The teaching methods of academic disciplines are identical in almost all countries of the world. In principle, there is nothing surprising in this, because all branches of human life do not develop in isolation from each other, and borrowing and copying the better and more perfect is a natural phenomenon. But the best is not always borrowed, in everyday life we are surrounded by a lot of examples of the wide distribution of far from positive phenomena. The society is inherent in herd nature, and often a bad example turns out to be much more infectious than a positive one.
One might think that history teaching methods are just as bad. However, one should not jump to conclusions. In my opinion, the system in which first the history of one country is taught, then the history of another, was created on purpose. Historians all over the world have concluded a kind of agreement, according to which they are obliged to rely on a single chronology and at the same time not to give a single picture of history for the whole world in one specific period. History has been deliberately torn to pieces on the basis of geography and division into some fictional eras. Such teaching leads to a fragmentary understanding of history, in which a person is confused and cannot connect together a whole picture.
And as you know, what is incomprehensible and difficult for a student is not interesting to him. This is fraught with sad consequences that we observe in the surrounding reality. Having no memory, a person turns into an animal that, having stepped on a rake, forgets about the consequences of this, and immediately steps on them again. If you do not remember that jumping off a cliff is life-threatening, then the chances of surviving on this planet for a non-remembering creature inevitably tend to zero. Therefore, the primitivization of historical thinking is, neither more nor less, the path to the extinction of humanity.
Through my own historical research, I have made sure that the existing teaching methods are not spreading a bad example. They were created in this form intentionally. And the explanation that "History of Ancient Egypt" and "History of Ancient Greece" are taught separately to facilitate the assimilation of educational material is an unscrupulous trick, insidious craftiness. This is quite obvious to me, but most people continue to believe their teachers.
Trying to write the history of Great Tartary, I was once again convinced that I cannot consider it in isolation from world history, even with all my desire. I just admire the talent of those writers who were able to accomplish the almost impossible and write separately the history of China, India, "Kievan Rus", "Medieval Germany and France", etc. It's like describing the device of a gas turbine engine drive box, keeping silent about what a compressor, turbine, units are, and hiding the purpose of the entire power plant!
The second, less obvious, but no less harmful factor is the general orientation to the immutability of the laws of evolution, derived in the pamphlet of Charles Darwin, from which he himself soon renounced, recognizing them as erroneous. Historians have automatically transferred biological processes to sociological and technical ones. And this is the same as putting in one conceptual row the color of an object and a geometric shape. It is impossible to compare objects and phenomena, relying on definitions that are not related to each other by a single category. But in history we very often come across statements similar to a child's joke: "Two crocodiles are flying, one is green, and the other is to Africa."
Nevertheless, scientists stubbornly refuse to admit the fact that high technologies always coexist with primitive ones. And in no case should you date objects only in accordance with the quality of their manufacture. We are persistently trying to convince us that technology has evolved gradually, from primitive to modern, at the same time and evenly throughout the planet. But this is absurd! Following this logic, we have every right to declare the middle of the twentieth century as the era of the late Paleolithic on the grounds that Soviet geologists discovered a tribe in Taimyr that did not know metals. All the tools used by the representatives of this tribe were made from animal bones and minerals.
And vice versa. There are many examples of the existence in the recent past of such technologies that are still inaccessible to us. This mainly applies to stone architecture and metallurgy. And the moment of loss of these technologies can be traced quite clearly: this is the turn of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Until the middle of the nineteenth century, our ancestors built such masterpieces as St. Isaac's Cathedral and Versailles. And at the beginning of the twentieth century, workers were already kneading cement-based mortar with boots.
Promotional video:
How did it happen that over the millennia mankind developed from nomads, hunter-gatherers to sedentary pastoralists and farmers, and the development from archery cavalrymen of 1812 to torpedoes and magazine-type rifles in just half a century? And everything becomes clear only when we discard all the stories of historians. Man could not appear on earth in the form of an animal and evolve on his own, gradually inventing first a digging stick, then a bronze chisel, and then ocean liners.
Fragment of the painting by R. A. Hillingford "Napoleon arrives at the Egyptian oasis."
Meeting of eras. Bogatyrs with swords, wearing caps-erikhons and chain mail met with soldiers armed with primer guns.
Man was created simultaneously with the tools necessary for his survival. This fact is enshrined in many legends about the gods who gave people fire, the skills of pastoralists or a blacksmith's hammer. Scientists claim that man himself learned to sew clothes and shoes. Why did he need it? All animals live peacefully on this planet and do not feel the need for pants and scissors for cutting hair and nails. And only a man suddenly needed all this, and moreover, he accidentally melted a piece of copper in a fire and guessed to forge something out of it.
But this is ridiculous. How did he forge the first copper object in history? Two stones? Not. Only an unreasonable person can believe in such a version. A normal person understands that even if such a miracle happened and the metal melted in a fire, then a person, in order to process it, should have already had an anvil and a hammer. He should also have tongs. No other way. This means that there can be only one conclusion: a person appeared on earth, already possessing the skills, knowledge and even ready-made tools necessary for survival.
Then some facts become understood, which historians consider fictions. The description of the use of flamethrower systems by hordes of "wild nomads" cannot but suggest that they were created by a technologically advanced civilization, but they were described by just wild and ignorant people. The skills of weather control and the use of atmospheric electricity by the "great moguls" are also mentioned repeatedly and uniformly in various unrelated sources. Apparently, the "ancient Siberians" possessed what is now called telekinesis, and, perhaps, could control plasma.
We tend to compare some descriptions of ancient weapons with what we saw with our own eyes in our time. For example, S. V. Goryunov is convinced that Ilya Muromets owned a hand grenade launcher or a portable anti-tank complex:
This is all because we cannot even assume that our ancestors knew and were able to do much more than we do. Thus, the author equates medieval technologies with modern ones and does not dare to go further in order to put forward a version that Ilya Muromets owned a now unknown type of weapon based on alternative physical principles.
Why did I say all this in this context? And so that the course of my further thoughts was clear. From all of the above, it seems quite fair to conclude that the civilization that existed on the territory of our country before it was headed by the so-called "Romanovs" could and most likely had a significantly higher level of development than we now think. The assertion that organizationally and socially Tartary was many times more perfect than all other countries is almost impossible to refute. The Romanovs got colossal resources, even though 80% of them were destroyed in the recent past.
The difficulty was also in the fact that they were extremely unevenly distributed. It has always been that way. In the vastness of the Indies, Scythia, Tartary, numerous formations that had the word "Russia" in their name, tribes with a huge gap in the level of development coexisted at the same time. At a time when semi-savage tribes wandered in the Karakum desert, earning food by digging out roots, damask swords were forged in the Urals, and bimetallic knives in Taimyr. These variegated "patches" were united by only one thing - a highly developed centralized government, which possesses everything necessary for the confident and rapid development of a single civilization over vast areas.
But the main potential was not material and human resources, but the presence of a large number of people who carry the most valuable knowledge. It was precisely the developed intellectual elite that was the most important of all resources. After the complete destruction of the Russian spirit in Germany and southern Europe, part of the intellectual potential ended up in the hands of a small handful of people, who thus usurped power. Indeed, in whose hands knowledge, he rules the world - this is an axiom. Therefore, throughout the history of the world, we are witnessing an incessant race for advanced technologies.
After all, the Argonauts were not looking for the skin of a golden sheep, but parchment with certain runes, after reading which a person could learn the structure of the world. And Alexander the Great was chasing the legendary cowhides, on which everything was written about the past and future of mankind. And the Liberia of Ivan the Terrible is still being sought all over the world. Only people, drugged with false ideas about what "ancient manuscripts" should look like, look for books and scrolls, and it never even occurs to them that huge amounts of data can be stored in a crystal the size of a match head.
In order to more clearly demonstrate the essence of the phenomenon, I propose to imagine a situation in which you, as a small child, well, at least in the year 1995, ask adults to play your favorite cartoon, and in response they give you a "flash drive" and say: "Look ". One can only imagine the indignation that would flare up in your childish naive soul. But we cannot imagine that at the same time as the creation of treatises on parchment such accumulators of information could exist. But in vain!
An intellectual resource is what people are ready to fight for along with other trophies of war. The achievements of fascist Germany after its defeat by the allies ensured the technological breakthrough of the United States and the USSR for decades to come. Apparently, a similar situation developed after the war of 1812. A huge layer of knowledge was in the hands of the Romanovs, and they were in no hurry to share it with the rest of the world. This knowledge, coupled with German entrepreneurship, provided the Russian Empire with a technological breakthrough, which made it possible to create powerful industries in various spheres of the national economy on the basis of ancient knowledge in chemistry, physics, mathematics and mechanics.
Who needs universities?
Someone will object, they say, where does all this come from in Russia, which even had no universities. The answer is simple. As you know, the lousy dreams about the bath most of all. So it is with education. Western and Eastern civilizations have fundamentally different approaches to it. There was not a single university in Tartary, which was literate without exception, and in Europe, where even the monarchs could neither read nor write, every major Catholic center had its own university. Now we turn off memory again so as not to bother with the stupidity of historians, and we are trying to identify connections and patterns to explain the apparent paradox.
The simplest explanation for this absurd state of affairs lies on the surface. If there are many universities, there are full libraries of scientific treatises, and the population is completely illiterate, then what? Right! Universities were not intended for the education and development of science, but for exactly opposite purposes - to hide and protect secret knowledge, so that the people would continue to remain ignorant, and therefore, in slavish dependence on those who keep knowledge. Everything you need to know about the true purpose of universities is said in the etymological dictionary: "… unus (one) + versus, from vertere (to twirl; compare English versus)". All clear? I twist and twist one, I want to confuse.
And the whole Great Tartary belonged to the Vedic culture, where education was universal and accessible. In each village, in the autumn, a hut was chosen, in which all the children gathered throughout the winter and learned to read and write and other sciences from the wisest teachers-uncles. An uncle in Russia is not only a brother of a father or mother. Teachers were called uncle.
And fundamental knowledge, as in Vedic India, was the prerogative of a narrow circle of initiates, i.e. Magi. The sorcerer, or rather his memory, was the very "flash drive" on which all the true knowledge about the structure of the world was stored. And there was no need to write them down, because information was transmitted from one medium to another orally and was memorized to prevent distortion of information over time. Those. written treatises were required for those who could not keep all the information received in their memory without distortion. Now the question arises as to whether the presence of written scientific works testifies to a high level of development of civilization? What is the level here, if we have sunk to the point that during one month we can spy on dictionaries twice or three times in order to remember the meaning of some "tricky" word,for example "prestiditator" or "arachnophobia"!
Now it becomes clear where the fairy tale about the hunt for the Magi by Peter I could have come from. If logic does not change us, then such a hunt was simply inevitable. This means that this legend may have real reasons. But there are quite reliable facts about the total withdrawal from the population and from the monasteries of all ancient books during the reign of the Romanovs. These are no longer fairy tales. This is real evidence supporting the hunt for ancient knowledge.
About the "Arab sages"
Today, many researchers express their sincere bewilderment about how it could have happened that at a certain stage the Arab culture was the most progressive in the world, and then suddenly its development came to naught. A huge number of achievements in science, philosophy, literature and medicine are traditionally attributed to the ancient Arabs, and then where did they all go? The answer may be surprisingly simple. How do scholars classify Arabic manuscripts? You don't need to be a great thinker to suggest that the main criterion in determining the origin of a written source is the language in which it is composed.
And what does the language of the document really indicate? Yes, only that the author spoke Arabic, or rather the Turkic language. But the language is not an indication of the place where the document was drawn up and the author's belonging to this or that nation. Well, so what if the military armor in Russia was covered with Arabic letters. This does not mean that they belonged to the Arabs! And now let's remember what place was considered a world scientific center in the Middle Ages … That's just it, that it is Samarkand and Bukhara. And the inhabitants of these cities: Tartars, Mogulls, Turks, Chakatai, Russ and representatives of dozens of other peoples of Tartaria - were not Arabs, but spoke the Turkish language and wrote in Arabic script, which, in fact, is a mirror image of the Russian script, which was written by Velesov's book, or the ligature used to write the Indian Vedas.
And what about the Arabs? Religion allows them only to chant Allah and his prophets. They are not just engaged in science, but even depicting animals and people is prohibited. And how do you imagine a treatise on physics in Arabic? I have seen medieval manuscripts on arithmetic, geometry and natural sciences. But physics … Right. For scientific works, a special writing system was invented - Latin. But for philosophy, alchemy and medicine, Arabic is great. And if our domestic scientists used Latin to write scientific works, then who would dare to say that Russians did not write their research in Arabic as well ?! After all, now we know for sure that this language was widespread in Russia, along with Russian and Turkish. This means that some of the treatises written in Arabic were already retroactively attributed to Arab scholars.
Star fortresses
Now, let's say that I am mistaken in this matter. Then what about the existence on our territory of such well-known objects recognized by official science as the Zavolzhsky Val, Zmievy Val and Trayanovy Val? Their antiquity does not cause controversy among anyone. And their engineering excellence and the scale of the work performed are comparable only to the scale of the construction of the Egyptian pyramids. Let me emphasize that we are only talking about objects recognized by science, there are also many that science does not notice at all.
Elementary calculations, which even a graduate of a construction college can make, indicate that it would take millions of man-hours to create such structures. Where did such a number of skilled workers and engineers come from among the nomads at this time? The production of such large-scale works required not only hundreds of thousands of excavators, but also tens of thousands of more qualified carpenters, surveyors, blacksmiths, rationers, designers and an unimaginable amount of material resources to maintain this entire army of builders, which needed to be fed, clothed, shod, equipped with tools and etc.
Scattered principalities and khanates simply cannot do this. And this is not taking into account that the designers, surveyors, engineers and foremen needed to be trained. This means that there was a perfect education system. This conclusion is simply devastating and puts an end to the whole story. Big, bold cross. This is clear? Move on.
On the territory of Europe there are hundreds of structures, which are now called forts, star or star fortresses, which are called "masterpieces of fortification architecture of the late Middle Ages."
It would seem that everything is known about their construction. There are also detailed diagrams, drawings, estimates, descriptions of eyewitnesses, etc. But what about the fact that most of these "forts" are clearly more ancient in origin than "early medieval" fortresses. Simple example:
Pechora Fortress. Pskov region.
It is believed that it was built during the reign of Ivan the Terrible. But look from above. It is very likely that the builders of this fortress themselves did not understand that they were using the remains of the antediluvian structure to equip the fortification facility, which is many times more primitive than the one that was in this place earlier. The fact is that this "star" is cut in half exactly in the middle, by a ravine, which could have formed only during a very long exposure to soil erosion. Those. the predecessor of the Pechora fortress is older than it for an immensely longer period.
This is how it looks on the ground in our time. It is obvious that this fortress is simply not able to perform the functions of a fortification. The ravine, cutting the fortress in half, makes the very existence of this structure as a fortification meaningless. Fortresses are not built at the bottom of ravines. They are built on dominant heights, and any schoolchild who does not know the basics of military affairs knows this. With the existing position of the fortress, all the internal space that is subject to protection, thanks to the ravine, is completely defenseless for the attacking enemy. You don't even need to make a break in the fortress wall. It is enough to hit from a distance with direct fire over the walls descending to the bottom of the ravine.
Therefore, the claim that star forts are a recent invention, resulting from the emergence of battering artillery, cannot be taken for granted. And there are more than enough facts to support this conclusion. Take, for example, the closest star-fortress to the Pechora - Yuriev (Dorpat / Tartu, Estonia).
Here we see a similar picture. The Emajõgi River (Mother River) flows over most of the territory on which the Yuryev fortress was once located, which, according to historians, was founded by Prince Yaroslav, the father of Alexander Nevsky. Lies again! Yuriev existed long before Yaroslav, back in the days when the Emajõgi River did not exist. You can continue indefinitely. And the meaning of these examples is that the "star" fortification is not the fruit of the activities of the "great fortification engineers" of the eighteenth century. At best, they were engaged in the reconstruction of existing structures. And information confirming this conjecture is available. In at least two cases, namely regarding the "construction" of forts in Bobruisk and Azov, the builders' reservations that they only restored the ruins, built by whoever and when, remained.
But these are just flowers. Suppose that the rapid growth of technology after the Civil War of 1812 was natural and had nothing to do with the receipt by the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences of some secret knowledge obtained as trophies of defeated Tartary. Then how to explain the fact that in a couple of decades on the territory of the Russian Empire about a hundred gigantic structures magically appeared, the construction of which should have taken tens, if not hundreds of years ?!
It just couldn't be. Hundreds of star fortresses exist to this day in the territories where the Russian Empire could not build anything, because these lands simply did not belong to it. Most of these fortresses are now in such a state that they are visible only from the air:
And there are thousands of such facilities in the territories not controlled by St. Petersburg before the defeat of Yemelyan Pugachev's troops. When did they manage to build all this and against whom? It is enough just to look at the diagram of the defensive Ishim line alone:
And you want to say that all this was built by the Russian Empire? As they say, blessed is he who believes. And I am not blissful. I cannot believe that the Romanovs built such a line of fortifications in the shortest possible time. And most importantly, against whom? Against the nomad sheep-breeders of Turkestan? Come on! Everything becomes clear if you remember the difficult relationship between Turan / Katay, which was located north of this line of fortifications, and Independent Tartaria, ruled by Tamerlane.
The above facts are already more than enough to assert that the art of building structures of this type was known in Tartary long before the Russian Empire conquered it.
What this means, I hope, is clear without decoding. The Romanovs adapted to their needs what had been built long before them. And it is not at all a fact that earlier these were fortresses. And if they were, then it is not at all necessary that they were armed with cannons firing stone cannonballs. And if they were stone, then this does not mean at all that nuclear cannons were primitive. An overwhelming amount of evidence suggests that such weapons were precisely nuclear weapons. And modern "nuclear" weapons in terms of their tactical and technical data are a miserable semblance of weapons of the past.
Nuclear weapon
The fact is that initially the guns firing shells carved from stone were goose-loading and bimetallic. Those. were charged not from the side of the barrel, but from the back of it. The barrel was made of soft metal - bronze, and the shell was made of cast iron or steel. If we assume that such weapons fired a stone ball with the help of expanding powder gases, then we are forced to consider our ancestors idiots. The bronze barrel, with this use, after two shots turned into scrap. It would have been easier to make the barrel made of cast iron, and the shell made of bronze, but they did everything the other way around!
The essence of the version seems fantastic only at first glance. If you go into details, then everything falls into place and seems so logical and simple that you wonder how you can not see it ?! Have you heard of hypersonic kinetic weapons? Not? Well, who will tell you! Top secret developments. Okay … I'll tell you and show you on my fingers. The bottom line is that if you accelerate even a small particle to hypersonic speeds, then a fantastic amount of energy is released when it collides with an obstacle or when it is destroyed.
A grain the size of rice, for example, is capable of destroying a modern tank. The only question is how to achieve this speed. The solution of this problem could be helped by the use of the fifth aggregate state of matter - plasma. If a plasma "cocoon" is formed around a flying object, a dumbbell, for example, or a kettle, then it is capable of accelerating to speeds many times higher than the speed of sound, and, colliding with a target, cause an explosion comparable in power to a nuclear one!
Now, armed with knowledge, we can take a fresh look at an archaic copper (bimetallic) weapon loaded from a barrel, using a spherical stone core as a projectile. Copper (Honey) is a very soft and expensive metal. It is cheaper and easier to use cast iron or steel barrels for firing shells, but the "ignorant" ancestors persistently cast cannons from copper. Why? Indeed, to increase the service life of the barrels, it was necessary to burn out and make them bimetallic: the muzzle - iron (less resistant to wear), and the "jacket" - copper.
And if you know that after gold, copper is quite a suitable conductor? And if you know the properties of minerals to emit microwave radiation? And if you remember about the piezoelectric properties of quartz-containing minerals? After all, the very fact that, having the opportunity to cast cannons, a person made shells from stone is already nonsense! The stone is a light, brittle material, and such its properties minimize its damaging abilities, and is very laborious to manufacture. A cast-iron core is another matter! Take a piss - no problem. Heavy, shooting is what you need! But no … Stone cores!
So … Copper, electricity, piezoelectricity, perhaps a few more unknown or simply not accounted for "ingredients", and everything ceases to seem so fantastic. There is every reason to believe that we are dealing with a case when the “tomograph got into the camp” and they didn’t find any other use for it, except as “oppression” for pickling mushrooms or cabbage. Who knew, he used a bimetallic tube to accelerate a piezoelectric projectile to hypersonic speed, and he destroyed the whole city in one explosion. Isn't that why there are so many craters and craters up to a kilometer in diameter on the territory of Russia, and many researchers are puzzled about their origin? They think that these are traces of an atomic bomb, but in fact they may be traces of firing from simple copper pipes. Hypersonic kinetic weapons.
Well, why not? After all, then it is logical that the invaders simply did not understand the true purpose of the copper cannons. Peter I even ordered all church bells to be poured into cannons. I thought it would work out now, and his cannons would work just like those of the savages whom he conquered. However, nothing came of it. He did not know that it was not the gunpowder that had to be poured as a charge, but something else, creating an impulse for firing a piezoelectric projectile. Therefore, over time, they abandoned copper, which is completely logical for pre-Petrine times, if you shoot with simple cannonballs and with the help of an explosive. And the cores began to be cast from cast iron, which is also absolutely understandable, and the development of artillery proceeded along a dead-end path. Degraded to today's level. This, of course, is only a version, but other indisputable facts only confirm the version.
It is impossible even to list all the recent discoveries in one chapter, let alone discuss. And I have given just a few of them. Those that I consider important because they affect the sphere of my purely personal interests. But everyone can find confirmation of my version in the field of their own hobbies and agree that in many ways my thoughts can have a real basis. So, I state: the version that the scientific and technical base of the Russian Empire was able to form largely thanks to the "trophy" technologies inherited from the Great Tartary has the right to life.
Author: kadykchanskiy