Satan and Darwinism

From the editorial office:
Information on the Internet is sometimes lost: necessary – because of all sorts of force majeure, undesirable – intentionally.
Now the original of this article seems to be already well hidden: neither on the website of the journal "Bulletin of Tomsk State University" nor on the website of the TSU library could we find the issue of this journal. According to the queries "Rhodes" and "Darwinism" there are several links, but all are not the same.
The article itself (*.pdf, 0.3 M) is still lying in the back streets of the TSU library. In case she disappears from there forever, an exact copy of her is kept here.

BULLETIN OF TOMSK STATE UNIVERSITY
2008 Philosophy. Sociology. Political Science No. 1(2)
MONOLOGUES, DIALOGUES, DISCUSSIONS

V.B. Rhodes

DARWINISMThe text presents the author's analysis of the origin, essence, validity and cultural consequences of the theory of natural evolution.

1. SatanIt was necessary to start the conversation about Darwin with Satan.

The road is straighter.

For a long time, when I was young, I wanted to write an article, or even a whole book of criticism of Darwinism. I also came up with the name for such an article or book, "The Bible from the Devil." In such a title, these two themes are intertwined: Satan and Darwinism. It was impossible. Regardless of how I would have written such a book, regardless of the strength of my argument, regardless of its persuasiveness, in no case would it have been published. Maybe they would have put me in jail myself. Or at least permanently deprived of the right to teach, seduce, corrupt.

Now you can. Or it just seems that it is possible. After all, there was a girl suing for teaching Darwinism at school, and commentators who did not study well at school would be happy, as always, to trample the school vindictively, but in this case they mostly mocked the girl.

Why can't Darwinism be criticized?

Remember, "three sources, three components of Marxism." Darwinism is one of the main pillars of Marxism. Darwin is Marx's own older brother, or rather even his ideological father.

I will tell you how (in my mind) Satan and Darwinism came together. Gogol has a lot of devilry, this topic bothered him. According to Gogol, the satanic power, his power is finely dispersed, fragmented, scattered by grains, maybe even permeates the entire universe through and through. The world evil of Nikolai Vasilyevich is represented in the form of small dirty splashes – not so much dangerous as funny. If we present this satanic evil with articles of the criminal Code, then it will be fraud, cheating, hooliganism, petty theft of stray youngsters.

Woland and his entourage in Mikhail Bulgakov's The Master and Margarita are a much more dangerous gang. They would have accounted for more than half of the articles of the criminal code, including aggravated murders, vampirism (I don't know if there is such an article in the Criminal Code), all forms of robbery and robbery. Hooliganism is evil, malicious, with grave consequences, arson, barbarism, vandalism, the ultimate insult to the individual. In modern times, they would be charged with terrorism, intimidation, blackmail, racketeering.

However, this is all somehow shallow. It's even adorable somehow. Tempting. They kill, and we sympathize with them, they are brutally dirty, and we, the readers, are pleased. We are rooting for them. But the main thing is: everything is individual. Even mass mockery, deception in the Variety room is essentially personified. Well, if you hadn't caught a fake gold piece flying from above, trouble wouldn't have come to you, well, you wouldn't have gone for nothing to change an old one, but your own, for a beautiful, fashionable and free – you wouldn't have been naked on the street. A small retribution for almost ancestral sins. All this is much more fun and less dangerous than, say, a high-explosive bomb. Even more so than atomic.

And Satan…

So.

On the assumption that there is Satan.

It's not at all hooligan imps that replace the suits in the cards in Gogol's "Missing Letter", petty thieves, riffraff from the gateway, evil scoundrels and bastards, not even those Bulgakov's creepy and funny mafiosi from the fourth dimension. The Lord would have talked to them, but He did not consult them.

Satan is a great power. Huge. Not a gang, but an army. Not against a person – against people. Such a force that is measured not by articles of the criminal Code, but by points on the Richter scale. Great. An alternative to the Lord. His shadow.

So, let's say.

Let's assume that Satan exists, and let's also assume that his power and capabilities are enormous. What then? Where to look for the results of his activities. No dirty tricks, nasty things, malicious pranks and abominations against one individual do not suit me, but I began to look for a big, huge universal evil.

Natural disasters... he!

Wars? Of course! People, especially men, have too much pepper, rage, intolerance, cruelty.

I wanted to find something lasting from the realm of consciousness. The science of godlessness.

Marxism! The idea of communism. Undoubtedly. But this is only the main thing, the most obvious.

I was looking for even more.

One of the answers lies on the surface: Satan in the form of a snake slipped an apple (I don't care if it's an orange, any fruit, an amateur sausage) of knowledge to Adam, for which he was expelled from paradise. The basis of hippie philosophy. Denial of science, it does more harm than good, convenience to the body, irreparable harm to the soul, rejection of the values of civilization.

Adam ate the apple offered by the snake, and he developed a specialized left, logical, verbal, discrete hemisphere of the brain. Here, on this path, in the denial of logic, science, everything that distinguishes people from animals, opposes people to them, many have found the answer. And I see their rightness. And wrong.

However, then it was not humanity that was expelled from paradise, but Adam alone together with Eve. Humanity, in connection with this fact, on the contrary, is only

appeared, was born, got the opportunity to exist. If this had not happened, Adam and Eve would not have bred in the face of the Lord. Paradise is only for one, for Adam. Even with Eve, there is no place for all of humanity in it. Humanity would not have existed there in paradise, it would never have arisen, as well as the need for it. Adam and Eve would have lived forever, remaining immortal and angelically innocent.

And we wouldn't have been born. And they wouldn't have found out anything about it and wouldn't have judged anything like that. It's terrible to say, but in this matter I am grateful to Satan and I can't do otherwise, otherwise there would be no people, there would be no me, there would be no one who thinks differently.

And finally, the last one. Of course, this amateur sausage or apple angered God, in this sense, Satan annoyed Him. Humanity appeared, which greatly added to the worries, a heavy burden. But... generally speaking…

It is not clear to me, as a human being, it is not quite clear to my human mind what is so very bad for the Lord as a result happened. Well, yes, His plans have been disrupted. But He changed them sometimes anyway. The universe, the human race is a new thing for Him, not everything turned out right away, and now the end is visible, but the matter is as if unfinished. But there are billions of times more people, churches, cathedrals and temples around the world have been built, they pray to the Lord simultaneously around the world around the clock. And between prayers, the whole world is being prepared for self-destruction, but this is not immediately, but only now, gradually and with an increase.

No, this is not the most disgusting thing Satan has done against the Lord.

And for me it is also important that in this episode Satan deceives, seduces very innocent, little-knowing people. People who do not know about good and evil, who do not know the logic of people. In a hard and persistent struggle with God, Satan had to come up with something not just big, huge, but designed for literate, educated people. It's not like fooling Eve, putting noodles on the ears of an innocent girl, not the case. Here we need a great, inescapable temptation for the mind. Something attractive, exceptionally tempting for an intelligent person. And directed against the Lord.

A great temptation for a thinking person. The more thinking, the greater the temptation.

And then I guessed, and then I realized what is the biggest, most powerful temptation for man and at the same time directed directly and definitely against God.

This is Darwin's teaching! The doctrine of evolution!

The strongest temptation for a learned person.

Satan wouldn't mess with a candidate of sciences. He would have chosen an-ti-Messiah from among the great ones. So he did. There is no doubt – Charles Darwin is not just famous, but downright brilliant, a great scientist.

2. Why Darwinism is attractiveThe main serious justification for the fidelity of Darwinism is, in my opinion, its exceptional satanic appeal to humanity.

skogo mind. This theory is sympathetic to our mind, coincides with its secret passions, which is what the devil was counting on.

Why is evolutionism tempting to the human mind?

I don't think science knows the answer.

Readers, I suspect, will even find it funny, but science knows exceptionally poorly what our collective pride, our brain, is in general. Not in a medical sense, of course, because a lot is clear here, but as a carrier of reason. I remember when I was a student, I was looking for a list, at least a general list of the abilities of our intellect. Everything is known about the arm, about the leg, all possible bends and positions have been recalculated, all degrees of freedom of movement.

And how many degrees of freedom does our intelligence have? About our mind, even the specialists who are responsible for this have not found. Logicians don't know and don't want to know, it's not their business, psychologists disown, they have behavior…

I got hold of, found somewhere a list of the abilities of the mind, intelligence, consisting of ten points and compiled ... you will never guess in your life by whom. Shakespeare! There are no words to tell how much I love and respect Shakespeare. I knew about fifty of his sonnets by heart. Some are in several translations at once. But that's not the point now. Shakespeare is a genius. In the tenth, hundredth degree, a genius, but not a short-distance runner, not the inventor of a helicopter. That's not a scientist either. No sin on him. This is a sin on science. Millions graze in it, they have good money on average, and sometimes honor with glory.

And isn't it a shame: for several centuries, nothing can be added to what the great poet and playwright said.

Of course, I will not undertake such work.

So, I'll list something.

Analysis. The ability to mentally dissect the object of study. Maybe there are several such abilities: to divide the genus into species, those into subspecies, orders and families; quite another: to see as a whole, as in a conglomerate, parts (who will say that this is the same thing – "two" logically).

Synthesis. There are definitely a lot of them. Addition, fusion, construction, installation, fusion, generalization…

Logic is separate, constructive abilities of the mind are separate...

Memory. I personally have several kinds of memory in my collection. And in some, I will give odds to most people on earth, but visual memory is terrible, at least change it. Associative thinking. I won't say that I searched hard, but I haven't seen a single article about it.

The ability to understand. Even a person who speaks another language. There are semantics. I even did it, but how can I guess which semantics to apply to this case? There is no research, and the brain, even of a not too smart person, does it automatically and immediately. True, everyone has different ways, and this greatly affects whether a person is smart or a fool.

And here's another thing. See the point, guess the problem…I don't even have a name. I can explain. Anyone can keep up a conversation, including a fool. But, the more stupid a person is, the more he adheres to the words in the general conversation, the last spoken word and moves freely

along the flow of the conversation, bypassing all topics and problems in a row. The smarter the interlocutor, the more interesting his examples, the more convincing the arguments. But even among very intelligent people, I have not often met those, sometimes quite silent and focused, who immediately sense the main point of disagreement, the nail of the problem and stick to it, not really paying attention to words and pearls. Personally, I recognize such craftsmen from one conversation and treat them with great respect. I flatter myself that I'm keeping the topic myself... until I'm stressed out and furious.

Extrapolation is the ability of the mind to transfer knowledge and skills about one subject to another (I do not know of any attempts to find out the mechanism of action of this technique. And to say that this is a kind of analogy is worse than saying nothing).

Mental modeling...

Intuition. Are instincts from another area? Well, let it be.

And the guess? How does a guess arise in the head of Sherlock Holmes or Nero Wolfe? I assure you that the deduction that Holmes keeps referring to has nothing to do with this.

The ability to formulate hypotheses. A complete mystery. What is a hypothesis, you can read in the textbook. But here's how it appears…

A simple question: what is the place of logic among other brain abilities? How does he contact them? Interacting? An even simpler question is: how many of them are logics? Or this amazing ability of the mind to find, choose the very logic (logical system) that is needed right now. This possibility of reason doesn't even have a name. I have quite a lot of ideas about this case, but no one even sees a problem here. And I have a feeling that just don't be lazy, you can invent and invent new things and sign-whistle.

Let me remind you: all this is about my statement that science hardly knows why this or that is tempting for our mind. Without relying on science, it remains to apply your favorite method: checking for yourself.

It is not universal, but there is no other way, and looking into yourself, most will agree.

There is something in the human mind (passion for knowledge, for cognition?), why it prefers movement, development, stirring. The human mind (while not necessarily brilliant, ordinary) remembers the events and facts that have happened and links them into causal or associative chains. Even simple phone numbers are remembered by many people, linking them with already known facts, figures and memorable dates. There are no shelves in the brain, and each new fact does not fall on the shelf, but hangs on the threads of associations and analogies. It's not that the brain doesn't like it, it's not able to hold an event in memory by itself, without connection with others, those that have already been accumulated. The web of memory. Each new event is a new cell, this way, that way (I don't know how) related to what already happened. The brain, without a request, without a push, automatically connects a new fact with other events as causes, and with third – effects, with similar, related…

Hence all our superstitions. Why did the plane suddenly crash, the husband left the house, the train derailed, the house was robbed? But here: because black

the cat crossed the road, met a woman with empty buckets and here's another mirror broke.

No one is to blame, the human brain is such that movement, outgrowth, development, change is dearer and closer to it than immobility. This circumstance was used in the strongest form by Satan.

The ornamental stones are amazingly beautiful. But the beauty of each of them is forever and unchangeable. She admired me for two hundred years, and then my descendants. Museum beauty. What it was for a thousand years, it will remain so for a thousand years to come. Photographs – not all, but many – quite deservedly pass through the category of art. Painting, sculpture, architecture. But both are frozen beauty, although they pay a lot of money for it.

And so, not for a museum, not for a collection, but for life, most people will prefer a wave, the movement of the wind, the swaying of a branch, and from the arts – cinema, music.

Who would look at broken glass, but if you put them in a kaleidoscope…

The world was amazed by the Rubik's cube. A simple thing, take it in your hands, hold it, twist it and you will see for yourself, you will be surprised how it changes. Figures are lined up, figures appear, the drawing is ordered. Now there are many such toys and there are more and more.

People, especially children, are fond of computer games. It's like a disease that binds you. It changes by itself, as on the screen, but you participate and the vision reacts to your actions – it fascinates. Here, however, in most shooting games, chases, virtual murders, which is attractive to a person in itself, but after all, the creation of computer music, drawings, coloring, too, finds a lot of fans.

Regardless of the talent of the performer. It's moving.

Even animals, especially predators, are more interested in moving than resting.

The mind itself is alive, always in motion, in search. He breaks up the immobile, gets to the inaccessible, looks at the invisible. In the analysis of the inert, frozen mind has achieved the most, honed, perfected, refined. However, he achieved his best results by catching up with the moving, stopping the running, catching the swift.

The human mind is happy at the thought of independently developing life, from an insignificant seed to a sprout, bud, bud, flower, fruit. And a person remembers himself and perceives himself as a baby with his mother, in the sandbox, in the nursery, in the garden, at school, a boy, then a young man or girl, young, adult, mature and gradually comes to terms with the idea of the inevitability of death.

There is a place in the world for evolutionary processes. Everything separately moves, changes, grows, matures, improves. But the human brain wants everything to be like this, so that not only individual things, objects, objects and living organisms change, but everything. Life itself.

And life itself, in a sense, just together with all the laws of nature is unchangeable. In general, this is exactly what the philosophical reflections of Ecclesiastes are about.

And against the wise Solomon – evolutionism! The inanimate nature rubbed one pebble against another, sparks turned out, but there was nothing to burn, and she rubbed herself then, she rubbed us (she had no time to measure) living cells.

At first they were vegetable, but then they rubbed and rubbed, and, look, from a plant cell - an animal cell, by itself learned to live, reproduce, grow into a worm, that one into a fish, a fish into a frog, from a dinosaur – a bird, from a monkey - a man.

The world becomes mobile, alive, opening like a bud.

The need for God disappears.

3. Darwinism and the BibleI wrote this chapter, and there were about two pages in it, and erased it.

4. The beginningI first heard about Darwinism, the theory of evolution, and the origin of species when I was a junior high school student.

In the third and fourth grade. Maybe I've heard it before, but I didn't pay attention, didn't take it into my head; I date exactly the time when it got into my brain, touched my mind, shook me for life.

The primary information was primitive, the most childish: we humans descended from monkeys, degenerated from them. Including Pushkin.

Of course, it's a little insulting, but it's a general delight.

And that's the direction I was carried away.

I don't remember in what words I was thinking. In the nursery. Therefore, now I bring adult formulations. I'm not sure that they will seem smart to anyone. Here they are.

If monkeys, unwillingly, not being able and without experience, without having predecessors, managed to be reborn into humans, to become more highly developed in classification, then why…

No, I didn't think of Nietzscheanism.

But why don't we, high-minded people, repeat it, do it for a trial again. For at least three years I have been thinking hard, thinking, thinking out how to do it. To create educational centers (special zoos) in several countries (of course, in the USSR, in hostile America, for objectivity and in India – there are a lot of monkeys there). Smart, promising monkeys have already, of course, been selected, looked after. So now we need to continuously train and humanize them with scientific methods. Round-the-clock monitoring. One is tired, he is immediately replaced by another or other employees. And science gives them all its new successes in the sense of education.

With my children's hemispheres, I guessed that in no case was it training, not for the circus, but education, to teach them to talk, walk on their hind legs, work with their hands a little. I casually brushed aside all the mental difficulties I encountered: scientists already know, they will be able to.

5. Darwinism, discrimination, ethicsLater, as an adult, when I recalled my childhood monkey dreams, I was invariably amazed that the ethical side of the problem had never disturbed my mind in several years.

Even by a half-hint, I have never been afraid of what would have happened if, God forbid, my delirium had been successfully realized. Let's leave aside the appearance of humanized chimpanzees and the degree of their hairiness. I still don't care about that. But it would come together…

One hundred, two hundred years of hard, highly professional purposeful work, several generations of brilliant researchers, one hundred generations of talented monkeys, one hundred generations of exceptionally successful breeding – and before us is a densely hairy creature that easily passes any test of intelligence. The score is not important. Three. Weak three.

Credit!

Homo mohnaticus.

So what?

They will immediately create their own hairy trade union and fight for the equation of civil rights. A plot for a horror story. Demonstrations, protest rallies, flag burning, lynching of individual enemies.

"To elect and be elected to the presidency" and to the UN, so that several countries in the jungle would give them state use, with their own rule. Get married.

On our women. First on the blacks, and then on the whites.

Women would agree, because they too have passed the path of emancipation.

But humanity as a whole would take it extremely negatively. I would be offended.

I will say once again that as a child I was not just not interested in all these complicated, painful problems of monkey emancipation, I simply did not see them. However, I seriously hoped for the overall positive outcome of the experiment.

Long live Darwinism of all times and peoples.

6. Who is for DarwinismFolk tales.

Perhaps I myself would not have remembered, would not have guessed about it, but I was struck by examples from some speech of Lysenko. There he directly and definitely referred to the people's experience, to the age-old human wisdom enshrined in fairy tales.

Linguists study fairy tales, folklore – you know, this is their field, but who else refers to fairy tales as an argument in a scientific dispute?

People's experience, no less than the behavior of animals, can, of course, help formulate the idea of a new experiment, can serve as the basis of a scientific guess, but it seems that this is possible only in Darwinism to be referred to as a previously proven theorem.

Do you remember the fairy tale Why the hare has a split lip? In short, he was laughing there, laughing, his upper lip burst with laughter, and now all the hares have a split lip. Folk, sincere Darwinism. An accidental change occurred and was fixed in generations. This fairy tale is Estonian, but Estonians have nothing to do with it, many peoples have similar fairy tales, maybe everyone (I don't remember what kind of fairy tale Lysenko brought in his speech; well, I don't want to reread his complete works and inventions because of this).

It's not just fairy tales. There are examples from serious, worldwide literature. Here in the novel by the famous Japanese writer (I think Kenzaburo Oe, "Football 1860"?) there is a remote Japanese tribe where, for religious reasons, the tendons of the left hand are cut off for all men in their infancy, from which it dries up, and these unfortunate incompetent Japanese wear it on a special bandage. And supposedly all this has been going on for so long that boys have already begun to appear, to be born with this very left handle dry in advance.

The Japanese version of Darwinism.

By the way, in Greek myths, Amazons, female warriors, so as not to interfere with archery, cut off one breast. And no Darwinism. New generations of beauties, as they should be, were born with two. Symmetrical.

Physicists and other reasonable people object to this naive fairy-tale Darwinism: Jews and Arabs have been circumcised for several millennia, not in a novel, but in fact, with a special knife, the foreskin is cut off and something like boys were not born among them already in advance, in the womb, circumcised.

7. EvidenceAttractiveness for an inquisitive mind – one, folk tales – two.

What other arguments will be gathered in favor of Darwinists? It's not math, it's not logic, it doesn't require much from the proof.

The similarity of human and ape skeletons!

Like what you can find between the skeletons of an elephant and a horse. Each bone is different, but all together, the overall architecture is reminiscent. The parallelism is striking. It can't be random. For sure, horses are descended from elephants. In extreme cases, on the contrary. They grew a trunk and ears, threw back their hooves.

And pictures. The main one walks from book to book: first a monkey, then a certain hairy creature that tore his hands off the ground, the next one with a straight back, followed by a new one with a stone in his hand, another one is almost a man in clothes made of skins, an ancient warrior with a bow, the last one is at a computer. Sometimes there is another parallel drawing: a rat–like creature with a disproportionate rump and a distant descendant of this outrage - a horse.

There are also animated films where a living cage begins to move, grow, develop under the artist's brush and turns into a bear.

I don't know who needs to be separately explained that drawings and cartoons cannot be counted as scientific evidence in any way. Otherwise we will immediately

we'll prove anything about dwarves, elves, vampires, orcs. In general, according to the principle of drawing, we will live, what we draw, we will prove.

And also magical teleological comments. "In the new conditions, the gill animals needed other respiratory organs – lungs, and they grew them."

Oh, how simple. That's all it took!

And we humans could use the gills thrown out by those animals.

But something is not growing.

In the process of the degeneration of some organisms into others, stretched over millions of years, the discovery of any bones and remains of previously unknown creatures is clearly perceived as an argument in favor of Darwinism. And no wonder. After all, this is not a clear straight line at all, but a very ghostly dotted line, where there are many, hundreds, thousands of times more spaces than dashes. And the deeper, the more ancient the times to which we mentally go, the longer the voids. Every bush, twig is a landmark, a bone is a clue, a skull is proof.

What has been found is hardly enough to make a hypothesis. And the Pope is right: Darwinism is good as a hypothesis. But after all, it is taught in schools not as a hypothesis, but as the most advanced theory, fully confirmed by scientific practice. Pipes. It is also necessary to proclaim the thesis and begin the procedure of its truly scientific substantiation, proof, instead of fraud in pictures.

To date, we really have the statement that "long live Darwinism of all times and peoples", without any arguments.

8. How it should beThe real, real proof of the correctness of the concept of Darwinism, it seems to me, should be conducted not by searching for new bones of long-dead creatures, but by a method close to mathematical induction.

First, why? Then how?

Let's assume (I don't want to admit it and, I hope, I won't admit it, but as a logical assumption) that Darwinism is right, and there really was, there was for people an infinite line of complexity of any curvature leading from inanimate matter to man. The proof of the construction of what Darwinists really do is obviously doomed to this infinite straight line. To date, this is not a straight line, but a thin, transparent dotted line, but no matter how hard you try, you can't restore everything even in your dreams, there will be at least one puncture somewhere (and for now there are thousands, millions of them), an irreplaceable piece, it will break the harmony of the concept. All this proof resembles the famous from philosophy catching a black cat in a dark room. Provided that this cat is not in the room. During the reign of Diamat, philosophy students joked that Marxist philosophy differs from just philosophy in that sometimes there are screams:

Caught it! The Darwinists only have a different cry:

Found it!

99

I mean, another bone of some kind.

To restore the whole infinity, which in reality never existed, is not only difficult, absolutely impossible, but these bones of fossils, small strokes on the empty space to the horizon create the illusion of persistent and successful work.

It is absolutely impossible to prove by construction, since no statement can be made at all for a set consisting of an almost infinite number of different objects. That is why we should resort to a weakened version of mathematical induction.

Now about how to prove.

Using a weakened analogue of the method of mathematical induction. Many people know what it is, you can read it in encyclopedias, the rest, and, I suspect, the vast majority of them, I will try to explain on my fingers. On children's fingers.

Very roughly speaking (for our purposes, such coarsening is not terrible), every scientific law has the form of a general statement:

All objects of this kind are endowed with a common property for them. All S is the essence of P.

To prove, to substantiate such a statement is not at all easy. At a minimum, an apple should fall on its head. On a brilliant head. But not everyone has so much free time to sit under apple trees. And the hairstyle is a pity. Laws are expensive for science. And the scientists themselves, the discoverers of new laws, are praised, they are awarded high prizes, up to the Nobel. They give you money. Students.

The more objects there are among these S, the more diverse they are, the more difficult it is to prove their unity. Mathematicians, who almost always have to deal with infinities and for whom the rigor of proof is just the most important and the only thing that distinguishes their science, are especially difficult.

So they came up with a method. This is the method of mathematical induction.

Their objects, whether they are numbers, points, thesauruses, fields, spaces and shapes, they somehow arrange, line up, according to a certain ranking. And then they prove two theorems. One is easy, almost elementary, the other is complex, Lenin would say – arch-complex.

A simple theorem is called the basis of induction. It is necessary to prove, sometimes just to show, that the first in the list, the first in the ordering is already endowed with the required property P.

The second, complex, theorem – the induction step – assumes proof that this property, with which we are going to award the entire infinity of objects, passes, is transmitted, inherited from one object of ordering to the next after it. Like a virus. If a member in the built-up line is already endowed with this property P, then he inevitably passes his illness on to the next one after him.

The idea is simple, as mathematicians like to say – transparent. The first in a row is sick with P, and from him, along the chain, this P is transmitted to all the following, – here

we can say that the whole (infinite) set S is infected with the disease P.

9. The living from the inanimateIn biology, in Darwinism, rarely anyone is interested in the basis of Darwinism.

The problem of proving that the first living cell is obtained by itself from an inanimate substance rarely pops up. Outside of biology, it seems that they either do not know about this problem at all, do not guess, or are not interested. In any case, with everyone with whom I talked about Darwinism (mostly with non-biologists), this problem was perceived as new.

Well, and, of course, I greatly exaggerated, lied, saying that biologists are not interested in her at all. Here was Olga Borisovna Lepeshinskaya with us, with them in the USSR. Does everyone remember?

A woman, a revolutionary and the wife of a revolutionary, has a wonderful, enviable fate (for me, "revolutionary" is an abusive word and as a characteristic of a person it is negative; but still, I admit, there is a certain romantic flair in this word). After her husband, as a Decembrist, she went into exile, at an advanced age, if I'm not lying, then at the age of forty-five or older, she became a scientist, an academician, a laureate of the prestigious Stalin Prize. I was somewhere surrounded by Lysenko. Not directly in his team of biological hacks and persecutors of genetics, but supported him. And he's hers. However, that's not the point.

The fact is that the Stalin Prize was awarded to her by the Lysenkoists for the fact that she brought life out of non-life.

Inanimate nature, all these stones and quartz, Lepeshinskaya casually called living matter. By the name itself, as if to say that life (or pre-life) is already there. In some other, extracellular forms. This position, it must be admitted, is quite consistent with some Eastern religions, in which God permeates everything that exists, is present in everything that exists, and He – a living force – is also in the inanimate.

Olga Borisovna, through a series of clever experiments with poorly washed dishes, established that a living cell can be obtained from a living substance that does not have a cellular structure. Moreover, the same word alive in these two expressions has a very different, for most people on earth, including scientists, the exact opposite meaning.

It has long been proven and proven everywhere that these experiments by Lepe-shinskaya were incorrect, the theory itself was recognized as false, false, and its results were thrown into the vile garbage dump of the history of biology and forgotten there. And the very name of a female scientist (is it fair?) half-forgotten.

To summarize: to date, the basis of the induction of proof of evolutionism has not been strongly proven. And in my opinion, it will never be proven, because this (proscription, but I can, I'm not a biologist, thank God) is bullshit.

Even if we endow senseless primordial matter with motion (this is a philosophical, eternal and controversial question, which is almost the same thing), we will never generate anything alive. No matter how much water is pushed in a mortar, no matter how much sand is shallowed, nothing but water in the first case, more and more fine sand in the second, it is impossible to get anything new. And duration

10. Evidence from DarwinismAnd suddenly Olga Borisovna would be right, and would she be able to excite life in inanimate matter by simple heating?

That's when Darwinists would have faced another difficult question to answer. How did this first random cell not die? Didn't you die of loneliness? How did she manage to learn to share in the first generation, there was no time for another? Reproduce? Who taught her how to do it? Who put this wonderful skill into the first living cell?

Well, let it be a massive release of primary living cells, a lightning strike and millions, myriads of them. Alive. However, without the ability to share. Or did they appear directly with the ability to breed and multiply?

Then it's not lightning, it's God.

For every change, according to the Darwinists themselves, thousands of generations are needed. And they had one at their disposal. Only one thing. One generation per cell. No, they would not have survived without a miracle.

I am convinced that this is an impassable dead end!

And here's another simpler question.

I don't know and I'm not interested in how biologists are doing with the evolution (rebirth) of a plant cell into an animal one. I hope this is also an insurmountable barrier.

I am waiting for the exposure of the next Lepeshinskaya.

In general, Darwinists give strange proofs of the correctness of their theory. I don't want to write, much less gloat about Michurin. I heard that the garden of freaks, which he created during his lifetime, has completely died and, in any case, has not been bearing fruit for many decades.

"We cannot wait for favors from nature, it is our task to take them from her," this titan scientist proudly declared. Some wit later changed this phrase:

"We can't expect favors from nature after what we've done to her.

In this form, the slogan is suitable as a sign over his garden-cemetery.

Darwinists say that a hundred million years ago some dinosaurs or reptiles needed to climb trees and take root there, build nests there. If you have any objections, raise your hands.

How do you object to a fantasy based on nothing at all? They are still arguing about the reasons why dinosaurs died out in general, but here… You see, these scarecrows needed to climb trees for some reason.

And they needed to climb to confirm the Darwinian theory, in order to answer the question: why do birds fly, in other words, how did heavenly birds, winged creatures intertwine into the terry network of evolutions? And here it seems reasonable. These bastards climbed the trees, but they are afraid to get down. And they can't turn around. So they died out.

I was just joking.

And Darwinists joke in a different way: those who took root in trees needed wings to get off. And they have grown up!

Stormy applause, turning into an ovation, everyone stands up. And they fly away.

Nonsense. Nonsense. Rave!

Yes, you never know what anyone needs, something no one grows anything. Here people need gills, they really like to swim in the water. And if such a light mechanism: wanted – got, then they, in the sense of us – people, also need wings, they sing songs about it, in gyms they wave their hands for years. But something is not growing wings, we have to go roundabout, invent airplanes.

From school, and even then reading everything that came across, including highly scientific articles, I came to the conclusion that the entire positive part of the Darwinist program was centered around the origin of man from the macaque. As in that joke where God sent a piece of cheese to a crow somewhere, a fox came running, hit the crow on the head with a stick, took the cheese and ran away. And the crow is surprised:

– Wow, how the fable was shortened.

This simplification confuses me too. Instead of the whole path of the much-advertised complex evolution, those who prove, and those who care about the lantern, talk only about one detail, which makes up almost a millionth of the entire almost endless process. I agree, the most interesting, the most intriguing piece: the transformation of a monkey into Darwin. In addition, this segment, in their opinion, is closer to others in time, there are more bones, skulls, more chances to prove. Although nothing is clear here either. Did it happen from one monkey or from different ones at the same time? And if it was from one, then wasn't her name Eva? And if from different, then at least from one species or different species?

I look at people: black, red, yellow, white, like seas spilled, maybe it was necessary to separate scientific hypotheses and try to establish,

that Africans, including African-Americans, are descended, for example, from gorillas, yellow, on the contrary, from orangutans, red from possums, white from polar bears, although Russians are directly from the Siberian bear?

In general, why from a monkey? And not from a bear, for example. Why, why? Yes, because! Because they look more like monkeys, they look very much like them. I looked at the zoo, in the mirror, no, it's not too similar.

"Like a pig on a horse," my mother–in-law says.

But Darwinists say: look at the jaw, at the bones of the arms and legs. If the monkey straightened up and began to walk on its hind legs, it would free up its hands for other lascivious activities. Then the monkey would have just changed those and other bones and would have become indistinguishable from human. Would!

In the sense that in a hundred million years again.

But I could not speed up this process and reduce it, say, to just two centuries, even as a child, even mentally.

And also the fact that the bones of some extinct fossils are constantly being found, restored in a magical, not scientific, but rather a charlatan way, and these animals restored from bones and fantasy, neither similar to monkeys nor to humans, are consistently proclaimed the missing link. And this is already a wonderful field for all kinds of quackery and scientific jokes-jokes. And there were just such jokers among their own. They began to put one bone to another and get funny pseudoscientific monsters of the evolutionary process, which make people laugh and increase doubts about the possibilities of science itself. Thus, they directly threaten the entire scientific community.

Now, however, with the discovery of the DNA code, these pranksters will be pinned down faster, but the problem does not disappear.

Let me say my final diagnosis: the missing link will never be found, because it never was.

Man is by no means descended from an ape.

Look into yourself, reader!

Well, let someone, let a neighbor, a stupid colleague, but it's not you, not your parents, ancestors, forefathers. No, no! Give up on us, descendants of monkeys.

We are descended from Adam.

And there, further on, to the monkey – even much worse. From one animal to the next? There's nothing there at all. One word: evolution.

There is also a lot of intuition and instinct in all these conversations and arguments. The whole topic, as it should be, belongs more to the realm of faith than reason, science. I look, I listen to myself and it's clear to me:

Darwinism will not pass.

So, it seems to me, anyone who has looked deeply and consistently into the origin of species will say. There is no place for clear pure or practical reason here, this is a sphere where charlatanism and fraud – like Lepeshinskaya's concept is more than genuine science.

I'll try to explain.

11. Natural selectionThe general picture depicting the Darwinian proof of the correctness of its concept is as follows.

Millions of years. An unimaginable number of years. The human mind is drowning in this huge number. This monstrous duration of the process is in their role as a lifesaver.

So, the picture is as follows. Some kind of creature. It has been giving birth to its own kind for millions of years. But the family is not without a freak, monsters are sometimes born, with dislocations, mutants. In the struggle for life, for existence (natural selection), the unfit for life freaks die. But! But if their ugliness is useful, then it is fixed and becomes dominant, marking a new stage of development. That is, some mollusk barely lived for itself in millions of generations, and a grain of sand got into one's mouth and got stuck there. At first it seemed to hurt, and then the mollusk adapted and noticed that it was easier to chew the food that its ancestors ate with a grain of sand. This grain of sand was fixed there, and the next child already purposely had a tooth grown and multiplied, and all the subsequent ones had a full muzzle of teeth, and they themselves, toothed, formed a different genus. This is even more fantastic and whiplash than the split lip of a laughing hare. At least there was a lip to laugh at, from laughter what used to be only broke, and then the tooth got from the outside and stayed there. And multiplied. I'll tell you a secret: teeth, their first appearance and transformation into a jaw for me personally is the most impassable moment, a refutation of Darwinism. And the gums themselves. They are made of a different substance than the meat that our body is stuffed with. This substance is hard, almost like a bone, and when a tooth is pulled out, it is loose and blood flows. How did it all fly into the mouth of creatures on the evolutionary path and get fixed there? Evolutionarily.

It wasn't, it wasn't, and then it gradually became.

Nonsense, nonsense. Baby talk.

I urge everyone to go deeper for just a few seconds and imagine for themselves the origin of the eye – the organ of our vision. How and where someone should have flown something completely different in material and structure and settled down there and passed on to all the next generations. And having flown and taken root, you can still SEE. That is, to somehow connect with specific nerve cells, which no one had ever had before, and to show the brain visions on the screen, which the brain also did not have.

Nonsense.

Now it's the same, but on the other side.

The woodpecker has a porous, sponge-like substance between the beak and the skull, a special gasket that dampens the shake from each blow with the key. This shock absorber is much superior to anything created by human hands. The same woodpecker has a tongue of unprecedented length for birds. It grows from the right nostril and, passing right under the skin, wraps the whole head! How could such organs specialized for one purpose develop gradually? The shock absorber-the woodpecker gasket should have worked from the very beginning. If it hadn't worked perfectly from the very beginning, the woodpecker would have blown his brains out, and it would have happened instantly.

And the genus of woodpeckers would have ended just as quickly.

And if once, a long time ago, woodpeckers did not chisel trees, then they would never need such special shock absorbers.

And the long tongue of the woodpecker? Was-was the usual length, then suddenly grew, detached itself from the back wall of the mouth, wrapped itself around the bird's head and stuck, finally, in the right nostril? Well, what kind of ass can believe that?

It remains to admit that the woodpecker should have been what he is now, immediately, from the very first appearance, he did not evolve, he was created. God made him like this!

Some kind of invertebrate worm was crawling, and in the billionth generation it has a mutation: inside the cartilage has ossified, the future, I will say right away, the spine. I'm not talking about the impossible, how he will inherit this crutch inside himself to his son, daughter – absolutely impossible. I'm talking about him – the freak. After all, with this prosthesis inside him, he will not be able to crawl and I'm afraid that he will also mate. In natural selection, he has only one road – death. A Darwinian scientist, who invents all this out of his head in a warm office, sees that the spine means a new, progressive stage of the evolutionary process. And what does it feel like for him, a disabled worm? He won't live to puberty.

Or these same ones, who later, after many zeros of years, became birds. Some of them were the first to appear, whatever you call it, processes, embryos that will sprout and open their wings in the minds of Darwinists in millions of years, while they are still the grave of the animals themselves. They cling to everything, they interfere with movement. They are already big, they cling to everything, they don't let them escape, and they don't know how to fly. That is, directly according to the law of natural selection, these avian progenitors in all their millions of generations with their ugly oars interfering with movement on the sides are the first, there is no one to compare them with, contenders for death as a result of natural selection.

Natural selection is a mechanism for selecting and destroying any random changes in the body that might appear.First of all, those that could be useful after many generations.

In other words: the main mechanism of development among Darwinists is precisely that which does not allow for any fundamental development.

12. Inductive stepAnd I suggested that biologists try to "prove" the heritability of changes.

To find something in the body that fixes the change, passing it on to the next generations. Find the gene of variability.

I didn't want to say this word before the necessary. He intended to criticize Darwinism by itself, without genetics. However, we must admit that clever biologists invented genetics.

I didn't want to hide behind genetics. Personally, even without this huge science, the falsity of Darwinism is clear to me. But it is clear to me, and a lot has already been written about it, and the main reason for the fierce persecution of genetics as a science and the scientists themselves – representatives of this science.

Genetics, its very existence almost completely undermines Darwinism. One of the sources, a close, one-root relative, the hope and support of Marxism.

Genetics opposes Darwinism precisely because it does not assert the presence of a virus of variability, but, on the contrary, a gene of heredity, similarity, similarity, identity of the new-born to its predecessor.

Biologists, it seems to me, therefore do not strain themselves in search of the mechanism of variability in the transition of generations, because the mechanism of conservation has already been identified and well studied.

Summing up the attempts to use mathematical induction as a tool to substantiate the concept of Darwinism, we find a complete collapse.

The basis is forever failed. The conversation is over. The theorem is not true. More precisely: it cannot be proved correctly.

There is no scientific proof of any kind, no morality here, in the case of substantiating Darwinism, there is no. And it won't!

And in place of the mechanism of variability, on the contrary, as if in mockery – a well-oiled preservation apparatus.

A complete rout.

13. RefutationsThere is no proof, not even a justification, even a hint of it, so why refute it?

There is nothing to refute. Moreover, the presumption of proof lies with those who have expressed this extremely dubious hypothesis of evolutionism.

On Satan! But he won't.

What do we have? Not scientifically confirmed in any way, but fantastically bold and attractive to an inquisitive mind, the statement about the natural, natural origin of man from the simplest forms. Nature, they say, had as much strength and time as it needed in order to senselessly and aimlessly stirring and mixing inanimate, pebbles and grains of sand, to mix life itself first, and later, without ceasing to stir and mix, whipped up this simple thing, first the edible, then the eaters, and then the The king of the universe is man. Including our magical mind!

A ridiculous, unworthy fairy tale.

The theory of evolution is not an ordinary one, not one of many theories; it claims to be universal, to explain life itself. The fact of the existence of man and humanity. For criticizing, and even more so for denying the "truths" of this pseudo-theory in the most just and progressive of countries, if not imprisoned, then excommunicated. And there's nothing to be modest about, they were imprisoned and tortured too.

And there is no evidence, no justification for the validity of this theory.

No, and it is not expected. No, and it won't.

Unbridled satanic charlatanism.

This is impossible neither in mathematics, nor in physics, nor in science in general. (Although, after all, there was dialectical logic in philosophy. Also, after all, without a single reasonable and practical result, this

the blood nonsense did not just live – it dominated and dominated. A lot of people, including candidates and doctors, were eating up around her. Gone into oblivion; I don't want to know where the adherents of this utter nonsense have gone. But the harm from her, however, was also a little.)

To this, out of anger, I want to add. Some "scientists" (soaked cucumbers) say, claim that in two hundred years there will not be a single blonde left on earth. Not a single blonde. Just hair dye and wigs. What can I say about these wet futurologists? Darwinists! Although, if there is a super-nuclear war, maybe. Everyone will burn. Including blondes.

If not, I will not give a tooth, there are not so many of them left, then we are people, not natural physical processes. We have free will and action. We can make some adjustments. Usually we make it so that we ourselves are most likely all burned in the fire. But if we get smarter, which is doubtful, and survive, then such an easy problem to solve is how to crack a seed. Breeding and selection (artificial selection). The price of natural blonde hair will increase so much that blondes will be specially grown and fed for a lot of money…

And to these same "visionaries" a snide question. If the blonde, blonde hair, gradually mixing, disappears, then where did it originally come from? If the population is continuously increasing, and the percentage of blondes and even their total number is decreasing, as it descends from the hill, then it means that once there was a majority of them. Where is the homeland of blonde hair? From which monkey did the blue-eyed, blond-haired Aryans sprout? And the Jews are blue-eyed and light-headed, have I met many of them? If this quality decreases, is consumed, then where were the deposits of this? Who is the progenitor of blondes?

Right now, wherever you go, there are drawings everywhere: how people will look in ten thousand years. Racially mixed, equally yellow-gray freaks. Hey, buddy, pickled cucumber, come through these times, let's look together, discuss, laugh. In front of us, before our eyes, shamelessly in the uniform of science, living charlatanism.

While physicists and chemists are dealing with serious problems, a lot of small bugs and scoundrels and magicians have divorced. We differ little from the ancient Sumerians, Greeks, and Egyptians. Look at their sculptural portraits, among contemporaries it is not difficult to look for doubles. Science appeared and went far away, technology created an unprecedented civilization, but the people themselves did not become any better in appearance, mind, or, most offensively, ethically any better than the ancients. They know more bad words, but, in fact, they haven't changed at all. If humanity does not die in the fire of a nuclear war, it will not change in ten thousand years. Maybe they will be taller, but rather shorter, I can explain why, but not in the subject, the width of the shoulders will change, the hairstyle, even, maybe, the degree of hairiness – little things, but nothing serious. Throw away your filthy homemade drawings, Darwinist.

Look, geneticists have been torturing fruit flies for a hundred and fifty years. And they are actually scientists, not like Darwinian charlatans. These flies multiply rapidly, so that hundreds and hundreds of generations of them

it took place in directed, targeted experiments. What scientists have managed to do with this stuff. And there are more legs and four eyes, and they are completely blind, but not a single mosquito, not a single trash of another kind, no matter how hard they tried, they did not get.

And you say: nature…

Without setting goals, without possessing scientific methods, without having any precedents in the universe, the dead, mindless nature accidentally mixed everything up…

At least you're not making me laugh.

14. TechnologyI once stood in front of a poster depicting a person's heart for almost an hour.

On good American paper, a beautiful drawing in color. I considered it as a drawing. As a little man, he moved from one to the other in all the atria – he was amazed. The valves make sure that the blood flows go where they need to go. If something is wrong, so that's what is provided for this case, and if something else, then they also protected themselves from this in advance. Everything is calculated, completed, measured and in a compact version in the right place is determined.

I was amazed to a slight dizziness. Yes, is it possible to imagine that blind nature just like that, without a purpose, built such a thing herself?

The most difficult, unbearable science, sorry for the wrong word, I have no others, an engineering solution, a grandiose, fantastic structure. Here, as an argument, I remembered about the giraffe's heart. To get drunk, the giraffe has to spread its front legs and lower its head. And they, giraffes, have the highest blood pressure, if I'm not lying, three times higher than a human. At this level of blood pressure, hemorrhages in the brain do not occur during watering only because there is a closing valve system in the cervical vein near the brain of the giraffe that restricts blood flow to the head. Valve system. Well, yes! She came up with herself and squeezed herself into the giraffe's long neck.

According to the device, the complexity of the engineering solution, the heart of a man or a giraffe is much more inventive than the interweaving of highway bridges.

But it also moves, works. Without rest all my life. Day, night, day again, a person works or sleeps, the heart works without urging until death. What bridges? Here and any spaceship is more inventive. It is unattainable neither now nor in a hundred years of rapid development of science.

Optometrists know the most complex structure of the eye. How can you think that it was blinded by blind nature itself? In some form, a low animal, almost a plant, entered the body, intertwined, got stuck there and saw…

I'm not talking about DNA molecules, amazing, wonderful in complexity. Doctors of sciences and academicians have been solving, unwinding the code of one particular detail of the body for years: hair color, height, wrinkles, smiles, and how much else is there? There is no such number.

And I'm afraid to even say the word "brain". Two kilograms weighing an unsympathetic substance. Looks like a pile of shit. But it doesn't smell, it thinks!

He took himself out of nothing by the final transformation of inanimate matter. Invents, creates, creates. Cannot be replaced by millions of computers. The ultimate product…

So what? All this by itself, without a preliminary ingenious plan, got mixed up, spun? This idiotic assumption makes me laugh nervously. The wind hit the metal waste warehouse, whirled a whirlwind, went further, left behind the most modern aircraft of unprecedented design. All devices are the latest, not even patented. Everything is brand new, sparkling, all the screws are tightly twisted. Of course. The wind swirled. Do you believe in this? So it's much easier and more likely than creating an eye out of nothing.

Yes, look closely at a single living cell. Which is easier.

Everything there is so neat and extremely correct, cleverly assembled for life, for reproduction, well, look, make sure. In such a microscopic smallness, such a jeweler's technique and such a super-super genius in design.

This miracle, which cannot be reproduced by science, could not have happened just like that, by chance.

15. Methodological errorI have already mentioned in this text, and anyone knows without me that one of the main arguments of evolutionists, if not the only one at all, is the similarity of skeletons.

The human bone structure is not a complete innovation, but rather the internal skeleton of a monkey, moderately improved. And from this a methodologically and logically unreliable conclusion is made: man is a distant descendant of a monkey, a geek. That's the human head, the human head is smart to the point of genius, and that's all that is the result of the centuries-old evolution of the chimpanzee skull (offensively including our proud brain itself). And the back, and the arms, and the legs, and everything else there, including appendicitis.

Nature had an abyss of time, and aimlessly, like a plasticine, squeezing a monkey figurine, she accidentally fashioned an Apollo Belvedere out of it.

Here I deliberately mixed a provocative idea. Made of plasticine? So not only a genius, but also an ordinary sculptor from a plasticine macaque will be able to mold Hercules. Well, yes! So after all, he has a talent, that's why he went to be a sculptor.

So he has an education, he's probably been taught persistently by the masters for five years.

But he also knew what he was sculpting.

And I am familiar with other portraits of Hercules.

And after all, this is only the outer side, without bones, nerves, without a heart.

And nature had none of this, no education, no purpose, no special skill, no prototype in front of her eyes. However, and the eyes themselves.

Nonsense!

I don't know much about cars, and I don't drive very well. But I will try to use an example from this area that is not close to me to clarify my thoughts, my doubts. They invent something there all the time. I wouldn't be surprised if every day. And so, for example, at the Mercedes factories, they came up with some super new gimbal, or transmission, or some kind of valve, a plug. Patented as it should be, as it should be. And since the part turned out to be really useful, they began to put it on other machines. Let's say they put it on a Honda for the first time. And from future times, a scientist-machinologist, studying all this with his own methods, comes to the conclusion that Mercedes gave birth to Honda. This was not, did not exist in the entire automotive world and was first noted in Mercedes. And after a while here in this "Honda". Reborn into it in the process of evolution.

Having strained, in this way it is possible to deduce the most modern model of the aircraft from the previous one, that one can be reduced to the previous one. The threads are erased, lost, but the path and the level of evidence are clear to us. Down the screw, down the washer, down the historical ladder. There, far below, a stone hammer and a chair are waiting for us.

It's clear that this is nonsense.

For cars, airplanes, it means nonsense, but for living organisms, for people maybe. What's the matter?

The Mercedes was not reborn into a Honda, just as the monkey was not reborn into a human. This did not happen in the real, material world. Rebirth in both cases occurred, but at an ideal level. In the first case, in the head of the engineer, in the second – in the mind of the Lord God.

Now my next example will be clear. There are atavisms in people. Unnecessary tails, webbing between the fingers, and you never know what, hairiness all over the muzzle. Here! Here, the Darwinists shout, are the traces of the previous stages that were passed by the ancestors of man in the process of evolution.

Nonsense! Not convincing at all. Let's take Darwinism for a moment. Well, our distant ancestors were great apes. Even more ancient – not even humanoid yet. And so on into the depths of time -mammals (how did it even appear and become: from other animals that were not mammals yet? The little animals wanted to drink milk, and their mammary glands grew… However, here we already doubted). Well! Let's say our distant ancestors were once animals of the lowest category. So what? The son is not responsible for the father. At least ask me. Moreover, not for his own father, but for such a distant ancestor. How did it happen that our contemporary grew his tail again after thousands of generations? Nonsense! But unhappy children are born with six fingers and more, with three eyes – there were, therefore, three-eyed among our distant ancestors. Born with three legs – there were also three–legged, born with three arms - there were, according to this idiotic logic of Darwinists, three-armed creatures. There are freaks with two faces – with this stupid logic, it turns out that historically it was so, with fused legs – there were mermaids among our ancestors. To summarize: unfortunately and to horror, there are indescribable and unviable freaks. So what does it mean that someone is

was the di of our ancestors like this? Stupidity. Irresponsible nonsense. In an even more impoverished country, a freak was born whose knees are turned in the opposite direction. It's creepy to watch how he sits down, how he walks like an ugly animal, leaning on his hands and feet with his knees backwards. Darwinists rejoice:

− We have a vivid proof that man descended from a grasshopper.

Idiocy? So why don't you see the idiocy in the fact that a child with a tail embryo is cited as proof that we are descended from tailed ones?

A mistake, not just an annoying mistake, but a tragic mistake when assembling DNA.

16. And what is such a passion forWell!

And why am I so mad? Why am I so excited about Darwinism? I found a swell too. Well, not a swell, but a byaka, why should we be sad about that?

A-a-a-a! This is because of the social consequences. Darwinism itself as a biological theory, a quasi-theory, does not interest me so much. Darwinism is not so terrible as its social consequences.

Darwinism seems to me like a fabulous (diabolical) three-headed dragon. And it's about these three heads that I want to say at least briefly.

17. NietzscheI'll start with Friedrich Nietzsche.

Because for me personally, he is the cutest head of the three–headed satanic dragon of social Darwinism. Maybe because I haven't reread it for a very long time.

For the first time in my life I read "Thus spoke Zarathustra" when I was still at school, I don't remember exactly in which high school. Now – even in softcover, even in leather with silver streaks, and then this book was banned. People not only had no right to read it, but even to know about its existence, it was forbidden to know the title. As is the author's name.

I don't think I understood that much about this book when I first read it. I judge this by the general enthusiastic feeling. No, that's not it. I didn't get the impression of wholeness. Integrity. Completeness. I did not understand that this is a philosophical treatise. I still haven't figured it out. My idea of the book was simple, school-like. It seems that this is not a book as a book, especially not a philosophical work, I hardly knew then, understood what philosophy was. It seemed to me that this is a brilliant, magnificent, without effort, one can say, a brilliant collection of author's aphorisms. Biting to the point of frenzy, amazingly talented, catchy, original, defiant.

Then I held a lot of collections of aphorisms in my hands. I already knew half, most of the aphorisms and maxims there from various sources. At least 80-90 percent. And the rest, new… Some are amazing, it's strange that it's so well said, invented, but I haven't come across it before. There are few of them – one percent of the previously unknown. The rest-

new... sediment. So, for the leafage, for the completeness of the picture, they are completed. It doesn't matter who they belong to. A fool won't say anything clever, but a smart one, even a genius, can say and invent any nonsense or heresy. Some kind of stupidity, petty-bourgeois generalizations, some wise incoherences, just in case.

I remember this on purpose in order to compare it with Zarathustra. Firstly, I didn't know anything about Nietzsche, not a single phrase. And it is clear why. Secondly, everything in a row, line by line, caused almost trembling in the joints. Not everything is clear, I do not agree with everything, in some places fog on fog, but the overall impression is a shock. And here it is again the same, a new circle. It wasn't the general idea that carried me away, I didn't rush into adepts in any way, on the contrary, individual thoughts. I once, immediately after reading about forty aphorisms, remembered and inserted them into the speech. Maybe more. Here! I'll tell you now.

I realized Nietzsche more as a poet, as a genius poet, striving to move a mountain and really shifting it. Yes, yes! I did not see a philosopher in Nietzsche, but a poet. There is no one to compare, a brilliant writer, fierce, passionate. "And even you, my friends, will be afraid of my unbridled wisdom." "Every speech flows too slowly for me–I jump into your chariot, storm! And even I want to whip you with my malice!" What kind of philosophy is this? It's poetry. Poetry of high intensity.

Much later, maybe as a student, I read, I can't remember now from whom, where, that Nietzsche's philosophy is music written not in notes, but in words. I know music and understand it poorly, the phrase of unknown people I did not like and was rejected by me. But now I'm writing and I see: the author of it was right in his own way: only not music, but poetry. Poetry written as prose, in a line, set out on paper as a philosophical treatise.

I was not moved by all Nietzsche's statements about the death of God. Or gods. I specially wrote this word with a small letter here. I'm lying that they didn't touch it. Offended. Upset, but not discouraged. Mannerizing, I thought, pretending to be himself.

"I like to watch children die" or something like that. Shocking! Cheap outrage, so common among poets. Or this passage, also about God. Nietzsche wrote: "I would believe in a God who can dance." It sounds poetic, easy to remember, but, like many other phrases of Nietzsche, more poet than philosopher, devoid of real meaning. I can dance too, and millions of people. Many people dance professionally. This skill does not add one iota to divinity. Maybe Nietzsche had in mind something simple, accepted by people - so this is a dog, cat, animal idea of the highest. David dancing in front of God is much closer to me and more understandable than Nietzsche demanding that the Lord dance in front of him. Dancing is nonsense. Nonsense. There are Hindu gods dancing all in a row. And dogs, bears in the circus. Not a smart, though passionate image. It's a shame that such a beautiful poet.

It is not very clear what he calls gods. Some prejudices, outdated ideas… It's not even interesting to find out. And I wasn't offended for God at all. My God, with a capital letter, does not exist in time, He cannot die, I do not know what Friedrich is writing about.

Now the most important thing.

The idea of a superman. Unconditional Darwinism. Nietzsche was, apparently, delighted with the idea of evolutionism, conquered by it. He used the same mechanism, only transferred it to another object. Extrapolation. The same thing, but not from the past to the present day, but forward into the future. The transfer of the idea of evolutionary development and changes into the future based on the material of one individual. The most interesting person.

I really liked this idea. I was thrilled. Then I was still a Darwinist and this idea did not occur to me, but I read it and was delighted. And what? I still like it now. After all, even under Soviet rule, they constantly said that it was necessary to grow a new type of person, a person of the communist future (these "new Russians" who steal no longer with bales and wagons, not even factories and factories, but regions, industries and regions – are they already the same? Or the brothers, those who put hot irons on the stomach of old men and old women, who for a bunch of green money inserts a soldering iron into the ass of an innocent person – is this already him? The one promised?).

The idea of somehow improving a person (in the sense of education, improving not only physical, but also intellectual culture, creative abilities and ethical standards) still does not leave me. All my life I have been mentally building my own countries and states, there is a lot about the selection of the best human qualities…

However, Nietzsche has a lot of stuff here too. Enthusiastic poetic nonsense. The "blond beast" is some kind of nonsense. And if brown-haired, red-haired? Won't it fit? Gray-haired? Bald? To scrap. Ugh, that's stupid. And why the "beast"? Still would say a scoundrel, a cad, an impudent. Or is it just a matter of translation? And if he is decent, smart, talented to the point of genius? Won't it work? So it's not a thought, it's a rhyme. You can do that there.

Or this: "What is a monkey compared to a man? A laughing stock or a painful disgrace." What nonsense!

In zoos, I loved elephants, big cats and these monkeys the most.

When I look at them, I never see them as relatives, my distant ancestors. Well, just like I don't see them among hippos with crocodiles. Funny, but no ridicule, not a drop of painful shame.

But even if with effort and tension I would look and consider monkeys from Darwinian positions… Well, I am sure that Darwin himself did not experience the painful shame of seeing monkeys and thinking about them. These words, these emotions have nothing to do with philosophy, and even more so with science. Pure poetry. However, not the lyrics. Pathos poetry.

What's next for Nietzsche?

"And man must be the same for Superman– a laughing stock or a painful disgrace." I don't want such a superman who forgets his past or, even worse, is ashamed of it. That is, I'm talking nonsense. Not "I don't want to", but more like a superman has nothing to do than disgrace himself by looking at a person.

« ... Superman is the meaning of the earth. Let your will also say: Let the Superman be the meaning of the earth! ...

Man is a rope stretched between an animal and a Superman, it is a rope over an abyss...

Look, I am the herald of lightning, I am a heavy drop from a thundercloud; and the name of that lightning is Superman."

There's nothing to talk about. Screaming takes. Emotions, screaming, anguish are much more than meaning. There is a lot of this in poetry. For some reason, Churchill's remark in the margins of his own speech also comes to mind:

– The argument is weak, you need to strengthen your voice.

Friedrich Nietzsche – this yes! In a highly literary form, he presented the process of the origin of the living from the inanimate, throwing evolutionism into the future. Step back: a man has evolved from a monkey. Now with the consciousness of the case, purposefully and intelligently. Forward to the transformation of man into a superman. So that not a hundred million years have passed, but to manage for a couple of hundred to see the results.

I like this idea. No, of course, "blond beasts".

A person, every person raised in greenhouse conditions, not in the sense of general comfort, but in my favorite sense: the maximum realization of what nature has laid down. For each individually.

Once again I want to say responsibly – Nietzsche is the most sympathetic of the known variants of social Darwinism. If we discard all the emotional husk, there remains a call to approach the upbringing of the younger generation wisely.

And the last. I don't see any connection between Nietzsche and Hitler. Maybe it's his sister's fault. But personally, I blame the same social order.

The fascists needed a kind of philosophical forerunner. The Communists have Marx, and who do they have? Nietzsche is great.

But he was not a harbinger of a dirty and criminal world war, the Holocaust.

Hitler is not superhuman in any way. An absolute genius, an evil genius, but it is our time, our generation.

18. MarxismThe most, to my taste, terrible version of social Darwinism.

Of these three heads of the satanic dragon , Marxism is precisely Ilya Muromets . I keep talking and I don't know how to say about my joy that this hateful ideology has finally been destroyed.

And I lived to see it!

Of course, maybe another hundred years, and even after that, a bloody and stinking interest in this teaching will flare up here and there, but the main part is done. The whole of humanity as a whole is no longer infected with this infection. The strength and power of this teaching has been undermined. It became possible to criticize it, to lay it out on elements, to compare it with real life. It's not that it's harmful to Marxism - it's deadly. The authority of this teaching was largely based on the slogans of equality and fraternity, so attractive to poverty, and on the absence of criticism, sobriety of analysis without a bloody fog in front of the eyes. After all, there was not even an opportunity to compare Marxism with other ideas and concepts-

mi in sociology and economics. Especially with life itself. After all, it's come to this. If Marxism said one thing, and the eyes in Delhi were completely different, the exact opposite, then it did not undermine in any way (there is such a phrase: if the fact contradicts the theory, so much the worse for the theory. Although in science itself, this is only in most cases the case, and not always at all. And here in the field of not knowledge, but opinions, opinions of not always competent people, people who prefer to give wishful thinking in the field of ideology), and confirmed!

If everything in our world happens, as in Darwin's theory, evolutionarily progressively, consistently growing from elementary to simple, from that to the lowest, then to the semi–average, average and so on to the top, then how should it be in the development of society. There must be steps by which society raises itself on the way to its own progress. Stages of development of society. The transition from one to another, to the next, from this – to what we have today…

Darwin, starting from the very beginning, the one for all, as from the roots, all living things gradually grow greatly. Already in the plant world, as in the jungle, you can get lost, so much. The cornflower over there does not look like an oak at all and does not look like an ear, and they all did not originate from each other. The same is true in the animal kingdom. There is a huge branch of vertebrates, and among them there are already mammals and others, and among mammals, for example, rodents, and there is another branch where invertebrates live. There are hardly fewer of them there. The infinitely intricate tree of the animal kingdom. Forest of trees.

It's easier in Marxism. Development is straight as a stick. No branches. What are we, some kind of animals? We, the people, have a complete order in society, as in the army on the parade ground: first, the primitive communal system is inherited from the animal herd, which is everywhere and necessarily replaced by a slave-owning one. That, in turn, is replaced by the feudal one with its serfdom. Then comes capitalism, familiar to us from the modern map of the world, which, however, quickly begins to rage with fat, rotting, and it is replaced by socialism, the first stage of communism, as they explained to us. We didn't live to see it, thank God. Which gave rise to some optimists to conclude that communism is not achievable at all. A dangerous misconception. People, be vigilant! And then fanatics will descend again, they will create for humanity a barnyard of universal obligatory and controlled happiness.

There are only five steps. Socio-economic formations. Once an elderly economist in Tomsk told me that there was an economist after the revolution, also a party economist, thoroughly Soviet, who wanted to improve, improve the scheme and instead of five Marxian offered his twenty-five socio-economic formations. And allegedly he was not shot. Mercifully, they gave him twenty-five years. One year for each formation put forward by him. The name of this unfortunate man was not given to me.

Formations are easy, not flexible. There are a lot of countries and states in which there has never been any modification of this or that formation. They say that China has dispensed with slavery in its history. There may have been individual cases of slavery, but in no case can we say about domination

this formation is all over the country for whatever time. Let the professionals clarify this. It seems from afar that there should be many subtleties. In the assortment. Like in the world of plants or animals. The case is controversial.

But Lenin himself, a friend and co-author, supplemented Marx by introducing the concept of imperialism. Even then, under Lenin, Marx's theory was cracking, capitalism was obediently rotting in the press, but it did not climb into the framework indicated by Marx. I had to introduce a new concept. However, Lenin hedged against further clarifications: "imperialism is the last stage of capitalism."

And immediately after perestroika, articles appeared in which professional economists said that Leninist imperialism was already outdated and real capitalism was just beginning. What then did the visionary Marx write about in his works? I am sure that if you pay a young capable economist or historian well, they will find or define some new stages, stages, levels of development of society. Just give me a fulcrum. Or they will remove some of the ones known to Marx. For example, I failed to explain, and I tried to do it several times, failed to teach educated Americans the difference between the slave-owning and feudal system. They, the Americans, had slavery in full and in a rather sterile form. I said all the things they taught me at school: to sell, to buy, to punish - they never saw the difference with serfdom. Neither economic nor legal. In a sense, they have never had feudalism. They gave counterarguments to all my examples. They teach differently in their schools. True, neither I nor they were economists.

I will not criticize or refute Marxism. Because thousands of people around the world are doing this for money now.

Marxism, as a political economic doctrine, is the most developed concept among all the humanities. More modest: I do not know, I have not heard of anything like this. In grandiosity, in the degree of elaboration, thoughtfulness, this concept is, if not equal, then comparable with the best of physical theories. Colossal work. Marx is an absolute genius. Of all times and all peoples. Outside of my personal relationship to him.

However, I don't like it. Science, any science, including political economy, begins with certain abstractions, obligatory initial simplifications. Marxism is a well–thought-out branched doctrine about a person identified with his stomach, with his material needs, about a person who lacks a spiritual component. The main one for me.

Boring!

And the second. The theory of real equality for people on earth, not equality beyond the grave, not equality in opportunities, but real equality of people who are not equal to each other, immediately turns into a procrustean bed. By the violent, social beheading of people of everything that sticks out, of everything that grows, that stands out, that shows, demonstrates inequality. And since people are represented mainly by stomachs, they mostly cut off their heads.

In reality, Marxism is the most inhumane teaching of all that man has invented.

19. FreudHere is the most hidden type of Darwinism.

Since man himself was molded from an amoeba, then he, each of the people, carries in himself, in his personality, all that animal, brutal, unreasonable, insane, that he inherited from all his tailed ancestors.

A dirty, insulting, inhumane theory.

Vladimir Nabokov has repeatedly criticized Freudianism in various places, its formulaic answers to any questions, a kind of irresponsible shamanism. Exactly what I don't like about palmistry, horoscopes, gypsy fortune–telling is suitable for everyone, and already the person himself, straining, adjusts, pulls up the general answer to his individual characteristics. Nabokov is a genius, a self–thinking person, which, in my experience, is a huge rarity, almost the same as genius. The noisy hype around Freud is unable to shake the skepticism of an independently thinking person. However, Nabokov's criticism of Freudianism seems to me superficial: bites, trifles.

This requires consistent painstaking work, not only refutation, but also exposure. It seems that Freud is the first, and perhaps the only case in the history of cultural development when a fortune–teller, a shaman, became known and popular not only in his native village, but throughout the world.

Unprecedented universal popularity.

On the one hand – the forbidden fruit. Is it delicious? Tasteless? Useful? Harmful? – It doesn't matter. Forbidden is the most delicious. Secondly, about sex. Oh sex! Oh-oh-oh! Sex.

I laugh at jokes about sex. Sex is everywhere. And so anyone and everyone, sometimes illiterate, illiterate, a complete idiot, inserts his stupid speech every now and then:

Freud 's…

The subconscious according to Freud is…

Sublimation…

Freudian Reservation…

Well, yes, people make reservations. Both children and adults, men and women, including professional speakers, announcers, stumble, stutter, make reservations. Most often it's just a slip of the tongue, a stutter in speech, but sometimes, occasionally, especially in children, new, sometimes funny meanings arise. Professional writers make reservations, mistakes and typos. Sergey Dovlatov believed that a talented writer even has talented typos. It seems that the point here is not in the mistakes of geniuses, but in the fact that he himself is a genius, he has a wider circle of meaning-making, meaning-making, he sees meaning, funny meaning, even where there is none, where no one else sees it.

Some small, insignificant percentage of all these verbal flaws, reservations has an accidental, unintended sexual load… Immediately shouts of recognition:

– Vo-vo! A Freudian reservation. A Freudian caveat!
Senseless idiots, unable to think critically. To think at all.

What can I say about all the other speech errors, without this sexual subtext?

What can I say about all those troubles that were not preceded by the appearance of a black cat? Or about all those cases when a cat crossed the road and nothing memorable happened? Nothing memorable happened, so it was forgotten, it is not taken into account.

The sexual revolution.

Marxism gave birth to the bloody Russian revolution, and after that almost all over the world. No, Nietzsche did not create a revolution, but his teaching became the official ideology of fascism.

Freud, Freudianism gave birth to the sexual revolution. It's hardly as good as the young think.

Is Freudianism dangerous? In my opinion, yes! He has not been exposed yet, he has not been caught by the hand, but perhaps that makes him even more dangerous. I don't know what it is, it will manifest itself in the future, but really Freudianism is the identification of humanity with its mentally ill part. According to Freudianism, all people, each of them is a hidden, not yet exposed sex maniac, fanatic, fetishist. Only the degrees and stages of the disease are different. Even the high, bright, purely spiritual in Freudianism is explained as the soaring of sexuality.

Much of Freudianism is true. Which is dangerous. After all, there is a reasonable rational grain in Nietzscheanism. Yes, no one needed it. Marxism would be quite good as a political economic theory next to other teachings. It is bad as a practice, it turned out to be catastrophically bad as a guide to social action, as a method of rebuilding the world by cutting off everything that does not fit into the concept.

Also Freudianism.

When exactly do Freud's articles, speeches, and books cite or refer to his authority? Yes, most often around noisy criminal trials. Cecatillo is a remarkably vivid example confirming Freud's theory. There is a lot of truth in Freudianism, especially for the world of sexual fanatics and scoundrels. A lot is true, but little is certain. As in quack divination and shamanism. That's why it fits everything. If a crime has been committed, then everything in it, or much of what has already happened, has happened, a skilled psychoanalyst will explain from the standpoint of Freud's theory. But he can't predict the new, the future. New checkatills are appearing and will continue to appear; it seems that their number is growing, the percentage of maniacs and ghouls is growing, but Freudianism cannot indicate who will be the next. Only to explain why this happened to the already caught and exposed.

It is clear why Freudianism was so strictly forbidden by its own brother Marxism. Everything was explained there from a social standpoint. The criminality of individuals is determined by the sins of society. Society is guilty of Marxism, the sin is on it. Although they caught, arrested, tortured and executed real people, individuals. Crimes, everyday, everyday crimes, were criminally concealed, and their appearance was explained by the birthmarks of capitalism. They said and defended in hundreds of dissertations that under communism there would be no crimes at all, since social causes would disappear

these crimes (there will be an eternal and general shortage, there will be nothing to steal, there will be nothing to kill for).

Freudianism said the exact opposite: a person is criminal because he carries his past, the past of a wild, unreasonable beast. If either of these concepts is true, the other automatically becomes false. Thank God, logic sees the third, most sympathetic way out: both concepts are equally false. Generally. And both are partially true. In particular.

I will take the liberty to say that not immediately and not directly, but it is Freudianism that is responsible for Satanism, which is so fashionable now and has spread all over the world.

It is clear that all of them – Marx, Nietzsche, and Freud – are active subversives of the gods. You cannot pray to God while serving Satan.