Other peoples are growing. Istoria_Rusi (new)
Dear readers! The article we bring to your attention is devoted to one of the most pressing issues of evolution human society, namely, the emergence, development and collapse of human civilizations.
Vitaly Raevsky
Brief reflections on S. Huntington's book
"Clash of Civilizations"
The author first expressed the new geopolitical stage in the evolution of human society that came after WW2 in his article “Clash of Civilizations” (a question for readers), published in 1963. The book was published in 1996 and to this day remains the most popular geopolitical treatise, because it not only formulates a new stage in international relations, but also gives a forecast global development earthly human civilization, and the experience of our time confirms his approach and forecasts.
The author divides the history of mankind into three periods - the era of tribes, countries and, today, civilizations. The unification of countries and peoples is known. These are empires (from Assyria to Great Britain).
However, civilizations - in contrast to the forced unification of various peoples in empires - are formed spontaneously, and, in contrast to temporary political unions different countries– not caused by political situation, and are formed by unification of peoples and countries of identical or similar culture, which ensures their stability.
So, civilization is a voluntary natural association
countries and peoples of identical or similar culture: “Civilization is a cultural community of people, it is a synonym for culture, complemented by the degree of development of society” and “Culture is a concept of philosophy, a set of characteristics that define civilization.”
“Culture is a force that unites (similar) or causes discord (alien) societies and peoples” and, already today
“Cultural conflicts are intensifying and are more dangerous today than at any time in history.”
In other words, civilization is the socio-political and material completion of culture and therefore “For most people, their cultural identity is the most important thing.”
By the way, E. Yevtushenko also wrote about this (2011): “The main thing that holds society together is not material values– they cannot replace spiritual ideals. They are important... But poverty of spirit with material wealth is a disaster for any country.”
A great poet, consciously or intuitively, used the most powerful expression of tragedy - “catastrophe”.
In a recent (July 2013) article, Boris Gulko notes that in the period 2000-2011. in the United States, the number of religious people who consider religion very important fell from 80% to 60% (by 25%) and during the same period the number of suicides increased by 40%. It already exceeds the number of people killed in road accidents. This is a catastrophe. “Over a decade, about 400,000 people took their lives in the United States—about the same number who died in World War II and the Korean Wars combined” ... “in 2010, suicide became the most common death in developed countries,” with the sharpest rise, I might add, “ poverty of spirit,” loss of religiosity, morality, traditions and identity (Who am I?) throughout the history of the Western world.
Aristotle spoke about this: “Whoever moves forward in knowledge, but lags behind in morality and ethics, goes back more than forward” and US President Theodore Roosevelt (1858-1919): “To educate a person intellectually without educating him morally means grow a threat to society." Huntington emphasizes: just as civilization is a consequence of culture, so culture is shaped by religion and thus: “Religion is the central, defining, characteristic of civilizations - it is the basis of great civilizations”
…. “Of all the objective elements that determine civilization, the most important is religion.” “Religion in today’s world is perhaps the most main strength, which motivates and mobilizes people.” In general, the author says: “Religion takes the baton from ideology” and with the fall of religion (the West), “national feelings, meaning national traditions"and, I add, fall vitality, “civilization fatigue” sets in—the decline of civilization: “Civilizations do not die at the hands of others, they commit suicide” (A. Toynbee, “Comprehension of History,” 1961).
So, the formation of civilizations occurs according to the scheme: Religion - culture - civilization, and the collapse of civilizations occurs in the same sequence.
After the breakup Soviet camp(Marxist empire) the author divides our world into the following main civilizations:
- Western (Judeo-Christian) , is divided into three components: Europe, North America and Latin (Catholic) America with authoritarian traditions;
- Orthodox (Russian), differs from Western in its Byzantine roots, three hundred years Tatar yoke and the thousand-year traditions of monarchical, Soviet and modern absolutism.
- Jewish - Christianity and Islam are historically associated with it. Christianity, based on Jewish origins and its own theology, created a Judeo-Christian culture and civilization.Islam, having borrowed the idea of monotheism from Judaism, created a dramatically different religion, a different image of God and a civilization of religious fascism.
Regardless of this, Judaism “preserved its cultural identity and with the creation of the state of Israel received (recreated) all the objective attributes of civilization: religion, language, customs, political and territorial Home” (statehood).
Sinskaya (Confucian, Chinese) and Vietnam and Korea close to it. Today it is more correct to call it: Chinese with a Confucian value system - frugality, family, work, discipline and - rejection of individualism, a tendency towards collectivism and soft authoritarianism, rather than towards democracy.
Japanese (Buddhist and Shinto), spun off from Chinese in the first centuries AD. and abruptly moved away from her.
- Hindu (Hindu, Hindustan), Hinduism is “the very essence of Indian civilization.”
Islamic civilization is one of conquest, for it the entire non-Islamic world is an enemy (“We and they”) and is subject to conquest, because this is supposedly what Allah and his prophet Muhammad demand. A Muslim who agrees to peace with the “infidels” is subject to death. The author pays special attention to this civilization, because: “Ignoring the influence of the Islamic revival on the entire Eastern Hemisphere at the end of the twentieth century is the same as ignoring the influence of the Protestant Reformation on European politics at the end of the twentieth century.” sixteenth century."
In the new world, the author believes, “the most large-scale, important and dangerous conflicts will occur not between social classes and not between countries within civilizations, but between the civilizations that unite them.”
"Western Christianity is undoubtedly the most important historical feature Western civilization. Among the peoples of Western Christianity there was developed sense unity; people realized their differences from the Turks, Moors, Byzantines and other peoples” and they acted “not only in the name of gold, but also in the name of God”... “The disappearance of faith and the moral guidance of religion in individual and collective human behavior leads to anarchy, immorality and the erosion of civilized life.”(remember: “a person who has lost faith is like cattle,” or, in Dostoevsky: “If there is no God, then everything is permitted”—a complete return to barbarism, from the power of right to the right of power).
Christianity is in the deepest crisis, the deepest in its entire 2 thousand-year history: the late Pope in 2005 kisses the Koran (!!), and the leader of the Christian (??!) West, the President of the United States in 2009 bows at the waist before king and crown prince Saudi Arabia and invites “Muslim brothers” to his speech in Cairo. This crisis and replacement Christian culture on "multiculture" leads to the decline of our civilization. “The survival of the West depends on whether Americans (after the Founding Fathers) reaffirm their Western identity and whether Westerners accept their civilization (and culture) as Unique, based on the religion of the Founders.” It seems unlikely that the point of no return has been passed....
This is not a rejection of modernity, but a rejection of the West, its secular relativistic (without moral) degenerate culture and the proclamation of the superiority of its culture,” and the West, proclaiming multiculture, abandons its own (characterized by the constant patronage of the “Muslim Brothers”, the Muslim-born leader of the West, the US President Barack Hussein Obama, elected by the American people).
Returning to culture, the author points out that “The central elements of culture and civilization are language and religion.”
In general, the author writes, we must remember that “ Central axis politicians modern world... is the commonality or difference of cultural roots" and at the same time points out: "The cultural division between East and West is manifested to a lesser extent in economic well-being - and more so in the difference in fundamental philosophy, values and way of life."
Separately, the author dwells on the connection between civilization and identity: “Unless they have decided on their identity (Who I am, what culture I belong to, what I protect, and who is close and alien to me), people cannot use politics (have no arguments) to realize their interests. We know who we are only after we know who we are not, and only then do we know who we are against.”
The principle that the leaders of countries and peoples must follow is clearly and unambiguously formulated - who we are and who is for and against us. In Europe and the USA, this principle has already been violated by multiculture and the means of its implementation - political correctness, which turns the West into an easily conquered chaos (Roman analogy). The exceptions to this current degradation of the West are Australia, Canada, the Czech Republic and Israel.
“Individualism remains the distinctive feature of the West among twentieth-century civilizations, again and again, Westerners and non-Westerns point to individualism as the central characteristic of the West" and that "the realization of personal independence occurs entirely according to cultural scripts." It follows that the erosion of culture destroys the sense of personal independence and individual identity, which turns a person from a free citizen of a democracy into a submissive and zombified subject of a totalitarian regime.
One of the external reasons for the weakening of the West indicated in the book is: “With the collapse of the Soviet Union, the only serious competitor of the West disappeared.” This led the West (primarily Europe, which had previously always been under threat from the Union) to a loss of need for defense and ideological confrontation. The West has lost the need to assert itself in the superiority of its culture - the core of its development. The collapse of culture has led to a decline in the work ethic and slower economic growth, the breakdown of morality, family and declining birth rates, accompanied by unemployment, budget deficits, social disintegration, drug addiction and crime. As a result, “Economic power moves to East Asia, and military power and political influence begin to follow... The willingness of other societies (and countries) to accept the dictates of the West or obey its teachings is quickly evaporating, as is the West's self-confidence and its will to dominate (or at least to lead). Now (for now) the dominance of the West is undeniable, but fundamental changes are already taking place”... “The decline of the West is still in a slow phase, but at some point it may sharply increase speed. In general, it predicts “The West will remain the most powerful civilization in the firstdecades of the 21st century and occupy leading positions in science, technology andmilitary area, but control over other important resources will bedisperse among the core states of non-Western civilizations.”
In other words, the West will lose influence, which is what we are already seeing today.
The author notes two features of this (our, today's) period: “The weakening of economic and military power, which leads to self-doubt and an identity crisis..."and what, in my opinion, is especially important is: “The acceptance by non-Western societies of Western democratic institutions encourages and gives way to power for national and anti-Western political movements"
This is exactly what happened in South Africa, Iran, Iraq, Turkey and in the countries
"Arab Spring", which strengthened Islam, which for Muslims, “Islam is a source of identity, meaning, legitimacy, development, power and hope,” a sense of security, and belonging to a powerful multimillion-strong community. For all these countries and peoples, the Koran and Sharia, hostile to any manifestations of freedom, replace the constitution and demand the elimination of Western civilization.
“Islamic revival is the main direction, not extremism, it is a comprehensive, not an isolated process” (there are no extremists and moderate Muslims, there are only more or less active ones - V.R.).
Islamic revolutions (like other revolutionary movements) are started by students and intellectuals, with the support of the West, seeking elections, although during the same period the bulk of voters (rural and urban residents) are traditional Muslims, and the results of democratic elections are clearly predictable. Today's Islamic revival is a consequence of the West's loss of its own guidelines, the growth of the oil wealth of Islamic countries, demography and, first of all, the erroneous policies of Western leaders: a typical, but not the only example is Iran, where US President Carter in 1979 brought the leader of the Islamic Revolution to power , Ayatollah Khomeini, or the US refusal to support its ally, the President of Pakistan, General Musharraf (due to violations of democracy), who, under pressure from the opposition, was forced to resign and the West lost an ally.
In general, this book is so rich in Huntington's own thoughts and quotations from other authors that its summary, of course, cannot replace the original. Moreover, to understand today's world, in addition to reading this book, it is advisable to supplement it with relevant books of our time. The best of them, in my opinion, are “Axis world history"Yuri Okunev, "Russian Baker" by Yulia Latynina and "The World of the Jew" by Boris Gulko.
In conclusion, I would like to cite a historical law formulated by a real statesman P.A. Stolypin: "A people without national identity, there is dung on which other nations grow” - today - Islamic. To prevent this from happening: “We need a statesman who knows how to bake pies, and not divide them” (Yu. Latynina, “Russian Baker”).
1. A true patriot loves Putin more than Russia! Putin without Russia is better than Russia without Putin. Putin comes first!
2. Putin is raising Russia from its knees, although he hasn’t quite succeeded yet, he has already forced Russia to lean on his hands.
3. A Russian patriot must know three achievements of United Russia or at least two, but most importantly don't forget about rye and vegetables!
4. The Patriot knows that the Constitution of the Russian Federation must be implemented whenever possible, if it does not contradict Putin’s decisions. Those who advocate the implementation of the Constitution of the Russian Federation are enemies of Putin, and therefore enemies of Russia.
5. For a true patriot of Russia, victory in the elections United Russia more important than fair elections.
6. Victory in the United Russia elections is more important than arithmetic and statistics, especially since the patriots have not yet learned statistics.
7. No election fraud can exist until it is proven in court. At the same time, anyone who stupidly believes that there was fraud in the elections should go to court, and the court in Russia acts in the interests of Putin.
8. Russian patriots do not go to rallies for free. Only enemies of Russia go to rallies for free, because the US State Department pays them. If an enemy of Russia lives from paycheck to paycheck, then the US State Department simply hasn’t found a way to pay.
9. Not Russian citizens who came to the rally for money are also Russian patriots, because Russia is a multinational country!
10. A Russian patriot must encourage others to pay taxes because without taxes there will be no place to get money from to go to rallies in defense of United Russia. You won't get any money from the US State Department!
11. The well-being of patriots depends on how taxes are paid to support Russian patriots. The welfare of Russia's enemies depends on the US State Department. Therefore, the enemies of Russia are obliged to first pay all taxes in Russia, and then beg for money from foreign embassies!
12. Liberals - scary people, they want to sell Russia to the West. To fight the liberals, Putin built two new gas and oil pipelines to China and Europe!
13. Liberals are terrible people, they want blood and civil war in Russia. Patriots are against blood and civil war, so every patriot must kill as many liberals as he has enough ammunition for.
14. Liberals are terrible people, they are to blame for the low price of oil and the troubles of Russia in the 90s. Under Putin in Russia, wages and pensions have increased not because high price for oil, because oil prices have risen thanks to Putin!
15. Patriots of Russia should advocate on Facebook and Twitter for the ban of Facebook and Twitter in Russia.
16. Home joy for a patriot with a flag in his hands and a drum around his neck to lead a column of those going wherever they are sent!
The very name of Putin’s new structure already contains a trap. “Popular Front”, and as we know, among the people there are no corrupt officials, there are no bribe takers, among the people there are no those who could deceive citizens. The people cannot “cheat” and steal from themselves.
These words about the “manure people” were spoken at the very beginning of the twentieth century by the Prime Minister of the Russian Empire Pyotr Stolypin, who on September 1 (14), 1911, on the 50th anniversary of the abolition in Russia "serfdom" killed in Kyiv by terrorist Dmitry Bogrov.
I suggest you think about this famous saying Pyotr Stolypin, as well as the famous saying of the first Russian academician Mikhail Lomonosov: .
Why are these words important for us living today?
The state-forming people of the Russian Federation (as once the Russian Empire) was and remains in fact the Russian people, whose share in the entire population of Russia still exceeds 60%, despite all the revolutions and wars that happened in the twentieth century. They, the Russian people, through the efforts of their rulers over the centuries, literally turned into manure, on which various foreigners grew and lived freely, like gentlemen, like gentlemen.
Historical reference: "Serfdom- a set of legal norms that establish the most complete and severe form of feudal dependence. Includes a ban on peasants leaving their land plots (that is, the attachment of peasants to the land or the “fortress” of peasants to the land; runaways are subject to forced return), hereditary subordination of the administrative and judicial power of a certain feudal lord, deprivation of peasants of the right to alienate land plots and acquire real estate, and sometimes the possibility for a feudal lord to alienate peasants without land." To this we must add that until 1917, peasants made up 87% of the population of the Russian Empire. Basically, these were the “state-forming Russian people.”
Which rulers contributed to this mockery of the Russian people, and who were those foreigners who fed on the blood and sweat (vital force) of the Russian people?!
Let's try to figure this out.
In 2013, Russia celebrated 400th anniversary of the House of Romanov, who were kings of Russia from 1613, and from 1721 were emperors of the Russian Empire, after it was founded by Peter I, who returned and annexed it to Russia during the 21-year war with the Swedish king Charles XII historically Russian land- the current Leningrad region (Ingermanland, as it was then called).
The Russian Empire was proclaimed as such and was recognized by the entire Western world precisely after the annexation of this “historically Russian land” to Muscovy. Moreover, Peter I made the capital of the Russian Empire not the city of Moscow, which had been the capital of the Russian Empire since 1340, but the city on the Neva, St. Petersburg, which was again founded on this very “historical Russian land.”
Take a look now at the portraits of the first Russian Emperor Peter I, his second wife Catherine I and his daughters Elizabeth and Anna, who were in turn empresses of the Russian Empire from the Romanov family:
These portraits were painted with photographic precision by different artists and in different time, while the persons depicted in these portraits have the same “national” characteristics, which clearly indicate that these royalty did not come from the Russian people. It was impossible to say about them, neither then nor now, that “these are Russian people.”
To understand our history, it is also important to take into account the fact that the “Tsar of All Rus'” Peter I was on an embassy abroad from March 1697 to August 1698, where he was inspired by the idea of transforming the formerly Russian State into "Russian Empire" similar to the one that existed then "Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation" under the rule of Leopold I (1640 - 1705).
Holy Roman Emperor Leopold I and his coat of arms are very similar to the coat of arms of modern Russia.
Then, even before returning to Moscow from a trip abroad, the 26-year-old Tsar of All Rus' Peter I, directly from London, where he was at that moment, gave a written order to imprison his brother in the Suzdal Intercession Monastery legal wife of Evdokia Lopukhina, Russian by origin, whom he married at the age of 16.
Historians have interesting information at their disposal regarding the first wife of Peter I: "Evdokia Lopukhina went down in history as the last Russian wife of the Russian Tsar. And all subsequent Russian emperors also took only foreigners as wives...". .
Thus, on the part of the Romanovs, the connection with the state-forming Russian people was finally and irrevocably broken. Since the transformation of the Russian State into the Russian Empire, the Russian people have found themselves completely at the mercy of foreigners!
Historians are putting lies in everyone's ears about "300-year Tatar-Mongol yoke", but in fact it was another yoke in the person of the foreigners the Romanovs, which the Russian people were forced to endure the same 300 years(from 1613 until the revolution of 1917).
It was they, the Romanovs, who established it first in Muscovy, and then throughout Russia (even up to the Urals) slavery for Russians, which was called "serfdom". In fact, it was legalized by the Romanovs on the territory of “Holy Rus'” slave trade and slave ownership by the "state-forming people".
I know that right now there will be “devil’s advocates” who will rush to claim on this occasion that "serfdom was not slavery!, they say it was such a convenient form government system, when it was good for both ordinary people and gentlemen! However, all such “arguments” on their part will be nothing more than justificatory words. But the facts tell a different story: in Russia under the Romanovs, Russian people were traded in the same way as slaves were traded in some wild West.
There are indisputable facts that prove this. Here's the section "buy and sell" in the newspaper "Moskovskie Vedomosti" for February 22, 1800. Read carefully: “household people are for sale...”, “3 prominent girls, 14 and 15 years old are for sale...”, “a 26-year-old leather worker with his wife is for sale,” “a single blacksmith is for sale and a married carpenter is for sale,” “a 33-year-old widow is for sale... " and so on...
How do you, reader, like this set of facts for understanding our history through the prism of the words of Mikhail Lomonosov: “A people that does not know its past has no future”?!
Think about it now: could the Romanov dynasty, throughout its entire reign over Russia, have been interested in ensuring that the state-forming Russian people were educated and knew their real history?
If I say that no, the Romanovs, of course, were not interested in this, this will only be my personal opinion, which does not reflect the entire depth tragedies of the Russian people, who found himself in the power of foreigners. Therefore, for your understanding, I will present other literally murderous facts that stun the imagination:
As you know, the first “Academy of Sciences and Arts” in Russia was founded by a decree of Peter I, signed in 1724. The first Russian academician (from among the Russians) Mikhailo Vasilyevich Lomonosov once fell into disgrace and was almost executed because of his disagreements on the history of Russia and the Russian people with German scientists who formed the backbone of the Russian Academy of Sciences and Arts and wrote history at the request of the reigning persons Russian State.
This incident occurred during the reign Anna Ioannovna, fourth daughter of Tsar Ivan V and Tsarina Praskovya Fedorovna of the dynasty Romanovs. Anna Ioannovna was the Russian Empress from 1730 to 1740.
Empress Anna Ioannovna, daughter of Tsar Ivan V.
The history of Russia and the Russian people, starting from 1725, from the moment the Russian “Academy of Sciences and Arts” began work, was written and composed at the request of Russian emperors and empresses, literally “sucking it out of thin air”, who arrived from Europe speaking Russian poorly, but The following gentlemen academicians suddenly became “experts” in Russian history:
Kohl Peter (1725), Fischer Johann Eberhard (1732), Kramer Adolf Bernhard (1732), Lotter Johann Georg (1733), Leroy Pierre-Louis (1735), Merling Georg (1736), Brem Johann Friedrich (1737), Tauber Johann Gaspard (1738), Crusius Christian Gottfried (1740), Moderach Karl Friedrich (1749), Stritter Johann Gottgilf (1779), Hackmann Johann Friedrich (1782), Busse Johann Heinrich (1795), Vauvillier Jean-François (1798), Klaproth Heinrich Julius (1804), Hermann Karl Gottlob Melchior (1805), Krug Johann Philipp (1805), Lerberg August Christian (1807), Köhler Heinrich Karl Ernst (1817), Fran Christian Martin (1818), Graefe Christian Friedrich (1820), Schmidt Issac Jacob (1829), Schöngren Johann Andreas (1829), Charmois France-Bernard (1832), Fleischer Heinrich Leberecht (1835), Lenz Robert Christianovich (1835), Brosset Marie-Felicité (1837), Dorn Johann Albrecht Bernhard (1839) .
The year of entry of each named foreign scientist into the Russian Academy of Sciences and Arts, renamed in 1747 into the Imperial Academy of Sciences and Arts, is indicated in brackets.
Mikhailo Lomonosov, seeing that foreigners were falsifying the history of Rus' and the Russian people, could not look at this in silence for long, and in 1749 - 1750 he openly opposed the historical “versions” of Miller and Bayer, who showed the greatest zeal in writing history for the Russians. Lomonosov also spoke out against the German-imposed “ Norman theory» formation of Russia. He subjected severe criticism Miller’s dissertation “On the Origin of the Russian Name and People,” as well as Bayer’s works on Russian history.
Isn’t this evidence that the Russian foreign emperors did not just know the formula: “a people without national identity is the dung on which other peoples grow”, but they did everything in order to turn the Russians into this “manure people”?!
Here's another unique one historical fact from the same semantic series - unique linguistic map of 1730, where on the site of the “Kingdom of Siberia” conquered by the Romanovs, traditionally indicated on all Western maps precisely as the “Kingdom of Siberia”, and on the site of modern Yakutia, the country of “Scythia-Hyperborea” and a sample of its writing, which we do not find anywhere else, are designated here, according to the reason is that all the books written in this letter are either securely hidden or destroyed!
It is known that around 1751 Mikhailo Lomonosov began work on the authentic “Ancient Russian history" Presenting historical material, he sought to refute the theses of Bayer and Miller about"the great darkness of ignorance", supposedly reigning in Ancient Rus' . Of particular interest in his work was the first part -"About Russia before Rurik", where the doctrine of the ethnogenesis of peoples was expounded of Eastern Europe and above all the Slavs-Russians.
It is curious that the scandal raised by Lomonosov in historical science also attracted the Synod Orthodox Church. The clergy saw in Lomonosov’s works sabotage of the Christian faith and accused the Russian scientist under articles 18 and 149 of the “Military Article” of Peter I, the punishment for which included death penalty.
Archimandrite D. Sechenov, the confessor of Empress Elizabeth Petrovna, went further than anyone else in his libel against Lomonosov; he demanded.
The Academic Commission convened at that time stated that Lomonosov “for repeated discourteous, dishonest and disgusting actions towards both the Academy, the commission, and the German soil” subject to death penalty or in as a last resort, PUNISHMENT WITH lashes AND DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS AND CONDITION. By decree of Empress Elizaveta Petrovna, Mikhail Lomonosov was found guilty, however, due to his usefulness for the Russian State, he was exempted from lashes and the death penalty. His salary was only halved, and he had to “for the insolence committed by him” ask forgiveness from German professors.
Another unique fact.
The son of the court adviser to the Polish king Stanislaw August, when he was a professor at the University of Warsaw, became interested in studying Slavic and Scandinavian runes, Celtic coins, Etruscan sarcophagi and ancient monuments of North Africa.
Tadeusz Wolanski presented the results of his research in well-illustrated works in Polish and German languages, and it became a sensation! The evidence he collected convincingly proved that writing existed among the Slavs long before the birth of Christ and appeared much earlier than among the Phoenicians, Jews and Greeks, and even the Egyptians!!!
Commenting on the unsuccessful attempts of Western Europeans to read the inscriptions on archaeological sites in Europe and Africa, Tadeusz Wolanski wrote: “Scientists stumbled over these monuments and worked in vain until our time to analyze their inscriptions according to the Greek and Latin alphabets, and seeing the inapplicability of such, they searched in vain for the key in the Hebrew language, because this mysterious key to all the unsolved inscriptions is found only in the Slavic primitive language...Let the Slavic inscriptions on the stones of Numidia, Carthage and Egypt prove how far the residence of the Slavs in Africa extended in ancient times...”
What is phenomenal is what happened later, when in 1846 Tadeusz Wolanski published a book at his own expense "Monuments Slavic writing before the Nativity of Christ". Polish priests appealed through the Holy Synod of the Russian Church to Russian Tsar Nicholas I (Poland was then part of the Russian Empire) with a request to allow them autodofe- burn the author alive at the stake from his books. This story is told in more detail.
Thus, the facts and events of the last three or four centuries openly testify to us that the power of the Romanovs was a real three-hundred-year yoke for the Russian people.
Not only was the overwhelming majority of the Russian people converted to serfdom, so in addition to this, the Russian people were forbidden to know its true history.
The Russians were supposed to know only the fictional history that was composed for them by German scientists who arrived in Russia from the Holy Roman Empire of the German nation!
And most of all, they hid from the Russians that Russian civilization, which had a centuries-old history according to the Slavic calendar, reformed in 1700 by Peter I and shortened by 5508 years, had its own written language “long before the Nativity of Christ and appeared much earlier than among the Phoenicians, Jews and Greeks, and even the Egyptians,” how I discovered it for myself and the “enlightened Western world"Polish scientist Todeus Wolanski.
It is also curious in our history that the rulers of states and peoples had the habit of being friends with each other and even establishing family ties through marriages, then fight each other to expand their possessions. They considered ownership of an empire to be the height of power and authority.
Empire(from Latin imperium - power) is a powerful power, relying in its domestic and foreign policy on the military estates (organized army) and acting in the interests of the military estates. As a rule, the empire unites different peoples and territories into a single state with a single political center, playing a prominent role in the region or even throughout the world. In the Middle Ages there were three empires: the Holy Roman Empire (962-1806), the Ottoman Empire (1299-1922) and the British Empire (1497-1997).
The young Russian Tsar Peter I also wanted to reach the height of power. He was ambitious, power-hungry and relied on his family ties with the powers that be. That is why he went on a tour abroad in 1697 for more than a year. It is known that during this “embassy” the Russian Tsar visited the Holy Roman Emperor Leopold I (he copied the coat of arms from him, which the Russian Empire later had and today the Russian Federation has), then, among others, Peter I visited the Polish King Augustus II ( with whom Peter I entered into a military alliance), and later he reached by sea to British Empire, and from there, straight from London, he gave, as we already know, "a written order for the imprisonment of his legal wife Evdokia Lopukhina, Russian by origin, in the Suzdal Intercession Monastery."
Obviously, this gap was an important condition for the “career growth” of both Peter I himself and all his heirs. This is indicated by the fact that “Evdokia Lopukhina went down in history as the last Russian wife of the Russian Tsar. And all subsequent Russian emperors also took only foreigners as wives...” .
Also, according to the terms of the deal that Peter I concluded with powerful Western rulers during a tour of Western countries, he had to conquer from the young Swedish king Charles XII the “original Russian land”, on which very important historical artifacts were located. past history Holy Rus'. And until he conquered this “original Russian land,” no one in the West recognized him as an emperor or Russia as an empire. And as soon as Peter I ended the 21-year Northern War with Sweden, he was immediately crowned emperor.
Engraving by court artist Fyodor Zubov: "Coronation of Peter I"
That is why, immediately upon the return of Peter I from a foreign tour in 1699, the “Northern Alliance” was immediately created against the Swedish king Charles XII, which, in addition to Russia, included Denmark, Saxony and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, led by the Saxon Elector and Polish king Augustus II. The driving force behind this union was the desire of Augustus II to take Livonia from Sweden, while Peter I, in order to be recognized as the new emperor, needed Ingria, which was located within the borders of today's Leningrad region and Karelia. Augustus II promised Peter I that in return for military assistance on his part, he, Augustus II, for his part, would provide assistance to the Russian Tsar " in the return of lands that previously belonged to the Russians " . .
This is how everything was tied up in Ingria.
Now there is something else interesting that is most difficult for people whose consciousness is confused by the lies of official historians serving the powers that be.
One of the main historical attractions of St. Petersburg - Isaac's Cathedral- the largest Orthodox church located on Isaac's Square. Historians assure us that this magnificent temple with unique architecture was built (not restored, but built from scratch) in 1818-1858 according to the design of the architect Auguste Montferrand.
The ceremonial consecration of the new cathedral on May 30 (June 11), 1858 was performed by Metropolitan of Novgorod, St. Petersburg, Estonia and Finland Gregory (Postnikov).
"Emperor Peter I and St. Isaac's Cathedral" in St. Petersburg, painting by artist Maxim Vorobyov, 1844
Another fact to consider:"On September 5, 1809, according to the terms of the Friedrichsham Peace Treaty, which ended the war between Russia and Sweden, Finland became part of the Russian Empire. The reasons for the Russian-Swedish war of 1808-1809 lie in the complex relationships of a number of European countries. The political situation that emerged as a result of the victorious wars of Napoleon Bonaparte, led Russia to an alliance with its recent enemy France.In June 1807, a historic meeting between Alexander I and Napoleon I took place. Among the many issues on the agenda, questions about Sweden and Finland were discussed. The meeting ended with the signing of the Tilsit Treaty of Peace and Alliance between Russia and France.".
After the annexation of Finland to Russia, the capital of Finland, Helsinki, began to acquire a European appearance. Modern architectural style The city center was planned by Johan Albrecht Ehrenström and the architect Carl Ludwig Engel.
A native of Germany, Engel initially worked in the Russian Empire before moving to Helsinki to work. According to his design Russian Emperor Nicholas I built the Cathedral in the capital of Finland, which in the Russian period of Finnish history was called Nikolaevsky and was a simplified copy of St. Isaac's Cathedral.
"The construction of the cathedral was carried out according to the design of Karl Ludwig Engel in 1830-1852, in parallel with the construction of St. Isaac's Cathedral in St. Petersburg, with which Helsinki has much in common". .
“The temple in Helsinki was inaugurated on February 15, 1852. The cathedral is dedicated to St. Nicholas, the heavenly patron of the reigning Emperor Nicholas I, and was named the Church of St. Nicholas (Finnish: Nikolainkirkko).After Finland became independent in 1917, the temple was named Suurkirkko (Finnish: Suurkirkko, Big Church).".
In this story with the construction of churches in St. Petersburg and Helsinki, everything is very plausible, but there is one thing that makes us doubt the sincerity of the historians’ story and look at the history of Russia with slightly different eyes.
There is a long tradition of building temples, as well as many other religious buildings, so that they are oriented to the cardinal points.
For example, the orientation strictly to the North of St. Peter's Basilica in Rome. Photo from Space.
Here, for example, is the orientation strictly to the North of a building that took exactly 20 years to complete by order of Nicholas ICathedral in Finland, a simplified copy of St. Isaac's Cathedral in St. Petersburg:
And this is the orientation belowSt. Isaac's Cathedralin St. Petersburg, which was allegedly built at the same time as Cathedral in Helsinki. For some reason Isaac is focused on the antediluvian North Pole planet, which is evidenced today by 2-3 kilometer-long ice on the island of Greenland.
This image puts all the dots on "i":
On the one hand, we have an almost fantastic (due to today’s historical worldview imposed on everyone) view of the age of St. Isaac’s Cathedral, located in St. Petersburg, on the other hand, we have an almost fantastic (again due to today’s historical worldview) a view of the island of Greenland, all covered with ice of enormous thickness, which is natural only for the geographic poles of the Earth and clearly indicates to us that the previous, antediluvian geographic pole of the planet was located there.
Ice thickness in meters.
"The Greenland Ice Sheet is the second largest ice sheet in the world after the Antarctic. The area of the shield is 1.71 million km², it occupies about 80% of the territory of Greenland, the length from north to south is almost 2.4 thousand km, and the width in the north reaches 1100 km. The average thickness of the ice is 2135 m. The greatest thickness of the shield exceeds 3000 m. The age of the ice is estimated at approximately 110 thousand years.” .
If we consider that before the reform of Peter I there were 5508 more years on the Russian calendar than we have today (and 1749 years more than the Jewish calendar has!), then we can make the final conclusion that foreigners, who in the Middle Ages seized power over the Russian people, really wanted to completely deprive the Russian people of historical memory and historical “birthright”.
Application:
And if you consider that the entire Romanov dynasty eradicated the original Russian traditions and beliefs in Russia, and also carefully concealed the connection of the Russian language with the Indo-Aryan Sanskrit and the Indo-Aryan culture preserved in India, created, as the Indians themselves say, by newcomers from the Russian North, this indicates that the Romanovs in every possible way made mankurts out of the Russian people, incapable of feeling the spirit of the blood of their great ancestors.
This is what the Russian people, the state-forming people of the modern Russian Federation, represent today! And we all see that the current government is also not interested in revealing the entire historical truth to the Russian people and conveying it through the media and state system education.
That is, the Russian people today should literally serve as manure for life and prosperity foreigners, which, as in the times of the Romanovs, filled all vital spheres: science, the education system, the media, the system of central and regional government...
How this was done was well explained by the President of the Russian Jewish Congress, Yuri Kanner:
Now this one "Russian intelligentsia with Jewish roots" is doing everything possible at the direction of his superior Jewish authorities so that the Russian people still do not have: a) historical memory, b) a spiritual connection with their great ancestors, whose rich spiritual heritage was preserved on Indian soil in the form of five books of the Vedas, written in Sanskrit.
In this regard, I have a question for everyone: by the grace of this "Russian intelligentsia with Jewish roots" the Russian people will live for another three centuries under "Jewish yoke" V "Jewish conceptual space"?!
Or will the Russians finally remember who they are?
in Russia, and outlined a new, inexorable trend in our history - Russian national consciousness is awakening. And this awakening, this self-awareness, is included in the concept of Russian nationalism.
On the other hand, the fight against Russian nationalism in the Russian Federation rises to new level, and all these government and near-government propagandists, the Russian media, are literally fighting in hysterics, calling to fight “fascism, nationalism, extremism.” A number of words and concepts are built in such a way that the word nationalism is inserted among them, equating this concept, for example, with fascism or extremism. Thus, in the Russian political-ideological scheme, Russian nationalism is equated to something bad, illegal, with which “society and the state” must irreconcilably fight. Things have gone so far that propagandists, and at the same time Russians, will have to statesmen– to explain something very fundamental to the fighters against “nationalism”. So as not to be confused.
It's time to say a few words about what, in fact, the Russian government is going to fight and where this fight can lead them. And then the comrades commissars started talking and said a lot of things.
In order to operate with concepts at a level recognized by all humanity, let us first turn to international publications. So, we quote:
Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary © 1998 MICRA
(Webster's Dictionary, US edition, 1987)
Nationalism: 1. The state of being national; national attachment; nationality.2. An idiom, trait, or characteristic peculiar to any nation. 3. National independence; the principles of the Nationalists.
(Nationalism: 1. a state of devotion to one’s people 2. an idiom, trait, or symbol of a property of any nation. 3. National independence, the principles of nationalists.)
Encyclopaedia Britannica © 2002(Encyclopedia Britannica)
Nationalism: Ideology based on the premise that the individual's loyalty and devotion to the nation-state surpass other individual or group interests.
(Nationalism is loyalty and commitment to a nation or country when national interests are placed above personal or group interests).
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (4th ed.) © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company
(English Dictionary (4th ed.) © 2000 Houghton Mifflin)
Nationalism: 1. Devotion to the interests or culture of one's nation.
2. The belief that nations will benefit from acting independently rather than collectively, emphasizing national rather than international goals.
3. Aspirations for national independence in a country under foreign domination.
(Nationalism: 1. Devotion to the interests or culture of one's people. 2. the belief that countries will benefit from independent action rather than international action, because national goals are placed above international ones 3. The desire for national independence of the country, and opposition to attempts at foreign domination).
Thus, from these three internationally recognized and respected information sources, we see that nationalism is a positive phenomenon.
There is no point in citing dictionaries of the Soviet-Russian period about nationalism, as well as the works of the organizers of the mass murders Lenin - Stalin, since what is written in these dictionaries was written by them, the murderers. Therefore, in relation to domestic sources, let us turn to the definition of nationalism, Russian in particular, given in the words of outstanding Russian people:
“Nationalism is so natural in me that it can never be eradicated from me” - Mendeleev D.I.
“Russia - for Russians and in Russian” - Alexander III, Emperor.
“I am ready to write on my banner - Russia for the Russians and raise this banner as high as possible” - M. D. Skobelev, Russian general.
“We are called to create our own and in our own way, Russian in Russian” - Ilyin I.A. Russian philosopher.
“A people that does not have a national identity is the manure on which other nations grow” - Stolypin P.A.
“The master of Russia is only Russian, it is and always will be” - Dostoevsky F.M.
When did this nationalism appear and where did it come from? Sometimes, some woodpeckers who consider themselves scientists say that nationalism appeared as an ideological movement either in the 17th century, or in the 19th century, and so on. From here a profound conclusion is made that since it appeared recently, it means it is the product of some idea, thought. Hence the conclusion that you can fight the idea. We’ll have to disappoint the woodpeckers and explain something popularly - Nationalism as a phenomenon is somewhat older than the oldest political science dictionary, and even the concept of idea itself. It's like sex, the definition of which, and the science of sexology, was invented at the beginning of the twentieth century, but which apparently existed long before the Paleolithic. That is, nationalism is a very broad phenomenon, which in the 19th-21st centuries has acquired complex political science constructs and concepts. However, its essence and fundamental principle lies in the deep subconscious, a feeling of unity, and has a biological basis (we will not be distracted now by some other possibilities of entering this basis). This basis is sanctified by a mystical connection with the spiritual planes, which express themselves through the biological basis. All these relationships are reflected in the collective unconscious, in the information egregor of each nation and are present in its individuals. It was by obeying the processes in this egregor that people felt themselves to be members of a clan, clans were united in a tribe, tribes felt themselves to be nations. All together, this is the same nationalism.
Thus, nationalism is the fundamental principle of any nation. Prerequisite existence. If, for example, we begin to fight Chechen nationalism and make Chechens forget that they are Chechens, then this will be a fight against Chechen people already in a biological sense, for this people are the biological carrier of the Chechen egregor. Egregor (if someone likes it they can call it national idea), cannot be killed only if the biological carrier is destroyed.
So the fight against this or that nationalism is a fight against its biological carriers. With all those who carry this natural connection within themselves. Often it is present completely unconsciously for the individual.
IN human history, there were attempts to destroy the national spirit through the destruction of the biological basis. It is believed that the last one was in the 20th century. We will not examine how it really happened. But we read:
Robert Harris in the novel Fatherland:
He told me that in July he was called to the Fuehrer's headquarters in East Prussia. Hitler frankly told him the following: he decided to solve the Jewish question once and for all. The hour has come. He cannot rely on his successors to have the will or military power that he currently possesses. He is not afraid of consequences. Now people honor French Revolution, but who today remembers the thousands of innocent victims? Revolutionary time is subject to its own laws. When Germany wins the war, no one will then ask how we achieved it. Should Germany lose the fight to the death, at least those who hoped to profit from the defeat of National Socialism would be wiped out from the face of the earth. The biological foundations of Judaism must be destroyed once and for all. ………….. Obergruppenführer Heydrich further reported that the necessary powers to allow him to carry out this order of the Fuhrer were granted to him by Reichsmarschall Goering on 31.7.41. These issues will be discussed at the upcoming interdepartmental meeting.
In fact, we admit that the intention of the Nazis to “destroy the biological foundations of Judaism” may be disputed by someone. However, it sounds quite clear WHAT was proposed in order to destroy “Judaism,” which is nothing more than the religious basis of Jewish nationalism.
Now, in this light, let’s look at how someone wants to destroy “Russian nationalism”, that is, to “solve” the Russian question. In fact, the Spirit cannot be destroyed by itself, but its implementation in this world, its biological carriers, can be destroyed. The basis. Therefore, gentlemen, finish speaking. NEGOTIATE! Do you want to eradicate Russian nationalism? Are you declaring him EVIL? Then, as in the story with Judaism, everything rests on a biological basis and...... people have already thought about this and given a definition.
In 1944, Polish Jewish lawyer Raphael Lemkin (1900-1959) defined the Nazi policy of systematic extermination of European Jews. He proposed the term "genocide", combining Greek word genos, which means "clan, tribe", from the Latin caedo - "I kill". In proposing this term, Lemkin meant "a coordinated plan of various actions aimed at destroying the vital foundations of existence national groups and these groups themselves as such." A year later, the International Military Tribunal in Nuremberg (Germany) accused Nazi leaders of "crimes against humanity." The word "genocide" was included in the indictment.
Therefore, calls to fight Russian nationalism (and any other by analogy), in terms of international law, clearly mean calls for genocide of the Russian people.
So, we invite all the idiots who propose to fight Russian nationalism, defaming it, putting it on a par with all sorts of fascisms or other rubbish, to carefully consider where this might end up for them.
Remember, gentlemen, sooner or later, the time of reckoning will come, and you will be caught anywhere Globe. At the same time, it is not too late for many to turn their shafts around, and, in any case, stop reproducing Russophobic rubbish in the media.