Dmitry Bykov. Bykov-Quickly: View-49

Two hundred years instead

A conversation about the collection of thirty -year -old poetry was launched , but under the curtain of the year the event happened much more significant: Alexander Solzhenitsyn published the second volume of his study "Two hundred years together." It became clear why it was running. As much as I can judge by the press, spears do not break yet: the people either carefully read the five -part book, or is in shock. And then to say: an adequate reaction to it is almost impossible. You will begin to protect the Jews - you immediately confess to your own Jewry, and even malicious, malicious, false, distorting, and so on. And to approve the Solzhenitsyn work, with its very obvious addiction and very specific conclusions, is also somehow not that. For most liberals (except the most rabid), Solzhenitsyn remains a shrine.

Pavel Basinsky was already delighted . You can, of course, ask - why am I in the second quikle in a row I pay attention to Basinsky? Is he a serious critic? Or is it so smart and accurate? Or is the " Literary Gazeta " - in fact, the mouthpiece of living, active and talented writers? No, no, and not again. However, what he writes is always symptomatic, because there is such a breed of people (thanks to these martyrs) who can not hide anything. What is happening inside, they have clearly, like Pavlov’s dog, in which a hole has been made to control its digestion. So, Basinsky was louder than others. He stated that no book can undermine Solzhenitsyn's authority. Firstly, he hurried with this statement, and secondly, he was too openly talked.

Our soils, of course, have long wanted the Jews to scold someone unconditionally authoritative. Someone whose authority cannot be blown up. Not a schizophrenic Klimov, not mediocre Lichutin, not an Esoteric-Emural and not a sectarian fanatic, but a person with world fame and impeccable past. Even Shafarevich did not pull - humanities cannot appreciate all his mathematical genius. Now they seemed to wait. In defense of the Russian Xenophobic soilism, a man spoke out, whose authority, according to modern Slavophiles, no longer undermine. And here they were really mistaken radically.

Our time, in many respects, is disgusting, well alone: ​​much begins to be damp, much has to be done from scratch, including reputation. Everything was degraded, everything is swept away by a powerful hurricane, and you can express some seditious thoughts that would cause thunder and lightning on the head of a careless speaker yesterday. So: we risk saying that large Russian writers were mostly stupid people, and there is nothing wrong with that - at least this did not affect the quality of their artistic texts.

I emphasize: we are talking about prose writers. Gumilyov, not in vain, called the poets "the smartest people on earth" and assured that any, even a mediocre poet would control the power better than the most sophisticated politician. Poetry - although it "must be, sorry, sorry, stupid," - in fact, it somehow has a beneficial effect on the mind: perhaps a kind of combinatorics, the need from a thousand verbal combinations, play a role here to choose the laconicable and harmonious. The smartest man of Russia (which Nikolai recognized) was Pushkin ; Lermontov’s mind and the brilliant intuition of the block , already in the eighteenth year, realized that Bolshevism is not so much anarchist as monarchical, is amazing. Tsvetaeva and Mandelstam were unusually smart, whose poetic work is much more accurate and thinner than that in the twentieth century professional poems wrote in the twentieth century. In short, we were lucky to smart poets, but strain with smart prose writers.

Gogol’s book “Selected places from correspondence with friends” amazes precisely with stupidity: a person who wrote “terrible revenge” to a twenty -three -year -old youth carries such an outright and, most importantly, funny nonsense about the benefits of public reading of Russian poets, that the public was not in vain for his book as a direct mockery, an unstable and insulting rally. As soon as the prose writer is taken to theoretize - write is gone: Dostoevsky is brilliant when he speaks of psychology, but it is worth him to touch on geopolitics, government or Istanbul - bring the saints. Tolstoy is the most striking example: in the “war and the world” there are still sound thoughts, which, however, mostly have Schopenhauer, - and in “Anna Karenina”, thank God, and there are no copyright philosophical retreats at all, but all his land theories, his pedagogical magazine “Yasnaya Polyana”, the article “To whom to learn from us: peasant children with us for peasants. Or we have peasant guys ”, his gospel, from which a miracle is emasculated, and the eastern realities are replaced by downtime with domestic types of canopies and ivin ... It is difficult to imagine something more boring, flat and graceful than the theoretical and theological work of Tolstoy. The article on Shakespeare and about the drama, as well as the treatise "what is art", amaze with such dense, impassable stupidity that you will involuntarily be assigned: the great writer is great in everything. His inadequacy is more than ordinary human inadequacy, it has some kind of titanism, sometimes ridiculous, but also inspiring respect. This great connoisseur of human and horse psychology was made titanically stupid, as soon as he spoke of politics, courts, land reform, church or non -resistance to evil by violence. That is why Tolstoy's teaching was picked up mainly by fools, and Tolstoy himself hated and ridiculed the Tolstoyites - very often in the face. "Have you created a sobriety society? Yes, why get together so as not to drink? We will get back, so now they will drink" ...

The Czechs who tried not to reason about world matters did not look at some exceptions and openly bored when he was spoke on transcendental topics. But some of the thunders in letters and evidence of contemporaries make it suggest that in his forecasts (and in the assessments of people) there was a blizor, as in life, and at the same time, somehow, from birth, deaf to metaphysics. That is why his most pretty characters are flawed, flattened: there is no second bottom, there is a depressing one -dimensionality and vulgarity, which the author feels perfectly - only in return can not offer anything except pompous and boring demagogy about the excellent future, in which everyone will work, work, and read in the evenings ... I will not remind you of periodically carried piles , how subjective and envious are envious literary assessments and how doubtful political are - especially the remark of 1943 about the identity of Hitler and Stalin; And why is his thought that you can only translate poetry with prose, and a long -term, complete insults and pomp of a polemic with all the light on this subject?!

This does not mean that there were no smart prose writers in Russia. There were - but they did not claim to be great. The set of indispensable qualities of the great writer always includes great stupidity. Who claims to be only outstanding - he can still be saved, like Trifonov , Makanin or Iskander , who seem to have all the data for getting into the classics. They don’t want to: they understand what the matter smells of. He who wants true greatness is certainly obliged to carry nonsense, and the more often, the better. (Maybe I am not an exception, and all of the above only confirms my thought.) As you listen to Oleg Pavlov sometimes, you will be sure: the great. Maybe the same Iskander is right, saying that people of great holiness are almost always people of a damaged mind. Moreover: the great writer, as we have already shown, may be metaphysically deaf. In any case, a person hearing will never write in a book like "calf": "How true and strongly you lead me, Lord!". And books like "calf", I'm afraid, will not write.

Metaphysical deafness, generally speaking, is not a vice. Tolstoy did not understand the obvious things that John of Kronstadt tried to explain to him with such a naive passion. Solzhenitsyn with religion also has an extremely peculiar relationship. At the very beginning of his book, he stated that he was considering the Russian -Jewish issue outside his metaphysical component - and then, excuse me, what's the point? It’s all the same as Akhmatova told Chukovskaya that she loves everything in Rozanov , except for the sex and Jewish question; What remains in it then - to love something? I love watermelon, but without seeds, peels and juice ... The Russian-Jewish conflict and in fact allows, in a rosan one, to see the abyss-but not from a statistical point of view to look at it! However, Solzhenitsyn’s book is certainly a positive and important event: this author has a wonderful instinct for the most important thing. The main issue of the thirties was the question of justification of the revolution - and Solzhenitsyn began the novel "Love the Revolution!". The most complete expression of Soviet power was the Gulag - and Solzhenitsyn wrote "Archipelago". Today to write "two hundred years together" means to very accurately feel the main question of time; But the book was not about the Jewish question, but about Russian. Solzhenitsyn himself did not see this obvious thing, and this is quite in his spirit, with all respect for him. A person who wrote a “letter from the leaders of the Soviet Union”, with his terrible exaggeration of the Chinese danger, and a mountain of journalism, which contained the darkness of unfulfilled forecasts and incorrect assessments, and cannot claim genuine historical coverage. He raised the question - and thanks to him; And what a question I posed - we must figure it out.

The first volume was, of course, in the approach: it proved that no one from the Jews was particularly interfered with live in Russia and feel decent. There were not so many pogroms, and as many opportunities to work on Earth were provided as much as possible. But now - they did not want to go to Earth, they did not feel talent for that; In the second book, the Jews again blame the fact that they did not want to plow in Birobidzhan and, in which case, to protect it. For some reason, they can feel Palestinian land, and they do not want Russian; Probably, they want, the Shelmets, in a warm climate. True, in Israel it is too hot and the desert around ... Probably, this is a specific dislike of the Jews to Russia: they are ready to plow any soil, but this one is not. But to lead the revolution, or to saddle perestroika, or to occupy command heights in Russian culture is a sweet thing for them; And even getting into the camps (sometimes, Jews also get there) - they immediately settled in the best places, "morons" (!), And all because they drag their own! Where one Jew was settled - there is a dozen nearby. Top dressing comes from will, money - well, they bribe (the heads of the camps are also mostly Jews). And so that the Russian helped Russian - no, no! And they will not send money from the will! The main thing is that if there is an honest Jew who does not want to bask somewhere in a medical unit, but to suffer in common works - so he will be laughed on both sides. And the Jews will not understand, and the Russians will not appreciate. Therefore - if you are a Jew, then there should be warm and bread in the place, otherwise there will be nothing to hate you.

At the same time, the “turnover of charges against Russia” contains a completely sound conclusion that Jews, especially dissident young people, so scolds their own country? After all, their grandfathers built her! After all, for that, the apartments are Daden in the Stalinist skyscrapers, where now they are going to scold their homeland in kitchens! They talk about pogroms, about drunkenness, Belinkov generally claims that the pogrom is hiding at the bottom of every Russian soul - but he himself was not in the genture! (Here, we put it in inaccuracy: Belinkov was in goners, there was a lot of evidence on this score, he was a uniform goner, he couldn’t go and died at forty -nine years old, but it’s difficult to call him a pleasant person, of course.) And they themselves did it, “Fili drank, but they beat it and beat it!” - The lovely Solzhenitsyn manner to interspers the text of a cheerful and soundless proverb. They scolded Soviet art, lying through and through, and who did it, if not Ermler with Romm? Or, maybe, “ordinary fascism” and “Lenin in 1918” are not made by the same hands? Or, I’ll add from myself, Honored Dissant Kim did not write an absolutely accurate song “ About the poet of Shutsman and publisher of the boatswain ”? "Well, what an abomination is the poetry of Schutsman! There is an ordinary vulgarity, but it is blasphemous! I would hang such an egg!" After all, everything was created by Jewish hands - and the disgusting power, which was fixed by everyone, and the disgusting dissident of Galichevsky, which destroyed everything.

By the way, in his assessment of Galich (the only poet who was awarded to some personalities) Solzhenitsyn is quite right from Solzhenitsyn. I say here already seriously, with my voice (the previous paragraph, as you know, is still slightly stylized - but if the author does not want to negotiate to the end, we have to). Of course, these are terrible words - “and be afraid the only one who says“ I know how it should! ”The terrible mixture of pioneering freedom and immature agnosticism. You need to know how it should be, otherwise it is another matter that Galich Solzhenitsyn primarily distinguishes the works that are insulting to the Russian people, and the brilliant, quite Russified song” The topics for the balalaika with the orchestra "interprets as Russophobic, for nothing that it is written just about the dispossessed and exiled Russian , on the beloved Solzhenitsyn theme. The deafness is unforgivable for the writer, who began in addition to the times from the verses. Meanwhile, only one thing is offensive to Russians - that this song was about the two Russian, Party and non -pass, the Galician wrote; Russian - not found.

(A modest footnote. Solzhenitsyn, of course, raised a huge actual material and supplied his text with a terrible number of footnotes - but the footnot also picked up quite specific. For example, I gently belong to Natalia Rubinstein, but she also happens to write stupidity - as if Galich have encouraged people to leave and that this is the path is correct. Solzhenitsyn was joyful for this quote. Galich encouraged people at all, and in general a more Russian phenomenon than this unpleasant, barlical Jew, in the past, the Soviet playwright, subsequently an excellent poet, was not in Russian poetry: where is the Evtushenka there is a half -agarmyan okudzhava ...)

In short, only one conclusion, which Solzhenitsyn just did not make it suggested from all of what was said. I don’t even know why - more precisely, I know, but I will not say. The Jews had to become in Russia as publicists, and thinkers, and revolutionaries, and counter -revolutionaries, commissars, dissidents, and patriots, and creators of official culture, and its overthrows - because for some reason the Russians did not do this. For some reason, the Russians for some reason do not show the same national solidarity (not only ethnic, by the way-since the Jews are not an ethnic concept at all), which is so annoying Solzhenitsyn in the Jews ... "Who knows the magnificent Jewish mutual assistance, he will understand that the free boss-Jews could not look indifferently in his camp and the Jews-Zeki were dying. And not to help. And even more frankly, though by strangers, it seems like with the mouth: "You do the right thing, chaim! You support our own! And we, Russians, like wolves to each other." Although this is a quote from Voronel ... But Tuffy has enough such quotes: "The tragic years of the Russian revolution would give us hundreds of glorious names if we wanted to know and remember them. We, Russians, do not know how to." Or: “If you see the Russian Profile in the newspaper, I don’t congratulate this profile. It is either drunk, or was ridiculed, or convicted and brought to clean water.” Please, the feuilleton of “one’s and strangers” from the "Lynx" collection, has just been reprinted in "Olm", in the book "He lived like that. Highly recommend.

A serious researcher would ask the question in this situation: why are the Russians with such ease to resolve all their main functions to these unpleasant Jews?! After all, really unpleasant: I hate these winking and giggling dissident companies of Jewish youth with all my heart, where all Russian scold and despise, and Russian fat is eaten. Previously, there were Varangians, also unpleasant ... Two explanations are suggesting: either the Russians want someone to be always to blame - and therefore they themselves do not bother to do anything, but all the end of the Jews. And the Jews destroyed tsarism, and the revolution - Jews, and the Soviet Union - they are. Or - and this case is more complicated - the Russian people are not at all interested in any conscious historical activity, because it has a different program, namely, a gambling, sadomasochist self -destruction under any pretext, which was discussed in the previous Quick. Then it remains only to admit that the Jews are destructive not for all peoples, but solely for those who do not want to make their history on their own. Well, think for yourself: a revolution, long -naughty, but not received, - we. Counter -revolution, that is, a large terror, - we are back. Atomic bomb, hydrogen bomb, NTR, author’s song, cinema and even patriotic lyrics - we are all. Who moves the Russian verse forward and modernizes prose? Yes, we are back; How much can! Pasternak, Mandelstam, Brodsky, Aksenov, a demonstration in defense of Prague in 1968, which Solzhenitsyn himself did not fail to celebrate ... Bogoraz, Daniel ... Why is it! Why did Yeltsin and Putin support the Jew Berezovsky , and exposed Jew Schenderovich ?! What is indifferent to you is the fate of your president - even if the most active and wisest of the Russians, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, only found to talk with Putin that about the fate of Russian forests?

Each nation carries out its secret program - and only the Russians are afraid to look into themselves, for nothing that Blok wrote in the same eighteenth: “She looks, looks, looks into himself - both with hatred and with love” ... looks, but does not see anything; This jelly, where some unformed entities are seething, roaming and facing, very interesting in itself, but history in the Chaadaevsky sense, the history of conscious and creative - this cannot be called. Therefore, merchants, and publicists, and bards of native aspen in Russia are forced to be forced to be Jews ... who sometimes even seem to me the indigenous population - they are so indifferent to her. But the Russians rob their “incomparable subsoil” (A. Solzhenitsyn) and destroy their own population as only invaders can do this, which nothing is expensive here.

That is why they do not have national solidarity, and they cannot agree on the simplest values, and everything is not their own here. "Both the house and the garden - everything was not mine, it seemed to me. Or maybe it did not seem" (N. Slepakov).

Of course, I could have a lot of interesting things about the Jewish "double morality" - about the cosmopolitanism "for export" and nationalism for my own; And about "democracy" for export with complete totalitarianism for their ... what is, that is. Such is the program embedded in the Jews, often not conscious by them, but here it is necessary to go into metaphysical wilds. It is without me that there is someone to do, although if anyone is interested, I am ready, to the best of modest abilities. But here let me limit myself to considering the only question - or, if you want, a statement of the only fact: the Jews played this, and not another role in Russian history because, due to the features of the local indigenous population, they had to become Russians . For some secret reasons, the Russians abstained from this. Perhaps their feat is still ahead. In the meantime, the Russians are not a nation, for the nation is not an ethnic, but a philosophical concept, a set of supership values, which are doubtful for the Russians themselves (Jews just love them). I am glad that here my conclusions completely coincide with the theoretical provisions of the young sociologist Yuri Amosov, whose work on this topic, I hope, will be published soon.

Two hundred years - and if you believe a candele with his "Book of times and events", then much more - Jews make Russian history not with the Russians, but instead of them. And this is, to be honest, someone should write someone Russian.

But - it was not found.

PS The author apologizes to everyone whose national feelings he touched. He hopes that he will not be accused of inciting national razor. He perfectly understands that everyone around does not spit on his national feelings that insult everything around, in all difficult and who are more than more. He once again apologizes to everyone whose national feelings he insulted. And again brings. The plague for both of your plague.