Will is not will anyway. Femme fatale? What is will, what is bondage, - It doesn't matter

Her fate was not easy.
On May 8, 1926, a daughter was born in the family of Lieutenant General of Artillery Konstantin Romanovich Myshkov.

In 1947, immediately after graduating from the Shchukin School, Ninel Myshkova made her film debut, in adventure movie A. Feintsimmer "For those who are at sea", based on the story of the same name by Boris Lavrenev.
But, after this debut, a 4-year downtime followed. The actress was prevented from filming by the vicissitudes of her personal life.
There were a lot of creative intelligentsia in the Etush house. The composer Antonio Spadavecchia also visited them. The author of the music for the same film "For those who are at sea", as well as for the wonderful fairy tale film "Cinderella". Antonio was 19 years older than her, but she fell in love and left Etush for him.
But this marriage was short-lived. In 1953, Ninel Myshkova met cameraman Konstantin Nikiforovich Petrichenko. He was also older than her, but by 11 years.
They immediately got married, and in 1954 their son Konstantin was born, who later became a famous diplomat.

She did not often act in films during these years, and mostly in fairy tales.

In 1952 - "Sadko"
In 1956 - "Ilya Muromets"
In 1957, Myshkova starred as Lida in the film novel by Lev Kulidzhanov and Yakov Segel "The House I Live In", after which success comes to her.

She starts to play a lot in films. One of her memorable roles is Marya the Artisan in the fairy tale of the same name by Alexander Row in 1959.
On the set of the film "Hello, Gnat" Ninel Myshkova met director Viktor Illarionovich Ivchenko, who was also 14 years older than her ...
Three years later, in 1965, the director starts filming an adaptation of Alexei Tolstoy's novel "The Viper" and for a long time cannot find an actress for the main role. Here he recalls Ninel Myshkova.

She was already in her forties, but she still looked beautiful. In addition, she was one of the first in the Soviet Union to undergo plastic surgery. But, unexpectedly, an old friend of Ivchenko's cameraman Alexei Prokopenko opposes Myshkova's candidacy. They have been working together for a long time, but in the conflict between Myshkova and Prokopenko, the director takes the side of the actress, and the cameraman in the film is another.
Viktor Ivchenko fell in love with Ninel without a memory and honestly admitted this to his wife. Neither could his son. Ex-wife I could never forgive him for this. She didn't even come to his funeral many years later..
But before that, Ivchenko and Myshkova had six years of cloudless happiness. In all his subsequent films in the lead roles, he shot only her. At the same time, he literally created films for her, subtly feeling the character of the actress.

Chapter 12

Many of them, before they made a pact with Chaos, were people. Now they have become freaks both mentally and physically ...

Michael Moorcock. Stormlord.

Ideology is always in a state of more or less acute confrontation with science.

One of the cornerstone postulates of classical liberal doctrine: "the existence of higher truths of reason, accessible to the efforts of the individual's thought, which should play the role of guidelines in the choice between good and evil, order and anarchy."(Chapter "Liberalism" in the political dictionary). European science was based on this principle, which became the most powerful productive force, incredibly accelerated progress, contributing to the victory of liberalism and its spread across the planet. Grateful heirs rethought their ideological legacy exactly the opposite.

The drama of von Hayek's final work "Destructive Presumption" lies in the rigid opposition, on the one hand, to tradition ( "the habit of following the rules of conduct", "principles, institutions and practices determined by traditional morality and capitalism") and, on the other hand, "constructivist rationalism", from which socialism hated by the author is derived.

"Man has become a thinking being through the assimilation of traditions - that is, that which lies between reason and instinct. These traditions, in turn, do not originate from the ability to rationally interpret observed facts, but from habitual ways of responding ... Following traditional practices - by creating a market order - are definitely not consistent with rationalistic requirements ... We will be able to visualize the situation more clearly ... by assuming that our traditional institutions are indeed incomprehensible ... "

The famous economist, not without internal struggle, nevertheless decided on recognition, which I especially recommend to respected opponents - to all those who do not agree with the interpretation of neoliberalism as a religious doctrine.

"in English and even German there is no perfectly appropriate word that could accurately capture the specifics of the extended order, or how far the way it functions is from the requirements of the rationalists. The only suitable word "transcendent" has been so overused that I hesitate to use it. Literally, however, it does mean something that goes far beyond our understanding, desires or intentions and our sense perception... This is especially striking when the word is used in a religious sense, as can be seen from the Lord's Prayer, which says: "Yes your will (that is, not mine) be done on earth as it is in heaven", or from the Gospel, where the following statement is found: "You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit and to this fruit of yours remained" (John 15:26)"(highlighted by von Hayek).

On the other hand, what is "Deadly Presumption"? "The influence of rationalism was indeed so deep and pervasive that, in principle, the smarter educated person, the more likely that he (or she) shares not only rationalistic, but also socialist views ... People in intellectual professions are mostly socialists ... " I emphasize: "socialist"- not necessarily a supporter of Mao or Fidel Castro. "Socialist propaganda" von Hayek finds in Albert Einstein and Gordon Child, the greatest archaeologist of the twentieth century, who significantly changed our understanding of the evolution of human society precisely from an economic standpoint.

The last thing I want is for my own comments on von Hayek to sound disparaging. In no way am I trying to equate to the exhibits of the liberal panopticon (A. Adamsky, B. Paramonov, etc.) the venerable Austrian professor, from whom, in addition to ideology, we will find quite deep, well-founded and, I beg your pardon, rational conclusions: for example, about how systematic and spontaneous correlate in people's activities; about competition between human communities, about "cultural evolution" etc. So the epigraph from Moorcock does not fit him. But since the subject of this study is after all ideology, we are primarily interested in this component.

And here it is worthy of surprise how accurately, sometimes almost verbatim, von Hayek reproduces another, much earlier author - famous critic Enlightenment and Great French Revolution Edmund Burke. "Prejudices are useful, they concentrate eternal truths and goodness, they help the hesitant to make a decision, they make human virtues a habit, and not a series of unrelated actions," - Burke wrote in 1790, defending the foundations of the monarchy, the aristocracy and the state church from "cliques" of "theorists" and "professors", which "Attribute enormous value to their rational projects, with no respect for the modern polity."

"All the attractive illusions that made power magnanimous, obedience voluntary, gave harmony to the various shades of life, inspired feelings that adorn and soften private life - they all disappeared from the irresistible light of reason. All the veils that adorn life were cruelly torn off; all sublime ideas, borrowed from the stocks of morality, which owned the hearts and were intended to be hidden, were forever discarded human shortcomings. They were declared ridiculous, absurd and old-fashioned."

Burke - 1790: "People who are doomed to drag out a hard working life in the dark are monstrously deceived, inspiring them with false ideas and vain hopes, making real inequality even more bitter, because it is impossible to get rid of it." Hayek- 1988: " Requirements that these(market - I.S.) processes were fair or had other moral character, nourishes naive anthropomorphism ... Under such a system, the successes of some are paid for by the failures of others who have made no less sincere and even worthy efforts: rewards are by no means given for merit ... I do not think that the concept of "social justice" that has become widely used describes any that possible state of affairs, or at least makes sense."

In his anti-revolutionary pamphlet Reflections on the Revolution in France, Edmund Burke defends property. He sees her intact "law of nature" and at the same time "moral lesson". Violation of the laws of nature and morality threatens "greatest evil". Wed in Hayek: moral norms (including, in particular, our institutions of property, freedom and justice) are a certain additional gift that cultural evolution has endowed man with" The difference is that Burke has in mind the feudal property of princes of the blood and archbishops, which is encroached upon precisely by the liberal bourgeoisie.

"The wind goes to the south, and goes to the north ... "

It was easy and natural for a liberal of that time to appeal to reason, speaking on behalf of the third estate against the privileges of the degenerate aristocracy and church feudal lords, who themselves did not believe in either God or the devil, but planted ignorance and prejudice among the people in order to more faithfully keep them in obedience. Such privileges really could not have a rational justification - only references to "transcendent tradition" inaccessible to the mind.

Today, the place of princes of the blood has been taken by financial oligarchs, and episcopal sees by mass media and show business figures. The right of Soros or the Cherny brothers to "offshore" the savings of hundreds of thousands of honest workers is just as provable as the right of Marie Antoinette to lose France at cards. And the liberal of the end of the 20th century, willy-nilly, is forced to borrow from the bitterest opponents of liberalism their specific argumentation.

All repeats. Closing the circle, the tail bites too smart head. "Monarchy as a Delegation of the Divine Will" from the followers of the very church that once paid with thousands of lives for its proud refusal to participate in the imperial cult. Respectful references by the theorists of the Communist Party to Ivan Ilyin and Solonevich. The militant anti-intellectualism of the liberals...

Irritation against "clever men" is all the stronger, the more noticeable are the contradictions between dogmas and life and among themselves.

If you really mind death penalty, then why are you killing the Yugoslavs? if everyone is obliged to pay taxes, then what is "offshore"? why do you draw up votes of no confidence in scientific knowledge in articles and monographs (and not in shamanic dances) and sign them with academic degrees? Etc. etc.

Before the hosts open society"the same problem arises that once before their predecessors from the Central Committee of the CPSU. Specific scientists are needed to solve specific tasks, but science as such is incompatible with ideology, and social disciplines are simply destructive. From here: installation on "narrow specialization". The ideal scientist is the one who knows everything about the 16th chromosome, heard about the 15th, and vaguely recalls that Shakespeare is Baz Luhrmann's assistant.

Hence the persistent "reforms" of scientific methodology. I emphasize: not "editing" separate fragments: "such and such a king should be praised, but don't mention that at all!", but a deep perversion of the principles according to which individual fragments-bricks are added to the building.

Here it is necessary to stipulate that science is not a collector of information, but a system of knowledge. As Alexander Tarasov rightly noted, "capitalism is trying to replace the category of knowledge with the category of information. Meanwhile, this is not the same thing. Scientists, artists and society as a whole own exactly knowledge, while information can also be owned by a private owner as a commodity (a bureaucrat, for example, traditionally owns it as a commodity information.) False knowledge, as we know, is not knowledge at all. fake information can be no less valuable than the real one." The knowledge system is built according to certain rules, which are called the boring word "methodology". What distinguishes an amateur from a professional is not that one knows less and the other more, but that the former does not own the methodology. Therefore, it is easier for him to discover new "physical phenomena" (like "telekinesis") on the basis of testimonies, " Slavic writing"under King Minos, etc. Naturally, the methodologies of different scientific disciplines differ significantly (because the subject and methods of its study differ). But if we take the basic principles research work, as they are stated, for example, by the medievalist V.B. Kobrin (in the article "Where did we crush the butterfly?" and in the final chapter of the book "To whom are you dangerous, historian?"), then both the biologist and the physicist will gladly subscribe to many statements. This is precisely what distinguishes science as a whole as "field of human activity" from ideology. Moreover, I will take the liberty of asserting that both a theatrical review and a judicial essay should be based on the same methodological principles ... And why, in fact, is such a review needed, in which the assessment of the performance is known in advance to the author - or prescribed to him editor? What kind of justice can be promoted by a judicial essay according to the method of S. Dorenko (Chapter 4)?

In true science, methodology is inseparable from ethics. It's not a compliment. It's just a business necessity. The expression "honest scientist" is tautological, since "dishonest scientist", that is, a falsifier, not a scientist at all: "a bad person is not able to selflessly serve the truth"

"Only science seeks pure truth, - wrote Ernst Renan, - Only she gives accurate proofs of the truth and is strictly critical of the methods of persuasion..

In the 1990s, I can note three attacks on science. The first two affected only social disciplines and left a mark quite comparable with the achievements of the 1948 VASKhNIL session in biology. The third disease from the very beginning assumed a generalized character.

1. We have already analyzed the "culturological approach" in detail in Chapter 7.

2. "Civilizational approach" requires a special discussion. He approached history and sociology under the flag of the fight against the "formational approach", which meant the boring Stalinist (not Marxian) "five-membered system", the one that obligated society to develop from the primitive communal system to slavery, feudalism, capitalism, socialism ... Unfortunately , proposed in return turned out to be not better, but worse. And the fact that the advocates of the "civilizational approach" are still unable to define what "civilization" is - A. Tarasov counted 42 (forty-two!) competitive definitions - that's not so bad. In the end, there was enough confusion with the formations. the main problem- the fact that the "formational approach" had, albeit distorted by ideology, overly concretized and schematized, but scientific basis. As the productive forces grow (and this, in turn, correlates with the assimilation of more energy from the environment - an objective natural-science criterion), society goes through certain stages of development. Further, one can argue about the definition of specific stages, about the role of the subjective "human factor" in accelerating or slowing down this process, and so on. But the question was put quite differently. In order not to bore the reader with 42 definitions, I will refer to A.Ya. Gurevich - for a lecture in which he outlines the essence of various cognitive models presented in post-Soviet historiography. Gurevich has the word " civilizational" has a synonym "relativistic". "... Each community (culture, civilization) is a unique structure, a unique phenomenon. According to the relativistic point of view, it is wrong to ask which of these structures is better or worse, more progressive or more reactionary. They are different. And each of them, apparently, is a certain integrity that satisfies some fundamental requirements of people who live (or lived) within this integrity.This, in the most general form, is the approach to history, which we have recently begun to call "civilizational"

Thus, in the first place, progress as such is "cancelled"; secondly, the unity of the human race and the civilization it creates, which is divided into a great many (42 or more, as many as it pleases) of immiscible streams; thirdly, whatever historical patterns, that is, history ceases to be a science, but turns into an antiquities shop - not a museum where the exhibits are systematized, but a shop. Or a collection of jokes. And if we are, by definition, unable to understand and appreciate other "civilizations", then what is the point in studying ancient Greece or Japan of the Tokugawa era? Yes, and his native Russia 500 years ago? Just idle curiosity.

One collects beer labels, another spends all day playing computer shooters, the third studies the feudal war of the 15th century. The above activities are of equal value. "It is wrong to ask which is better or worse."

Also "it is wrong to ask what is more progressive"- human sacrifices or their prohibition; the slave trade or the emancipation of slaves; Nazi Third Reich or Roosevelt's New Deal. They are neither better nor worse, but simply "various", no general criterion There is no evaluation and there cannot be.

"Civilization Approach" collapses historiography many centuries ago - as if chemists were relocated from modern institutions to the laboratory of Paracelsus.

As for the ethical side, long before the current campaign, an exhaustive characterization "relativism" gave V.B. Kobrin. "Such a position, in my opinion, contradicts the very essence of history ... Probably, our human dignity and moral sense would be offended if we knew that in four centuries the historian would only try to "understand" the Nazis, without condemning their crimes. So do we have the right to deny justice to those who lived and suffered four centuries before us?“The historian has no right to be indifferent to the people of the past. He cannot but feel sympathy for them. If he is indifferent to their joys and troubles, to their successes and sufferings, then he, of course, will be able, if he has intelligence and industriousness, to write many useful and even valuable research on specific issues, but will never be able to solve big, cardinal problems... Often we can condemn actions, but not those who committed them, understanding the conditionality of certain unattractive actions for us by the characteristics of time and upbringing. do not justify, under the pretext of expediency or the general cruelty of the century, extrajudicial murders, mass executions, aggressive wars, treason and betrayal. Otherwise, we will cease to be people ... Expelling morality from history, we inevitably expel it from modernity.

In my opinion, the judgments of our remarkable medievalist are not only of internal guild interest, but affect everyone who is engaged in the study of human society, ancient or modern: economics, legal relations, art. Of course, a personal opinion, even the most authoritative one, is just an opinion. Everyone has the right to have their own, different. But then it should be honestly formulated. After all "relativism"- not just a fashionable innovation or some improvement in research methods. This is a cardinal break with the entire humanistic tradition in science (and, more broadly, with " cultural opposition" Soviet times), the demarcation is precisely in those issues that were fundamental not only for V.B. Kobrin, but also for S.B. Veselovsky or A.A. Zimin. In the dispute S.B. Veselovsky with Stalinist ideologists "relativists" are on the side of the latter.

Immorality "civilizational approach" It also manifests itself in the fact that it constitutes a ready-made theoretical platform for nationalism and racism. Emotional Aphorism by Rudyard Kipling West is West, East is East, and they will not leave their place..." long before Doomsday receives scientific justification. I emphasize: if there were objective data confirming the natural inequality between peoples or the organic "incompatibility" of different cultural traditions, they should be taken seriously, regardless of the possible political implications. But the fact of the matter is that the experience of history tells a completely different story. Gentiles, foreigners, "yellow", "black", joining the "non-existent" progress, are able to do everything that quite recently (in historical terms) was considered the prerogative of a white male Christian (and if you look a little deeper, then a white Christian noble origin). Thousands of pages were written in their time with justifications for German Nazism or Japanese militarism through a special "mentality" to which these peoples were supposedly doomed from birth. Some authors considered it as a gift from the gods, others as an innate deformity. But a few years have passed since 1945 - and where is this "mentality"? How does the special "Nordic character" of a German manifest itself in comparison, for example, with a Belgian or a Dane? Of course, mutual understanding of cultures requires a lot of effort. But there is no law that would prohibit it. Three "civilizations" (Chinese-Confucians, Hindus and Muslims) live and work peacefully in Singapore, while one is self-destructing in Rwanda.

When Edvard Radzinsky writes about Stalin that "as befits an Asian, he was in everything - a slave before the master" or LDPR deputy Alexei Mitrofanov justifies Saddam Hussein by the fact that "in the East, the leader must be tough"- this is the "civilizational approach" in pure form. Only science has nothing to do with it.

3. The so-called "postmodernism". "The so-called" - because if in the two previous cases it is at least approximately clear what it is about, then here it remains to shrug. After reading hundreds of books and articles, I still could not figure out what it is with the letter "p" and on what basis it is not clear what is being elevated to "main stream modern philosophy, arts and sciences".

My favorite dictionary of cultural studies says the following:

"In political culture, P. means the development of various forms of post-topic political thought. In philosophy, the triumph of post-metaphysics, post-rationalism, post-empiricism. In ethics, post-humanism of the post-puritan world, moral ambivalence of the individual. Representatives exact sciences P. is interpreted as a post-non-classical style. scientific thinking."

That is, to all scientific terms, known to the author"definitions", the prefix is ​​added mechanically "fast", which turns into an inarticulate interjection, like the word "pancake" and other, rougher linking words in the lexicon of post-personalities pouring a post-turn bottle.

School textbook " Modern world" (an approximate analogue of the old "Social Studies") refers "P." for some reason to the section of architecture.

"Postmodernism is present in all types of contemporary art, but it manifested itself most clearly in architecture... The architectural forms of past centuries and the beginning of our century are deliberately contrastingly combined in P. with elements of functionalism. This emphasized eclecticism is elevated to a creative principle...".

Since when did eclecticism become " creative principle" and direction, the more new? VDNKh - what a masterpiece " postmodernism"?

Mikhail Epstein's article is called "The origins and meaning of Russian P." Turns out, "communism is postmodernism with a modernist face...", and since "in Russian civilization there is an intention of self-erasure, self-destruction, transformation into conventional signs - "traces", representing an infinite delay or absence of its signified...", Russia turned out to be the most P. country - "ahead of the West precisely in this postmodern capacity." Hello from "civilization approach". And "a new crop of Russian culture has risen, which is fully ripe and is reaping right now - postmodern culture."

It is a pity that the fruits of such a rich harvest are not named. However, guilty. On page 179, one particular writer appears - D. Galkovsky, "understanding a sense of poetics." He gifted Russian culture of the 90s. "a novel-treatise" "Endless dead end". Isn't this the treatise where 1937 is declared "the happiest in the last hundred years of Russian history ... Pigs fell into the abyss"? Epstein's choice is symptomatic (in terms of "moral ambivalence"), but one example, even such a bright one, is not enough. By the way, the cultural dictionary also reports about "the flourishing of artistic practice P."- and without a single confirmation at all. In private conversations, journalists who insist that "P" still exists, most often refer to Umberto Eco's novel "The Name of the Rose". The work is truly unconventional, since it combines two genres: a detective story and a historical novel. But what about here? communism with a modernist face" and other scientific nonsense? The Strugatsky brothers also combined two genres - detective with fantasy novel("The Beetle in the Anthill"), and Mikhail Bulgakov in "The Master and Margarita" - as many as three.

G.S. Knabe: "Trends that are customarily designated by the name of postmodernism with its absolutization of personal independence and the denial of everything that recreates collective ties and unites people, including the rationality of the logic of provable truth, i.e. science in the proper, direct sense of the word..."

It is clear that this can only be in a psychiatric clinic: there "denial of everything that unites people" called autism (although "absolutization of personal independence" echoes some infallible truths already known to us from other chapters).

In order to break through at least to some kind of understanding, let's take a source that is both a monument of "p" literature and a theoretical work designed to explain what it is. Boris Paramonov's essay is called "P. The End of Style", and the author himself is a columnist for Radio Liberty of the US Congress. For this very essay, Paramonov received the Zvezda magazine award.

"Democracy is postmodernism. In turn, democracy is a special, quite definite type of culture, taken in the broadest sense of the term - as a way of life, as a style. Democracy as a cultural style is the absence of style, by no means even not the eclecticism of the Alexandrian type. Style is opposite and contraindicated to democracy."

(So ​​after all: there is " style" or not?)

In addition: 1. "P" "has a political dimension"; 2. "flora and fauna provide a lesson in postmodernism"; 3. "Pushkin Postmodernist"; 4. "extremely postmodern Francis of Assisi"; 5. "p" - "rehabilitation of dens. And most importantly - a clearer consciousness that there are no dens at all."

Here are some more profound thoughts of Mr. Paramonov:

"What do (postmodernists) sophists, Alexandrian eclecticists, medieval buffoons, romantics of the 19th century, Pushkin, Timur Kibirov have in common? What they have in common is "Jewry". Jew - generic name postmodernist, a man without style... I've been thinking about writing an article called "Jewish Pushkin" for a long time, but so far I've only written about Woody Allen."

“This fascism, of course, is purely aesthetic, like that of Leni Riefenstahl, but after all, the latter served Hitler and no one else. Or rather, Leni Riefenstahl and Hitler are of the same breed, artistic. Fortunately (unfortunately?) for Paglia, in America There is no Hitler and there never will be, and she is doomed to cast pearls in front of pigs until the end of her days.

(Pay attention to the specific democratism of this gentleman, who feeds on the very American taxpayers whom he calls "pigs").

"Stalin destroyed the (constructivist) style of early Bolshevism, replaced it with the eclecticism of socialist realism - and thereby outlined the prospect of freedom ... In hindsight and hindsight, it is clear that this is where the new Russian freedom began: when the brigade commanders were renamed colonels, and people according to named Yakir, Uborevich, Gamarnik, Kork, Vatsetis, Putna were replaced in the army by people named Vatutin and Konev, Vakhromeev and Yazov.

Suppressing nausea, I turn to purely academic conclusions. The burden of proving a hypothesis falls on those who propose it. No one is required to refute unsubstantiated claims. If "specialists in postmodernism" are not able to explain what it is, then the subject of their studies is of the same kind as "basic economic law of socialism"(on which money, awards and titles were also made). None" the mainstream of modern philosophy, art and science" with the letter "p" does not exist in nature.

What exists? Frank, undisguised verbiage as an alternative to the supposedly outdated "positivist" science. Final destination crusade against reason proclaimed by liberal ideologues:

"P. mentality bears the stamp of disappointment in the ideals and values ​​​​of the Renaissance and the Enlightenment with their faith in progress, the triumph of reason ..."(Culturology. XX century.)

"P. - this is a state of culture that comes to replace the New Age and throws back the "modern" project, which was based on the values ​​of realistic knowledge, individual self-consciousness and rational action, relying on own forces conscious self-organization of humanity"(M. Epstein)

Since the imposed dogmas do not have a convincing justification - neither from a rational nor from a moral point of view - it is advantageous to pretend that reason and morality do not exist at all.

Academician V. L. Yanin is equivalent to Boris Paramonov: both write texts consisting of letters.

BUT "our 'adversarial theory of justice' never asks where the truth lies."

What is true, what is not true ... what is good, what is evil ... what is will, what is bondage - it does not matter.

It was these words that the heroine of the fairy tale film Alexandra Row repeated mechanically, being under the influence of evil spells. None other than bewitched dear scientists, if they limply agree to the role prepared for them (for example, historians will tell fables about ancient emperors at night, freely competing in the matter of entertainment with the masters of the "new dramaturgy" and artistic exhibitionism). They bow to the feet of international patrons for giving their money - that is, not their own, but taken out of Indonesia and Thailand - not only for Lysenkoism, but also for real science. Only for some reason there is more and more Lysenkoism from year to year, and less and less science. Judging by the textbooks (see the corresponding supplement to the newspaper "Pervoe september"), this sad trend is simply striking.

The fate of science in the XXI century was dedicated to a special " Round table"in Nezavisimaya Gazeta, to which both professional ideological workers ("culturologists" - "political scientists") and scientists who restructured their " discourse under the party line.

Read carefully, dear colleagues. And don't say you weren't warned; or that the problems you face in your field of knowledge are due to someone's personal "stupidity" or "unprofessionalism". Or other combinations of circumstances, purely individual and not having a common cause.

M. Rats: "Most of troubles that we have today in Russia and all over the world are the product of that very scientific rationality. Or, as I would say, the unreasonable expansion of science into areas where it has absolutely nothing to do ... Now I am reading a book where there is a correlation between modernist and postmodernist ideology. In the section on culture. It discusses the opposition of modernism and postmodernism. It's really all burning topics. And they need to be seriously discussed, and more than once.(really, what else to waste time on? - I.S.) Because we will still cry with this traditional classical science and the unpredictable and uncontrollable consequences arising from it, like the Chechen or environmental ...(in other words, it was science that inspired Dudaev to separate)... New concept should replace one type of scientific rationality with many different types of rationality."(I wonder how big it is " lots of"? And what will happen if the mister "deputy" himself in the accounting department is charged a fee in accordance with some non-traditional "type of rationality"- for example, a penny for a ruble?)

V. Rozin: "As a culturologist, I draw your attention to an interesting phenomenon: we are probably burning down the last portions of scientific fuel - a reckless interest in the knowledge of nature and the world. But maybe, in fact, we have already lost it. We are more interested now - and thank God, perhaps ! - other things."

(what kind "other things" found outside "nature and peace" ?!)

L. Ionin: "Science, it has led itself into a dead end ... Polymundane, or, if you like, polymunition, from my point of view, lies in the fact that this polymunition will appear due to the fact that science will narrow its borders ..."

Host: " And where will a person turn for a panacea then?(fixing my attention on the substitution: "panacea" it’s not science that trades, but completely different departments)

G. Kopylov: " In a variety of sociocultural institutions. BUT scientific activity, as a result, perhaps, it will stop altogether, because the energy that drives the scientist, the energy of the search for truth, will dry up. Vadim Markovich has already spoken about this... As an analogy: 150 years ago, religion was the leading form of social life and understanding. And what happened to her now? She lives in her place. Religious thinkers write books about how religions can live in a secularized world. That is, religion is looking for its forms of existence. And it will be the same with science. There will be their own "priests", their own "temples of science", laboratories like monasteries - in a socially alien world."

L. Ionin: “My version of the answer to the question“ Where to turn? ”is a completely real case. In Moscow there is the Meridian House of Culture. And there was a schedule posted on the notice board: a rock group such and such performs then, a rock group such-and- then it appears then, and in the corner a neat piece of paper: "On Wednesdays and Thursdays at 18.00 - workshops reincarnation" ... There are, after all, religious cultures and all other fundamentalisms. They are a sign new era. Recognition of their legitimacy and legitimacy is a sign of a new era. Not that they are backward, underdeveloped, but they are simply different..."

An interesting contradiction between content and tone: it seems that Mr. "political scientist" defends the rights of religion before science, but with demonstrative disdain: "and all other fundamentalisms..." In fact, there is no contradiction, of course. Priests, like scientists, have a place in a subcultural zoo. In DC, where on Wednesdays and Thursdays "practical training on reincarnation."

So that they do not get under the feet of those who will determine the fate of mankind.

It is even more interesting that only one person (!) from the Areopagus collected by Nezavisimaya Gazeta - professor, doctor of technical sciences Boris Kudrin - dared to object on the merits. Although it can be seen with the naked eye that the eloquent " polymundia" on a half-newspaper based on "givens", all falling down from the same fruitful ceiling.

Why did science fail? What evidence supports this, other than "books where the correlation of modernist and postmodernist ideology takes place"? In what exactly did scientific knowledge turn out to be untenable - and in comparison with what? Astronomy - compared to astrology? Or scientific medicine - with "extrasensory perception"? Or, perhaps, B. Paramonov turned out to be capable of some discoveries, to which D.S. Likhachev? What are these discoveries? That Lermontov is a Jew, and Pushkin is a Chinese?

The ethics of modern liberalism is built on the same wretched model.

Popular in liberal media literary critic Mikhail Zolotonosov formulates her "golden rule" from his, pardon the expression, specialty:

"Novels of a new type began to appear, not biased by either ideology or even traditional ethics, and therefore destroying what used to be called the humanistic tradition ... Completely unbiased writings- neither ideologically nor ethically ... that is, in the exact sense of the word free ... The meaning of the text lies in the text itself. My hypothesis is that as we move deeper into the 21st century, there will be more such works, the truth about a person will be revealed more and more directly, at first it will seem like cynicism, and then people will get used to it."(highlighted by M. Zolotonosov).

It seems to be pretentious nonsense. What " unconventional ethics"? And why "humanistic tradition" in the past time - "formerly named"? And what else could be "the meaning of the text is concluded" how not in the text itself? In wrapping paper, right?

But the gold-nosing idle talk is very distinct "engaged by ideology." "Freedom" and "truth about man" they are located on the other side of good and evil.

I hope readers have already noticed that other characters in this book, in different voices and for different reasons, repeat, in essence, the same formula: "the market system is not characterized by any ethical principles..."; "we will have to leave aside the question of "what is good and what is bad"; "made money, transported drugs? Yes, God knows, I don't care"; "people by themselves are of no interest to anyone" etc. What the staff member of the US propaganda department promotes "Hitler of the artistic breed" and "new Russian freedom" in the person of Stalin, characterizes not only the employee himself and the institution for which he works. This is a natural manifestation of the general "moral ambivalence".

One might say: the idle theorizing of professional chatterboxes does not pose an immediate danger. And "liberal fascism" is just a polemical metaphor.

However, the facts (of which only a small part is collected in this book) indicate something completely different: the position "beyond good and evil"- not just demagogy; it directly determines practical policy.

Liberal is different from "terrible Chekist-Bolshevik in a leather jacket with a Mauser" because "He doesn't shoot personally. He creates the conditions for the mass death of people. Moreover, not his political opponents ... but simply the weakest, those who cannot resist ..."(Alexander Tarasov, highlighted by him).

But if you really want to exercise your hands yourself - this is also not prohibited.

NATO representative Jamie Shea's aphorism about the pilot who shot the convoy of Yugoslav refugees "with the best of intentions, as befits a representative of a democratic country' will someday be included in the history books.

While working on the chapter on drugs, I came across another interesting experience. Enthusiasts so-called. "Methadone therapy" (see Chapter 8) injected test drug addicts during pregnancy with the strongest drug methadone, and then watched what was born. “The effect of maintenance doses of methadone on pregnancy and newborns has been carefully studied. It has been shown that in women whose condition has stabilized, pregnancy proceeds normally while taking maintenance doses of methadone. However, a newborn whose mother takes maintenance doses of methadone may experience opiate withdrawal symptoms However, they are treatable...

Dr. Mengele's experiments continued "with the best intentions, as befits doctors from a democratic country". The results are published. And they did not cause not only a protest - even a slight bewilderment.

1. Political science. encyclopedic Dictionary. M, Publishers, 1993, p. 154.

2. Hayek F.A. Pernicious arrogance. M, News, 1992, p. 137, 116.

3. Ibid., p. 42, 125, 127.

4. Ibid., p. 93-95.

5. Ibid., p. 105, 42.

6. Burke E. Reflections on the Revolution in France. M, Rudomino, 1993, p. 86, 73.

7. Ibid., p. 80, 54.

8. Hayek F. A. Cited. op, p. 128-129, 19.

9. Burke, p. 113 -115

10. Hayek F.A. Cit. op., p. 93.

11. Tarasov A. Superstatism and socialism. - Free Thought, 1996, No. 12, p. 94.

12. Kobrin V.B. Where did we crush the butterfly? - Book Review, 12/22/1989; Who are you dangerous, historian? M, Moscow worker, 1992.

13. Ibid., p. 190.

14. Renan E. Life of Jesus. M, Ed. political literature, 1991, p. 37.

15. If colleagues - natural scientists will add to my list, I will only be glad.

16. Tarasov A. Youth as an object of class experiment. - Svobodnaya thought, 1999, No. 11, p. 40.

17. Gurevich A. Ya. The culture of the Middle Ages and the historian of the late twentieth century. - History of world culture. M, RGGU, " open society", 1998, p.254.

18. Kobrin V.B. Ivan the Terrible. M. Moscow worker, 1989, p. 6.

19. Kobrin V.B. To Whom Are You Dangerous, Historian?, p. 216-218. See also: Smirnov I. Ethics of history in journalistic and popular works of V.B. Kobrin. - Problems national history and culture of the feudal period. Readings in memory of V.B. Kobrin. M, RGGU, 1992, p. twenty.

20. Radzinsky E. Stalin. Vagrius, 1997, p. 83.

21. TVC. The Baghdad Myths of Saddam Hussein. 02/10/2000

22. Mankovskaya N.B. Postmodernism. -Culturology. XX century. Dictionary. University book, 1997, p. 349.

23. Panteleev M.M., Savateev A.D. Modern world. M, MIROS, 1999, p. 243

24. Epstein M. Origins and meaning of Russian postmodernism. - Star, 1996, No. 8, p. 176, 187, 188.

25. Knabe G.S. Fundamentals of the general theory of culture. - History of world culture. M, Russian State Humanitarian University, Open Society, 1998, p. 83.

26. Paramonov B. Postmodernism. End of style. - NG, 01/26/1994.

27. Mankovskaya N.B. Cit. op, p. 348.

28. Epstein M. Cited. op, p. 187.

29. Round table of the application "NG-science" - NG, 16.02.2000.

30. Zolotonosov M. Mercy of the XXI century. - Moscow News, 2000, No. 23.

31. Tarasov A. Very modern story. A feminist is like a stripper. M, Norma, 1999, p. 40.

32. APA official actions. Statement of attitude towards treatment with maintenance doses of methadone. Cit. by: Visnik of the Association of Psychiatrists of Ukraine, 1996, No. 1, p. 27.