fierce enemy of the Holy Passion-Bearer of the Russian Intelligentsia. On this occasion, Galkovsky came up with the teasing “drama” for Krylov’s comrades. When we, armed with considerable patience, tried to point out to Galkovsky that he was actually wrong and that his tone was unacceptable, he declared us “Murzilka.” It must be said that Galkovsky previously used the phrase “Jewish Murzilka” for authors writing on the RuNet under a pseudonym. However, the situation has changed, and now, due to the search for highly paid service from Jewish “liberals”, the definition of “Jewish” D.E. refused for reasons of principle in the fight against Great Russian chauvinism.
Then Galkovsky for some time, with impunity, ranted with pathos about the Morality and Honor of the Intellectual, demanding that his opponents disclose personal data and sources of income (hinting that we are being eaten up in GB). People wondered why the author who has been honestly expressing his thoughts under a pseudonym for many years is morally defective, and why the comrade who grimaces under his name is worse than any “Murzilka”, in Galkovsky’s opinion, is undoubtedly a worthy member of society - a man of honor. Here Pensive clearly explains the basics of the ethics of pseudonyms to the Intellectual Galkovsky, we also gave seemingly exhaustive explanations, all to no avail. Galkovsky simply does not deign to answer people on the merits of the question, but you know, he repeats his own: drums, murzilkas, murzilkas, drums... Galkovsky would be stupid, otherwise he doesn’t want to understand simple things. There must be a special reason for this mysterious paradox.
In the end, the lying Dmitry Evgenievich was persistently asked (repeatedly!) two fundamental questions: 1) did he perform under a pseudonym (that is, in his terminology, does he use “Murzilok”), and 2) what are his sources of income, does it work where or how?
Galkovsky completely ignored these direct legitimate questions, proudly did not want to explain himself, portrayed a figure of silence and deliberately indulged in memories of the horrors of Soviet totalitarian slavery, the truth about which is allegedly hidden from the people by the same Gebnya and its faithful lackeys “Dramba”.
In general, the source of Galkovsky’s current inspiration is obvious and is not hidden by the client - D.E. is going to take part in a well-paid activity headed by the odious owner of a porn gallery, Marat Gelman, also a well-known liberal political strategist for the bankrupt Union of Right Forces. (Actually, Galkovsky began to insult Krylov precisely in a dialogue with Gelman, when Gelman called Krylov an “artist,” which the jealous D.E. could not bear). Apparently, Galkovsky thus convinces Gelman of his ideological loyalty to the cause of Russian “liberalism” and proves his ability to accept the subversive “Russia-2” project announced by Gelman. This explains a lot, but does not at all justify Galkovsky’s mischief. Moreover, it is impossible to excuse the fact that Galkovsky solves his personal problems at the expense of others (Krylova and others).
Let's return to the essence of the conversation, accidentally forgotten by the absent-minded D.E. Let's help our dear D.E. proceed to a sincere confession about his Jewish murzilkas and the stormy otherworldly murzilka life of the Master (as he likes to be called).
The LJ of the writer D.E. Galkovsky is primarily a theater of masks - Galkovsky and his trained murzilkas (“fool’s corner” of naive people). Galkovsky has... a lot of murzilok, prepared in advance for various needs. Some are quite harmless, they lead long, intelligent discussions in D.E.’s own journal. (this can be attributed to Met’s favorite “self-commenting”). Murzilkas are also used to mock interlocutors and boorishly harass opponents (see the example of petty rudeness of the Jewish Murzilka Galkovsky). And here is another example of how Murzilkas are used to fool the public within the framework of the Russia-2 project: all this Murzilka chatter was started for the sake of one phrase mobilizing the intelligentsia:
“The period of freedom from now to now is greater than under the Soviet Union. Although Putin’s reforms are narrowing it and narrowing it..."
“a short glance at the list creates an alarming impression: on almost EVERY item a threat from the Putin regime is felt...”
D.E. does not disdain. and Murzilian transvestism. Are you having a gallant conversation with a lady or is a woman with a virtual girlfriend talking about her own, feminine things? Be careful, this could be Galkovsky’s Jewish murzilka. Apparently, this is how our D.E. receives a kind of aesthetic pleasure.
However, Mater's nasty pranks are the last thing that worries us. There is something more serious to think about.
The last time Galkovsky, instead of answering essentially our legal issues arrogantly advised us to “think” about his, Galkovsky’s, Unshakable Rightness. We have been carefully reading Galkovsky for the sixth year now, and all this time we have been thinking diligently about what we read. We will now share the results of these reflections with the reader. But I wonder what D.E. himself was thinking about when he carefully prepared a bucket of slop to pour it on the head of the respected K. Krylov? Now, with his own garbage can on his head, the Master is absurdly waving his arms and legs, but confidently asserts that everything is going according to His plan, that He planned and foresaw it all three years ago. Oh well.
I can’t say that Galkovsky’s current shameful incident is for us complete surprise. When it comes to the kind D.E., for a long time many authoritative knowledgeable people mournfully twirl their finger at their temple. At the very first acquaintance with the work of Galkovsky, who was then still highly respected, he noticed with emotional chagrin (it was hard not to notice) the Master’s penchant for nasty intellectual antics. Then he optimistically estimated the intelligence coefficient at 30% and hoped that the powerful intellect of D.E. will overcome the shameful infection. Alas, alas...
Many things are by no means hidden in the abyss and depths of the universe, but lie on the surface. Both prejudices and stereotypes and deliberate deliberate misinformation hinder our ability to see and understand them. Let's take a break from the heart-rending shrieks of the intelligentsia about the damned “Gebni” and “Asianism” (what an irony, Galkovsky himself can discern Mongoloid features). Let’s look at “Galkovsky” strictly rationally, and apply to him the method of analyzing the observed reality and the people around him that he practices. I assure you, the result will be impressive.
Galkovsky loves to tell the public about social mechanics. Well, let's take an impartial and ruthless look at Dmitry Evgenievich from this “mechanics” point of view.
According to the abundant memoirs of D.E. himself, from childhood he was distinguished by extreme social envy. What about childhood and adolescence, the man is already in his fifties, and he still cannot forgive his parents for his low social origin. There are, if not clinical psychopathologies, then severe psychological complexes.
Who is “Galkovsky” socially? Simple - Galkovsky himself would say “peasant” - a boy from a difficult Soviet working family(father is an alcoholic). At school, the quarrelsome, stubborn boy studied very poorly, showed no abilities, and was distinguished by pronounced antisocial behavior. According to Galkovsky, in order to successfully study in a Soviet school, it was necessary to bribe teachers immediately in the first grade. Whatever bribe the parents gave, the children received such grades. Mitya’s proletarian parents did not give anything to the teachers (they didn’t think of giving them, they had nothing), and Mitya was doomed from the very beginning in the Soviet school. Therefore, he still did not teach lessons, and in retaliation he harassed the teachers. However, to the ignoramus and hooligan Galkovsky, humane soviet school I still issued a certificate of secondary education.
IN Soviet army Galkovsky did not get in due to mental illness (he claims that he was faking it, but who knows... we are not a doctor). He got a job as a worker at a factory, but didn’t want to work in production, he completely despised the Soviets around him, imagined himself as an undeniable psychological leader and a genius at manipulating other people’s consciousness (apparently, then the young man finally developed an intelligence complex). Our Soviet worker boy, who barely graduated from high school, was not going to get a real human profession-specialty; he wanted to become a “Soviet philosopher” from the machine. The caring Soviet government in the field of education for workers had a lot of privileges, thanks to which Galkovsky, due to his proletarian origin and work experience in production, four years after graduating from school, finally entered the Faculty of Philosophy of Moscow State University, evening department (he claims that he again allegedly gave a bribe to the admissions committee ).
Let us note that in Europe, given his insignificant social status and mongrel origin, lack of success in education and pronounced asocial inclinations, Galkovsky would never have received a diploma from a reputable university (college, i.e. technical school, at best). All his life, educated Western people would condescendingly pat Galkovsky on the shoulder - a nugget, a homemade product. Such is the inexorable social mechanics. And without crusts, what would our Philosopher’s claims be worth? With all his talents, for Galkovsky the approval of the notorious writer Kozlachkov would be flattering and honorable (he nevertheless rose to the rank of ensign).
Thus, Galkovsky owes literally EVERYTHING to the Soviet government; without it, his family is socially NOBODY. Nevertheless, Galkovsky fiercely hates his native Soviet power. Hatred and contempt for one’s benefactors is generally a signature psychological trait of intellectuals.
The archetype of the Russian intellectual, even during the social emergence of the intelligentsia in Russia, was exhaustively outlined by F.M. Dostoevsky - please love and favor: F.F. Opiskin. Anyone who intends to understand the psychology and character of the Russian intellectual as a type is recommended to carefully study “The Village of Stepanchikovo.” The Russian intelligentsia is the collective Foma Fomich of Russia and the Russian people.
Dostoevsky's Foma Fomich is stupid and mediocre (for the intelligentsia these are typical traits). The same cannot be said about Galkovsky. But that's the only thing significant difference. Galkovsky has also been terrified all his life of the arrival of “Korovkin”, a potential competitor to his place as the ruler of thoughts. This time the kindest D.E. He suspected the hated “Korovkin” in Konstantin Krylov, hence the explosion of insane jealousy in the face of Gelman and loud scandalous consequences.
Even in terms of lifestyle and social status Galkovsky is a typical Foma Fomich - arrogant and evil, he took root. And he has the nerve to interrogate people about their sources of income! Krylov reviled by Galkovsky Chief Editor"Special Forces of Russia", publishes a lot successfully, lives on literary work. Your humble servant is a virtual “Pioneer” in the world Ph.D. and, as he has repeatedly reported, he earns his daily bread in the scientific and technical field. Everything is transparent here, no mysteries. But the sources of existence of D.E. himself. are covered in dark secrets, Galkovsky never reveals them.
He publishes little and cannot support himself with literary earnings. It seems that D.E. lives on handouts from his fans. And let him, if only he behaved more modestly. But Galkovsky considers himself entitled to insult people who live by their labor. And what is especially disgusting is that he is publicly rude to his benefactors, and does not consider it necessary to at least cover up his contemptuous attitude towards them with hypocrisy. Galkovsky visited France and was invited to visit him there. Upon his return, Galkovsky described the hospitable hosts as “ middle class scum", and like a true Foma Fomich, he gave them a lecture on French real estate (which he saw there for the first time). Then I was greatly impressed by the Master’s shameless spontaneous rudeness towards the kind people who carelessly let him into their home.
In general, what does “Galkovsky treats people well” mean? - the kindest Dmitry Evgenievich has not yet had time to take revenge on the scoundrel, while he is collecting incriminating evidence. This is Galkovsky's general approach to people.
Azef of Russian literature
What is Galkovsky’s signature mode of action, so to speak, his favorite style of polemics. Scrupulous collection of dossiers on opponents - personal data, incriminating evidence. Under the cover of conversations “for morality”, under the guise of pathetic reasoning “about the honor of an intellectual,” Galkovsky cynically provokes his interlocutor to give material on himself. As we already know, often for this kind of purpose D.E. uses numerous virtual characters (“Murzilkas”, in his jargon). Murzilkas argue with Galkovsky and with each other, they can support the respected D.E., or they can “criticize” (even with dirty swearing), or are even able to express their own “thoughts”. It happens that up to 3/4 of the meaningful discussions in Galkovsky’s LiveJournal are conversations between his girls. The meaning of virtual games with people is twofold – when the Master’s favorite is relatively harmless “self-commenting”, and often – deception of gullible interlocutors, psychological manipulation, ideological and propaganda provocations.
By his own admission, Galkovsky reflexively turns conversations with people into interrogations, the main topics of which are: “be the first to decipher the conversation,” “who do you work for?” and “I haven’t seen your file.” The revelations of opponents, in the end, boil down to exposing them of homosexuality (or other shameful sexual perversions). It is obligatory for Galkovsky to accuse his opponents of criminal offenses (listing the articles of the Criminal Code) and colorful stories about how his cellmates will “let them down.” Those who dare to present to the inquisitive D.E. The scrupulous Master certifies his passport and income statement as “petty cowardly scoundrels.” The question is, who does this kind of approach to business, way of thinking and action resemble? Think slowly...
D.E. loves to hysterically squeeze out thieves' tears from his listeners - self-pity for the unfortunate, innocent victim of the cop-KGB lawlessness. However, let's look at the matter with dry eyes. Young Galkovsky, according to the memoirs of D.E. himself, led a petty criminal lifestyle - speculation, forgery of documents, etc. actions (hence a good knowledge of criminal psychology and customs). One might argue, “it’s totalitarianism, they didn’t allow books to be read.” However, in the West, for illegal business, forgery of documents and fraud with benefits, our D.E. would have received a significant prison sentence.
Here's D.E. tells how he miraculously escaped Andropov’s raid. Was there a miracle? After all, as you know, there are no magical miracles... The damned hebna of the petty anti-Soviet black marketeer Galkovsky was swept away. So what is next? No, they weren’t thrown into the Gulag. As a result of the preventive conversation, the student sincerely repented and signed an agreement to cooperate with the authorities. A minor KGB informant informs the authorities about the speculator environment, anti-Soviet sentiments and the actions of acquaintances, and denounces his clients who are interested in anti-Soviet literature. And so on in the same spirit.
However, we believe that all this - a sudden KGB raid, a noble student in the clutches of the merciless secret police - is a romance far from life. An angry, ambitious proletarian boy, immediately after entering the Faculty of Philosophy, proactively approached the authorities with a proposal for cooperation. Why? Why wait? The philosopher himself in his writings explained in detail this train of thought: for a person from the people - without connections, without patronage, for a poor evening student, it was practically impossible to make a career as a “Soviet philosopher” otherwise than through the Organs. Is it really worth reading atheistic lectures and educational political information in collective farm clubs all your life?.. Did they fight for this?
That is why the authorities looked condescendingly at the dubious deeds of the student Galkovsky - forgery of documents, reproduction and speculation of anti-Soviet literature. A useful man, he deliberately does a dirty job that is necessary for the Soviet Motherland.
The secret employee from Galkovsky turned out to be diligent and devoted. Organs were the only support in the life of a young Soviet philosopher from a proletarian environment. The activity is just according to his nature - working with people, interesting. The romance of intelligence work. The young assistant of the Organs was looking for difficult, intellectual tasks for himself. Apparently, he worked as a Freemason. He tried to infiltrate the descendants of the white emigration, to become their representative in Russia (unsuccessfully, however, darling). In the course of writing reports to managers and curators, the young man discovered great literary talent and a unique outlook on life.
Now we understand the true meaning of the unbridled flattery of the intelligentsia and calls for class solidarity against the Gebni, and the hysterically evil denunciations of the soviet - the usual comedy of an experienced agent in order to infiltrate the anti-Soviet intelligentsia environment. They get a simple and natural explanation for the oddities in Galkovsky’s biography, which many observers tend to explain as psychopathology.
Here Galkovsky scandalously, under a far-fetched pretext, refuses literary prize and declares a blockade of the Russian Federation. A few years later, without any reason, he suddenly returned to Russian literature, explaining his return by the fact that, they say, he hoped that Galkovsky’s departure from literature would bring some sense to the population of the Russian Federation and change the course of Russian history. And since the course of history has not changed, Galkovsky considered it possible to return to literature.
Previously, Galkovsky had refused a literary prize with contempt, he seemed to be disdainful, but now he entered the service of the owner of a pornography establishment. One can be amazed at the twists and turns of the psychology of the Genius. However, the secret of the Master’s actions, in our opinion, is extremely simple - the instructions of the Curators. Now he has been given the latest instructions - to kill Russian nationalists, to infiltrate the liberals’ subversive project “Russia-2”. Philosopher No. 007 has begun the task of the Organs!
Does all this seem incredible to you? An absurd conjecture? Why, because Galkovsky’s cooperation with the Organs explains EVERYTHING. One has only to distract oneself from the howl of the ideological jammer in the person of D.E. himself, get rid of the point of view imposed by Galkovsky and look at the matter impartially, as much in his biography, full of schizoid paradoxes, receives a natural interpretation.
Now, as part of M. Gelman’s new project on his LiveJournal, Galkovsky is creating crude, almost parodic anti-Soviet propaganda, fooling intellectuals, mockingly playing on their well-known complexes and prejudices. The question is, where is our ardent anti-adviser D.E. was it before? Yes, yes, what did Galkovsky do before 1991? The end of the 80s and the beginning of the 90s was the heyday of anti-Soviet propaganda, people made careers and made a lot of money. What about our D.E.? Nothing, sir. With his journalistic talents and supposedly unquenchable hatred of the Soviet Union, he could have made a name for himself and a HUGE anti-Soviet career, including getting a lot of money and settling in the coveted West. However, for inexplicable reasons, Galkovsky does not publish poisonous and destructive pamphlets against the USSR. But his activity in the press was first noted after August 1991.
At first glance, Galkovsky, in his scandalous speeches after the fall of the Soviet Union, denounces Soviet writers and “philosophers” and almost demands lustration for them. However, you should know that Galkovsky’s performances always have a double or triple bottom (if not worse). In fact, we have Galkovsky taking revenge on the Soviet estates that betrayed Soviet power. Galkovsky writes with bitterness about the failure of the Soviet “masters of thought” and clearly explains to them that there is no place for them in the new life. Those. in fact, this is an attempt (provocation!) to set up influential Soviet intellectual circles against “liberal reforms”, to frighten and mobilize them in favor of the Soviet restoration. After the final defeat of the Soviets in 1993, our hero of the invisible front refuses to publish in the Russian Federation and goes into the shadows.
And Dmitry Evgenievich returns to Russian literature... after the security officer Putin came to power. Hehe, what else can you say.
What other conceptual ideas is Galkovsky known for? The concept of the need for emigration of the Russian educated classes to their spiritual Metropolis - to the West. We must admit that this idea—pro-Western opposition intelligentsia voluntarily leaving the country en masse—is very convenient for the security officers.
Or the discovery that the USSR is a crypto-colony of England. At once, responsibility for the crimes of communism is removed from both the Organs and the Soviet government in general, and traditional intellectual hopes for the Good West are also undermined.
Etc. and so on.
So who are you, Mr. Galkovsky? ...KGBist Murzilka.
While I was writing this text, I discovered Galkovsky’s confessions in his very ambiguous attitude towards Soviet power. Here he explains that he belonged to almost 1% of the Soviet elite.
“...my position was rather privileged. For example, I am a native Muscovite. This is a huge social benefit. Or, despite all the everyday disasters, I at least grew up in full family. I had a father and mother, I never considered myself an orphan. I have never lived in a communal apartment. Moreover, after the death of her father, her mother went to work in a fur studio and began to earn good money. So in the years 80-90 I ate much better 9/10, and, perhaps, 99/100 Soviet people. At Moscow State University I wore expensive jeans, a sheepskin coat, a leather coat, and wore an expensive watch with a microcalculator - an outfit worth $1,500 at current prices.Moreover, I had a lot of relatives, some of whom occupied very high positions. For example, my cousin was married to the daughter of a Politburo member. Even without real patronage, this played a role in a caste society.”
Judging by this text, Galkovsky initially felt like a Soviet prince from a noble but impoverished Soviet family.
On the attitude towards creative heritage. Once upon a time, alas, back in 1999, I discovered with great interest the work of D.E. Galkovsky. True, some aspects initially caused bewilderment and rejection. Gradually, as we became more familiar with the subject, wariness grew, at times turning into amazement and disgust. And there was no longer any human possibility of tolerating Galkovsky’s latest vile act and leaving it unpunished. The limit of ugliness.
So how should we treat Galkovsky and his “Endless Dead End” in the light of these new circumstances? Whoever left a noticeable mark in Russian literature. There were murderers, terrorists, executioners. And now it has turned out that the author of one talented Russian book is a sexist and a provocateur of the Soviet Organs. What can I say... The spirit breathes where it wants.
Original taken from galkovsky in 915. PIROS MANISHVILI
Grigory Chkhartishvili receives the Japanese Order of the Rising Sun. For your great contribution. Chkhartishvili’s literary pseudonym, Akunin, according to him, is derived from the Japanese word “aku” - bastard.
At the beginning of the 20th century, the Polish-Georgian “stole this and that” brothers Zdanevich (“Do you want me to show you your ass? – no! – I’ll still show you”) came up with Georgian primitivism in the form of the magically acquired artist Pirosmanishvili. Who either did not exist at all, or was an ordinary homeless person, and on the frame of whose biography (reduced to elementary existence) the romantic legend of the “Georgian Henri Rousseau” was built up.
The idea was received with a bang, because for primitivism as such, as well as its derivatives (Dadaism, etc.), mystification was a completely acceptable practice, in some places becoming mandatory. And of course, Pirosmanishvili became one of the pillars of Georgian culture, in turn - already national traditions- prone to buffoonery and hoaxes.
Pirosmani on the Georgian banknote.
Meanwhile, there is a big difference between the Parsuns Henri Rousseau and Pirosmanishvili. Henri Rousseau was truly a primitivist artist, that is, he painted as best he could, trying to depict artistic reality as believably and as beautifully as possible (from his point of view). With some verbal balancing act, this could be passed off as spontaneity and “the mouth of a baby.” This is not the Zdanevich project. The paintings were painted “primitively”, with a deliberate violation of proportions. Since Asians painted, no protection from possible criticism occurred to them. Therefore, their primitivism was also quite successful, but not at all like primitivism visual arts, but as primitivism of counterfeiting and following a template.
Painting by Henri Rousseau. A man honestly tries to draw, but it doesn’t work out very well.
Painting by Pirosmanishvili (depicting, ha-ha, one of the Zdanevichs). A true primitivist would never draw his right hand with such an obvious disproportion, because his goal is to draw correctly and beautifully. Like in photographs, from which figures were often copied. In addition, the landscape behind was painted by a person holding a brush.
The paintings of Henri Rousseau were initially exhibited on the line, shot through by sarcastic critics, and these paintings were defended by literary pens, calculating in advance both the lines of defense and possible counterattacks. The outrage was only the seed of a long European conversation.
Not so Georgia. There the pictures were drawn with the expectation of absolute delight and did not provide for any criticism at all. Even critics of their authenticity. The very fact of the existence of an oriental masterpiece was absolute proof of its genius.
This is the main difference between Eastern culture and Western culture. Eastern culture is fundamentally not designed for dialogue and even the simplest and most naive argument crumbles to the ground. Because the very possibility of resistance does not even occur to the author. Western war is maneuvers, defense and offensive. Eastern War this is a massacre. When on one side there are bashi-bazouks wielding scimitars, and on the other there are unarmed old people and children. Therefore, the war between the West and the East usually turns into a massacre of Asians.
An excellent example of the “Georgian train of thought” is the current polemic of the great Caucasian scientist Chkhartishvili. Chkhartishvili lashes out at the Russian Tsar Nicholas II with no less than philippics (see.)
Which, in general, is commonplace to the point of banality. But I'm in in this case I’m not talking about the banality of the content, but the banality of the form. Chkhartishvili fundamentally believes half a step ahead and cannot even imagine that one of the white devils would dare to refute or even ridicule his verdicts. “Patamushta I’m talking like that!”
Since, due to Asian naivety, Chkhartishvili gave a representative selection of cliched nonsense about the “crowned monster”, it is through the example of polemics with his theses that it is easy to show all the far-fetchedness and absurdity of Nicholas’ many decades of watering.
Let me briefly go through the thoughts of the annealing Manishvili:
“Today is a sad anniversary. Exactly 120 years ago, the ruler of Russia became the man who dropped the country into a black hole. There he stands on the left in the corner, so inconspicuous - a little officer who determined the fate of our great-grandfathers, grandfathers, parents, and, in fact, ours too.”
To be honest, I didn’t find the “little officer in the left corner,” but that’s not the point. We are talking about Chkhartishvili’s speech. If the “little man” dropped the country into a hole (apparently a toilet), then this country is very small. Since a Georgian plays the panduri, a strong association is created that the country the Poet is talking about is not Russia, but Georgia.
The squeal continues:
“The formula of this contradictory character, which largely decided the fate of the twentieth century, is a combination of complexes, weak character and stubbornness. For a ruler, this is an explosive mixture. When he ascended the throne, the first thing he did was to announce that society should not indulge in “meaningless dreams”: everything would remain as it was under an unforgettable parent.”
There were no “meaningless dreams”. This is a very, very stupid and very, very old trick of the confrontational under-intelligentsia of the Russian Empire. Alexander III died suddenly, 49 years old. Before this, it was believed that the strongman Alexander had excellent health. Nicholas ascended the throne as a very young man, at the age of 26, unexpectedly. Naturally, in such a situation the question of succession of power arose. And to emphasize that the reins of power were in strong hands, in front of convened representatives of the nobility and public organizations, the young tsar (who had been on the throne for only two months and had not yet been coronated) made a statement that the form of government in Russia remained unchanged. At the same time, inexperienced Nikolai (this was his first public statement) I read the word “unrealistic” (or “groundless”) as “meaningless dreams of changing the system.”
So what? How many people make mistakes, especially in the first hundred days of their reign? Obama, there, “caught a fly” and nothing. WHY THEY CRY? To adults even after a hundred years. NOT ASHAMED?
And the specific political practice of Nicholas II shows that already at the end of the 19th century his reign was marked by steps towards political liberalization, which continued even after the start of the Russo-Japanese War. Liberalization was thwarted by malicious inspiration from the enemies of Russia, but since it was the main direction, a moderate constitutional system was still formed in Russia, headed by a moderate and far-sighted monarch, who ultimately led DEMOCRATIC Russia to victory in the world war. At the same time, it was clear that democratic freedoms would increase even more after the end of the war. This was indicated by the very nature of power in 1914-1916, when, despite martial law and obvious opposition, parliament was not dissolved).
Chkhartishvili describes the emergence of the constitutional monarchy in Russia with broad strokes of a paint brush:
“But as with an unforgettable parent, it didn’t work out in the new century. Everything creaked, wobbled and crumbled. It was scary. Selfless advisers came up with the idea of a small victorious war. The war turned out to be rather large and invincible, and led to a revolution. The ruler got scared and issued a manifesto with freedoms. There were few freedoms, society wanted more and began to no longer ask, but demand. The ruler got scared - he dispersed parliament and introduced a regime of military-police dictatorship. He was afraid of a war with “Cousin Willie” - and yet he got involved in it. He didn’t know how to command, but declared himself the supreme commander in chief.”
This is a win-win lottery. The cowardly despot started the war out of cowardice. Then, out of cowardice, parliament allowed it. Out of cowardice I dispersed him. Then I started out of fear world war and, (drum roll), frightened by serious military failures, took the post of supreme commander.
This way you can “prove” anything. In general, they prove it.
Hey, Kohl, let me have some ice cream!
What, you chickened out, you freak?
On the! (Fist to cheekbone.)
- (From around the corner.) What, fight? Coward!
A crazy dervish twists the rim of a barrel with a rusty poker:
“The price of throwing has been increasing all the time. Fifty thousand killed in the war with Japan. One and a half million killed in the war with Germany. Between five and thirteen million died in the civil war—historians can’t count them. And those millions who perished during the repressions and wars of the second quarter of the century are also indirect victims of the ruler, who one hundred and twenty years ago took up the tug and turned out to be quite a bitch.”
Why stop? How many tricks did Nikolai play during the Second World War? What about perestroika? It's his doing. Not Georgian.
The main thing is that Nikolai did harm with a riddle. While I was at the helm, it was on the sly and unnoticed. It even seemed like everything was fine. The economy grew, prosperity, culture developed, and parliament again. And when the fool was removed from the helm, everything fell apart within a year. Who is guilty? Nicholas and the consequences of his reign. As they joked during the stagnation:
Nikolashka is a scoundrel - he ruled for 23 years, but did not prepare food for the Soviet regime.
But this is not enough. What follows next from Chkhartishvili is an incredibly funny thing. The fact is that Georgia belongs to the Eurasian area. On the one hand, this is clearly a state of the Middle East, on the other, a country bordering Europe and inhabited by representatives of the Mediterranean race, who also profess Christianity. Therefore, Georgians have Mamardashvili’s grasp, which, combined with Mamardashvili’s penchant for acting, constantly leads to the creation of imitations of Western dialogue and Western culture. And a significant part of the Georgian intelligentsia consists of Georgian-European mestizos - like the Zdanevichis, or the same Chkhartishvili.
Therefore, the Georgian understands that for gloss and brilliance, there must be dialectics in his reasoning. Suddenly the shrill watering stops, panduri changes to chonguri and the “sincereness” begins:
“The most offensive thing is that the person seemed to be not bad: decent, hardworking, delicate, charming. An ideal husband - loving, faithful, gentle, reliable: A wonderful father: A good, cheerful comrade: Moreover - a great rarity for the monarchs of the Holstein-Gottorp-Romanov dynasty - he is also unostentatiously modest. One “George” on the chest, a simple tunic with colonel’s shoulder straps.
Of course, the sincerity ends in the end, because even from such dialectics the Asian skull is bursting at the seams, and Chkhartishvili makes a final verdict on the spiritual qualities of the damned European:
“Nikolai seemed to feel his ceiling: at most he would make an excellent regimental commander. Servant to the king, father to the soldiers. But a man of colonel’s stature cannot be an autocratic ruler of a huge country, especially in modern times.”
Meanwhile, “historian” Chkhartishvili should be clear that “a simple jacket” and a “simple overcoat” are a standard move for the leader of a militaristic state. Just look at how Stalin, Hitler, Churchill, Napoleon, Mao Zedong, etc. dressed.
In addition, the historian should know - this is not God knows what a secret - that Nicholas, so to speak, by virtue of his position had a heap of top ranks in the largest states of the world. For example, he was a field marshal in the British army.
Kaiser Wilhelm with our fool. Lord! And how shameful is it not for the German Majesty to stand with such an idiot! It's a shame. And he was glad, he also put on a German uniform. They gave it to the colonel out of pity - to vilify him. Ohohonyushki!
And finally, about the “Colonel”. Nikolai was a colonel of the Preobrazhensky regiment. The Preobrazhensky Regiment was a Life Guard (that is, a Guard of the Guard). Peter I took the rank of colonel of this regiment in 1706, and the second person in the state, Menshikov, became a lieutenant colonel. In reality, the regiment was commanded by the second lieutenant colonel. From that time on, the Russian emperors were considered as members of the officer community of this military unit:
Gentlemen, officers, being the All-Russian Emperor, I also have a part in belonging to your class.
– What regiment do you serve in, Your Majesty?
In Preobrazhenskoe.
Of course, Nicholas II was not a “colonel” (or, rather, a junior general, since the ranks were higher in the guard) of the Preobrazhensky Regiment from the point of view of the official ladder. He was the CHEF of this regiment, like all Russian emperors.
From the same opera are hypocritical laments about a “wonderful family man.” Nicholas II was not a wonderful family man. Family was a top priority for him. Yes, by temperament, he didn’t run around Copenhagen naked on all fours, like one of his august relatives. But he immediately isolated his wife from participating in political life, and raised his son in severity - as the heir to the throne. Both were the dynastic standard in Russia and throughout the world at that time. The tsar could not see Alexandra Fedorovna for six months and not even talk on the phone (under the pretext that he did not like this type of communication). He wrote letters - polite and sweet, on English language. Letters from a 40-50 year old man in excellent physical shape to his not very healthy and prematurely aged 40-50 year old wife. “Dear, unforgettable Alix. Has our youngest gone away from influenza? I think about you all the time, God willing, at the end of winter I will come and hug you. I miss you incredibly.”
At the beginning of the century, Georgian, Armenian and Jewish Young Turks shed tears about the “wonderful family man” for a very simple reason. Firstly, for an Asian man who is used to humiliating women, beating him with a stick, smearing churek on his face and shaving his head, the one who treats his wife with respect is not a man. Secondly, an essential element of the tales of the Turkish dervishes about the Shaitan King were horror stories about a German queen (like all Hessians, who hated the Second Reich and was raised in England), as well as about a crazy nymphomaniac and her hypnotist fucker (no comments).
And the henpecked king fulfilled all her whims. Until the adoption of Alexei, Rasputin’s son.
Let us return, however, to the dervish and the poker:
“When you ask the question: who is most to blame for the fact that Russia did not stay on the road, but went downhill, the answer seems obvious to me. Of course, the one who was driving and lost control.”
Right. But only in the case of Nikolai (when there was no slope, but on the contrary - a triumph). But, for example, with Kerensky this is not true. Is it his fault that he screwed up? No - Nikolai is to blame. Or Lenin's reign. Nikolai is to blame. And the great Stalin? All my life I struggled with the consequences of Nicholas’s reign; all the mistakes and shortcomings of Stalinism came from the Russian Tsar.
And so on. This is Georgian logic and it is understandable. It's never the Asian's fault. The Europeans around him are to blame, and above all the smartest and most decent ones. With what? Because they exist. If they died, it was because they had the audacity to be. Apart from the will of His Asian Majesty. And the Asian himself - SMART!
But Nikolai, according to Chkhartishvili, is not just guilty, he is doubly guilty:
“He is doubly guilty because he tightly clung to power and did not share it with anyone: neither with the liberal Witte, nor with the sovereign Stolypin, nor with the Duma. Because they are just people, and he is God’s Anointed, and where there is not enough intelligence, Providence will save.”
That white man might stutter:
How is that possible, what about the Duma and the elections, how about a double amnesty for revolutionaries?
But when he sees who is standing in front of him, he will not stutter.
And the dervish on a tricycle rolls further into eternity:
“Thrice guilty, because the Small World, the world of the family, at critical moments turned out to be more important to him than the Big World, and what the hell are you, an anointed one, if your wife and children are more important to you than your subjects? Why would Providence help you like this? As a result and Big world He destroyed and did not save Little.”
Well, at this point people will give up and go about their business.
And Zuda-Eroshka recites from a pulpit made of pressed dung:
“Does his fate evoke compassion? Certainly. Yes, I feel sorry for him, he’s struck by the damask steel, he’s sleeping in the damp ground. But I feel even more sorry for everyone who sleeps in damp ground because of his complexes, weak character and stubbornness. Their names - the vast majority - as they said before, You, Lord, weigh. So I told you who is most to blame - from my point of view. I know that many people appreciate historical role the last king, otherwise they will not agree with me. However, let’s check now. And yes, here’s one more thing, otherwise I already have a premonition of where the discussion will turn. These are not thick hints about the current colonel-autocrat. When I want to speak about Putin, I usually do it in plain text. My text is about Nicholas II, let’s talk about him.”
Yes, the discussion will take a different turn. Shouldn't we give the venerable Asian a kick towards his native Tiflis? For the Japanese order to jump ten meters. Tired of it. For a hundred years - VERY!
previous on other topics………… next on other topics
There are some very unique thinkers in LiveJournal. One of them, of course, is Dmitry Galkovsky. Gaidar's death shocked this philosopher so much that he responded to it with three posts. It is interesting to see how his thought develops.
Here are excerpts from the first post, where all the relatives of the unfortunate ex-acting officer essentially get it. Prime Minister of the Russian Federation and former employee of the magazine “Communist” and “Pravda”.
“The founder of the family of Soviet lords Gaidarov is considered to be a certain “Golikov.” It is unclear who this is. He wrote very, very strange stories and tales from the life of the Red Scouts, and he himself was cut by a safety razor - several hundred scars on his lower abdomen and on his arms. I cut myself long time was in a mental hospital. An early biography is known from his words, although according to him he suffered from pathological deceit. There are only five versions of the origin of his pseudonym. As I understand it, no one has yet seriously studied the origins of Golikov-Perekatov. They repeat the nonsense about “a regiment commander at 15 years old.”
One of Golikov’s wives was a certain Rakhil Lazarevna Solomyanskaya, who somehow gradually became Leah. Or Ruva. Or Raleigh. As befits gypsies, Rachel-Liya-Ruva-Rala led a festive life. For example, in 1938 she was imprisoned as the wife of an enemy of the people, and in 1940 she was returned to her place. Like, sorry, auntie, there was a mistake. However, the husband was shot...
And in the 60s, Rachel-Liya-Ruva-Ralya wrote a cartoon script for Soviet children based on Kipling’s fairy tale “Riki-Tiki-Tavi”.
Timur seemed to become a respectable person, a Captain. Even an admiral. Only Rear Admiral Timur Gaidar is fake. A party agitator, Timur became a seemingly respectable man, a Captain. Even an admiral. Only Rear Admiral Timur Gaidar is fake. A party agitator, he practically never served in the navy. In addition to senseless, mediocre propaganda, he spied on his own, but in the countries of “people’s democracy.” It’s not like on the Titanic - you can’t do it on a barge. Drown.
But the cardboard sailor's wife seems to be a respectable one. Daughter of the famous writer Bazhov. Oho-ho. With this name, naive people probably imagine a Ural storyteller with a harp. A truly Russian person. Not certainly in that way. Bazhov was an active Socialist Revolutionary in 1917, and became a Bolshevik in 1918. In 1940-1950 he headed the writers' organization of the Sverdlovsk region, before which he at one time headed the censorship department. Whether he wrote his tales himself is a big question.”
As you can see, Yegor Gaidar got very disgusting relatives. The main thing is that nothing really is known about them. Dark personalities. Galkovsky doubts that they were born in the years indicated in their biographies, that they themselves wrote books, served in the navy, participated in the Civil War, and were in prison. But he has no doubt that they were psychopaths, spies, informers, pathological liars. In general, he willingly believes the worst that was told about them, and does not believe everything else. Interesting approach. What good could be born from such ancestors?
“... Gaidar’s figure is tragic and I sincerely sympathized with him. He was smarter and better than his surroundings. But an intelligent person, an intellectual, could appear in the Russian Federation only from scraps and scraps. In the sense of OWN, not hostile to the Soviet world in its foundations. Who would consider the USSR his own and be the master there. But the world of the USSR is a Frankenstein world soldered together. And Gaidar himself is Frankenstein. It seems to be a terrible creature with its artificiality. But essentially dependent and weak. In any case, this is not the owner. Can Frankenstein change his life? NEVER. No owners - no reforms. Just trial and error."
But in his second post, Galkovsky unexpectedly launched into apologetics for Gaidar and into accusing Russians of having a bad attitude towards the deceased.
“The man in the street, enraptured by the Archipelago, yelled at Gaidar: “Descendant of the executioners!” Oh my God, what executioners. My father was a journalist. He worked for the KGB, like ALL international affairs officers, but did not snitch on his own people; there was a Khrushchev thaw in the yard. Gaidar's grandfathers were Bazhov and Arkady Gaidar. Popular writers. Not bad, by the way. Not geniuses, but quite pros. They honestly earned their bread and butter. You can make claims against them, but you need to understand where and when they lived. And make corrections. Gaidar’s “atrocities” during the civil war must be proven. I don't think there was anything special there. Besides, you never know what a masochist will inflict on himself.
Here they asked what Gaidar was doing in last years. Gaidar is one of the leaders of national Freemasonry. I think he was appointed to this position based on his personal data. The role of Arkady Gaidar during the civil war is exaggerated. What kind of warrior he is can be seen from the Great Patriotic War. He went to the front and was killed with the first shot. Gaidar is the founder of a huge “children's literature”. We need to look at his connections with the scout movement in the USSR. The same applies to Timur Gaidar. You don't get a rear admiral for journalism. For snitching too. These are special merits. A man in the Navy was doing something valuable. In Yugoslavia."
How interesting: Gaidar and Bazhov are now even popular writers, not a psychopath and plagiarist. And Timur Gaidar received a rear admiral not for snitching, but for something serious. Most likely for Freemasonry. What could have happened to Galkovsky in a short time. Why did he change his views so dramatically? What did the damn Masons do to him?
Further more.
« The main problem in explaining Soviet power is the absence of a ruling layer. It's simply NOT there. The country exists (well, it was), but its owners are absent. Here is such an “ownerless person”.
Lenin did not reign for long, and personally he was a comical person. “He lived sinfully and died funny.” His widow was successfully killed, and he himself was hung in effigy between heaven and earth. This is the man who mocked Christianity with corpse-bearing.
What Stalin was like in his youth is still little known. Even the date of birth is false. However, from macro-events that cannot be hidden, it is clear that Stalin’s power, even at the peak of his power, was very weak...
Gaidar is a representative of the elite admitted to power. RARE case in Soviet history. Tell me a member of the Politburo or a major minister of the Russian Federation who
1. Born in Moscow
2. Grew up in the family of a military leader.
3. Belonged to the elite of Soviet society not only through his father, but also through his grandfather (even on both sides).
There is NO ONE EVEN CLOSE next to Gaidar. There are scavengers, combine operators, mechanics, and shepherds around. At the same time, the society is ESTABLISHED, it is not five or ten years old. The first ten years of “rags to riches” can be explained by revolutionary upheavals. But in Russia for a HUNDRED YEARS they have been looking for trash and trash in order to appoint them to captain positions. Who is looking? SOMEBODY. This cannot happen “by itself”.
There is no doubt that there was a Soviet nomenklatura, and it was distinguished by incredible (because boorish) snobbery. But the disadvantaged children of the nomenklatura had little prospect of career prospects. The first secretary of the embassy, a professor at a prestigious university, or, at worst, in the case of a creative (that is, initially second-rate) profession, the director of a museum or the chief director of a theater. ALL. The children of Politburo members could never count on at least a regional committee secretary.
Gaidar is perhaps the only attempt at reform in the USSR. The Soviet reforms were not based on rank. Nothing would have worked anyway. But at least half as a cover operation. The ownerless society tried to do the job. This semblance of a meaningful action cannot be forgiven him to this day.”
Here's how it turns out: the Soviet government had its own elite, and Gaidar was its representative in power, but the only one. And he was the only one who carried out reforms. No, what did they do with Galkovsky, and who did it? Very misterious story. Well, Galkovsky draws a traditional conclusion from this whole story.
“The USSR was not a society, but a mechanism. Like the mechanism, it fell apart.
Since the 90s, rumors about the Perimeter, which Western analysts have dubbed the “Dead Hand,” have been persistently circulating in the West.
It turns out that the decision to start a thermonuclear war in the USSR should have been made by a machine gun.
The Perimeter receiving nodes were AUTONOMOUS. That is, when all types of communication from the air were destroyed, “start” signals were sent from the missiles. In most cases, except for bombers (and then only partially), the presence of combat crews was not even necessary for this. They could have died long ago by this time, but the blow would still have been struck.
Of course this is absurd. In everything that concerns their own safety, people show amazing rationality. Just like animals. No one will build a guillotine for themselves. “Perimeter” is simply a cover for external control of a nuclear missile shield (or rather, an ax). There is a certain “black box” that gives orders. And what’s in the box... There’s an English officer sitting near Stockholm, and here’s the box. Can start anything and in any order. On top of the Russian Nosopyrkins.
At the same time, Soviet missiles were not aimed at England.
America is destroyed. USSR too. Continental Europe is in ruins. England got lucky by chance. Who is to blame for what happened? And no one. "System failure."
Why did the USSR collapse? - “system failure”.
Why did the USSR arise? - “system failure”.
There are only glitches all around. At the head of the perimeter are hereditary beggars, fools, idiots with a quality mark. One is smart and that is Gaidar.”
The conclusion is quite predictable - England, which has long ruled the world and Russia, is to blame for everything.
However, I have already encountered this. For some reason, my late grandmother did not believe that circus bears could perform their own tricks - she always believed that they were people sewn into bear skins. In addition, when she saw someone from the Politburo or from the government on TV, she always suspected that it was one of the rich people who lived in a town near her village: “They are from our Gorki.”
That’s how Galkovsky doesn’t trust anyone and sees the hand of England in everything. But, of course, he does not do this out of simplicity, like my grandmother. We must stick to one line. So he came up with the idea that everything is an English conspiracy - and he stands on it. Otherwise they will start confusing him with someone else. And everyone knows that since it’s against England, it’s Galkovsky.
Why, in fact, is Galkovsky surprised that the members of the government were not formed from the elite? Even the stupidest elite will not place people in positions solely on the basis of kinship, at least in our time. Did he ever wonder why an elite in the real sense of the word was never created among the people? After all, it was probably possible. But if we breed elite cattle or dogs, then they are not viable. They are bred for one trait, but to survive on their own they need something completely different. Thank God until people understood this. It seems to Galkovsky that denying the principle of elite continuity makes our leadership worthless. But where is the benefit of elite rulers? The example with Gaidar clearly shows this.