Everything that was said above rather confirms the skeptics' thesis that Russians and Tartars are two completely different branches of civilization. But in fact, this judgment is not at all as explicit as it might seem at first glance. What do we know about the true culture of Russians? Many will be surprised and say: - “How is it? And what about the kokoshnik, kosovorotka, balalaika and samovar?
And if you look at the situation with an unclouded look? Who knows at least one original Russian folk song? Only "The reed rustled" and "Moscow evenings" should not be offered. Almost every song that we have been accustomed to consider folk since childhood has its own authors, and almost all of them were written in the second half of the nineteenth century and later. Three generations of Russians have changed one after the other, and it is very hard for us to believe that the caricatured image of a Russian in the mass consciousness has as little relation to the truth as films about Russians filmed in Hollywood.
Arkhangelsk. Engraving from the book by Peter Van Der Aa.
Did you imagine the Russians like that?
So who has seen even one authentic folk costume from the thirteenth century? No one. Russian culturologists, and later Soviet ones, who were engaged in the creation of a Russian "national" culture, in fact were not only Russians, but even Slavs. It is clear now, where did the image of Ivanushka come from - a fool who is fabulously lucky all his life? It is clear, thanks to whom the stable image of Russian Mani in a kokoshnik, with red apples on her cheeks, and eyebrows painted with charcoal was formed? Thanks to those who created the nation. The British were given the image of a stern and courageous gentleman, the French were presented with the image of a blond knight, the Scandinavians - a fierce "Viking" with horns on an iron cap, and the Slavs got what was left.
This demonstrates an absolutely planned work aimed at separating peoples according to national characteristics. Exactly so: - separation, not unification, as it might seem at first. If representatives of different peoples saw that neighbors speak the same language with them, sing the same songs, dress the same way, then on an instinctive level they would perceive their neighbors as their own. Since everyone is the same, how can you fight your brothers?
And it is quite another matter when at first glance it is clear that a person is a stranger. Well, if a stranger, then going to war against him is not a sin at all. Especially if there are rumors that the neighbors' faith is not the same, and they sacrifice babies to the gods. Yes, these are generally non-humans! Chop all the infidels! Therefore, the creation of nations in the nineteenth century was only part of a plan that is being implemented to this day. It is difficult to believe in it, because it is impossible to carry out one long-term plan during the change of several generations, but the fact is on the face.
It is unlikely that those who are engaged in this are able to live for centuries, but if you know something about secret societies, the doctrines of which were formed in the late Middle Ages, or even earlier, then everything falls into place. Members of such organizations scrupulously carry out everything that was conceived by their predecessors, making adjustments for the development of technology, of course. Only they perfectly understand what happened in the past and what awaits us in the future.
Promotional video:
Even while studying photographs of the nineteenth century, it is impossible not to notice some discrepancies between what he saw and the image of a Russian person firmly entrenched in his mind. For example, the appearance of women still does not raise any special questions. But the costumes of men are sometimes perplexing. Especially those who wore clothing appropriate to their position and pattern. The priests, it turns out, looked completely different than they do now, although modern clergy claim that their robes have not changed since the time when Russia was baptized. The military also looks completely different from the movies and cartoons, and the inscriptions made in Arabic script on weapons and armor completely plunge into a stupor.
The same applies to money, on which Arabic letters are side by side with Russians. It turns out that some written sources are compiled in two languages at once. For example, the famous literary monument left by the Tver merchant Afanasy Nikitin "Walking Beyond Three Seas" is replete with whole paragraphs in Arabic, although they are written in Russian letters. So what was it? Fashion for everything Arabic? Isolated cases of borrowing? Or maybe this is evidence of genuine Russian culture? I know the answer of historians, but it does not look very convincing, to put it mildly.
Let's turn to the facts. Initially, European travelers who visited Tartary did not express surprise at the difference in the appearance of the inhabitants of this country from what they were used to at home. This can only say about one thing: - the dress of Europeans, features of appearance, and other "national" signs did not differ from what they met in the east. Moreover, the images of European cities were absolutely no different from the cities of Tartary. Samarkand, Yaroslavl and Paris looked absolutely identical. Even the Chinese cities did not look different from the Spanish or English. The architecture was the same everywhere: the same towers, the same walls with loopholes, houses and bridges.
Then, a certain event occurs, after which Europe is rapidly turning into Gothic, and changes into a new dress. The same process began successfully in Russia, when Peter I, and then Catherine II, began to carry out a total Europeanization of Russia. The mass destruction of written sources and Russian folk musical instruments began. A ban was introduced on buffoons, which were a unique phenomenon that had no analogues anywhere in the world. Buffoonery performances were a fusion of puppet theater, ballet, circus, operetta and drama theater at the same time. Why would you do this? Probably in order to plant a new culture as opposed to the Arab one. And Russia was initially viewed as part of Europe.
*Puppeteer*. Engraving from the book of Adam Olearius "Description of the journey to Muscovy and through Muscovy to Persia and back." Ed. SPb. 1906
Then something went wrong, and the execution of plan "B" began. When all of Europe turned into the world of Gothic, Russia was assigned the role of the Slavic kingdom, and China was made "Celestial". Apparently, it was in the second half of the nineteenth century that completely national differences in architecture, costumes, and other features were formed that form this particular nation. And what happened before? Old maps can give an answer to this question.
Fragment of a map of Europe from Miller's 1519 album.
We see that all over Europe cities are marked with different signs. The cross means that Christians prevail here, and the crescent indicates that the majority of the city's residents are Muslims. What … Arabs lived here? Of course not. Religions were also made national ones artificially. The Catholics were assigned Europe, the Mohammedans - Asia and the Middle East, and Russia inherited the Orthodox Constantinople religion. Since then, Nestorianism and Zoroastrianism have become outlawed throughout Russia. Do you believe that Prince Vladimir - Red Sun baptized all of Russia? Blessed is he who believes, as they say.
Now the question. Why are these three religions called Abrahamic? Because the authors of all three were Jews. Thus, the question of who exactly divided the world first into religions and then into nations is removed. Obviously not Buddhists. But if everything was exactly like that, then really no traces in Europe and Tartary of the existence of non-Christian churches in the recent past have survived? Yes, as much as necessary! Russia is too big to fundamentally rebuild everything. Therefore, unlike Europe, we have many temples, both Mohammedan and Nestorian and Zoroastrian. They just slightly updated the "signs".
This process, which resulted in a real religious civil war, was called by historians a split. The Nestorians turned into Pomors and Old Believers, the fire-worshipers were completely exterminated or re-educated, and new tops and new crosses were hung on their temples.
Tell me, what is the name of the domes of "Orthodox" churches? That's right, "onions". How else? ABOUT! "Poppies"! And why then? What is the connection between the bulbous dome and the poppy flower? Straight! The language of the people is a matrix that allows you to discover all the secrets. No matter how hard the rulers of the world, or the progressors, as I call them, try to destroy all reminders of the true past, the Russian language has preserved everything. It is enough just to understand the true meaning of the familiar words. In the album of Adam Olearius, many images with Russian temples have been preserved, which exactly repeat the contours of the formed poppy box.
* Russian women mourn the dead *. Engraving from the book of Adam Olearius "Description of the journey to Muscovy and through Muscovy to Persia and back." Ed. SPb. 1906
For comparison:
Most likely, this was the symbolism of the Nestorian Church, which dominated the entire territory of Great Tartary from the Carpathians to the Bering Strait. Zoroastrian temples, most likely, did not differ much from Nestorian ones. Also, there were no fundamental differences between the architecture of mosques and Christian temples. In order to convert the Mohammedan temple into an "Orthodox" one, it was enough to replace the egg-shaped dome with an onion, and equip the minaret with a bell tower. All. This is where all the differences between mosques and churches end.
Cathedral Mosque in Moscow.
The funny thing is that the lack of understanding of the meaning of the words that make up the modern Russian language leads to amazing curiosities. The rich "Old Russian dwelling" is called by neo-pagans, of a pseudo-Old Russian sense, a mansion. If they only understood the true meaning of this term, they would faint. Mansions are not at all a building for comfortable living, it is not an analogue of the English concept of "cottage", or the Italian concept of "villa". Mansions are temples. And the temple is a building in which the burial service for the dead was performed. The words "funeral" and "temple" have a similar set of consonants. And this is no coincidence. The fact is that religious buildings are divided by type, in accordance with their purpose and have corresponding architectural features. The temple is where they are buried, the cathedral, where the meetings take place, the church, where the sacrifice is made (the church literally means "Tse Blood",where the article "tse", lost in modern Russian, was transformed into English "the" and remained in the Belarusian and Ukrainian dialects of the Russian language), and the chapel has no direct relation to religious buildings at all. An hour is a length of time.
And the word "monastery" also has its own meaning. “Mono” means “alone,” and “steal” is not “steal” at all, as many people think. In this word, the consonants form a kind of "skeleton", which is the same root with the word "system". It turns out that the "monastery" is a "monostroy", or in accordance with the modern rules of the Russian language - "samostroy", which corresponds to the existing order of things. The monks independently built their monastery, separately, far from the villages, therefore the "monostroy"
The same is true of the word "terem". A richly decorated house in Russia was called chambers, not a tower. Terem, this is a home prison:
Terem on an engraving * Sleigh of a noble Russian woman *. From the book by Adam Olearius "Description of the journey to Muscovy and through Muscovy to Persia and back." Ed. SPb. 1906
Remember the lyrics of the song "My joy lives in a high tower, but there is no entrance for anyone". So: - we tower, these are not chambers and not a cottage. This is not a rich house, but a poor log tower, with a staircase inside, where on the upper tier there was a house prison, in which, as usual, the daughter of the owner of the house, who had reached puberty, was kept. The word "terem" has the same consonants as in the word "prison", but in terms of meaning, they are the same. In order to avoid unwanted marriage, the bride was kept locked up in a “high tower” so that a potential but unwanted groom could not spoil the girl inadvertently. This is what the song is about. And all this is part of our Russian culture! Let me emphasize: - an unknown, forgotten culture. What else have we forgotten?
A lot of things. Not only music and songs, not only the meaning of most Russian words, we have forgotten the faith of our ancestors, their customs, way of life, mythology, cosmogony, practically everything that underlies such a concept as the "Russian world".
Scientists of all ranks have been arguing for two hundred years even about the origin of the word "Moscow". Is there at least one other country whose citizens do not know the origin of the name of their own capital? And in Russia, debates about this are still ongoing. Everything could become clearer if we recognized the fact that we are not Europe and not Asia. They say that Moscow is a city of churches. But is it really so? After all, the architecture of the overwhelming majority of churches repeats the architecture of mosques, which means … And this means only that Moscow was originally a purely Mohammedan city.
Moscow golden-headed
So Konstantin Dmitrievich Balmont, the famous Russian poet, expressed the bewilderment of the entire Russian people about the completely non-Russian name of the capital of the Russian state. Disputes over the origin of the name of Moscow have not subsided for centuries, and no wonder. Linguists and philologists cannot find in any of the Slavic, Finno-Ugric Arabic, or Türkic dialects any plausible version of the etymology of this toponym.
Paradox. There is no person on the planet who has never heard the word "Moscow" in his life. But at the same time, no one on planet Earth can give a clear definition of what this means. Why? Is the word "Moscow" not terrestrial? Of course, earthly, neither humanoids nor reptilians have anything to do with it. Only what is considered scientific versions of etymology, if not bordering on insanity, then on obscurantism, for sure. Judge for yourself:
1) Some linguists believe that the name of the city comes from the ancient Slavic root "mosk", meaning something muddy and moist.
2) Others attribute the origin of the name to the Finno-Ugric tribes that previously lived in this territory. So, the word "Moscow" became a combination of the Mari words: "mask" - "bear" and "ava" - "mother".
3) V. N. Tatishchev put forward a hypothesis about the Scythian-Sarmatian origin of the word "Moscow", which means "twisting" or "curved".
4) Therefore, the most widespread version translates the word “Moscow” from the Komi language, where “mosk” can be distorted from “moska”, which means “cow”, and “va” can be translated as “river” or “wet”.
5) Dolenga-Khodakovsky at the beginning of the 19th century expressed a version that the name of the Moskva River was formed from the word mostki, that is, it is a "bridge river", a river with a large number of bridges. But, oddly enough, this delusion was repeated in the works of the Moscow historian I. E. Zabelina.
6) Another version belongs to F. I. Salov, who worked in the 1950s as director of the Museum of the History and Reconstruction of Moscow. He proceeded from the original form of the word - "Moskov", breaking it into the Old Slavonic "mosk" - "flint", and the Russian-Ukrainian root "kov" from "khovat" - "hide". Thus, "Moscow" means "strong shelter", "fortress".
7) A Moscow teacher and guide P. R. The Polish went the other way. After examining the words ending with "kva" (cranberry, rutabaga), he found that they were all ritual food brought to Slavic idols (Kluka, Bruka). That is, Moscow was a small temple of the ancient spirit of Mosca, hitherto unknown to historians.
8) There is a similar version in the "Veles book". So, at the end of the VI century, the leader of one of the tribes of the Slavs-Vyatichi Mosk Svyatoslavich moved to the north, in Zalesye. “And so we flocked to Moscow and built the Moscow city. And there were hearths. And there he drank Mosk surin. And so this hail appeared from him."
9) Some Moscow sources ascribe the foundation of Moscow to Oleg the Prophet, enriching the annalistic indication that he “began to place the city” by indicating the exact place: “when you come to the verb Moscow river, the rivers Neglinnaya and Yauza are adjacent to it, and you will not place the city. small and his nickname is Moscow and put his relatives on the reign”.
10) But the deacon of the Servant Monastery Timofey Kamenevich-Rvovsky claimed that the city was founded by the biblical hero Mosokh, son of Japheth, grandson of Noah. “Once Mosokh, the sixth son of Japheths, came to those lands and to the place where we now live, and when he came, he settled in this chosen, highest and all-beautiful place above two rivers, on which now stands the holy and all-great city of Moscow, called by the name of the river below it. But then, when Mosokh came to these places, the river did not yet have a name, and he named it after his own name and the name of the wife of his princess, the beautiful and amiable Kva. And so, according to the addition of common names, their previously unnamed river began to be called Moscow … The second, smaller river flowing to Moscow, Mosokh named in honor of his son I and daughter of Vuza Yavuza."
Frankly, the only version that seems to me the most plausible is taken from the Veles book, which science stubbornly refuses to recognize as genuine. But what an abundance of versions that the single official "science" of history operates with! Ten official options, and all sucked from the thumb. Why?
I suppose for the same reason that our country is today called a non-Russian phrase. "Russian Federation" Say several times. Listen to the melody of the sound. Sounds like? In my opinion, the cracking of an excavator at a construction site sounds about the same. Was that what Russian cities were called? For example: - Pleskov, Novograd, Vologda, Kostroma, Samara, Tsaritsa.
This is how the Russians called their cities. And their lands were named accordingly: Pleskavia, Permia, Yugoria, Cheremisia. And Muscovy sounds like a song, why not? Russians tend to pronounce words dear to their hearts with diminutive suffixes: - Pskovushko, Novogradushko, etc. With this, everything is clear.
And then: - Why do all modern textbooks say about some kind of Rus, and even about Kievan Rus, but in no document our country has never been called that? No Rus was found on any map, anywhere in the world. Russia is on many maps, but this is a country, or as it is now customary to say a region, one of many, within the Great Tartary. It is clear that if the region gave its name to the whole country, then this is normal. There is nothing unusual about this. Unusually, Tartary has just been renamed not into the Russian Empire, which would be close and understandable to any Russian, but into the Russian Empire.
Farther. Why is Fr. Kirill called the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia? Moskovsky, this is understandable. Spiritual pastor of Muscovy. And what has Russia to do with it? Where is such a country? Absurd. Like many things in the modern world, which has forgotten common truths.
But the fact that Great Tartary combined many cultures and religions, and at the same time no one in it felt infringed, fully corresponds to the current state of affairs in modern Russia. The roots of our worldview lie in the traditions of Great Tartary. A lot of evidence has come down to us contrary to official history. Ancient coins and weapons, literary monuments, simply shout that the Arabic language in our country was one of the main ones.
Now let's turn again to Marco Polo, who argued that paganism, Mohammedanism and Judaism coexisted in Tartary absolutely peacefully. In addition, he also noted the increasing number of mosques. And this fact prompted me to a certain thought:
How did Europeans figuratively call medieval Russia? And they called it "gardarika", for the huge number and size of cities, which in Europe, judging by the same medieval maps, were slightly more than fingers on one hand. This is clear.
Now imagine how they would, in accordance with this logic, name the land massively built up with mosques? Mosque? Mosquelandia? Well … The train of thought is clear. It remains only to find out how mosques were called in ancient times.
There are no problems with Slavic languages. Except for the Bulgarian language, which borrowed a lot from the Turks during the Ottoman yoke. For example, in Polish, it sounds like "Мeczet". Follow next:
And then it's more interesting:
I will notice! After all, no one is hiding anything, just Moscow scholars, they simply do not want to see this. Even if you poke their noses into this paragraph, they still will not part with the cliches and clichés dear to their hearts that have been implanted in the mass consciousness of the people for almost two hundred years.
This is the price of the "Babylonian pandemonium", when many languages appeared, and people stopped understanding each other. And further…
This is the price of falsifying history for the sake of political interests. Because the mechanism of the phenomenon under consideration, for me became clear as daylight, when I realized that the progressors put on the altar of the “good” goal of uniting peoples with the help of religious convictions exactly what without which humanity is doomed to fight endlessly. Those. their true tasks are directly opposite to those declared.
However, for those who categorically reject the very possibility that many of our ancestors could have been Muslims, I have a backup version. For example, the word "Moscow" could mean not only a Mohammedan temple, but also a temple in general. Outside of his belonging to a particular confession. Orthodox churches could also be called that. But, unfortunately, this version actually looks untenable.
In addition to the weapons, armor, written sources, coins and household items mentioned above, there is a lot of evidence that the Arab culture, or rather: the culture called Arab today, was not alien to the Russians. One such evidence is the famous portrait by the great Rembrandt.
Portrait of a noble Slav. Rembrandt Harmenszoon van Rijn.
Kosovorotka, you say? Kaftan, right? Sable fur? Oh you goy you are a good fellow! Yes, dance for us "Kamarinskaya"! Something does not fit the image of a Slav with images inspired by films about the Battle of the Ice and Ruslan and Lyudmila. Does not fit with Vasnetsov's paintings. And all would be fine if dozens of authors did not portray Russians in a turban. Here's just one example:
Prince Vasily III. From the book of Sigismund Herberstein * Notes on Muscovite Affairs * 1557
But, in fact, there is nothing surprising here. The turban is not just a fashion statement. This is a piece of knight's combat equipment. Well, don't you think that an iron cap was worn directly over an uncovered head? And the turban served as an ideal comforter that protected the head from injury with light melee weapons, even without a steel helmet. Therefore, the "Old Russian" heroes did not look quite the same as in the tales of Alexander Arturovich Rowe.
Muscovite hussar. An engraving by the Flemish painter de Brune, 1576.
All of the above could be attributed to fantasy, but in this case we are not dealing with fiction, but with facts. I believe much more to the engravings extracted from museum and library funds than to the famous Soviet filmmakers who draw inspiration from films based on the fantasies of the great Viktor Mikhailovich Vasnetsov.
But even if so, then one statement, hardly anyone can dispute: Our history and culture were completely different from what we used to think.
Author: kadykchanskiy