THE MIDDLE AGES STILL EXISTS

Grand Doctor of Philosophy, Doctor of Philological Sciences, Professor, Academician A.N. Jesuit.

THE MIDDLE AGES STILL EXIST

Sh.L. Montesquieu shrewdly remarked: ‘Every science has its Middle Ages’. Unfortunately, official Russian science has not escaped this phenomenon either. It really has ‘its own Middle Ages’. In this regard, let us turn to the present, which is quite indicative in this respect.
The well-known journalist N. Toporov in his publication ‘The Origin of Life on Earth. Random self-assembly or a process under control?’. [1] cites the eloquent opinion of biochemist A. Spirin, an academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences, according to which RNA, ‘the centrepiece of matter life’, is ‘a divine compound’ [1], which is ‘so absolutely perfect’ [1]. [1], which is ‘so perfect that it must have been created by some system capable of invention’ [1].
In response to the academic’s judgement, Toporov exclaims: ‘So. Here we are. The Creator appears on the stage. It feels like you and I are not talking in the XXI century, but in the dark Middle Ages’ [1]. [1].
V. Zyuganov, Doctor of Biological Sciences, scientific director of the Laboratory of Evolution and Ecology of Biosystems of the Russian Academy of Sciences, comments on the journalist’s words as follows: ‘What do you want? If the subject is inexplicable from the point of view of materialism and probability theory, there is nowhere to go – the Creator appears’ [1]. [1].
Zyuganov also claims that ‘in the second half of his scientific career’ many scientific authorities ‘unequivocally came to the conclusion that life on our planet is organised by the Creator according to some plan’[1]. In this case, ‘if we talk seriously about the Creator, we take our arguments from the Bible’ [1].
Before us, as we can see, we see a clear Middle Ages in its philosophical-religious argumentation in relation to scientific problems solved during the Middle Ages. At that, any doubts of scientists in the existence of the Creator were severely punished by the Church (M. Servetus, D. Bruno, G. Galileo, W. Garvey).
In our time, of course, the question immediately arises: from where and how the Creator himself appeared, who ‘created’ everything from ‘nothing’. There is no answer and it does not exist in principle. In fact, there never was, is not, cannot be any Creator and he is not needed at all. This is an axiom for true science that has been suffered in the confrontation with the obscurantism of the Middle Ages.
The Bible is basically a centuries-old (VIII century B.C. – II century A.D.) literary and mythological monument, which cannot be considered a scientific ‘argument’ in this case. Really, it depends on what and in what way. It is a paradox. Evangelist John wrote: ‘No one has ever seen God’. [2]. At quite a different time M. Gorky wrote: ‘neither in the heavens nor on earth has the existence of God been discovered’ [3]. [3]. As we can see, the incompatible, so different these authorities, has been combined. This is the truth.
Naturally, the following question arises: if all our life is created by the Creator and is constantly controlled by Him as the ‘Supreme Intelligence’, why it has been so imperfect and in many respects clearly ‘unreasonable’ for many centuries. The apologists of the Middle Ages have no answer either.
The way out of the modern worldview impasse in science, existing in the spirit of the Middle Ages, offers and justifies the ‘Philosophy of Interaction’ (PI) overcoming the limitations of materialism in any form, and any ‘religious dogmatism’.
The existing ‘Theory of Probability’, which Zyuganov mentions, assumes the appearance and manifestation of exclusively material phenomena and is therefore essentially one-sided. The FS is in principle devoid of any one-sidedness. A.S. Pushkin was sure: ‘unilateralism is the bane of thought’ [4]. [4]. Unfortunately, the one-sidedness of any materialism and one-sidedness of any idealism turned out to be very tenacious and really became a ‘bane’ for philosophical ‘thought’.
The Universe as a reality in all its manifestations and at all levels is ‘binary’, representing the interaction of material and spiritual principles. The universe as reality, including man, was never created by anyone, it is eternal and infinite.
FV believes that man as Homo sapiens (reasoning) was formed on Earth outside and before the emergence of religion. He came into the world as truly omnipotent for himself, materially and spiritually. Hence the original shamanism, which strengthened man’s material and spiritual power, which allowed man to become materially and spiritually stronger on Earth. All this is not yet religion. Religion appears when man himself becomes convinced by his own life experience, material and spiritual, that he is not at all omnipotent and omnipotent, materially and spiritually, and therefore turns for help and support of his life, material and spiritual, and some Higher Forces. This is religion. At the same time, man’s recognition of God as such a power and his non-recognition of God as such a power, we can say, exist simultaneously in the history of mankind, although religion is supported and affirmed in every possible way by power and its servants, spiritually and materially, in the life of human communities and associations of individuals, as an instrument of material and spiritual control over them. Man retains and develops the belief that he himself as a part of Nature, existing outside and independent of him, is subject to the laws of nature, natural to man, while man is relatively independent in his life, material and spiritual. History confirms this convincingly. Of course, the most important role is played in this case by the individuality of man.
Renowned researchers Jenny Teichman and Katherine Evans have convincingly shown and substantiated that mankind has not and does not have scientific proof of God’s existence. His existence ‘can only be taken on faith’ [5].
One can believe anything. As a rule, everyone believes in what he wants to believe in. In this case, faith can be very blind and stupid, aggressive and cruel, actually impenetrable and indoctrinated. Reason is silent in this case. Faith under compulsion, especially in childhood, is not excluded. It is activated in an atmosphere of depression. No faith has ever abolished any phenomena negative for people beforehand and in advance. It has always declared itself post factum. First, millions of lives are lost, and then, years later, it turns out that some ‘miracle’ like faith saved and won. Isn’t that an insult to the truth and the memory of the fallen. So much for faith. Admire it. I would like to say in the words of Fedya Protasov from Leo Tolstoy’s play ‘The Living Corpse’: ‘It is shameful and disgusting.
No faith can be offended by the truth, and no faith can really shake the truth.
С. Kierkegaard emphasised that there is an impassable wall between faith and knowledge. For religion this is a postulate.
А. Christie is right that ‘truth can only be discovered by thinking’ [6]. Philosophy does this consciously, and its reflections, to be true, must correspond to reality as an interaction of inherent material and spiritual principles. Such is the case with FV.
Even the Indian philosopher Kapila (7th century BCE) denied the existence of God and the very possibility of any proof of his existence. In the sixth to fifth centuries BC. Gautama (Buddha), the creator of a special philosophical and moral doctrine, did not consider God to be the first cause of everything and called for the destruction of all Gods in human consciousness. The idea of God leads man to inaction and irresponsibility.
Aristotle (4th century B.C.) asserted that the world itself has existed eternally and did not recognise its ‘supreme first cause’, i.e. God. F. Atheist (IV-III century BC) rejected the existence of any Gods, so the philosopher was called Atheist. This name became a nominal one.
Examples of this kind can be greatly multiplied. The trend is clear enough. This is the truth, we do not want to abandon it.

The Middle Ages have historically outlived themselves, but they still do not give up and act in many different guises.
In fact, with the approval of official science, the Middle Ages enters the life of modern man in a very bizarre way, through the establishment of a special holiday.
Thus, the Day of 8 July 2022 became an official holiday in the Russian Federation – the ‘Day of Family, Love and Fidelity’ in honour of the Old Russian saints Peter and Fevronia. Since 2008, this Day has been celebrated as a regional and public holiday. Peter and Fevronia Day was in the Orthodox Church canons. At first Peter and Fevronia were considered Murom saints, and then they began to be considered all-Russian saints. The day of Peter and Fevronia as saints was recognised in Tsarist Russia. However, it was soon enough forgotten.
In 2008 this Day was revived in the Russian Federation under the name of the ‘Day of Family, Love and Fidelity’, dedicated to Peter and Fevronia.
Let’s take a closer look, and more carefully, who Peter and Fevronia really were. The story – hagiography about them has appeared in XV century and has been finalised as a literary work in XVI century by the Old Russian writer Ermolay-Erazm [7].
Peter and Fevronia lived in Murom princedom (the city of Murom on Oka). There is no reliable historical information about them. These are literary heroes, to a large extent folklore. Peter was a ‘prince’, the son of a local prince, Fevronia was a peasant girl, a wise and skilful healer. Peter in his victorious struggle with the ‘serpent’ (an obvious myth) found himself splashed with his blood, and incurable ulcers appeared on Peter’s body. Fevronia undertook to cure Peter on condition that he marry her. Peter promised, and Fevronia cured Peter. However, Peter began to evade his word in every possible way. Wise Fevronia, not really believing in Peter’s promise, left one non-healing ulcer on his body, just in case. When Peter reneged on his promise, the disease flared up again. Fevronia cured Peter completely, and Peter was forced to marry Fevronia.
The boyars, dissatisfied that a peasant woman had become their princess, decided to expel her from Murom and offered Fevronia to leave Murom. Fevronia agreed to leave the city, taking with her the most precious things. It turned out to be her husband, Prince Peter. The boyars reconciled, and Peter and Fevronia again began to ‘reign’ in Murom. According to one version of the tale-life, most likely having folklore origins, Peter and Fevronia became a monk and a nun in different and neighbouring monasteries (across the Oka). They die ‘kupne’, i.e. at the same time. They were buried in different monasteries, but after separate burials they were eventually reunited in a ‘single coffin’. There they were left. According to legend, the relics appeared.
In the story of the hagiography of Peter and Fevronia there is nothing like most hagiographies with canonisation of their characters as saints.
In different countries of the world there are various legends, which are perceived exactly as legends, i.e. as fantastic legends about someone’s life. The hagiographies are ordered to be regarded as reality. Enough of all mythology. We’re tired of it.
In the hagiography of Peter and Fevronia there is neither their suffering for the faith, nor their martyrdom, signifying their holiness as characters. There is their simultaneous demise (it happens) and ‘reunion in one coffin’ (again a myth).
Peter and Fevronia show cunning and even treachery in their relationship, they had no children, a monk and a nun could not have a family, their love was purely spiritual.
To consider Peter and Fevronia the ‘patrons’ of family, love and fidelity is fiction at best.
Fevronia showed her devotion as a wife, counting the dearest thing to her, her spouse, when she was driven out of the city, while knowing that she would remain a princess in Murom. It is known from medieval Western European legend that women took their husbands with them as their dearest and carried them on their backs when the women were let out of the besieged city. Such a plot was quite common in medieval literature. Fevronia did not carry Peter out of Murom on her own. This is a kind of exception. It is asked, where are Peter and Fevronia’s exemplary family, love and fidelity. Everything looks very dubious and relative.
In the Middle Ages the hagiography of the saints was not analysed and their historical accuracy was not assessed. As we see, this Medieval tradition is preserved even in our time in the Russian Federation, under the present (spiritual) dictatorship of the Church.
It is indicative, that no scientist in the Russian Federation has not expressed the objective opinion concerning Peter and Fevronia, knowing concrete maintenance of a hagiography-tale about them. This is what we call the ‘sloboda of the word’.
For FV the real is that which exists outside and independent of one’s perception, which can be immediate-sensual, material, and inner sensation, spiritual. Spirituality is an inner attitude (predisposition, readiness) inherent in all natural phenomena, animate and inanimate, and above all man, receiving its material expression. Life is a self-reproducing constant interaction of material and spiritual principles. The spiritual beginning cannot in principle be created by anyone and in any way, by any ‘divine power’. It is real in itself, i.e. it exists outside and independently of its perception, direct and mediated. At the same time, the material beginning and the spiritual beginning, being in principle sovereign, cannot really exist outside and independent of each other. Moreover, under certain conditions they are capable of visibly reciprocating into each other, reinforcing one of the beginnings. This can be established in an indirect way.
What is regarded as a perfect union is created by nature as an interaction of material and spiritual beginnings and in principle takes place without any participation of the Creator, of which there is no need.
Thus, having begun under certain conditions, a chemical reaction gradually and at some point becomes self-producing. In this way a kind of life arises. For its chemical origin C and H2O are necessary. This, too, is still an assumption, though in principle a reasonable one.
At present, the real punishment for ‘heresy’ committed in science is to prevent the ‘heretic’ from appearing in the official media with any criticism of religion. Religion can only be glorified and admired. Medieval methods of punishment of dissenters are now impossible to apply (torture, bonfire), all the same there came another time, although some orthodox would very much like to return for their self-assertion some severe methods of punishment for ‘heresy’. This is not a fiction, but a reality.
It is indicative that some famous scientists recognised the special and truly universal role of the Creator precisely ‘in the second half of their scientific career’. Academician N. Bekhtereva, who spent many years studying the brain, as a convinced materialist, at the end of ‘her scientific career’ declared: ‘I admit the participation of the Almighty in controlling the thinking process’ and asserted that ‘science is helped by religion, not atheism’ [8].
This looks like a kind of conjuncture, when at a certain time, in fact, officially established in science became ‘religious dominance’ and, moreover, ‘militant neo-immorality’, the imposition of already outdated postulates and religious dogmas on science.
The words ‘History teaches nothing’ are often recalled and quoted. They are attributed to Hegel. But here is what Hegel actually wrote: ‘Experience and history teach that peoples and governments have never learnt anything from history and have never acted according to the lessons that could be learnt from them’ [9]. [9].
This is indeed what has happened and is happening in history. At the same time, ‘experience and history teaches’ that there were and are many people who really ‘learnt from history’ and therefore are able to influence its progressive development.
Moreover, to a certain extent they themselves can ‘teach’ history. This is a fundamentally important factor. Let us recall the poet’s significant words: ‘Teacher! Educate a pupil, so that there would be someone to learn from later’.
N. Berdyaev, who has now become an undisputed authority for many people, especially for the authorities, was convinced that ‘revolutions are sent by God’s Providence and therefore the peoples learn a lot in them’. It turns out that revolutions are ‘God’s Providence’, take this into account and learn to understand ‘God’s Providence’, if, of course, you are able and understand what it consists in. In any case, revolutions are not so easy to curse for ‘godlessness’. The shadow of the Middle Ages appears again.
It is indicative that the majority of young people in the Russian Federation, as well as all over the world, do not consider religion as their life value. This cannot be disregarded.
Of the 8 billion population of the Earth, about 3 billion adhere to religion. Approximately 5 billion people (this is the priority) are, traditionally speaking, atheists. This relatively stabilises the Earth from the massive religious wars that raged in the Middle Ages.

The attempt, in one way or another, to return to the Middle Ages, as to its origins with their special values, essentially means the intention to move forward with one’s head turned backwards. Even Joseph Schweik put forward the slogan: ‘Forward – backwards!’. A kind of call is known: ‘one step forward, two steps back’. It is quite clear and understandable how the forward movement can and does end with turning the head back: in the best case, a fall, serious injuries, and, perhaps, even death. It is worth thinking about this for modern lovers of the Middle Ages in science and not only in science.
Especially vital is the future, not the past, which has already passed and cannot be brought back, and it is not necessary.
The past attracts to itself, promises something that has not materialised in the present and, even more so, will not materialise in the future. It can temporarily and to a certain extent inspire, but in the end, it actually leads to a certain deception in the understanding of historical events.
Often contemporaries turn to their ancestors to justify their own actions. It must be said that the very notion of ‘ancestor’ is historically very vague. Neanderthal and modern grandfather for his grandson can be considered ‘ancestors’ in relation to modernity. The main point is that ancestors, who are also opportunistically chosen, should not in principle cover the actions of descendants, often very disreputable, who have their own present and future, for which they themselves are responsible before the history of mankind.
It is noteworthy that the elderly and young people nowadays value life particularly highly. Both want to prolong it as much as possible. That is why it is painfully painful and even shameful for them to see how people are being deliberately and purposefully destroyed and forcibly deprived of the most precious thing for a human being – life – before their eyes in various military actions. Such actions are inherently inhumane. No matter what is said, they are in fact limited to relatively narrow and private interests, often selfish and ambitious. In any case, they are not urgent universal needs, the satisfaction of which is materially and spiritually vital for each and every inhabitant of our Earth. It is in the infinity of life that is the purpose and meaning of existence of mankind, of everyone and everything. The condition and guarantee of this is universal and lasting world peace, peace without any violence, material and spiritual, everywhere and anywhere. Humanism is rejected by the aggressors.
All human beings want to live as long as they themselves are capable of living. This is their inviolable right. Life can and should be continued, not shortened. Such a world is real. The majority of humanity is behind it. Confrontation with war can be without violence. Let us remember M. Gandhi.
There is an open and frank competition between the warring parties: who and whom will destroy more. Not only that, the destruction of people is called ‘work’. Meanwhile, etymologically and in essence, ‘work’ is basically creation, not destruction, no matter by what means. In this case, ‘work’ can be called ‘executioner’s work’.
It is indicative that in the media, in connection with military actions, it is not ‘murder’, which implies the forcible taking of human life, but ‘destruction’, i.e. the cessation of the real existence of anything at all, both animate and inanimate. In this case, the human being is clearly humiliated and turned into a purely material object.
In modern warfare the purposefully-conscious burning of masses of people with special weapons is also used. The medieval Inquisition is far from such auto-da-fe, although the basis of both phenomena is the same – merciless destruction of ‘dissenters’.
This can hardly be considered a source of patriotic pride. In fact, there is nothing to be proud of. Destruction of people is not something to be proud of. People need peace as life, not war as their self-destruction.
The Vatican has recognised self-defence as legitimate and morally justified. At the same time, any aggressor thinks that ‘God is for him’ and ‘God is with him’. Surely it is ‘God with them’ and that ‘God is for them’ that warring antagonists believe. Something for orthodoxy to ponder.
Peace is achieved on earth not by force, with any kind of its concentration and organisation (‘centres’, ‘unions’, etc.), but by universal and universal non-violence, material and spiritual.
Pushkin’s words are applicable to the supporters of the creation of ‘power centres’: ‘We consider everyone as zeros, and ourselves as units’ [4, VI, 37]. [4, VI, 37]. Of course, the ‘units’ hide their true and assumed leadership role in order not to disappoint those whom they consider ‘zeros’ before the time. There are now many ‘units’ and many more ‘zeros’ who are unlikely to want to remain ‘zeros’ for long.
History shows that force is first of all formed and used for attack and then for defence, while attack, for its own justification, pharisaically pretends to be defence, preempting attack and even its threat. A real attack is applied to the supposed attack. Thinking about something and actually committing it are far from the same thing.
Military expenditures are incommensurable with all other expenditures, although militarists hide this disproportion in every possible way, which has a real and negative impact on people’s lives. Not without reason there is an expression ‘guns instead of oil’, now there are also missiles. They are much more expensive.
How not to recall the metaphorically insightful words of L. Tolstoy: ‘A parasite is going to feed the plant, whose juices it feeds on’. Today these words sound especially relevant.
It is the labourer who feeds everyone, including parasites. Let us remember M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin with his ‘The Tale of How One Man Fed Two Generals’. The story, in fact, is not outdated in the slightest.
We are constantly offered and even imposed loud, essentially empty promises and falsely soothing figures. Figures are given in advance that are to be obtained, unbeknownst to us, and they are confirmed on faith. This is not very reassuring or convincing.
Percentage of growth of something is taken unknown from any real significant number. But 10% of 10 is not equal to 10% of 100. Even N.V. Gogol said that people often like to be proud of victories that do not exist yet and that may not exist. And again L. Tolstoy: ‘It was smooth on paper, but we forgot about the ravines, and to walk on them’. There are a lot of different ‘ravines’ in our life and it is not easy to walk through them.
Preserving the life of mankind is not a political-regional problem that implies the priority of individual countries. It is an inviolable and unshakeable right of mankind – of each and every person living on Earth. Any violation of it is a global and unforgivable offence that has no justification whatsoever.
The lives of humankind, each and every one of us, are now in real jeopardy.
Our lives are in our own hands. The meter is already on. What comes next…
Those who want to maintain their power in the world by any means resort to the power of fear to weaken and even paralyse people, however, fear is not eternal. It passes, one way or another, and in the end courage and self-will triumph.
The currently proposed ‘transformation of the world’ is an authoritarian and dangerous illusion for humanity. It goes without saying that it is essentially a transformation by force, however it may be verbally disguised. In our time, all military victories, and not only those won by force, actually turn out to be ‘Pyrrhic victories’.
The famous philanthropist Mother Teresa said: ‘I will never join the anti-war movement. Call me when there is a movement for peace.’ It is precisely such a world movement, materially and spiritually meaningful, that can and must emerge at this time for the preservation and consolidation of a world without violence, material and spiritual, a world of abundance, material and spiritual.
The words of peace activist and poet Nazim Hikmet come to mind: ‘For if I do not burn, and if you do not burn, and if we do not burn, then who will light up the world’.
У. Churchill to the question: ‘What are we fighting for?’ replied: ‘If we stop fighting, then you will know’. Such a question and such an answer are relevant today. The main thing is to stop all battles on earth, no matter who and how they are motivated.
The famous American film director Ford Coppola is convinced that a real war film can only be pacifist, i.e. not accepting any war as the destruction of each other.
Pacifism (from the Latin pacificus – peacemaker) means not accepting any war as the destruction of each other’s people. It is pacifism that is vital for humanity at the present time, for everyone and everything.
It should be emphasised that Alfred Nobel was a pacifist in his views, claiming a special International Prize for ‘promoting world peace’ and spoke of the ‘barbarity of any war’, trying potentially and by all means to prevent any war. It is significant that the first Nobel Peace Prize winners, on his recommendation, were convinced and active pacifists: Henri Dunant (Switzerland) and Bertha von Zutner (Austria). This speaks volumes. It is pacifism that is now becoming the banner of world peace.
There is an expression: ‘If you want peace, prepare for war’. The very times in which we live call for its revision and even its rejection. Now it is necessary to say and not only say: ‘If you want peace, prepare for peace’, it is necessary to create and strengthen peace all over the world and by all forces, material and spiritual. Real and sustainable peace is achieved not by war and readiness for it, but by peace, by rejection of war and any readiness for it. War begets war, violence begets violence. Only peace begets world peace. It is not established easily, but peace is vital to the world.
All philosophy past, present and future is insulted. Andrei Korobov-Latintsev, who considers himself a philosopher, declares: ‘a philosopher is always ready for war.’ The self-appointed philosopher seriously claims: ‘A philosopher is always ready for war, because he is always at war, even before the war begins on the battlefield, the philosopher is already in position. Because the philosopher deals with ideas, and ideas do not exist in the world, ideas are always opposed’ [15].
Here what is not a word but a ‘revelation’ that has no relation to reality and is militantly dilettantish.
Throughout the history of world philosophy, no true philosopher has ever and nowhere called for war (war is the destruction of people), for the destruction of his ideological opponents and all those who think differently from the philosopher himself. The confrontation of ideas is not a war for their destruction. No idea in principle can be destroyed.
The philosopher’s position is not a trench, but a desk. The confrontation of ideas does not mean the military destruction of one of them, much less of their bearer. Different ideas exist simultaneously and in their certainty, there always remains their peaceful choice, without any military operations over them [15].
Ф. Nietzsche, whose philosophy fascism used for its militaristic purposes, believed that in times of war ‘God dies’. K. Clausewitz, a follower of the philosophy of I. Kant, H. Hegel, I. Fichte (none of these philosophers were supporters and propagandists of war as the destruction of people), considered war as a continuation of politics, only by other means. Exactly politics, not philosophy.
FW is indeed a philosophy of world peace, peace without violence of any kind, material and spiritual.
At present, all wars are essentially wars of aggression. There is and can be no justification for them. Each country (or rather the power in it), entering into war or preparing for war, wants to add something geopolitically, in its ‘national interests’ to itself. At the same time, it covers itself with peacefulness, which does not exclude the ‘use of force’.
How not to recall the wise fable writer I.A. Krylyi: ‘The strong always blame the powerless’. This is the case even now.
It is believed that each country should take into account the special interest of other countries. In many respects this remains only a declaration. The real and universal interest for all countries is world peace. When one speaks of ‘national interest’, it can be difficult to understand which and which nation’s interests are meant.
There is also talk of ‘national security’. The question arises as to which ‘security and which nation’. The question of ‘national security of culture’ is also connected to the question. It is not clear at all what we are talking about.
For FV, it is more correct and accurate to speak about ‘people’s interests’. People can include different nations.
In many countries there are different nationalities and ethnicities that form one nation as the population of the whole country in the form of a complex human community.

The nation is not identical with the state. The state can to some extent manage the life of the nation. Types of the state change, the nation remains unchanged in principle.
The authorities speak not about ‘national’ and ‘state’, but about their own interests, hiding behind the nation and the people. The interests of the authorities may not coincide with the interests of the nation and the people. The state is not identical to the country. Various international structures, in fact, represent the country, not the state.
Any power is transient, the people are eternal. The people are always in favour of peace. Power is far from always.
For some reason, no one in power seriously thinks about the true meaning of the words it uses. Etymologically it is unforgivable.
‘National interests’ for some reason are mainly for the authorities not inside their country, but outside it. It is called ‘duty to the Fatherland’. What is this duty and in what does it consist? Questions, questions, questions…
Naturally, a question arises, which was asked by A. Vertinsky after another and mutual bloodshed for people: ‘I do not know who needs it and why?’. No intelligible answer to the question was given.
Pushkin comes to mind again. In his tragedy ‘Boris Godunov’ the people do not shout, welcoming the new power: ‘Long live!’ ‘The people are silent.’ This means that the people are thinking. I wonder about what. Let the authorities think too. It is useful for her and for the people.
Pushkin expressively described the fate of peoples too submissive to the authorities:
‘Graze, peaceful peoples!
You will not be awakened by the cry of honour.
Why should the herds be given the gifts of freedom?
They must be cut or sheared.
Their inheritance from generation to generation
A yoke of rattles and a scourge. [4, II, 302]
Remember this, peoples. Do not go as an obedient flock to the military slaughter. Power uses both ‘rattlesnakes’ and ‘sword.’ Now it prefers the ‘scourge’, it is more sensitive and understandable.
Nekrasov with undisguised bitterness dreamed that the people will someday ‘The road wide clear, chest pave themselves. It is a pity, only to live in this time of beauty, neither I nor you will have to. We’ll live – we’ll see.
The writer G. Uspensky showed that in the autocratic-police state two attitudes prevail: ‘To drag and not to let’ and ‘into your pocket’. These attitudes, interacting with each other, materially and spiritually, historically have not outlived themselves, especially when it comes to answering the questions posed in the past.
Domestic classics have very subtly and accurately defined the typologically enduring features of the authoritarian state, which are indeed, in essence, enduring.
The appeal of the Czech anti-fascist writer Julius Fucik, author of ‘Report with a noose round his neck’ sounds relevant: ‘People! I loved you. Be vigilant!’ Love is the strongest and most organic, even intimate, feeling, material and spiritual in its essence. It is truly effective.
In a defensive war the cannons speak loudly and the real Muses that spiritually support it speak loudly. In aggressive war, the guns speak loudly and the real Muses who sing it are virtually silent. Genuine art cannot be deceived by any pseudo-humane assumptions. Moreover, the state persecution of artists who oppose the war begins.
In art, true harmony, which represents interaction as an organic interpenetration of material and spiritual principles into each other, does not tolerate any violence, material and spiritual, external and internal. It is truly free.
Much is said and written now about the multipolarity of the world order. In principle, the world order can have only two ‘poles’ (‘bipolarity’). The world has never been and cannot be ‘unipolar’. ‘Pole’ – from Greek polos – ‘axis’. Any ‘axis’ can have only ‘two ends’. The countries (or rather, the authorities in them) that most of all write and talk about ‘multipolarity’ are those that aspire to be a ‘pole’ themselves, without much reason. This is, at best, an ambitious illusion. ‘Pole’ is not only a weapon. True, you can call yourself anything you want. It can’t be forbidden. Self-disclosure is inevitable. The world was, is and will remain ‘bipolar’.
Nowadays the word ‘provocation’ is widely and often used, which is used in a favourable and convenient sense for the authorities. Etymologically, provocation means in Latin provocatio – a challenge to something in the broadest sense. In the narrow sense, ‘provocation’ is usually called a challenge that is treacherous and dangerous for the challenged party. It is necessary to weigh carefully all the negative consequences of such a challenge and of using the word ‘provocation’ in this sense. Not every challenge is a ‘provocation’. Any challenge from one side to the other, unforeseen by the other side and serving as an excuse for the latter’s unpreparedness for such a challenge, is now arbitrarily called a ‘provocation’. In short, one’s own miscalculation is called a provocation. This leads to serious and negative results, material and spiritual, for both parties involved in the challenge. ‘And there is still the same’ (I. Krylov).
Humanity does not accept and cannot accept the way of solving various geopolitical problems existing in the world through violence, material and spiritual, primarily military. The world needs a world without violence and a world order that guarantees the world a world without violence, material and spiritual.
A really new world order can and must be created on the basis of philosophically solid, inviolable world peace.
A country that is a geopolitical aggressor naturally becomes a pariah for countries that are in favour of a world without violence, material and spiritual. In any war there are mutual losses, and they are inevitable. This is the reality and it cannot be hidden no matter how and whoever tries to do it. One is reminded of G.H. Anderson who said, ‘The gilding will wear off’.
We remember the words of the poet K. Simonov about the Great Patriotic War: ‘Yes, the victory was not easy for us. Yes, the enemy was brave. All the more our glory’. The picture is different now and in a very different time. Therefore, we should not compare what is happening now with the truly great and unique Great Patriotic War. At best, it is a falsification of history. Honest participants of the past war are convinced of this. People are not sentimental at all. Those who have never been and will never be at war, who do not know and do not want to know what war really is, are not frightened by war now. The poet Yulia Drunina’s confession is eloquent: ‘Whoever says that war is not scary, has never been to war’. This is the truth of war.
The media happily report on the destruction of structures in individual enterprises and enterprises as a whole that in one way or another contribute to military action, without paying any attention to the fact that there were people there who were not subject to military service and were completely unarmed. This is already a clear offence against humanity, no matter how one justifies such actions.
It is becoming a brand of words: ‘I kill, not I am killed, so I exist’. Killing a person is no longer a surprise and almost no longer an outrage, but is accepted as something inevitable, becoming a kind of ‘norm of behaviour’ not only for those subject to military service.
Under these conditions, terrorism in its various forms is once again becoming active, and it is perceived with great restraint. The most intolerable thing is that the destruction of human beings is becoming habitual. F.M. Dostoevsky wrote: ‘Man gets used to everything’. Man himself can and must immediately give up the habit of killing his own kind. This is required of him by life itself, by everyone and everything existing on the Earth. For a normal and natural life, peace is needed both materially and spiritually. The peace movement can and must be materially and spiritually purposeful. War must be deprived of both spiritual and material sources. Any reduction in military expenditures will really improve people’s lives materially and spiritually.
The spiritual beginning in the life of mankind retains its own strength and attractiveness. This, first of all, refers to such a phenomenon and concept as patriotism.
The great patriot N. Nekrasov wrote: ‘the heart will not learn to love, which is tired of hating’ and was convinced ‘who lives without sadness and anger, he does not love his fatherland. We have something to ‘love’ and something to ‘hate’ and it is difficult to live ‘without sorrow and anger’ in our Fatherland. Love for the Fatherland is love in spite of everything that happens and does not happen in it, and without any selectivity. Such is true patriotism.
Н. Lermontov called love for his homeland ‘strange’. It can not ‘defeat’ any ‘reason’, ‘neither glory, bought by blood, nor full of proud confidence peace’. Pushkin believed that ‘peace and will’ are vital to man, his patriotism as love for his Fatherland.
Love for the Fatherland is indeed a great feeling and not only reasoning, it is intimate and intimate. It is to such love belongs the future and the brightest.
Even Shchedrin wrote that for many people ‘patriotism’ and ‘his excellency’ are synonyms. We should not confuse patriotism with any kind of choluism and ‘choluism’ as an ideology that really exists.
Modern servility (‘choluism’) is historically a kind of variant of the vassal dependence of servants on masters, which was inherent in the Middle Ages. Servants please their masters in every possible way, masters favourably encourage and reward them, materially and, to a certain extent, hierarchically, by promoting them. Power needs servants to itself, and servants need power over themselves.
At the same time, the power excludes from its favour and support those who are undesirable to the power (they are not active enough).
А. Chatsky in A.S. Griboyedov’s ‘Woe from Wit’ clearly stated: ‘I would be glad to serve, but I am sick of being served’.
At the same time, servants pose a certain and real danger to the authorities, which the authorities themselves do not always notice in time. Wishing to please in every possible way the power, which encourages and rewards them, the servants embellish reality in every possible way, carefully and thoroughly hiding from the power everything negative in reality.
By doing so, they mislead and disorientate the authorities. The true reality can punish cruelly and punishes the power for it. It is in the interest of power itself to see what really threatens it in reality and hampers its activities, thwarts its plans and expectations.
Moreover, the less success the power has, the more actively it is glorified by its servants. However, then quite quickly they fall into confusion, not knowing how to bail out the power.
Appeasing the authoritarian power, they deny the real and well-known assistance of the USA in the elimination of famine in Soviet Russia and in the construction of the AMO plant (ZIS – ZIL) and Dnepro-HES, in the lend-lease during the Great Patriotic War. Clericalism is truly ungrateful. It remembers only what pleases the authorities. V.A. Zhukovsky wrote: ‘Gratitude is a property of lofty souls’. There is nothing to add to this.
In a word, people, beware of servants and do not believe them.
History and life go on.
Let us recall in this regard, ‘The Story of One City’ (Silly), created by Shchedrin. It is a very capacious satire on the history of tsarist autocracy in Russia and, in fact, any authoritarian regime. In fact, the autocracy in Russia ‘disappeared’ in just one day in February 1917. Naturally, Shchedrin could not have known about this. But he shrewdly foresaw it.
In the media we have been repeatedly and enthusiastically shown and shown the splendour and inviolability of the autocracy with its smugness and boastfulness, its defiant satiety and complete contentment. And now all this has suddenly disappeared.
The town of ‘Glupone’ has had many and varied town governors in its history. The last town governor, Ugryum-Burcheev, ‘single-handedly crushed a whole mass of thinking beings’ and introduced a spy to every inhabitant of the town. Suddenly, a ‘tornado’ struck, and ‘the swindler instantly disappeared, as if he had melted into thin air.’ Such is the unexpected-expected finale of ‘The Story of One City’. Russian literature teaches us very instructive and wise lessons.
Again Nekrasov: ‘A storm would have broken out or something… The cup is full to the brim’. Gorky: ‘Let the storm blow harder!’. All this is expressed by literature as the centre of society’s spiritual life, and it is both impossible and unnecessary for anyone to live in society and be free from society.
For FV, it is fundamentally unacceptable to assert that at the present time in Ukraine are fighting each other, in fact, one people. Only egregious lackeys can admire such a judgement. ‘One nation’ cannot fight ‘each other’. One nation can only fight another nation, not itself. In this case, these peoples are indeed historically different in their language and culture, life and character, which must be taken into account, theoretically and practically. At the same time for a long time different peoples peacefully and fruitfully co-existed, developed and co-operated, materially and spiritually, for the benefit of each of the peoples, materially and spiritually. They did not need any war of who was who.
Constant and thunderous talk exclusively about military-patriotic education is a clear one-sidedness. In fact, only military patriotism is universally recognised. For the sake of this they go to any falsification of the true history, its diverse past. Meanwhile, patriotism can be very different: cultural, scientific, natural-geographical, domestic, etc. In fact, there is a spiritual militarisation of a person already from childhood. This is dangerous and harmful for such patriots themselves, who are inwardly aimed at war with all its negative consequences, spiritual and material.
There is a saying: ‘Patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels’ (S. Johnson), which is interpreted in a biased and negative way towards patriotism and those who write and speak about it. In fact, it means a situation when all kinds of ‘scoundrels’ (mean, low people), having exhausted all possibilities to justify their ‘scoundrelism’, resort to patriotism, claiming that they are patriots and therefore cannot be considered ‘scoundrels’. This is how the very essence of patriotism as a phenomenon and concept is perverted. True patriotism in principle is incompatible with meanness and baseness. Unfortunately, the above tradition still persists. It is in principle, which not everyone adheres to.
In history, as we know, there are periods of comparatively mass madness. Such a period has come now and how long it will last is still unknown, its consequences are not predictable. This is a period of multilevel and truly choluic mindlessness. Shchedrin spoke of an ‘administrative rapture’, a loyalty that overtakes a man and deprives him of reason. It is hoped that reason will still really show itself and triumph over the cholera madness.
For mankind, each and every one of us, it is better and more useful, materially and spiritually, to be ‘committed’ not to war, but to peace.
The state of peace is not absolute conflict-free everywhere. However, all existing and emerging geopolitical conflicts should be solved not by violence, material and spiritual, but by co-operation, material and spiritual.
N.M. Karamzin spoke about ‘kvass patriotism’. The real ‘patriotic frenzy’, the Black Hundred Monarchist one, was in tsarist Russia at the beginning of the First World War, but it soon ended with a world-significant result. Any ‘military-patriotic frenzy’ passes, and quite soon.
J. Fucik perceptively and extensively believed that ‘a hero is a person who, at a decisive moment, does what needs to be done in the interests of human society’ [10]. This is the principle basis of true heroism. We should not mince and devalue the word ‘hero’ itself; it has a universal human meaning, especially at present, and is not exhausted by war.

Lermontov has some heartfelt and instructive words addressed to his young contemporaries:
The amusements of the world are ridiculous to you
The anxieties of wild wars;
You are not accustomed to torment your minds
The heavy thought of the end;
On your young face
No trace of care or sorrow
There is no trace of care and sorrow to be found
have you ever seen a man die up close.
The poet sees and remembers ‘the anxieties of the wild war’, which make themselves known in our time.
One cannot but agree with the wise statement of the English writer G. James: ‘A man must live in his country, that is where he belongs, whatever it may be’ [11]. [11]. This is true patriotism.
At the same time, a patriot is not an isolationist. F.M. Dostoevsky emphasised: ‘We cannot refuse Europe in any way. Europe is our second Fatherland – I am the first to passionately confess this and have always confessed it’.
The words of the Russian pedagogue are significant: ‘the school should not lie, it must answer actual questions. If this does not happen, the teacher looks insincere and unconvincing’ [12]. Unfortunately, it happens very often and all over the world. Especially many lie, glorifying their own history in every possible way, excluding everything, in one way or another, negative for its glorification. We are already tired of all kinds of lies, where are its limits. Lies, especially boastful lies, have never and cannot educate a true patriot. Only truth brings up a true patriot.
The Great Patriotic War had a truly universal goal: ‘To save the world, the planet from the plague, here is humanism and humanists we are.’ (V. Inber). It is fascism that is the ‘brown plague’.
The SWO was first openly labelled as a war. Not only that, a Patriotic war, like the war of 1812 and 1941-1945. For those who have any real relation to the events of the Great Patriotic War, such a comparison can cause nothing but, to put it mildly, bewilderment. It is blasphemous to think so.
Napoleon attacked the Fatherland (Russia). Hitler attacked the Fatherland (USSR). No one attacked the Russian Federation. The RF itself was the first to attack, calling it a ‘Patriotic War’. True history will judge who is who.
The Great Patriotic War of the Soviet people ended with the final defeat in Germany and the great victory of our people over German imperialism and fascism trying to enslave the USSR. After the Great Victory, a peaceful period of development began. This has absolutely nothing in common with what is happening in our time. Any rhetoric is powerless. The age is unchanging and it does not lie. The new can and must be dealt with in a new way. An ‘orthodox hegemonism’ is beginning to assert itself. This is both disturbing and dangerous.
The authorities (far from being its participants) are striving by any means and in any way to silence and strangle the real, harsh and cruel memory of the Great Patriotic War. There are very few eyewitnesses and participants left alive. Soon there will be none at all. Then will come the boundless triumph of the clownish conjuncture, generations of historically unknown winners will appear. By their age, clerics have not seen and could not see the war. They cannot have any direct impressions of the war. Only eyewitnesses and participants of the Great Patriotic War have direct impressions. It is their duty to preserve the true historical memory of the war. When Leo Tolstoy in his epic ‘War and Peace’ described the Patriotic War of 1812, only one of its direct and active participants Fyodor Glinka (1880) – the author of the famous ‘letters of a Russian officer’ (1815), mercilessly truthful and documentary accurate – was alive. The people had reached their ‘exasperation’ (Pushkin). Glinka sharply criticised Leo Tolstoy for the lack of true historical authenticity in his work; nevertheless, whole generations of readers perceived and perceive the Patriotic War of 1812 not through Glinka’s book (they simply do not know it), but through Tolstoy’s epic. We have only to wait for the appearance of a new L. Tolstoy.
М. Sholokhov, author of marvellously truthful works: ‘On the Way to the Front’ (1941), ‘People of the Red Army’ (1941), ‘Prisoners of War’ (1941), ‘The Science of Hate’ (1942), spiritually hardening Soviet people at the front and in the rear. ‘The Science of Hate’ by this time gradually reached its climax, especially towards the end of the war, while in principle humanism was preserved and not simplified. Sholokhov never completed his epic ‘They Fought for the Motherland’.
Any ‘deception that exalts us’ (Pushkin) does not last long. The French writer Petrus Borel exclaimed: ‘We will endure poverty, but we will reject lies!’ [13]. So it was, so it is, and so it will be.
A true patriot gives his life for the Motherland voluntarily and gratuitously. A false patriot – forcibly and for money (‘dough’). We do not want to see a ‘triumphant pig’, in the words of Shchedrin. The self-righteous upper classes have lied irrevocably and on all accounts. Obviously, they can still stop lying, but time is irrevocably running out.
Medieval obscurantism, unfortunately, has not passed into history. A recent poll conducted by the All-Russian Centre for Public Opinion Research (VTsIOM) showed that almost half of those polled believe that the Sun revolves around the Earth. This is still a pre-Copernican, geocentric view of the world. At the same time, there is no doubt that the ‘Creator’ created ‘everything from nothing’, and this is recognised even in the scientific world.
Very sophisticated conceptions of the world as a whole emerge. It is believed that in the microcosm, beyond particles such as the electron and even more micro (in fact, the microcosm is inexhaustible), there is already only God. It is claimed that even before the ‘universe’ came into existence 14 billion years ago (the time is quite arbitrary) only God was outside it too. Again we are faced with an essentially Medieval chimera: God, who where and when he appeared is unknown, how and from where, ‘created the universe’.
In the recently clarified text of the Bible, God ‘divided’ (bara in Hebrew) ‘the heavens and the earth,’ not ‘created’ them. So, in principle, they already existed. This is what the ‘God-breathed book’ says.
The words: ‘there is no authority except from God’ are interpreted in a conjectural sense. One Orthodox hierarch declared that fascism is also power from God, and he recognises it. Power, in order to stay at the helm, is ready to recognise any God.
Medieval exorcism – expulsion of demons from a person – is actually legalised in the world (including the Russian Federation) [14]. There is an International Organisation of Exorcists (2014) operating in thirty countries. ‘Demon possession’ as a special sacrament by medicine is now separated in principle from mental illness. A special commission has developed rules governing the rite of ‘exorcism’. Such a rite is performed by Orthodox priests specially trained for it. In essence, there are no scientific protests against exorcism at present. The obscurantism triumphs, albeit in a somewhat updated version.
There is an illusion that one can be an atheist, but an atheist should support religion as a carrier of spiritual and moral values in every possible way.
In this case, Orthodoxy is considered ‘the main carrier of spiritual and moral values’. This is nothing but militant ‘neo-amorality’, a clear revival of the Middle Ages.
Currently, attempts are being made to create the Eurasian Film Academy. Pictures that coincide with the moral principles of countries that struggle to realise the divine origin of man will be accepted for consideration [15]. As we can see, morality is clearly identified with religion (coincides with it). At the same time, ‘realisation of the divine origin of man’ must still be proved, fought for, because not everyone in the world ‘realises’ it. The film academy is frankly ideologically limited. It is interesting to know how many countries, and which countries will submit their films for its consideration.
Not only that, but the ideologists of ‘orthodoxy’ have come to the conclusion that there is an ‘orthodoxy from the evil one’. It is, in fact, more influential than ‘orthodoxy’. This actually means the surrender of orthodoxy.
The casuistry used is, ‘God himself permits disbelief in him and does not persecute for it.’ ‘Chastised for it’ by the ‘servants of God,’ materially and spiritually.
We are called to ‘defend our God’, if for someone he is his own, what monotheism is there. All doctrines are filled with antinomies, which already presuppose some kind of heresy.
At present, special ‘patriarchal courts’ are created in the RCT to combat sectarians [17]. The Patriotic Club of the United Russia party intends to fight heresy [18]. This is the reality. Isn’t this the Middle Ages and a kind of inquisition.
The apologists of Orthodoxy reach truly schizophrenic judgements. Thus, Doctor of Philosophy Victor Darensky, who has no doubt whatsoever states: ‘Before the Baptism of Russia there was no Russian people… From the Orthodox point of view there is a Russian people only as long as at least part of it keeps Orthodoxy… New departures from the faith will be the last and the people will disappear. It is important to understand: keeping Orthodoxy, we keep Russia … Against the civilisation of Antichrist, against the onset of the apocalypse. The Russian army prolongs the existence of mankind’. And, finally, the finale: the president is the president, and he will never become a monarch, however, the demand of our society for a monarchy is clearly manifested’ [18]. Isn’t all this medieval obscurantism. There is no need and no point in commenting on it. During the Great Patriotic War such nonsense did not occur to anyone and in principle cannot occur. The country was simply different.
Recently, the word ‘interaction’ itself has become relatively widely used, but it is given a one-sidedly limited meaning. In such ‘interaction’ one of the parties is considered the ‘hegemon’ and the other party is unconditionally subordinated to it, materially and spiritually. It is a kind of ‘authoritarian interaction’. The strong suppresses the weak and assures that he is ‘interacting’ with him. At best, it is a parody of genuine interaction, when both sides of the interaction are really sovereign, materially and spiritually: they have a common goal and at the same time each side solves its own tasks. The general and the particular, the material and the spiritual interact organically. This has an undoubtedly positive effect. Much has been said recently about ‘phobia’ concerning cultural phenomena. In this case it is necessary to refer to etymology. In Greek, phobos means an obsessive state of fear, which causes hatred towards the thing that causes such fear. Fear as ‘expected surprise’, materially and spiritually negative causes in reality everything that is not very understandable, that visually does not lend itself to direct interaction with a person and internally threatens a person with potential violence, material and spiritual. Militant nationalism, ethnic intolerance, political self-righteousness, ruthless dogmatism have always caused and still cause phobias. Real interaction, which removes violence, material and spiritual, also removes ‘phobias’ as persistent fear and hatred. In the past and present, the interaction of material and spiritual principles has always dominated the true culture of any country.
Man, remember that you are homo sapiens, i.e. ‘a reasoning man’. So reason without succumbing to ‘medieval’ obscurantism.
The writer T. Ustinova is right that ‘obscurantism is now covering the world much faster than it covered people in the Middle Ages. Therefore, the task of education is to replace the barbaric medieval times as quickly as possible came the Renaissance’ [19]. [19].
The Middle Ages existing in our lives is not at all harmless. It is the actual justification and affirmation in it of all violence, material and spiritual, of active neo-immorality, of the suppression of all dissent, compared to the official doctrine in science and not only in science. In other words, anti-humanism. Let’s wait for a new Renaissance, approaching as soon as we can its real appearance and manifestation.
History convinces us that any Middle Ages in science inevitably ends, and there will be no exception in this case. Our science should move more consistently and boldly along the path already outlined and really paved by the ‘Philosophy of Interaction’, which science really needs and which opposes any Middle Ages and not only it.
At one time L. Tolstoy, who was excommunicated, said: ‘I cannot be silent.’ I too cannot keep silent now. Except that there is nothing to excommunicate me from. That’s my advantage. Whoever wants to live in the Middle Ages, let him live in the Middle Ages. But don’t complain about it afterwards.

Literature:

1. Toporov N. Origin of life on Earth. Random self-assembly or a process under control? // Argumenty Nedeli!, 2019, 10 January. С.22.
2. Bible. Books of Holy Scripture of the Old and New Testament. М., 1979. С. 1127.
3. Gorky M. Collected works in 30 volumes. VOL. 27. M., 1953. С.472.
4. Pushkin A.S. Complete Collected Works. T.13. M., 1937. С.262.
5. Teichman Jenny, Evans Katherine. Philosophy. A Guide for Beginners. С. 21. 1991, 1995. Oxford. Cambridge.
6. Christie Agatha. Selected Works. Vol.15. Novosibirsk, 1994. С. 365.
7. History of Russian Literature. VOL.1. L., 1980. С. 211-213.
8. Kuzina S. Science is helped by religion, not atheism // Komsomolskaya Pravda. Petersburg, 2019, 7 July. С.8.
9. Hegel G.W.F. Works. VOL.8, M.-L., 1935. С.7,8.
10. Fuchik Y. Selected Essays and Articles. М., 1950. С.69.
11. James Henry. Female Portrait. М., 1985. С. 157.
12. 24 Hours, 2022, No. 35, 31 August – 7 September. С.2.
13. Borel Petrus. Champover. Л., 1971. С.13.
14. Baksheev M. How to exorcise demons correctly. // 24 Hours, 2022, 26 October – 2 November. С.14.
15. Mikhalkov N. ‘You must protect your God’ // Argumenty i Fakty, 2022. 18-22 November. С.2.
16. Holy Trinity. To combat sectarians, ‘patriarchal courts’ will be created under the ROC // Versiya na Neva, 2009, 23-29 March. С.11.
17. Serova A. Bear Inquisition. The patriotic club ‘United Russia’ intends to fight heresy // Novaya Gazeta, 2009, 30 April. С.20.
18. Darensky V. Keeping from evil // Argumenty Nedeli, 2022, 14 December. С.16.
19. Ustinova T. Why does a man need education? // Argumenty i Fakty, 2022, № 35, 31 August – 6 September. С.10.

©
29.11.2022 St. Petersburg