“There are people who are never mistaken,
because they are never asked by any
reasonable thoughts."
- (I. Goethe.)
There is a theory that everything that is most perfect is the youngest. It's hard to argue, right? In everyday life, we choose, or try to choose, all the best. And the best is the result of progress. Who is going to look in stores for a 1997 Ericsson mobile, unless he's a fan of the collector? This is true not only for technologies and products of production, but also for all sectors of human interaction with nature, and among themselves.
And there is nothing surprising in the fact that we see the most successful examples of statehood or economic development in the youngest countries. Germany, Italy, France are relatively young, therefore they are successful. The USA is even younger, we will not discuss their level of development. It's controversial across the board, but the model works. But the most successful venture, in my opinion, is Great Britain. So, you ask, is she younger than everyone else, or what? Absurd! And not absurd at all. Let's reason:
This is the island - Alcatraz prison. San Francisco, California, USA.
Is it an American invention to isolate elements dangerous to society in a place that is difficult to leave but convenient for observation? Yet the most perfect and progressive in America is born. And this is quite consistent with the general scientific paradigm, which serves the theory of Darwin, which is extrapolated to all branches of knowledge, from geology to sociology.
Promotional video:
And if you think about it? To understand the mechanism of action of the imposed stereotype, let's imagine a picture familiar to everyone from childhood.
Sandbox. Children become cramped in it, and they begin to argue:
- Go away, you're in the way.
- I will not leave, this is not your sandbox.
- No, mine. I came earlier.
- And I played here yesterday.
- So what. I played here a hundred years ago. Go away!
- I’m not leaving. Do you know how strong my dad is?
- And mine is a hundred thousand million times stronger!
Do not rulers and countries, peoples and some "ancient nations" behave in the same way? Those. the law "Who got up first - oh and slippers", works the same at all levels. It was possible to prove that your ancestors owned this land before all others, which means you have a moral right to claim your own.
So these games have led historians and politicians to such a dead end that for a whole millennium of "medieval darkness", events have not even been invented.
If we look closely, we see a repeating pattern. South Korea, China, Japan … All are vying with each other to shout: - "But my dad … but dad, that's my grandfather!" The younger the civilization, the more ancient it writes history for itself, this is natural.
The Greeks all their lives were engaged in piracy, settling on rocky islands unsuitable for life, and then they were declared Greeks and forced to do what they had never before, in principle, they could not do. I hope my train of thought is clear. Now attention! Let's turn to Britain.
Is there a need to remind who is disliked all over the world for arrogance, arrogance, contempt for other peoples, and love to shock with ancestral certificates, in which the founders of their millennial blue-blooded sire or peer family are recorded? So I started thinking. Indeed, in fact, now it turns out that all the time, the British, including members of the British royal family, boast of fake pedigrees!
They have no single nation on the islands. There are Scots, there are Irish, there are Welsh, but these are not titular peoples, and they all hate the British, who in themselves are just rabble, a mass that has appeared on the islands from all over Europe. But it is this rabble that rules all the other native islanders. How did it happen that the "chanterelle drove the hare out of the little house"?
First, I'll give you a riddle: Where were these pictures taken?
Photo 1.
Photo 2.
Photo 3.
I am sure the answer will please you!
And where is this filmed?
Photo 4.
Photo 5.
Photo 6.
Photo 7.
So the answer is:
Pictures 1, 4 and 5 - This is Sakhalin, 2 and 6 - Japan, 3 and 7 - Britain. But what's the difference, mix them up and you won't find any difference. Now a new question. If scientists claim that favorable climatic, geographic, hydrological and geological conditions, such as in the Nile Delta, or the interfluve of the Tigris and Euphrates, must certainly serve as the impetus for the emergence of civilization, then what kind of stony islands without vegetation could become the cradle of ancient British families? AND? Are there versions?
Well, how do you like this question: if they are so civilized, smart, perfect, then why do not they live on 1/6 of the land, but we? Why do they huddle on stones in the sea, where it is cold, damp, nothing really grows? In Russia, who was sent to such sea islands? Right! They remembered about Chekhov and about hard labor, of natural origin - the island of Sakhalin:
This is how a normal, civilized society protected itself from elements alien to it - criminals.
Sakhalin is the same sea prison as Alcatraz in California. It is a normal practice to exile all the dregs of society into one cesspool - to the island, and let it be there … Have fun, with yourself, but don't touch us. And then it dawned on me! Sakhalin, Alcatraz, what else do we have there? We look and wonder:
Sakhalin.
Japan.
And the UK.
Even in their outlines, some similarities are noticeable. Obviously, all three "constructions" are former parts of the continent, settled at a short distance from the coast. What other similarities?
But which ones:
- extremely harsh living conditions, - isolation from the main territory, - compactness, - ideal conditions for control.
Conclusion: these are ideal places for the purposes of the healthy part of society, created by nature itself, and suitable for isolating those who interfere with the normal life of the majority.
Why build prisons if ready-made ones exist! Quite simply, low-cost, ready-to-use, secure prisons. Agree that everything fits into the big picture. This stems from elementary logic. Think of Robinson Crusoe. There were quite a few such "heroes" in the old days. As soon as some scoundrel appears on the ship, so his, and … Do not … Not overboard, not on the yard. You have to be humane. A keg of water and a bag of beans. Let it sunbathe on a desert island.
Further, I will quote Georgy Sidorov, who gave an explanation, in my opinion, the most logical of all possible: -
“Back in the early nineteenth century, England was the most remote outskirts of Europe. Continuous swamps. Almost complete lack of land suitable for agriculture. The corresponding climate is constant fog.
Only in the northern part, in Scotland, were acceptable, albeit rather harsh, conditions for livestock raising. The indigenous population of pastoralists appeared here as a result of the Great Migration.
The southern part of this island at the end of the earth has long been a place of exile for criminals from Europe. Tin was mined in the swamps of England in medieval hard labor. Bronze is an alloy of copper and tin. Copper is found in many places. There is much less tin in the world. In the Old World, English deposits are the richest in tin content and perhaps the only ones.
It is no coincidence that there are so many lisp sounds in the English language. This is the result of the toothlessness of its population due to scurvy as early as the beginning of the nineteenth century, when national languages emerged.
In Arabic, "ing" is a criminal, a criminal. Hence, for example, the Mexican (Spanish) "gringo" - a foreign (foreign) bandit.
Accordingly, England is a land where criminals are kept. Hence the abbreviated version of England. The ancient English surnames of the Goring and Hastings originate from "ing". From the same root comes the English King - a king, in fact, not just a king, but a king-conqueror (criminal, troublemaker).
By the way, in ancient times, according to TI, France was ruled first by the Merovingians (~ 440 - 751). Then they were replaced by the Carolingian dynasty (751 - 986)."
In some ways, you can disagree with the respected writer, but in general, our thoughts agreed with him.
Is this the reason that the Anglo-Saxons are so distinguished by cruelty and heartlessness that they are all descendants of murderers and rapists? Is this not their consumer attitude towards women? In the Slavic tradition, a woman is worshiped, she is the keeper of the hearth, she is a mother and sister. What do we see in Anglo-Saxon folklore? Their heroes are bandits and girls of easy virtue.
The only woman worthy of their respect is their mother. But the mother was not always a mother, was she? So she was also a girl of easy virtue? And not necessarily a marginal type. Let us recall such a character as Scarlett, the idol of millions of women around the world, who were convinced by the example of their heroine that you need to achieve everything yourself, and not be picky in choosing the means in order to achieve the goal.
By the way, the consumer attitude towards women is characteristic not only of the Anglo-Saxons. We see exactly the same thing in Russian prison folklore. In all Urkagan songs, women are presented either as corrupt traitors, or as "old mothers" who are always waiting for the return of their son, a criminal, to freedom. There are no other options. A kind of editing - a whore / mother.
In my opinion, a lot is explained now. Great Britain is a prison in revolt. In fact, it is even younger than America and, like an octopus, squeezes in its tentacles not only the United States, but also Canada and Australia, and the countries of the British Commonwealth, and practically the whole world works for it. And this does not refute the version of the original role of Britain, but only reinforces it.
Alcatraz is neither the first nor the last prison island in history. But only Britain was able not only to escape without leaving the place of detention, but also to arrest the entire surrounding world. Kohl regrettable, so brilliant. Sad but respectful.
Author: kadykchanskiy