Thought. Thought. How to start a text. How to structure it. What is the point of laying in the construction of letters and punctuation marks, but nothing comes to mind. Therefore, I will use the well-known formula “what I see is what I write”.
First of all, I note that Galkovsky is an unfinished author. With all his snobbery designed for frank suckers, Dmitry Evgenievich did not create a single text of the classical form in his creative biography. It is rash to call him a writer, philosopher or historian. For literature, he lacks genre design, and as for the humanities, he has no idea about them. In addition, these matters should be dealt with by professors at university departments, and not by any means Moscow outcasts with a sonorous language. This is the “Europeanness” about which the author seems to be talking. Therefore, the only definition that adequately characterizes the author Galkovsky is the word publicist.
What is the most important thing for a publicist? This is by no means the quality of the texts. Not their depth. This is relevance, commercial demand. But having opened this tome, we will see the opposite: the unfortunate author is crying into his waistcoat that he is not paid money for his work, that the scum Olshansky, Gelman and Rykov clipped the wings of a brilliant writer, threw them in the trash, and bought four hundred bottles of vodka for the savings, according to the ideas of the intellectual Galkovsky. The author made such an assessment based on his mathematical, possibly experienced assessment of the market situation. Words about the fact that wild scoops did not appreciate the talent of Dmitry Evgenievich, that he was being persecuted, we will disregard. Moreover, Galkovsky, as a person with information, is excusable, 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 in this not a quarrelsome fate, but a pattern. The fact is that Galkovsky's author is one hundred percent marginal. He is on the threshold between reality and fiction. Between fiction and commentary on the topic of the day. With all his diversity, Galkovsky is not an integral creative person, he really does not succeed in anything. He lives in a subculture where you can operate without a twinge of conscience on an Englishwoman who has shat, Soviet mulattoes and narrow-minded verbiage about Europeanness and the intelligentsia. Talk about that and there, albeit in principle and about nothing. Galkovsky has a style, a style, an excellent Russian language, which few will learn, but he has nothing to hide under this beauty. Dmitry Evgenievich is empty.
When I first read the articles placed in the collection, which is in the title, when they were still columns in regular publications, I had 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, not fun to read. I suspect that when Galkovsky started working for Vzglyad he was trying to become a respectable author. He tried to write ordinary high-quality texts, but he did not succeed. There was no glitz, no brilliance, just a statement that in polite society such work should be paid a thousand dollars per article. What exactly was meant by “decent society” is still the subject of fiery discussions 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 it doesn’t work, then why not attract attention to himself with another bright network srach. Proven way.
It is possible to touch on Galkovsky's "I" in this connection. It is very sick. The red thread running through all creativity is self-love. Self exaltation. The real creation of an idol. Galkovsky is the main character of the author Galkovsky. And there is an internal logic here. Sometimes, in order to carry nonsense with an important face on your face, you have to convince a gullible listener that the speaker is endowed with some kind of secret knowledge, that he is the head, if we recall the vocabulary of the zit-chairman Pound. Actually, this lyrical hero is an analogue of the character in the novel by Ilf and Petrov. Do not think that Galkovsky has no reflection. Deep down, he probably understands his weaknesses, but Dmitry Evgenievich cannot deprive himself of the main pleasure, he loves to manipulate people. Hence the talk about the neglected European, the Russian intellectual Galkovsky, and the demagoguery associated with it. Dmitry Evgenievich needs an image that adherents will bow to. 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 of Galkovsky can only be observed from this angle. And to treat the materials placed 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 deflation products on 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.
Dmitry Evgenievich Galkovsky(born June 4, Moscow) - Russian philosopher, writer and publicist.
Encyclopedic YouTube
1 / 2
✪ 034. The secret history of the new chronology. Part II
✪ 026. Antique history: Justinian and his wife Justitia or Vatican Disneyland
Subtitles
Biography
Father - an engineer, mother - a dressmaker, ancestors were of a spiritual rank. In 1977 he graduated from the German special school No. 51. He tried to enter the university four times. Worked at the factory Likhachev in the same workshop with Leonid Yakubovich. He also worked as a laboratory assistant at the Academy of Armored Forces. Malinovsky.
In 1980 he entered the evening department of the Faculty of Philosophy of Moscow State University, from which he graduated in 1986. He could not get a job, he earned a living by illegally replicating and selling forbidden literature.
In 1987, he wrote the philosophical novel The Endless Dead End.
Collaborated in 1988-1989 with Alexander Morozov's samizdat magazine "Paragraph". For some time he enjoyed the patronage of Vadim Kozhinov, who in 1990 got him a job in the magazine Our Contemporary (Galkovsky left a year later with a scandal), and in 1991 he helped publish a fragment of The Endless Dead End in the magazine Soviet Literature.
Other fragments in 1991-1992 were published in Literaturnaya Gazeta, Novy Mir, Continent and other publications. Novy Mir also published the article "Soviet Poetry" (1992, No. 5) and the script for the film "Friend of the Ducklings" (2002, No. 8). In the early 1990s, he taught at the Moscow Theater Lyceum. He also took part in commercial projects.
After a series of polemical articles in 1992-1993 ("Underground", "The Broken Compass Shows the Way", "Elimination of a Shortcoming", "Stuchkin's Children"), he refused to cooperate with the Russian (in his terminology, "Soviet") press, accusing it of persecuting his creativity.
According to the results of a survey conducted by the site open space, in which more than 40 thousand votes were cast, Galkovsky took 12th place among the most influential intellectuals in Russia.
A certain number of texts have been written about me as a writer, usually in all kinds of textbooks and scientific manuals. And there are constantly resolved two "problems": I am a postmodernist or not, and to which direction of postmodernism I belong. And what does it matter? This is nonsense "neither mind nor heart."
No, to write the TRUTH:
Dmitry Evgenievich Galkovsky, Russian writer. Because of his social and ethnic origin, he was boycotted by the authorities of the USSR all his life, and then the Russian Federation. Despite his obvious literary abilities, he has not yet been able to publish any of his books. He became famous thanks to the Internet. However, on the Internet, a systematic campaign is being conducted against Galkovsky, depicting him as a mentally ill person and a brawler. Meanwhile, it is known that Galkovsky is a balanced and sociable person with a university education, a teetotaler, chairman of the bloggers club.
Family
Wife Galkovskaya Natalya Vyacheslavovna, two sons - Georgy and Gennady (October 5, 2015).
Characteristics of creativity
Galkovsky's philosophical, journalistic and artistic prose is characterized by the aesthetics of the fragment, the ironic play on the "foreign word" (in many respects these features go back to V. V. Rozanov - one of the central characters of the "Endless Dead End"). The surrounding world is opposed by the vulnerable, but at the same time ironically related to it omniscient “I” (“Lonely”, “Endless Dead End”, “Galkovsky” and “Dmitry Evgenievich” of later texts), the image of the father is also important for the world of Galkovsky. The philosophy of Galkovsky is largely “metaphilosophy”, an important role in it is played by the comprehension of the philosophizing of previous eras, especially Russian religious philosophy, he treats the philosophizing of the Soviet era with unfailing contempt.
The style of Galkovsky's later writings is characterized by a number of constant metaphors and images ("octopuses", "mushrooms", "aliens" - crypto-colonialists; "Jewish Murzilki" - anonymous in LiveJournal, "spread out on tatami" - a favorite pastime of the Soviet special services). Since the mid-1990s, Galkovsky has been fond of networked computer games and the Internet in general. The novel "Endless Dead End" was built as a hypertext long before the era of informatization.
Historical theories of Galkovsky
Historical concept of Galkovskiy is briefly reduced to the following. The Russian Empire is an enlightened, strong state, a representative of the European principle. The reason for his and his death lies, firstly, in the incomplete subordination of European civilization to the Asian elements (peasantry and "gypsyism"); secondly, in the activities of Great Britain, whose secret services used hostile social, ethnic and religious groups (Asian minorities, including Jews, Old Believers, Balts, uneducated lower strata, etc.) to undermine power and the army in Russia and destroy the Russian states. Galkovsky attaches great importance to the role of Great Britain in world politics during its heyday, as well as in the modern era. According to him, many states are and are "crypto colonies", - officially sovereign, but actually subordinate to the powerful state. In addition to the countries of the British Commonwealth, Dmitry Galkovsky lists many other states as crypto-colonies of Great Britain, including the Soviet Union and post-Soviet countries. There are only three “full-fledged” players since the Second World War: in addition to the sub-hegemon of Great Britain, this is the world hegemon of the United States, and France, which, due to the sophistication of its elite, managed to maintain political capital and complete independence even after the defeat and the German occupation. The political status of all other states of the world varies from "junior ally" to "colony".
To the Soviet system (both “Leninist-cosmopolitan” and “Stalinist-nationalist” samples), to the KGB as a combination of the “Asian” and “peasant” elements, Galkovsky is contemptuous: he considers Soviet philosophers, scientists, writers mainly as charlatans. The last chance to return to the times of the Russian Empire was, according to Galkovsky, lost with the collapse of the Soviet Union; now the Russian nation has definitively been reborn into a new formation, which has no more in common with the pre-revolutionary one than the Latin Americans have with the Spaniards; the current system in Russia is also similar to that of Latin America.
Galkovsky also considers possible large-scale falsification of world history and its artificial lengthening: for example, the creation of "ancient" languages, in which pseudo-ancient texts can then be produced, considers the writings of the Fathers of the Church, information about the voyages of the Vikings to be fabricated; considers the discovery of birch bark letters to be scientifically untenable. XV century Galkovsky considers "the limit of optics", that is, any reliable modern European history. With all this, he, in general terms, recognizes the authenticity of the history of Ancient Greece and Rome (adjusted for the imperial propaganda of Rome, later (XV-XIX centuries AD) distortions and simply lost data). The main issue, in his opinion, is not the authenticity of the history of the period from the 5th century BC. BC e. according to the 5th century n. e., but a question of continuity between Renaissance Europe and late Rome. Separately, the gradual transformation of the Eastern Roman Empire into the Ottoman Empire should be considered - the "combat" history of the Ottomans, including the siege and capture of Constantinople, is a lie.
Theoretically, the historical concept of Galkovsky was formulated by him in several postulates: .
- When the population can grow exponentially, it must grow exponentially.
- The state is a hierarchy of policies, the first stage of the state is the union of policies, and the primary form of state life is the policy.
- As soon as the correct diplomatic relations are formed, a world community arises with a tough opposition of the hegemon-subhegemon.
- The hegemon determines the historical epoch and creates the dominant historical concept of its time.
- The story of a defeated hegemon is always a vicious caricature.
- Democracy is the natural and therefore the most ancient state of human society.
- The level of fantasy of the history of the church is 100%.
- Any state history is automatically aimed at the maximum ageing, the maximum increase in the territory, population, level of economic and cultural development of a given state.
- Political economy is not a science, but the economic interests of the "producing country" disguised as scientific knowledge.
- A political party is a social corporation designed to improve the social position of its members by legal (or relatively legal) means and using demagoguery to disguise itself.
Characteristics of world wars
- The First World War is a "primitive military clash".
- World War II is primarily an ideological war.
- The third world war is practically bloodless, a war of man-made mechanisms.
- The fourth world war - the war of computer programs.
Sub-hegemon concept
Galkovsky is the author of the "sub-hegemon concept". According to this concept, in geopolitics, along with a clear hegemon that dominates on a global scale, there is a so-called. "sub-hegemon" - a state entity that follows the hegemon in power, inevitably conflicting with it in all aspects and striving to take its place.
"Hegemonic-sub-hegemon" table illustrating the concept:
| years | Hegemon | sub-hegemon | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| before 1527 | Italian Pentarchy (Duchy of Milan, Republic of Venice, Republic of Florence, Papal States and Kingdom of Naples) | Spain - France | The sub-hegemon is not clear, Spain and France compete. |
| 1527 | Spain - France | Spain - France | Capture of Rome. The hegemony of the Pentarchy is defeated, Spain and France compete. |
| 1559 | Spain | France | According to the results |
Rumors of the enemies that the Duck Movement died from starvation are absolutely unreliable. The mighty old man Galkovsky continues to feed his flock and develop tourism in icy Iceland. Periodically breaks through if not the bottom, then the floor:
- July 22nd, 2016 , 11:00 pm
War has been pushed out of the civilized world. There is interest, but there are no opportunities to wage war on America against England, Japan against America, Germany against Poland. There will be no war. There will be an enchanting kaleidoscope of outwardly senseless, but surprisingly well-planned terrorist attacks, hitting the nerve plexuses of the leading countries of the world. Accurate, extremely effective, with comparatively few casualties. Races and countries outside the "zone of eternal peace" will be announced as the authors of the actions. The layman will not even understand what is happening. He no longer understands: either they make him a participant in the Hollywood show “911”, or they drive him around Manhattan after a rolling blackout, which seems to be not a blackout, but an exercise, then the know-how of a blackout-training in the capable hands of the London police smoothly turns into a series well-planned explosions.
This is another post-nuclear surprise. The highly specialized actions of headquarters are not perceived by the population as something meaningful. The puzzle does not add up, the average person sees only a television picture of “catastrophes” taking place here and there, perpetrated by anonymous or semi-anonymous villains. Combat operations go perpendicular to the flow of life and are not noticed by the population outside their epicenter. After all, even in the zone of tectonic faults, earthquakes are a series of disparate episodes that form a single picture of the geological process only in the heads of seismologists.
()
- July 20th, 2016 , 09:06 pm
The world arranged by Galkovsky.
- July 16th, 2016 , 11:06 pm
- December 1st, 2015 04:32 am
Hurray, comrades, attack! Particularly touched - "ready for military conscription." :)
And then we still wonder where the crazy "zadumovs" and other sword-swallowers come from. Some excuse for Ducky is a pleasant foreign bank account and a basement bomb shelter in Iceland, i.e. uncle is clearly not crazy when he recommends people a nuclear war for Putin. Offenses must be answered. Yeah.
- October 17th, 2015 , 06:41 pm
The powerful old man Galkovsky made the obvious, but obviously a little late for about six months (after Minsk-2 - exactly in the spring, it was worth doing it) decision to lay low. It might be a mistake, but that's how it looks from the outside. It is interesting that at the same time in the spring Asterrot also went into the mire. Learn about Duckling:
()
- October 23rd, 2014 05:46 am
As expected, the duckling Galkovsky began to wet the stupid and pretentious like a rooster Bohemian. Everything was going to this, they warned about this (Comrade Loboff, as it was clarified, rubbed the warning for humanistic reasons). I believe that there will still be a return, and the narrow-minded Bohemian will certainly get his "scoundrel, scoundrel or moral idiot" from the Duck.
For Duckling is not only a beloved and "congenial" SGM, but also a Soviet shanty and gopnik trailer. What to do, grapes do not grow in the Finno-Ugric taiga. In the camp barracks, even a “European philosopher”, you know, will start farting and blowing his nose on the floor, and here are 50 years of Soviet Khrushchev and the painful stage of a New Russian uber-ham suddenly getting rich from the “I had a leather jacket” grant. It's funny that only in Russia a rogue who does not have a normal education, who does not know a single foreign language and until the age of 50 considered a trip to Paris a REWARD can build world theories, put forward and refute concepts of a universal scale, confidently argue for the West, for the East, and so on.
But in general, citizens, there is a recipe. No need to arrange "Tokay feasts" with uncooked duck. Duck can and should be fried, steamed, baked, stuffed, finally. The animal is valuable, necessary and useful, no one argues. And from ducklings, by the way, Asians make a great balut. It is only important that the product is ready. It seems that the pompous and queer Bohemian does not understand this, and the ducklings will wet him with great pleasure. For "the wafer gave up the slack," as they say in their duck slang.
- March 12th, 2014 , 10:07 pm
While the liberals are discussing the collapse of Lenta.ru and the useless statements of the fool Navalny, whom the government tried with all its might to keep from multiplying by zero, I will quote last year’s thoughts of Galkovsky, who sketched the script back in July 2013.
1. The main problem of Russia is not in corruption, not in bad officials and not in obnoxious names and emblems. The problem is in the Ukrainian split. In 1991, Russia was thrown back to the borders of the 17th century; it lost a third of its indigenous territory and a third of its indigenous population. It was this, and not at all Gaidar's economic reforms, that caused the collapse of the economy and political stagnation. If the JOINING of East Germany created a lot of problems for the FRG, then one can imagine what problems the German economy would face if Hanover and Bavaria were arbitrarily disconnected in the late 80s.
()
- December 10th, 2013 01:56 am
On August 12, 2000, inexplicable events occur with the Kursk submarine. The Chechens proudly announce the capture of the submarine, the participants of this capture are presented to the Chechen awards. But the Chechens clearly did not take into account Putin's rigidity and adherence to principles. He does not enter into any negotiations. And the boat explodes and sinks.
The submarine is drowned, but that's bad luck - living sailors and terrorists remain in it. Then the Kremlin forbids any assistance to the survivors and coolly watches their death for ten days, although it was not difficult to save the crew. The whole world is discouraged by Putin's cruelty, everyone starts asking uncomfortable questions - "what happened to your boat?". The lop-eared Russians began to ask the same question - the last straw was the hysteria of one of the wives or mothers of sailors asking why their children were defiantly left to die.
After that, television in the country is simply turned off. On August 27, there is an explosion and a fire in Ostankino. It could not happen by chance or without the authorities' department - it is a specially protected facility with advanced fire-fighting systems. Also in the building of the tower they find the corpses of unnecessary witnesses: A simple locksmith who saw too much, who understood what happened, the commander of the fire brigade and a casual witness - a girl-lifter. When extinguishing a fire, the striking lack of professionalism of firefighters is manifested - the fire cannot be localized for three days.
A book, as bad people say, bungled Dmitry Evgenievich himself. Which is also ... well, let's not talk about the age of participants in youth movements. :)
CONGRATULATIONS!!!
P.S. And of course, on such a day we will not be scum, and we will not ask the question of what Kristi Potupcheg, the Kremlin's hard-core propagandist, is doing at the DEG party ... hehe.
“... You can’t pretend to be something for a long time - you have to be. It's easier to pretend to be a cynic and a boor than to be decent and whole - and entropy carries players along this path. But after all, you can’t pretend to be a boor - you can only be one. Therefore, virtual games inevitably lead to schizoidness and degradation of the personality of their creator.
Not so long ago, the notorious Galkovsky D.E. he allowed himself unprovoked malicious rudeness against the famous Russian philosopher and writer K. Krylov. The aforementioned Galkovsky, in extremely insulting terms, unsubstantiatedly accused Krylov of "gebism", they say, Krylov is a primitive puppet of the gebni - a fierce enemy of the Holy Passion-bearer of the Russian Intelligentsia. On this occasion, Galkovsky came up with the teaser "drumba" for Krylov and his comrades. When we, armed with considerable patience, tried to reasonably point out to Galkovsky that he was factually wrong and that his tone was unacceptable, he declared us a "murzilka" as well. It must be said that before Galkovsky for authors writing in Runet under a pseudonym, he used the phrase “Jewish Murzilka”. However, the situation has changed, and now, due to the competition for a highly paid service from the Jewish "liberals", from the definition of "Jewish" D.E. refused from the fundamental considerations of the fight against Great Russian chauvinism.
Then Galkovsky for some time, with impunity, spoke with pathos about the Morality and Honor of the Intellectual, demanding that his opponents reveal personal data and sources of income (hinting that we are eating into the GB). People were surprised why for many years the author honestly expressing his thoughts under a pseudonym is morally flawed, and the comrade grimacing under his own name is worse than any "Murzilka", according to Galkovsky, undoubtedly a worthy member of society - a man of honor. Here Pensive intelligibly explains the basics of the ethics of pseudonyms to the Intelligent Galkovsky, we also gave seemingly exhaustive explanations, all to no avail. Galkovsky simply does not deign to answer people on the merits of the issue, but you know, he repeats his own: drambs, murzilki, murzilki, dramby .... Galkovsky would be stupid, otherwise he does not want to understand simple things. There must be a special reason for this mysterious paradox.
In the end, Dmitry Evgenievich, who was lying, was persistently posed (repeatedly!) Before two fundamental questions: 1) did he speak 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 legal 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 supposedly hidden from the people by the same gebnya and her faithful lackeys "dramba".
In general, the source of the current inspiration of Galkovsky is obvious and the client does not hide - 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 of the bankrupt Union of Right Forces. (Actually, Galkovsky began insulting 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 in the subversive project "Russia-2" announced by Gelman. This explains a lot, but does not at all justify the crazy Galkovsky. Moreover, it is impossible to excuse that Galkovsky solves his personal problems at the expense of others (Krylova and others).
Let us return to the essence of the conversation, accidentally forgotten by the absent-minded D.E. Let's help our dear D.E. start a frank confession about his kike murzilki and the turbulent otherworldly murzilka life of the Maitre (as he likes to be titled).
LiveJournal of the writer D.E. Galkovsky is primarily a mask theater - Galkovsky and his trained murzilki ("fool's corner" of naive people). Murzilok at Galkovsky ... a lot, prepared in advance for various needs. Some of them are quite harmless, they have long intelligent discussions in the journal of D.E. (this can be attributed to Metro's favorite "self-commenting"). Murzilki are also used to mock interlocutors and boorish harassment of opponents (see the example of the petty rudeness of the Jewish Murzilka Galkovsky). And here is another example of how murzilki are used to fool the public in the framework of the Russia-2 project: all this murzilka chatter was started for the sake of one phrase that mobilizes the intelligentsia:
“The segment of freedom from now to now is longer than with the scoop. Although Putin's reforms narrow it down and narrow it down...”
“a brief glance at the list creates a disturbing impression: almost EVERY item is threatened by the Putin regime...”
Does not shun D.E. and murzilok transvestism. Are you gallantly talking with a lady, or is a woman talking with a virtual girlfriend about her own, about women? Be careful, this may be Galkovsky's Jewish Murzilka. Apparently, in this way our D.E. receives a kind of aesthetic pleasure.
However, Mater's nasty pranks are the last thing that worries us. There is a more serious subject for reflection.
For the last time, Galkovsky, instead of answering in essence to our legal matters arrogantly advised us to "think" about his, Galkovsky, Unshakable Rightness. For the sixth year now we have been carefully reading Galkovsky, and all this time we have been diligently thinking about what we have 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 slops, pour them on the head of respected K. Krylov? Now, with his own garbage pail on his head, the Mater grovels absurdly with his arms and legs, but confidently asserts that everything is going according to His plan, de, He conceived it all, foresaw it three years ago. Oh well.
I cannot say that the current shameful incident of Galkovsky is a complete surprise for us. When it comes to the kind D.E., for a long time, many authoritative knowledgeable people mournfully twist their fingers to their temples. At the first acquaintance with the work of - then still highly respected - Galkovsky, with spiritual chagrin, he noticed (it was hard not to notice) the Maitre's penchant for nasty intellectual antics. Then he optimistically estimated the intelligence coefficient at 30% and hoped that the mighty intellect of D.E. will overcome the shameful infection. Alas, alas...
Many things are by no means hidden in the abysses and depths of the universe, but lie on the surface. Prejudices and stereotypes, as well as directed conscious misinformation, prevent them from seeing and understanding them. Let's digress from the heart-rending intellectual squeals about the damned "gebni" and "Asiatic" (what an irony, you can see Mongoloid features in Galkovsky himself). Let's look at "Galkovsky" strictly rationally, apply to him the method of analysis of the observed reality and the people around him practiced by him. I assure you, the result will be impressive.
Galkovsky likes to tell the public about social mechanics. Well, let's look impartially and ruthlessly at Dmitry Evgenievich from this point of view of his "mechanics".
According to the abundant memoirs of D.E. himself, from childhood he was distinguished by extreme social envy. What about childhood and adolescence, the peasant is already in his fifth decade, 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-class family (his father is an alcoholic). At school, the absurd, stubborn boy studied very poorly, did not show any abilities, and was distinguished by pronounced antisocial behavior. According to Galkovsky, for successful education in the Soviet school, it was necessary to give bribes to teachers right away in the first grade. What kind of bribe the parents gave, the children received such grades. The proletarian Mitya's parents did not give anything to the teachers (they didn't think of giving, they had nothing), and Mitya was doomed from the very beginning in the Soviet school. Therefore, all the same, he did not teach lessons, and in retaliation he harassed teachers. However, the humane Soviet school still issued a certificate of secondary education to the ignorant and hooligan Galkovsky.
Galkovsky did not get into the Soviet army due to mental illness (he claims that he was feigning, but who knows ... we are not a doctor). He got a job as a worker at a factory, but did not want to work in production, he totally despised the surrounding scoops, fancied himself an undeniable psychological leader and a genius for manipulating other people's minds (apparently, then the young man had finally formed an intelligence complex). Our Soviet worker boy, who had barely finished high school, was not going to get a real human profession, he wanted to become a “Soviet philosopher” from the machine. The caring Soviet authorities 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, he still entered the Faculty of Philosophy of Moscow State University, evening department (claims that he again allegedly bribed the selection committee ).
Note that in Europe, with his insignificant social position and outbred 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 one. Such is the inexorable social mechanics. And without crusts, what would the claims of our Philosopher 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, he is socially NOBODY, dear to him. Nevertheless, Galkovsky fiercely hates Soviet power for him. Hatred and contempt for one's benefactors is generally a branded intellectual psychological trait.
The archetype of the Russian intellectual, even during the social origin of the intelligentsia in Russia, was exhaustively described by F.M. Dostoevsky - I ask you to love and favor: F.F. Opiskin. Whoever intends to understand the psychology and character of the Russian intellectual as a type, we recommend that you carefully study The Village of Stepanchikovo. The Russian intelligentsia is the collective Foma Fomich under Russia and the Russian people.
Dostoevsky's Foma Fomich is stupid and mediocre (for the intelligentsia, these are typical traits). You can't say the same about Galkovsky. But this is the only significant difference. Galkovsky has also been terribly afraid of the arrival of Korovkin all his life - 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, a typical Foma Fomich, was arrogant and vicious. And he has the nerve to interrogate people about their sources of income! Krylov, who is reviled by Galkovsky, is the editor-in-chief of the Spetsnaz of Russia, he publishes a lot of success, lives by literary work. Your obedient servant is a virtual "Pioneer" in the world Ph.D. and, as he repeatedly reported, he earns his daily bread in the scientific and technical field. Everything is transparent, there are no mysteries. But the sources of existence of D.E. shrouded in the darkness of secrets, Galkovsky never reveals them.
He prints little, he cannot support himself by literary earnings. It seems that D.E. lives on the handouts of his fans. And let him, if only he behaved more modestly. But Galkovsky considers himself entitled to insult people who live by their work. And what is especially disgusting is that he is publicly rude to his benefactors, does not consider it necessary, at least hypocrisy, to cover up his contemptuous attitude towards them. Here Galkovsky visited France, he was invited to visit there. Upon his return, Galkovsky described the hospitable hosts as " scum of the middle class”, and how a true Foma Fomich gave them a lecture on French real estate (which he saw there for the first time). Then I was greatly impressed by the shameless spontaneous rudeness of the Master towards the kind people who inadvertently let him into their house.
In general, what does “Galkovsky treats a person well” mean? - the kindest Dmitry Evgenievich has not yet had time to take revenge on the bastard, while he is collecting compromising information. 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 polemic. Scrupulous collection of dossiers on opponents - personal data, compromising evidence. Under the guise of “morality”, under the guise of pathetic arguments “about the honor of an intellectual,” Galkovsky cynically provokes his interlocutor to give material to himself. As we already know, often for such purposes D.E. uses numerous virtual characters ("Murzilki", in his jargon). Murzilki argue with Galkovsky and with each other, they can support the respected D.E., or they can “criticize” (up to dirty abuse), or even able to express their own “thoughts”. It happens that up to 3/4 of the meaningful discussions in Galkovsky's LiveJournal are the conversations of his murzilok with each other. The meaning of virtual games with people is twofold - when the relatively harmless "self-commenting" beloved by the Master, and often - the wiring of gullible interlocutors, psychological manipulation, ideological and propaganda provocations.
By his own admission, Galkovsky reflexively turns conversations with people into an interrogation, the main topics of which are: “to be the first to decipher the conversation”, “who do you work for?” and "I haven't seen your file." Exposing opponents, in the end, comes down to exposing those of homosexuality (or other shameful sexual perversions). It is obligatory for Galkovsky to accuse opponents of criminality (with a list of articles of the Criminal Code) and colorful stories about how their cellmates will “lower” them. Those who dare to show to the inquisitive D.E. the scrupulous Maitre certifies his passport and income statement as "small cowardly scoundrels." The question is, whom does this kind of approach to business, way of thinking and acting resemble? Think slowly...
D.E. loves to tear out of his listeners a thieves' tear - pity for himself, unfortunate, innocent victim of cop-KGB lawlessness. However, let's look at things with dry eyes. Young Galkovsky, according to the memoirs of D.E. himself, led a petty-criminal lifestyle - speculation, forgery of documents, etc. deeds (hence a good knowledge of criminal psychology and customs). You can object, "totalitarianism, books were not allowed to be read." However, in the West, for illegal business, forgery of documents and fraud with benefits, our D.E. would receive a hefty prison sentence.
Here's D.E. tells how he miraculously escaped the Andropov raid. Was there a miracle? After all, as you know, magic miracles do not happen .... The damned hell of the petty anti-Soviet blackmailer Galkovsky swept up. So what is next? No, they were not thrown into the Gulag. As a result of the prophylactic conversation, the student sincerely repented and gave a signature on cooperation with the Organs. A petty KGB informant informs the authorities about the speculatory environment, anti-Soviet sentiments and deeds of people he knows, informs on his clients who are interested in anti-Soviet literature. And so on in the same vein.
However, we believe that all this is a sudden raid by the KGB, a noble student in the clutches of a merciless secret police - a romance far from life. The evil, ambitious proletarian lad, immediately after entering the Faculty of Philosophy, on his own initiative turned to the Organs with a proposal for cooperation. Why? Why pull. The philosopher himself in his writings explained in detail this train of thought of his: for a person from the people - without connections, without patronage, a poor evening student, it was practically impossible to make a career as a “Soviet philosopher” otherwise than through the Organs. Is it possible to read atheistic lectures and educational political information in collective farm clubs all your life?.. Did you fight for this?
That is why the dubious deeds of the student Galkovsky - the forgery of documents, reproduction and speculation in anti-Soviet literature - were viewed condescendingly by the Organs. A useful little man, deliberately doing a dirty, but necessary deed for the Soviet Motherland.
The secret collaborator from Galkovsky turned out to be diligent and devoted. The organs were the only support in the life of a young Soviet philosopher from a proletarian milieu. Activities just by its nature - work with people, interesting. The romance of undercover work. The young assistant of the Organs was looking for difficult, intellectual tasks for himself. Apparently, he worked for the Masons. He tried to infiltrate the environment of the descendants of white emigration, to become their representative in Russia (but unsuccessfully, darling, sir). In the course of writing reports to leaders and curators, a great literary talent and a peculiar outlook on life were revealed in the young man.
Now the true meaning of the unbridled flattery of the intelligentsia and calls for class solidarity against the Gebni, and the hysterically vicious denunciations of the scoop is clear - 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 strangeness in the biography of Galkovsky, which many observers tend to explain as psychopathology.
Here Galkovsky scandalously, under a far-fetched pretext, refuses a literary prize and announces a blockade of the Russian Federation. A few years later, without any reason, he suddenly returns to Russian literature, explaining his return by saying that he expected that Galkovsky's departure from literature would bring the population of the Russian Federation to reason and change the course of Russian history. And since the course of history has not changed, Galkovsky found it possible to return to literature.
Previously, Galkovsky had contemptuously refused a literary prize, he seemed to be disdainful, but now he entered the service of the owner of a porno establishment. One can marvel at the twists and turns of the psychology of 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 last instruction - to kill Russian nationalists, to infiltrate the subversive project of the liberals "Russia-2". Philosopher #007 has started the task of the Organs!
Does this all seem incredible to you? Absurd conjecture? Why, after all, Galkovsky's cooperation with the Organs explains EVERYTHING. One has only to distract from the howling of the ideological jammer in the face 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, within the framework of M. Gelman's new project, in his LiveJournal, Galkovsky is making rude, almost parodic anti-Soviet agitation, fooling intellectuals, mockingly playing on their well-known complexes and prejudices. The question is, where is our fiery anti-Soviet D.E. was before? Yes, yes, what did Galkovsky do before 1991? The end of the 80s and the beginning of the 90s is the heyday of anti-Soviet propaganda, people made a career, big money. And what about our D.E.? But nothing. With his journalistic talents and supposedly unquenchable hatred of the Soviet Union, he could have made a name for himself and a GREAT anti-Soviet career, including getting a lot of money and settling in the coveted West. However, for inexplicable reasons, Galkovsky does not publish poisonous pamphlets against the USSR. But his activity in the press was first noted after August 1991.
At first glance, Galkovsky, in those scandalous speeches of his after the fall of the Soviet Union, denounces Soviet writers and "philosophers", demands almost lustrations for them. However, you should know that Galkovsky's performances always have a double or triple bottom (if not worse). In fact, we have on the part of Galkovsky revenge on the Soviet estates that betrayed Soviet power. Galkovsky bitterly writes about the failure of the Soviet "rulers of thoughts" and clearly explains to them that there is no place for them in the new life. Those. in fact, this is an attempt (a provocation!) to turn the influential Soviet circles of the intelligentsia against the "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 I say.
What other conceptual ideas Galkovsky is known for. The concept of the need for the emigration of Russian educated classes to their spiritual metropolis - to the West. It must be admitted that this idea - the country is massively voluntarily leaving the pro-Western opposition intelligentsia - is very convenient for the Chekists.
Or the discovery that the USSR is a crypto-colony of England. Responsibility for the crimes of communism is removed from both the Organs and the Soviet government in general, and the traditional intellectuals' hopes for the Good West are also undermined.
Etc. and so on.
So who are you, Mr. Galkovsky? ... KGB murzilka.
While writing this text, I discovered Galkovsky's confessions in his very ambiguous attitude towards the Soviet regime. 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 advantage. Or, despite all domestic cataclysms, somehow I grew up in a complete 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 year 80-90 I ate much better than 9/10, and, perhaps, 99/100 Soviet people. I went to Moscow State University in expensive jeans, a sheepskin coat, a leather coat, wore an expensive watch with a microcalculator - an outfit at current prices for $ 1,500.Moreover, I had a lot of relatives, some of whom were in very high positions. For example, my cousin was married to the daughter of a member of the Politburo. Even without real patronage, in a caste society it played a role.”
Judging by this text, initially Galkovsky felt like a Soviet prince from a noble, but impoverished Soviet family.
On the attitude to the creative heritage. Once upon a time, alas, the distant 1999, I discovered the work of D.E. Galkovsky with great interest. True, some aspects initially caused bewilderment and rejection. Gradually, as he got to know the subject, his alertness grew, at times turning into amazement and disgust. And the last vile trick of Galkovsky was no longer possible to endure and leave unpunished. The limit of ugliness.
So how, on the occasion of the circumstances that have been revealed, should one relate to Galkovsky and his “Endless Dead End”. Who just did not leave a noticeable mark in Russian literature. There were murderers, terrorists, executioners. And now it turned out that the author of one talented Russian book was a secret agent and a provocateur of the Soviet Organs. What can I say…. Spirit breathes where it wants.
Original taken from galkovsky in 915. PYROS MANISHVILI
Grigory Chkhartishvili receives the Japanese Order of the Rising Sun. For your great contribution. The literary pseudonym of Chkhartishvili, - Akunin, - according to him, is formed from the Japanese word "aku" - a bastard.
At the beginning of the 20th century, the Polish-Georgian “stolen this and that” brothers Zdanevich (“do you want me to show your ass? - no! - I’ll show you anyway”) 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 bum, and on the frame of whose biography (reduced to an elementary existence) the romantic legend of the “Georgian Henri Rousseau” was built up.
The idea was accepted with a bang, because for primitivism as such, as well as its derivatives (Dadaism, etc.), mystification was a completely acceptable practice, sometimes 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 a Georgian banknote.
Meanwhile, there is a big difference between the parsers of Henri Rousseau and Pirosmanishvili. Henri Rousseau was really a primitive artist, that is, he painted as best he could, striving to depict artistic reality as plausibly and as beautifully as possible (from his point of view). With some verbal balance, this could be passed off as spontaneity and "the mouth of a baby." Not the Zdanevich project. The pictures were drawn "under primitivism", with a deliberate violation of proportions. Since the Asians were drawing, no defense against possible criticism occurred to them. Therefore, their primitivism also succeeded quite well, but by no means as the primitivism of the fine arts, but as the primitivism of forgery and following the template.
Painting by Henri Rousseau. A person honestly tries to draw, it turns out not very well.
Painting by Pirosmanishvili (depicting, ha ha, one of the Zdanevichs). A real primitivist would never draw the right hand with such a clear disproportion, for his goal is to draw correctly and beautifully. As in photographs, from which figures were often copied. In addition, the landscape behind is painted by a man with a set brush.
The paintings of Henri Rousseau were initially exposed to the line shot through by malicious critics, and these paintings were defended by literary feathers, calculating in advance both the lines of defense and possible counterattacks. Outrageousness was only the seed of a long European conversation.
Not that Georgia. There, the pictures were drawn in 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 from any of the simplest and most naive arguments crumbles to the ground. For the author does not even think of the very possibility of resistance. Western war is maneuvers, defense and offensive. Eastern war is a massacre. When, on the one hand, there are bashi-bazouks wielding scimitars, and on the other, unarmed old men and children. Therefore, the war between the West and the East usually turns into a massacre of Asians.
An excellent example of the "Georgian way of thinking" is today's polemic of the great Caucasian scientist Chkhartishvili. Chkhartishvili attacks the Russian Tsar Nicholas II with nothing less than philippics (see.)
Which, in general, is commonplace to the point of banality. But in this case I am not talking about the banality of content, but about the banality of form. Chkhartishvili fundamentally considers half a move ahead and cannot even imagine that one of the white shaitans will dare to refute his verdicts, or even ridicule. “Patamuschta so talk!”
Since, due to Asian naivete, Chkhartishvili gave a representative selection of stamped nonsense about the "crowned monster", it is on the example of the polemic with his theses that it is easy to show all the far-fetchedness and absurdity of Nicholas' decades-long watering.
Let me briefly go through the thoughts of the annealing Manishvili:
“Today is a sad anniversary. For exactly 120 years, the ruler of Russia was a 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 with you.
To be honest, I didn’t find the “little officer in the left corner”, but this is not about that. It's about Chkhartishvili's speech. If the “little man” dropped the country into a hole (probably a toilet), then this country is very small. Since a Georgian plays the panduri, a stable association is created that the country the Poet is talking about is not Russia, but Georgia.
The scream 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. He ascended the throne - the first thing he announced was that society should not be amused by "meaningless dreams": everything will remain, as with an unforgettable parent.
There were no "meaningless dreams". This is a very, very stupid and very, very old trick of the opposing under-intellectuals of the Russian Empire. Alexander III died suddenly, 49 years old. Prior to this, it was believed that the strong man Alexander had good health. Nicholas ascended the throne as a very young man, at the age of 26, unexpectedly. Naturally, in such a situation, the question of the succession of power arose. And to emphasize that the reins of government are in strong hands, before the convened representatives of the nobility and public organizations, the young tsar (who was on the throne for only two months and had not yet passed the coronation) made a statement that the form of government in Russia remains unchanged. At the same time, inexperienced Nikolai (this was his first public statement) read the word "unrealizable" (or "groundless") as "meaningless dreams of changing the system."
So what? Who knows how wrong, and even in the first hundred days of his reign? Obama, out, "caught a fly" and nothing. WHAT TO SCRIBE? Adults and 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 order was formed in Russia, headed by a moderate and far-sighted monarch, who eventually 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 the martial law and obvious opposition, the parliament was not dissolved).
Chkhartishvili describes the emergence of a constitutional monarchy in Russia with broad brush strokes:
“But as with an unforgettable parent, it didn’t work out in the new century. Everything creaked, wobbled, and crumbled. It was scary. Self-interested advisers tossed the idea of a small victorious war. The war turned out to be rather big and invincible, it led to a revolution. The ruler was frightened - he issued a manifesto with freedoms. There were few freedoms, society wanted more and began to no longer ask, but demand. The ruler was frightened - he dispersed the parliament and introduced a regime of military-police dictatorship. He was afraid of the war with "Cousin Willie" - and yet he got involved in it. He did not know how to command, but he 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, he dispersed it. Then, with fear, he began a world war and, (drumming), frightened by serious military failures, took the post of supreme commander.
So you can "prove" anything. In general, and prove.
Hey, Kol, give me a bite of ice cream!
Cho, chickened out, freak?
On the! (Punch on cheekbone.)
- (From around the corner.) Cho, fight? Coward!
The crazy dervish is twisting the rim of the 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 cannot count. 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 not hefty.
Why stop then? How much did Nikolai play tricks during the Second World War? What about perestroika? His own handiwork. Not Georgians.
The main thing is that Nikolai harmed with a riddle. While I was at the helm, it was out of the blue and not noticeable. It even seemed to be okay. The economy grew, prosperity, culture developed, the parliament again. And as a fool was removed from the steering wheel, everything fell apart in a year. Who is guilty? Nicholas and the consequences of his reign. How they joked during the stagnation:
Nikolashka is a scoundrel - he ruled for 23 years, but did not prepare food for the Soviet government.
But this is not enough. Next, Chkhartishvili follows 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, besides professing 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. Yes, and a significant part of the Georgian intelligentsia consists of Georgian-European mestizos - like the Zdanevichi, or the same Chkhartishvili.
Therefore, the Georgian understands that for gloss and blaze, there must be dialectics in his reasoning. Suddenly, the shrill watering stops, the panduri changes to chonguri, and the "soulfulness" begins:
“The most offensive thing is that the person, it seems, was not bad: decent, hardworking, delicate, charming. An ideal husband - loving, faithful, gentle, reliable: A wonderful father: A good, cheerful comrade: In addition - a rarity for the monarchs of the Holstein-Gottorp-Romanov dynasty - also unostentatiously modest. One "George" on the chest, a simple tunic with colonel's shoulder straps.
Of course, sincerity eventually breaks off, 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 accursed European:
“Nikolai seemed to feel his ceiling: he would make an excellent regimental commander at most. Servant to the king, father to the soldiers. But a man of colonial stature cannot be an autocratic ruler of a huge country, especially in modern times.”
Meanwhile, the "historian" Chkhartishvili seems to be clear that "simple jacket" and "simple overcoat" is a standard move of the leader of a militaristic state. It is enough to 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 Nikolai, so to speak, had a heap of the highest ranks of the largest states of the world ex officio. For example, he was a field marshal in the British army.
Kaiser Wilhelm with our fool. Lord! And how shameful it is for the German majesty to stand with such a half-wit! Shame indeed. And he is glad, he also put on a German uniform. They gave the colonel out of pity - to vilify. Ohohohonyushki!
And finally, about the "Colonel". Nikolai was a colonel of the Preobrazhensky Regiment. The Preobrazhensky Regiment was the Life Guards (that is, the guard of the guard). The rank of colonel of this regiment in 1706 was taken by Peter I, and the second person in the state, Menshikov, became a lieutenant colonel. In reality, the second lieutenant colonel commanded the regiment. From that time on, Russian emperors were considered, as it were, members of the officer community of this military unit:
Gentlemen officers, being the emperor of all Russia, I also have a part to belong to your class.
What regiment do you serve in, Your Majesty?
In Preobrazhensky.
Of course, Nicholas II was not a “colonel” (or, rather, a junior general, because the ranks were higher in the guards) of the Preobrazhensky Regiment from the point of view of the official ladder. He was the CHIEF of this regiment, like all Russian emperors.
From the same opera, hypocritical laments about the "wonderful family man." Nicholas II was not a wonderful family man. The family was the tenth thing for him. Yes, by temperament naked on all fours in Copenhagen - like one of his august relatives - did not run. 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 of that time. The tsar could not see Alexandra Feodorovna 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 early aged 40-50-year-old wife. “Dear, unforgettable Alix. Did our little one get past influenza? I think about you all the time, God willing, at the end of winter I will come and hug you. I'm incredibly bored."
Georgian, Armenian and Jewish Young Turks at the beginning of the century shed tears about the “wonderful family man” for a very simple reason. Firstly, for an Asian who is used to humiliating women, beating with a stick, smearing churek on the face and shaving his head, one who respects his wife is not a man. Secondly, an essential element of the Turkish dervish tales about the Shaitan Tsar were horror stories about a German queen (like all Hessians, who hated the Second Reich and was brought up in England), as well as about a crazy nymphomaniac and her hypnotist fucker (no comments).
And the henpecked king fulfilled all her whims. Up to the adoption of Alexei - the son of Rasputin.
Let us return, however, to the dervish and the poker:
“When you ask yourself the question: who is most to blame for the fact that Russia did not stay on the road, but flew down a slope, 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, Nicholas is to blame. Or the reign of Lenin. Nicholas is to blame. And the great Stalin? All his life he struggled with the consequences of the reign of Nicholas, all the mistakes and shortcomings of Stalinism - from the Russian tsar.
Well, and so on. This is Georgian logic and it is understandable. An Asian is never to blame. The Europeans around him are to blame, and above all the smartest and most decent. With what? The fact that they are. If they died, then what they had the audacity to be. In addition to the will of his Asiatic Majesty. And the Asian himself - SMART!
But Nikolai, according to Chkhartishvili, is not only guilty, he is doubly guilty:
“I am doubly guilty, because I firmly 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 the Anointed of God, and where there is not enough intelligence, Providence will save.
That white man may stutter:
But how is that, but what about the Duma and the elections, like a double amnesty for the revolutionaries?
But when he sees who is standing in front of him, he will not stutter.
And the dervish on a tricycle rolls on - into eternity:
“Three times guilty, because the Small World, the world of the family, at critical moments turned out to be more important for him than the Big World, and what the hell are you, the anointed one, if your wife and children are more important to you than your subjects? Why would this Providence help you like that? As a result, the Big World was destroyed, and the Small World was not saved.
Well, here people give up and go about their business.
And itching-Eroshka recites from a pulpit made of pressed dung:
“Does his fate evoke compassion? Certainly. Yes, sorry for him, smitten with damask steel, he sleeps in the damp earth. But even more sorry for everyone who sleeps in the damp earth 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 evaluate the historical role of the last king differently and disagree with me. However, let's check it out now. And yes, here's another thing, otherwise I already have a presentiment where the discussion will turn. These are not thick allusions to the current autocratic colonel. 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 turn to something else. Why not give the venerable Asian a kick in the direction of his native Tiflis. For the Japanese order to jump ten meters. Tired. For a hundred years - VERY!
