“They need great upheavals, we need Great Russia”
Today, one hundred and fifty years ago, a statesman was born Russian Empire, Russian nationalist Pyotr Arkadyevich Stolypin.
http://kolegov-a-o.livejournal.com/339709.html#commentsMemorial date.
Today marks the 150th anniversary of the birth of the outstanding Russian statesman Pyotr Arkadyevich Stolypin (1862-1911). The great Russian statesman, nationalist and reformer, fiercely hated by liberals and scoops for crushing the terrorist reptile like nits and hanging them like dogs.
Pyotr Arkadyevich Stolypin (April 2, 1862-September 5, 1911) was an outstanding statesman who played a decisive role in suppressing the so-called "first Russian revolution". Born in ancient noble family. Childhood was spent mainly in Lithuania and abroad. In 1881 he graduated from the Vilna Gymnasium and entered the Faculty of Physics and Mathematics of St. Petersburg University. A large landowner, a convinced monarchist, who married early and had a large family, Stolypin, after graduating from university, served in the Ministry of State Property, and in 1889 moved to the Ministry of the Interior. In 1899, Mr.. was appointed Kovno provincial marshal of the nobility; in 1902 - Grodno governor; in 1903 he became governor in Saratov.
During the unrest of the summer of 1905, he showed energy, the necessary toughness, and personal courage. Thanks to this, in April 1906 he was appointed Minister of the Interior and in July at the same time Chairman of the Council of Ministers. He took decisive measures to suppress the "first revolution", for which he was hated by the revolutionary and liberal intelligentsia.
The main result of the unrest, the demands of the intelligentsia and the indulgence of it by the previous head of government S.Yu. Witte became the royal Manifesto of October 17, 1905 on the State Duma - an elected legislative body that had the opportunity to influence government decisions. And although the government was still appointed by the Sovereign and could take the initiative to terminate the activities of the Duma, “if emergency circumstances make it necessary to such an extent,” nevertheless, the monarchy turned into a constitutional one, and the “public” received political freedoms that liberals and the bourgeoisie had been seeking for decades. (including freedom of trade unions and political parties).
But even after the Manifesto, the terrorists continued to kill, because the revolutionaries needed not freedom and not a constitutional monarchy, but the overthrow of the monarchy. In August 1906, the first of 11 subsequent assassination attempts was made on Stolypin. At the ministerial dacha, many visitors died from a bomb explosion, Stolypin's son and daughter were injured, but he himself was not injured. At the request of Emperor Nicholas II, Stolypin and his family moved to Winter Palace. A decree was issued on courts-martial against terrorists, in which proceedings were completed within 48 hours, and the sentence was executed in 24 hours. From August 1906 to April 1907, 1,102 death sentences were handed down, and the gallows began to be called "Stolypin's tie." With such harsh measures, Stolypin managed to restore order. (The victims of terrorists at the same time were more than 10 thousand people, policemen and officials, including Governor-General Bobrikov in Finland, Moscow Governor-General Grand Duke Sergei Alexandrovich, Mayor of St. Petersburg V.F. von der Launitz, Minister Internal Affairs von Plehve.)
All these natural measures of Stolypin, which stopped the revolution, aroused the resistance of the liberal State Duma. It continued to demand deepening democratic reforms, which, however, while endowing society with ever greater freedoms, did not direct the activity of new social forces in a constructive direction. In part, this was already characteristic of the reforms of Alexander II - the emergence of the first revolutionary organizations was characteristic just in that era. That is, the introduction of political freedoms in itself does not solve problems, and may even exacerbate them and encourage revolutionaries to new demands.
Therefore, on June 3, 1907, the Second Duma was dissolved, the electoral law was changed (the so-called "Third of June coup"), after which the Stolypin government was able to move on to reforms. A number of bills of that time concerned the establishment of religious tolerance (with the exception of Christ-haters) and freedom of conscience, universal primary education; part of the state bureaucracy was gradually replaced by zemstvo self-government, which was recreated in 1864 and especially developed in the era of Stolypin. But the main of the reforms was agrarian.
By that time, Russia's serious "problem" had become an unprecedented population growth: from 139 million people in 1902 to 175 million in 1913 (an average annual increase of 3.3 million people). Russians had the most children peasant families. With such a population growth, problems of land shortage and unemployment arose, however, with the Russian open spaces, they could be resolved, which P.A. began to do. Stolypin. (Then Russia ranked third in the world in terms of population after China (365 million) and India (316 million), being, however, more high level socio-economic and cultural development.)
In the countryside, with such an increase in population, the people became crowded in communal system. There was a lot of value in the community: mutual support, rejection of selfishness, fair resolution of disputes. All issues were decided by the village assembly, which elected the headman. These long-standing foundations of Russian original grassroots "democracy" were highly valued by the leaders of the most different directions; Slavophiles attached the most fundamental importance to the community. However, as the population grew rapidly, the land area per person per household decreased.
At the same time, Russia was increasingly drawn into the capitalist economy, the growth of industry and population required a corresponding increase in agriculture. But the productivity of the community could not compete with either the landowners' farms or the Western farm type. The community was also a hindrance for a particularly active part of the peasants. It was necessary to choose the lesser evil in the current situation, otherwise it threatened the growth of social discontent and the weakening of the state.
Therefore, in 1906, the Stolypin agrarian reform began: wishing peasants were allocated their part of the communal land as property, they were also sold landowners' land through soft loans (the landowners themselves got rid of the land, which without serfs became a burden), and also financed the resettlement to the outskirts of Russia in special "Stolypin" wagons (together with livestock and equipment), exempting from taxes and supplying agricultural machinery at low prices. It is possible to criticize the unsuccessful bureaucratic aspects of this policy (due to which a third of the migrants returned, and simply missing their native places), but not the meaning of the reform. It was supposed to solve several major state problems at once:
To cope in the European part of Russia with the growing shortage of land in the countryside and possible unemployment in the city due to the rapid growth of the population, which accounted for mainly the Russian peasantry;
To populate the empty lands of Siberia and Far East, having mastered them and assigned them to Russia;
Give an outlet for the energy of the active part of the peasantry, expanding its sphere of action beyond the boundaries of the community;
Reduce social tension in the countryside and thereby take away the ground for propaganda from the revolutionaries.
As a result, a prosperous layer of individual peasants was created, that is, a new component economic structure while maintaining the former, including the community. By 1913, only about 10% of the land had passed from the communal into the personal possession of the peasants, nevertheless, since 1906, 2.5 million peasants settled in Siberia; in addition, about 700,000 people different professions moved to Siberia on their own. Entire cities have grown up along the Trans-Siberian Railway; the production of foodstuffs increased sharply: Europe was soon inundated with Russian oil (from 1906 to 1911 its annual export doubled).
The revolutionary movement after 1908 withered. The appeasement and strengthening of Russia reduced the chances of change social order. Therefore, all anti-monarchist parties, from the Cadets to the Bolsheviks, opposed the Stolypin reforms .... “They need great upheavals - we need great Russia”- these words of the Prime Minister have become an aphorism.
"Give us 20 peaceful years and you will not recognize Russia,” Stolypin said. That is why he was killed in 1911 by those forces whose anti-Russian plans would have been crossed out by a strengthened Russia. Lenin saw the success of the Stolypin reforms as an obstacle to the revolution; and Trotsky later stated that had the reform been completed, "the Russian proletariat could not have come to power in 1917 under any circumstances." There was no worthy replacement for Stolypin.
September 1st at Kiev theater in the presence of the Sovereign, an attempt was made on the life of Pyotr Arkadievich, he died of his wounds on September 5.
Dear readers! The article brought to your attention is devoted to one of the most pressing issues of evolution human society namely, the emergence, development and collapse of human civilizations.
Vitaly Raevsky
Brief reflections on the book by S. Huntington
"Clash of Civilizations"
About the new geopolitical stage in the evolution of human society, which came after the 2nd WW, the author first expressed in his article "The Clash of Civilizations" (question to readers), published in 1963. The book was published in 1996 and to this day remains the most popular geopolitical treatise, for it not only formulates new stage international relations, but also gives a forecast of the global development of the earthly human civilization, and the experience of our time confirms his approach and forecasts.
The author divides the history of mankind into three periods - the era of tribes, countries and, today, civilizations. The unification of countries and peoples is known. These are empires (from Assyria to Great Britain).
However, civilizations - in contrast to the forcible association of various peoples in empires - are formed spontaneously, and, in contrast to temporary political alliances different countries- are not determined by the political situation, but are formed by associations of peoples and countries of identical or close culture, which ensures their stability.
So, civilization is a voluntary natural association
countries and peoples of identical or close culture: “Civilization is cultural community people, it is a synonym for culture, complemented by the degree of development of society” and “Culture is a concept of philosophy, a set of features that define civilization”.
“Culture is a force that unites (similar) or causes discord (alien) societies and peoples” and, already today
"Cultural conflicts are on the rise and are more dangerous today than at any time in history."
In other words, civilization is the socio-political and material completion of culture, and therefore "For most people, their cultural identity is the most important thing."
By the way, E. Yevtushenko also wrote about this (2011): “The main thing that holds society together is not material values– they cannot replace spiritual ideals. They are important… But the poverty of the spirit with material wealth is a disaster for any country.”
The great poet, consciously or intuitively, used the strongest expression of tragedy - "catastrophe".
In a recent (July 2013) article, Boris Gulko notes that in the period 2000-2011. in the United States, the number of those who believe religion is very important fell from 80% to 60% (by 25%) and in the same period the number of suicides increased by 40%. It already exceeds the number of deaths in road accidents. This is a catastrophe. “Over a decade, about 400,000 people ended their lives in the United States - about the same number died in World War II and the Korean War combined” ... “in 2010, suicide became the most common death in developed countries”, with the sharpest, I will add, the rise of “poverty of the spirit”, the loss of religiosity, morality, traditions and identity (Who am I?) in the entire history of the Western world.
Aristotle spoke about this: “Whoever advances in knowledge, but lags behind in morality and morality, goes more backward than forward” and US President Theodore Roosevelt (1858-1919): “To educate a person intellectually, without educating him morally, means grow a threat to society." Huntington points out: just as civilization is a consequence of culture, so culture is shaped by religion and thus: "Religion is the central, defining, characteristic of civilizations - it is the basis of great civilizations"
…. "Of all the objective elements that define civilization, religion is the most important." Religion in today's world is perhaps the most main force that motivates and mobilizes people.” In general, the author says: “Religion takes over from ideology” and with the fall of religion (the West), “national feelings, the significance of national traditions fall sharply” and, I add, the fall life force, “civilizational fatigue” sets in - the decline of civilization: “Civilizations do not die at the hands of others, they commit suicide” (A. Toynbee, “Comprehension of History”, 1961).
So, the formation of civilizations occurs according to the scheme: Religion - culture - civilization, and the disintegration of civilizations occurs in the same sequence.
After the collapse of the Soviet camp (Marxist empire), the author divides our world into the following main civilizations:
- Western (Judeo-Christian) , is divided into three components: Europe, North America and Latin (Catholic) America with authoritarian traditions;
- Orthodox (Russian), differs from Western by its Byzantine roots, three hundred years Tatar yoke and millennial traditions of monarchical, Soviet and modern absolutism.
- Jewish - Christianity and Islam are historically connected with it. Christianity, based on Jewish origins and its own theology, created a Judeo-Christian culture and civilization.Islam, having borrowed the idea of monotheism from Judaism, created a sharply different religion, a different image of God and a civilization of religious fascism.
Regardless of this, Judaism "preserved its cultural identity and with the creation of the State of Israel received (recreated) all the objective attributes of civilization: religion, language, customs, political and territorial Home" (statehood).
Sinskaya (Confucian, Chinese) and close to it Vietnam and Korea. Today it is more correct to call it: Chinese with a Confucian value system - frugality, family, work, discipline and - the rejection of individualism, a penchant for collectivism and mild authoritarianism, and not for democracy.
Japanese (Buddhist and Shinto), spun off from Chinese in the first centuries AD. and abruptly moved away from her.
- Hindu (Hindu, Hindustan), Hinduism is "the very essence of Indian civilization."
Islamic civilization - conquests, for it the whole non-Islamic world is an enemy ("We, and they") and is subject to conquest, because, allegedly, Allah demands so, and his prophet Muhammad. A Muslim who agrees to peace with the "infidels" is subject to death. The author pays special attention to this civilization, because: “Ignoring the influence of the Islamic revival on all Eastern hemisphere at the end of the twentieth century is like ignoring the impact of the Protestant Reformation on European politics at the end of sixteenth century."
In the new world, the author believes, “the most large-scale, important and dangerous conflicts will not occur between social classes and not between countries within civilizations, but between the civilizations that unite them.
“Western Christianity is undoubtedly the most important historical feature Western civilization. Among the peoples of Western Christianity there was developed sense unity; people were aware of their differences from the Turks, Moors, Byzantines and other peoples" and they acted "not only in the name of gold, but also in the name of God"... "The disappearance of faith and the moral guidance of religion in individual and collective human behavior leads to anarchy, immorality and the undermining of civilized life"(remember: "a man who has lost his faith is like cattle", or, in Dostoevsky's words: "If there is no God, then everything is permitted" - a complete return to barbarism, from the force of law to the law of force).
Christianity is in the deepest crisis, the deepest in its entire 2,000-year history: the late Pope in 2005 kisses the Koran (!!), and the leader of the Christian (??!) West, the President of the United States in 2009 bows from the waist in front of king and crown prince Saudi Arabia and invites "Muslim brothers" to his speech in Cairo. This crisis and the replacement of Christian culture with "multiculture" is leading to the decline of our civilization. “The survival of the West depends on whether (after the Founding Fathers) Americans reaffirm their Western identity and whether Westerners accept their civilization (and culture) as Unique, based on the founding religion.” It seems that - hardly, the point of no return has been passed ....
This is not a rejection of modernity, but a rejection of the West, its secular relativistic (without moral) degenerate culture and the proclamation of the superiority of its culture, "and the West, proclaiming multiculture, abandons its own (the constant patronage of the Muslim Brothers, a born Muslim leader of the West, the President of the United States is characteristic Barack Hussein Obama elected by the American people).
Returning to culture, the author points out that "The central element of culture and civilization are language and religion."
In general, the author writes, we must remember that “the central axis of politics modern world... is a commonality or difference of cultural roots" and at the same time points out: "The cultural distinction between East and West is less manifested in economic well-being - and more - in the difference in fundamental philosophy, values and way of life."
Separately, the author dwells on the connection between civilization and identity: “Having not decided on their identity (Who am I, what culture do I belong to, what do I defend and who is close and alien to me), people cannot use politics (have no arguments) to realize their interests. We only know who we are after we know who we are not, and only then do we know who we are up against.”
The principle that the leaders of countries and peoples must follow is clearly and unambiguously formulated - who we are and who is for and against us. In Europe and in the US, this principle has already been violated by multiculture and its means of implementation - political correctness, which turns the West into an easily conquered chaos (Roman analogy). The exception to this current degradation of the West is Australia, Canada, the Czech Republic and Israel.
"Individualism remains the hallmark of the West among the civilizations of the twentieth century, over and over again Westerners and non-Westerners point to individualism as central distinguishing feature West" and that "the realization of personal independence occurs exclusively according to cultural scenarios." It follows that the erosion of culture destroys the sense of personal independence and individual identity, which turns a person from a free citizen of a democracy into a submissive and zombified subject of a totalitarian regime.
One of external causes weakening of the West indicated in the book is: “With the collapse of Soviet Union, the only serious competitor of the West has disappeared.” This led the West (especially Europe, previously always under the threat of the Union) to the loss of the need for defense and ideological confrontation. The West has lost the need to assert itself in the superiority of its culture - the core of its development. The collapse of culture has led to a decrease in work ethic and a slowdown in economic growth, the disintegration of morality, the family and a decrease in the birth rate, it is accompanied by unemployment, budget deficits, social disintegration, drug addiction and crime. As a result, “Economic power is shifting to East Asia, and military power and political influence begin to follow ... The willingness of other societies (and countries) to accept the dictates of the West or obey its teachings is rapidly evaporating, as is the West’s self-confidence and its will to dominate (or, at least for leadership). Now (still) the dominance of the West is undeniable, but fundamental changes are already taking place ... "The decline of the West is still in a slow phase, but at some point it can sharply add speed. In general, it predicts “The West will remain the most powerful civilization and in the firstdecades of the 21st century and take leading positions in science, technology andmilitary area, but control over other important resources willdisperse among the core states of non-Western civilizations.”
In other words, the West will lose influence, as we already see today.
The author notes two features of this (our, today's) period: “The weakening of economic and military power, which leads to insecurity own forces and an identity crisis... and, in my opinion, the most important is: “The acceptance by non-Western societies of Western democratic institutions encourages and gives way to power for national and anti-Western political movements"
This is exactly what happened in South Africa, Iran, Iraq, Turkey and in the countries
"Arab spring", which strengthened Islam, which for Muslims, "Islam is a source of identity, meaning, legitimacy, development, power and hope", a sense of security, belonging to a powerful community of many millions. For all these countries and peoples, the Koran and Sharia, hostile to any manifestation of freedom, replace the constitution and demand the elimination of Western civilization.
“The Islamic revival is the main direction, not extremism, it is a comprehensive, not an isolated process” (there are no extremists and moderate Muslims, there are only more or less active ones - V.R.).
Islamic revolutions (like other revolutionary movements), students and intellectuals begin, with the support of the West, seeking elections, although in the same period the bulk of voters (rural and urban residents) are traditional Muslims, and the results of democratic elections are unambiguously predictable. Today's Islamic renaissance is a consequence of the West's loss of its own landmarks, the growth of the oil wealth of Islamic countries, demographics and, above all, the erroneous policies of Western leaders: a typical, but not the only example is Iran, where US President Carter brought the leader of the Islamic Revolution to power in 1979 , Ayatollah Khomeini, or the US refusal to support its ally, the President of Pakistan, General Musharraf (due to the violation of democracy), who, under pressure from the opposition, was forced to resign and the West lost an ally.
On the whole, this book is so saturated with Huntington's own thoughts and quotes from other authors that its summary, of course, cannot replace the original. Moreover, in order to understand today's world, in addition to reading this book, it is desirable to supplement it with relevant books already of our time. The best of them, in my opinion, are the "Axis world history by Yuri Okunev, Russian Baker by Yulia Latynina and World of the Jew by Boris Gulko.
In conclusion, I want to cite a historical law formulated by the real statesman P.A. Stolypin: "The people who do not have national consciousness, there is manure on which other peoples grow” - today, - Islamic. To prevent this from happening: “We need a statesman who knows how to bake pies, and not share them” (Yu. Latynina, “Russian Baker”).
in Russia, and marked a new, inexorable trend in our history - Russian national identity is awakening. And this awakening, this self-consciousness, is included in the concept - Russian nationalism.
On the other hand, the fight against Russian nationalism in the Russian federation is rising to new level, and all these propagandists of power and near-power, the Russian media, are literally fighting in hysterics, calling for the fight against "fascism, nationalism, extremism." A number of words, concepts are built in such a way that the word nationalism is wormed among them, equating this concept, for example, with fascism or extremism. Thus, in the Russian political and ideological scheme, Russian nationalism is equated with something bad, illegal, with which "society and the state" must uncompromisingly fight. The case has gone so far that propagandists, and at the same time Russians, will have to statesmen- to the fighters against "nationalism", something very fundamental to explain. To not be confused.
It's time to say a few words about what, in fact, the Russian authorities are going to fight and where this fight can lead them. And then the comrades commissars started talking and said a lot of things.
In order to operate with concepts at a level recognized by all mankind, let us first turn to international publications. So we quote:
Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary © 1998 MICRA
(Webster's Dictionary, US Edition, 1987)
Nationalism: 1. The state of being national; national attachment; nationality.2. An idiom, trait, or character peculiar to any nation. 3. national independence; the principles of the Nationalists.
(Nationalism: 1. a state of devotion to one's people 2. an idiom, trait, or symbol of any nation. 3. National independence, the principles of nationalists.)
Encyclopaedia Britannica © 2002(British Encyclopedia)
Nationalism: Ideology based on the premise that the individual's loyalty and devotion to the nation-state surpass other individual or group interests.
(Nationalism is loyalty and commitment to a nation or country, when national interests are placed above personal or group interests).
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (4th ed.) © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company
(dictionary in English(4th ed.) © 2000 Houghton Mifflin)
Nationalism: 1. Devotion to the interests or culture of one "s nation.
2. The belief that nations will benefit from acting independently rather than collectively, emphasizing national rather than international goals.
3. Aspirations for national independence in a country under foreign domination.
(Nationalism: 1. Loyalty to the interests or culture of one's people. 2. Belief that countries will benefit from independent action, not international action, since national goals are placed above international ones 3. Striving for the national independence of the country, and resisting attempts by foreign domination).
Thus, from these three internationally recognized and respected sources of information, we see that nationalism is a positive phenomenon.
The dictionaries of the Soviet-Russian period about nationalism, as well as the works of the organizers of the mass murders of Lenin and Stalin, make no sense to cite, since what is written in these dictionaries is written by them, the killers. Therefore, in relation to domestic sources, let us turn to the definition of nationalism, Russian in particular, given in the words of prominent Russian people:
"Nationalism in me is so natural that it can never be eradicated from me" - Mendeleev D.I.
"Russia is for Russians and in Russian" - Alexander III, sovereign-emperor.
"I am ready to write on my banner - Russia for the Russians and raise this banner as high as possible" - Skobelev M.D. Russian general.
"We are called to create our own and in our own way, Russian in Russian" - Ilyin I.A. Russian philosopher.
"A people that does not have national self-consciousness is manure on which other peoples grow" - Stolypin P.A.
"The master of Russia is only one Russian, it is and always will be" - Dostoevsky F.M.
When did this nationalism appear and where did it come from? Sometimes, some woodpeckers who consider themselves scientists say that nationalism appeared as an ideological trend either in the 17th century, or in the 19th century, and so on. Hence, a thoughtful conclusion is made that since it appeared recently, it means that it is the product of some idea, thought. Hence the conclusion that the idea can be fought. We'll have to disappoint the woodpeckers and explain something in a popular way - Nationalism as a phenomenon is somewhat older than the oldest political science dictionary, and even the very concept of an idea. It's like sex, the definition of which, and the science of sexology, was invented at the beginning of the twentieth century, but which, apparently, existed long before the Paleolithic. That is, nationalism is a very broad phenomenon, which in the 19-21 centuries has acquired complex political science structures and concepts. However, its essence, and the fundamental principle, lies in the deep subconsciousness, the feeling of unity, and has a biological basis (we will not be distracted now by some other possibilities of entering this basis). This base is sanctified by a mystical connection with the spiritual planes, which express themselves through the biological base. All these interconnections are reflected in the collective unconscious, in the informational egregore of each nation and are present in its individuals. It was by obeying the processes in this egregor that people felt like members of a clan, clans were united in tribes, tribes felt like peoples. All together, this is the same nationalism.
Thus, nationalism is the fundamental principle of any nation. Necessary condition existence. If, for example, you start fighting Chechen nationalism and make Chechens forget that they are Chechens, then it will be a fight against Chechens themselves. Chechen people already in the biological sense, because this people is the biological carrier of the Chechen egregor. Egregor (if someone likes they can call national idea), you can not kill, only if you destroy the biological carrier.
So the fight against this or that nationalism is the fight against its biological carriers. With all those who carry this natural connection within themselves. Often it is present quite unconsciously for the individual.
IN human history, attempts to destroy national spirit, through the destruction of the biological basis were. It is believed that the latter, in the 20th century. As it was in reality, we will not analyze. But we read:
Robert Harris in the novel Vaterland:
He told me that in July he was summoned to the Führer's headquarters in East Prussia. Hitler frankly told him the following: he decided once and for all to resolve Jewish question. The hour has come. He cannot rely on his successors to have the will or military power which he currently has. He is not afraid of the consequences. Now people honor the French Revolution, but who today remembers the thousands of innocent victims? Revolutionary time obeys its own laws. When Germany wins the war, no one will ask later how we did it. Should Germany lose in a deadly battle, at least those who hope to profit from the defeat of National Socialism will be wiped off the face of the earth. The biological foundations of Judaism must be destroyed once and for all. ………….. Obergruppenführer Heydrich further reported that the necessary powers to enable him to carry out this order of the Führer were granted to him by Reichsmarschall Goering on 31.7.41. These issues will be discussed at the upcoming interdepartmental meeting.
In fact, we admit that the intention of the Nazis to “destroy the biological foundations of Judaism” can be challenged by someone. However, it sounds quite clear WHAT was proposed in order to destroy "Judaism", which is nothing but the religious basis of Jewish nationalism.
Now, in this light, let's look at how someone wants to destroy "Russian nationalism", that is, "solve" the Russian question. In fact, the Spirit cannot be destroyed by itself, but it is possible to destroy its realization in this world, its biological carriers. basis. Therefore, gentlemen, agree. NEGOTIATE! Do you want to eradicate Russian nationalism? Are you calling him EVIL? Then, as in the story of Judaism, everything rests on a biological basis and ...... .. people have already thought about this and given a definition.
In 1944, a Polish lawyer Jewish origin Raphael Lemkin (1900-1959) defined the Nazi policy of systematic extermination of European Jews. He proposed the term "genocide", connecting Greek word genos, which means "genus, tribe", from the Latin caedo - "I kill." In suggesting this term, Lemkin had in mind "a coordinated plan of various actions aimed at destroying the vital foundations for the existence of national groups and these groups themselves as such." A year later, the International Military Tribunal in Nuremberg (Germany) accused the Nazi leaders of "crimes against humanity." The word "genocide" was included in the indictment.
Therefore, calls to fight Russian nationalism (and any other by analogy), in terms of international law, clearly mean calls for the genocide of the Russian people.
So, we offer all sorts of idiots who offer to fight Russian nationalism, defame it, put it on a par with all sorts of fascism or some other kind of rubbish, to carefully truncate on what bench this can end for them.
Remember gentlemen, sooner or later, the time of reckoning will come, and you will be taken out at any point. globe. At the same time, it is still not too late for many to deploy the shafts, and, in any case, stop reproducing Russophobic rubbish in the media.
1. A true patriot loves Putin more than Russia! Putin without Russia is better than Russia without Putin. Putin is primary!
2. Putin is lifting Russia from its knees, although it has not quite succeeded yet, it has already forced Russia to lean on its hands.
3. The patriot of Russia must know three achievements of United Russia or at least two, but most importantly don't forget the rye and vegetables!
4. The patriot knows that the Constitution of the Russian Federation should, if possible, be implemented if it does not contradict Putin's decisions. Those who advocate the implementation of the Constitution of the Russian Federation are the enemies of Putin, and therefore the enemies of Russia.
5. For a true patriot of Russia, victory in the elections United Russia more important than fair elections.
6. The victory in the United Russia elections is more important than arithmetic and statistics, especially since the patriots have not yet learned statistics.
7. No electoral fraud can exist until it is proven in court. At the same time, anyone who foolishly believes that there were falsifications in the elections should go to court, and the court in Russia acts in the interests of Putin.
8. Patriots of Russia do not go to rallies for free. Only enemies of Russia go to rallies for free, because they are paid by the US State Department. If Russia's enemy lives paycheck to paycheck, then the US State Department simply hasn't found a way to pay.
9. Non-citizens of Russia who came to the rally for money are also patriots of Russia, because Russia is a multinational country!
10. A patriot of Russia should agitate others to pay taxes, because without taxes there will be nowhere to get money from to go to rallies in defense of United Russia. You can't wait for money from the US State Department!
11. The well-being of patriots depends on how taxes are paid for the maintenance of Russian patriots. The well-being of Russia's enemies depends on the US State Department. Therefore, the enemies of Russia must first pay all taxes in Russia, and then beg for money from foreign embassies!
12. Liberals - scary people they want to sell Russia to the West. To fight the liberals, Putin built two new gas and oil pipelines to China and Europe!
13. Liberals are terrible people, they want blood and civil war in Russia. Patriots are against blood and civil war, so every patriot must kill as many liberals as he has enough ammo.
14. Liberals are terrible people, they are to blame for the low price of oil and the troubles of Russia in the 90s. Under Putin, salaries and pensions in Russia grew not because of high price on oil, because oil prices have risen thanks to Putin!
15. Patriots of Russia should advocate on Facebook and Twitter for a ban on Facebook and Twitter in Russia.
16. The main joy for a patriot with a flag in his hands and a drum around his neck is to lead a column of people going where they are sent!
There is already a trap in the very name of Putin's new structure. "People's Front", and as you know, among the people there are no corrupt officials, no bribe-takers, among the people there are no those who could deceive citizens. The people cannot "cheat" and steal from themselves.
