"Get married no matter what. If you get caught good wife“You will be happy if you are bad – you will be a philosopher,” said Socrates. The introduction of the divorce procedure actually eliminated this natural institution of reproduction of philosophers. Socrates’ wife was grumpy. I, apparently, 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).
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 philological department in particular is quite well known - fraud and sabotage. Galkovsky has no actual philosophical works (a philosophical novel and philosophical fairy tales are, after all, 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... S philosophical works I practically don’t know Russell; 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 (though demonstratively, for which he was imprisoned, and not through a mental hospital), and received the Nobel Prize in Literature. Let us also note the following thought: “He who, like me, considers free intellect to be the main engine human progress, cannot but oppose Bolshevism as fundamentally as Roman Catholic Church"Very similar. (And, by the way, a thought with a huge boomerang charge.) Russell has many wonderful aphorisms. For example, “A thought is not free if you cannot make a living from it.” 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). On the other hand - 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 numbers, certain formulas. Everything is very reasonable".
The gene code has an AUTHOR. At the same time, the mind, unfolding 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 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 expressing 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 so 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 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 of going to death (that too), but in the sense of living 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 when studying at the philosophical (yes, almost any in 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 through a dark forest / for some kind of interest. / Inte, inte, interest, / go out to the letter...” And the state comes out. What is the state's interest? That's right, official. The treasury is the head of everything. And let us quote Bertrand Russell again: “Thought is not free unless one can make a living from it.” 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. Huge number 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.” “Closing” is good for reporting on the expenditure of 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. In the eastern Orthodox culture nothing of the kind happened. 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 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, the Hegelian 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 all that could have been avoided" and "even if everyone has the same opinion, everyone can be wrong." This is deep and true. What can be contrasted with "Love one another"? Only - "Hating your enemies is easier and more fun than to love friends." Here is an activity for a bored “contemplator of reality.” What about internal dialogue and self-commentation? And there is an aphorism for this 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.”
Original taken from galkovsky in 915. PIROS MANISHVILI
Grigory Chkhartishvili receives the Japanese Order 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 onto 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, according to 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 against possible criticism occurred to them. Therefore, their primitivism was also quite successful, but not at all like primitivism fine 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 right hand with such a clear 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. The Eastern War 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 in this case I’m not talking about the banality of the content, but about 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 the unforgettable parent.”
There were no “meaningless dreams”. This is a very, very stupid and very, very old trick of the confrontational under-intelligentsia 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, the inexperienced Nikolai (this was his first public statement) read the word “pipe” (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 A SHAME?
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, out of fear, he started a world war and, (drum roll), frightened by serious military failures, took the post of supreme commander in chief.
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! (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, a hundred and twenty years ago, took up the tug and turned out to be quite strong.”
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's to blame? Nicholas and the consequences of his reign. As they joked during the stagnation:
Nikolashka the scoundrel - 23 years of rule, and food for Soviet power didn't prepare it.
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 participation in political life, and raised his son in strictness - 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, in English. 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. 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 may 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!
()
Navalny and Galkovsky: a not-quite-fulfilled romance.
PICTURE FROM THE LIFE OF THE GALKOVSKY FAMILY
What is enough to know about Galkovsky.
“It’s enough to know about Galkovsky that he is a boor and a narcissistic scoundrel, but simply, a scoundrel. Ham - in the original, biblical sense. And the scoundrel..."
“Graphomania, ignorance, anti-Semitism, Russophobia, rudeness and plagiarism” - this is what, by Galkovsky’s own admission, he was accused in turn, and it was unfair. A It is true that Galkovsky’s “creativity” contains all of the above in one bottle. Only dare any commentator on his peremptory posts object to him or, moreover, grab his hand, when Galkovsky reaches into someone else’s pocket in front of everyone, and he bursts out with such “anti-Semitism, Russophobia, rudeness” , that, you see, even those who wished to enter into an argument lose all desire for it..." https://vkozarov.livejournal.com/2882.html
in his small circle he is, of course, discussed, but a wide circle of zhizhists have not the slightest idea about him - several times (at least three times) over the years he tried to abandon his magazine and retire to Iceland, earned by honest graphomaniacs (see about digital machine http://users.livejournal.com/_devol_/712813.html).
Galkovsky's pathetic attacks on real Russian writers and poets
Galkovsky elevated himself above Saltykov-Shchedrin
“If only Galkovsky was talented. But no, his notes from the underground are a cyclotomic, precisely an endless narrative of a graphomaniac about his own creative and life inferiority... Even if it were possible to read Galkovsky’s book in its entirety, I would not do it: it is so immoral, deceitful and dirty...”
Statements about D. Galkovsky in Soviet periodicals,
as we see, his modern “admirers” constantly lie that even then everyone “carried him in their arms”
Galkovsky about Russian philosophers
Schizophrenic Galkovsky and the idiots reading him.
Erasing biographies of T. Elitsina, K. Bendukidze, S. Perovskaya, I. Solonevich
HOW GALKOVSKY WORKS WITH BIOGRAPHIES. PART 1.
“And you are trying to check its relevance to reality. It’s useless. He’s a Fomenkovets with all the ensuing consequences. + He studied to be a philosopher: That is, he doesn’t give a damn about specifics, he “corrects them with the power of philosophical thought”... A militant amateur from history is a weapon of terrible destructive power. Hence those crazy, shocking ideas so dear to his heart and his marginal fans..."
“That’s what’s interesting. You can really talk about the Galkovsky phenomenon as a type of group obsession.”
Aldanov about Galkovsky, two posts
“I haven’t been to Galkovsky for a long time. I read his LJ a little.
He's going through another period of ardor. He trashes and exposes everyone and everything: Putin, Fort Ross, the Faculty of Philosophy of Moscow State University, and the recently deceased philosopher and writer Pyatnitsky, who has nothing to do with him.
As always, the elephants are being given away: both of them are stupid, but Dima is incredibly smart. At the same time he writes interesting things about himself...”
About Galkovsky’s wildest envy of everyone, noticed back in 2005:
"Galkovsky surprised. Friend Dmitry Galkovsky. But his recent posting and subsequent comments to the comments baffled him: terrible envy towards the writers who went to Paris: http://www.livejournal.com/users/galkov sky/50475.html#cutid1
Dm. Bykov especially haunts him:
"... You are wrong to offend the gypsies. They are talented people. Let's take the same Bykov. If he had come to Paris in a red gypsy shirt, and a vest, and corduroy trousers, and patent leather boots, and a cap with a chrysanthemum. And the earring gold in the ear... That’s it. Kustodiev and Rubens in one bottle. Beauty will save the world."
It is aptly said: Bykov’s colorful personality stands before our eyes. I personally always remembered Rubens when I saw him on TV.
What hurt D.G. the most was that he “didn’t make the list.” The list is being analyzed, each item being examined almost under a microscope. So, this one is understandable, it was included for this reason; another - for a different reason; but what are the fourth and fifth doing there? why not me?..." http://avmalgin.livejournal.com/1026082.html
How Galkovsky is trying to rewrite historical facts
mnogo_hodovka : “What do you think about Dmitry Galkovsky’s idea, according to which modern China is a non-sovereign territory that successfully poses as a sovereign state...”
techwork
: Well, this is not his idea, this is a 100% lie that is instilled by China itself to cover up the fact that it actually controls a significant part of the British “clans” in various ways. And through them, a much larger part of the leadership of the Russian Federation. However, I’ve been talking about this for a long time, “and hello again.”
The British Royal Family are just one of many in Britain...
I don’t have an idea, but knowledge of reality. And your Galkovsky (xtotaykoy xs?) is a repetition of Chinese propaganda, the most banal."
Europe and Galkovshchina
The only adapted phrase from “his work” by G. about alternativeists, but, as is well known, all Ozarenians do not forget to accuse others of complete nonsense while promoting their own, so this also applies to G.. -
Humorous about all similar insights
The end of the chronology.
How Galkovsky conquered geography
The tricks of statistics, or why Galkovsky is not Magellan
Fables G. - Briefly about Turkey
A little from the constant wars of bloggers, but without bloody consequences and criticism
“to understand Galkovsky’s conflicts with different people. Moreover, those whom he “spreads rot” in his LiveJournal on an ongoing basis - Olshansky, Gelman and others like them - are not interesting to me. In general, the entire journalistic community is not interesting, because it is clear that journalists are corrupt, so there’s no point in talking about it. It was much more interesting to me - what is the reason for Galkovsky’s conflict with such LiveJournal persons as Shoemaker, Enzel, Volkov and others. What was especially unpleasant for me was Galkovsky’s “assault” on Volkov...”
Galkovsky's conflicts
G. o krylov And holmogor :
“Krylov and Kholmogorov appeared on my horizon about 8 years ago, they wrote in a guest book... At the same time, both of them got down to dirty political activity, Kholmogorov began to claim that I was provoking him on LiveJournal with my defense (!)... As for Krylova, then from a political point of view he is engaged in elementary provocateurs and knows this very well. But he will never rise to Limonov’s level in this matter..."
http://galkovsky.livejournal.com/81978.html
paidiev
: "Galkovsky ran into Konstantin Krylova. He ran into me meanly.Not for the first time. Last attack on Krylov commissioned by a famous"gallery owner" Gelman ended in great humiliation for him. The epic about this can be read in the Pioneer magazine. And here we go again. Again “Krylov is a security officer,” i.e. provocateur...
... Both Galkovsky and Krylov are agents. Even if they think otherwise. Somewhere there is paper that describes in detail the events where they were used. Only these are already second and third level agents.
Galkovsky worked in the interests of the United States and the People of the United States.
One of our smartest and most talented humanitarians was chosen. He was given some information and he brilliantly conveyed it to all truth-seekers in the Russian Federation.
http://www.galkovsky.ru/upravda/archive/6 16.html "
"Apology of Krylov and Philippik against Galkovsky http://paidiev.livejournal.com/351009.html
Really, who is Galkovsky?...
as a "political intellectual" - he is a political intellectual in moments of enlightenment, which can end unexpectedly at any moment, and get best case scenario"Kremlin communists are British agents" (it’s a pity that the British boys didn’t know), and at worst - our author kneeling down and starting to bark and trying to bite passersby by the coattails..."
http://o-galkovskom.livejournal.com/78417.html
“First of all, I’ll note that Galkovsky is an unfinished author. With all his snobbery designed for outright suckers, Dmitry Evgenievich did not create a single text of classical form in his creative biography. It would be reckless to call him a writer, philosopher or historian..."
Dmitry Galkovsky “Two idiots”.
About Pioneer and G. separately - I thought
Galkov's computer dreams and the tyrant Stalin
“As you know, Joseph Vissarionovich committed all conceivable and unimaginable crimes during his long, fruitful life. TYRANT. He acted, however, on a very large scale, and the media were quite developed in the second third of the 20th century. So there is a detailed list of feats. Moreover, it was compiled by various interested parties - from Trotskyists to monarchists, from Nazis to Zionists and from dissidents to party nomenklatura. The little animal got everyone.”
About “Duck Truth” and Anonymous - Preface
Of course, everyone is recommended to read the article about him on Lukomornichka: “Even before the creation of the Hypertext Fidonet, Galkovsky composed the hypertext book “Endless Dead End”, a little more than half consisting of quotes from Russian literature and the author’s attitude towards them. This is not the first time the book has been published with financial contributions from sympathizers... the phenomenon of Galkovsky mania- observed when many of DEG's readers (and some other ducklings) are stuck on a furious flurodros (relays of the Master's philosophical fabrications)..."
https://lurkmore.to/%D0%93%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9
*- An explanation to readers why there are unexpectedly many deleted comments in the first comments; in 2016, for several days in 2016, a Russophobic and at the same time anti-Semitic creature, Tatyana Evgenievna Galkovskaya, jumped in them, posing as D. Galkovsky’s own sister, quarreling, threatening to send her to a mental hospital for her brother and deleting her comments, then screams again and deletes, although in vain - it was nevertheless recorded in separate posts - some of her pearls about Russians:
** - note. The first duck commentator Belensgauzen.LJ left LJ, so his answers were deleted, but scans of them are provided for inquisitive readers
Thought. Thought. How to start the text. How to structure it. What is the point of putting letters and punctuation marks into designs, but nothing comes to mind. Therefore, I will use the well-known formula “what I see is what I write.”
First of all, I’ll note that Galkovsky is an unfinished author. With all his snobbery designed for outright suckers, Dmitry Evgenievich did not create a single text of classical form in his creative biography. It would be rash to call him a writer, philosopher or historian. For literature, he lacks genre design, and as for the humanities, he does not have any idea about them. In addition, these matters should be dealt with by professors at university departments, and not by Moscow outcasts with a ringing tongue. This is the “Europeanness” that the author seems to be talking about. Therefore, the only definition that adequately characterizes the author Galkovsky is the word publicist.
What is most important for a publicist? This is by no means the quality of the texts. Not their depth. This is relevance, commercial demand. But upon opening this tome, we will see the opposite: the unfortunate author is crying into his vest that he is not being paid for his work, that the scumbags Olshansky, Gelman and Rykov clipped the wings of the brilliant writer, threw him in the trash, and with the savings, according to the ideas of the intellectual Galkovsky, they bought four hundred bottles of vodka. The author made this assessment based on his possibly experienced mathematical assessment of the market situation. We will ignore the words about the fact that the wild scoops did not appreciate Dmitry Evgenievich’s talent, that he was being bullied. Moreover, this is excusable for Galkovsky as a person with a certificate, but there are no rational grounds for such statements.
Dmitry Evgenievich had many opportunities to make a career in the field of writing and he ruined them all. And for some reason I see this not as a quarrel of fate, but as a pattern. The fact is that Galkovsky’s author is one hundred percent marginal. He is on the threshold between reality and fiction. Between artistic prose and commentary on the topic of the day. With all his diversity, Galkovsky is not a complete creative person; he really doesn’t succeed in anything. He lives in a subculture where he can, without a twinge of conscience, deal with an Englishwoman who has done shit, Soviet mulattoes and narrow-minded verbiage about Europeanness and the intelligentsia. Talk about this and that, even if in principle about nothing. Galkovsky has a style, a style, an excellent Russian language that few people can learn, but he has nothing to hide under this beauty. Dmitry Evgenievich is empty.
When I first read the articles included in the collection in the title, when they were still columns in regular publications, I couldn’t shake the feeling that the bright blogger Galkovsky was evaporating in ordinary journalism. He writes gray, discreet, uninteresting texts where there are no fresh thoughts, where obvious conclusions are mixed with known facts. Mediocre and not fun to read. I suspect that when Galkovsky began working for Vzglyad, he was trying to become a respectable author. I tried to write regular high-quality texts, but it didn’t work out. There was no brilliance, no flamboyance, just a statement that in polite society such work should be paid at a thousand dollars per article. What exactly was meant by “decent society” is still the subject of fiery debate and idle talk. I suspect that one of the reasons for the scandalous departures from all the publications where Dmitry Evgenievich worked is, let’s say, his inability to work as a classical author, and if that doesn’t work out, then why not attract attention to himself with another bright online shit. Proven method.
One can touch upon Galkovsky’s “I” in this regard. It's very sick. The red thread running through all creativity is self-love. Self-exaltation. The real creation of an idol. Galkovsky main character by Galkovsky. And there is an internal logic here. Sometimes, in order to carry nonsense with an important face on your face, you need to convince a gullible listener that the speaker is endowed with some kind of secret knowledge, that he is the head, if you recall the vocabulary of the Sitz-Chairman Pound. Actually, this lyrical hero is an analogue of the character in the novel by Ilf and Petrov. Don't think that Galkovsky has no reflection. Deep down, he probably understands his weaknesses, but Dmitry Evgenievich cannot deprive himself of his main pleasure, he loves to manipulate people. Hence the talk about the bullied European Russian intellectual Galkovsky and the associated demagoguery. Dmitry Evgenievich needs an image that adherents will worship. Hence the inadequacy of fans of Galkovsky’s work. They live in a world built by one aging network manipulator.
In my opinion, the author Galkovsky can only be observed from this perspective. And approach the materials contained in the collection “Two Idiots” only through the prism of a critical attitude. Galkovsky is a cool virtual world that we can see every day on LiveJournal. It is in this form that he is interesting. Scandalous foolishness, pouring slops, constantly throwing defecation products onto the network fan, but not like an ordinary author. Based on this, you calculate your interest in the book under review, which is essentially a hacky copy-paste of previously published materials, which can be found on the Internet at any time.
902. LITTLE LIARS
Revolution is, among other things, a philological disease, a disease of language.
When, as Nikolai Gumilyov said,
“And like bees in an empty hive,
Dead words smell bad.”
By the way, soon after this poem he was killed by another knight of the revolution.
A revolution is a total lie, the lie of a complete criminal or the lie of military propaganda, directed at one’s neighbor and becoming the essence of a rotten person and a rotten society.
IN ordinary life people lie moderately, out of necessity, and even this lie is perceived poorly by those who lie. In general, they are ashamed. The revolutionaries are not ashamed, that is, they are ashamed, but in order to drown out the voice of conscience, they begin to scream shrilly and scream until they fall into the grave. This happens almost always: “the revolution devours its children.” It’s just a pity that so many people around die.
This is also a sign of a revolutionary - people around him and even in his family suddenly begin to die. Out of the blue. It looks like the life of a drug addict.
You came to visit your good friend Petrov, and your wallet disappeared. They told the owner, he:
What, what a horror, let’s see together, maybe it fell out in the entrance or something else.
Okay, it happens. A few days later you are talking with a mutual friend, and he:
There is such parsley here, I went to visit Petrov and lost my wallet somewhere. Cash, okay, but there was a credit card, money was taken from it.
You go to Petrov again, return to the corridor to take the glasses forgotten in your coat, and the startled owner shies away from him. E-ge-ge!
Petrov swears that he was misunderstood, but he doesn’t want to talk to him. It's better to go home. Then your mutual friend reports that the investigator found the thief - it turned out to be Petrov. Petrov cried, babbled something about a debt that had to be repaid to the killers, then his wife found out that her husband was on drugs.
What's next? Then Petrov, who was sent home, wipes his snot, calls you and begins to weave that a mutual acquaintance owes him a large sum of money, does not want to pay him back, and generally pestered his seven-year-old daughter. Then he tries to write the same thing by email about you to your friend.
Etc. etc. “A revolution has a beginning, but a revolution has no end.”
All people who have had the good fortune to communicate with Ukrainians on LiveJournal know this type of people well. Meanwhile, Ukrainians themselves are not distinguished by some kind of pathological deceit, and the very type of their lies is initially rustic and complacent. The point is not in national characteristics, but in the fact that the young Ukrainian nation is engulfed in the fire of revolution, and this fire in the heads began even before the last Maidan. They ignited it for a long time, teaching people to lie, and to lie blatantly, to lie always and to everyone. Even to ourselves. And this long-term bearish game led to a cultural breakdown. As you know, even the cultured Germans could not curb the demons of the revolution. Man is a rational ANIMAL and appealing to human animal instincts will always be successful. The only consolation here is that the animal is REASONABLE and sooner or later the voice of reason will also be heard. Otherwise, after the first breakdown, civilization on earth would have ended. The only question is how long it will take until this saving moment.
In the post before last I spoke about Malgina. Malgin answered me. First, I took part of post No. 901 out of context, then summed it up briefly. Like this:
“The philosopher Dmitry Galkovsky groaned and groaned and finally outlined his plan for pacifying Ukraine. Just now I found out that D. Galkovsky graduated from the evening department of the Faculty of Philosophy of Moscow State University. During the day, during my studies, I went to work at the Academy of Armored Forces named after. Malinovsky. The full impression is that he is now aiming to become the rector of this academy.
And as recently as June 17, Dmitry Galkovsky came to me in the comments and said two things that surprised me. Firstly, he announced that Ukrainian blood flows in his veins. And secondly, he promised: “They will send killers to you and hang your whole family with scarves.” After which the madman had to be banned.”
When Malgina was asked by one of the users why he rubbed my remarks, he answered literally the following:
>Fuck you. All the dialogue is in place. Nobody rubbed anything.
>Galkovsky came up with the idea of deleting the dialogue. I lied. There is no option in LiveJournal to return deleted comments.
Malgin is an old zhezhist and knows very well that comments can be screenshotted, which is what he did - in two threads. I went to his page, wanted to see what they were writing, and did not find my entries. The records before and after mine were in place.
I am known in LiveJournal as a person who is as accurate as possible in facts. The negators fought and fought, looked under a magnifying glass, and for 10 years they didn’t dig up anything. No one denied my word of honor either. For example, I said that I don’t write on LiveJournal under other nicknames, and that’s of no use to me. The fourth generation of ZhZhezhists has already been born, trying to “figure out” my anonymous people (now the most fashionable candidate is the venerable Bohemian) - no one has succeeded. And it won’t succeed - because they don’t exist. There was a lot of speculation about “Kremlin money”, “Jewish origin”, “gloomy misanthrope” - all zero. Because I try to say what it is. And don't say things that don't exist.
Now about Malgin’s text itself. He is as deceitful as his statement about my deceit. Actually, this is a complete, “revolutionary” lie.
Firstly, I did not set out a plan to pacify Ukraine, I just said that it was impossible to do this, and the Russians should at least protect themselves from the Ukrainian “broad creativity of the masses.”
Secondly, I worked at the military academy as a laboratory assistant for several months, I never hid it, and it was easy to find out. I worked as a factory worker for three years. He also worked in the editorial office of a magazine and taught at a theater lyceum. Malgin posted a humorous photograph of me from 8 years ago with a machine gun and portrayed Galkovsky as almost a philosophizing officer.
Thirdly, I did not threaten Malgin with murder at all, and this is clear to everyone who read the text. It seemed despicable to me that a person, living neither in the Russian Federation nor in Ukraine, sits in Italy and, basking in the sun on the terrace of his own house, calls on Ukrainians to brutally kill Donbass people. In the style of “don’t fire blank volleys, don’t spare cartridges.” I assumed on the contrary that he was not a scoundrel, and really considered his advice a courageous step. After all, the Russian Colorado monsters can kill him in Florence. But I didn’t get a clear answer.
And as for madness, I said that for any person with a closed belief system, everyone who is not fortunate enough to share his point of view is automatically recorded as crazy, counter-revolutionaries, Colorado potato beetles and rioters. Any attempt at dialogue is rudely interrupted, and in the event of a revolutionary boiling point, the “offender” is forced to splash hot carrot tea on his mug. Like, wipe yourself, bourgeois. Malgin even resorted to swearing.
In the Russian language there is a stable expression “without clan without tribe.” National conflict is an incredibly emotional thing, and even from the outside it can be difficult to understand the origins and essence of the enmity that has arisen. Moreover, it is difficult to expect this from participants in national frictions and, especially, national wars. Malgin absolutely takes the position of one of the parties to the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, but hides his nationality and is silent about the fact that he is on the same side of the barricades. He presents his point of view as the only true voice of the universe, but says nothing about himself personally. If Malgin had said (for example): “Yes, I am half-Ukrainian-half-Chechen, my wife is a Ukrainianized Jew, I hate Russia and Russians, I stand on the side of the Ukrainians and will stand to the end, here is my Ukrainian passport,” then such a point of view would have full right to exist. “You can’t be nice by force.” Then any reader could make allowances for national bias and understand where the author is driven by logic and knowledge of factual material, and where his view is blinded by nationalist prejudices.
This is what many Ukrainians do and there are no complaints against them regarding the “Mongolocats”, “fucking sad Dostoevsky” and “vatniks”. “You won’t be nice by force,” and everything they say will burn out and scatter in the wind like mourning ashes. As Rozanov warned about the prospects of the revolution: “In a hundred years people will be surprised at socialism and ask where to read about it.”
But it’s not clear what Malgin is raging about. I'm still waiting for clarification.
And here it turns out that the personality of this person fully expresses the essence of Ukraine. Because if you think about it, what do Ukrainians want? What is their positive program? They don’t even have a language; what they pass off as Ukrainian is just teasing and hooliganism. How many Ukrainian writers and poets, or even journalists and propagandists, have appeared in 23 years? Where is Ukrainian science? Ukrainian economy? There are none and Ukrainians themselves are NOT INTERESTED in all this. How uninteresting it is for the writer Malgin to write books, for the journalist Malgin to write articles, and for the blogger Malgin to keep a magazine. His LiveJournal is a complete copy-paste, cries that Malgin was offended and a universal set of complaints against the offenders - from specific acquaintances to abstract heads of state like Putin or Berlusconi.
Rozanov once asked revolutionaries:
You are fighting for freedom. But why do you need freedom? There is freedom from whom and there is freedom for what. Why do you need freedom if you have no inner content, if you have nothing to say to people? Russian society is languishing under tsarism, but it is meaningless and its protest is exhausted by the protest itself.
And so it happened. The revolutionaries' coming to power turned out to be a huge waste of money in substantive areas of activity. As well as the zero result of the great French culture after the overthrow of Louis, which gave the world almost nothing during the years of revolutionary obscurantism.
Ukrainian revolutionaries unleashed frantic energy, including in LiveJournal. What do all their posts boil down to?
Glory to Ukraine, how much they paid you, crazy, let's break your glasses, bastard, bastard, dick, glory to Ukraine, training manual, quilted jacket, Colorado, glory to Ukraine, Muscovite to Gilyak, Lugandon, how much they paid you, let's break your glasses, glory to the heroes.
That's all. During the 40 years of his literary career, was Malgin interested in my work, my views, ideas, at least real facts my biography? No, it’s over, it DIDN’T EVEN COME INTO HIS HEAD. What do Ukrainian revolutionaries know about Russia and the Russian culture they are fighting against? Nothing. They are not interested. Are these people capable of meaningful dialogue, defending and proving their point of view? Again, it simply doesn’t occur to them.
Because for any dialogue you need to be interested in the interlocutor, be able to look at the world through his eyes and be honest in the dialogue itself. And we see before us liars distorted by hatred. “Workers and Peasants” from Berlin and the Pale of Settlement with one university course by the age of forty.
Therefore, there will be a lot of heat and heat, but there will be no result. Only devastation, civil war and grief of people.
Birthdays
