| От | Ф.А.Ф. |
| К | Ф.А.Ф. |
| Дата | 16.09.2004 10:58:06 |
| Рубрики | Россия-СССР; |
Зиновьев: Фоменко и Носовский - это великие ученые
Я думаю, после этих цитат истерические выкрики с мест о развесистой клюкве прекратятся :)
---------
Все мои опубликованные книги, были прогностическими. Они писались тогда, когда явлений, о которых я писал, еще не было. Это сейчас прошли годы, и мои книги начали печатать здесь – но ведь они то написаны 25-30 лет назад. Например, «Катастройка». Только появился Горбачев – я выпустил книгу «Катастройка», где и предсказал, что произойдет. И сейчас для меня делать прогнозы относительно будущего России и всего человечества – это банальное занятие. Труднее говорить истину о прошлом, потому что прошлое сфальсифицировано, полностью и оно не вернется. Там нужно проводить буквально детективную работу, такую, как проводят Фоменко и Носовский, — это великие ученые, к слову сказать. Вот такую работу нужно проделывать.
Наживка, спрятанная за математическими формулами, глубоко проглочена, и вот маститый академик (Велихов) заявляет, что полет фантазии другого академика — А. Т. Фоменко — «интересен», а известный политолог — профессор МГУ (Зиновьев) сокрушается, что «труды русского гения замалчивают», и доктор психологии (Зимичев) призывает к созданию «крупного» (конечно, «желательно международного») проекта для исследования проблем хронологии. Да, имеются реальные проблемы в древнейшей хронологии, особенно Рима или Египта, имеется сколько угодно примеров фальсификации сведений о событиях прошлого, но крупнейший из них принадлежит акад. Фоменко.
I familiarized myself with the works of A. T. Fomenko
comparatively recently, and they impressed
me greatly.What part of them struck me as the most
stunning? First and foremost, it was the intellectual capacity
observable behind them. The authors reveal a
way of cogitating that manages to fuse austere logic
with dialectic flexibility; this is truly a rare occurrence
in the field of social studies. Reading the oeuvres of
A. T. Fomenko and his co-author G.V Nosovskiy – occasionally
several times over – was a veritable intellectual
delight for yours truly. They flabbergasted me
with their sheer disquisitive might as well as the research
results which, in my opinion, can by rights be
called the greatest discovery in contemporary historical
science – what A. T. Fomenko and his colleagues
had learnt over the course of their research was the fact
that the entire history of humanity up until the XVII
century is a forgery of global proportions (“old history”
in their terminology) – a falsification as deliberate as
it is universal. I shall be referring to this falsification
as the first one.My sociological research of the great
evolutionary breakpoint demonstrated that a new,
blatant, global and premeditated falsification was already
in full swing. Prior to becoming familiar with
the writings of Fomenko, I had already known that the
falsification of the past was a rather common phenomenon
inherent in human existence. However, I
was neither aware of the scale of this fraud as described
by Fomenko and his fellow scholars, nor of its
social type.My assumption had been that the blatant falsification of history on a planetary scale that I discovered
was the first one in what concerned the proportions
and the ulterior motivation, as well as its historical
role. Let us call it the second falsification of the
same variety. It differs from the first in terms of pertaining
to a different epoch. Its main subject is modern
history and whatever historical period can be
claimed as relevant to, and seen as fitting for, the purposes
of this falsification. The second falsification also
differs from the first one in its primary means and
methods, which shall be described below.
One has to differentiate between the two kinds of
falsification, the first one being the involuntary routine
falsification of minor details that results from
the mechanisms of gnosis and those of the actual description
of historical events, or the entropy inherent
in the framework of humanity’s historical memory.
The second is the extraordinary, premeditated and
complex falsification that has distinct social causes.
Let us consider the former kind first.We shall disregard
the period preceding the epoch of literacy and
symbolic systems. The mnemonic means available
back then were less than meagre, which automatically
diminished the arsenal of the hypothetical falsifiers.
We shall turn to the era of literacy instead. It
is common knowledge that historical events become
immanetized in human language – and a statement
uttered is a lie, as the old saying goes. We cannot
fathom the unfathomable.What we end up doing is
raking the vastness of history for tiny morsels of information and adding some of our own narrative in
order to produce wholesome and coherent textual
material.
The modern information technology does not affect
the principles that the status quo relies upon. Let
us introduce the concept of historical “atoms”, or particles
that aren’t subject to further division. One may
well calculate that the verbal description of a single
year of real history the way it really happened, including
all manner of events, no matter how minute,
would require the processing power of all the computers
on the planet, with all people made computer
operators. De facto, this technology serves as a powerful
instrument of historical falsification. It allows for
the possibility of drowning a scientific approach to historical
events in an ocean of meaningless facts.
Furthermore, the description of actual historical
events is done by humans, and not perfect divine entities.
People are brought up and educated in a certain
way and have a certain social standing, as well as
egotistical goals and aims of their very own. All of this
affects the way the information is processed. Over the
course of time, the overwhelming majority of events
are wiped away into oblivion without leaving the merest
trace. They are frequently not even realized as
events. The people’s attitude to the past begins to alter
as past events gradually drift into an altogether different
observational and interpretational context.
Evolutionary process discerns between two kinds
of events – preliminal and superliminal. The former
kind does not affect the general character of evolution;
the latter one does. However, humans, including
specialists, fail to recognize the difference between
the two. Everyone knows perfectly well how
much attention is poured over rather insignificant
individuals, such as kings and presidents, whereas
the really important events often don’t even get so much
as a passing reference. This affects the relations between
historical events so much that all sense of
measure is often lost. Even if we are to suppose that
all those who partake in the creation of historical
records see veracity as their mission, the result of
their collective efforts is often the rendition of their
own subjective views on history as opposed to what
happened in reality. As centuries pass by, the stream
of disinformation is fed by various sources and tributaries,
which, in their multitude, produce the effect
of impartial falsification of historical events. This
stream also feeds on murky rivulets of countless liars
and swindlers.
The false model of history serves its function for
a certain while.However, humanity eventually enters
a period when this distorted representation loses ef-
ficacy and stops serving its ends. This is where people
are supposed to start searching for explanations
and set out on their quest for a “truth”.However, there
is the abstract scientific kind of truth, and the actual
historical variety – that is to say, something that people
regard, or will at some point start regarding as
truth. The very word “truth” is confusing here. We
shall be on safer ground if we are to consider the adequacy
of having certain concepts of the past for the
new needs that have manifested as a result of the historical
process. These concepts stop being valid for
satisfying these needs. One becomes aware of the necessity
to update our view of the past in accordance
with whatever the present stipulates. This awareness
is the kind of craving that can only be satisfied by a
“bona fide rectification” of history, which has to occur
as a grandiose paradigm shift – moreover, it has to be
a large-scale organized operation; one that shall result
in an epochal falsification of the entire history of humankind.
The issue at hand is by no means the falsi-
fication of individual observations of historical events,
but rather the revision of the entirety of historical
records describing the events which cannot be observed
as a principle since they belong to the past.
What we are talking about is not a mere change in the
perception and interpretation of the same old existential
phenomena – it is the adaptation of the charactery,
which naturally used to refer to certain commonplace
realities at some point, to the exigencies of
people who have to live in an altogether different environment.
Trained specialists are a sine qua non for
this – people whose activity shall have to be organized
in such a manner that their collective output will
result in the creation of a coordinated historical
Gestalt.What they really have to do is create exactly
the kind of past that is needed for the present, making
use of whatever available material presents itself.
The first global falsification of history as discovered
and brilliantly related by Fomenko was based
on an erroneous temporal and spatial coordinate system
of chronological events (the chronological sysxvi
| history: fiction or science?
tem and the localizations of events wedded thereto).
The more recent and ongoing second global falsifi-
cation of history is based on a system of erroneous
pseudoscientific sociological concepts stemming from
ideology and aided greatly by the modern information
manipulation technology. This is why I call the
second falsification conceptual and informational, or
merely “conceptual” for brevity’s sake. Fomenko’s
works describe the technology of building a false
model of human history which uses the art of manipulating
the temporal and spatial coordinates of
events.Many thousands of specialists in false historical
models are already working on this second falsi-
fication – their forte is the ability to misrepresent historical
events while giving correct temporal and spatial
coordinates and representing individual facts
veraciously and in full detail. The actual falsification
is achieved via the selection of facts, their combination
and interpretation, as well as the context of ideological
conceptions, propagandist texts that they are
immersed into, etc. In order to describe the technology
behind the second falsification with any degree
of clarity at all, exhaustively and convincingly, one
needs a well-developed scientific system of logistics
and methodology, as well as sociological theory. I call
such a system logical sociology; however, it is a thing
of the future, which means that the second falsification
of history shall continue in its present manner,
with as much ease and impunity as the first. Tens and
hundreds of years hence, a number of solitary researchers
shall “excavate” the so-called “modern history”
in very much the same manner as Fomenko
(and his predecessors, including N. A.Morozov) have
treated “old history”.
I would like to conclude with an observation concerning
the exceptional scientific scrupulousness of
the works of A. Fomenko and G.Nosovskiy. I have examined
them from exactly this position many a time,
and I have neither found a single ipse dixit statement,
nor any categorical pontificating of any kind. The
general narrative scheme they employ is as follows:
the authors relate the consensual (school textbook)
historical concepts and then cite historical facts which
either fail to concur to said concepts, or contradict
them explicitly.Other authors who have noticed these
inconsistencies are quoted. Then Fomenko and Nosovskiy
put forth hypotheses which allow to find logically
correct solutions for the problems under study.
They keep on emphasizing and reiterating that the
issue at hand is all about hypotheses and not categorical
statements presented as the truth absolute.
The readers are invited to take part in the solution of
problems that arise as a consequence of the consensual
chronological concept of history. I am amazed
by the horrendous injustice of the numerous critics
of Fomenko and Nosovskiy, who obviously distort
their ideas, either failing to understand them completely
or being altogether unfamiliar with their content.
It is also quite astounding that whenever a publication
occurs that voices ideas that bear semblance
to those of Fomenko and Nosovskiy, but are a lot
more tame and local, providing a lot less factual information,
this publication is usually accepted with
a great deal more benevolence. I understand the psychological
groundwork beneath this – Fomenko and
Nosovskiy have performed a great scientific feat of
epochal significance, one that affects the sentiments
and interests of too many people.Acknowledging this
feat as such, or at the very least the mere fact of its
creative relevance, obligates one to actions that are apparently
beyond these people due to their incapability
and immaturity. The trouble with Fomenko and
Nosovskiy is that they have reached out too far and
dealt the dominating historical discourse too heavy
a blow.
Alexander Zinoviev.
10 October 1999,
19 April 2001.
Ф.А.Ф. (16.09.2004 10:58:06)| От | JesCid |
| К | |
| Дата | 17.09.2004 02:43:14 |
Эк вас плющит то... (что-то ни одна ваша ссылка не пашет)
У вас экстаз по поводу (возможных) высказываний Зиновьева?
Тут ниже у товарищей экстаз по поводу марксизма, так что не переживайте, вы такой не один.
Если вы журналист - действительно перечитайте вот это:
http://vif2ne.ru/nvz/forum/0/co/124759.htm
Возьмите интервью у Зиновьева, м.б. вам это поможет.
Конечно, очень сомнительно, что Зиновьева вы заинтересуете как собеседник, но поднимать действительно истеричный хай по поводу человека, намного старше вас, ветерана Великой Отечественной Войны и порядочного учёного (провоцируя тем самым ещё и сателитный лай со стороны местного полуобразованного заграничного трепла с учёными амбициями) - просто низко.
Вас можно было бы ещё понять, если бы ваше сообщение имело оттенок типа "Зиновьев, похоже, не разобрался с фоменковщиной".
Понтно, что вам очень хочется скомпрометировать Зиновьева, но вы сами вызываете такое отвращение своим поведением, что ваш номер весьма плохо удаётся.
Модераторы могут меня забанить насколько сочтут нужным, но другими словами это всё не называется.
P.S.
Когда видишь, какие люди по-недоброму заводятся от марксизма, ещё больше понимаешь, какая это опасная вещь для злобных и жадных до потребительства, буржуев и прихлебающихся... :)
И какая это, значит, хорошая вещь!
Ф.А.Ф. (16.09.2004 10:58:06)| От | Iva |
| К | |
| Дата | 16.09.2004 11:32:16 |
Велихов - политик от науки
Привет
и проститутка со стажем. Но нюх на популярные темы у него есть.
Советский чиновник от науки. Как сравниваешь поколение академиков Виноградова Дородницина с Велиховыми-Белоцерковскими тоска берет.
И расточатся врази Его!
Iva (16.09.2004 11:32:16)| От | Георгий |
| К | |
| Дата | 16.09.2004 14:22:12 |
А Жорес Алферов? (-)
Георгий (16.09.2004 14:22:12)| От | Iva |
| К | |
| Дата | 16.09.2004 15:38:34 |
Не знаю, я не по его отделению :-). (-)
Ф.А.Ф. (16.09.2004 10:58:06)| От | miron |
| К | |
| Дата | 16.09.2004 11:20:07 |
Наоборот, теперь критическое восприятие всех трех, когда они действуют не в сво
ей области экспертизы только усилилось.
miron (16.09.2004 11:20:07)| От | Ф.А.Ф. |
| К | |
| Дата | 16.09.2004 11:29:46 |
надеюсь (-)