Why is the history school discipline so disliked for most people? The answer, it seems to me, is quite simple. Anything that is intuitively rejected by a pure child's soul is unnatural and deceitful. That's the whole answer to the question. A person, having not yet comprehended such a science as "logic", unconsciously follows its laws, because they are inherent in everyone from birth.
That is why, when the teacher tells the class the history of ancient Babylon, Sumer, Egypt, "Antiquity", "Ancient Rome" and "Byzantium", the students ask, what was happening in Russia at that time ?! The teacher's answer is always discouraging: “But there was nothing. Russians at these times had no history yet. They were barbarians, second-class people and became a reasonable person only after they were baptized into the Christian faith, and the Greek monks Cyril and Methodius taught them to read and write."
Agree that the desire to study history after that disappears completely. Somehow, such a statement of enthusiasm does not arouse, because it does not motivate to study someone else's story about other people's achievements and the flourishing of a foreign culture in the complete absence of those from their own ancestors. Well, and what kind of citizen does the state receive as a result of such "education"? Right. It raises temporary workers who are indifferent to their past and their heritage. Thus, the state has educated more than one generation of those who dream of leaving Russia in order to become a part of Western culture, mixed with millennial traditions.
But this is not the case at all. In principle, there cannot be a situation in which in all countries outside of Russia some events took place over the centuries, and only here everything was quiet. It cannot, if only because a rich and enlightened Europe would inevitably come to empty lands, where nothing existed except for animals and primates living in pits. And if Europe did not come here, what prevented it? There is only one answer - a powerful centralized state with a perfect taxation system, uniform standards, army, navy, and a system for mobilizing material and labor resources.
On such a state, all attempts by foreigners to make an attempt to seize territories by force were broken like waves on the coast. Because we already had a confederal state structure, and in Europe there were only dwarf principalities. Even today, when some quasi-states have united into countries such as Germany, France, Spain, Italy and Greece, Europe continues to exist as a "patchwork quilt" of small and weak countries. These countries are not able to unite into one state, no matter how much it tries. And the modern education of the European Union has nothing to do with statehood.
How did it happen that our history has undergone such total oblivion and distortion? The answer to this question is as simple as the previous one. Lacking the resources to seize our country by force, an information weapon was used that does not kill, but changes personality, turning the enemy into an ally who is himself ready to voluntarily submit to the invader. And success in this matter is obvious to everyone who is trying to know history, and not to memorize the dates of wars, uprisings and times of the reign of kings.
More recently, almost all of modern Poland, Germany, Denmark and Scandinavia were with us. Recently - this is in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. And in the twentieth, Poland, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Holstein, the Principality of Gottorp, Finland, the South Caucasus, Moldova, Turkestan, the Baltic States and Ukraine were taken away from us. At the same time, it seems that the invaders themselves are no longer happy about this, because what was taken from us after the collapse of the USSR for them became a burden, an unbearable burden, from which there are more troubles than benefits.
And if we don’t learn to understand history and appreciate what we have, and even more so we don’t be careful about our property, preserve and increase so that our descendants can be proud of us, then we will face collapse and inevitable death. This has already happened more than once, when entire empires disappeared from geographical maps, textbooks and the memory of descendants.
Promotional video:
Why all this is being done is clear. It is also clear how this is done. There are several main ways. But among them there is one, which I will dwell on in more detail, right in this chapter. Its mechanism is akin to genetic mutation. Imagine a DNA strand into which a foreign link is introduced, which is subsequently reproduced and retained by all offspring. And the heirs after several generations already perceive the new, acquired distinctive feature as if it had always existed.
Take, for example, the Novgorod Chronicle. No one has ever seen its original, but everyone knows nine copies from it. All of them are considered ancient, but the researchers say that the first list from which all subsequent ones were made, considered to be the oldest, was made for V. N. Tatishchev. Of course, this version had some kind of prototype, but today no one knows what was in it, and what dates of events were indicated there.
But it's done. Now all historians in their writings refer to Tatishchev's list as the ultimate truth. Just like the example from genetics. The very case when a fly in the ointment spoils a barrel of honey. But that is not all. It turns out that entire sub-branches of history, as a science, have only one single author!
Few thought that the whole of Egyptology, for example, was "invented" by Jean-François Chompollion.
Jean-François Champollion (fr. Jean-François Champollion) 1790-1832. Portrait by Leon Konye.
And everything, without exception, that we know about the kingdom of the Sumerians, we know from cuneiform tablets, which were found and translated by only one person named Austin Layard. He was assisted in translating the tablets … by a master printer with the uncomplicated name of Smith. Note that together they translated 30,000 cuneiforms in several years. And so the world learned about Ashurbanipal and Gilgamesh, along with Nibiru and the Anunnaki.
Austin Henry Layard, 1817-1894
And as you might guess, there is one single author for the whole world history. Unbelievable, but it is a fact. Everything that we know about the "father of history" Herodotus, we know thanks to one single person. Meet the Real, not the fictional Herodotus:
Sir Henry Creswicke Rawlinson, 1810-1895
Guess what connects these Founding Fathers. Right. They were all in Masonic lodges, and all were associated with British intelligence. Even the Frenchman Champollion was an English spy. Well, by some coincidence, all three were born Jews.
Why do I dare to suppose that that prehistoric Herodotus never existed? Yes, because no one in this world has seen his works, except the Rebbe, I beg your pardon, Sir Henry. He just took a name for himself, which was often mentioned in old books. It's as if I now, “accidentally discovered” an unknown story by Nikolai Gogol in my attic, “managed to scan it, after which the manuscript crumbled to dust, and I threw it into a bucket, collecting it in a scoop”. This is how they were born:
- "History" 1858 editions,
- "Five Great Monarchies of the Ancient Eastern World", 1862-67.
- "The Sixth Great Eastern Parthian Monarchy", 1873.
- "The Seventh Great Eastern Monarchy of the Sassanids", 1875
- "Guide to Ancient History", 1869.
- "Historical illustrations of the Old Testament", 1871.
- "The Origin of Nations", 1877
- "History of Ancient Egypt", 1881
- "History of Ancient Egypt and Babylon", 1885.
- "History of Phenicia", 1889
- "History of Parthia", 1893
And what that Herodotus, whose name is mentioned in more ancient sources, wrote about, is now unknown to anyone! It turns out that everything that we know about Atlantis, about the construction of pyramids in "Ancient Egypt", is all this invention of one grandfather with the appearance of Santa Claus?
Apparently so. And now we have to learn to live with it somehow. After all, take any historian, even the compiler of a textbook for a school, even the author of a dissertation or monograph, they all refer to Herodotus, who did not create what is attributed to him. But was Rawlinson invented everything from start to finish? Of course no. Neither the compilers of the Bible nor the "author" of the Theory of Relativity had enough imagination to invent everything from a "blank slate". They themselves are not able to invent all this, so they borrowed from someone and altered it in their own way, adapting to the goals and objectives of the current political moment.
Well, if so, then do we have the right not to question the works of the earlier "classic of ancient Greek and the founder of modern philosophy, mentor of Alexander the Great himself" Aristotle? Of course, we are obliged to doubt the authenticity of the entire legacy of Aristotle. Even if he does not have a relatively modern "clone", like Herodotus, then where is the guarantee that everything attributed to him, in fact, was said by Aristotle himself? And why not assume that the ideas of Thomas Aquinas are attributed to Aristotle, because they are almost identical! Indeed, even the name Aristotle sounds like a pseudonym invented by our close ancestors, who selflessly believed that all modern culture was created by the "ancient Greeks".
Someone noticed that Sir Henry Creswick Rawlinson, thanks to his negligence and natural laziness, left us an excellent gift, allowing, according to some signs, to reveal a deliberate lie. First, in his texts, he left entire paragraphs that were not edited, which contain information that allows you to restore the original text with a high degree of reliability. Secondly, he did not bother with inventing a dating, but instead banally substituted the Gregorian dates for the dates of the Arabic calendar. Therefore, to determine the true date of the event about which he writes, it is enough to add 614 years to the date indicated by him. So, for example, if Alexander the Great was married to the throne in 336 BC, then in order to find out his true date of accession, we add 614 years to the specified date, and it turns out,that Alexander Filippich became king in 278 A. D. End of the third century. Already something, agree!
Then it becomes clear that the mention of the peace treaty concluded between the Macedonian and Novgorod princes Velikosan, Asan and Avehasan is not such an invention. Moreover, Alexander's letter with assurances of friendship and peace, written in gold, according to the "Tradition of the Russian Initial Chronicle", was kept in a prominent place for a long time in the temple of Veles in Rostov the Great on Lake Nero.
Moreover, information has been preserved that in the summer of 5175 (333 BC) and in 281, according to our calculations, the Russians gave the Macedonian 70,000 horse archers and 160 ships. For what? So obvious. At this time, Macedonia conquered Constantinople and all of Anatolia, which at that time was so coveted for the Persian sultan.
It turns out that Macedonia and I were allied states. If, of course, it is appropriate to compare tiny Macedonia and huge Russia at that time as equal partners. Rather, the Macedonian was our companion, and after he was able to drive the Persians out of Asia Minor, he remained our debtor. That is why the Eastern campaign of Alexander the Great was undertaken. Only, now, where exactly did he go? Scientists say that to India, and from there through Afghanistan to Central Asia, to Turkestan.
The fact that the Macedonians, in fact, were on our territory, almost no one doubts. When returning from Asia, they even left the Pillars of Alexandria in the Don steppe.
Pillars of Alexandria. Photo by Sergei Sidorenko.
Fragment of the map of Tartary by Bernard Sylvanas 1511.
But where they were and for what purpose - we have to find out. In the "Chorographic Drawing Book of Siberia" by S. Remezov, at the mouth of the Amur, the place to which Alexander reached is indicated. But there is no information about how he got there. What the Trojan army did (and the Macedonians considered themselves to be Trojans, because Alexander himself was a descendant of Achilles), we can only guess. But what is absolutely certain is that without the will of the Russians, he would not have been there with the army in any way.
Why am I sure of this? Because it can be judged by the words attributed to Aristotle. Yes, the Eastern campaign could actually be made to India, but which one? On medieval maps, in addition to India, which is located on the Indian subcontinent, with the capital Delhi, several more are indicated, located on the territory of Great Tartary.
- “Independent India”, - “Upper” (Superiore India), - “First” (Primo India), - “Second” (Seconda India), - “Chinese” (Chin India), etc. Previously I have already mentioned that the very meaning of the word "inde", we have forgotten and lost.
So which of them did the Macedonian army go to? It is hard to believe that she, according to traditional history, went from Persia to Hindustan through the Iranian northern highlands. Physically, this is an almost impossible task for a large, heavily armed force, forced to carry supplies designed for a very long journey. Even in our time, when there is an aviation, a developed road structure and a navy, the supply of troops far from places of permanent deployment calls into question the very fulfillment of the task assigned to the troops. And here is another curious moment from Aristotle. We read:
Yes, in the mountains there are such difficulties when the snow lies. In the Thar desert and the spurs of the Himalayas, there is both frost and snow, but at an altitude of more than two thousand meters above sea level. This is our time. And two thousand years ago, when the climate was much milder, you can believe it, but with difficulty. And what the soldiers should do in the highlands is also not clear. But, we read Aristotle further:
Can you imagine a similar situation in India today? So that the bodies sink into the snow so that they cannot be found? Obviously, we are talking about some northern country, with a sharply continental climate and severe snowy winters. And that could hardly be the India we know today. And here is what is written down from the words of Alexander Filippych the Great himself:
I draw your attention to the fact that this is October! In October, there is no winter anywhere else, except near the Arctic Circle. It is my deep conviction that Aristotle and Alexander himself describe a trip to a northern country, not south of the sixtieth parallel. But there will be more.
The climate is a capricious thing, of course, you never know, maybe that year a climatic catastrophe broke out in Hindustan. But all right, just the climate, you see who in India was met by the Macedonian regiments:
Undoubtedly, sepoys do not wear clothes made of seal skins until now, and they have only been seen in pictures and on movie and TV screens. And here's another surprise:
Again we see clear confirmation of the falsification of historians about the Macedonian campaign. He was not in India, but where there is snow and cold, where the aborigines wear kuhlyanka. And where do we wear kukhlyanka? Right! In the same place where emeralds are mined!
Unlike mythical mines, emeralds were actually mined in the Northern Urals in Russia. They are mined in India as well, but their first deposit was discovered only in the second half of the twentieth century.
This means that there is only one place on Earth where Alexander the Great actually could have been, and where there are severe winters, people wear clothes made of skins, and even emeralds roll under their feet. It could only be Biarmia, or Great Perm.
We read further Aristotle:
"Straga" is most likely the cost of translation from one language to another. Straga should be read as "Guardian" in my opinion. And this leads to serious thoughts. The fact is that the name of the Anadyr River, for example, means "Guard of the North". But the river, which literally translates from Yakut as "Guard", is the Anabar river. And here the fun begins.
I quote Aristotle:
I suppose there is no need to point out that six months of winter and six months of summer are only north of the seventieth latitude, i.e. beyond the Arctic Circle?
The Mahabharata clearly states that the ancestors of the Hindus came from the north, where six months of the year are winter and six months are summer. Obviously, without gingerbread, that we are talking about Hyperborea, Arctida, or whoever likes what word to designate this place.
It is possible that in earlier versions of the Mahabharata it was said that diamonds also came to Hindustan from the far north. After all, our grandfathers took a bundle with their native land to a foreign land, which means that the tradition could have arisen back in those days when, in addition to land, it was possible to collect a handful of something prettier than soil from under our feet.
But the fact of diamond mining indicates the only likely place in India, which the Macedonian went to. And this cannot be anything other than modern Yakutia. And the Lena River, apparently, was called the Jordan. Anyone who has been to the Lena will confirm that this Don (“don”, in Russian, is simply “river”, “channel”, “stream”, ie any long or long river not called by a proper name was designated as “Don ) is so ardent that it is harder to find among large rivers. Jordan - Ardent Don.
Drawing a line under this chapter, we can safely assume that initially in the description of Alexander the Great's "eastern campaign" it was about a campaign to Turan, or "Upper India", which at that time was part of a country later called "Great Tartary". Thus, Aristotle or the one who was later named by this name can rightfully be considered one of the authors of the source of information about the earliest history of Tartaria, when Scythia still dominated, and Kara-Kurum was not the capital.
Author: kadykchanskiy