Galkovsky hunting lodge of George 5. General synopsis or system of opinions

the concept of “hegemon-subhegemon”, the concept of “crypto-colony”, the concept of “the limit of optics” in the history of the state

Dmitry Evgenievich Galkovsky(born June 4, Moscow) - Russian philosopher, writer and publicist.

Biography

My father was an engineer, my mother was a dressmaker, my ancestors were of clergy. In 1977 he graduated from German special school No. 51. He tried to enter the university four times. Worked at the plant named after. Likhachev as an adjuster of dust collection equipment. He also worked as a laboratory assistant at the Academy of Armored Forces named after. Malinovsky.

In 1980 he entered the evening department of the Faculty of Philosophy of Moscow State University, from which he graduated in 1986. He couldn’t get a job; he made his living by illegally publishing and selling banned literature.

In 1987 he wrote the philosophical novel “Endless Dead End”.

In 1988-1989 he collaborated 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 there 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 Litgazeta, Novy Mir, Continent and other publications. The New World 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 participated in commercial projects.

After a series of polemical articles in 1992-1993 (“Underground”, “The Broken Compass Shows the Way”, “Eliminating the Shortcoming”, “Stuchkin’s Children”), he refused to cooperate with the Russian (in his terminology, “Soviet”) press, accusing it of persecuting his creativity.

A certain number of texts have been written about me as a writer, usually in all kinds of textbooks and scientific aids. And there two “problems” are constantly being solved: am I a postmodernist or not, and which direction of postmodernism do I belong to. What does it matter? This is “neither mind nor heart” nonsense.

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 and then the Russian Federation all his life. Despite his obvious literary abilities, he has still not been able to publish a single book of his. Gained fame thanks to the Internet. However, a systematic campaign is being waged against Galkovsky on the Internet, portraying 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, and the chairman of the bloggers club.”

Characteristics of creativity

Galkovsky’s philosophical, journalistic and artistic prose is characterized by the aesthetics of the fragment, the ironic play on “someone else’s word” (in many ways, these features go back to V.V. Rozanov, one of the central characters of “Endless Dead End”). The surrounding world is contrasted with a vulnerable, but at the same time omniscient “I” relating to it with irony (“Odinokov” in “Endless Dead End”, “Galkovsky” and “Dmitry Evgenievich” of later texts), the image of the father is also important for Galkovsky’s world. Galkovsky’s philosophy is largely “metaphilosophy”; an important role in it is played by the understanding of the philosophizing of previous eras, especially Russian religious philosophy; he treats the philosophizing of the Soviet era with constant contempt.

The style of Galkovsky’s later works is characterized by a number of constant metaphors and images (“octopuses”, “mushrooms”, “aliens” - crypto-colonialists; “Jewish Murzilkas” - anonymous in LiveJournal, “spread out on the tatami” - a favorite pastime of the Soviet secret services). Since the mid-1990s, Galkovsky has been interested in online computer games and the Internet in general. The novel “Endless Dead End” was constructed as a hypertext long before the era of information technology.

Historical theories of Galkovsky

Galkovsky's historical concept briefly boils down to the following. The Russian Empire is an enlightened, strong state, a representative of the European principle. The reason for its crisis and death lies, firstly, in the incomplete subordination of the Asian elements (peasantry and “gypsyism”) by European civilization; secondly, in the activities of Great Britain, whose secret services used hostile social, ethnic and religious groups (Asian minorities, including Jews, Old Believers, uneducated lower strata, etc.) to undermine the government and army in Russia and destroy the Russian state. 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. Dmitry Galkovsky lists, in addition to the countries of the British Commonwealth, as crypto-colonies of Great Britain, many other states, including the Soviet Union and post-Soviet countries. There are only three “full-fledged” players left since the Second World War: in addition to the sub-hegemon of Great Britain, this is the world hegemon of the USA, and France , which, due to the sophistication of its elite, managed to maintain political capital and complete independence even after the defeat and German occupation. The political status of all other states in the world varies from “junior ally” to “colony”.

Galkovsky treats the Soviet system (both “Leninist-cosmopolitan” and “Stalinist-nationalist” model) and the KGB as a combination of “Asian” and “peasant” elements with contempt: he views Soviet philosophers, scientists, and writers mainly as charlatans. The last chance to return to the times of the Russian Empire was, according to Galkovsky, missed with the collapse of the Soviet Union; now the Russian nation has finally degenerated into a new entity that has no more in common with the pre-revolutionary one than Latin Americans have with the Spaniards; The current system in Russia is also similar to Latin America.

Galkovsky also considers it possible for a 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, he considers the works of the Church Fathers and information about Viking voyages to be fabricated; considers the discovery of birch bark documents to be scientifically untenable. Galkovsky considers the 15th century to be “the limit of optics,” that is, more or less reliable modern European history. With all this, he, in general terms, recognizes the reliability 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 e. according to the 5th century n. e., and the question of continuity between Renaissance Europe and late Rome. Separately, we should consider the gradual transformation of the Eastern Roman Empire into the Ottoman Empire - the “combat” history of the Ottomans, including the siege and capture of Constantinople, is a lie.

Theoretically, Galkovsky’s historical concept was formulated by him in several postulates: .

• When a 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 polis.
• As soon as the right diplomatic relations are formed, a world community arises with a rigid hegemon-subhegemon opposition.
• The hegemon defines the historical era and creates the dominant historical concept of his time.
• The story of a defeated hegemon is always an evil caricature.
• Democracy is a natural and therefore the most ancient state of human society.
• The fantastic level of church history is 100%.
• Any state history is automatically aimed at maximum aging, maximum increase in 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 demagogy as a disguise.

Characteristics of world wars

• The First World War is a “primitive military conflict.”
• The Second World War was, first of all, an ideological war.
• The Third World War was an almost bloodless war of human-built mechanisms.
• The fourth world war is a war of computer programs.

Sub-hegemonic concept

Galkovsky is the author of the “sub-hegemonic concept”. According to this concept, in geopolitics, along with a clear hegemon dominating on a global scale, there is the so-called. “sub-hegemon” is a state entity that is next in power to the hegemon, inevitably conflicts with it in all aspects and strives to take its place.

Hegemon-subhegemon table illustrating the concept:

At the moment, out of 193 countries in the world, only three countries pursue a completely independent policy - the USA, Great Britain and France. The status of the remaining countries varies from "junior ally" to colony. The Federal Republic of Germany has a special status, as it is the arena of struggle between the three powers. The economic development or military power of a state actually has little effect on its status - for example, Japan is a crypto-colony of the United States, and huge China is a crypto-colony of Great Britain.

Criticism

Galkovsky's work received a lot of critical attention in the 1990-2000s; reviewers, not agreeing with the writer on everything, as a rule, assessed his work as an outstanding phenomenon. Thus, the editor-in-chief of “New World” Andrei Vasilevsky, in a review of the “Basic Text” of “Endless Dead End”, notes that “Endless Dead End” (“notes”) is “one of the most significant (I won’t say the best) books written in Russian language in the 80s,” “not a cultural monument, but rather a kind of natural phenomenon,” notes Galkovsky’s ability to “create his own special, almost magical “Galkovsky” space (something akin to Tolkien’s Middle-earth), within which Galkovsky turned out to be completely invulnerable.” . Vasilevsky considers the publication of the “main text” not as successful as the previously published text of “Endless Deadlock”.

In a review of “The Broken Compass,” a critic of “Znamya” sees “no small cultural evidence of our time,” “the private enterprise of an honest man,” supports Galkovsky’s positive program, but criticizes him for “a well-developed and thoughtful method of literary provocation.”

Main works

Literature

Notes

Links

Electronic texts

• WIG Galkowsky - integral archive of Galkovsky's texts

Biography

The philosopher's grandfather is an honorary citizen of Odessa, and his grandmother is a housewife. [ ] Father is a design engineer, mother is an outerwear tailor and fashion designer. Sister - editor, legal adviser. The ancestors were of spiritual rank. In 1977 he graduated from school with in-depth study of the German language No. 51. He worked at the plant named after. Likhachev in the same workshop with Leonid Yakubovich. He also worked as a laboratory assistant at the Academy of Armored Forces named after. Malinovsky.

In 1980 he entered the evening department of the Faculty of Philosophy of Moscow State University, from which he graduated in 1986. He couldn’t get a job; he made his living by illegally publishing and selling banned literature.

In 1987 he wrote the philosophical novel “Endless Dead End”.

In 1988-1989 he collaborated 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”, and in 1991 helped publish a fragment of “The Endless Dead End” in the magazine “Soviet Literature”.

Other fragments in 1991-1992 were published in Literary Gazette, Novy Mir, Continent and other publications. The New World 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 participated in commercial projects.

After a series of polemical articles in 1992-1993 (“Underground”, “The Broken Compass Shows the Way”, “Eliminating the 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 Openspace, in which more than 40 thousand votes were cast, Galkovsky took 12th place among the most influential intellectuals in Russia.

On May 5, 2018, Galkovsky began running his own YouTube channel, through which he popularizes ideas already expressed earlier in his LiveJournal, as well as new ones.

A certain number of texts have been written about me as a writer, usually in all kinds of textbooks and scientific aids. And there two “problems” are constantly being solved: am I a postmodernist or not, and which direction of postmodernism do I belong to. What does it matter? This is “neither mind nor heart” nonsense.

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 and then the Russian Federation all his life. Despite his obvious literary abilities, he has still not been able to publish a single book of his. Gained fame thanks to the Internet. However, a systematic campaign is being waged against Galkovsky on the Internet, portraying 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, and the chairman of the bloggers club.”

Family

Wife Galkovskaya Natalya Vyacheslavovna, three sons - Georgy, Gennady (10/5/2015) and Denis (09/2/2018), .

Characteristics of creativity

Galkovsky’s philosophical, journalistic and artistic prose is characterized by the aesthetics of the fragment, the ironic play on “someone else’s word” (in many ways, these features go back to V.V. Rozanov, one of the central characters of “Endless Dead End”). The surrounding world is contrasted with a vulnerable, but at the same time omniscient “I” relating to it with irony (“Odinokov” in “Endless Dead End”, “Galkovsky” and “Dmitry Evgenievich” of later texts), the image of the father is also important for Galkovsky’s world. Galkovsky’s philosophy is largely “metaphilosophy”; an important role in it is played by the understanding of the philosophizing of previous eras, especially Russian religious philosophy; he treats the philosophizing of the Soviet era with constant contempt.

The style of Galkovsky’s later works is characterized by a number of constant metaphors and images (“octopuses”, “mushrooms”, “aliens” - crypto-colonialists; “Jewish Murzilkas” - anonymous in LiveJournal, “spread out on the tatami” - a favorite pastime of the Soviet secret services). Since the mid-1990s, Galkovsky has been interested in online computer games and the Internet in general. The novel “Endless Dead End” was constructed as a hypertext long before the era of information technology.

Historical theories of Galkovsky

You are not a slave!
Closed educational course for children of the elite: "The true arrangement of the world."
http://noslave.org

Material from Wikipedia - the free encyclopedia

Dmitry Evgenievich Galkovsky(born June 4, Moscow) - Russian philosopher, writer and publicist.

Biography

My father was an engineer, my mother was a dressmaker, my ancestors were of clergy. In 1977 he graduated from German special school No. 51. He tried to enter the university four times. Worked at the plant named after. Likhachev in the same workshop with Leonid Yakubovich. He also worked as a laboratory assistant at the Academy of Armored Forces named after. Malinovsky.

In 1980 he entered the evening department of the Faculty of Philosophy of Moscow State University, from which he graduated in 1986. He couldn’t get a job; he made his living by illegally publishing and selling banned literature.

In 1987 he wrote the philosophical novel “Endless Dead End”.

In 1988-1989 he collaborated 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 there a year later with a scandal), and in 1991 helped publish a fragment of “Endless Deadlock” in the magazine “Soviet Literature”.

Other fragments in 1991-1992 were published in Literary Gazette, Novy Mir, Continent and other publications. The New World 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 participated in commercial projects.

After a series of polemical articles in 1992-1993 (“Underground”, “The Broken Compass Shows the Way”, “Eliminating the Shortcoming”, “Stuchkin’s Children”), he refused to cooperate with the Russian (in his terminology, “Soviet”) press, accusing it of persecuting his creativity.

A certain number of texts have been written about me as a writer, usually in all kinds of textbooks and scientific aids. And there two “problems” are constantly being solved: am I a postmodernist or not, and which direction of postmodernism do I belong to. What does it matter? This is “neither mind nor heart” nonsense.

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 and then the Russian Federation all his life. Despite his obvious literary abilities, he has still not been able to publish a single book of his. Gained fame thanks to the Internet. However, a systematic campaign is being waged against Galkovsky on the Internet, portraying 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, and the chairman of the bloggers club.”

Family

Wife Galkovskaya Natalya Vyacheslavovna, two sons - Georgy and Gennady (10/5/2015).

Characteristics of creativity

Galkovsky’s philosophical, journalistic and artistic prose is characterized by the aesthetics of the fragment, the ironic play on “someone else’s word” (in many ways, these features go back to V.V. Rozanov, one of the central characters of “Endless Dead End”). The surrounding world is contrasted with a vulnerable, but at the same time omniscient “I” relating to it with irony (“Odinokov” in “Endless Dead End”, “Galkovsky” and “Dmitry Evgenievich” of later texts), the image of the father is also important for Galkovsky’s world. Galkovsky’s philosophy is largely “metaphilosophy”; an important role in it is played by the understanding of the philosophizing of previous eras, especially Russian religious philosophy; he treats the philosophizing of the Soviet era with constant contempt.

The style of Galkovsky’s later works is characterized by a number of constant metaphors and images (“octopuses”, “mushrooms”, “aliens” - crypto-colonialists; “Jewish Murzilkas” - anonymous in LiveJournal, “spread out on the tatami” - a favorite pastime of the Soviet secret services). Since the mid-1990s, Galkovsky has been interested in online computer games and the Internet in general. The novel “Endless Dead End” was constructed as a hypertext long before the era of information technology.

Historical theories of Galkovsky

Galkovsky's historical concept briefly boils down to the following. The Russian Empire is an enlightened, strong state, a representative of the European principle. The reason for its crisis and death lies, firstly, in the incomplete subordination of the Asian elements (peasantry and “gypsyism”) by European civilization; 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 the government and 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. Dmitry Galkovsky lists, in addition to the countries of the British Commonwealth, as cryptocolonies of Great Britain, many other states, including the Soviet Union and post-Soviet countries. There are only three “full-fledged” players left 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 German occupation. The political status of all other states in the world varies from “junior ally” to “colony”.

Galkovsky treats the Soviet system (both “Leninist-cosmopolitan” and “Stalinist-nationalist” model) and the KGB as a combination of “Asian” and “peasant” elements with contempt: he views Soviet philosophers, scientists, and writers mainly as charlatans. The last chance to return to the times of the Russian Empire was, according to Galkovsky, missed with the collapse of the Soviet Union; now the Russian nation has finally degenerated into a new entity that has no more in common with the pre-revolutionary one than Latin Americans have with the Spaniards; The current system in Russia is also similar to Latin America.

Galkovsky also considers it possible for a 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, he considers the works of the Church Fathers and information about Viking voyages to be fabricated; considers the discovery of birch bark documents to be scientifically untenable. Galkovsky considers the 15th century to be “the limit of optics,” that is, more or less reliable modern European history. With all this, he, in general terms, recognizes the reliability 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 e. according to the 5th century n. e., and the question of continuity between Renaissance Europe and late Rome. Separately, we should consider the gradual transformation of the Eastern Roman Empire into the Ottoman Empire - the “combat” history of the Ottomans, including the siege and capture of Constantinople, is a lie.

Theoretically, Galkovsky’s historical concept was formulated by him in several postulates: .

• When a 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 polis.
• As soon as the right diplomatic relations are formed, a world community arises with a rigid hegemon-subhegemon opposition.
• The hegemon defines the historical era and creates the dominant historical concept of his time.
• The story of a defeated hegemon is always an evil caricature.
• Democracy is a natural and therefore the most ancient state of human society.
• The fantastic level of church history is 100%.
• Any state history is automatically aimed at maximum aging, maximum increase in 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 demagogy as a disguise.

Characteristics of world wars

• The First World War is a “primitive military conflict.”
• The Second World War was, first of all, an ideological war.
• The Third World War was an almost bloodless war of human-built mechanisms.
• The fourth world war is a war of computer programs.

Sub-hegemonic concept

Galkovsky is the author of the “sub-hegemonic concept”. According to this concept, in geopolitics, along with a clear hegemon dominating on a global scale, there is the so-called. “sub-hegemon” is a state entity that is next in power to the hegemon, inevitably conflicts with it in all aspects and strives to take its place.

Hegemon-subhegemon table illustrating the concept:

At the moment, out of 193 countries in the world, only three countries pursue a completely independent policy - the USA, Great Britain and France. The status of the remaining countries varies from "junior ally" to colony. The Federal Republic of Germany has a special status, as it is the arena of struggle between the three powers. The economic development or military power of a state actually has little effect on its status - for example, Japan is a crypto-colony of the United States, and huge China is a crypto-colony of Great Britain. Since 1917, the USSR has been a crypto-colony of Great Britain, and since 1991. Russian Federation and CIS countries.

Criticism

Galkovsky's work received a lot of critical attention in the 1990-2000s; reviewers, not agreeing with the writer on everything, as a rule, assessed his work as an outstanding phenomenon. Thus, the editor-in-chief of “New World” Andrei Vasilevsky, in a review of the “Basic Text” of “Endless Dead End”, notes that “Endless Dead End” (“notes”) is “one of the most significant (I won’t say the best) books written in Russian language in the 80s,” “not a cultural monument, but rather a kind of natural phenomenon,” notes Galkovsky’s ability to “create his own special, almost magical “Galkovsky” space (something akin to Tolkien’s Middle-earth), within which Galkovsky turned out to be completely invulnerable.” . Vasilevsky considers the publication of the “main text” not as successful as the previously published text of “Endless Deadlock”.

In a review of “The Broken Compass,” a critic of “Znamya” sees “no small cultural evidence of our time,” “the private enterprise of an honest man,” supports Galkovsky’s positive program, but criticizes him for “a well-developed and thoughtful method of literary provocation.”

Main works

Write a review of the article "Galkovsky, Dmitry Evgenievich"

Literature

Notes

Links

• LJ-author - Dmitry Galkovsky in LiveJournal
• - server by Dmitry Galkovsky
• - old website of Dmitry Galkovsky Publishing House
• - new website of Dmitry Galkovsky Publishing House
• - site about the work of Dmitry Galkovsky
• - quotes from the works of Dmitry Galkovsky on the social network VKontakte.

Electronic texts

• - integral archive of Galkovsky’s texts (up to ZhZh900)

Reviews

Interview

Radio appearances

An excerpt characterizing Galkovsky, Dmitry Evgenievich

War has been pushed beyond the boundaries of the civilized world. There is interest, but there is no opportunity to wage a war between America against England, Japan against America, and Germany against Poland. There will be no war. There will be an enchanting kaleidoscope of seemingly senseless, but surprisingly well-planned terrorist attacks that will hit the nerve plexuses of the leading countries of the world. Accurate, extremely effective, with a relatively small number of casualties. The authors of the actions will be declared to be races and countries located outside the “zone of eternal peace.” The average person will not even understand what is happening. He no longer understands: either he is made a participant in the Hollywood show “911”, or he is driven around Manhattan after a rolling blackout, which seems to be not a blackout, but a training exercise, then the know-how of a blackout-training in the skillful hands of London police officers smoothly turns into a series well-planned explosions.

This is another surprise of post-nuclear war. The highly specialized actions of the headquarters are not perceived by the population as something meaningful. The puzzle does not fit, the average person sees only a television picture of “disasters” happening here and there, perpetrated by anonymous or semi-anonymous villains. The fighting goes perpendicular to the flow of life and is not noticed by the population outside its 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 seismological specialists.

()

The world created by Galkovsky.

Hurray, comrades, attack! What was especially touching was “ready for military conscription.” :)

And then we still wonder where the crazy “zadumovs” and other sword swallowers come from. Some justification for Duckling is a nice foreign bank account and a basement bomb shelter in Iceland, i.e. Uncle is clearly not crazy when he recommends to people a nuclear war for Putin. You must answer for insults. Yeah.

December 10th, 2013

User humbert_2 posted allegedly written by Natalia Galkovskaya's first husband, the duckling Kalenik, "

Original taken from galkovsky in 915. PIROS MANISHVILI

Grigory Chkhartishvili receives the Japanese Order of the Rising Sun. For your great contribution. Chkhartishvili’s literary pseudonym, Akunin, according to him, is derived from the Japanese word “aku” - bastard.
At the beginning of the 20th century, the Polish-Georgian “stole this and that” brothers Zdanevich (“Do you want me to show you your ass? – no! – I’ll still show you”) came up with Georgian primitivism in the form of the magically acquired artist Pirosmanishvili. Who either did not exist at all, or was an ordinary homeless person, and onto the frame of whose biography (reduced to elementary existence) the romantic legend of the “Georgian Henri Rousseau” was built up.

The idea was received with a bang, because for primitivism as such, as well as its derivatives (Dadaism, etc.), mystification was a completely acceptable practice, in some places becoming mandatory. And of course, Pirosmanishvili became one of the pillars of Georgian culture, in turn, according to national traditions, prone to buffoonery and hoaxes.

Pirosmani on the Georgian banknote.
Meanwhile, there is a big difference between the Parsuns Henri Rousseau and Pirosmanishvili. Henri Rousseau was truly a primitivist artist, that is, he painted as best he could, trying to depict artistic reality as believably and as beautifully as possible (from his point of view). With some verbal balancing act, this could be passed off as spontaneity and “the mouth of a baby.” This is not the Zdanevich project. The paintings were painted “primitively”, with a deliberate violation of proportions. Since Asians painted, no protection from possible criticism occurred to them. Therefore, their primitivism was also quite successful, but not at all like the primitivism of fine art, but as the primitivism of counterfeiting and following a template.

Painting by Henri Rousseau. A man honestly tries to draw, but it doesn’t work out very well.

Painting by Pirosmanishvili (depicting, ha-ha, one of the Zdanevichs). A true primitivist would never draw his right hand with such an obvious disproportion, because his goal is to draw correctly and beautifully. Like in photographs, from which figures were often copied. In addition, the landscape behind was painted by a person holding a brush.
The paintings of Henri Rousseau were initially exhibited on the line, shot through by sarcastic critics, and these paintings were defended by literary pens, calculating in advance both the lines of defense and possible counterattacks. The outrage was only the seed of a long European conversation.

Not so Georgia. There the pictures were drawn with the expectation of absolute delight and did not provide for any criticism at all. Even critics of their authenticity. The very fact of the existence of an oriental masterpiece was absolute proof of its genius.

This is the main difference between Eastern culture and Western culture. Eastern culture is fundamentally not designed for dialogue and even the simplest and most naive argument crumbles to the ground. Because the very possibility of resistance does not even occur to the author. Western war is maneuvers, defense and offensive. The Eastern War is a massacre. When on one side there are bashi-bazouks wielding scimitars, and on the other there are unarmed old people and children. Therefore, the war between the West and the East usually turns into a massacre of Asians.

An excellent example of the “Georgian train of thought” is today’s polemics of the great Caucasian scientist Chkhartishvili. Chkhartishvili attacks the Russian Tsar Nicholas II with no less than philippics (see.)

Which, in general, is commonplace to the point of banality. But in this case I’m not talking about the banality of the content, but about the banality of the form. Chkhartishvili fundamentally believes half a step ahead and cannot even imagine that one of the white devils would dare to refute or even ridicule his verdicts. “Patamushta I’m talking like that!”

Since, due to Asian naivety, Chkhartishvili gave a representative selection of cliched nonsense about the “crowned monster”, it is through the example of polemics with his theses that it is easy to show all the far-fetchedness and absurdity of Nicholas’s many decades of watering.

Let me briefly go through the thoughts of the annealing Manishvili:

“Today is a sad anniversary. Exactly 120 years ago, the ruler of Russia became the man who dropped the country into a black hole. There he stands on the left in the corner, so inconspicuous - a little officer who determined the fate of our great-grandfathers, grandfathers, parents, and, in fact, ours too.”

To be honest, I didn’t find the “little officer in the left corner,” but that’s not the point. We are talking about Chkhartishvili’s speech. If the “little man” dropped the country into a hole (apparently a toilet), then this country is very small. Since a Georgian plays the panduri, a strong association is created that the country the Poet is talking about is not Russia, but Georgia.

The squeal continues:

“The formula of this contradictory character, which largely decided the fate of the twentieth century, is a combination of complexes, weak character and stubbornness. For a ruler, this is an explosive mixture. When he ascended the throne, the first thing he did was to announce that society should not indulge in “meaningless dreams”: everything would remain as it was under the unforgettable parent.”

There were no “meaningless dreams”. This is a very, very stupid and very, very old trick of the confrontational under-intelligentsia of the Russian Empire. Alexander III died suddenly, 49 years old. Before this, it was believed that the strongman Alexander had excellent health. Nicholas ascended the throne as a very young man, at the age of 26, unexpectedly. Naturally, in such a situation the question of succession of power arose. And to emphasize that the reins of power were in strong hands, in front of convened representatives of the nobility and public organizations, the young tsar (who had been on the throne for only two months and had not yet been coronated) made a statement that the form of government in Russia remained unchanged. At the same time, the inexperienced Nikolai (this was his first public statement) read the word “pipe” (or “groundless”) as “meaningless dreams of changing the system.”

So what? How many people make mistakes, especially in the first hundred days of their reign? Obama, there, “caught a fly” and nothing. WHY THEY CRY? To adults even after a hundred years. NOT ASHAMED?

And the specific political practice of Nicholas II shows that already at the end of the 19th century his reign was marked by steps towards political liberalization, which continued even after the start of the Russo-Japanese War. Liberalization was thwarted by malicious inspiration from the enemies of Russia, but since it was the main direction, a moderate constitutional system was still formed in Russia, headed by a moderate and far-sighted monarch, who ultimately led DEMOCRATIC Russia to victory in the world war. At the same time, it was clear that democratic freedoms would increase even more after the end of the war. This was indicated by the very nature of power in 1914-1916, when, despite martial law and obvious opposition, parliament was not dissolved).

Chkhartishvili describes the emergence of the constitutional monarchy in Russia with broad strokes of a paint brush:

“But as with an unforgettable parent, it didn’t work out in the new century. Everything creaked, wobbled and crumbled. It was scary. Selfless advisers came up with the idea of ​​a small victorious war. The war turned out to be rather large and invincible, and led to a revolution. The ruler got scared and issued a manifesto with freedoms. There were few freedoms, society wanted more and began to no longer ask, but demand. The ruler got scared - he dispersed parliament and introduced a regime of military-police dictatorship. He was afraid of a war with “Cousin Willie” - and yet he got involved in it. He didn’t know how to command, but declared himself the supreme commander in chief.”

This is a win-win lottery. The cowardly despot started the war out of cowardice. Then, out of cowardice, parliament allowed it. Out of cowardice I dispersed him. Then, out of fear, he started a world war and, (drum roll), frightened by serious military failures, took the post of supreme commander in chief.

This way you can “prove” anything. In general, they prove it.

Hey, Kohl, let me have some ice cream!

What, you chickened out, you freak?

On the! (Fist to cheekbone.)

- (From around the corner.) What, fight? Coward!

A crazy dervish twists the rim of a barrel with a rusty poker:

“The price of throwing has been increasing all the time. Fifty thousand killed in the war with Japan. One and a half million killed in the war with Germany. Between five and thirteen million died in the civil war—historians can’t count them. And those millions who perished during the repressions and wars of the second quarter of the century are also indirect victims of the ruler, who one hundred and twenty years ago took up the tug and turned out to be quite a bitch.”

Why stop? How many tricks did Nikolai play during the Second World War? What about perestroika? It's his doing. Not Georgian.

The main thing is that Nikolai did harm with a riddle. While I was at the helm, it was on the sly and unnoticed. It even seemed like everything was fine. The economy grew, prosperity, culture developed, and parliament again. And when the fool was removed from the helm, everything fell apart within a year. Who is guilty? Nicholas and the consequences of his reign. As they joked during the stagnation:

Nikolashka is a scoundrel - he ruled for 23 years, but did not prepare food for the Soviet regime.

But this is not enough. What follows next from Chkhartishvili is an incredibly funny thing. The fact is that Georgia belongs to the Eurasian area. On the one hand, this is clearly a state of the Middle East, on the other, a country bordering Europe and inhabited by representatives of the Mediterranean race, who also profess Christianity. Therefore, Georgians have Mamardashvili’s grasp, which, combined with Mamardashvili’s penchant for acting, constantly leads to the creation of imitations of Western dialogue and Western culture. And a significant part of the Georgian intelligentsia consists of Georgian-European mestizos - like the Zdanevichis, or the same Chkhartishvili.

Therefore, the Georgian understands that for gloss and brilliance, there must be dialectics in his reasoning. Suddenly the shrill watering stops, panduri changes to chonguri and the “sincereness” begins:

“The most offensive thing is that the person seemed to be not bad: decent, hardworking, delicate, charming. An ideal husband - loving, faithful, gentle, reliable: A wonderful father: A good, cheerful comrade: Moreover - a great rarity for the monarchs of the Holstein-Gottorp-Romanov dynasty - he is also unostentatiously modest. One “George” on the chest, a simple tunic with colonel’s shoulder straps.

Of course, the sincerity ends in the end, because even from such dialectics the Asian skull is bursting at the seams, and Chkhartishvili makes a final verdict on the spiritual qualities of the damned European:

“Nikolai seemed to feel his ceiling: at most he would make an excellent regimental commander. Servant to the king, father to the soldiers. But a man of colonel’s stature cannot be an autocratic ruler of a huge country, especially in modern times.”

Meanwhile, “historian” Chkhartishvili should be clear that “a simple jacket” and a “simple overcoat” are a standard move for the leader of a militaristic state. Just look at how Stalin, Hitler, Churchill, Napoleon, Mao Zedong, etc. dressed.

In addition, the historian should know - this is not God knows what a secret - that Nicholas, so to speak, by virtue of his position had a heap of top ranks in the largest states of the world. For example, he was a field marshal in the British army.

Kaiser Wilhelm with our fool. Lord! And how shameful is it not for the German Majesty to stand with such an idiot! It's a shame. And he was glad, he also put on a German uniform. They gave it to the colonel out of pity - to vilify him. Ohohonyushki!

And finally, about the “Colonel”. Nikolai was a colonel of the Preobrazhensky regiment. The Preobrazhensky Regiment was a Life Guard (that is, a Guard of the Guard). Peter I took the rank of colonel of this regiment in 1706, and the second person in the state, Menshikov, became a lieutenant colonel. In reality, the regiment was commanded by the second lieutenant colonel. From that time on, the Russian emperors were considered as members of the officer community of this military unit:

Gentlemen, officers, being the All-Russian Emperor, I also have a part in belonging to your class.

– What regiment do you serve in, Your Majesty?

In Preobrazhenskoe.

Of course, Nicholas II was not a “colonel” (or, rather, a junior general, since the ranks were higher in the guard) of the Preobrazhensky Regiment from the point of view of the official ladder. He was the CHEF of this regiment, like all Russian emperors.

From the same opera are hypocritical laments about a “wonderful family man.” Nicholas II was not a wonderful family man. Family was a top priority for him. Yes, by temperament, he didn’t run around Copenhagen naked on all fours, like one of his august relatives. But he immediately isolated his wife from participation in political life, and raised his son in strictness - as the heir to the throne. Both were the dynastic standard in Russia and throughout the world at that time. The tsar could not see Alexandra Fedorovna for six months and not even talk on the phone (under the pretext that he did not like this type of communication). He wrote letters - polite and sweet, in English. Letters from a 40-50 year old man in excellent physical shape to his not very healthy and prematurely aged 40-50 year old wife. “Dear, unforgettable Alix. Has our youngest gone away from influenza? I think about you all the time, God willing, at the end of winter I will come and hug you. I miss you incredibly.”

At the beginning of the century, Georgian, Armenian and Jewish Young Turks shed tears about the “wonderful family man” for a very simple reason. Firstly, for an Asian man who is used to humiliating women, beating him with a stick, smearing churek on his face and shaving his head, the one who treats his wife with respect is not a man. Secondly, an essential element of the tales of the Turkish dervishes about the Shaitan King were horror stories about a German queen (like all Hessians, who hated the Second Reich and was raised in England), as well as about a crazy nymphomaniac and her hypnotist fucker (no comments).

And the henpecked king fulfilled all her whims. Until the adoption of Alexei, Rasputin’s son.

Let us return, however, to the dervish and the poker:

“When you ask the question: who is most to blame for the fact that Russia did not stay on the road, but went downhill, the answer seems obvious to me. Of course, the one who was driving and lost control.”

Right. But only in the case of Nikolai (when there was no slope, but on the contrary - a triumph). But, for example, with Kerensky this is not true. Is it his fault that he screwed up? No - Nikolai is to blame. Or Lenin's reign. Nikolai is to blame. And the great Stalin? All my life I struggled with the consequences of Nicholas’s reign; all the mistakes and shortcomings of Stalinism came from the Russian Tsar.

And so on. This is Georgian logic and it is understandable. It's never the Asian's fault. The Europeans around him are to blame, and above all the smartest and most decent ones. With what? Because they exist. If they died, it was because they had the audacity to be. Apart from the will of His Asian Majesty. And the Asian himself - SMART!

But Nikolai, according to Chkhartishvili, is not just guilty, he is doubly guilty:

“He is doubly guilty because he tightly clung to power and did not share it with anyone: neither with the liberal Witte, nor with the sovereign Stolypin, nor with the Duma. Because they are just people, and he is God’s Anointed, and where there is not enough intelligence, Providence will save.”

That white man might stutter:

How is that possible, what about the Duma and the elections, how about a double amnesty for revolutionaries?

But when he sees who is standing in front of him, he will not stutter.

And the dervish on a tricycle rolls further into eternity:

“Thrice guilty, because the Small World, the world of the family, at critical moments turned out to be more important to him than the Big World, and what the hell are you, an anointed one, if your wife and children are more important to you than your subjects? Why would Providence help you like this? As a result, he destroyed the Big World and did not save the Small One.”

Well, at this point people will give up and go about their business.

And Zuda-Eroshka recites from a pulpit made of pressed dung:

“Does his fate evoke compassion? Certainly. Yes, I feel sorry for him, he’s struck by the damask steel, he’s sleeping in the damp ground. But I feel even more sorry for everyone who sleeps in damp ground because of his complexes, weak character and stubbornness. Their names - the vast majority - as they said before, You, Lord, weigh. So I told you who is most to blame - from my point of view. I know that many assess the historical role of the last king differently and will not agree with me. However, let’s check now. And yes, here’s one more thing, otherwise I already have a premonition of where the discussion will turn. These are not thick hints about the current colonel-autocrat. When I want to speak about Putin, I usually do it in plain text. My text is about Nicholas II, let’s talk about him.”

Yes, the discussion will take a different turn. Shouldn't we give the venerable Asian a kick towards his native Tiflis? For the Japanese order to jump ten meters. Tired of it. For a hundred years - VERY!