The fact that world and Russian history had been seriously altered in favor of politics was clear to Mikhail Lomonosov. And he became another victim of the plasticizer engineers who made the new Frankenstein. His works were “lost”, and what remained of his legacy was seriously altered and published by his opponents.
With the state apparatus, the budget, the police and, most importantly, the school in their hands, in a couple of generations one can successfully change the majority of the people’s perception of its history. Children are immediately told the "right" story.
In this case, editing occurs gradually. First, the biggest things of political significance. Then there are historical artifacts that testify to a different historical process from the official one. Then outwardly harmless everyday references and folk tales, which say a lot.
Have you noticed what fairy tales are sold in stores for children? Mostly color editions of heavily edited tales of European writers. From collection to collection, the same ones.
Russian folk - mostly the shortest for little ones, like "About a straw, a bast shoe and a bubble".
At the same time, the rural population is being destroyed, squeezed out into the cities, all the prerequisites are being created for its collapse and extinction. The bearers of traditional culture are mainly preserved in the village, where it is transmitted. There are no such conditions in the city, it is impersonal and families in the city are small, everyone lives in different places and gathers mainly for holidays.
Instead of the previous history, a new pseudo-historical version of the official history was created. It was a big project. And Russia was given great attention in it. Perhaps she was even the main point of application of this project, as a basic carrier of historical memory and knowledge about the past, as well as a carrier of traditions that we tend to underestimate, but which give such strength to the Russian people.
For Europe, new versions were also made (sort of alternative). One is "biblical", the other is pagan-historical. The first (sacred) one is for explaining ancient history, which in fact cannot be verified, and justifying the "primogeniture" and domination of the Abraham religion. The pagan-historical version included recent history, unaltered religious traditions and "Greek antiquity" as a powerful tradition that was too strongly embedded in art, science, philosophy.
Promotional video:
Since, in general, the dominance of the peoples of Europe over the East was asserted, more artifacts and evidence remained in Europe. Although, if we recall the Inquisition, the scope of the "weeding" is also amazing … Probably, only until we learn the truth about the "baptism of Russia" and "weeding" in our country. After all, this is also etched away, along with the carriers. Are there many witnesses and testimonies about Talegroph and the Rusyns genocide at the beginning of the 20th century? And this is the recent time, the age of photography and newspapers.
The Europeans were thus hailed as beacons and models of civilization, which they readily believed. The opposite was naturally rejected by them. Therefore, it was easy to declare fiction, for example, even those historical treatises that underlie the European dynasties and derive them from the "Eastern barbarians".
The biblical version of the story was also not taken from the ceiling. As we know, Sumerian legends and Persian (Zoroastrian) myths were taken for the corpus of biblical texts. The Bible retells the myths of Gilgamesh and the Flood to the word. Cites the "commandments of Moses" that existed in cuneiform tablets thousands of years before the first mention of the Jews.
Why wasn't this whole story generated from scratch?
Simply because otherwise no one would have believed her, she would not have roots.
And so, at first it was an “alternative” religious version “for our own people,” then it spread through the church and gained authority, and then it became almost the main document.
Therefore, many real stories and names were included in the biblical version. However, in many places these stories have been reversed. Somewhere a politically correct component has been introduced. For example, in the myth of Noah and the sons, a plot was introduced about "the desecration of a drunken Noah by his son Ham." There is nothing of the kind in the original Sumerian myth. There Noah is completely teetotal:)
Researchers of the myths of the world (in particular, Robert Graves) say about this that the plot is moral in nature (against drunkenness) and was introduced by the rabbis. The "curse of Ham" myth was needed to justify the massive slave trade "from above". They say that the inhabitants of Africa are black because they are descendants of the son of Ham, and the curse of Noah fell on them, which is that they should be "servants of servants."
I think that before the African slave trade, the same myth was used in relation to the Slavs. It is no coincidence that the Jews among themselves and in their books not only call Russia "Canaan", but also directly identify the territory of Russia with it, and the Slavic languages - with Canaanite.
The myth of Noah is significant because it serves as a bottleneck in history and speaks of the inheritance of power. There is a lot of speculation and manipulation in its modern modification, even a superficial study reveals a bunch of inconsistencies in its internal logic and elements that have been pushed to the periphery.
But there is little biblical history, and forged "Russian" manuscripts are introduced with signs of forgeries. Moreover, they overlap with the "biblical" version, and thus are intended to serve as cross-proof. This gives them antiquity, and indirectly testifies to the reality of the ancient history of the biblical texts themselves.
For example, in the "Tale of Bygone Years" there are references to the myth of Noah and his sons. Although the text of the Old Testament appeared in Russia much later than the time of writing the manuscript, and in fact it was not freely available until the 19th century. Moreover, the researchers note that the text contains fragments of quotations from Hebrew books, which in general could be known only to a very narrow circle of people and at a much later time.
In any case, they were not included in the corpus of texts for monks-chroniclers and even for the abbot of the monastery.
In the same single "ancient manuscripts" on which the official history is based, there is a basis for the theories of the "Norman origin" of the Russians.
Whereas the real Russian chronicles were still under Peter the Great, by his order, they were collected in cities, monasteries and villages and burned.
However, the official version of the story has many fans. Someone likes brutal Vikings, and he is a Russophobe at heart. Someone considers the East (from the borders of the USSR in 28 years) a barbaric and "unhistorical" place.
Others are adherents of Christianity, and since the church is cosmopolitan and puts at the forefront of common belief, then they make it the foundation of their views. As soon as the patriarch of the church extols "Greek uchony and enlightened men who brought the light of civilization to wild backward Russia, in which the Slavs inhabiting it only recently left the forests" - then so be it. Add to this those who studied in schools and institutes and were vaccinated with the official version of history, who are not used to thinking for themselves. For them, the revision of history is an impossible thing, it will be accompanied by an internal crisis of values. For example, they cannot admit that "in the USSR they could cheat in schools." Then, what was learned in those years already became the ideological basis, which is actually a shrine, and an attempt on it is fraught.
Here you have a large part of the population. Moreover, it is heterogeneous - communists, atheists, believers, Westernizers, liberals, and haters of Russia. Each part has its own reasons to support the official version and not notice inconsistencies and forgery.
Then, according to the place of birth, people tend to choose what makes them more significant and gives them deeper roots. Even if they lived in this place recently. So, the Russian who moved from Dnepropetrovsk to Karelia is a convinced Westerner. That ukry Westerners and Rus-haters, that Normanists. The same sign, slightly in a different wrapper.
Yes, those who live in Siberia are more inclined to be interested in its history, to investigate where it came from. So the territorial affiliation of a person has its own meaning.
It is sad, of course, that personal preference so strongly influences the views of researchers. Who reject everything that contradicts their favorite theory. They trick, manipulate, declare forgeries those evidences, artifacts, photographs and maps that break their hypotheses, or contradict the official version.
A big project has a lot of support. The forces that seized power then remain with the same power. Their lines of work are still active. Yes, the managers got what they wanted. The history has been cleaned up, the ideology is based on their myths, we do not know who we are and where we are from. But the activity of researchers worries them, and most importantly, in the age of information, access to it, exchange of opinions and evidence is greatly facilitated.
The office scientists could not be allowed into the library, fed with fairy tales about other countries, and they would have taken it off. But now there is a lot to check and get to the basics.
It is impossible to forbid thinking and researching, exchanging opinions. Technically impossible.
Therefore, what is being done is done: responsible for the directions are appointed, with funding. They lead topics, collect interested ones under guardianship and punch their brains, direct them on the wrong track, and do empty work.
They impose superficial and vicious methodologies for working with information. Fomenko is a good example. From time to time I come across both his materials and his followers.
Take map analytics. The most empty and primitive cards are taken. On which there is little material. They are cut into pieces and the details are sucked, rather superficially and with a lot of unfounded assumptions.
For example, attention is drawn to the strange name of the sea Zur. The analysis does not go further, it is suggested that it is a distorted "king." Find the name "Tabin". They say that the word is strange, the analysis does not go further. Although a search reveals that this is the name of the legendary cape in Eastern Siberia, which is described by ancient authors as part of Scythia. Tabin in translation from the Chagatai language means "servant, servant".
But the assumption is made that the inscription Mexi-cano (Gulf of Mexico) is derived from "Meshekh Khan" - Meshchera's Khan))
In general, it is very superficial, tendentious and strongly sidetracked.
Followers are distinguished by the specificity of thinking and in the first place for them is the authority of the teachers. Any attempt to say something contrary to the opinion of Nosovsky and Fomenko (even if you don’t know what they said about specific events and facts) is regarded by them as aggression and a spectrum of protective reactions characteristic of members of sects is manifested.
Although, sometimes on the NH forums you come across really interesting thematic collections and quotes from historical sources. The total amount of work done is impressive.
As I said, there are certain types of ideology, belonging to which makes a person an opponent of the restoration of true history.
There are also national preferences. Thus, Western Belarusians and Ukrainians, who fully share the anti-Russian ideology, admiration for the West, and who are catholicized to the best of my ability, will also be opponents of attempts to deepen Russian history. Jews in general combine Russophobia, religious intolerance, serving the interests of the West (as the antithesis of Russia) and liberal ideology. In addition, modern versions of history were built on their basis and by their hands. Therefore, they protect them with special zeal. But they not only protect, but also follow a more sophisticated confusion technique:
Thus, Jews actively participate in various kinds of discussions and hypothesis development. They are often completely incredible and downright delusional. But don't many of the facts buried in official history look delirious?
That's just it.
Here is a recent example from the Serpent and Jerusalem entry:
(coppersmith is a pronounced Jewish nickname, according to several parameters at once).
With a swoop so:)
Well, what, many are being led to this.
Few have a different reaction:
Then he switched to more subtle work:
But when this did not work, he suggested to me … to substantiate his theory "all cards are fakes." So they redirect, caress and drag, petty flattery and tossing ideas leading in a completely different direction.
Still others openly drive nonsense, but at the same time carefully weighed and reasoned:
The basis is 70% likelihood, 30% blatant lie. Aimed at an esoterically oriented audience. Roughly the same recipe that they used in the biblical reformatting of history.
Famous names, familiar context, common ideas are taken. All this is mixed and served under an attractive sauce to a person who is ready to "eat" it - because he always eats it. He is already prepared by others, but does not have his developed consciousness to see the difference between this and that.
In fact, the topic of alternative history is simply flooded with this kind of characters, who pervert it in different ways and make it look like delusion, and thoughtful researchers are either led astray or suppressed. Or the very direction of research is perverted, and the person leaves it, because it is already written on it and it is difficult to refute an arrogant, but plausible lie, few people want to make scandals and showdowns.
So, recently I also dealt with a person who openly manipulated factual material, rigged it to substantiate his hypothesis. In short, he argued that on the map Fra Mauro Cathay is located on the Amur, then on the Lena. He simply ignored the proposal to show the Urals on the map, to count the Siberian rivers, to draw a straight line from the coast of the Arctic Ocean to the Caspian Sea. Incidentally, this distinguishes a biased explorer or an evil character. They ignore your questions and arguments. Because they are following their own line, and they do not need to take into consideration something that breaks it. They already know that their hypothesis has nothing to do with reality, because it is needed only for the purpose quoted above, from the Jewish Catechesis in the USSR.
As a result, after a series of calculations and arguments, I realized that the person is not going to talk in essence, his goal is different. But it's funny how he explained his unwillingness to show the Ural Mountains on the map (the first river to the east of which is the Ob): supposedly they did not exist in the middle of the 15th century, they were "bulldozed" later.
After that, the unwillingness to look at the map, read, compare and hear the arguments became clear. It doesn't even matter if the person is sick or malicious. The result is one.
It was possible, of course, to make a selection of maps in response, draw them out, quote historians. Point to names on the map and so on. But it is precisely for this that such attacks and stuffing are made, in order to distract a person, powder his brains, force him to engage in refutation of the stuffing. In general, everything is according to the training manual. And there are many such examples.
However, in fact, I made such a map, after spending half a day:
The guards of biblical history are in their places, and they act not only by hiding manuscripts and maps in secret libraries, but also by aggressively participating in discussions, lying and misleading, and forming new falsifications.
